What do female readers think of Hilgya Firehelm?

[King of Nowhere]

We (as a forum) can't. If we could, I'd not be channelling Sisyphus for the last three pages.

I got the feeling that he is arguing for arranged marriage being an acceptable for of punishment in a less enlightened society. A bit like public whipping: we don't do it anymore, but was fair for its time. I think you are more in agreement than you seem

She doesn't have to care who they are. And she has the right to try to be happy. She does not have the obligation to marry someone. PERIOD.

Everyone, everywhere has an obligation to care who they are hurting as a consequence of their rightful pursuit of happyness, ever. I'm not taliing anymore about the marriage specifically, but about how one conducts life in general. The fact that hylgia doesn't case about the consequences of her action on other people make her a bad person and makes her actions irresponsible at best. Regardless of the fact that they turned out to be right and they had no ill consequences. Hylgia happened to be a victim here, but if she weren't, she would have acted the same.

[hroþila]

(note how her forced husband had no problems with the marriage? if he was as nice a person as he was made out to be he would have opposed it as well)

That's only if you assume that he realized Hilgya wasn't OK with the marriage, but he obviously didn't, because he's a moron.

[SilverCacaobean]

But yeah, the situation is fundamentally different because she is a women. Pretending that its the same is being willfully blind to the wrongs of our own society, and ignoring the vast historical power imbalance between men and women, one that is very much present in the comic (note how her forced husband had no problems with the marriage? if he was as nice a person as he was made out to be he would have opposed it as well)

Yes, in our own society there have been (and are) vast power imbalances between the sexes, but I disagree that it is present in the comic. As far as I've seen the frost Giant society seems to be the only one with these problems. I think the author is trying to depict societies without systematic racism (of the real world variety. For example Roy hasn't had trouble for being black) or systematic sexism.

[georgie_leech]

Yes, in our own society there have been (and are) vast power imbalances between the sexes, but I disagree that it is present in the comic. As far as I've seen the frost Giant society seems to be the only one with these problems. I think the author is trying to depict societies without systematic racism (of the real world variety. For example Roy hasn't had trouble for being black) or systematic sexism.

I mean, systemic racism is totally a thing, it's just based on D&D Races instead of skin colour

[SilverCacaobean]

I mean, systemic racism is totally a thing, it's just based on D&D Races instead of skin colour

which is why I said this

without systematic racism (of the real world variety.

[georgie_leech]

which is why I said this

I blame Grammatical knowledge for making me apparently skip those parentheses

[The Extinguisher]

That's only if you assume that he realized Hilgya wasn't OK with the marriage, but he obviously didn't, because he's a moron.

Sorry but you dont get to be okay with someone being forced to marry you just because you didn't realize they weren't happy

Yes, in our own society there have been (and are) vast power imbalances between the sexes, but I disagree that it is present in the comic. As far as I've seen the frost Giant society seems to be the only one with these problems. I think the author is trying to depict societies without systematic racism (of the real world variety. For example Roy hasn't had trouble for being black) or systematic sexism.

Honestly, fantasy racism is overdone but I will admit that at least the comic is diverse enough where i can look past that, but systemic sexism is very much a part of the comic whether its intentional or not

[Emanick]

I mean, systemic racism is totally a thing, it's just based on D&D Races instead of skin colour

As Redcloak would say, it's really more like systemic speciesism.

[hroþila]

Sorry but you dont get to be okay with someone being forced to marry you just because you didn't realize they weren't happy

No, Ivan almost definitely didn't realize Hilgya was being forced to marry him at all. Being OK with an arranged marriage where there's no compulsion is not incompatible with being nice, or Good.

[King of Nowhere]

There is something to be said for prohibiting intolerance.

who decides what is intolerance? where is the line between the actual right of a minority and a minority making outlandish claims?

Hilgya is an evil person. She is still very much a victim of her oppressive society. I dont condone her murderous actions, but thats very much not whats being debated here. It doesn't matter that she tried to murder her forced husband, it doesn't matter that she isn't the most pleasant person, it doesn't matter that she is captial e Evil. That will never change the fact that she was wronged to an extreme degree.

