Questionable Content 10: La Li Lu Le Lo

[Mith]

To clarify, my problem isn't seeking out third party information. It's the fact that taking a gleeful gossips story first, before Marten's first hand account with a set of bias, seems likely to set a up more strife due to poor assumptions than the other way around.

[Cikomyr]

Probably the silliest thing is, it would be so easy for Marten to defuse the situation very easily.

"Yhea, i have been a bit of a jerk to her. Not intentionally; i was just self-centered at the time because i had no idea who I was or what i wanted, and she ended up being hurt. I apologized to her later, is she still upset over it?"

There. Bam. The end. Pre emptively nip in the bud. Fess up, tell the truth, move on. Marten is acting like he killed her cat, for Pintsize's sake

[Rodin]

To clarify, my problem isn't seeking out third party information. It's the fact that taking a gleeful gossips story first, before Marten's first hand account with a set of bias, seems likely to set a up more strife due to poor assumptions than the other way around.

I'll be disappointed if the plot goes that way. It's out of character for Claire to suddenly be all catty about it, it requires a sustained misunderstanding while Marten is standing right there, and it strikes me as highly unlikely that Claire to criticize someone else's relationship mistake when she herself is so unsure about her own.

If this was Dora I'd be ducking and covering, because it's well established that she has both trust and control issues. Claire doesn't have control issues at all and her trust issues manifest in an entirely different way - not being suspicious of others, but of being afraid of having her trust broken. Even there she's much more stable than Dora.

On the other hand, it occurs to me that all of the core cast apart from Faye and Sven are happily in relationships at the moment. This being QC, something has to break sooner or later.

[Keltest]

Whew, ok. Thank you for not turning this into another mess of people being stupid Jeph. I would not have been particularly impressed with that.

[eee]

He's really drawing expressive faces, lately.

[Rodin]

See, THAT's the Claire I know.

She was never going to get mad at Marten, but she was worried about being "second choice" and Marten still harboring feelings for Padma.

Reasonable people actually talking through conflicts of emotion. Who woulda thunk it?

This does still mean that we're lacking relationship drama among the main cast though. I predict a failed orbital pizza drop putting Dora in hospital, where she winds up in wacky hijinks when Tai thinks she's fallen in love with her doctor.

[Wraith]

I can't help but feel that this has been an unusually selfish episode for Claire.

Marten: "Are you done rummaging through my private life unbidden? Did you find all of those things that humiliated me at the time and that I am now very ashamed of or are you going to interview everyone else that I know for more of my dirty laundry?"

Claire: "But what if I'd have found something that made *me* feel bad? Also I've already been going through your ex's behind your back rather than just ask you a straight question, to prove how insecure I'm not."

I get it. I'm not blind to the subtleties that are driving Claire's behaviour. First 'real' relationship, insecurity over unknown details, forever having questions about whether or not Marten might lose interest in her, or the belief of whether her transition might somehow become an issue, and so on.
But *she* has invaded Marten's privacy on at least two occasions now, when he had preferred that she had not and it was clearly causing him distress and embarrassment, and now *he* is the one having to defend himself? It's nothing like the sort of abuse that Faye and Dora handed out, but it still feels pretty unfair.

[Knaight]

I get it. I'm not blind to the subtleties that are driving Claire's behaviour. First 'real' relationship, insecurity over unknown details, forever having questions about whether or not Marten might lose interest in her, or the belief of whether her transition might somehow become an issue, and so on.
But *she* has invaded Marten's privacy on at least two occasions now, when he had preferred that she had not and it was clearly causing him distress and embarrassment, and now *he* is the one having to defend himself? It's nothing like the sort of abuse that Faye and Dora handed out, but it still feels pretty unfair.

She didn't invade his privacy. You can't just decide that all information pertaining to you must go only through channels you approve, and someone getting information pertaining to you through an unapproved channel* isn't invading your privacy.

*Meaning something like an talking to an acquaintance of yours, not reading your emails.

