You know, I never comment on stuff, but I have to say something. My customers named Karen are normally among the more friendly people I come in contact with. Women named Linda however… total bongos
I think in Carol’s mind their discussion had reached its natural conclusion, since she had stated her firm beliefs as they relate to the facts of the matter and therefore neither she nor Linda had anything more to say.
HeySo
Also known as the “Let’s agree to disagree” [because I’m wrong and you’re an idiot who can’t appreciate my brilliance that is so brilliant that it doesn’t require any form of logical validation] strategem.
( And why any sensible person never uses that particular phrase. :S )
[If you don’t get it, it’s google-able.]
SuperZero
…there’s something to “get” in there?
Anyway, “agree to disagree” is perfectly reasonable when discussing preferences. Which is what it’s for. It doesn’t work as well for, like, other people’s well-being.
HeySo
There’s alternative phrases to “Let’s Agree to Disagree”, and both standard language comprehension [note the statement’s imposing phrasing, as well as the implied dismissiveness] and regional preferences make the phrase interpretable as deliberately insulting. Again, you can Google for confirmation on those aspects. Personally, putting aside predeterminations of meaning, I’ve yet to see anyone use “agree to disagree” without meaning it as an insult. Given that there are countless alternative phrases that work just as well, it’s generally best to avoid that phrase unless you’re with people you know won’t mind it [or if you’re TRYING to be insulting, I suppose].
It’s not swearing until you make a promise, duh.
So “I swear to fuck you up” is a swear, but “fuck your fucking face you fucking fuckmonkey” is totally just you appreciating the versatility of “the F word”. 😛
*Also, it’s okay to blasphemy if it’s part of your own religion, because it’s “OUR word”. It’s only a problem when outsiders use it, because it’s totally no longer offensive when we use it. Geesh, you’d know this if you were part of our culture. It’s a pity you’re a goddamn heathen. :shakes head remorsefully:
I am pedantic, a bit anal-retentive in the defence of the Queen’s English, and like to show off. I also try to limit ‘bad language’ for special occasions – it’s more effective that way. 8)
If I’d say ‘shit’ and someone said ‘Stop swearing’ I’d reply with: “That isn’t swearing, that is a vulgarity – which is usually referring to something directly with a simple word instead of a ‘polite’ phrase such as ‘bowel movement’. Swearing (or a ‘profanity’) involves religion such as ‘God damn you’ or ‘By the bowels of Christ’. A vulgarity is an action that is considered immoral or socially reprehensible such as ‘Mother Fucker’ or ‘eat shit’ (which has the added point for including vulgarities).
Sorry, just showing off.
Of course, modern usage of ‘swearing’ includes all three, but I still use ‘whom’ whenever I can, so I’m a classicalist. 8)
Zee
Okay I need to remember and use “by the bowels of Christ”
clif
See how educational the comment section is.
Meagan
Wait you said “all three” but I only see two concepts vulgarity or profanity.
SuperZero
You defined “vulgarity” twice. With different definitions.
Does the Relationship Gauntlet have Relationship Stones?
Time – Time to calm the f**k down.
Space – A safe Space to discuss issues.
Reality – Exist in the same Reality.
Mind – Mindful of each other’s sensitivities.
Soul – Share the same Soul.
Power – An equal Power dynamic.
Yeah, Hank’s not wearing that Gauntlet anymore.
HeySo
“Soul – Share the same Soul.”
Let’s change that to “be harmoniously in sync with one another’s soul”.
Sharing the same soul- soul often being interchangable with ‘identity’- is just a sign of codependence. It’s when souls integrate smoothly and complexly but don’t overlap that you have a healthy relationship.
“Power – An equal Power dynamic.”
Whelp, that proves that Home Improvement was about an unhealthy family. Tim was always going on about wanting “more power”, after all.
HeySo
Though at least in Home Improvement he wasn’t a bigoted, die-hard conservative who treated the females in his family like garbage and defied all considerations of logic, like Tim Allen’s role in Last Man Standing [which he appears to enjoy and appreciate immensely], notably following the first season [after which they swapped the only liberal actress out, turning the character into an abusable caricature, existing solely to support conservative bias. Yeesh, what a show.
SuperZero
I liked the one time he was right about something, that vaccines are good, and then immediately walked it back by running to stop his son-in-law from taking his child to get necessary and required vaccinations.
