On the topic of recent tweets sent out by the Giant

[BannedInSchool]

The problem is that that example (the one in parentheses) doesn't really work as a substitution. LGBT is not in the same classification as "pedophile", which is (for one thing) an actual behavioral illness and (for several more things) illegal, harmful, and most of all harms non-consenting-adults. I actually think readers/viewers would be justified to react badly to a work which had a heroic portrayal of a pedophile, child abuser, etc.

To be a valid substitution, the example must be something which is legal but disapproved of; let's say "smoker", "hunter", "gun owner". Then we're in the same realm of "personally disgusting" without crossing over into "actually illegal".

The point here is people's perceptions, and how they proceed from their perspectives. If you don't think some people see "gay" as as objectionable as "pedophile" then you're selling them short. Whether you agree with them or not isn't relevant in trying to explain how they could be upset at a LGBT character. To them it is more in the realm of "pedophile," and so you just agreed with them reacting badly to it from their perspective, even if not agreeing with that perspective.

[Pinnacle]

To be a valid substitution, the example must be something which is legal but disapproved of; let's say "smoker", "hunter", "gun owner". Then we're in the same realm of "personally disgusting" without crossing over into "actually illegal".

Those are all behaviors in which a person engages, and have no similarities to sexual orientation.
The equivalent to "homosexual" is "heterosexual." Reactions to homosexual persons' existence makes exactly the same amount of sense they would if they were reactions to heterosexuals.

If you must compare sexual orientation to something, you can use race or gender. Those things make sense in most comparisons.
The things you mentioned do not. If you can't come up with a single example where the comparison makes sense, maybe don't suggest the things are a valid substitution.

[NerdyKris]

I believe their issue was not that the character was included yet unimportant, but that a comparatively big deal was made about it for someone who (at the time) they did not think was that important. It came across to them as saying "Hey, look at this, there are gay people in the story!" for the sake of saying that the story is inclusive, rather than actually legitimately trying to be inclusive. Rather similar to how saying "Some of my best friends are XXX minority" does not actually make you a better person even if it happens to be true.

Its certainly clear NOW that that is not what the Giant was doing or trying to do, but at the time it could understandably feel like someone was trying to meet a quota required of him rather than legitimately making it part of the character.

But a big deal WASN'T made of it. If she had loaned the armor to Roy and said "My ex boyfriend's armor", there would be no complaints.

[Dr. Gamera]

Note that resistance leader Haley is the front-most of the action figures. That's the transition point that you might be missing there.

Good catch! File that under Things Dr. Gamera Never Noticed IV.

[Keltest]

But a big deal WASN'T made of it. If she had loaned the armor to Roy and said "My ex boyfriend's armor", there would be no complaints.

Its an opinion. Yes, there are plenty of people who felt it was smooth, but that doesn't mean that the people who felt is wasn't are wrong.

[Dr. Gamera]

There's actually an interesting analysis to be done of bigotry in the world of OOTS. A hasty sketch of such an analysis follows, but it could be done much more thoroughly.

Bigotry against other beings of one's own species is conspicuous by its absence in OOTS. As far as I can remember, there is little to no such bigotry in the comic. Tarquin and Belkar are womanizers, but their treatment of females differs from their treatment of males only in that women are sex objects for them, and men are not; members of both sexes are otherwise equally worthless in their eyes. I can't think of any examples in the comic of homophobia, "racial" discrimination, inequality between the sexes, or the like.

Bigotry against other species occurs in OOTS, and one of the morals of the comic is that such bigotry is also wrong. Even Redcloak, who is evil, rejects such bigotry.

[Pinnacle]

The point here is people's perceptions, and how they proceed from their perspectives. If you don't think some people see "gay" as as objectionable as "pedophile" then you're selling them short. Whether you agree with them or not isn't relevant in trying to explain how they could be upset at a LGBT character. To them it is more in the realm of "pedophile," and so you just agreed with them reacting badly to it from their perspective, even if not agreeing with that perspective.

Why is it so important that I empathize with the "Yes, but what if you hated [insert minority group] too?"
Why is it so important to you that I do this that I must twist all logic and reason and ignore all knowledge and experience to make obviously invalid comparisons work?
Why can't we maybe expect some empathy directed at the actual members of said minority groups?