[Rodin]

I'll also point out that Marten was right there. If he felt strongly about it, he could have asked Claire not to pry and Renee not to talk about it. It isn't like he asked them not to talk about it and then Claire went behind his back to ask anyway. If that sounds familiar, that's how he and Dora broke up - she wanted to look at his porn history, he refused, and then she went behind his back and and did it anyway.

Marten doesn't want to talk about it himself and was somewhat less than pleased that the subject got brought up. However, he never gets angry about it and quickly drops his surliness once he realizes how important it was to Claire.

[Wraith]

Perhaps I am interpreting yesterday's comic differently to you guys. To me, his expression and nervous twitches clearly indicate that it's a subject that he is unhappy with discussing, and yet they go ahead and do it anyway.

I'll also point out that Marten was right there. If he felt strongly about it, he could have asked Claire not to pry and Renee not to talk about it.

Marten is spineless. This is, and always has been, one of his key traits and he has previously had people take advantage of - and even abuse - him because of it. I don't think it's so simple as "Marten can just ask her not to", any more than we might say "Faye can just stop being a bitch" or "Brun can just stop being weird".

Similarly.... Funny how Dora seems to have told Claire that Marten "isn't good at dealing with insecurity", phrased as though it might be unrelated to her (Dora's) antagonising of him. Again, might just be my interpretation and I'm not saying that you guys are wrong, but to me it sounds like Marten is taking the blame for reacting to what was a genuinely unpleasant act perpetrated against him, and - even if unwittingly - Claire has done the same. He's obviously uncomfortable, and she knows that he doesn't like to talk about it, but she has pried into it anyway and now again it's Marten who "isn't dealing well with insecurity".

They're both to blame, of course, but I can't help but read it as being phrased to make Marten seem in the wrong for having people go over his failings and judge him and then being upset when he states that he doesn't like that.

[Knaight]

Similarly.... Funny how Dora seems to have told Claire that Marten "isn't good at dealing with insecurity", phrased as though it might be unrelated to her (Dora's) antagonising of him. Again, might just be my interpretation and I'm not saying that you guys are wrong, but to me it sounds like Marten is taking the blame for reacting to what was a genuinely unpleasant act perpetrated against him, and - even if unwittingly - Claire has done the same. He's obviously uncomfortable, and she knows that he doesn't like to talk about it, but she has pried into it anyway and now again it's Marten who "isn't dealing well with insecurity".

Dora was entirely out of line, and Marten was justifiably upset. Claire meanwhile was doing something entirely reasonable, and if someone is uncomfortable with the person they're dating talking to their acquaintances that's their problem.

[Cikomyr]

So this is what happens when two people who genuinely care about each other interact and worry about the other's feeling..

...i need to reevaluate my relationship. My Dora-modeled couple is not going so hot.

[Mith]

I'll be disappointed if the plot goes that way. It's out of character for Claire to suddenly be all catty about it, it requires a sustained misunderstanding while Marten is standing right there, and it strikes me as highly unlikely that Claire to criticize someone else's relationship mistake when she herself is so unsure about her own.

If this was Dora I'd be ducking and covering, because it's well established that she has both trust and control issues. Claire doesn't have control issues at all and her trust issues manifest in an entirely different way - not being suspicious of others, but of being afraid of having her trust broken. Even there she's much more stable than Dora.

On the other hand, it occurs to me that all of the core cast apart from Faye and Sven are happily in relationships at the moment. This being QC, something has to break sooner or later.

I think my first reaction to the comic was "Ah ****, not again." since a lot of QC shennanigans have started similarily to this.

[Keltest]

Dora was entirely out of line, and Marten was justifiably upset. Claire meanwhile was doing something entirely reasonable, and if someone is uncomfortable with the person they're dating talking to their acquaintances that's their problem.

If youre doing something that makes your significant other uncomfortable, and you know its making them uncomfortable, and they have expressed a desire that that thing not be done, you stop. No ifs, ands or buts about it. There is no such thing as "their problem" in a relationship.

