OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread

[Jormengand]

proved by the fact that I inferred it, the post implied

Now, see, I'm inferring a large amount of intellectual dishonesty from this statement. Either I'm right, and you're being intellectually dishonest, or I'm wrong, and that means that if you infer something that doesn't necessarily mean it's actually implied, and you're being intellectually dishonest.

Just because you think I mean something doesn't mean I do, and you need only look at this thread to prove that.

[Haleth]

That's not the point I was making and you know it. Jormengand may deny that the implication was intended, but, as proved by the fact that I inferred it, the post implied that Bandana was more than a supporting character. Meantime, I've argued that members of the Order themselves are supporting characters. So there's just a profound disconnect here.


I've appended a sentence to my post to make this clearer. As for the value of the arc, it ended woith Durkon seriously asking whether Roy wanted to change back, giving his perspective as an autonomous person the weight it deserved, the way a sex-reassignment surgeon who knows their business might counsel a patient.

I actually *didn't* know that was the point you were making. My point is supporting character or not, Bandanna has her own personality and that's good.

[Burner28]

Cool strip.

[Porthos]

That's not the point I was making and you know it. Jormengand may deny that the implication was intended, but, as proved by the fact that I inferred it, the post implied that Bandana was more than a supporting character. Meantime, I've argued that members of the Order themselves are supporting characters. So there's just a profound disconnect here.

I think this is getting towards semantics to a great degree though. Especially since the personal defintion of 'supporting character' can vary so much.

Would it help at all to draw a difference between 'supporting character' and 'minor character'? That's what I was getting at earlier when I was talking about Spear Carriers.

That 'obvious' LGBTQ characters have been in the comic before is pretty incontestable. We can link to them and everything. That they have been given any sort of 'real' screentime or narrative importance, much less so. Most of that would hang on the status of Vaarsuvius. Which gets us back to the word 'obvious'.

What's much more interesting to me than this is that this confirms that Bandana WILL be an important charcter moving forward and not just a flash in the pan, soon to be forgotten (which makes sense, given his previous comments on Twitter).

All of this arguing over what is a supporting character, and and whatnot is rather a side issue, I would think when taking that into account. All IMNSHO, of course.

[Snails]

After thinking it over for a while, I think it feels forced just because of how all this stuff is crammed into one comic. Any one of these things would have been just fine on its own, but putting it all together makes it feel like he's going down a checklist ticking them off one by one, which makes it kind of jarring.

Might have been better to split it up into a few different strips over time, but I don't pretend to be a better writer than Rich so what do I know?

IMHO Rich is poking fun at his past own choices, and it makes sense to simply lump a few related examples together.

In a normal "world" a costume change is just a costume change, and does not require any kind of explanation. But in OotS we all(?) know that Haley's armor "must" be a 10,000ish gold piece valued item, so such things sort of demand an explanation. Since no really natural explanation is possible, a funny one is the better choice. To be funny, it must somehow not meet our expectations. That fact that a certain kind of surprise seems to elicit comment, in my book, demonstrates the cleverness of the choice in the very commonly male-centric genre.

[mlkjhgfds]

Since I had to come in here to figure out that Bandana was female... (I blame CRPGs for unigender armour)

The first few panels did still read clunky without the intended message, except I was rather wondering whether all the trouble was to point out Haley is curvy &/or to suddenly give the background character these elements of, err, background and why bring up his girlfriend oh gods he's going to die isn't he.

In retrospect the rogue rivalry reference makes more sense, but the whole does read like it's gonna be "one of these". Oh well, better get it over with in one strip than have Damocles' checklist hanging over the comic at all times. Get it out of his system and all that.

[Porthos]

Since I had to come in here to figure out that Bandana was female...

I would have thought her breasts were a giveaway, myself. But maybe that's just me.

[Momoka]

I would have thought her breasts were a giveaway, myself. But maybe that's just me.

Just because someone has breasts doesn't mean they identify as female

[Kalmageddon]

Ok, I'm starting to get confused: what heavy-handed message do you see in this strip?
Please provide the exact quote, because I can't see it. The only thing that seems socially charged, so to speak, is the fact that Bandana is a lesbian or potentially bi and that's literally relegated to exactly 1 line of dialogue.
The rest of the strip mentions/makes fun of:
- action figures and marketing
- the "oh no, I don't want to be in charge even when I'm obviously qualified to do so" trope, which it averts.
- the fact that past interactions between Haley and other female characters has been mostly conflictual.
- the fact that fantasy armor designs for female tend to be impractical at best.

