OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

[Ironsmith]

But people sometimes marry people who are different from them. Elan's parents got married, and one was lawful evil while the other was chaotic good. Maybe Durkon is into chaotic women, we don't know.

That, I agree with. It's not like my own fiance is from the same world I am, and I'm sure any number of forumites here could tell you their SO is pretty different from them.

I don't see that as a valid application of Occam's Razor, and here's why.

Rather than looking at the strip as a whole, let's start by focusing on the comic with Roy's resurrection. Taken in the context of Haley and Belkar having a similar reaction, Occam's Razor says that Durkon didn't want to see Roy naked simply because that's weird, and also because Roy is his leader. Nothing to do with attraction or lack thereof.

If we accept that, then there is only one instance where Durkon shows disgust at another man's being naked. Now, Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is Durkon either isn't attracted to Elan or is but still doesn't want to see him running around naked in the middle of a dungeon (because thinking of someone as attractive and wanting to put your hand on their naked body in front of your boss are two different things).

tl;dr your Occam's Razor is dull

Glad we agree on the premise, but we seem to disagree on what's the "simplest" explanation.

If we say "Durkon is straight", there's no complicating contradictions to handle, as there is little evidence to suggest otherwise; this question didn't even show up on the forum until he made an offhand joke to Belkar on the subject.

If we say "Durkon is bisexual", we have to contend with his revulsion at seeing Roy with the trowser titan on display. Even if we have an explanation for that, it's still a complicating factor. There's also the total lack of any evidence of attraction to men in the whole of the comic's run, which spans over a thousand strips and several real-world years; the lack of even a passing mention is conspicuous in of itself, and is itself another complicating factor. And that's without weighing early strips too heavily; there's a lot to contend with to maintain that conclusion.

Or, to posit a third, even more complicated explanation: "Durkon is really a mind flayer (reformed) in disguise and therefore has no sexual attraction to anyone". Sure, we could probably add enough clauses to that to make it a viable explanation, but such an explanation wouldn't be as simple as either of the above.

[Caerulea]

Durkon is not attracted to human males (and I would argue humans in general, discounting that early strip as early comic weirdness contradicting his later characterisation and with Julia as a balancing factor) is an explanation sufficient and simpler in my opinion. He is, in fact, a dwarf. Again, saying, in our world being heterosexual is more likely, does not help much.
Edit:
Little evidence against is not much of a point when there is not much evidence for it.
Also, explanation number 3 is the best, because it fits everything (he was faking/doppleganger where it might look otherwise).

[KorvinStarmast]

Heh, these guys played a show at my college once (when I was there)-- mostly they were just really drunk and the lead singer kept talking about how drunk he was.

That likely contributed to why they were a band that didn't last all that long.

[Pablo360]

That, I agree with. It's not like my own fiance is from the same world I am, and I'm sure any number of forumites here could tell you their SO is pretty different from them.



Glad we agree on the premise, but we seem to disagree on what's the "simplest" explanation.

If we say "Durkon is straight", there's no complicating contradictions to handle, as there is little evidence to suggest otherwise; this question didn't even show up on the forum until he made an offhand joke to Belkar on the subject.

If we say "Durkon is bisexual", we have to contend with his revulsion at seeing Roy with the trowser titan on display. Even if we have an explanation for that, it's still a complicating factor. There's also the total lack of any evidence of attraction to men in the whole of the comic's run, which spans over a thousand strips and several real-world years; the lack of even a passing mention is conspicuous in of itself, and is itself another complicating factor. And that's without weighing early strips too heavily; there's a lot to contend with to maintain that conclusion.

Or, to posit a third, even more complicated explanation: "Durkon is really a mind flayer (reformed) in disguise and therefore has no sexual attraction to anyone". Sure, we could probably add enough clauses to that to make it a viable explanation, but such an explanation wouldn't be as simple as either of the above.

That's not true. That's not how complicating factors work. As I mentioned, the ‘alternative’*explanation I provided is in fact the one that best fits the facts, and also explains the DCF example. In other words, the evidence against Durkon's bisexuality is about as strong as the evidence for it —*both require a specific, not intrinsic, reading of a relative small amount of data. Ergo there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion one can be reasonably sure about.

[Keltest]

That's not true. That's not how complicating factors work. As I mentioned, the ‘alternative’*explanation I provided is in fact the one that best fits the facts, and also explains the DCF example. In other words, the evidence against Durkon's bisexuality is about as strong as the evidence for it —*both require a specific, not intrinsic, reading of a relative small amount of data. Ergo there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion one can be reasonably sure about.

The alternative explanation you suggested is basically "its all a huge coincidence". That's not especially compelling, nor is it actually simpler.

[Ironsmith]

That's not true. That's not how complicating factors work. As I mentioned, the ‘alternative’*explanation I provided is in fact the one that best fits the facts, and also explains the DCF example. In other words, the evidence against Durkon's bisexuality is about as strong as the evidence for it —*both require a specific, not intrinsic, reading of a relative small amount of data. Ergo there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion one can be reasonably sure about.