Then we (and by that I mean, pretty much everyone here) agree on that stuff. hilgya was a victim, but she also was an evil person who did bad stuff. Unless I'm misreading them, I understand that even those arguing from the other side say that hilgya may have earned a forced marriage as a consequence of some misdeed, they implicitly accept that it was a bad thing done to her, they simply see it as a punishment for a supposed previous misdeed, like incarceration would be. And they don't defend the practice of arranged marriage, they merely put it in hystorical context, saying we can't judge a culture as evil because it practiced it.

But yeah, the situation is fundamentally different because she is a women. Pretending that its the same is being willfully blind to the wrongs of our own society, and ignoring the vast historical power imbalance between men and women, one that is very much present in the comic (note how her forced husband had no problems with the marriage? if he was as nice a person as he was made out to be he would have opposed it as well)



Sorry, the paradox of tolerance is not welcome here. Banning intolerant viewpoints does not make society less tolerant and the only reason people suggest that is cause they have a viewpoint that society views as intolerant.

Here we have a disagreement. you assume that everyone should immediately recognize an arranged marriage as something evil and oppose it, but most people hystorically considered it ok. They were not evil people, merely misguided. same thing for ivan here, he is not a bad person, merely a product of his own time and society.
And as for the part about intolerance, the problem is not with tolerating intolerance, but with deciding what is intolerance and what is not. As a teacher, I have seen black kids misbehave and, when admonished, accuse the teacher of "racism". Which is clearly not the case, but the fact that our society has such a strong stygma on racism makes the accusation stick. Here there is this white teacher punishing a black kid, and the black kid is claiming racism, clearly the black kid is right. Because of that, I am acutally more lenient towards black kids and girls, because I don't want to be sued.
The problem with not tolerating intolerance is that if you make a witch hunt against intolerance, you'll find it even where there is none.
And arguments like "the only reason people say X is because they are in bad faith" also does not help civil debate and does instead encourage hate speech. Which is apparently allowed, but only against those defending opinions that aren't politically correct.

[SilverCacaobean]

Honestly, fantasy racism is overdone but I will admit that at least the comic is diverse enough where i can look past that, but systemic sexism is very much a part of the comic whether its intentional or not

It is? Systemic sexism? I'm not seeing that, unless you mean the earlier depictions of Haley. But I'm not going to deny it if you show me some examples.

EDIT: Oh, I think there's some quote by the Giant admitting that he's been unintentionally sexist, but after he acknowledged it, he didn't continue the story in that direction.

[The Extinguisher]

who decides what is intolerance? where is the line between the actual right of a minority and a minority making outlandish claims?


Then we (and by that I mean, pretty much everyone here) agree on that stuff. hilgya was a victim, but she also was an evil person who did bad stuff. Unless I'm misreading them, I understand that even those arguing from the other side say that hilgya may have earned a forced marriage as a consequence of some misdeed, they implicitly accept that it was a bad thing done to her, they simply see it as a punishment for a supposed previous misdeed, like incarceration would be. And they don't defend the practice of arranged marriage, they merely put it in hystorical context, saying we can't judge a culture as evil because it practiced it.


Here we have a disagreement. you assume that everyone should immediately recognize an arranged marriage as something evil and oppose it, but most people hystorically considered it ok. They were not evil people, merely misguided. same thing for ivan here, he is not a bad person, merely a product of his own time and society.
And as for the part about intolerance, the problem is not with tolerating intolerance, but with deciding what is intolerance and what is not. As a teacher, I have seen black kids misbehave and, when admonished, accuse the teacher of "racism". Which is clearly not the case, but the fact that our society has such a strong stygma on racism makes the accusation stick. Here there is this white teacher punishing a black kid, and the black kid is claiming racism, clearly the black kid is right. Because of that, I am acutally more lenient towards black kids and girls, because I don't want to be sued.
The problem with not tolerating intolerance is that if you make a witch hunt against intolerance, you'll find it even where there is none.
And arguments like "the only reason people say X is because they are in bad faith" also does not help civil debate and does instead encourage hate speech. Which is apparently allowed, but only against those defending opinions that aren't politically correct.

