Damn, what is that fallacy called? I’m sure there must be a name for it, I’ve seen it before. That sort of idea that “you’re angry, so your argument is invalid.”
LauraS
Tone policing?
butts
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking of. It’s not a fallacy, per se, but it’s some bullshit.
Harvey Janus
To be fair, he also is using logical fallacies in his argument, specifically there’s Argument ad hominem, argument from (personal) incredulity, and appeal to the stone. If I knew how to link I would, so here’s the gist:
Ad Hominem – Evading Joyce’s point with subtle attacks about her anger
(Personal) Incredulity – I don’t believe it could happen therefore it’s false/unjustified.
Appeal to the Stone – Dismissing a claim as absurd without proof of its absurdity.
butts
Absolutely. His argument (well, he’s not really making an argument, but the thing he’s doing that resembles an argument) is ridiculously, blatantly fallacious, and Joyce’s family really needs to get themselves schoolfed on some Aristotle.
Harvey Janus
As if they would ever, he was a “filthy pagan”
trlkly
No, he’s making an argument. He is 100% trying to convince Joyce of something. He provided the comment about anger as a way to try and counter her statement.
It’s extremely fallacious arguing, but it’s still arguing.
Harvey Janus
Oh wait the one in this strip is the Moral High Ground fallacy, through the medium of Tone Policing, John is attempting to make himself look good to win the argument.
I’ve found that being right is no good if you can’t get people to stick around and listen to you. I think Joyce is totally in the right here, and I’m on her side– but sadly, the world isn’t an idyllic place where the people in the right always get to be heard.
I agree Inkblot. That’s a lesson that took me years to learn. Controlling your (very appropriate) anger is extremely difficult, but it can be necessary if you want certain people on your side.
I’m lucky to have a dad that discussed difficult subjects that we often disagreed about openly, calmly. He would frequently say (and still does) “okay, you’re getting really upset about this. Let’s change the subject and come back to it another time” which can be enraging, but the thing is, he doesn’t use it to shut me down. He actually has no qualms about discussing the same subject again when we’re both feeling more level-headed.
When I was Joyce’s age and younger, I frequently got angry with Dad because he thought my gay friends were bad influences. Or that it was fine to be gay, but not fine to “act on those urges and feelings.” I’d get so angry that I’d end up screaming and fighting the urge to throw anything within reach.
As we discussed this more and more, though, I got better at controlling my temper, expressing my own views and at least appearing calm and level-headed. By the time I was 20, I’d convinced dad that being gay was not a sin (and that even if it is, that’s between that person, their god, and no one else.). By the time I was 25 I’d convinced him that allowing straight people to get “married” and same-sex couples to have “civil unions” was tantamount to modern-day segregation (in that “separate but equal is inherently unequal”).
When I was about 27 or 28, discussions between us had convinced him that same-sex couples deserved completely equal marriage rights and all that went with it, and he advocated for it within our very Conservative family and celebrated with me last year when the ruling was made.
It can be very useful to be able to control that anger and express yourself calmly.
All that said, I don’t think this is the time for that lesson for Joyce. She needs her family to stop shutting her down and actually listen to her. She’s feeling traumatized and going through a grieving process to deal with that trauma and the loss of who she was. And that’s being combined with her anger over Ross’ actions, her mother’s behavior toward Becky, and her family’s treatment of Dorothy, Becky and Joyce’s new life overall. She needs a safe place and safe people to express that anger with and to help her cope.
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
While actually running away from the whole issue, which didn’t register with him much at all in lieu of Joyce’s inconvenient, embarrassing display of emotion.
LiamKav
@Annie
A lot of people wouldn’t have the strength/patience to manage what was essentially a near-decade campaign that completely changed someone’s opinion on homosexuality. I fully understand people who can’t face that, but I’m hella impressed that you did. Well done!
Thank you, Liam. I’m very proud of my dad. When most people in his generation narrow their views as they age, he broadened his. He a compasionate person that truly wants equality for everyone. I just couldn’t bring myself to write him off as a lost cause. So I kept talking to him about it, eventually learning to speak calmly rather than blowing up like I wanted to. Like I really, really wanted to.
Joyce’s dad reminds me of my dad, honestly. We’d have a big discussion and maybe get a little mad at each other. Then two days, a week, a month later he’d tell me “you know, I’ve been thinking a lot about what you said about x. And, I see your point. I think you’re absolutely right.”
It’s a good feeling to hear that. I definitely identified with her in her conversation with her dad on the way home.
