Results 1,111 to 1,140 of 1675
-
2014-08-01, 01:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
-
2014-08-01, 02:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Singapore
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
I think part of the reason such threads are fun is because we're all D&D fans and OOTS fans, and a lot of us are D&D-rules geeks; those give us the chance to discuss all those things at once.
It's also a discussion with clear rules (even if they don't really matter), which makes it feel like a bit of a game or a puzzle. I think some of the reaction when the comic obviously ignores D&D rules comes from that -- some people approach it through the lens of that puzzle, so they get upset when the comic does something that clearly doesn't fit. Obviously they're an extreme-periphery demographic and not the people the story is being written for, so they have to cope; but I think that's the reason people tend to get caught up on it, anyway.
-
2014-08-01, 04:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Well I did mention insults/compliments or generally talked about, and eyes are complimented fairly frequently and talked about also.
However there are some eye insults that occur - mostly about someone's lack of personality or intelligence from what I can gather. This despite the fact that eyes are nearly all kindof the same.
-
2014-08-01, 05:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Location
- Red Dragon Territory
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
I had a long post here but the browser crashed... :c
People are often insulted for neutral aspects, or even good ones- a racist slang term for someone of your country, skin tone, or heritage is an insult for a neutral thing. Being called a shrimp/midget while being within the normal human height range? Insulted for something neutral. Having a jealous fat person call you a stick or twig, and you're being insulted over a good thing.
-
2014-08-01, 05:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Xin-Shalast
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Still if it's a setting where a high degree of sexual promiscuity is ubiquitous, at least amongst women, then it seems to lose much meaning as a serious insult between women.
Like a muggle calling another muggle a muggle as an insult, even. Or two blue-eyed people insulting one another for having blue eyes when they're both aware of being blue-eyed and there's no broader social stigma against blue-eyed people.
-
2014-08-01, 07:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
I've never seeen so many "Can I sig this?" posts in one thread.
-
2014-08-01, 07:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
- Location
- In the Playground, duh.
-
2014-08-01, 07:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Location
- Red Dragon Territory
-
2014-08-01, 08:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
- Location
- The Chi
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
I actually find the changes referred to in the comic rather underwhelming. As a background comic, we learn Bandana is gay (I didn't realize she was a woman, though it may have been mentioned), and Haley makes a comment on how she used to cat fight and leave her vulnerable belly completely exposed. We knew the Giant wasn't going to write anymore Haley-hurls-slut-shamming-insults-while-fighting-solo and had already switched Haley to practical armor in the Gygax magazine. I just don't see how this equals subverting the comic strip to inject a message that wasn't organic to the comic, as Haley's covering, the number of gay characters, and the number of promiscuity-related insults are peripheral to the plot to begin with (and I still maintain story progression is central in directing the writing, unlike many other comics, this one has a main story and the greater majority of the strips progress it).
Last edited by Reddish Mage; 2014-08-01 at 08:30 AM.
The laws of physics are not crying in a corner, they are bawling in the forums.
Thanks to half-halfling for the avatar
-
2014-08-01, 08:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Offer good while supplies last. Two to a customer. Each item sold separately. Batteries not included. Mileage may vary. All sales are final. Allow six weeks for delivery. Some items not available. Some assembly required. Some restrictions may apply. All entries become our property. Employees not eligible. Entry fees not refundable. Local restrictions apply. Void where prohibited. Except in Indiana.
-
2014-08-01, 08:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Raleigh NC
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
I have been notified that Rich responded to me, so I have come back to read his response and respond myself.
Rich, thank you for taking the time to reply to me personally. Thank you especially for redrafting 12 times before finally replying -- that is a significant commitment of your time just to reply to me , and I am grateful.
I am sorry that you did not find my tone or content respectful. I strive for courtesy on this board at all times. The reason I added the tag this time was because the comment was meant as constructive criticism -- pointing out what I believe are flaws which handicap OOTS as a vehicle for moral messaging. Yet it appears that I failed to do this -- it was instead interpreted by some as a direct attack on you personally and on your morals.