What if we replaced the minority group with murder? I have a negative reaction to murder, so I can understand the revulsion to that!
Yes, I can understand that revulsion--because it makes sense. The comparison falls apart as soon as I try to apply it, because literally nothing about it is applicable.
Now, what about that person experiencing the hatred? That's easy enough. A 100% valid comparison is "What if someone reacted to you that way?"

You can stop trying to come up with people that I hate so that you can compare that hatred to hatred of a minority group. I'm far too empathic to empathize with a lack of empathy.

[Murk]

You can stop trying to come up with people that I hate so that you can compare that hatred to hatred of a minority group. I'm far too empathic to empathize with a lack of empathy.

The problem is that whether or not you empathize with them, their feelings exist. Whether they are justified, valid or empathizable, they are true feelings. Understanding where those feelings come from, even if you don't agree with them, is important when dealing with them (as customers, for example, as the Giant does).

If the Giant was sincere in his wish just to inform, not to bash (which I believe he was), I agree with his method. Even better, it gives us the chance to talk about real-life sexual orientation as if it was not a forbidden topic :)

[Prospekt]

This is a rant I've wanted to make since Bandana's sexuality was confirmed:

Well it was this strip that really bothered me, just how blatantly Rich was in our faces about it. He's just pandering to a certain crowd.

Joking aside...

There was a sort of similar situation where, when the new Zelda game was officially announced, it was popularly theorized that the protagonist could possibly be female, because they had a very feminized appearance (the character is normally very androgynous anyway), and this got a lot of people excited. And yet people would challenge people who wanted this, saying things like, "It won't make the game better or revolutionize anything, why do you care?"

And I think it boils down to this: it's people's inability to empathize. The guys who have played Zelda for the last 28 years have been represented by the protagonist the whole time- it's always been Link, the male hero. Oh, and when the newest spin-off in the series, Hyrule Warriors, had playable women (and more of them then men), people lost their **** and complained and called it reverse sexism.

But going back to the initial point, here's a fun fact: I used Bandana as an example to a bunch of people, in my hopes that a main game in the series would get a female protagonist. Because when she was revealed to be gay, it was awesome to see so many people, and not just myself, feel represented. And that's something I want to spread across all media of all kinds. Because being represented makes people feel more welcome and it helps make the world a better place, little by little.

And yet people want to take that away. For what purpose? That they're not used to seeing LGBT in their media? I think anyone who opposes LGBT representation doesn't realize how much it hurts- or worse, they know how much it hurts and that's the very reason they do it. People who have no reason to be bothered by it, no reason to complain don't accomplish anything except trying to hurt a group of people. And honestly? They succeed. That's the sad part. I loved that strip, and I very much admired Rich for, well, stepping out of a comfort zone. But the kind of comments that were going across its thread were crushing.

Anyway, to the main point of this thread: I don't think there was anything at all that was out of line with Rich's tweets. Too often, I've seen LGBT and racial minorities told to be "nice" and "on their best behavior" when people are being complete asses to them and aren't holding back; and to me, all that does is stifle people supporting themselves and each other, and encourages further mistreatment and oppression. Being polite and trying to cater to the feelings of an insensitive jerk isn't always being the "bigger person"- it's often being the foolish person instead, for knowing that it doesn't work- but trying anyway. Standing up for what's right often requires you to look like you're being too harsh, but it's really only because it's a necessary defense. If anything, his attitude just shows how important it is to him, which means more than some silly, artificial "professionalism" toward an individual it wouldn't ever get across to anyway.

[Bulldog Psion]

For my part, I understand quite clearly that those opposed to gays are opposed for reasons they deem sufficient.

It is quite clear to me that they view homosexuality as a crime equal to pedophilia. Though there appears to be no logic to this perception, it is very evident that they believe it is valid, otherwise they would not oppose and hate gays.

I realize that many of these people, if not most, are quite sincere in believing that acceptance of homosexuality will somehow erode the foundations of civilization and cause the entire structure to collapse. I have encountered fairly articulate homophobes who actually express their opposition in these terms, though most simply fall back on non-answers like "it's a sin" or "it's disgusting" or whatever.