HeySo
@Annie What Joyce wants and needs, she may never be able to get. In my experience, extend across those I know and have encountered, people would rather abandon their family altogether, in favor of maintaining their pride and prejudice. I mean, the sins, not the book.
The book also, maybe, people are pretty silly in their priorities. 😛
Anyway, as Willis’s handling of Becky’s dad shows, he’s not hesitant to adhere to real world predictability in such matters, so this may turn out to create a schism in Joyce’s family- much like it does for a great many people in real life.
Given that your interpretation of Joyce’s dad seems spot on, he’s likely to be the one who ends up getting caught in the middle of it all- he doesn’t seem the sort who’d abandon Joyce, or even Jocelyn. He seems to have too much affection and dutifulness toward his children to give up on them altogether, or to outright hate them for something like that [even if his response may be rather less than positive at first].
Desires to support both sides and to keep the family held together over holding on to pettyness and hate..
This could get rather the ugly situation for him. :/
Anyway, kudos to your dad. Giving up something like that is like confronting a deep addiction. It takes dedication, a willingess to confront your flaws, and a desire to improve yourself for those you care about.
Big hug next time you see him, okay? 🙂
Felgraf
Also, if I am remembering tumblr posts properly, given Willis’ own life, and that Joyce’s journey is somewhat reflective of Willis’… I believe you are correct in your suspicion that a schism in the family is coming somewhere down the road.
Boxilar
This is more than tone policing. It’s emotional invalidation. John isn’t just telling Joyce to “calm down”. He’s telling he she has no right to be angry in the first place.
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
What better way to rationalize possible denial about neurosis with dealing with people…
TachyonCode
I’m frankly surprised the guy didn’t use the phrase “female hysteria”… though he clearly demonstrated that he was thinking in such a blindly illogical direction about Joyce’s bearing and demeanor in this conversation.
It’s folks like him who give disciplined conflict avoidance a bad name. And by “folks like him”, I suppose I mean bigots.
I wonder where he’ll be when the intolerance of intolerance catches up with him?
Mr.fat
^ this
zoelogical
“gdi joyce your uterus started flying around again”
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
I think it has more to do with a flaky attempt to deny strong emotophobia than committing to any kind of bigotry.
Ross spoke like a ye olden days Puritan Preacher to cover up being a selfish, unsuccessful, glorified man-baby still trying to emulate the ‘cool kids’ who used to torture him for falling shorter of the ‘All-American’ ideal than average due to a low IQ and being a runt (none of that is confirmable, but he sure painted that kind of picture, damn…) at the expense of his adult life and everyone else in it.
John’s pretenses of maturity here serve to downplay what looked to me, since they arrived at the restaurant, as a man suffering from disruptive levels emotophobia and in complete denial about it.
Poli
I prefer the term gaslighting.
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
Also appropriate. Although, John’s execution a such an act of manipulation is pathetically poor.
thejeff
It’s gaslighting (“Don’t you think that was an extreme reaction”) plus tone policing plus a whole ton of condescension.
Harvey Janus
I thought gaslighting was changing things about the physical area the victim is in to slowly erode the victim’s sanity, not just blatantly ignoring parts of events to minimize the emotional response as “extreme”
thejeff
You don’t have to actually change the physical world. However you convince the target that their perception was wrong qualifies. Having people who should know better back your version of events and not the targets would work, for example.
I guess it’s a bit of a stretch here, but trying to twist the target’s understanding of what happened, so that Toedad really wasn’t doing anything that bad is at least along the same lines.
winter
“If you are angry/emotional, then your argument is invalid.”
There is no correlation between those two clauses. It’s ad hominem, a fallacy of irrelevance, attacking the credibility of the person instead of the credibility of their argument.
It’s based on something that is relevant though. The idea that, “If you are angry/emotional, then your ability to act logically is impaired.” I’d say that that is likely to be true, but assuming that it /must/ be true is also a fallacy, an appeal to probability.
winter
Oops, too late! Kudos to Harvey Janus!
Vinny
There is that “whoever loses their temper first, loses the argument” homily. Which we all know is BS, especially when dealing with the ideology indoctrinated.
TachyonCode
Indeed. It’s a hallmark of identity politics in the modern age that stretches from the playground to the media, and it really needs to pack its bags and leave. It has overstayed its welcome and needs to leave before it takes up permanent residence in the US and in global culture at large.
wasc14
I think it’s an Ad Hominem Argument cause he’s essentially saying her argument is invalid due to her character (or anger in this case).