Saying that a forced marriage is bad but in some situations is okay is fundamentally saying that its okay. Doing something as punishment is still doing the thing in the first place.


Look i have no interest in engaging with you on this. Saying intolerant ideas shouldn't be given a platform to spread isn't hate speech jesus christ

[King of Nowhere]

Oh, and I think the only really relevant argument for intolerance is that of reciprocity. Whatever a man does to a woman, it must be equally (un) acceptable for a woman to do to a man. Same with different ethnicities. If those principles are respected, then there is no intolerance, just different opinions. I maay have some weird opinion, but I stick to my weird opinions regardless of gender or other distnctions.

[SilverCacaobean]

The problem with not tolerating intolerance is that if you make a witch hunt against intolerance, you'll find it even where there is none.
And arguments like "the only reason people say X is because they are in bad faith" also does not help civil debate and does instead encourage hate speech. Which is apparently allowed, but only against those defending opinions that aren't politically correct.

It's actually pretty easy not to tolerate intolerance. For example if someone said something like "[insert ethnic group here] are rapists", it's libel as far as I'm concerned even if it's followed by "not all of them" and I hope we can all agree that whoever says stuff like that should be in jail.

[King of Nowhere]

Saying that a forced marriage is bad but in some situations is okay is fundamentally saying that its okay. Doing something as punishment is still doing the thing in the first place.

Locking people in a room is bad. We lock criminals in jail, and that's ok. Or we do to criminals other bad things that we don't do to other people. Are you saying that's wrong and there should be no punishment for criminals?
Mind you, I agree that forced marriage is not a good way to punish a crime, but that's an entirely different matter.

Look i have no interest in engaging with you on this. Saying intolerant ideas shouldn't be given a platform to spread isn't hate speech

Except that it is, because you are saying it of people politely expressing disagreement on some relatively minor points. Oh, maybe you are actually right, and it would probably be a good idea to not let intolerance spread, but I've seen that argument used for ill (we should not let people do propaganda for X political party, we should put censorship on anyone speaking ill of a certain person who belongs to a minority, we should not do science if there is a possibility said science may yield results that may be used ambiguously) so often that I just don't trust people or society to decide which arguments should be banned. It's actually more akin to a slippery slope argument than a tolerance paradox argument.

[King of Nowhere]

It's actually pretty easy not to tolerate intolerance. For example if someone said something like , it's libel as far as I'm concerned even if it's followed by "not all of them" and I hope we can all agree that whoever says stuff like that should be in jail.

Ok, so you are saying that forced marriage is rape.
Then you are saying that statements like "[insert ethnic group here] are rapists" are not acceptable
In the real world there are countries, mainly inhabited by certain ethnic groups, where forced marriage is seen as normal.

Am I the only one to see the paradox here?

EDIT: in fact, there are ethnic groups whose majority living in countries where arranged marriage is common, and by the extinguisher arguments all those who do not vehemently rebel against it are considered complicit in rape, so the majority of those ethnicities would be considered complicit in rape by your morality. Except that stating so would be a criminal offence, still according to your morality.
My morality doesn't have that kind of self contradictions. Those people behave differently, and they are convinced they are in the right. I strongly disagree with what they do, and if I have a chance I may try to persuade them of an opposite worldview, but in the end I try to respect them, even if they do stuff I disagree with. The alternative would be worldwide war

[SilverCacaobean]

Ok, so you are saying that forced marriage is rape.
Then you are saying that statements like "[insert ethnic group here] are rapists" are not acceptable
In the real world there are countries, mainly inhabited by certain ethnic groups, where forced marriage is seen as normal.

Am I the only one to see the paradox here?

O.o I'm not saying forced marriage is rape.

EDIT: I'm not saying it's anything resembling something I find acceptable either.

EDIT2: *I did that to avoid double posting, but someone posted while I was writing so I'll put what was here in a new post *

[DaggerPen]

Wow, this thread has taken some, um... interesting directions.

And, I'm back. EDIT: Just in time to be ninja'd by Keltest.