That makes the explanation you posited viable, not simpler. Again, the mind flayer version of events could be made so that all the in-comic events line up with that interpretation; that doesn't mean the mind flayer explanation is any simpler than "he's straight" or "he's bisexual", in fact it means the opposite, since we'd have to jump through more hoops to make it make sense.

I'd also like to point out that Occam's Razor is meant to point out what explanation is most likely, not which one is absolutely, 100% the truth, no ifs, ands or buts. There's no shortage of scenarios where it'll get you the wrong answer and/or make you look stupid in the process (heck, for all I know, "he's straight" could be disproven in the very next comic). But as this was specifically in response to "why regard that as the most likely scenario?", its use here is appropriate.

[zimmerwald1915]

Not sure if serious or not, but he seems pretty secure.

As a rule, any man who feels the need to proclaim how secure he is, isn't.

[Ironsmith]

As a rule, any man who feels the need to proclaim how secure he is, isn't.

We know he's at least not strictly homosexual.

...Ah, dammit, this is gonna wrap the whole debate back around, isn't it?

Also, the problem with such a declaration...

"Dude, I'm not gay."

"That's exactly what you'd say if you were."

"Fine! I'm gay!"

"So you admit it!"

[Ruck]

As a rule, any man who feels the need to proclaim how secure he is, isn't.

If he was only proclaiming it, sure. But his behavior leading up to that statement lines up with being quite secure.

[Gusion]

New comic is up.

You know, I'm really surprised that Bloodfeast has been napping this entire time since 1091. I hope he gets to come out and play soon.

[Larre Gannd]

We know he's at least not strictly homosexual.

...Ah, dammit, this is gonna wrap the whole debate back around, isn't it?

That’s what the oo in oots stands for: infinite forum discussions, until a new comic, and then more infinite forum discussions.

[zimmerwald1915]

Also, the problem with such a declaration...

Yes, it's all quite neat, isn't it?

[Ironsmith]

Yes, it's all quite neat, isn't it?

That's an interesting way to spell "annoying".

[jokem]

Do we need to create an "Is Hilgya a Dwarf" thread now? Or were you implying we need an "Is Hilgya female" thread?

That doesn't really matter, does it?

The Giant is free to fill in the blanks of his setting any time he pleases. He doubtless had only a few details in mind back then, say. So short of having previously had Durkon say "I'm a zero on the Kinsey scale!" or otherwise indicate straightness, there was always the option to add that Durkon is sometimes, under certain circumstances, attracted to men; and it's not a retcon or anything, since nothing we saw previously contradicted it. It's just a bit of Durkon's character and identity that is now a bit more fleshed out than it was before - we know he was attracted to women but currently have no data on whether or to what extent he is attracted to men.

(Also, if you want to talk about that, it's extremely unlikely that V's gender was actually intended to be ambiguous for the first few strips - though it was established fairly early on, it still took some time. But it's not a "retcon" because it fits in with previously-established facts.)

For all of you... This was a smarmy crack to reinforce my reputation as a Jokem...

[Ironsmith]

For all of you... This was a smarmy crack to reinforce my reputation as a Jokem...

Where is it? The crack, I mean.

[Rrmcklin]

I'm still at a bit of a lose for how this off-hand joke somehow lead to a serious discussion on Durkon's sexuality.

[Caerulea]

I'm still at a bit of a lose for how this off-hand joke somehow lead to a serious discussion on Durkon's sexuality.

1. We must discover Durkon's other ratings
2. To best determine them, we must find out who he is attracted to
3. Therefore, what sexuality is Durkon?

[The_Weirdo]

You know, I'm really surprised that Bloodfeast has been napping this entire time since 1091. I hope he gets to come out and play soon.

He's a lizard in very cold weather...

[Pablo360]

The alternative explanation you suggested is basically "its all a huge coincidence". That's not especially compelling, nor is it actually simpler.

I have no idea how you get this from my explanation. My explanation is that there doesn't actually need to be a single overarching explanation, because there's only one incident that needs explaining.

[Rrmcklin]

I don't see that as a valid application of Occam's Razor, and here's why.

Rather than looking at the strip as a whole, let's start by focusing on the comic with Roy's resurrection. Taken in the context of Haley and Belkar having a similar reaction, Occam's Razor says that Durkon didn't want to see Roy naked simply because that's weird, and also because Roy is his leader. Nothing to do with attraction or lack thereof.

If we accept that, then there is only one instance where Durkon shows disgust at another man's being naked. Now, Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is Durkon either isn't attracted to Elan or is but still doesn't want to see him running around naked in the middle of a dungeon (because thinking of someone as attractive and wanting to put your hand on their naked body in front of your boss are two different things).

tl;dr your Occam's Razor is dull

Well, Haley and Belkar pointedly did not have the same reaction as Durkon. Haley was noticeably looking straight at Roy's nether region, and Belkar was the most visibly disgusted. Durkon's reaction was somewhere between the two, funnily enough.