Needfuldoer
He’s victim-blaming, yet at the same time he has no logical defense for his position. Instead he goes on the offensive, using emotional blackmail and character attacks in an attempt to shut Joyce down. This is pretty much what Carol did to her.
He may only have a skewed version of the story to work from, but even if Joyce were calm enough to be worth listening to (in his mind), he probably wouldn’t be receptive to the truth.
So much for the ‘Brown siblings get more indoctrinated the younger they are’ theory.
Harvey Janus
Wasn’t that theory out the window when Jordan was mentioned as being “Too Jordan” to go to Freshman Family Weekend?
Harvey Janus
And victim-blaming is one form of Argument Ad Hominem (Attacking the person not the argument)
Seriously
I believe the term you’re looking for is Argumentum ad Umadbroium.
gkheyf
hah! that went way over my head. i actually googled it before i noticed what you did with ‘umadbro’
A few (cerebral) Christians have extremely patronizing attitudes towards other Christians who do “un-Christian” things with intent – in other words, who embrace “heresy”.
In this case, John seriously doubts the rightness of Joyce’s actions; but Joyce insists on her rightness unapologetically. Furthermore, she expresses anger. Open expression of anger has quite limited legitimate usages according to many varieties of Christianity; outside of that, it might even be regarded as sinful.
His calmness seems to be a display of contempt. I’ve experienced similar myself.
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
Didn’t seem all that concerned with Joyce’s actions or why she would feel the desire to do or think such things. Came off like he was more bothered by all the scary intemperance that came with it, like that was a greater concern.
Seriously, Joyce almost *threatened* him a panel or two back, and he was bothered enough by how he noticed she sounded angry when she said it to *treat that part like it was the only thing wrong about the threat*.
Doubtful he gave so much thought on whether or not Joyce was being Unchristian in her actions once he saw that there was anger behind it.
I get that you’re not exactly defending him, but it’s worth pointing out that being calm does not make a person correct, morally or factually.
Is Joyce presenting the best form of her position? Not really, no, but in her defense, this is the first time she’s ever been confronted with a situation where she clearly sees where right and wrong lie and her family does not unanimously agree with her. To add to that, she is trying to deal with the very difficult realization that at least some of the things she was taught to believe as absolute, literally god-given truth, are also wrong (and also slowly coming to wonder how much else of her bedrock principles are in the same boat and she just hasn’t seen them yet). Dealing with all of that, on top of the very real trauma she has so recently endured, and her fear for her friend, and it’s hardly surprising she’s having trouble keeping her emotions in check.
The fact that her older brother fails to see any of that, if anything, makes him more wrong still for expecting her to NOT be angry. His lack of empathy, inability to recognize the threat she endured as real, and attempt to police her demeanor are all part and parcel of that. He’s not more credible because he’s calm – he’s just being a dick and hiding behind condescension.
Going home and talking to mom, who will now have back up on the whole “Joyce needs to come home from college because it’s making her less holy” thing, instead of “my daughter/my sister just went through something horrible and traumatic and needs a safe space” that Joyce’s dad seams to understand.
Anybody else hoping for a divorce where her dad still supports her at college?
They probably will separate someday, but it’s unlikely we’ll see it in DoA unless it’s the world’s fastest divorce outside Hollywood. (Freshman year has about 20 real-world years left in it at the comic’s current pace.)
If ‘the Jordan situation’ cracked their marriage, Joyce is a wedge making that crack wider. She’s exposing an irreconcilable difference in how Hank and Carol want to treat their children.
you know I kind of liked John at first cause he seemed so stable… now fuck him, fuck his wife who married this asshole and fuck his beliefs. Joyce has a right to be angry and trying to down grade her feelings makes him an ass. I am extra sensitive to this because I had a neighbor who was my age, race, and gender murders 3 doors down form me once and I know how scary it is to have your mortality brought into focus. SHE IS ALLOWED TO BE ANGRY!!!!
to be fair to the heretofore unseen Christi, they’re newlyweds–who knows if she got to see this side of him before marrying him (countless victims of domestic abuse will (or SHOULD) attest to their abusers hiding their asshole sides very well)
Ana Chronistic
and by “newlyweds” I mean w/in the last year-ish
also we just heard about it, and even Joyce hasn’t met her yet
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
Chances are no one else in the family has….Probably how John likes it. Christi may feel the same way too.
