Little Tunny

It's that easy when you have a vegana, anon

Just look around, dude.

It's not that surprising that a decent looking woman would randomly hit on someone. My uncle did that while I was in the car with him to some random woman on the street when I was like 10.

english please, esl anon

>but you thinking she consider she see herself as "little Miss Perfect"
Christ that was SARCASM, you illiterate moron.

>That is literally what this comic is about.
You have failed to demonstrate that she think she's better than everyone around her.

How does this thread back your statement?

So, no actual argument, then.

>Stops being funny when it's the basis of every character that isn't her and her friends, consistently.
It's really not, anon. You are just being an assshat because she relate her weird encounter. Of course she is not going to talk about things that are normal and boring.

>but she does?
Then you have no reason to complain.

>It's really not, anon.
I have weird encouters like that all the time, it' called "interacting with people".

Not everyone is a perfect communicator and making fun of people for making honest mistakes or just talking weird does paint you as a c**t.
I thought "nah this is my imagination" but her social media presence did not thing verify my gut feeling.

I mean no problem is you like reading people being buttholes, but christ, don't white knight them.

Because they are, and she half-asses hiding it.

Honestly i'd like her more if she was up front about it. But she's clearly the typical geek that shrinks like a grape when confronted then seethes about it for a whole day.

bro
what if i told you
what if
fetish
isn't an exclusively sexual word

no, you are just moronic and illiterate.

>I have weird encouters like that all the time, it' called "interacting with people".
You have people telling you about they socks fetish all the time, anon?
It look to like your trying (and failing) to look for reason to feel insulted by innocuous comics, really.

>you have already been provided, anon.

[...]

None of these examples are valid, except maybe

Which brings is to the graceful ratio of... 1 every 20 comics. Maybe even more.

In as much as she walked straight into it.

If she didn't say that and sked "why", we'd get a completely different comic, most likely ending with her making a face that ridicules the grandpa's reply.

>If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that the majority of interactions with other people in these comics are her being harangued by or dealing with someone who is a jerk.
A good chunk are just failed flirting attempts.
But the rest, she's so hostile all the time, attacks completely harmless, hapless people like kids and grandmas.

That just ain't nice. At no point in drawing and placing the 750 colours doesn't it occur to her to ask "maybe i'm just being mean?"

>Do you mean the slug is being mean to the animals accosting her, or the author is being mean to other people in the presumed interactions that may or may not have inspired the strips
Both are the same thing.

* She has IRL small talk
* She either doesn't like it or thinks the other person is an idiot
* Makes a comic about it making the other party look terrible

That's the whole MO. At no point does she wonder if the person deserves that treatment or feels any guilt whatsoever.
It ain't lack of self-awareness, it's literal resentment, the kind that happens when you feel the world owes you shit. And guess what, she also consistently portrays herself as emotionally unstable but otherwise nice & passive. Aka breeding ground for resentment.

Some comics are most likely wholly invested, but they don't vary the pattern at all.

>You are making the asusmption that she is dishonest in her portrayal.
She definitely is. Always the implied victim, never the cause, never a mistake.

And even if she did, doesn't remove the fact she's a mean little nerd with not enough ovaries to talk shit to people's face, so she makes fun of them on the internet.

But here you are justifying her. Guess pathetic authors gather pathetic fans.

>He says without proof.
Sorry senpai I won't accept you argument unless you have a published paper with no less than 5 citations.

What, no such thing exists? Too bad senpai. Extrapolation and correlation are not a thing, 95% of the strips being a positive result is a mere coincidence

don't ask question and simp, goy.

anon it's ok to like buttholes. no need for this dance of proofs

But why would that matter? Being honest only makes her more of an butthole.

No, I'm saying that whether or not the situation are invented, the FACT that she posts these comics making fun of people who in the situation depicted clearly don't deserve it, makes her a jerk.

And that's only assuming what happened is 100% true or 100% invented. One may wonder how many strips based on irl interactions were "modified" so the other would come off as an butthole, or literally invent witty comebacks that didn't happen.