“You can’t take your son to get vaccines without your wife’s permission! It’s her son, she owns it!”
The show was clearly so impressed with itself for its mouthpiece saying coherent, reasonable sentences, too.
Such a good show, with rational, well-written characters and insightful humor!
To the POV of people like Carol, it’s not even that they expect you to show a united front all the time, it’s that to them, their opinion is Objectively Right and the only reasons you would disagree are if you’re ignorant or willfully choosing the wrong opinion as an act of petty defiance or because you enjoy acting immorally.
It’s not that she expects him to present a united front, it’s that to her, the only reason he would pick the “wrong” choice is to throw a tantrum.
Yep, in the same sense that brave protesters staring in the face of a police force ready to bash them with Geneva-convention-defying methods all while a pandemic rages about are called “whiny snowflakes” by Trumpists. The same ones who cry out about the “tyranny” of masks. This sort of people will mock virtue as a despicable weakness and treat their own fragility as a show of strength.
I’ve always found it odd that the family members I’ve stood up to usually claimed to think it was that I couldn’t stand my ground, when it was very much the fact that I *could* stand my ground that I wasn’t going along with their idiocy.
Maybe, maybe not. We know they’ve walked out on churches that Hank found objectionable for various reasons before. We also know that one of their kids is estranged and he regrets it. We’ve got hints that there’s an ongoing story of Hank’s development behind the scene that we’re only getting to see recent highlights of.
That’s a good point. I don’t know what the other churches did that Hank found unacceptable, but I bet it was less severe than releasing an armed child abductor upon his daughter and her friends.
He’s likely 1000% done with that place, and if Carol is this determined to double down on her loyalty to them, well, that could be the breaking point for them.
I’ve suspected for a while that Carol’s behaviour to Hank behind closed doors is, if not outright abusive, then at least heavily controlling, and the way she’s talking here seems to confirm it. This might be the extent to which he’s able to defy his wife.
Ohmsford
Oh, for sure. “he’s throwing a tantrum and being unreasonable” is gaslighting at it’s finest.
Undrave
Like how Joyce’s brother pulled out the ‘stop being so emotional’ card on her regarding someone pointing a gun at her… Probably learned that handy little dismissal technique from mom…
HeySo
I wouldn’t really be able to argue well against that perspective, if it was just a philosophy that emotions should be buried, especially in public. At that point, it’s basically just cultural, without any kind of bias or inherent irrationality [even if it’s lacking in comprehension of how humans work, efficiency in dealing with issues, etc – being subpar doesn’t necessarily equate to being unsupportable, after all].
But these individuals always, ALWAYS, make exceptions for their own issues. This isn’t about having a certain philosophy in how life should be approached, it’s about control, abuse, and the degradation of others. They do it because they’re invalidating the individuals in question and their perspectives, not because they’re supporting any kind of universally applied belief structure.
And these are the kind of people we have leading the government, infesting the police forces, the legal and judicial system, and so forth. Joyous.
thejeff
But it’s not a philosophy. It’s a controlling strategy. It’s about provoking the other person into anger, then dismissing them on the grounds that they’re emotional.
HeySo
“But it’s not a philosophy. It’s a controlling strategy.”
That’s literally what I just said? :’P
tl;dr-recap: The issue is that it’s a controlling strategy RATHER than a philosophy.
Meagan
Wow, you articulating this distinction is helpful for me. It’s not about the idea itself, but the double standard. I’ve dealt with this in my family, and also with new age fundamentalists who tell everyone else that they’re creating their reality with their mind, but refuse to accept responsibility for their own experiences.
Peter
All of this is terribly familiar to me. I was a Hank, minus the religious trappings, in a far too long-lasting relationship with a Carol of my own.
Oh my God… this sort of gaslighting is what I faced from my mother in contexts unrelated to religion. Also what I faced from an ex boyfriend. “Any form of disagreement or rebellion is seen as a tantrum because I am infantilized and incapable of having a correct point of view” ??
Twitcher
My mom had BPD when she was alive. I’m betting Carol has it. She’s a typical Queen subtype.
Meli
On the one hand, I want to say “Ow”, but on the other hand, I’m something like 98% sure I got my BPD from my undiagnosed mother. And literally not even 5 minutes ago, I explained to someone reading the strip over my shoulder, “Just think my mom, but fundie instead of Catholic.” So…..that’s a lot of words to say “yeah, that fits.”