I intended no attack on you. Web rules quite aside, I don't actually *know* you. All I know of you is what you reveal in twitter comments , your posts here, and of course the comic itself.
Your personal morals are likewise just that -- personal. It would be rude of me to critique these without your express request.
When those morals cease to be private and become part of OOTS storytelling, part of a public message, then of course that public message is subject to public criticism and disagreement. In other venues, where it is in scope.
In any event, right or wrong it is my duty to conduct myself on this forum as a guest in your virtual 'house', and by igniting a firestorm I have failed in that duty. It's not really relevant that I didn't intend to. Fire, emotional anger, doesn't care whether I meant it or not.
I will apply these lessons and strive to conduct myself with more care in the future here, expressing my viewpoints and concerns WITHOUT unnecessarily aggravating the situation.
Because of this, I will once again step away from this thread; if anyone reading this wants to discuss any part of it, see me in PM.
I will instead say one last thing and then step away: Thank you, Rich, both for the effort you have put into providing this webcomic, quite possibly one of the best out there, and thank you again for responding personally, and thank you once more for redrafting repeatedly. OOTS has been a great ride for the eight years I've been following it, and I look forward to many more.
Respectfully,
Brian P."Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."
-Valery Legasov in Chernobyl
-
2014-08-01, 09:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Grognardia
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
I personally don't see any other (proper) way to include 'alternative' content into a work than by just throwing it in and pretending it belongs there. When Willow and whasserface kissed for the first time in Buffy, they didn't make a big deal out of, there was no crescendo or long shot with a fuzzy lens filter. They were just there, one had to go, the other said 'Bye' they smooched, and done.
Same thing here. If Bandana had mentioned her ex was a male, no one would comment, and the way she said it would be perfectly acceptable. So there's no reason to treat this any differently.
Also:
Originally Posted by Bandana(Avatar by Cuthalion, who is great.)
-
2014-08-01, 12:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Were it really that many? I'd assume most people who are still reading this comic have figured out that it's not just about jokes anymore.
I, for one, though the comic was handled smoothly. I approve of Haley's character development and it's not really that strange that some of the people in the comic are gay. In fact, it'd arguably be more strange if every single character were straight, since in real life, that's far from the case.
-
2014-08-01, 12:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Location
- Red Dragon Territory
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Heh. Nice. I see what you did there.
Does anyone have a link to that thread with the lengths of the discussion threads on it? Surely this is in the top 25.
-
2014-08-01, 12:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
The First Rule of POST CLUB is....
You Do Not Talk About POST CLUB (in the Discussion Threads).
The Second Rule of POST CLUB is...
Well, you know.
====
In other words, we don't want to artificially bump up the post counts in the discussion threads by talking about them here. You know, intregrity and all that jazz. But go ahead and use the link I provided to look and see where we stand (and talk about it there).Last edited by Porthos; 2014-08-01 at 12:45 PM.
Concluded: The Stick Awards II: Second Edition
Ongoing: OOTS by Page Count
Coming Soon: OOTS by Final Post Count II: The Post Counts Always Chart Twice
Coming Later: The Stick Awards III: The Search for More Votes
__________________________
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style - Jhereg Proverb
-
2014-08-01, 03:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
The most common insults are insults that imply deviation from the accepted norm. In either or any direction.
It is an insidious way in which individuals are pressured to "return to the mean" and comply with group norms, which has existed probably for as long as humans have lived in social groups and could talk.
There is a meta-level insult subgroup in which the target is insulted for conforming TOO much to the norm, but that is still a deviation from the normal expected levels of average conformity...
-
2014-08-01, 06:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Location
- Wisconsin, USA
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Humans can pretty much turn anything into an insult if they're mad enough and have a few seconds to think about it. Take an actual trait, inflate it into a grotesque verbal caricature, and you're good (or bad) to go.
Spoiler
So the song runs on, with shift and change,
Through the years that have no name,
And the late notes soar to a higher range,
But the theme is still the same.