But she is likely indoctrinated to the same beliefs as him. Raised in a similar way. My money is on his wife believing that John is in the right here. That Joyce shouldn’t be so angry and unreasonable because she has nothing to be angry and unreasonable about. Also that women should strive to always be happy and content with their lives and not stress out the men in their lives by yelling at them, nagging, etc. Because it’s only men who deal with the really stressful, difficult things in life.
(Also, fuck that mentality. I was raised with it to a degree. I’ve dealt with depression and anxiety since I was young and those “lessons” made it SO much worse.)
Oddly (or not), finding out that he was a missionary was a first red flag for me. He makes a living out of trying to force his religion and faith onto other people and treating third world countries as if they need to be saved from themselves instead of supporting them to help themselves?
Missionary work is based on colonisation and racism, and even if it’s well intentioned, it does strike as something only people who think they have a moral high ground would do.
(Do pardon if what I’m writing is confusing and so. English is my fourth language and I normally don’t talk about these subjects in it)
Chris Phoenix
We have missionaries right here in the U.S. The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses go door to door trying to convert people. So not all missionary work is based on colonialism and racism. That said, if he’s an overseas missionary (which it sounds like he is) then he’s probably part of that tradition.
That’s not missionary work; the Jehovah’s Witnesses are just proselytizing and evangelical behavior. But you’re right that there have been missionaries in the U.S.—out west, for the Native American Indians—and they most certainly were racist and colonizing, just as Nymphie says.
Bicycle Bill
You want to talk about colonization and missionaries, you haven’t even touched the subject until you discuss the Jesuits.
Lin
Also, settler colonization is an ongoing process, not a single event. The Christians in the US who evangelize are absolutely connected to racism and colonization.
Kiapdx
I mean he’s a missionary in INDIA. Sounds pretty Colonial to me.
When I was a kid, I didn’t not understand missionary work or evangelism at all. I was always told that a person that’s never heard the word of God, if he dies, especially if he is a child, he will likely enter heaven. Because it’s not his fault that the Word has not reached him.
But I also knew that if someone came to me and said “I believe in this other god. You must believe in him too or you will be doomed after you die” I’d immediately dismiss them and their religion.
So, I figured that by evangelizing and doing missionary work people were dooming more of the people they encountered, who may have had a free ticket to heaven before.
I grew up around many large missions left over from when the Spanish conquistadors came here. I was always in awe of the architecture, art work (painted ceilings, rose windows, relief sculptures. Beautiful stuff!), and the historical significance (when you grow up in the shadow of the Alamo, it’s inevitable), but they also made me sad because they represented how many people I thought the missionaries doomed to hell by telling them to turn away from the gods they were raised to believe in and follow the Abrahamic god.
(To be clear, I’m an atheist now, but grew up in a mostly evangelical Christian family and considered myself a Christian until adulthood.)
TheGrammarLegionary
Just thought it was worth mentioning, I know people who can’t make points nearly that clearly in English, and they don’t speak ANY other language.
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
It’s also a convenient excuse to move as far away from his family as possible while working at a gratifying job with no chance of failure. That too.
Strictly speaking, we shouldn’t diss his wife sight unseen. He might’ve hidden his more assholeish tendencies from her, or she might’ve come from a family that was equally or more horrible so she doesn’t realize she should have better standards. Give her a chance to call him an asshat and seek divorce before criticizing her.
I wanted to dismiss her just based off her name. You know “aww gawd. Her name is Christi. We know what kind of family she comes from.”
That was for about two seconds before I thumped myself in the head because my given name is very similar. In fact my childhood nickname was the same as hers. Just spelled differently. I just forgot because I really HATE using that name.
1,069 thoughts on “Settle down”
Ana Chronistic
John taking his ball and going home
Ana Chronistic
not ordering from the children’s menu = CONFIRMED
Jay Eff
You’re psychic!
Tabitha Desanto
Hmm after john is gone she could still order from the children’s menu
Kamino Neko
John is not God, no matter what he seems to think.
So God would still witness her ordering from the children’s menu.
Slartibeast Button, BIA
I am worrying that they can’t order anything because they don’t have any money with them. Becky doesn’t, would Joyce?
Clif
They might as well order something any way. It won’t matter after the police come to arrest them for stealing her parents car.
gkheyf
and because he’s calm, it show’s that he:
a) is a good person
b) is right in this exchange
c) doesn’t care as much as joyce about all this stuff
…d) is jocelyne’s ride home
butts
Damn, what is that fallacy called? I’m sure there must be a name for it, I’ve seen it before. That sort of idea that “you’re angry, so your argument is invalid.”