People also don't want to go to prison, but they do things that result in being sent to prison. For Hilgya, marriage was the equivalent of prison. I stress once again that we don't know and this is all speculative, but to give her clan as much benefit of the doubt as Hilgya is getting, it's possible that she wasn't forced into marriage as a political pawn, but as the result of some action of hers that meant she HAD TO marry Ivan.

In American tradition, the shotgun wedding was resorted to when a boy "took advantage" of a girl and the families saw to it that he "did the right thing" by getting hitched. If we follow the reference all the way through, then this is the situation Hilgya was in, in the role of the aggressor. So, she was not blameless by any stretch of the imagination. She romanced Ivan as she did Durkon, but whereas Durkon left her, she wanted to leave Ivan- and the families weren't having it.

TL;DR: she might have been getting married at crossbow point because the alternative was jail for being a sex offender. This is just a possibility, but since you asked "what she could possibly have done," well, here's a possibility. And in that case, the marriage would have been a lenient alternative.

EDIT TO THE EDIT: Yes, if she had somehow scammed Ivan with a promise of marriage, had him hand over some wealth or other, and then reneged, under Dwarven law that might well justify a forced marriage. Contracts are involved. "Breach of promise" was a thing in law until very recently. Agreeing to marry under false pretenses was a crime.

This is horrifying? Like. Seriously, dude? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that this is the result of you starting with the answer (where the 'answer' is 'well sometimes forced marriage is acceptable-') and not that you would see a situation like this and go 'yeah, make her marry him.'

I hope the fact that I just looked at this post and went "well maybe he's arguing in bad faith because he really wants to win this argument and doesn't actually believe it" as an attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt gives you pause.

Let's just take a moment and break this down, because I really need to unpack all the implications of this.

People also don't want to go to prison, but they do things that result in being sent to prison. For Hilgya, marriage was the equivalent of prison

I mean, aside from the fact that people who go to prison (ideally, quality of the justice system depending) have committed a crime for which you can assume they probably deserve to be there and women forced into marriages are typically victims, sure.

In American tradition, the shotgun wedding was resorted to when a boy "took advantage" of a girl and the families saw to it that he "did the right thing" by getting hitched.

Are you just assuming that we're all on board with this 'tradition' as a totally Morally Okay thing or?

If we follow the reference all the way through, then this is the situation Hilgya was in, in the role of the aggressor. So, she was not blameless by any stretch of the imagination. She romanced Ivan as she did Durkon, but whereas Durkon left her, she wanted to leave Ivan- and the families weren't having it.

You're using extremely vague language here with "the aggressor" and I am not having it, thanks. Let's look at a few possible interpretations of this phrase:

1. You mean that she was 'the aggressor' in that she initiated a consensual relationship with Ivan and either never wanted to take it somewhere serious or realized she didn't like him, and had no intention of going anywhere serious with it. Possibly, she's had a history of doing this with other men. Her clan, apparently deciding that it's their province to get fed up with her having casual consensual sex in ways they disapprove of, force her at crossbow point to get married. This constitutes giving them "as much benefit of the doubt as Hilgya is getting".
2. You mean that she was 'the aggressor' in that she manipulated Ivan into the relationship, by some combination of misleading him about her intentions, pressuring him into it or what have you. Possibly, she promised in bad faith to marry him for fun or profit and reneged on it. Despite the fact that this is a terrible basis for a relationship, the clan chooses to force Hilgya to marry Ivan instead of making her pay restitution and/or go to prison or any other consequence than forced marriage. The clan in this circumstance apparently does not care about the fact that this is terrible for Ivan's well-being and will expose him to further victimization. This constitutes giving them "as much benefit of the doubt as Hilgya is getting".
3. You mean that she was 'the aggressor' in that she flat-out forced herself on Ivan. Despite the fact that this is a terrible basis for a relationship, the clan chooses to force Hilgya to marry Ivan instead of making her pay restitution and/or go to prison or any other consequence than forced marriage. The clan in this circumstance apparently does not care about the fact that they are literally forcing Ivan to marry his rapist, nevermind Ivan's well-being and how it will expose him to further victimization. This constitutes giving them "as much benefit of the doubt as Hilgya is getting".

