Sinfest

[bitflipper]

[diagram12345]

Well, this progressed quickly.

[fritterdonut]

[bitflipper]

[bitflipper]

Sorry about double-posting, but, upon re-reading much of the thread (and laughing myself sick in the process!), I encountered what seems to be an intriguing proposition. Either Rothide, or the opposing camp of, well, damn-near everybody else, ...or both (I'm not entirely certain of the difference, any longer), made a statement that I'll paraphrase as:

[Louis Rude]

[Rothide]

Might I say in my defense I only brought up a fictitious sentient toaster that remembered every time it had to make toast for someone, and hated making toast.

I was mostly trying to illustrate that it's kind of a silly notion to think that a robot would become sentient and thinking when brought into the reality zone, and that to expect it to do anything else but its primary function, and more so not actually wanting to do what it is supposed to do, is also stupid. To me the fembot was just a machine, much like a toaster, and slick trying to control it was well withing logical reason. He had no knowledge of the sudden sentience, and as such trying to control her shouldn't be held against him.

Most however decided it wasn't the same thing since you can't have a relationship with a toaster. I counter that as you can't really have a relationship with a fem bot either, and believing you can is just as creepy as using one.

I've been thinking of this comic, and have finally decided I don't care what the higher/deeper message is. The simplest one is, Slick's life sucks and the feminists actively make that so. Whether to make him realize it or just to rub salt in the wound is up for debate.
_________________
The Angry Asshat.

[Dogen]

Louis Rude: a guy who can't even make a point without first putting words in someone else's mouth. You belong in this god forsaken thread.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

[Sojobo]

[bitflipper]

O-kay, Rothide, but what I'm more interested in is how we're defining creepy, and not really so much in the issue of whether marital relations with appliances--be they designed for that task or not--are "creepy" by the definition of creepy at which we arrive.

That word "creepy" got tossed around quite a lot, with a seemingly tacit assumption that everyone agreed on what it meant. And then came the surprising statement, "Culture defines creepiness," along with many allusions to the principal that D-man controls enough aspects of Sinfestia's culture as to be able to force upon others his own standards for what is and is not creepy, as suits his corporate and material goals of the moment.

Let us set aside, for now, sentient toasters and fembots following their programming (I'm certain they'll intrude again, very soon); I don't see them as essentially relevant to the question raised by the proposed intertwining of culture and creepiness. I have a dark and boding faith, though, that my fellow Sinfesters will soon prove me mistaken in that assumption.

It is that statement, "Culture defines creepiness," that piqued my interest. Does it? Does creepiness derive from shared cultural values? Or, is creepiness a subjective matter, differing from one individual to the next and depending greatly upon his or her experience and ethics for its definition? Or could it be an admixture of both, culturally shaped, but individually defined?
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

[Heretical Rants]

The only thing that bothers me about that remake of the comic is the addition of "cis scum."

For one thing, it doesn't even make sense in that context...

oh, and "dykes"



@bitflipper
I say "creepy" but really I mean "morally unsettling"
_________________
butts

[Heretical Rants]

I don't think it's proper to say that society can define "creepy" in any other sense, either, though. People are going to be skeeved out by certain things regardless of what society says about them. Certainly society has a heavy influence over what is considered the "norm" and even over general attitudes towards things, but I don't think it's meaningful to consider that to actually define creepiness.
_________________
butts

[Rothide]

[bitflipper]

So, apparently, we need to settle on the definition of creepy we're using or we won't make much progress with the thesis under consideration.

Heretical Rants seems to be using "creepy" synonymously with "moral outrage," but expresses reservations about that serving as the totality of the definition, adding that there is a personal dimension to skeeviness which must also be considered.

Rothide defines "creepy" as first something unsettling, dependent upon primal fears which transcend cultural boundaries, and then adds that creepiness can also result from beholding an alien or previously unknown activity.

Let's see if a standard dictionary definition can incorporate these aspects of:
moral outrage
personal disgust
primal fear
and xenophobia.

[Darqcyde]