Now, of all these subjects, only the last might be interpreted in a more "charged" way, specifically as the author apologizing for having Haley in revealing clothes in the past. I don't know if that's the case, but it doesn't seem so heavy-handed... I mean, I personally don't think it's necessary, this comic started as a parody of common fantasy and tabletop gaming tropes, the sexy rogue in revealing armor is simply part of the course. Although by the same logic Roy should have been a loincloth wearing warrior... But whatever, Roy started as an aversion of the mindless brute warrior, which is even more noticeable when everyone else conforms to some stereotype.

Point being, if I hadn't read this thread I would have never thought this was Rich trying to apologize. I guess it's possibile, but if that's the case, it was still handled with some subtlety. It hardly seems fair to call him out on this.
Beside, this kind of reactions will simply make it seem like real a heavy-handed social commentary is more than justified, because they can be interpreted as originating from intolerance.
And believe me, I'm the first person here that can't stand heavy-handed social commentary, so I really wouldn't want that. So how about we all take a step back and try to see things from a different perspective, uh?

[Jaxzan Proditor]

"The comments on any article about feminism justify feminism."

Gee, thanks for saying the exact same thing as the article.

[Sadsharks]

Just because someone has breasts doesn't mean they identify as female

The vast, vast majority of people with breasts are women. It's not unreasonable to look at a person with breasts and think they are female. Maybe you're wrong, but it's a logical conclusion (and in this case correct).

[Jormengand]

Gee, thanks for saying the exact same thing as the article.

Essentially, the immediate objection to the idea that women might have rights is automatic justification for the philosophy which states that they do. Change women to lesbians or mixed-race people and you'll see the relevance to this thread.

[Socksy]

I wonder, that perhaps some female or LGBT people might also want to escape, say, into a world where they aren't marginalised?

As an LGBT female I prefer to escape into a world where people aren't constantly SJW-ing over every little thing.

Or perhaps you could explain the difference between complaining that people are putting real-life issues in their comic and complaining that people are putting real-life issues it their comic, rather than refusing to debate me because you haven't the faintest clue how to refute my points. Or you could summon the intellectual honesty to admit, at least, that you are doing the latter.

Actually, you were, IMO, clearly losing the argument there. Your points were repetitive, made little to no sense, and you just completely ignored a lot of what Keltest said, going on like a broken record.

Two points. First, how is Bandana not a "supporting character?" Second, the only character that cannot be argued to be a supporting character, Roy Greenhilt, is a straight person of color who is currently a man but at one point was a man with a female body. Whatever problems I have with the politics of The Order of the Stick, it has never been a straight white cis male only club.

From what I've seen on the forums so far, if Zimmerwald is arguing against you, you're probably wrong.

Just because someone has breasts doesn't mean they identify as female

Well, it's a world where Polymorph and Disguise Self and Alter Self and Permanency are easy things to get hold of at mid- to high- levels, as are Girdles of Femininity/Masculinity. Even a hat of disguise could have done it. So, while your point is true in the real world, it probably isn't true for a high level adventurer.

[zimmerwald1915]

Would it help at all to draw a difference between 'supporting character' and 'minor character'? That's what I was getting at earlier when I was talking about Spear Carriers.

Not really. As you point out, there's no bright line between the two concepts, and I would think it would be obvious from the last few times we've gone around this block that the only distiction I find meaningful for this story is between the protagonist [singular] and everyone else.

What's much more interesting to me than this is that this confirms that Bandana WILL be an important charcter moving forward and not just a flash in the pan, soon to be forgotten (which makes sense, given his previous comments on Twitter).

Yeah, she'll probably stick around for a book and a half at this point.

I actually *didn't* know that was the point you were making. My point is supporting character or not, Bandanna has her own personality and that's good.

Yeah, it is. Someone in the comic has to be likeable at any given point.

[Sadsharks]

Actually, you were, IMO, clearly losing the argument there. Your points, were repetitive, made little to no sense, and you just completely ignored a lot of what Keltest said, going on like a broken record.

That's kind of inevitable when the other person refuses to answer your questions. Perhaps he wouldn't have repeated his points if they were answered. IMO, he was clearly winning.

[Gift Jeraff]

Just because someone has breasts doesn't mean they identify as female

He failed his Privilege check.

[zimmerwald1915]

From what I've seen on the forums so far, if Zimmerwald is arguing against you, you're probably wrong.

Where on the forums did you get that impression? If anything, the reverse is true; most of the time my opponents are right.

[Jormengand]

As an LGBT female I prefer to escape into a world where people aren't constantly SJW-ing over every little thing.

I have no idea what that stands for.

Actually, you were, IMO, clearly losing the argument there. Your points were repetitive, made little to no sense, and you just completely ignored a lot of what Keltest said, going on like a broken record.

Then perhaps you could answer my question? No?

From what I've seen on the forums so far, if Zimmerwald is arguing against you, you're probably wrong.