Twitcher
I don’t mean to hurt you, Meli. Just the fact that you are working through your emotions means you’re doing the good work to be better. My Mom wasn’t a bad person, and neither are you. She tried hard to be good, and so do you. Do you know I headcanon Rose Quartz and the Diamonds from Steven Universe as BPD? They all fit into one of the four BPD Mom subtypes, but they all got better. You’re getting better, too, I promise. ::hug::
312 thoughts on “Public”
Schpoonman
Shut the fuck up, Carol.
Rose by Any Other Name
I love how even Linda is like “woah!” in panel 3.
Shut the fuck up Carol indeed.
clif
On the contrary. She’s doing great. Let her keep digging.
Lars
I love Charles face. Just yes, that is Walkys dad.
Rabid Rabbit
And meanwhile, in panel 4, he’s checking out that fine ample hiney. Apparently Walky got his taste for those from him as well.
ValdVin
I know! Those eyes nearly crawling off the side…
Icalasari
Honestly, her name should be Karen
Chronos
Somehow, that feels an insult to Karens.
Madeline Berend
You know, I never comment on stuff, but I have to say something. My customers named Karen are normally among the more friendly people I come in contact with. Women named Linda however… total bongos
Undrave
Nice way to duck out of the argument with Linda tho…
Amelie Wikström
I think in Carol’s mind their discussion had reached its natural conclusion, since she had stated her firm beliefs as they relate to the facts of the matter and therefore neither she nor Linda had anything more to say.
HeySo
Also known as the “Let’s agree to disagree” [because I’m wrong and you’re an idiot who can’t appreciate my brilliance that is so brilliant that it doesn’t require any form of logical validation] strategem.
( And why any sensible person never uses that particular phrase. :S )
[If you don’t get it, it’s google-able.]
SuperZero
…there’s something to “get” in there?
Anyway, “agree to disagree” is perfectly reasonable when discussing preferences. Which is what it’s for. It doesn’t work as well for, like, other people’s well-being.
HeySo
There’s alternative phrases to “Let’s Agree to Disagree”, and both standard language comprehension [note the statement’s imposing phrasing, as well as the implied dismissiveness] and regional preferences make the phrase interpretable as deliberately insulting. Again, you can Google for confirmation on those aspects. Personally, putting aside predeterminations of meaning, I’ve yet to see anyone use “agree to disagree” without meaning it as an insult. Given that there are countless alternative phrases that work just as well, it’s generally best to avoid that phrase unless you’re with people you know won’t mind it [or if you’re TRYING to be insulting, I suppose].
Schpoonman
I really really want Joyce’s first verbal “fuck” to be directed towards her mother.
Diane
I have never known I wanted something so much as I did when I read this statement. Please please please, I hope so…
Lieutenant Dan
…followed by Joe stepping in from off-panel with $20.
elebenty
Yes, please!
I believe she earns a ride with Sal, too.
Ana Chronistic
“I DON’T FUCKING SWEAR AND SHIT GODDAMNIT TO HELL”
HeySo
It’s not swearing until you make a promise, duh.
So “I swear to fuck you up” is a swear, but “fuck your fucking face you fucking fuckmonkey” is totally just you appreciating the versatility of “the F word”. 😛
HeySo
*Also, it’s okay to blasphemy if it’s part of your own religion, because it’s “OUR word”. It’s only a problem when outsiders use it, because it’s totally no longer offensive when we use it. Geesh, you’d know this if you were part of our culture. It’s a pity you’re a goddamn heathen. :shakes head remorsefully:
Doctor_Who
Charles: But you just-
Carol: #FakeNews!
Dr T
You just said “fucking” just 10 seconds ago, Carol.
Lux
I didn’t even catch that!
Zaxares
To somebody like Carol, “goddamn” is probably much, much worse than “f*cking” because it’s “taking the Lord’s name in vain”.
David T. Shaw
I am pedantic, a bit anal-retentive in the defence of the Queen’s English, and like to show off. I also try to limit ‘bad language’ for special occasions – it’s more effective that way. 8)
If I’d say ‘shit’ and someone said ‘Stop swearing’ I’d reply with: “That isn’t swearing, that is a vulgarity – which is usually referring to something directly with a simple word instead of a ‘polite’ phrase such as ‘bowel movement’. Swearing (or a ‘profanity’) involves religion such as ‘God damn you’ or ‘By the bowels of Christ’. A vulgarity is an action that is considered immoral or socially reprehensible such as ‘Mother Fucker’ or ‘eat shit’ (which has the added point for including vulgarities).