However.

The humanity of gays is no longer an extraordinary idea. There are many excellent, readily accessible resources on the Internet which explain logically why gay people are decent people, and why homosexuality is in no way, shape, or form equivalent to pedophilia.

A couple of generations ago, this information would have been difficult to come by.

However, this is 2014. The arguments for mutual tolerance and against hate are ample, detailed, and persuasive. It is not my job to parrot them endlessly to those who refuse to acknowledge them.

It is not Mr. Burlew's job to "empathize" with a viewpoint he disagrees with, and which has already been amply answered in hundreds, if not thousands, of publicly available locations.

It is certainly the right of the troglodyte whom Mr. Burlew responded to, to hold his or her absurd homophobic views. It is his or her right to express them.

It is NOT his or her right, however, to be coddled in any way about those views. It is within Mr. Burlew's right to refuse to engage in a pointless debate with this jackass, just as it is my right to characterize them anonymously as a "troglodyte" and a "jackass." If I entered their house and started chewing them out about being homophobic fools, they would have cause to complain. However, if Mr. Burlew or his posters respond with scorn to a public statement of hostility the homophobe initiated, I don't really see the problem.

Just because someone believes something and has the right to hold and express that belief does not mean we are obliged to like them or be nicey-nice to them. I'm reasonably sure they don't like us much or treat us with immense respect.

Maybe in a perfect world, we'd greet them with a beatific smile and turn an infinite number of cheeks, upper or lower, to them. However, I happen to be a sapient mammal who is working, attempting to live, has problems, worries, hopes, stresses, interests to pursue, is currently experiencing a sharp and highly unpleasant pain in his left knee after falling on it yesterday while taking out the garbage, and doesn't have the time, patience, or emotional reserves to extend infinite understanding to someone whose viewpoint appears to me to be built totally on a foundation of illogical hatred and glaringly false equivalencies.

If they flip me the finger, I'll flip it right back and go on with whatever I'm doing. I have no interest in understanding their viewpoint. I already do understand it, and understand very clearly that it's dross. It has no logical basis and is in fact an instrument of unnecessary misery.

There are a million places they can read refutations of their ignorance. I reserve my right to not be their unpaid tutor if they're too lazy to educate themselves, and my right not to mollycoddle them if they spew their hate-filled idiocy in my face. I wish them no harm in any way over it, but I certainly feel no obligation to treat their garbage thinking as anything but garbage.

Presumably, Mr. Burlew has the same rights.

[BannedInSchool]

The problem is that whether or not you empathize with them, their feelings exist. Whether they are justified, valid or empathizable, they are true feelings. Understanding where those feelings come from, even if you don't agree with them, is important when dealing with them (as customers, for example, as the Giant does).

Also, while the answer to "why do people react this way to this inoffensive character?" is "that's an invalid question as they don't find the character inoffensive", the answer to "how do they find this character offensive?" may be incomprehensibly alien to anyone who disagrees and one of those fundamental differences in reality things.

[Pinnacle]

The problem is that whether or not you empathize with them, their feelings exist. Whether they are justified, valid or empathizable, they are true feelings. Understanding where those feelings come from, even if you don't agree with them, is important when dealing with them (as customers, for example, as the Giant does).

I assure you, it is no secret to me that hatred against me exists. I do, in fact, deal with it everyday.
Why am I expected to "deal with it", apparently by being nice, when no expectation exists that they must so deal with the fact that I exist?

I loved that strip, and I very much admired Rich for, well, stepping out of a comfort zone. But the kind of comments that were going across its thread were crushing.

One hardship associated with representation is that we can suddenly become acutely aware of how hostile our environment apparently is.
That'll pass once we get enough of it that it doesn't stand out, though.

Just because someone believes something and has the right to hold and express that belief does not mean we are obliged to like them or be nicey-nice to them. I'm reasonably sure they don't like us much or treat us with immense respect.

I think I may be forced to like you.

Maybe in a perfect world, we'd greet them with a beatific smile and turn an infinite number of cheeks, upper or lower, to them.