>Saying something doesn't look that terrible doesn't mean that, anon.
You don't get it man, this woman is one of the worst things I've ever slogged through

I get that she's your type, but that don't make her my type and she is a sincere anathema to me

If I ever have the displeasure of encountering this gal I'm going to do a full 180

>If the other party make themselves look bad, that' snot on her.
It is. There's no guarantee she isn't lying or committing outright slander.

> And again, doing so is quite common in auto-bio comics
Not to this degree, and even then most auto-bio comic book artist are made fun of. I don't see why she should be immune to it.

>If her portrayal was unfaithful, I wouldn't even know it was me.
You'd somehow not notice the person you talked about something yesterday brought the topic up again, for no reason?

>Especially if I don't know who she is.
Assume you know who she is in this scenario.

>YOU are accusing her of lying, YOU have to prove it.
What proof do you have that the other party made themselves look bad, then?

>Yes to this degree. I would even say that this is tame.
And every other artist who did it got his ass tore up. Ie dobson. Why should Gogarty be the exception?

>If that person does so on a comic (...)
>How would any of the strangers she encounter would? You are not making sense.
It's a discussion technique. It's called an "hypothetical scenario"
We lay down the scenario's event and you are supposed to imagine yourself in that sequence of events.

How would you feel if you
1. talked passively with gogarty
2. found out her comic
3. found out she made a comic specifically making a comic about you talking to her in 1, making fun of you and making you look like an idiot

How would you feel? Does that seem fair to you? Why should gogarty get away scott free if she does this do others who aren't you?

>and thus this isn't an actual accusation
you don't need to name them to make an accusation.

>Nope.
name a single artist more popular that gogarty that didn't.

>And there is nothing wrong with telling weird encounter or making comics about strangers who are assshole to you.
There is if you come as just as much as an butthole than them. If go down to their level, go live in the trash with them, I don't wanna see your shit.

>Yes, and I am laying down the correct hypthesis so that it correspond to the situation:
What you brought up isn't the scenario I brought up.

In this scenario:

1. You do know her
2. You discover her comic
3. You recognize the interaction was yours and she explicitly made fun of you

I ask again: How would you feel? Does that seem fair to you?

>Actually, you do.
Under what authority and proof?

>you prove your own claim.
Dobson
The cuckdad comic
Josh Lune

And more I can't remember rn

>Not really the case, there
Definitely the case. Literally just read up her social media, this chick's an ahole.

>Why are you making a scenario that does not fit to what she is actually doing?
Because I'm trying to put you in the shoes of the victims of the jokes, so you'd understand that Gogarty's behaviour is assholish.

>your hypothetical are wrong
You are confusing hypothetical with hypothesis, illiterate moron. Hypotheticals are sequences, they can't be right or wrong

>So back your claim.
I don't know what claim because you brought up accusation in the first place, but it seems you just used the word at random without understanding what it means.

>Most of their comic aren't about meeting strangers who act weird, so not good examples.
Moving the goalpost-. We were talking about auto-bio artists being made fun off. Gogarty fills this category as do all the rest I mentioned plus others.

>You have failed to demonstrate so.
I already did. You fail to understand it.

>Post examples
no thanks, too much effort, can't even remember if it was twitter or tumblr.

>then and only then can I actually be in the shoes of those so called "victim".
And what stops the victim from accidentally discovering Gogarty's comic and recognizing they have been made fun of.

My hypothetical still applies even with your imposed conditions. The comic CAN accidentally be discovered, Gogarty makes no attempt to disguise her identity and the stranger CAN remember talking to her.

So let's add

4. You accidentally discover the comic and realize one of Gogarty's comics are about you, and making fun of you

I ask yet again: How would you feel? Does that seem fair to you?

>But then it is no longer relevant to the argument.
WRONG. the negative feelings that come from that discovery are the proof of Gogarty being an butthole.

>missed gogarty thread on Cinemaphile
frick
i still maintain that she's Cinemaphilecore on the fact that she's a misanthrope and takes everything she hears the worst possible way (don't act like you're any different)

>and takes everything she hears the worst possible way (don't act like you're any different)
empathylets get the frick off my board

>The claim where you say that to make an accusation, you don't need to name the person for it to be an accusation. Can you back that up?
This is beside the point since you brought the word up yourself. But if you really want it:

An indirect accusation that doesn't directly name the person but provides sufficient recognizable events can indeed be qualified as defamation or slander.