That's, like, an upside-down ad hominem. I don't even.

Well, it's a world where Polymorph and Disguise Self and Alter Self and Permanency are easy things to get hold of at mid- to high- levels, as are Girdles of Femininity/Masculinity. Even a hat of disguise could have done it. So, while your point is true in the real world, it probably isn't true for a high level adventurer.

It's possible to be trans and not want to have a sex change.

[Porthos]

Just because someone has breasts doesn't mean they identify as female

I put in a on purpose to point out that my comment wasn't entierly 100 percent serious.

Yes, bringing up the possibility of transgender is a valid counterpoint, and I thank you for it. However, I believe the issue was physical body type here and not gender identification. So my larger point stands.

...

Ah, what the hell, I've been wanting to say this ever since this observation was first made but holding back. So time to, ahem, get it off my chest.

Part of my point was, a female character doesn't have to be drawn with large or medium sized breasts to be easily identifable as a woman. I thought Bandana was easily identifiable as a female character from the second she walked on the screen.

I can sorta get my head around where some of the complaints about this comic are coming from, though I don't agree with them in the slightest. But Bandana being mistaken for a male character? Honestly, I can't understand that one at all. Not without resorting to sterotypical represenations of bust size in comics at any rate. And I'd really like to not comment on that too much.

I even went and looked back at her very first appearance to see if there was anything I was missing.

...

Nope. Clearly female, IMO. When it comes to how OOTS represents women, at least.

So, yeah, while I understand and appreciate your reminder about gender identity, I stand by my inital comment in regards to how Bandana has been drawn from the second she first appared.

[Socksy]

Where on the forums did you get that impression? If anything, the reverse is true; most of the time my opponents are right.

I just think you tend to be consistently logical and level-headed. And not an a**hole.

[Gryndel]

I would have thought her breasts were a giveaway, myself. But maybe that's just me.

They are a little subtle, but noticeable. My first clue was the use of the pronoun "her" in panel 6.

[Comrade]

As an LGBT female I prefer to escape into a world where people aren't constantly SJW-ing over every little thing.

I'm glad not everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, or sex, shares your perspective. But hey, if you want to escape to a world where nobody is challenging the status quo and the author is perfectly content to play within the confines of what is considered acceptable without 'constantly SJW-ing over every little thing', then you've only got ninety per cent of all ****ing media to satisfy that.

Actually, you were, IMO, clearly losing the argument there. Your points were repetitive, made little to no sense, and you just completely ignored a lot of what Keltest said, going on like a broken record.

Exactly what Sadsharks said.

From what I've seen on the forums so far, if Zimmerwald is arguing against you, you're probably wrong.

Why even bother making this point? I mean, really, it's not even a point, and so subjective anybody could contest it and their contention would be equally as valid as yours.

EDIT:

I have no idea what that stands for.

'Social justice warrior'. In every iteration I've ever seen it used, it's been employed as sort of an insult against people who make a big fuss out of little things like LGBT representation, racism in media, and the frequency of sexist stereotypes in fiction.

[Sadsharks]

I have no idea what that stands for.

Social Justice Warrior; it's a derogatory way to dismiss (usually relevant, intelligent) arguments as "white-knighting" and what-have-you purely for having to do with social issues.

[Porthos]

and I would think it would be obvious from the last few times we've gone around this block that the only distiction I find meaningful for this story is between the protagonist [singular] and everyone else.

Actually, this is the first time I can recall you really drawing a hard disctinction on this. I'll try to file it away for later debates, though.

From what I've seen on the forums so far, if Zimmerwald is arguing against you, you're probably wrong.

Except when it comes to matters surrounding V of course.

I kid because I love, zimmerwald.

[Socksy]

I have no idea what that stands for.

Social Justice Warrior. An idiot who sits behind a keyboard and whines all day but doesn't actually go out and do anything about injustice. The tumblr/reddit equivalent of the Facebook 1 like = 1 pray posters.

Then perhaps you could answer my question? No?

Your question was literally "Prove thing X is not thing X". You typed out the exact same phrase in both places and told him to prove the thing was not itself. The question was stupid.

[Sadsharks]

Nope. Clearly female, IMO. When it comes to how OOTS represents women, at least.

I guess it's just that the bandanna kind of conceals her body shape? And a lot of people just thought she was an unimportant background extra at first so they might not have bothered focusing on her at all, and thus missed the female body shape. Those are just my best guesses, because I knew from the start she was female too.

[zimmerwald1915]

I just think you tend to be consistently logical and level-headed. And not an a**hole.

You would be wrong on all three counts.

Social Justice Warrior; it's a derogatory way to dismiss (usually relevant, intelligent) arguments as "white-knighting" and what-have-you purely for having to do with social issues.