LauraS
Tone policing?
butts
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking of. It’s not a fallacy, per se, but it’s some bullshit.
Harvey Janus
To be fair, he also is using logical fallacies in his argument, specifically there’s Argument ad hominem, argument from (personal) incredulity, and appeal to the stone. If I knew how to link I would, so here’s the gist:
Ad Hominem – Evading Joyce’s point with subtle attacks about her anger
(Personal) Incredulity – I don’t believe it could happen therefore it’s false/unjustified.
Appeal to the Stone – Dismissing a claim as absurd without proof of its absurdity.
butts
Absolutely. His argument (well, he’s not really making an argument, but the thing he’s doing that resembles an argument) is ridiculously, blatantly fallacious, and Joyce’s family really needs to get themselves schoolfed on some Aristotle.
Harvey Janus
As if they would ever, he was a “filthy pagan”
trlkly
No, he’s making an argument. He is 100% trying to convince Joyce of something. He provided the comment about anger as a way to try and counter her statement.
It’s extremely fallacious arguing, but it’s still arguing.
Harvey Janus
Oh wait the one in this strip is the Moral High Ground fallacy, through the medium of Tone Policing, John is attempting to make himself look good to win the argument.
Inkblot
I’ve found that being right is no good if you can’t get people to stick around and listen to you. I think Joyce is totally in the right here, and I’m on her side– but sadly, the world isn’t an idyllic place where the people in the right always get to be heard.
Annie
I agree Inkblot. That’s a lesson that took me years to learn. Controlling your (very appropriate) anger is extremely difficult, but it can be necessary if you want certain people on your side.
I’m lucky to have a dad that discussed difficult subjects that we often disagreed about openly, calmly. He would frequently say (and still does) “okay, you’re getting really upset about this. Let’s change the subject and come back to it another time” which can be enraging, but the thing is, he doesn’t use it to shut me down. He actually has no qualms about discussing the same subject again when we’re both feeling more level-headed.
When I was Joyce’s age and younger, I frequently got angry with Dad because he thought my gay friends were bad influences. Or that it was fine to be gay, but not fine to “act on those urges and feelings.” I’d get so angry that I’d end up screaming and fighting the urge to throw anything within reach.
As we discussed this more and more, though, I got better at controlling my temper, expressing my own views and at least appearing calm and level-headed. By the time I was 20, I’d convinced dad that being gay was not a sin (and that even if it is, that’s between that person, their god, and no one else.). By the time I was 25 I’d convinced him that allowing straight people to get “married” and same-sex couples to have “civil unions” was tantamount to modern-day segregation (in that “separate but equal is inherently unequal”).
When I was about 27 or 28, discussions between us had convinced him that same-sex couples deserved completely equal marriage rights and all that went with it, and he advocated for it within our very Conservative family and celebrated with me last year when the ruling was made.
It can be very useful to be able to control that anger and express yourself calmly.
All that said, I don’t think this is the time for that lesson for Joyce. She needs her family to stop shutting her down and actually listen to her. She’s feeling traumatized and going through a grieving process to deal with that trauma and the loss of who she was. And that’s being combined with her anger over Ross’ actions, her mother’s behavior toward Becky, and her family’s treatment of Dorothy, Becky and Joyce’s new life overall. She needs a safe place and safe people to express that anger with and to help her cope.
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
While actually running away from the whole issue, which didn’t register with him much at all in lieu of Joyce’s inconvenient, embarrassing display of emotion.
LiamKav
@Annie
A lot of people wouldn’t have the strength/patience to manage what was essentially a near-decade campaign that completely changed someone’s opinion on homosexuality. I fully understand people who can’t face that, but I’m hella impressed that you did. Well done!
Annie
Thank you, Liam. I’m very proud of my dad. When most people in his generation narrow their views as they age, he broadened his. He a compasionate person that truly wants equality for everyone. I just couldn’t bring myself to write him off as a lost cause. So I kept talking to him about it, eventually learning to speak calmly rather than blowing up like I wanted to. Like I really, really wanted to.
Joyce’s dad reminds me of my dad, honestly. We’d have a big discussion and maybe get a little mad at each other. Then two days, a week, a month later he’d tell me “you know, I’ve been thinking a lot about what you said about x. And, I see your point. I think you’re absolutely right.”