I somehow doubt Ivan would have been so blissfully ignorant in his relationship with Hilgya were it point three. In fact, I wouldn't have even brought up situation three as a possibility at all, since it clearly wasn't what you meant, except for -

TL;DR: she might have been getting married at crossbow point because the alternative was jail for being a sex offender.

I mean, what exactly did you mean by this? What exactly is she doing that nets her a sentence as a sex offender? Just conning Ivan out of wealth by pretend-promising to marry him makes her a con artist, but "sex offender" tends to require something related to actual sexual misconduct. So what definition of "sex offender" here, exactly, are we working with wherein Hilgya totally gets what's coming to her but it's not an egregiously horrible situation for Ivan? In what possible interpretation of the loose language here does the clan come out seeming like Good and stalwart individuals?

Man, it's almost like this entire scenario was constructed not in defense of Hilgya's clan, but to construct a situation in which being forced into a marriage is all the woman's fault, done because victimhood is reserved for people who've never done anything you could contrive as them asking for it - er, deserving it somehow.

So the rational thing is to make up reasons why she totally deserves to be forced into a marriage she doesn't want, right? Cause theres no way she could be an actual victim right?

-

I feel like everyone is judging Hilgya far too much for not accurately remembering her interactions with Durkon, since no one here seems to remember it themselves. For the record, the sympathetic party there is NOT the one complaining about the "inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness" and saying that you should bury love so deep down that you can't find it anymore and be miserable.

Just read the whole arc again. This isn't someone who is seducing victims and enticing them to marriage to run away with their fortunes. This is a lonely girl running from an oppressive society that forced her into a role she didn't want, finding out that the person she thought understood her thinks she should go back to that oppressive society especially if it makes her miserable.

Thank you.

Hilgya has never been a villain in this comic, and she definitely isn't one now.

Well, let's not go quite that far. I mean, she did try to murder a guy and aid and abet Nale in feeding an innocent adventuring party to monsters.

Frankly, it is quite horrible to say that Hilgya would have brought it on herself and would deserve little sympathy if she had seduced Ivan and then refused to marry him.

Regardless, the chances that she actually seduced Ivan or scammed him are roughly zero. Something like that WOULD have been shown in those panels whose whole purpose was to tell us how what Hilgya said was at odds with reality. We don't know how the marriage was arranged, but we don't need any wild theories either: most likely, both their clans deemed it profitable for economic and/or diplomatic reasons, and that was it.

Thank you.

Agreed.

Same-

Next time, I'll keep arguing that the Ivan of the day deserved to die. It's MUCH better to keep arguing that Ivan (whatever the "Ivan" of the moment is) deserved to die (again, whatever the "die" of the moment is)

Wait, what? No. Ivan was completely clueless and never did any wrong to her beyond being the warm body picked as the other half of a forced marriage. Her clan victimized her, but Ivan was just kind of there. She could have just left - and did once murder turned out to be too inconvenient.

than it is to find yourself having to argue that, no, forcing a woman to marry someone she doesn't wish to is not okay under any circumstances and that, yes, it is, as a matter of fact, tantamount to rape!!! For crying out loud!!!

The fact that that vegetable she happened to marry at crossbow point didn't rape her is sheer luck on her part and author fiat for a joke.

Yes, thank-

EVERYONE trying to defend what those goddamned clans who deserve a genocide thrust upon them for what they did knows that and it's high time we stopped glossing that over.

What? No? Seriously? Can we go ahead and stick both 'rape' and 'genocide' into the 'how about we just never try to justify these even in a fictional context' pile please???

There is no justification for what was done to her. NONE. No, I don't care what she did before. No, I don't care what she was wearing. No, I don't care how she acted. No, I don't care, because it was never about what she was wearing, it was never about whether or not she deserved it, it was always about power and oppression and sheer, unadulterated sexism and rape culture and everyone here that is arguing that Hilgya "must have done sumthin'" knows it just as well as I do.

Yes.

The clans deserve to be destroyed, to a man, for this!

No?????