Either way, no, it's not Occam's Razor to assume they're individual reactions are all based on the exact same reasoning.

Why not? I mean, aside from the unstated implication that characters are heterosexual unless proven otherwise.

I mean, in regards to Durkon in particular we know for a fact that he's attracted to women, and nothing actually indicating he's attracted to men.

Forgetting real life statistics or any other characters, you honestly can't say him being bisexual has equal evidence to him being heterosexual.

Not that any of that actually matters - Durkon isn't real, if Rich wants him to be bisexual, he is. The nature of this joke doesn't actually indicate that one way or the other though.

[Ironsmith]

He's a lizard in very cold weather...

That... does not suggest great things about his health. Although tucked away in that bag of holding, he's probably still pretty warm... hopefully.

[The_Weirdo]

That... does not suggest great things about his health. Although tucked away in that bag of holding, he's probably still pretty warm... hopefully.

Oh, the Bag of Holding is likely okay for him. But getting out of it would not work out for him at all.

[Pablo360]

Well, Haley and Belkar pointedly did not have the same reaction as Durkon. Haley was noticeably looking straight at Roy's nether region,

Yeah, but look at her expression in the first panel. It's not a point-for-point recreation of Durkon's, but it's a lot closer than it is to his face during the “wardrobe malfunction” back in DCF.

[Laze]

At first I thought that "Durkon is just bad with numbers" would be the least fun answer out of them all, but I am not so sure about it now.

[Mightymosy]

If we really have to have this argument, I’d say the strongest piece of evidence in favour of Durkon being straight rather than bi is in his introduction to BRITF, wher he states that he likes loves Thor and follows that by clarifying that that is in “in a strictly heterosexual ‘buddies’ kind of way, not that there’s anything wrong with the alternative”.

Even if you say that’s just evidence that Durkon is not attracted to Thor, rather than not being attracted to any men - it isn’t the kind of clarification that non-straight men generally feel the need to make.

My experience says it's better to look at what people DO (or don't do) than what they say.

In this case, Durkon sleeps with a girl, and seems repulsed by naked men, twice. He also seems to be very interested in looking at a sexy girl, and eavesdropping on one.

So, neither is ultimate proof, but I think I would guess heterosexual if I had to.

Fortunately, in this case what Durkon does also FITS with what he says (which you stated above), so all hints seem to point in one direction, as I read them.

He COULD, of course be interested in female dwarves, female humans, male dwarves BUT NOT MALE HUMANS, but that strikes me as needlessly complicated, myself. So it is clearly POSSIBLE, but it would be a SURPRISE at this point in the story.

[Pablo360]

My experience says it's better to look at what people DO (or don't do) than what they say.

In this case, Durkon sleeps with a girl, and seems repulsed by naked men, twice. He also seems to be very interested in looking at a sexy girl, and eavesdropping on one.

So, neither is ultimate proof, but I think I would guess heterosexual if I had to.

Fortunately, in this case what Durkon does also FITS with what he says (which you stated above), so all hints seem to point in one direction, as I read them.

He COULD, of course be interested in female dwarves, female humans, male dwarves BUT NOT MALE HUMANS, but that strikes me as needlessly complicated, myself. So it is clearly POSSIBLE, but it would be a SURPRISE at this point in the story.

See, all of this would be valid if there were more than one strip that ACTUALLY shows Durkon being turned off by male nudity in a meaningful sense. Nobody has yet to convince me of a reason to read Roy's resurrection in a way that actually implicates Durkon's sexuality; again, look at Belkar and Haley. That leaves us with one single possible piece of evidence. I'm tired of explaining this over and over again, and I actually don't know why I do; I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore. We all…*we all get that we don't know Durkon's sexuality, right? We all get that at least?

[The MunchKING]

He's a lizard in very cold weather...

Aren't dinosaurs believed to be warm-blooded?

[zimmerwald1915]

Aren't dinosaurs believed to be warm-blooded?

If he wasn't polymorphed into a lizard, that would matter.

[Keltest]

See, all of this would be valid if there were more than one strip that ACTUALLY shows Durkon being turned off by male nudity in a meaningful sense. Nobody has yet to convince me of a reason to read Roy's resurrection in a way that actually implicates Durkon's sexuality; again, look at Belkar and Haley. That leaves us with one single possible piece of evidence. I'm tired of explaining this over and over again, and I actually don't know why I do; I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore. We all…*we all get that we don't know Durkon's sexuality, right? We all get that at least?

What is meaningful to you then? We've seen him turned off by male nudity and express discomfort at the idea that he would be attracted to Thor in a sexual manner. At what point does this become a pattern of behavior that you will acknowledge?

[The MunchKING]

If he wasn't polymorphed into a lizard, that would matter.

Yeah I thought about that after I posted...