If I were perfect, this is how I would respond when I am attacked. I. Me personally.
Problem: It doesn't work when I'm attacked as a part of a group. It works even less when I see an attack against a person or a group of which I am not a part.
Because then I am no longer refusing to engage; I'm now refusing to help.

Also, while the answer to "why do people react this way to this inoffensive character?" is "that's an invalid question as they don't find the character inoffensive", the answer to "how do they find this character offensive?" may be incomprehensibly alien to anyone who disagrees and one of those fundamental differences in reality things.

That they lack in comprehension does not render the question invalid.
They are wrong.

And y'know what? If they can find the existence of a minority group incomprehensibly alien, I can find that incomprehensibly alien. I'm reasonably confident I stand on firmer ground.

[littlebum2002]

I usually just find it best to equate "hatred of homosexuals" with "hatred of a racial minority group". The parallels are pretty clear and obvious, and it shows quite clearly that the only difference between the two is that one used to be socially acceptable, and the other still is, at least to a greater extent.

So I think the best comparison would be someone who emails an author about their uncompromising stance on having racial minority characters in their work.

[Pinnacle]

That's better than pillaging and burning, sure.
I still say that heterosexuality is the best comparison.

Let's empathize with the targets rather than the perpetrators, 'kay?

[Keltest]

That they lack in comprehension does not render the question invalid.
They are wrong.

And y'know what? If they can find the existence of a minority group incomprehensibly alien, I can find that incomprehensibly alien. I'm reasonably confident I stand on firmer ground.

by definition, an opinion cannot be wrong. It can be mind-numbingly ludicrous, and can have no logical backing whatsoever, and it can even be a terrible thing to hold such an absurd opinion, but it cannot be wrong. That's not to say we cant revile people for it, but telling them they are wrong (or, by extension, right) is pretty much the only thing we cant actually do.

edit: for clarity, I am referring to factually wrong, not morally wrong, and I assume you are as well. I am not going to touch the topic further if my assumption is incorrect.

[Ron Miel]

There's actually an interesting analysis to be done of bigotry in the world of OOTS. A hasty sketch of such an analysis follows, but it could be done much more thoroughly.

Bigotry against other beings of one's own species is conspicuous by its absence in OOTS. As far as I can remember, there is little to no such bigotry in the comic.

There is some. The animosity between green ands orange goblinoids, for a start.
Also consider Miko's remark about "ghosts."

Bigotry against other species occurs in OOTS, and one of the morals of the comic is that such bigotry is also wrong. Even Redcloak, who is evil, rejects such bigotry.

Not at first, he didn't. He changed his mind later, but he was very bigoted at first.

[GrayGriffin]

=This is where you screwed up, you apologized. You can't appease (and I hate to use the term) Social Justice Warriors with an apology, it will never, ever, in any circumstance, sate them.

You comic been diverse and thoughtful, and should stand on its own merits.

You are both generally wrong and specifically wrong.

It has come to my attention that the highlighted sentence is incorrect. It should be "straight people, man people, and straight man people." I apologise for inferring that the Giant has failed to represent people of colour in his webcomic.

This statement was just one page back.

[Dr. Gamera]

There is some. The animosity between green ands orange goblinoids, for a start.

Hobgoblins and goblins are different species.

Also consider Miko's remark about "ghosts."

Interesting -- possibly bigotry within the same species, but of a sort that can only exist in a fantasy world.

Not at first, he didn't. He changed his mind later, but he was very bigoted at first.

Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my use of "rejected".

[Murk]

I just want to say I agree with Bulldog Psion.
Understanding people and staying polite does (luckily) not mean you have to be nice with them, agree with them, or emphatize with them.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I thought the whole comic flowed quite smoothly, including that part. If I may be so bold as to repeat my analysis of the strip that I did at the time:

Spoiler: Banan-insight

Show

• Haley talking with Bandana about finances. She had explicitly said that was what she was going to do.
• Haley mentioning her old armor after saying they'll need V's assessment on the magic items. Haley purchased that armor herself, so she has first-hand knowledge of its price, making it an exception to the "need V's input" statement and thus notable.
• Bandana mentioning the loaned armor and its fit. The concept of "old armor" implies "new armor", so there's a good connection.
• Haley compares body types. Natural conversational extension of the "fits you pretty well" part.
• Bandana answers that the armor belonged to her ex. Natural response to Haley's expressed curiosity.
• Haley mentioned costume changes. Natural progression from "old armor and new armor".
• Haley mentions and envisions action figures: Resistance Leader, Desert Attack and Low Self-Esteem. Natural progression from costume changes.
• Haley offers Bandana support over suddenly being thrust into authority. Combination of Resistance Leader and Low Self-Esteem action figures reminds of low self-esteem as a result of resistance leading, so Haley is expressing her empathy.
• Bandana indicates lack of self-esteem concern. Direct response to Haley's empathy, natural conversation.
• Bandana expressing thanks for Haley's empathy, natural conversational result to Haley's concern (that negates impression of being insulted at the suggestion she might need help).
• Haley recalls history with other female figures in the comic (bonding or murder with gender-charged insults). Accurate retelling, honest conversational response.
• Bandana says "Geez, that sounds terrible." As a response to a rather vitriolic variant of "not with us is against us", seems an honest reaction.
• Haley mentions in passing that dungeon delving with a bare midriff was not a good idea. Subtle, unbidden personal remarks like this are the type that demonstrate trust in the receiver, so it seems a reasonable continuation of the bonding concept from earlier. Or it could just be extra text to flesh out "it seemed like a good idea at the time" into a better last-panel joke.

I agree with this absolutely. I transcripts that comic for the Transcription Thread and when I did so I read through it to get a feeling for its flow. To me, it flowed very well. Everything leads into the next thing and helps establish several important things about Banana (her want to be a leader, that she is willing to loan things to people she pretty much literally just meet, that she and Haley are becoming friends).

[Pinnacle]

by definition, an opinion cannot be wrong. It can be mind-numbingly ludicrous, and can have no logical backing whatsoever, and it can even be a terrible thing to hold such an absurd opinion, but it cannot be wrong.

I disagree.
Which is my opinion. Therefore you think I can't be wrong.
Or maybe that doesn't actually make sense.

Everything leads into the next thing and helps establish several important things about Banana.

Y'know, I think I actually want to call her Banana now.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Y'know, I think I actually want to call her Banana now.

I double-checked my spelling too. I'm just glad that I'm not the first one to make that mistake. I blame Jasdoif's avatar.

[Darth Paul]

by definition, an opinion cannot be wrong.

edit: for clarity, I am referring to factually wrong, not morally wrong, and I assume you are as well. I am not going to touch the topic further if my assumption is incorrect.

Sure it can. Many people are of the opinion that the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old. That is factually wrong because there are provable facts that say "your opinion is contradicted". Any more than if my opinion was "the sky is a dome to which the sun and stars are attached." That would be factually wrong.

BTW, the point of my earlier post was, it is factually wrong to conflate "LGBT" into the same sentence with "pedophile". I realized full well that people do it all the time, but they are factually wrong. I apologize if anyone thought I was going anywhere else with it.

[Ron Miel]

Hobgoblins and goblins are different species.

I thought they were sub-races, but essentially the same.

Interesting -- possibly bigotry within the same species, but of a sort that can only exist in a fantasy world.

No, it's a real world term of abuse.

[Keltest]

Sure it can. Many people are of the opinion that the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old. That is factually wrong because there are provable facts that say "your opinion is contradicted". Any more than if my opinion was "the sky is a dome to which the sun and stars are attached." That would be factually wrong.

That's not an opinion, that's just people believing something factually incorrect. Which you even pointed out.

[Jasdoif]

Everything leads into the next thing and helps establish several important things about Banana

Y'know, I think I actually want to call her Banana now.

I double-checked my spelling too. I'm just glad that I'm not the first one to make that mistake. I blame Jasdoif's avatar.

Apparently the typo is fruitful and multiplying. That's going to get so confusing...for me.

[ti'esar]

No, it's a real world term of abuse.

...

In context, it's pretty clearly meant to be referring to Eugene Greenhilt, who is a literal ghost.

[Unisus]

As a Gay man myself. Not only do I think you handled the situation well inside the comic strip but your tweets made me want to give you a hug.

As a human being of irrelevant sex/gender and irrelevant sexual orientation i agree that the Giant did a very good job.