And for that, every member of both clans deserve to die in a way that does not allow them to fight or to die with honor. Preferably sacrificed to Hel so that their souls go to her, no matter what happens, just to be sure.

No?????

I'm not even going to quote the rest of what this argument has spiraled into, because A. this post is already long enough and B. I've made my point above.

So instead I'm going to ask: um, are you okay?

No, seriously. I'm not here to condescend and tell you to calm down (you're right to be upset), but to ask you... are you really sure you want to be in this thread anymore? What exactly are you hoping to accomplish with the, um, charming pro-genocide stance?

Seriously, I legitimately have no idea. I'm pretty sure that you aren't actually defending this stance, but only saying it to prove a point, but I mean... is it... actually working?

If the idea here is to derail the discussion, I mean, mission probably accomplished, but I'm not sure you're taking it into a better place here. If the idea here is to make people realize what it's like to have to argue against something so obviously and fundamentally horrifying so they'll put themselves in your shoes, I feel like you underestimate the percent of the forums which will cheerfully defend genocide in a fictional context, as well as the overlap between that group and the group that will strive to concoct any possible scenario in which forced marriage is a-okay. And if it's not either of those things, then I honestly have no idea what you're trying to do.

This thread has escalated in some horrifying ways, but are you really sure that you want to escalate it to yet further levels of "no" until the mods come in and cleanse this thread with fire?

I'm not telling you to leave the thread. (I have no authority to do so, in any sense.) But I'm asking you honestly... are you okay? Because your posts are starting to sound like you're reaching that "I am so done arguing this, this is incredibly messed up and I am just throwing out nonsensical crap" point. I've been there, and if I can offer some unsolicited but friendly advice, it's completely fine to just go "You know what? I can't believe I have to actually argue this. This is not worth the stress. I'm done." It's not admitting defeat. It's taking care of yourself, and walking away before the worst elements of the discourse can seize control.

And if I've completely misread the situation, and you actually do want to go ahead and sit here seriously making people in my shoes try to argue with both the pro-forced-marriage and the pro-genocide voices in this thread... then I'm walking away, because seriously guys, what the ****?

[SilverCacaobean]

In the real world there are countries, mainly inhabited by certain ethnic groups, where forced marriage is seen as normal.

Am I the only one to see the paradox here?

If you (edit: not you personally. in the general sense)'re implying that in these real world countries it is seen as normal because of these ethnic groups, then you're a racist. If you're not, then you shouldn't drag the ones in the ethnic group that don't practice forced marriage along with the ones who do by making statements like "[insert ethnic group here] are rapists". As I said, pretty simple.

[The_Weirdo]

Snip, politely.

I'm working off of the assumption that, if I force the same people that argue that forcing Hilgya to marry Ivan is okay to argue against me that a genocide against both clans isn't, I don't have to spend time arguing that forcing Hilgya (or anyone) to marry is okay against people who argue that it IS.

In short, the longer I spend arguing in favor of killing each and every member of the clans, the less I have to argue against (or read) "forced marriage can be okay".

And I'm working off of the feeling that, ever since I stopped arguing for the most serious measures against Ivan or the clans, some people took that to the next level and began to argue that the wrong that was done to Hilgya is or can be acceptable.

[georgie_leech]

I'm working off of the assumption that, if I force the same people that argue that forcing Hilgya to marry Ivan is okay to argue against me that a genocide against both clans isn't, I don't have to spend time arguing that forcing Hilgya (or anyone) to marry is okay against people who argue that it IS.

In short, the longer I spend arguing in favor of killing each and every member of the clans, the less I have to argue against (or read) "forced marriage can be okay".

And I'm working off of the feeling that, ever since I stopped arguing for the most serious measures against Ivan or the clans, some people took that to the next level and began to argue that the wrong that was done to Hilgya is or can be acceptable.

At the cost of pulling people like me back in. I don't pretend that forced marriage is a good thing, but I will definitely argue against your stance that any curtailing of personal freedom is inherently oppressive and thus bad. And I will definitely say that arguing for the destruction of such systems of "opression" by proverbial fire is nonsensical and self-defeating. Hard to argue that the dead aren't less free than the living.