It’s a good feeling to hear that. I definitely identified with her in her conversation with her dad on the way home.
HeySo
@Annie What Joyce wants and needs, she may never be able to get. In my experience, extend across those I know and have encountered, people would rather abandon their family altogether, in favor of maintaining their pride and prejudice. I mean, the sins, not the book.
The book also, maybe, people are pretty silly in their priorities. 😛
Anyway, as Willis’s handling of Becky’s dad shows, he’s not hesitant to adhere to real world predictability in such matters, so this may turn out to create a schism in Joyce’s family- much like it does for a great many people in real life.
Given that your interpretation of Joyce’s dad seems spot on, he’s likely to be the one who ends up getting caught in the middle of it all- he doesn’t seem the sort who’d abandon Joyce, or even Jocelyn. He seems to have too much affection and dutifulness toward his children to give up on them altogether, or to outright hate them for something like that [even if his response may be rather less than positive at first].
Desires to support both sides and to keep the family held together over holding on to pettyness and hate..
This could get rather the ugly situation for him. :/
Anyway, kudos to your dad. Giving up something like that is like confronting a deep addiction. It takes dedication, a willingess to confront your flaws, and a desire to improve yourself for those you care about.
Big hug next time you see him, okay? 🙂
Felgraf
Also, if I am remembering tumblr posts properly, given Willis’ own life, and that Joyce’s journey is somewhat reflective of Willis’… I believe you are correct in your suspicion that a schism in the family is coming somewhere down the road.
Boxilar
This is more than tone policing. It’s emotional invalidation. John isn’t just telling Joyce to “calm down”. He’s telling he she has no right to be angry in the first place.
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
What better way to rationalize possible denial about neurosis with dealing with people…
TachyonCode
I’m frankly surprised the guy didn’t use the phrase “female hysteria”… though he clearly demonstrated that he was thinking in such a blindly illogical direction about Joyce’s bearing and demeanor in this conversation.
It’s folks like him who give disciplined conflict avoidance a bad name. And by “folks like him”, I suppose I mean bigots.
I wonder where he’ll be when the intolerance of intolerance catches up with him?
Mr.fat
^ this
zoelogical
“gdi joyce your uterus started flying around again”
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
I think it has more to do with a flaky attempt to deny strong emotophobia than committing to any kind of bigotry.
Ross spoke like a ye olden days Puritan Preacher to cover up being a selfish, unsuccessful, glorified man-baby still trying to emulate the ‘cool kids’ who used to torture him for falling shorter of the ‘All-American’ ideal than average due to a low IQ and being a runt (none of that is confirmable, but he sure painted that kind of picture, damn…) at the expense of his adult life and everyone else in it.
John’s pretenses of maturity here serve to downplay what looked to me, since they arrived at the restaurant, as a man suffering from disruptive levels emotophobia and in complete denial about it.
Poli
I prefer the term gaslighting.
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
Also appropriate. Although, John’s execution a such an act of manipulation is pathetically poor.
thejeff
It’s gaslighting (“Don’t you think that was an extreme reaction”) plus tone policing plus a whole ton of condescension.
Harvey Janus
I thought gaslighting was changing things about the physical area the victim is in to slowly erode the victim’s sanity, not just blatantly ignoring parts of events to minimize the emotional response as “extreme”
thejeff
You don’t have to actually change the physical world. However you convince the target that their perception was wrong qualifies. Having people who should know better back your version of events and not the targets would work, for example.
I guess it’s a bit of a stretch here, but trying to twist the target’s understanding of what happened, so that Toedad really wasn’t doing anything that bad is at least along the same lines.
winter
“If you are angry/emotional, then your argument is invalid.”
There is no correlation between those two clauses. It’s ad hominem, a fallacy of irrelevance, attacking the credibility of the person instead of the credibility of their argument.
It’s based on something that is relevant though. The idea that, “If you are angry/emotional, then your ability to act logically is impaired.” I’d say that that is likely to be true, but assuming that it /must/ be true is also a fallacy, an appeal to probability.
winter
Oops, too late! Kudos to Harvey Janus!
Vinny
There is that “whoever loses their temper first, loses the argument” homily. Which we all know is BS, especially when dealing with the ideology indoctrinated.
TachyonCode
Indeed. It’s a hallmark of identity politics in the modern age that stretches from the playground to the media, and it really needs to pack its bags and leave. It has overstayed its welcome and needs to leave before it takes up permanent residence in the US and in global culture at large.
wasc14
I think it’s an Ad Hominem Argument cause he’s essentially saying her argument is invalid due to her character (or anger in this case).