This is a moot point because Gogarty isn't accusing anyone, you brought up the word not understanding the difference in terms

>-That she doesn't identify them
Pointing out the event is enough for them to remember they talked with her, therefore identifying them.

>-And that you posit that she was not faithful in her representation.
>and won't even make an accurate representation of the encounter
Moving the goalposts yet again.
No one said the representation isn't accurate, I said the set a tone up that makes you look like an butthole.
That means what you said is written as you said it, accurate to the events, but you are made to look like what you did was bad.

In this hypothetical you discover the comic and absolutely recognize the events.
Stop evading the question and answer: How would that made you feel?

I feel you refuse to answer the question because the answer is of course "I'd feel bad" and that would validate my claim of Grace being a jerk.

>I say that auto-bio comic that talk about weird people they have met are quite common and you claimed that other were tore down for doing that to a lesser degree.
And then you asked for examples, and I provided them, but apparently their out "outside the point" and had nothing in commong with Gogarty despites both being auto-bio.

So yes, this does in fact call for a formal accusation of you moving the goalposts.

>You are the only on pulling a tantrum about her comic. how about you get the frick out?
Here to stay, c**t.
Go simp for the seething blonde while she (presumably) fricks other people.

counterpoint: hide the post and stop complaining you little kid, I'll talk however much I want.

>what does that make you?

Right.

that other huge paragraph wasn't me, but I should've tagged him too

Yes I come off as just as autistic, but I need something to cool off while I'm reading comics

The thing is, there are zero valid reason to be upset by those comics.

>And there are plenty of people who make that kind of comic where they depict weird interactions they had in real life.
She can do it with a tone that doesn't make the other party looks bad.

Imagine you spent 2 minutes talking to her without meaning anything and the next day you find out she drew with an exaggerated I AM SILLY face, published it publicly and had her fans laugh at you

How would you feel about that?

>or literally invent witty comebacks that didn't happen.
Most of those comics don't have her saying witty come-back.

>Nice assumption.
No assumption. You claim she depict herself never making a mistake, which is reasonable ground to claim you don't actually read her comics.

>when interacting with strangers.
Not what was said there

>You are making the asusmption that she is dishonest in her portrayal.
She definitely is. Always the implied victim, never the cause, never a mistake.

And even if she did, doesn't remove the fact she's a mean little nerd with not enough ovaries to talk shit to people's face, so she makes fun of them on the internet.

But here you are justifying her. Guess pathetic authors gather pathetic fans.

>She definitely is. Always the implied victim, never the cause, never a mistake.
You keep changing the rules, anon.

And this is also wrong because she does not ALWAYS represent herself as the victim. You are really full of shit, aren't you?

>Factually wrong.
Dude, I literally quoted you.

>You are making the asusmption that she is dishonest in her portrayal.
She definitely is. Always the implied victim, never the cause, never a mistake.

And even if she did, doesn't remove the fact she's a mean little nerd with not enough ovaries to talk shit to people's face, so she makes fun of them on the internet.

But here you are justifying her. Guess pathetic authors gather pathetic fans.

>She definitely is. Always the implied victim, never the cause, never a mistake.

>It was said here:
And here you are quoting a different post about a different matter where you imply she is dishonest about how she represent someone else. You have yet to prove that she is dishonest.

>You fricking moron.
At least I don't switch the topic of discussion when I am shown to be wrong. It remains that you were wrong when you said
>Always the implied victim, never the cause, never a mistake.

>These are all my mine.
Yeah, I know. Showing you what you said was my point.
>. You are continuing my conversation and literally forgetting the things I said between posts
No, anon, see:
>because I don't repeat the same phrasing in every post.
Anon, saying
-She misrepresent the other person
and
-She always represent herself as perfect
Are two different things. That's not just a different phrasing. You are shit at this.