[Knaight]

If youre doing something that makes your significant other uncomfortable, and you know its making them uncomfortable, and they have expressed a desire that that thing not be done, you stop. No ifs, ands or buts about it. There is no such thing as "their problem" in a relationship.

There's a class of demands you just don't get to make of a significant other. That includes demanding that they only talk to pre-approved people, which is a glaring red flag.

[Morquard]

There is a difference between "You can only talk to Jim and Frank" and "I'd rather you didn't talk to Renee" or "I just don't like talking about that topic".

You're then of course free to ignore your SO's wishes...

[Traab]

There is a difference between "You can only talk to Jim and Frank" and "I'd rather you didn't talk to Renee" or "I just don't like talking about that topic".

You're then of course free to ignore your SO's wishes...

Ah but when does "I would rather you not talk to renee" type comments leave the realm of the reasonable? 2 names? 5 names? 12 names? How many people can I cut my partner off from communicating with until it becomes wrong?

[Keltest]

Ah but when does "I would rather you not talk to renee" type comments leave the realm of the reasonable? 2 names? 5 names? 12 names? How many people can I cut my partner off from communicating with until it becomes wrong?

Why would it be a flat quantity that holds true for all people? Maybe all of your associates are just awful people?

[Cikomyr]

Why would it be a flat quantity that holds true for all people? Maybe all of your associates are just awful people?

Lets be fair tho. If all of your associates are awful people, there may be a problem with you.

[Kato]

If youre doing something that makes your significant other uncomfortable, and you know its making them uncomfortable, and they have expressed a desire that that thing not be done, you stop. No ifs, ands or buts about it. There is no such thing as "their problem" in a relationship.

This is a pretty terrible generalization... There are a bunch of things your SO may dislike you doing but you shouldn't have to stop. Relationships are not about doing everything your SO wants. You can stop, you can find a compromise, you can break up... But just obeying orders seems like a poor way handle things.

Lets be fair tho. If all of your associates are awful people, there may be a problem with you.

And if your SO surrounds themself with awful people you maybe need to reconsider what kind of person they are.


I like today's comic. I really like this objective side of Brun looking at.. Well, let's call it human mating habits.

[Morquard]

In this case though, it's not like Marten and Renee are friends at all. They know each other because she was a co-worker of his ex.

And he'd rather not discuss this, especially with her. Is that really so unusual?

Also I think Dora was very unfair in her statement there. He didn't have a problem with insecurity. He didn't break up because she was insecure. All the things she did because of that insecurity and because she blatantly ignored his privacy were the cause. This sounds like it was Marten's fault for not being able to handle a little insecurity - and clearly that's how Claire got the message too, she's afraid to show even some insecurity because she doesn't want him to break up. But that's not what happened.

[Knaight]

In this case though, it's not like Marten and Renee are friends at all. They know each other because she was a co-worker of his ex.

That's not particularly relevant - friends are generally the people who actually like you most, and making a requirement that the only people your SO can talk to is your friends inherently produces a fairly dramatic skew. Making that request is a red flag, and as far as I'm concerned grounds for immediate dumping.

[Keltest]

That's not particularly relevant - friends are generally the people who actually like you most, and making a requirement that the only people your SO can talk to is your friends inherently produces a fairly dramatic skew. Making that request is a red flag, and as far as I'm concerned grounds for immediate dumping.

I'm sorry, but since when is 'Don't talk about me behind my back" suddenly unreasonable instead of, you know, common courtesy?

[Kato]

I'm sorry, but since when is 'Don't talk about me behind my back" suddenly unreasonable instead of, you know, common courtesy?

Well, you're mostly right. Except... Marten could have stayed and then it wouldn't be behind is back.

Also, I'd honestly like to meet the person who never talked about another one "behind their back". People talk about other people and you can't always expect them to be present when it comes up. And sometimes it's something you'd for some reason not want to talk about in front of them. If you really have the morals to never discuss a person in their absence I congratulate you, sir.