Needfuldoer
He’s victim-blaming, yet at the same time he has no logical defense for his position. Instead he goes on the offensive, using emotional blackmail and character attacks in an attempt to shut Joyce down. This is pretty much what Carol did to her.
He may only have a skewed version of the story to work from, but even if Joyce were calm enough to be worth listening to (in his mind), he probably wouldn’t be receptive to the truth.
So much for the ‘Brown siblings get more indoctrinated the younger they are’ theory.
Harvey Janus
Wasn’t that theory out the window when Jordan was mentioned as being “Too Jordan” to go to Freshman Family Weekend?
Harvey Janus
And victim-blaming is one form of Argument Ad Hominem (Attacking the person not the argument)
Seriously
I believe the term you’re looking for is Argumentum ad Umadbroium.
gkheyf
hah! that went way over my head. i actually googled it before i noticed what you did with ‘umadbro’
Bicycle Bill
e) doesn’t fully understand the situation.
gkheyf
f) you see kay
…sorry
butts
Tell him he may.
saltchocolate
You don’t have to shout when you’re mouthing the words of the hegemony, to the tune of the dominant ideology. #lipsync
Z Man
A few (cerebral) Christians have extremely patronizing attitudes towards other Christians who do “un-Christian” things with intent – in other words, who embrace “heresy”.
In this case, John seriously doubts the rightness of Joyce’s actions; but Joyce insists on her rightness unapologetically. Furthermore, she expresses anger. Open expression of anger has quite limited legitimate usages according to many varieties of Christianity; outside of that, it might even be regarded as sinful.
His calmness seems to be a display of contempt. I’ve experienced similar myself.
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
Didn’t seem all that concerned with Joyce’s actions or why she would feel the desire to do or think such things. Came off like he was more bothered by all the scary intemperance that came with it, like that was a greater concern.
Seriously, Joyce almost *threatened* him a panel or two back, and he was bothered enough by how he noticed she sounded angry when she said it to *treat that part like it was the only thing wrong about the threat*.
Doubtful he gave so much thought on whether or not Joyce was being Unchristian in her actions once he saw that there was anger behind it.
Taellosse
I get that you’re not exactly defending him, but it’s worth pointing out that being calm does not make a person correct, morally or factually.
Is Joyce presenting the best form of her position? Not really, no, but in her defense, this is the first time she’s ever been confronted with a situation where she clearly sees where right and wrong lie and her family does not unanimously agree with her. To add to that, she is trying to deal with the very difficult realization that at least some of the things she was taught to believe as absolute, literally god-given truth, are also wrong (and also slowly coming to wonder how much else of her bedrock principles are in the same boat and she just hasn’t seen them yet). Dealing with all of that, on top of the very real trauma she has so recently endured, and her fear for her friend, and it’s hardly surprising she’s having trouble keeping her emotions in check.
The fact that her older brother fails to see any of that, if anything, makes him more wrong still for expecting her to NOT be angry. His lack of empathy, inability to recognize the threat she endured as real, and attempt to police her demeanor are all part and parcel of that. He’s not more credible because he’s calm – he’s just being a dick and hiding behind condescension.
Mr. Mendo
I don’t know why, but I read all his lines in Frank Grimes’ voice…
Tom Speelman
Huh. That makes sense.
Mr. Mendo
Right?
Opus the Poet
Who is Frank Grimes?
JetstreamGW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer's_Enemy
Suzi
Going home and talking to mom, who will now have back up on the whole “Joyce needs to come home from college because it’s making her less holy” thing, instead of “my daughter/my sister just went through something horrible and traumatic and needs a safe space” that Joyce’s dad seams to understand.
Anybody else hoping for a divorce where her dad still supports her at college?
Needfuldoer
They probably will separate someday, but it’s unlikely we’ll see it in DoA unless it’s the world’s fastest divorce outside Hollywood. (Freshman year has about 20 real-world years left in it at the comic’s current pace.)
If ‘the Jordan situation’ cracked their marriage, Joyce is a wedge making that crack wider. She’s exposing an irreconcilable difference in how Hank and Carol want to treat their children.
SLICEY
you know I kind of liked John at first cause he seemed so stable… now fuck him, fuck his wife who married this asshole and fuck his beliefs. Joyce has a right to be angry and trying to down grade her feelings makes him an ass. I am extra sensitive to this because I had a neighbor who was my age, race, and gender murders 3 doors down form me once and I know how scary it is to have your mortality brought into focus. SHE IS ALLOWED TO BE ANGRY!!!!