>I opened the discussion by making both statements in one sentence
And that sentence was proven wrong, as you have failed to establish she thing she is better than everyone around her. You fail to make a point.

>In every comic where she meets someone who's not her irl friend look like a total ass
This has already been proven false, anon.

>5 exceptions to this statement
Thank you for acknowledging that you were wrong, anon.

>Simply not enough
One simple example is enough, anon.

hope she sees this bro

She probably won't.

>Both are the same thing.
Superbly efficient response. I won't read further and you shouldn't reply.

I won't lie, I don't doubt her encounters. My city's been going through "growing pains" lately. And by "growing pains" I mean meth heads, crack dealers, car and bike thieves. The last three being within a month. 5 years ago all of those things would be unthinkable here. I could complain about it but I'm sure a lot of it's real.
However there's a definite skew towards her sharing incidents where she was (or felt she was) victimized.
Whether or not that is the majority of her socialization with other people I can't say. If she's really in St Lois, based solely on population and personal experience with larger cities and population centers it's not out of the question.
With all that said and arguing with myself: Confirmation bias is a very real phenomenon. You're more likely to remember a horrible or negative experience than a positive or neutral one.

The reply was

[...]
>where she is not the victim in an encounter with another person?

So, yes, I did. Anon, added the "AND" afterward.

>You are wrong.
No, YOU are factually wrong. The reply was to a different anon there

I have a genuine, non-baiting, serious and not at all disingenuous question:
Could you post a comic of hers where she is not the victim in an encounter with another person?

Who then agree he had a satisfying answer

Totally fair, anon. Thank you.

And then You made that post

[...]
>where she is not the victim in an encounter with another person?

Where you tried to point out his request was not addressed. Then you tried to change the wording of HIS request. Asshat.

No matter what, You have been proven wrong. So eat shit.

>The same anon literally replied to my post and point out the If you are talking about

In fairness to that anon, that's what I asked for, and there's a couple examples here:

[...]
[...]
He literally said
> that's what I asked for
So, yeah, he was provided what HE was asking for.
And then provided EXAMPLES of what YOUR added condition required.

Learn to read. Even one Example was enough and now you are just a sore butthole for being proven wrong for something that isn't even valid to complain about in the first place, assshat.

At this piont I'll just treat your posts as a tacit admission that you also shrink when confronted and seethe later.

>If you want to go that route, do you have proof she made him cry multiple times?
Her direct witness account. Which is receivable proof.
First you have to prove that she is lying.

>Onus is on the affirmative.
He is stating that she is being dishonest. The Onus is on him.

You have failed to establish she was awful.

I am sorry that you were born as a turbo autist but I wasn't, neither are most people so we can look at her comics and draw a clear tendency related to her personality.

>neither are most people so we can look at her comics and draw a clear tendency related to her personality.
Most people on Cinemaphile like her comic, though, so you are not really making a point, there.

So, no real argument, then?

>I guess the whole prospect of one of my old highschool friends being discussed so heatedly in a Cinemaphile thread is what's weird to me
Honest question, how long have you been off this site? Every few months or so there's a thread with her comics, even if it doesn't always hit the bump limit.
People here generally like her comics even if a few anons get super heated about her posts. Some people even like her, especially since she saved those animals from the fire that one time.

>First I ever heard of this.
Happened like a year or two ago. Some dudes shed caught on fire and she rescued the remaining animals inside. There was a video of the fire on the site formerly known as Twitter

it's not like its a secret, she posted about it on her Twitter a while ago recounting the full details.

It's not a secret account. She has like 100k followers there. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

I'mma be real with you, I'm generally only here for /aco/ these days lol but I've been here on and off since 2004ish, I just don't scroll Cinemaphile very often and this was one of the top threads I saw today

/aco/ was dead in the water when the moron mods decided to ban anthro porn (aka 80% of western cartoon porn) for no reason other than paying lip service to lowtax

I just ignore the /d/ & weird shit and usually find something worth fapping to

Did you ever actually meet ratboy or was that after your time?

If it's who I think it is, we're still friends and still talk occasionally but I have no idea if he's really as toxic as Grace portrayed him

i can't project with a hand on my dick