When mainstream media actively decides not to represent certain minorities, it becomes very easy for some people with ugly beliefs to assume that the media supports said ugly beliefs. It's not inconceivable that someone could read the first several hundred strips of OOTS and come to the conclusion that the Giant believes that representation of minorities is bogus. What with all the straight people, white people, man people, straight white people, white man people and straight white man people.

I mean damn, for the first 950 strips or so the most prominent gay character was an Always Evil incarnation of illicit sex who would seemingly sleep with anything that moves.

You know- if it is actively decided, then there is some reason to believe those beliefs are shared. The problem is that most non-representation of minorities isn't actively decided but just the result of not being aware that there is a problem with non-representation in the first place.

One of my favorite set of comic panels was the "Rough Seas Ahead" bit. I really started to like the character after the comment "No way, no how is some crazy old dude gettin' back on our ship after breakin' a lady's arm." I'll admit that at the time I hadn't realized that Bandana was woman and the realization changed nothing.

As i read this i can't help recognising the sexism in Bandana's words - she doesn't say "No way, no how is some crazy villain gettin' back on our ship after breakin' a passenger's arm." so it makes me wonder if she had done the same if Laurin had broken Roy's arm...

I actually think readers/viewers would be justified to react badly to a work which had a heroic portrayal of a pedophile, child abuser, etc.

I shouldn't wonder if i get flamed for this, but i have to say that making "pedophile" synonymus to "child abuser" is simply wrong. Pedophilia is a disposition (right term?) against which the affected people can do nothing. They can refrain from following their longing, but they can not just switch to non-pedophile. On the other hand, most child abusers are not pedophiles but just abusive, and children are the easiest victims.

If people would stop treating pedofiles automatically as if they were child abusers, the pedophiles would have it much easier to get help. I don't say make them your babysitters, just don't treat them as criminals if they aren't.


On the topic of how comparable sexual orientation and race are, i found an interesting xkcd-comic


That said, i only have to say that i like the comic, and i don't have any problem with characters having other preferences than i have.

[Mike Havran]

There's actually an interesting analysis to be done of bigotry in the world of OOTS. A hasty sketch of such an analysis follows, but it could be done much more thoroughly.

Bigotry against other beings of one's own species is conspicuous by its absence in OOTS. As far as I can remember, there is little to no such bigotry in the comic. Tarquin and Belkar are womanizers, but their treatment of females differs from their treatment of males only in that women are sex objects for them, and men are not; members of both sexes are otherwise equally worthless in their eyes. I can't think of any examples in the comic of homophobia, "racial" discrimination, inequality between the sexes, or the like.

Bigotry against other species occurs in OOTS, and one of the morals of the comic is that such bigotry is also wrong. Even Redcloak, who is evil, rejects such bigotry.

Bigotry stems from hate of something different. I imagine that in the world where they are various species capable of forming nations and civilisations, minor differences like race or gender pale in comparison.

And there is plenty of bigotry among species. Belkar loathes kobolds with special malice. Gannji is quite nasty to mammals in general and Haley's threat to make a handbag of him is in the same league.

[Darth Paul]

I shouldn't wonder if i get flamed for this, but i have to say that making "pedophile" synonymus to "child abuser" is simply wrong. Pedophilia is a disposition (right term?) against which the affected people can do nothing. They can refrain from following their longing, but they can not just switch to non-pedophile. On the other hand, most child abusers are not pedophiles but just abusive, and children are the easiest victims.

If people would stop treating pedofiles automatically as if they were child abusers, the pedophiles would have it much easier to get help. I don't say make them your babysitters, just don't treat them as criminals if they aren't.

Well, you're not wrong, and I'm not going to flame you. I'm going to agree with you.

My original statement should have read "criminal pedophiles" and I was non-specific, I took for granted that readers would take my meaning. As usual around here, I was mistaken.

Working in the prison system as I do IRL (don't remind me, I'm on vacation this week), I have plenty of experience with both types of abusers. And I believe that all humans can reform and change, to the point of not acting on their impulses; so we agree. Some (doubtless most) never act on them in the first place.

Thanks for helping me refine my line of thought.