Sorry, just showing off.
Of course, modern usage of ‘swearing’ includes all three, but I still use ‘whom’ whenever I can, so I’m a classicalist. 8)
Zee
Okay I need to remember and use “by the bowels of Christ”
clif
See how educational the comment section is.
Meagan
Wait you said “all three” but I only see two concepts vulgarity or profanity.
SuperZero
You defined “vulgarity” twice. With different definitions.
And, uh, “whom” is standard English.
NinjaNick
…but you just did.
clif
Linda is in awe. An ability to warp reality even greater than her own.
Deanatay
Linda: Charles… I’m not… like that, am-
Charles: Best not to look at that too closely, hun. Let’s just take the win and move on, ok?
Iggzy
Dayum, Hank totally threw down the relationship gauntlet and fucked off
fire_daws
Relationship Gauntlet > Infinity Gauntlet
Deanatay
Does the Relationship Gauntlet have Relationship Stones?
Time – Time to calm the f**k down.
Space – A safe Space to discuss issues.
Reality – Exist in the same Reality.
Mind – Mindful of each other’s sensitivities.
Soul – Share the same Soul.
Power – An equal Power dynamic.
Yeah, Hank’s not wearing that Gauntlet anymore.
HeySo
“Soul – Share the same Soul.”
Let’s change that to “be harmoniously in sync with one another’s soul”.
Sharing the same soul- soul often being interchangable with ‘identity’- is just a sign of codependence. It’s when souls integrate smoothly and complexly but don’t overlap that you have a healthy relationship.
“Power – An equal Power dynamic.”
Whelp, that proves that Home Improvement was about an unhealthy family. Tim was always going on about wanting “more power”, after all.
HeySo
Though at least in Home Improvement he wasn’t a bigoted, die-hard conservative who treated the females in his family like garbage and defied all considerations of logic, like Tim Allen’s role in Last Man Standing [which he appears to enjoy and appreciate immensely], notably following the first season [after which they swapped the only liberal actress out, turning the character into an abusable caricature, existing solely to support conservative bias. Yeesh, what a show.
SuperZero
I liked the one time he was right about something, that vaccines are good, and then immediately walked it back by running to stop his son-in-law from taking his child to get necessary and required vaccinations.
“You can’t take your son to get vaccines without your wife’s permission! It’s her son, she owns it!”
The show was clearly so impressed with itself for its mouthpiece saying coherent, reasonable sentences, too.
Such a good show, with rational, well-written characters and insightful humor!
ELLIOT
I would deeply love for Hank to get a chance to talk with the Keeners.
JessWitt
Yeah he’s walking in their direction so very possible. Hope he can join their lunch too.
drs
“I’m newly interested in hearing the word of Atheos, do you have any tracts?”
Nick
Ahahah nice. =D
MaximumZero
*hands a blank piece of paper*
Reltzik
I would deeply love for Hank to get a chance to talk with the Keeners without Carol (or someone else) messing it up.
poofdepoof
@panel 4 but this IS him standing his ground.
poofdepoof
Reminds me a little of this argument: https://www.dumbingofage.com/2016/comic/book-6/03-when-god-closes-the-door/buckle/
Illjwamh
She can’t see it since what she really means is he doesn’t stand *her* ground. She expects him to be united with her at all times.
Wonder where Joyce got that idea?
Dr T
Except in their ideology she is supposed to take HIS stances.
Agemegos
She does take the stances that according to her ideology he is supposed to take.
David
Well, the practical implementation is like the rider having to go where the horse runs. At one level, that’s an accurate description.
ischemgeek
To the POV of people like Carol, it’s not even that they expect you to show a united front all the time, it’s that to them, their opinion is Objectively Right and the only reasons you would disagree are if you’re ignorant or willfully choosing the wrong opinion as an act of petty defiance or because you enjoy acting immorally.
It’s not that she expects him to present a united front, it’s that to her, the only reason he would pick the “wrong” choice is to throw a tantrum.