[Knaight]

I'm sorry, but since when is 'Don't talk about me behind my back" suddenly unreasonable instead of, you know, common courtesy?

It's never been reasonable. What it has been is historically convenient to powerful people who don't want their shady doings known, and that's a group that has had a disproportionate level of influence in shaping what discourse is commonly accepted. It's also generally not used as anywhere near the level of blanket statement it's being presented at, instead being seen as an acceptable response for misinformation or the airing of totally irrelevant but reputation* damaging information. How your romantic partner has treated their previous romantic partners is neither of those things.

*The very concept of a reputation, of course, being predicated on information about people existing and being accessed outside of their controlled channels. If "don't talk about me behind my back" was the overriding edict it's being presented at the very existence of reputations as a thing would be considered a cultural shame; that they've instead been a useful cultural tool is telling.

[Keltest]

It's never been reasonable. What it has been is historically convenient to powerful people who don't want their shady doings known, and that's a group that has had a disproportionate level of influence in shaping what discourse is commonly accepted. It's also generally not used as anywhere near the level of blanket statement it's being presented at, instead being seen as an acceptable response for misinformation or the airing of totally irrelevant but reputation* damaging information. How your romantic partner has treated their previous romantic partners is neither of those things.

*The very concept of a reputation, of course, being predicated on information about people existing and being accessed outside of their controlled channels. If "don't talk about me behind my back" was the overriding edict it's being presented at the very existence of reputations as a thing would be considered a cultural shame; that they've instead been a useful cultural tool is telling.

I see. Well, thank you at least for the forewarning that you have no respect for the privacy or boundaries of others. I will attempt to keep that in mind in the future.

[Knaight]

I see. Well, thank you at least for the forewarning that you have no respect for the privacy or boundaries of others. I will attempt to keep that in mind in the future.

Privacy and boundaries are applied to the self and to extensions of the self. Privacy involves being able to have space alone, it involves being able to keep various objects (particularly documents) that are yours in a state of secrecy, etc. Similarly, boundaries are something you can set in terms of how people interact with you. Neither of them are at all applicable to an interaction you and your secured stuff aren't a party in. If person A is a jerk to person B, and then person B tells person C "person A was a jerk to me" they aren't violating person A's privacy. Person A's boundaries don't extend here because they're not involved. If person C then tells person D "person A was a jerk to person B, and is thus at risk of being a jerk to you" it's still not violating person A's privacy. Nothing was confidential in the first place.

That's the situation being depicted here. Person A's documents weren't rifled through, they didn't have information taken from them by a false promise of secrecy, their privacy wasn't violated.

Or, for a more concrete example. Lets say that you punched your girlfriend in the face. Her friend then sees her broken nose and asks what happened, and she says "Keltest punched me in the face". Her friend then later sees you out with another woman, and quietly warns her "Hey, he punched his ex girlfriend in the face. Just a heads up". Based on the set of morals I've been describing, the only unreasonable thing that happened was you punching your girlfriend in the face, and the only boundary broken was her boundary about people not punching her in the face. Based on the set of morals you've been describing, your girlfriend violated your privacy when she told her friend how her face got caved in, which also violated your boundary. Then, said friend violated your privacy and boundary again when warning the new girlfriend. Obviously you're the victim here.

[Egneil]

You know what I find interesting? It's that Claire isn't reciprocating the hug, the hug is not comforting her. I'm going to speculate wildly and say that she didn't see how the conversation was effecting Marten, so when he told her that it was his shameful past she realized that she hurt his feelings and has too many emotions of her own to accept the hug. I only accept this as what is happening because the alternative is that Claire trusts other people more than she trusts Marten.

As for the debate about who to get information from all I'm going to ask is this: Trust... am I using that word correctly? What does it mean? Who makes it? And most importantly, does it have any place in a relationship?

[Fawkes]

Brun is terrible at her job.

[Morquard]

Brun is terrible at her job.

You say the fire was the bar's final desperate attempt to get free from Brun?