Ana Chronistic
to be fair to the heretofore unseen Christi, they’re newlyweds–who knows if she got to see this side of him before marrying him (countless victims of domestic abuse will (or SHOULD) attest to their abusers hiding their asshole sides very well)
Ana Chronistic
and by “newlyweds” I mean w/in the last year-ish
also we just heard about it, and even Joyce hasn’t met her yet
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
Chances are no one else in the family has….Probably how John likes it. Christi may feel the same way too.
Annie
But she is likely indoctrinated to the same beliefs as him. Raised in a similar way. My money is on his wife believing that John is in the right here. That Joyce shouldn’t be so angry and unreasonable because she has nothing to be angry and unreasonable about. Also that women should strive to always be happy and content with their lives and not stress out the men in their lives by yelling at them, nagging, etc. Because it’s only men who deal with the really stressful, difficult things in life.
(Also, fuck that mentality. I was raised with it to a degree. I’ve dealt with depression and anxiety since I was young and those “lessons” made it SO much worse.)
Nymphie
Oddly (or not), finding out that he was a missionary was a first red flag for me. He makes a living out of trying to force his religion and faith onto other people and treating third world countries as if they need to be saved from themselves instead of supporting them to help themselves?
Missionary work is based on colonisation and racism, and even if it’s well intentioned, it does strike as something only people who think they have a moral high ground would do.
(Do pardon if what I’m writing is confusing and so. English is my fourth language and I normally don’t talk about these subjects in it)
Chris Phoenix
We have missionaries right here in the U.S. The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses go door to door trying to convert people. So not all missionary work is based on colonialism and racism. That said, if he’s an overseas missionary (which it sounds like he is) then he’s probably part of that tradition.
saltchocolate
That’s not missionary work; the Jehovah’s Witnesses are just proselytizing and evangelical behavior. But you’re right that there have been missionaries in the U.S.—out west, for the Native American Indians—and they most certainly were racist and colonizing, just as Nymphie says.
Bicycle Bill
You want to talk about colonization and missionaries, you haven’t even touched the subject until you discuss the Jesuits.
Lin
Also, settler colonization is an ongoing process, not a single event. The Christians in the US who evangelize are absolutely connected to racism and colonization.
Kiapdx
I mean he’s a missionary in INDIA. Sounds pretty Colonial to me.
Annie
Not confusing at all!
When I was a kid, I didn’t not understand missionary work or evangelism at all. I was always told that a person that’s never heard the word of God, if he dies, especially if he is a child, he will likely enter heaven. Because it’s not his fault that the Word has not reached him.
But I also knew that if someone came to me and said “I believe in this other god. You must believe in him too or you will be doomed after you die” I’d immediately dismiss them and their religion.
So, I figured that by evangelizing and doing missionary work people were dooming more of the people they encountered, who may have had a free ticket to heaven before.
I grew up around many large missions left over from when the Spanish conquistadors came here. I was always in awe of the architecture, art work (painted ceilings, rose windows, relief sculptures. Beautiful stuff!), and the historical significance (when you grow up in the shadow of the Alamo, it’s inevitable), but they also made me sad because they represented how many people I thought the missionaries doomed to hell by telling them to turn away from the gods they were raised to believe in and follow the Abrahamic god.
(To be clear, I’m an atheist now, but grew up in a mostly evangelical Christian family and considered myself a Christian until adulthood.)
TheGrammarLegionary
Just thought it was worth mentioning, I know people who can’t make points nearly that clearly in English, and they don’t speak ANY other language.
DudeMyDadOwnsADealership
It’s also a convenient excuse to move as far away from his family as possible while working at a gratifying job with no chance of failure. That too.
Mollyscribbles
Strictly speaking, we shouldn’t diss his wife sight unseen. He might’ve hidden his more assholeish tendencies from her, or she might’ve come from a family that was equally or more horrible so she doesn’t realize she should have better standards. Give her a chance to call him an asshat and seek divorce before criticizing her.
Annie
I wanted to dismiss her just based off her name. You know “aww gawd. Her name is Christi. We know what kind of family she comes from.”
That was for about two seconds before I thumped myself in the head because my given name is very similar. In fact my childhood nickname was the same as hers. Just spelled differently. I just forgot because I really HATE using that name.
David