Man's battle-cry and the guns' reply
Blend in with the old, old rhyme
That was traced in the score of the strata marks
While millenniums winked like campfire sparks
Down the winds of unguessed time. -- 4th Stanza, The Bad Lands, Badger Clark
-
2014-08-01, 06:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Insults to certain things lack the sting of insults to certain other things.
-
2014-08-01, 08:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
This thread's gone to odd places since I posted last back on the first page.
The existence of lesbians is neither the beginning nor the end of the world. Neither is Haley switching outfits now and then. The existence of potential action figures is interesting, as it does have potential merchandising implications, which may be of direct financial benefit to the Giant, but it is not particularly Earthshattering.
...In short, this just isn't that big of a deal. If it is meant to change, somewhat, the direction in which the Order of the Stick goes, then, well, a journey of 1000 strips must begin somewhere. As well here as anywhere else, really.
-
2014-08-01, 09:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
It may not have been earth-shattering to you. If this were a planet where women & LGBTQ people didn't get persistently stereotyped, ridiculed or ignored, it might not be earth-shattering to anyone.
But this is a planet where these small, slight story elements you mention mean a whole lot to many people, because this is about bigger things than a webcomic.
If you invest your time and a piece of your consciousness into a story, then when it touches things that matter to you, in real life--that is precious.Last edited by Bird; 2014-08-01 at 09:47 PM.
-
2014-08-01, 09:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
It doesn't take extremes. It takes being outside of the narrow range of "normal" determined by the person making the insult, in which they are, as often as not, the direct center. The practical definition of slut is usually "someone who has more sex/sex with more people than I* do outside of a narrow range", while the practical definition of prude is the same thing but with less and fewer substituted in for more - with the obvious caveat that double standards can be applied and the reasonable range can magically move for people who are demographically different than the speaker.
*"I" as in "the person making the statement" and not the forum poster Knaight.I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2014-08-01, 09:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Eh, I call it 'Act as if.'
Act as if you exist in a world where prejudice of any sort doesn't exist.
If everyone copies you, sooner or later, it won't exist. Overcoming it isn't a function of activism, but rather a function of apathy. Only when you truly do not care WHO anyone is...racially, sexually, whatever...can you say you've eliminated it from your life. The idea isn't to make such things important, but to make them as unimportant as possible.
That is my philosophy, anyway.Last edited by Angelalex242; 2014-08-01 at 10:04 PM.
-
2014-08-01, 09:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
-
2014-08-01, 10:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Here.
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
I disagree. "Colorblind" and other "[x]blind" ideologies sound good on paper, but when you grow up in a society where prejudice is learned without actively picking it up, attempts to behave neutrally tend to just play into existing systems of oppression. That's the reason that studies have shown that people who claim to be racially colorblind are on average more racist. You can't tackle prejudice without actively acknowledging it and examining the ways in which it affects things without you realizing it. Otherwise, you wind up thinking that 18% women is an equitable gender role and 30% women is female-heavy*, and failing to realize that you haven't actually had a lot of female characters (especially with positive interactions with each other) until someone who is actively looking at it does the math and brings it to your attention.**
Hypothetically speaking, anyway.
*These being the numbers that studies have shown people consider to be "equal gender representation" and "more women then men," respectively.
**My tongue-in-cheek example aside, I do not claim to be any form of mindreader, and do not claim that The Giant necessarily subscribed to any particular point of view at any point in time. I'm just saying that it's a good example of how easy it is to perpetuate an unequal gender ratio without realizing it, which is why you do have to watch out for it sometimes.
That is my philosophy, anyway. Affirmative Action of any sort misses the point. The idea is to judge people 'not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.' </MLK> If you have to write a law to prop people up, you're doing it wrong. People must succeed or fail by their own merits alone, not be given 'bonus points' for being part of a 'protected' group.Last edited by DaggerPen; 2014-08-01 at 10:07 PM.
I am: Neutral Good: -2 chaos, -21 evil and 15 balance!
Can't find the strip you're looking for? Head on over to OOTS Strip Summaries!
-
2014-08-01, 10:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Oops. Edited out dangerous content.
Still, I tend to like the 'blind' philosophy, as it lets everyone act on their own merit. On the female heavy thing, a [blind] philosophy person counts up the number of named characters in a show, and then counts how many are female, and how many are male, and judges by cold hard math whether it is weighted one way or the other or not. There are no mystical fake percentages in the back of one's mind. Just a calculator.
-
2014-08-01, 10:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
You wrote "Act as if you exist in a world where prejudice of any sort doesn't exist." Why would the 'blind' person bother counting the number of women in the show in the first instance? Even if there were no women on any show, would 'blindness' not obligate one to ignore the problem?
Also, you might be interested in this article about bias among major league umpires--whose entire job is to be cold fair calculators.
-
2014-08-01, 10:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
...Depends on the show. Ask yourself first 'Is it a problem in this particular show?'
Some shows are meant to be about a bunch of guys doing guy stuff. There's nothing wrong with that, any more then there's anything wrong with a show about a bunch of girls doing girl stuff.
Not every show requires gender balance, because it's not a situation where genders would logically be balanced. Many football based movies have few female characters beyond somebody's mom, because at this time, females don't play football. Likewise, you wouldn't expect to find a whole lot of men in a show about makeup.
This is especially true in historical movies. If you're making a movie about the Revolutionary War, you're not going to find a whole lot of women involved on the battlefield. Because, well, they weren't! If you're making a movie about William the Conquerer, I wouldn't expect to find a whole lot of women in that either. Period pieces should accurately reflect history, whether what happened was right or wrong.
-
2014-08-01, 10:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Here.
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
I'm fine with movies that have a reason to have more men than women having more men than women. What I'm not fine with is there being way, way more movies with a bunch more men than women than the other way around, and male-heavy movies being considered "general" movies, whereas female-heavy movies get relegated to "chick flicks" or told by their agent to add in more men so they don't "miss that demographic" when two of your villains are men and there's a completely valid reason for the other villain and the three main characters to all be women.
And yes, that last one is coming from personal experience.Last edited by DaggerPen; 2014-08-01 at 10:27 PM.
I am: Neutral Good: -2 chaos, -21 evil and 15 balance!
Can't find the strip you're looking for? Head on over to OOTS Strip Summaries!
-
2014-08-01, 10:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Oh, I don't know. A movie about Black Widow, or Xena, or other sufficiently action oriented women will bring in men whether there's any relevant men in the flick or not. And that's before you pull out Joss Whedon's work. Of course, he's psychopathically against happiness instead, so there's that, but even so.
That said, I wouldn't expect a movie about 3 women talking about their feelings to bring in a bunch of male viewers.
-
2014-08-01, 10:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
While I broadly agree that not every work needs equal gender representation, it's worth mentioning that the "historically accurate" argument often comes with its own set of blinders. Often, when we actually dig into the history instead of taking "common knowledge" as gospel, we find women played a bigger role than we thought. Women were involved on the battlefield in the Revolutionary War—look up Deborah Samson, Grace and Rachel Martin, Anna Warner, Margaret Corbin, Angelica Vrooman...etc. Even when they weren't fighting, women were all over the place, performing significant roles that continue to be underrepresented in fiction. The all-male army looks right because that's the way it tends to be portrayed, not because it was historically accurate.
The same is true of people of color. While you won't find Africans in 10th century North America, you will find them all over the place in 10th century Europe. The "It was medieval Holland; of course they're all white!" argument doesn't hold a lot of water. (It holds more water if your story is set in a wee village than a big city, of course, but there are always ways to work in more diversity than you thought you could.)
This is a good thing—the more interesting and unexpected historical nuggets we can work into our stories, the richer and stronger they'll be. History turning out to be other than what we expect is awesome!
Or "You actually have less sex than me, but because of who you are you're a slut and I'm not." This is widespread among men who judge women's sexual activity.