[Kish]

This thread has escalated in some horrifying ways, but are you really sure that you want to escalate it to yet further levels of "no" until the mods come in and cleanse this thread with fire?

I'm not telling you to leave the thread. (I have no authority to do so, in any sense.) But I'm asking you honestly... are you okay? Because your posts are starting to sound like you're reaching that "I am so done arguing this, this is incredibly messed up and I am just throwing out nonsensical crap" point. I've been there, and if I can offer some unsolicited but friendly advice, it's completely fine to just go "You know what? I can't believe I have to actually argue this. This is not worth the stress. I'm done." It's not admitting defeat. It's taking care of yourself, and walking away before the worst elements of the discourse can seize control.

And if I've completely misread the situation, and you actually do want to go ahead and sit here seriously making people in my shoes try to argue with both the pro-forced-marriage and the pro-genocide voices in this thread... then I'm walking away, because seriously guys, what the ****?

My advice is to take certain people's names as genuinely indicative. The_Weirdo really is that weird and Darth Paul really is a Sith Lord.

[The_Weirdo]

My advice is to take certain people's names as genuinely indicative. The_Weirdo really is that weird and Darth Paul really is a Sith Lord.

I'm Chaotic Neutral and my thinking is, well... Skewed.

At the cost of pulling people like me back in. I don't pretend that forced marriage is a good thing, but I will definitely argue against your stance that any curtailing of personal freedom is inherently oppressive and thus bad. And I will definitely say that arguing for the destruction of such systems of "opression" by proverbial fire is nonsensical and self-defeating. Hard to argue that the dead aren't less free than the living.

Dude, feel free to argue against my charming stance on genocide all you want, so long as I don't have to read one more line from the pro-chattel crowd!

[azaph]

My advice is to take certain people's names as genuinely indicative. The_Weirdo really is that weird and Darth Paul really is a Sith Lord.

Kish, meanwhile, is a Fighter/Wizard.
Now, I know what you're thinking 'that's spelled wrong'.
As it turns out, 100% of Fighter/Wizards are bad at spelling. Prove otherwise.

[King of Nowhere]

If you (edit: not you personally. in the general sense)'re implying that in these real world countries it is seen as normal because of these ethnic groups, then you're a racist. If you're not, then you shouldn't drag the ones in the ethnic group that don't practice forced marriage along with the ones who do by making statements like "[insert ethnic group here] are rapists". As I said, pretty simple.

True, but regardless of this, there is a vast percentage of people from a certain ethnic group that adheres to values that you abhor. Without going into real world argument, we can use the dwarves here: most dwarves support arranged marriages, therefore most dwarves are bad people, regardless of whether that is caused by them being dwarves or by the environment they live in. If you say it's not the people, it's the culture they were born into, you are saying that dwarven culture is evil, and saying that a culture is evil is considered only slightly less taboo than saying that an ethnicity is evil.

And frankly, I can accept arranged marriage as a cultural difference to which I am strongly opposed, but that does not make one culture inherently evil, but there are other practices (which I'm not going to name, because it would go too specifically into real world discussion) that I'm not willing to accept, and I'm calling cultures practicing those evil. Or, rather, less advanced, passing the judgment that people in those cultures are merely misguided, and the cultures may changed with time. The idea that some cultures are more advanced than others is also not politically correct, but then again, it is impossible to be politically correct without a strong dose of doublethink.

My point, ultimately, is that you can't approach a serious discussion about morality, especially one with different cultures involved, with moral absolutes. You try to apply moral absolutes, you are either going to declare other cultures evil (a judgment reciprocated by the other side), or you are going to run in some contradiction. What I advocate (and it's an imperfect system, but it's the best I know of) is to put actions in context and try to understand the various people performing them, their goals, their motivations.