It should be said that women's lib groups should be led by women, workers'groups should be led by workers, etc. To extend that principle to the right to comment, however, especially in places like blogs that are not tied to or moderated by an organization, bends the stick much too far.

Edit: *blows Porthos a kiss*

[Jormengand]

Social Justice Warrior. An idiot who sits behind a keyboard and whines all day but doesn't actually go out and do anything about injustice. The tumblr/reddit equivalent of the Facebook 1 like = 1 pray posters.

Social Justice Warrior; it's a derogatory way to dismiss (usually relevant, intelligent) arguments as "white-knighting" and what-have-you purely for having to do with social issues.

Well, I have one thing to say to people who call me that, if that be so:

You know what? Yeah, I am a social justice warrior. Fight me. Because you know what? I'm going to fight for the inclusion of minorities. I'm going to fight for human rights. I'm going to fight for people to be free. And you know how I'm going to do it? I'm going to start by changing people's opinions. I'm going to start by opening people's eyes. No, I'm not going to stand up to injustices by force, machinegun in each hand, the champion of the people, fighting for what she believes in.

No, I'm going to start by convincing people - yeah, people like you - that minorities do actually deserve representation. That having gay people in a comic isn't going to destroy the storyline. I'm not going to be out there, sword in hand, because at the end of the day, that's not how societies change. Societies change by the efforts of people who are willing to include people, to show that they're normal, to show that they're people too.

Societies change by people using words. People like me? People like Rich. People who are trying to change people's opinions. Because if one person, just one person, reads what I've written, what Rich has written, what anyone has written, and decides not to show up to the next anti-gay march, that's one-nil to the "Social justice warriors," while you're busy living the polite fantasy that people don't need inclusion.

And might I add that this entire debate was sparked by those who thought that what Rich was doing was bad, not that it was good. It is to they, not to the social justice warriors who you hate so much, that you should look as the cause of all this. In any case, you needn't participate in the discussion if it so offends you.

Your question was literally "Prove thing X is not thing X". You typed out the exact same phrase in both places and told him to prove the thing was not itself. The question was stupid.

The reason I asked was that his entire argument was contingent on X not equaling X. Just as asking a stupid question gets you a stupid answer, making a stupid statement causes the response to be a stupid question.

[Lexible]

So...is this a hint at future merchandise?

Edit: The Bechdel Test makes me want to write something horrifyingly, eye-gougingly sexist with a 100% Bechdel Test pass rate for every scene.

“You can have a feminist movie that doesn’t meet the criteria, and you can have a movie that meets the criteria and isn’t feminist. So, it’s not scientific or anything. It was meant as a joke, but I still think it’s a very useful joke… It’s a bit surprising what does and doesn’t pass.”—Alison Bechdel

So is Bandanna the first unambiguously gay named character in the comic?

I think one of the lawyers (Raul? Julio? My mind is ringing vague bells of a sterotypical Latino name) is gay.

Still, first obviously lesbian/bi named character is a pirate? A sympathetic pirate, but still...

Anne Bonny and Mary Read would like to have you over for tea and and a few words...

Actually, according to the best resource we have available on the test, most movies do pass. 56.78% pass all three tests.

OMG! Thank you so much for that! I love the trends over time graph. Woot!

I ship it.

Wayyyy ahead of you. Panel six. Ahem.

or a transexual

That would be Roy (for a time). Also two esses in transsexual.

Between this and some of your previous statements, I have to ask: is there something inherently wrong with escapism?

Not at all! I for one am happy to escape from pervasive heteronormativity for a while.

[DaggerPen]

Escapist fiction is, if not impossible, really freaking difficult at this point in time.

I don't discard escapist fiction as a concept. But when representation gets political, it's hard to have a story that doesn't have some message or the other, whether intentional or not. Fail to include female and LGBTQIA characters? Kind of hard for us to escape into the fiction. Include them? You get accused of "forcing" things and shoving diversity down the readers' throats. Stories virtually always contain subtext about what is/isn't important, and if they're reflecting societal biases, then they're not particularly good escapes for those of us on the receiving end here.

Was this strip clearly a "let's poke fun at tropes about female representation in fantasy fiction, which we've played into before" strip? Yes. Just like Elan and Roy's exchange last strip was clearly a "let's poke fun at story opening tropes" thing. And the whole Tarquin arc was a "let's deconstruct the 'Affably Evil' villain trope." And the whole "Julio training Elan" sequence was a "let's poke fun at montages" strip. And Elan and Thog trying to get on the airship was a "let's poke fun at Final Fantasy" strip. And the first 50 strips or so were "let's poke fun at D&D mechanics" strips. Painfully obvious meta commentary has always been a part of this strip. Why does this one suddenly seem "forced" to you?