Pylgrim
Yep, in the same sense that brave protesters staring in the face of a police force ready to bash them with Geneva-convention-defying methods all while a pandemic rages about are called “whiny snowflakes” by Trumpists. The same ones who cry out about the “tyranny” of masks. This sort of people will mock virtue as a despicable weakness and treat their own fragility as a show of strength.
Some Ed
I’ve always found it odd that the family members I’ve stood up to usually claimed to think it was that I couldn’t stand my ground, when it was very much the fact that I *could* stand my ground that I wasn’t going along with their idiocy.
bryy
So they’ve done this before.
That’s not reassuring to Hank’s development.
CorporateDronesDontHaveMissiles
Maybe, maybe not. We know they’ve walked out on churches that Hank found objectionable for various reasons before. We also know that one of their kids is estranged and he regrets it. We’ve got hints that there’s an ongoing story of Hank’s development behind the scene that we’re only getting to see recent highlights of.
Doctor_Who
That’s a good point. I don’t know what the other churches did that Hank found unacceptable, but I bet it was less severe than releasing an armed child abductor upon his daughter and her friends.
He’s likely 1000% done with that place, and if Carol is this determined to double down on her loyalty to them, well, that could be the breaking point for them.
Peter
Let’s hope so, for Hank.
Maddieface
I’ve suspected for a while that Carol’s behaviour to Hank behind closed doors is, if not outright abusive, then at least heavily controlling, and the way she’s talking here seems to confirm it. This might be the extent to which he’s able to defy his wife.
Ohmsford
Oh, for sure. “he’s throwing a tantrum and being unreasonable” is gaslighting at it’s finest.
Undrave
Like how Joyce’s brother pulled out the ‘stop being so emotional’ card on her regarding someone pointing a gun at her… Probably learned that handy little dismissal technique from mom…
HeySo
I wouldn’t really be able to argue well against that perspective, if it was just a philosophy that emotions should be buried, especially in public. At that point, it’s basically just cultural, without any kind of bias or inherent irrationality [even if it’s lacking in comprehension of how humans work, efficiency in dealing with issues, etc – being subpar doesn’t necessarily equate to being unsupportable, after all].
But these individuals always, ALWAYS, make exceptions for their own issues. This isn’t about having a certain philosophy in how life should be approached, it’s about control, abuse, and the degradation of others. They do it because they’re invalidating the individuals in question and their perspectives, not because they’re supporting any kind of universally applied belief structure.
And these are the kind of people we have leading the government, infesting the police forces, the legal and judicial system, and so forth. Joyous.
thejeff
But it’s not a philosophy. It’s a controlling strategy. It’s about provoking the other person into anger, then dismissing them on the grounds that they’re emotional.
HeySo
“But it’s not a philosophy. It’s a controlling strategy.”
That’s literally what I just said? :’P
tl;dr-recap: The issue is that it’s a controlling strategy RATHER than a philosophy.
Meagan
Wow, you articulating this distinction is helpful for me. It’s not about the idea itself, but the double standard. I’ve dealt with this in my family, and also with new age fundamentalists who tell everyone else that they’re creating their reality with their mind, but refuse to accept responsibility for their own experiences.
Peter
All of this is terribly familiar to me. I was a Hank, minus the religious trappings, in a far too long-lasting relationship with a Carol of my own.
Koms
Oh my God… this sort of gaslighting is what I faced from my mother in contexts unrelated to religion. Also what I faced from an ex boyfriend. “Any form of disagreement or rebellion is seen as a tantrum because I am infantilized and incapable of having a correct point of view” ??
Twitcher
My mom had BPD when she was alive. I’m betting Carol has it. She’s a typical Queen subtype.
Meli
On the one hand, I want to say “Ow”, but on the other hand, I’m something like 98% sure I got my BPD from my undiagnosed mother. And literally not even 5 minutes ago, I explained to someone reading the strip over my shoulder, “Just think my mom, but fundie instead of Catholic.” So…..that’s a lot of words to say “yeah, that fits.”
Twitcher
I don’t mean to hurt you, Meli. Just the fact that you are working through your emotions means you’re doing the good work to be better. My Mom wasn’t a bad person, and neither are you. She tried hard to be good, and so do you. Do you know I headcanon Rose Quartz and the Diamonds from Steven Universe as BPD? They all fit into one of the four BPD Mom subtypes, but they all got better. You’re getting better, too, I promise. ::hug::
Matthew Evan Davis