[hroþila]

Some people in this thread are using "forced marriage" and "arranged marriage" as if they were interchangeable, but that's not the case. We don't know how strictly arranged marriages are typically enforced in dwarven society - the level of compulsion may range from "mom and dad will be slightly upset if I don't agree to the marriage they arranged" to "my clan will disavow me" to, indeed, "my clan will physically and violently force me to go through with the marriage". What Hilgya's clan did might be extreme, Evil and unusual, and Gontor for example might have had a much easier time turning down his marriage arrangement (bear in mind that nothing in the comic suggests the institution affects women and men differently). Arranged marriages need not be this supremely Evil institution that justify burning down everything and everyone.

[georgie_leech]

Dude, feel free to argue against my charming stance on genocide all you want, so long as I don't have to read one more line from the pro-chattel crowd!

I was arguing against your earlier stance because it was an honest one. Deliberately adopting a more extreme position is just arguing in bad faith. Motivated reasoning can be a biasing factor, but it doesn't change whether the position arrived at because of bias is honestly held. I believe that those saying the arranged marriage could have been a consequence of her actions honestly believe think, even as I think it's not supported at all as of yet.

ETA:

My point, ultimately, is that you can't approach a serious discussion about morality, especially one with different cultures involved, with moral absolutes. You try to apply moral absolutes, you are either going to declare other cultures evil (a judgment reciprocated by the other side), or you are going to run in some contradiction. What I advocate (and it's an imperfect system, but it's the best I know of) is to put actions in context and try to understand the various people performing them, their goals, their motivations.

ultimately, that is what moral relativism calls for. Not that all cultures are equally good and we shouldn't oppose things we disagree with, but that context is an important part of understanding morality in general.

[Dragonus45]

Sorry, the paradox of tolerance is not welcome here. Banning intolerant viewpoints does not make society less tolerant and the only reason people suggest that is cause they have a viewpoint that society views as intolerant.

Or it is because they are tired of having people constantly use accusations of various isms and the like to throw up a smokescreen and avoid honest conversations.

[SilverCacaobean]

True, but regardless of this, there is a vast percentage of people from a certain ethnic group that adheres to values that you abhor. Without going into real world argument, we can use the dwarves here: most dwarves support arranged marriages, therefore most dwarves are bad people, regardless of whether that is caused by them being dwarves or by the environment they live in. If you say it's not the people, it's the culture they were born into, you are saying that dwarven culture is evil, and saying that a culture is evil is considered only slightly less taboo than saying that an ethnicity is evil.

And frankly, I can accept arranged marriage as a cultural difference to which I am strongly opposed, but that does not make one culture inherently evil, but there are other practices (which I'm not going to name, because it would go too specifically into real world discussion) that I'm not willing to accept, and I'm calling cultures practicing those evil. Or, rather, less advanced, passing the judgment that people in those cultures are merely misguided, and the cultures may changed with time. The idea that some cultures are more advanced than others is also not politically correct, but then again, it is impossible to be politically correct without a strong dose of doublethink.

My point, ultimately, is that you can't approach a serious discussion about morality, especially one with different cultures involved, with moral absolutes. You try to apply moral absolutes, you are either going to declare other cultures evil (a judgment reciprocated by the other side), or you are going to run in some contradiction. What I advocate (and it's an imperfect system, but it's the best I know of) is to put actions in context and try to understand the various people performing them, their goals, their motivations.

I'm not sure why you're telling me all this. I didn't argue on the basis of morality and I didn't say anything about political correctness or advocate it. I didn't even imply anything about it and I wouldn't have even mentioned anything about it if you hadn't. That's just you and your assumptions.

All I said is that not tolerating intolerance is easy and I'm going to add here, it's in the best interest of any functional society. You're aware that there are rules against hate speech in this forum, right? This is a kind of not tolerating intolerance. I haven't seen this place devolving into the kind of dystopia you seem to be afraid of.

By the way the example you've given about how not tolerating intolerance could devolve into an orwelian dystopia is an anecdote about black kids and girls being naughty at school and you (presumably) being unable to punish them. I assure you there are many ways this world is closer to an orwelian dystopia than that that have nothing to do with not tolerating intolerance. You'd better focus on them.

[Ave]

making a woman seem three-dimensional humanizes her much more than giving her a single positive trait and emphasizing it constantly.

Is it positive, really?
Besides, which character in this story isn't there for laughs.