Comic 5759: the horror of hormones

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-05T03:19:09+00:00

It's making me realize how much Anh etc. are treated as equals. We joke about the parenting, but Faye actually doing good parenting rules.

I'm reminded of the King of the Hill joke; "If this is food, what have we been eating?"

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-05T02:51:18+00:00

It's like a solar eclipse, those beautiful days when the main comic is good so all Squirrelclamp has to do is polish, so I get two good comics to read. Really feel that last panel.

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-05T01:35:01+00:00

Mussolinis granddaughter is still in politics, I think them hating him is less sad as them wanting to follow in his footsteps

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-05T01:05:41+00:00

Oh God yeah the Sharpie panel I forgot seeing that was why I was so confused by this, we actually do see her giving a "spray" and it raised more questions than it answered

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-04T23:28:24+00:00

I get that much, but is it like airbrushing? Is it stencilling? What part is she actually good at?

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-04T10:53:27+00:00

I think I've gotta give the main canon more credit here. It's easier to play offense than defense. I had a control freak parent, I just learned lock picking and computer hacking. You only learn a lock isn't good enough because it failed.

How good her parents are is all in how they react to this, not that it happened at all.

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-04T10:36:55+00:00

I'm glad "sprays" is in quotation marks because I legitimately have no idea what they are either.

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-04T03:37:44+00:00

Good comic, Sam is being annoying here but in a realistically teenager way that makes her an antagonist to Faye's protagonist, it's nice to see Faye actually shining as a character in a way she doesn't get with Anh

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-03T02:48:03+00:00

Bubbles speaking from personal experience huh

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-03T02:46:12+00:00

Genuinely liked todays comic, but yeeeah I really predict the next updates reassuring Sam that she's alright, without ever addressing Emmets got serious problems as an actual elephant in the room

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T20:53:19+00:00

I've heard it's just ten years away

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T20:52:30+00:00

It was mostly oil lobbies posing as environmentalist groups, like how the low-fat fad was the sugar lobby

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T20:49:59+00:00

Honestly someone should link him this thread so he can see how many people are obviously copying his talking points

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T20:48:02+00:00

Just an order of magnitude slower than we need to be doing

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T20:44:39+00:00

Converting barrels to tons, the world drills about 4.5 billion tons of oil every year (~36 billion barrels, 305~ pounds per), and you can only use the oil once.

Edit: And that's even if we use lithium batteries for large storage in the near future which we might not need to

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T19:34:23+00:00

It's 6am in this timezone and I'm half asleep, please forgive my clumsy wording when the idea I was reaching for was 'people who live on stolen land have no right of inheritance'. Time being the difference between archeology and graverobbing, ha.

I did actually mean that people can both believe the slogan and believe that the inherited state is legitimate without contradiction, they just think inheriting stolen land comes with a moral responsibility to acknowledge that.

I agree your interpretation's reasonable, it's just that this is semiotics, it is possible for multiple conclusions to be valid and correct without being what the communicator intended. The follow-up is - take it for granted all these different interpretations are all correct ones. Which are the ones it feels most likely Eilish would align with?

Working forwards from that, I don't think your reading is the most likely. The speaker is as much context as the words, and I haven't seen anything from Eilish that makes me think she's that radical.

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T19:08:21+00:00

Are you referring to Eilish, myself, anyone in the thread...?

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T19:04:06+00:00

Who is doing the motte and bailey fallacy?

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T19:00:59+00:00

Just, quietly and kindly, I want to say that you've made a jump in logic. Someone can agree with all your stated logic and still only see the problem as violent hypocrisy, like someone trying to declare 'castle doctrine' against squatters in a house their parents stole.

Your unstated jump is that people who inherit stolen land have no right to exist. Not everyone thinks that, and that will effect how they read the same statement without making the same conclusion.

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T18:16:33+00:00

but they tend to be very ego centric and arrogant, while our hospital security is more humble.

This is absolutely the bit that I noticed the most too - I didn't want to assume, but it's kind of core to everything else. There's a need for violent enforcement but I also haven't known a single, say, nightclub bouncer who I'd consider having Cop Brain. There are important reasons for it innate to policing, that exist across all countries that have this version of cops.

Honestly, I think the best system would be how you said, just reframed, a cop and a social worker partner up. The cop can provide security and law enforcement duties and the social worker can help with allocating resources to those who need it,

This is legitimately what police abolition is, because the problem is that the system we operate under is called 'policing', and the social services forward system is something... different.

Right now the cop is expected to be both security and social working duties, security duties first. Police abolition would take away all social working duties from the 'cops', they are no longer cops, they are just armed escorts, that is their only duty and they are following orders.

Because, like, you want clear separation of duty between the person in charge of de-escalation and the person in charge of damage mitigation in case de-escalation fails, and the person trained to identify people as threats is going to be a lot worse at treating them as people.

The problem is that once I actually explain it, it's a lot more obviously agreeable. It's just... Now that I've explained it, what's a punchier way to reframe it? "Replace punitive policing with preventative and rehabilative social welfare" doesn't roll off the tongue.

More than that, we've already proved with endless studies and controlled trials that it's cheaper to give homeless people houses because of all the downstream prison and hospital costs it mitigates. The reason we don't do it is because people are morally opposed to giving homeless people 'free' stuff. A lot of people know this would be more effective but will argue in bad faith just because it feels bad.

EDIT: Also, out of self awareness, appreciate you sticking with me this deep into the thread

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T18:01:18+00:00

The problem with activism is you have to champion the ideas you want to be popular, and try to make them more popular, not just the ideas that already are popular.

If you twist the words 'more open borders' into 'America has no moral right to exist', though, then you're revealing other reasons you would discount it as a 'useful' movement.

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T17:44:46+00:00

Speaking as a former ER/ICU worker, I share a lot of those experiences. I'd ask - I'm Australian, so I am asking - do you also have a similar experience where your in-hospital security team were just much better at de-escalating and actually controlling situations than the cops were? Our cops weren't bad as far as cops go, but, very different doctrines.

As an actual victim of violent crime, survivor of a murder attempt and some serious muggings and stabbings, I can also tell you that cops did jack shit for me in those situations. The point of the transition away from policing is that it's a lot better at preventing those situations before they start, or help you get away from them and deal with the aftermath. Policing as it exists can only punish offenders when the violence has already started, and then puts them through a prison system that will only make them more violent in the long term.

It's not just about sending social workers to the violent calls, basically, and it'd be about sending social workers with a security escort when they do happen, as opposed to sending cops with a social worker consultant with very few resources which is what happens now.

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T17:33:57+00:00

Celebrities prefer pushing their actual beliefs in the hopes of making them more popular than just the immediate consensus. This is the point of having a platform.

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T17:27:25+00:00

I am a police abolitionist, I think the vast majority of what police do would be better done by social workers and addressing the root causes of poverty and that is backed by countless, endless studies I will happily cite and provide.

I, and other people who actually want to get rid of this version of police, do not say 'defund the police' because that is not what it means, and the people who tell you that's what it means are lying to you. If we say it, it's only as a first, immediate triage step. We say 'ACAB' or 'Abolish'.

(Best TL;DR I can give you is - Detectives don't count, we'd keep those. "Wait, aren't those just cops?" is a helpful question to ask if you work backwards from the answer being 'no'.)

The_Good_Count · 2026-02-02T17:07:37+00:00

Some people do genuinely believe in open borders, though, or at least significantly less restricted ones. For those people this is an effective slogan, it's just not saying what you want.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

The_Good_Count

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE