Question about Miko.

[Echch]

Why did she let V sleep in the womens' room during their journey to the Azure City? Did she trust him that much to be faithful? I mean, it seems like the people in the comic know him to be a man, at least if the last panel of #306 is any indication, so how comes?

[Morquard]

V's gender is ambiguous, it's never been revealed to be male or female, and the giant stated he never will reveal it, since it's unimportant. Some characters refer to V as a male, others as a female. Don't mistake a characters opinion as proof or fact.

Haley was ok with V sleeping in her room, so that was enough for Miko. Miko did not sleep in the same room anyway, so it wasn't exactly "the women's room".

[Kish]

You have three fatally flawed basic premises.

1) Miko cared about the romantic or sexual relationships of the Order of the Stick.
2) Vaarsuvius' sex or gender has anything to do with their ability to have sex with Haley, if everyone involved wanted.
3) Two uses of a male pronoun by characters who were in one strip and just met Vaarsuvius establishes Vaarsuvius as obviously male, trumping all the references to them being gender ambiguous and all the times a character refers to them with female pronouns.

[Echch]

V's gender is ambiguous, it's never been revealed to be male or female, and the giant stated he never will reveal it, since it's unimportant. Some characters refer to V as a male, others as a female. Don't mistake a characters opinion as proof or fact.

Haley was ok with V sleeping in her room, so that was enough for Miko. Miko did not sleep in the same room anyway, so it wasn't exactly "the women's room".

Huh, fair point. I started reading the Miko-stuff again because I forgot how she fell, so I reread the part and was surpised about it. Though I don't remember Miko sleeping in the other room :/



You have three fatally flawed basic premises.

1) Miko cared about the romantic or sexual relationships of the Order of the Stick.
2) Vaarsuvius' sex or gender has anything to do with their ability to have sex with Haley, if everyone involved wanted.
3) Two uses of a male pronoun by characters who were in one strip and just met Vaarsuvius establishes Vaarsuvius as obviously male, trumping all the references to them being gender ambiguous and all the times a character refers to them with female pronouns.

1) Yes, because Miko, the definition of a stick in the mud paladin, would clearly not care about that.
2) While that's true, not everything is based around sex. The reason a kindergarten has split toilets has nothing to do with the adults fearing that, I'm sure.
3) I said "if it is any indication" for a reason, because I feared that I may have missed characters calling her female (is ambigious a gender? I honestly don't know).

[candybarsuvius]

You have three fatally flawed basic premises.


Fatally flawed? The OP is dead now?

Wow, I never know posting something on an internet discussion board could be so dangerous.

[Cizak]

1) Yes, because Miko, the definition of a stick in the mud paladin, would clearly not care about that.

No, why would she? In the brief period of time where she thought Roy had matured and was still interested in her, she was willing to consider a romantic relationship with him. When two of her co-paladins claimed they were dating (to avoid her), she wished them a nice evening. When has she ever shown any indication to care about the Order's intra-relationships, besides everyone allying with Belkar?


2) While that's true, not everything is based around sex. The reason a kindergarten has split toilets has nothing to do with the adults fearing that, I'm sure.

Don't move the goalposts. You were talking about adults, not kindergarteners. So your (flawed) premise was definitely based on the assumption that sexual intercourse was only a risk factor because Haley and V had different sex and/or genders.

[Kish]

Fatally flawed? The OP is dead now?

Wow, I never know posting something on an internet discussion board could be so dangerous.
Putting me on ignore would probably draw less moderator disapproval than this sniping. Just a thought. Entirely up to you, of course.

[Echch]

No, why would she? In the brief period of time where she thought Roy had matured and was still interested in her, she was willing to consider a romantic relationship with him. When two of her co-paladins claimed they were dating (to avoid her), she wished them a nice evening. When has she ever shown any indication to care about the Order's intra-relationships, besides everyone allying with Belkar?

*sigh* Read that again, both what I said, the reply that resulted into what you just quoted, and what you quoted. You'll understand what I mean then (I hope).


Don't move the goalposts. You were talking about adults, not kindergarteners. So your (flawed) premise was definitely based on the assumption that sexual intercourse was only a risk factor because Haley and V had different sex and/or genders.

...Alternatively, I was talking about the fact that we have still seperated toilets etc. despite the "risk" still existing with same-gendered people, making it a cultural thing. Again, if the seperation were due to the "fear" of sex only, there would be no reason to have it in places where it won't occur, but we still have them in such places... Such as a kindergarten.
Seriously, what's up with you guys and sex? :smallconfused:

[NerdyKris]

1) Yes, because Miko, the definition of a stick in the mud paladin, would clearly not care about that.

No, those are real world religious values (from only certain religions) being assigned to a fictional religion in a much different world. Miko being a stick in the mud doesn't mean that she disapproves of sexual relations between consenting adults. We have been given no indication that paladins of the Sapphire Guard have any hangups about sex, one example of lesbian members of the Sapphire Guards making out (bonus strip in War and XPs), and one paladin with a boyfriend.


Fatally flawed? The OP is dead now?

Wow, I never know posting something on an internet discussion board could be so dangerous.

The argument is fatally flawed, not the poster. It's a common english phrase.

ETA:

*sigh* Read that again, both what I said, the reply that resulted into what you just quoted, and what you quoted. You'll understand what I mean then (I hope).

Maybe you could explain what was misconstrued instead of being passive aggressive?

[Kish]

Seriously, what's up with you guys and sex? :smallconfused:
So by "be faithful," you meant Vaarsuvius wouldn't play tick-tack-toe with anyone but their spouse?

[Echch]

Maybe you could explain what was misconstrued instead of being passive aggressive?

Orginally, the topic wouldn't have come up, but sure, I suppose that could help: See, when I said "stick-in-the-mud"-paladin, I was refering to a specific archetype of paladin, the "no-fun-allowed"-one. The idea behind that comment was to emphasize Miko's (and only Miko's: Even the guard said that the other paladin's consider her to be... Well, a stick in the mud) tendency to be what a paladin shouldn't be roleplayed as: Annoying and preachy.
Given that preachy aspect, the religious values (of not all religions, to be sure, but of popular ones) are something that would come up as something that archetype would enforce. Miko being willing to enter a relationship was fine and all, however, I'd like to propose that both of the things that I'm talking about (being preachy and wanting a relationship) are not necessarily in conflict, since a relationship doesn't necessarily imply (immediate) sexual contact and can come in a variety of different forms.

TL;DR: It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.

[Ruck]

TL;DR: It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.
Huh, I wonder where that weird focus came from?

Why did she let V sleep in the womens' room during their journey to the Azure City? Did she trust him that much to be faithful? I mean, it seems like the people in the comic know him to be a man, at least if the last panel of #306 is any indication, so how comes?

[hroþila]

Even the most stuck-up character won't be preachy about things she doesn't consider immoral at all, and there's no in-comic indication that Miko would find V and Haley sharing a room, or pre-marital relationships, to be immoral.

But even assuming Miko would have a problem with any of that... why do you think she would have been able to stop them? She didn't want them to sleep in the inn in the first place, remember?

[DaggerPen]

I am super confused by how quickly this thread turned really harsh.


Why did she let V sleep in the womens' room during their journey to the Azure City? Did she trust him that much to be faithful? I mean, it seems like the people in the comic know him to be a man, at least if the last panel of #306 is any indication, so how comes?

1. As corrected above, V has not been canonically confirmed as a man or a woman. The author has in commentary referred to V as genderqueer, which may be V's specific gender identity or may be being used as an umbrella term for gender non-conforming; I don't believe the author has specified and tend to interpret it as the former.
2. Regardless, I don't believe that Miko has ever alluded to viewing V as male. In fact, when she originally attempted to purchase rooms, she wanted one for the men and "one for the women and the elf" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0225.html).
3. I also don't think she knew V was married. I find it more likely that she just didn't care, as:


1) Yes, because Miko, the definition of a stick in the mud paladin, would clearly not care about that.

There are in canon several instances of Miko being "yeah whatever" about people having romantic relationships in her vicinity and no instances of her caring about this. She was all "boo luxury and corruption" when arguing for sleeping in a ditch to sleep in, yes, but I doubt she cared about sleeping arrangements beyond the requirement for additional rooms costing her money.


2) While that's true, not everything is based around sex. The reason a kindergarten has split toilets has nothing to do with the adults fearing that, I'm sure.

Actually, restroom splitting like this is a fairly recent phenomenon, and one that's not super cross-cultural either. Restroom splitting is loosely correlated with the fact that some people can use urinals and some can't, a habit which just sort of led to splitting into men's and women's restrooms. Some cultures do have a tradition of gender segregation as well that's separate and in addition to that, which leads to men's and women's restrooms as a general thing.


(is ambigious a gender? I honestly don't know).

I don't know that I've seen anyone identify in those exact terms, but yup, there are non-binary genders! One common "I'm not a man or a woman" identity is genderqueer, which, as I mentioned above, the author has previously used to describe Vaarsuvius.

I hope that answers your questions!

[NerdyKris]

TL;DR: It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.

I'm sorry you're not comfortable with sex, but this is a forum of adults discussing a mature work not aimed at children. Sex is going to come up, especially when your initial post implied the problem was people of opposite genders sharing a room. You said "be faithful". What on earth does that mean if not cheating on your spouse?

[candybarsuvius]

Putting me on ignore would probably draw less moderator disapproval than this sniping. Just a thought. Entirely up to you, of course.

You can call it "sniping," but I merely intended to point out that the use of hyperbolic language such as "*FATALLY FATALLY FATALLY* ^&%$#$$% flawed" is not conducive to constructive discussion. You could have simply said that you disagreed with the OP's premise rather than assuming a tone of intellectual superiority (you might be too young to remember John Houseman as Professor Kingsfield torching helpless first-year law students). The OP asked a legitimate question and probably wanted legitimate answers rather than being talked down to.

Of course, subtle considerations like the above are not usually recognized on the internet.

[candybarsuvius]

I'm sorry you're not comfortable with sex

That's not what the poster said. He said he was uncomfortable with the subject dominating this thread.

Putting words in the mouths of others is an internet forum tactic and is beneath most people.

[Razade]

Orginally, the topic wouldn't have come up, but sure, I suppose that could help: See, when I said "stick-in-the-mud"-paladin, I was refering to a specific archetype of paladin, the "no-fun-allowed"-one. The idea behind that comment was to emphasize Miko's (and only Miko's: Even the guard said that the other paladin's consider her to be... Well, a stick in the mud) tendency to be what a paladin shouldn't be roleplayed as: Annoying and preachy.
Given that preachy aspect, the religious values (of not all religions, to be sure, but of popular ones) are something that would come up as something that archetype would enforce. Miko being willing to enter a relationship was fine and all, however, I'd like to propose that both of the things that I'm talking about (being preachy and wanting a relationship) are not necessarily in conflict, since a relationship doesn't necessarily imply (immediate) sexual contact and can come in a variety of different forms.

TL;DR: It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.

Could you tell us what the problem is with a man and a woman who aren't married sleeping in the same bedroom if it doesn't relate to sex? What's do you think Miko's objection would be? What would she be "preachy" about? What violates her beliefs letting two friends sleep in the same room together? Why did you specifically indicate that it was a male sleeping in a female's room? If your objection is "Miko should be No Fun Allowed (what do you mean by fun)" shouldn't she have got them all separate rooms? What about her religious values (which we don't even know) are being violated with a man and a woman being in the same room together with separate beds no less that you're talking about?

Because the only problems I know of are related to what a man and a woman who aren't married might get up to at night and I'm not talking about making shadow puppets.


You can call it "sniping," but I merely intended to point out that the use of hyperbolic language such as "*FATALLY FATALLY FATALLY* ^&%$#$$% flawed" is not conducive to constructive discussion. You could have simply said that you disagreed with the OP's premise rather than assuming a tone of intellectual superiority (you might be too young to remember John Houseman as Professor Kingsfield torching helpless first-year law students). The OP asked a legitimate question and probably wanted legitimate answers rather than being talked down to.

Of course, subtle considerations like the above are not usually recognized on the internet.

You know. I like you. Your utter lack of irony and telling people how to behave and speak may turn others off but me? Totally on board.

[NerdyKris]

That's not what the poster said. He said he was uncomfortable with the subject dominating this thread.

Putting words in the mouths of others is an internet forum tactic and is beneath most people.

Oh my god, please stop. You've just recently wandered into this forum and all you've done is call people children and talk down to everyone. It doesn't make you cool and logical. I didn't put words in anyone's mouth, I clearly explained my reasoning.

And yes "fatally flawed argument" is a normal thing to say and not hyperbole, no matter how much you want to insist it is.

[DaggerPen]

Just, uh, to be clear, 'fatally flawed' is a common term for 'has a flaw that makes the whole argument a non-starter,' not like, 'lethal'. While it's most commonly used to refer to 'lethal', 'fatal' can also just mean 'coming to an end.' If a program encounters a 'fatal exception', that just means that it's encountered an exception past which it cannot continue, not that it's going to kill you and/or the computer.

[Cizak]

It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.

Alright, there seems to be a huge misunderstanding about what you're actually asking here. Here are the reasons I, and I think many others, thought you wanted to talk about sex:

* You asked if Miko trusted V to "be faithful". "Being faithful" is very commonly understood as "only having sex with your partner".
* You paint Miko out as a character who would enforce religious values and wants "no fun". This heavily implies that you think she would have a problem with other people having casual sex; and more specifically heterosexual sex, since you suggest she would only have a problem with people of different genders sharing a room.
* When the people in question are teenagers or older, "should two people of different genders really share a room during the night?" is often understood as a statement which expresses worry that they are going to have sex.

You use phrases and express yourself in a lot of ways which makes it easy to conclude that you are talking about sex. So if you don't, what exactly did you want to discuss?

[Yuki Akuma]

Fatal, like so many English words, has more than one meaning*! One of them is "leading to failure/disaster". A fatal flaw is a flaw so big it causes something to fail.

It's a totally normal turn of phrase and I had no idea anyone could take issue with it before reading this thread. The Internet sure is weird!

* Originally, it just meant 'destined' or 'fated', but tended to be used to euphemistically refer to death and failure and eventually changed to only mean negative fates. Etymology!

[candybarsuvius]

Oh my god, please stop. You've just recently wandered into this forum and all you've done is call people children and talk down to everyone. It doesn't make you cool and logical. I didn't put words in anyone's mouth, I clearly explained my reasoning.

And yes "fatally flawed argument" is a normal thing to say and not hyperbole, no matter how much you want to insist it is.

No, that's all you've NOTICED. Saying that that is all I've done is more silly hyperbole. You appear to love hyperbole.

And saying that someone is "uncomfortable about sex" when they didn't say that at all is indeed putting words in someone's mouth. Whether you admit it or not. And it's rude. Whether you admit it or not.

"Fatally flawed argument" is not, in fact, a normal expression. It is severe criticism, which should be reserved for when someone is utterly wrong AND being wrong has some kind of consequences. I suppose you would tell your girlfriend when she says that she likes a movie, "No, that's a fatally flawed argument" and then proceed to tell her exactly why her reasons for liking it are fatally flawed. If that sort of language is indeed part of normal discourse for you, then I fear for your social outcomes.

But of course, it was internet talk, which is devoid of social niceties and considerations. The OP got dogpiled for asking a simple question. I apologize for coming to his defense--the only acceptable thing to have done, apparently, was to join the dogs.

[candybarsuvius]

Fatal, like so many English words, has more than one meaning*! One of them is "leading to failure/disaster". A fatal flaw is a flaw so big it causes something to fail.

It's a totally normal turn of phrase and I had no idea anyone could take issue with it before reading this thread. The Internet sure is weird!

* Originally, it just meant 'destined' or 'fated', but tended to be used to euphemistically refer to death and failure and eventually changed to only mean negative fates. Etymology!

It may be "totally normal" in your universe, but was the emphatic "fatally" necessary? And aside from that, what died or suffered a negative fate as a result of that fatal quality? Couldn't the poster have said something like "I disagree" instead of "HARRUMPH! Your argument is...(dramatic pause)...FATALLY FLAWED." It's the kind of pompous and condescending language that people generally don't indulge themselves with in the real world because of the physical danger that using it entails. But yes, we're on the internet here, so let's pitch civility overboard.

Re the etymology: the OED cites some uses of the term to mean a flaw in the argument that destroys a larger plan based on it, like a lawyer's unsound reasoning that causes him to lose a case or a strategic assumption that is wrong and causes a general to lose a battle or campaign.

[Cizak]

Couldn't the poster have said something like "I disagree" instead of "HARRUMPH! Your argument is...(dramatic pause)...FATALLY FLAWED."


You have three fatally flawed basic premises.

Speaking of hyperbole and putting words in people's mouths...

[hroþila]

candybarsuvius, I agree with your point about people being unnecessarily condescending sometimes, but you have a most curious approach to defusing confrontational conversations.

[DaggerPen]

Candybarsuvius, I appreciate that you have not heard "fatally flawed" used so casually before, but with multiple people chiming in that they've seen it used that casually all the time, is it possible that this may just be a misunderstanding based on different experiences? I've talked with Kish at some length before and that's just sort of how Kish talks - I definitely don't think they(?) were being condescending. I think it may be time to take a step back and consider that you may have misinterpreted an innocuous comment.

[Peelee]

V's gender is ambiguous, it's never been revealed to be male or female, and the giant stated he never will reveal it, since it's unimportant.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure he accidentally slipped one time.

[Jasdoif]

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure he accidentally slipped one time.If only we knew what he said that one time....

[Peelee]

If only we knew what he said that one time....

Yeah, someone should keep a list or something.

Anyway, it was when he copped to Smurfetting the original 6 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279142-Gender-and-Sexuality-Representation-in-OOTS/page16&p=15058416#post15058416). I realize it's not strong evidence, and it's not likely to sway anyone, but I read that as him leaking how he originally saw the group, before he realized people couldn't tell and ran with it.

[Xihirli]

Why did she let V sleep in the same room as Haley?*
*Rephrasing mine

It was less expensive than getting everyone their own room.

[NerdyKris]

candybarsuvius, I'm curious. Is English your second language, or do you have some sort of social disorder? Because you seem to take things extremely literally, and that might be why you're having so much trouble here. On top of that, calling people children every time you disagree with them is insulting and not helping.

[Yuki Akuma]

Assuming everyone who acts like a jerk has a social disability is pretty insulting.

To both the person acting like a jerk and people with social disabilities. :smallwink:

[littlebum2002]

In This Thread:

OP Starts an entire thread based on Miko's opinion of sex.

OP wonders why the thread is about sex.


I mean, I guess this is just my personal opinion, but if I didn't want a thread to be about sex, I probably wouldn't start a thread which is solely devoted to that exact subject.

[NerdyKris]

Assuming everyone who acts like a jerk has a social disability is pretty insulting.

To both the person acting like a jerk and people with social disabilities. :smallwink:

I asked that because of his extreme literalness. I didn't mean to imply people with social disabilities are jerks. I'm sorry I implied that Yuki.

[Yuki Akuma]

I asked that because of his extreme literalness. I didn't mean to imply people with social disabilities are jerks. I'm sorry I implied that Yuki.

I'm just joking. Trying to lighten the mood so this thread doesn't just turn into a flamewar.

[candybarsuvius]

candybarsuvius, I agree with your point about people being unnecessarily condescending sometimes, but you have a most curious approach to defusing confrontational conversations.

I'm not unrealistic enough to think I can defuse such conversations; in fact, I'm kind of unrealistic in thinking that anything I say to these people has the remotest chance of sinking in. Internet. Nerds. Children (no matter what their chronological age may be). Very poorly developed social skills. Look at how this thread so rapidly devolved into an attack on the OP's sexual outlook and preferences.

The thing is, the OOTS world is a FICTIONAL FANTASY world. Being hyper-knowledgeable about it doesn't really mean anything. Especially if being that means you have a constant need to "correct" people about it. In the grand scheme of things, it's just not that important.

[candybarsuvius]

candybarsuvius, I'm curious. Is English your second language, or do you have some sort of social disorder? Because you seem to take things extremely literally, and that might be why you're having so much trouble here. On top of that, calling people children every time you disagree with them is insulting and not helping.

I'm not having any trouble here at all. Not even with you! And my English skills are far superior to yours, even though it's my twelfth language (Urdu, Inuit, Klingon, C+, Ukrainian, etc.). And I suppose I do have a social disorder if that is defined as disliking the socially stunted nerd-child chatter that one sees so often on the internet.

[NerdyKris]

Right. we're the ones being hostile. You're a paragon of civility, and certainly not calling everyone names in every post.

[Lombard]

INerds. Children (no matter what their chronological age may be). Very poorly developed social skills.

And trolls, don't forget to add obvious tryhard trolls to your list.

[candybarsuvius]

I'm just joking. Trying to lighten the mood so this thread doesn't just turn into a flamewar.

Well, implying that at least one and probably two people are jerks is a very odd way to lighten the mood.

But listen, I'm lowering my standards here. I won't bother calling out any examples of flaming, dogpiling, condescension, insults, unwarranted speculations about a person based on no evidence, and all the other fun stuff. Let's go back to throwing food at each other; this IS the internet, after all! And I'm right and you're not, nyahh, nyahh, nyahh, LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. Far superior to rational discussion!

[candybarsuvius]

Right. we're the ones being hostile. You're a paragon of civility, and certainly not calling everyone names in every post.

I didn't attack the OP; I defended him. And then I was attacked for doing so.

But tell you what--YOU WIN! Whatever that means to you.

[NerdyKris]

I meant you're being hostile to other posters by calling them children and nerds.

[Kantaki]

I'm not unrealistic enough to think I can defuse such conversations; in fact, I'm kind of unrealistic in thinking that anything I say to these people has the remotest chance of sinking in. Internet. Nerds. Children (no matter what their chronological age may be). Very poorly developed social skills.

Well, as long as you don't exclude yourself there.


Look at how this thread so rapidly devolved into an attack on the OP's sexual outlook and preferences.

:smallconfused:I just reread the entire thread.
When did that happen?:smallconfused:


But listen, I'm lowering my standards here. I won't bother calling out any examples of flaming, dogpiling, condescension, insults, unwarranted speculations about a person based on no evidence, and all the other fun stuff. Let's go back to throwing food at each other; this IS the internet, after all! And I'm right and you're not, nyahh, nyahh, nyahh, LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. Far superior to rational discussion!

Okay, if this place is beneath you, why did you join?


I didn't attack the OP; I defended him. And then I was attacked for doing so.

Ah yes, so being insulting and condescending is alright as long as you are on the side of the guy who started the discussion.

[Razade]

Ah yes, so being insulting and condescending is alright as long as you are on the side of the guy who started the discussion.

Hey. She speaks twelve languages. She's allowed to be any way she wants to be.

[candybarsuvius]

Okay, if this place is beneath you, why did you join?


As I said, I had unrealistic expectations. I really should have known better.

I joined because I've greatly enjoyed the OOTS strip. I mistakenly extrapolated that into thinking I would also enjoy talking to the people who also read it. But I have been in denial about the mood and tone of the country in general. So let's pitch insults, condescend, flame, unfairly characterize, and act superior. And yes, let's not forget the ad hominem attacks. (This is where several posters scramble to their keyboards and accuse me of the same things. But folks, I just said I was willing to hop on your train. Civility is such a burden anyway, and why should I be the lone person practicing it?)

[Razade]

As I said, I had unrealistic expectations. I really should have known better.

I joined because I've greatly enjoyed the OOTS strip. I mistakenly extrapolated that into thinking I would also enjoy talking to the people who also read it. But I have been in denial about the mood and tone of the country in general. So let's pitch insults, condescend, flame, unfairly characterize, and act superior. And yes, let's not forget the ad hominem attacks. (This is where several posters scramble to their keyboards and accuse me of the same things. But folks, I just said I was willing to hop on your train. Civility is such a burden anyway, and why should I be the lone person practicing it?)

I just want to inform you. This forum isn't a country.

[littlebum2002]

So let's pitch insults, condescend, flame, unfairly characterize, and act superior. And yes, let's not forget the ad hominem attacks.

Let's see who's doing that...


And my English skills are far superior to yours


the socially stunted nerd-child chatter that one sees so often on the internet.


Internet. Nerds. Children (no matter what their chronological age may be). Very poorly developed social skills.


But listen, I'm lowering my standards here.



Oh, and please let me point out this little nugget of hilarity:


The thing is, the OOTS world is a FICTIONAL FANTASY world. Being hyper-knowledgeable about it doesn't really mean anything.

I know Klingon

[Yuki Akuma]

To be fair, lots of people who don't give a crap about Star Trek know Klingon. It's interesting simply because it's a constructed language you can hold (limited) conversations in, and linguists love that ****.


I just want to inform you. This forum isn't a country.

Pretty sure when he said "the country" he meant "America"*. As in, he has a history of being in denial about the mood and tone of things in general. He was not calling the forum a country.

*Or at least, wherever he happens to be from - could be the UK, the year's also been a dumpster fire over here. But, political discussion is banned on this forum so

[Razade]

Pretty sure when he said "the country" he meant "America"*. As in, he has a history of being in denial about the mood and tone of things in general. He was not calling the forum a country.

*Or at least, wherever he happens to be from - could be the UK, the year's also been a dumpster fire over here. But, political discussion is banned on this forum so

Someone whose being such a pedant should probably specify. Don't you think?

[Yuki Akuma]

Someone whose being such a pedant should probably specify. Don't you think?

No, not really. Strive to be a better person than you perceive him to be.

[littlebum2002]

To be fair, lots of people who don't give a crap about Star Trek know Klingon. It's interesting simply because it's a constructed language you can hold (limited) conversations in, and linguists love that ****.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but isn't that what Esperanto is for? Give linguists something to do in their free time? :smallwink:

[Ruck]

I'm not having any trouble here at all. Not even with you! And my English skills are far superior to yours, even though it's my twelfth language (Urdu, Inuit, Klingon, C+, Ukrainian, etc.). And I suppose I do have a social disorder if that is defined as disliking the socially stunted nerd-child chatter that one sees so often on the internet.
You're responsible for more hostility in this thread than everyone else combined. Check yourself.

[hroþila]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but isn't that what Esperanto is for? Give linguists something to do in their free time? :smallwink:
But everybody agrees that Esperanto is awful.

OK, not everybody. It may be just me. But it's true.

[LurkingEye]

I've been lurking on these forums for years now, and I must say that it feels a bit weird that this is the amount of hostility in this thread that finally made me register.

Probably the smell of the swords, the taste of a warrior's blood. I can't resist a good fight.

But, from an external perspective, and with apologies for the textwall :
1 - the third commentary by Kish is already written in a polemic style, with very affirmative sentences and words like "obviously". You don't put words like "actually" or "obviously" in this kind of conversation unless you just want to shout "I'm right, I'm the specialist here, don't bother post other comments, this thread is over".
And of course, that comment began with : "You have three fatally flawed basic premises.". Which is, even if it is not to be taken literally (and really I don't think that anyone did this), a way to assert : "You're very wrong". Which isn't really a nice thing to say, and it's not a nice way to say it either - and that's all. Starting from that, it's still okay to stand your ground. But it's not okay to pretend that it doesn't mean what it means. The fact that the author of this sentence, or the ones that defended him, didn't try at all to say something like "I apologize, I didn't mean to sound rude" but say instead things like "you don't know english, stupid", says a lot.
And yes it's commonly used in english. Still doesn't meant that's a nice thing to say. You find it in sentences like "She was fatally flawed and condemned to failure" or "Sadly the Geneva protocol was as fatally flawed as the many nuclear weapons treaties of the 1970s and 1980s." It's very assertive, and out of place in a theorizing exchange. That's not something I would tell to someone unless I want to discredit them, or about something unless I want to show my strong disagreement with it. Like in "It's a fatally flawed opinion to think that you can steal my cake, and leave this room alive" - see that? These two words are so strong that they can't be used in a normal conversation without being humourous.

2 - reacting to that, candybarsuvius (seriously, who can really be mad at someone with that pseudonym?) wrote : "Fatally flawed? The OP is dead now?
Wow, I never know posting something on an internet discussion board could be so dangerous."
Which looks like an ironic comment, a way to allieviate a bit the comment I mentionned.

3 - then, he panicked, because aggressive people like Kish and NerdyKris (again, very good choice of username, I feel hurt by some of your comments even if I'm not your target) are obviously better than him at defending their position. Which doesn't mean that they are right, and even less that they are right to use that tone or to orchestrate a battle in this thread. For me, someone who suggests that his interlocutor is socially impaired or suffers from a mental illness just to discredit him, or who reacts with such vehemence for such a harmless joke should seriously try to avoid the forums for a few days, just to take some distance.

4 - the OP became a target too, even if, of course, everyone knows why he said "Why did she let V sleep in the womens' room during their journey to the Azure City? Did she trust him that much to be faithful? " then wrote "It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.".
It's because he's talking about Miko's point of view.
I believe this is an interrogation about Miko's values as a paladin. Which is not a question that can bring definitive answers, and which is not about sex directly.
We can also discuss about what can be the values of a paladin like Miko in this context, and try to find comparative data. It's not about Miko's fear about V trying to rape Haley, it's about a potential general rule for paladins to keep a certain order (a certain conception of society) in place.
We should in fact question the use of "trust" and "faithful". It's probably not about personal trust, and she likely doesn't fear that V would try to rape or seduce Haley - since Miko knows they are adventurers in the same group, but more importantly, because she seems to know something about elves that we don't (we can't assume that she knows V, or successfully guessed what kind of person V was, since Miko is terrible for this kind of things).
Elves seem to have views on gender and sex that are quite alien to us (or they don't use the same codes as humans for that anyway) - some would they that they are more civilized than medfan humans (but we don't even know if they have the same sexuality as humans), and it looks like Miko knows and respects that. My opinion is that she tries to give to everyone the treatment they deserve - and obviously she trusts an elf more than a halfling like Belkar.

Which leads me to the part that I find interesting:
-> As far as we know, elves may well be known for being very "faithful" and "trustworthy" about love/sexual matters among humans - even if it's just a misconception based on their weird, not fully understood, cultural customs. <-
But it could also be that Miko's view on religion, or Miko's religion, has no problem with V sharing a bedroom with Haley. We still need to explain why V was picked (and not Durkon, for instance), and why she decided to split the party that way.

Now, I know it's a fool's wish, but please don't answer me with comments beginning with : "No, ..." or "Actually..." or anything like that just to try to discredit myself. Please take these things lightly and try to not look like nerds that can't discuss about a comics they like without becoming ridiculously serious. In fact, it's already ridiculous when it's done about serious subjects like "did Romans sacrified all the meat they ate?". I find this question interesting, because it's related to elves and I find the elves in that comics rather interesting, since they are in the same time very "typical" and somehow different from what I've seen in my D&D campaigns. I could never identify exactly what made them feel so different to me, but this thread gave me a clue, I think.

And if you really want to play the experts with me and aren't tired of the polemic tone, feel free to react to that, like I said I like to joust (let's take that as sport): I'm a grammarian and a linguist IRL, and english is not my first language. Which means that I might not express myself perfectly in that language, but I'm still very able to open the right books, or to make the right investigations when I encounter a linguistic problem like the one about "fatally flawed". This expression is quite often associated with words like "failure", "unreasonable" and insults, and seems to be generally found in very polemic contexts when used verbally (I just looked in one database for verbal context, though). I found it in politicians' personal attacks, or in private conversations about divorce and this kind of stuff. Seems a bit similar to "you are just plain wrong", at a different level.
The fact that it's nowadays more common to try to hurt people through speech in english-speaking countries is not an excuse. As a linguist I can only notice this evolution, but as a grammarian I condemn it, and it makes me think of ancient Athens' sophists and republican Rome's populares. Let's keep this outside of these international forums.

[Ruck]

4 - the OP became a target too, even if, of course, everyone knows why he said "Why did she let V sleep in the womens' room during their journey to the Azure City? Did she trust him that much to be faithful? " then wrote "It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.".
It's because he's talking about Miko's point of view.
I believe this is an interrogation about Miko's values as a paladin. Which is not a question that can bring definitive answers, and which is not about sex directly.
What does "faithful" mean in this context, if it is not about sex?

Calling the OP "fatally flawed" because it operates from the premise that Vaarsuvius is definitively male seems quite reasonable to me.

[candybarsuvius]

But, from an external perspective, and with apologies for the textwall :
1 - the third commentary by Kish is already written in a polemic style, with very affirmative sentences and words like "obviously". You don't put words like "actually" or "obviously" in this kind of conversation unless you just want to shout "I'm right, I'm the specialist here, don't bother post other comments, this thread is over".
And of course, that comment began with : "You have three fatally flawed basic premises.". Which is, even if it is not to be taken literally (and really I don't think that anyone did this), a way to assert : "You're very wrong". Which isn't really a nice thing to say, and it's not a nice way to say it either - and that's all. Starting from that, it's still okay to stand your ground. But it's not okay to pretend that it doesn't mean what it means. The fact that the author of this sentence, or the ones that defended him, didn't try at all to say something like "I apologize, I didn't mean to sound rude" but say instead things like "you don't know english, stupid", says a lot.


Very well said. I get the impression that Nerdy and Kish don't understand this at all, though. I've said it before, and I'll say it again--it's a consequence of spending all your time in the artificial environment of the internet instead of reacting with people in the real world. My mommy taught me not to disagree with people on matters of simple opinion so vehemently, but what really drove the lesson home was when someone to whom I expressed such disagreement took a swing at me :). No such repercussions on the internet, though.

[candybarsuvius]

What does "faithful" mean in this context, if it is not about sex?

Calling the OP "fatally flawed" because it operates from the premise that Vaarsuvius is definitively male seems quite reasonable to me.

And therein lies your problem...

[candybarsuvius]

Someone whose being such a pedant should probably specify. Don't you think?

Someone whose don't knows grammar shouldn't even asks the question. But I'll answer anyway: the US. I was equating the lack of civility on this forum with the overall lack of civility of discourse in the US due to the recent election. And no, I'm not really talking politics here. I'm more referring to the way people talk to and treat each other in the absence of restraints and repercussions--such as on the internet.

[candybarsuvius]

What does "faithful" mean in this context, if it is not about sex?


Quote from NerdyKris:

"I'm sorry you're not comfortable with sex..."

So what it means in this context is an invitation for someone to make an unwarranted, insulting speculation about the poster.

Gotta love the internet!

[Cizak]

And of course, that comment began with : "You have three fatally flawed basic premises.". Which is, even if it is not to be taken literally (and really I don't think that anyone did this), a way to assert : "You're very wrong". Which isn't really a nice thing to say, and it's not a nice way to say it either - and that's all.

Directness isn't mean. If you go into an argument and think someone's argument is based on premises that harms their argument from the beginning, you tell them. "You have three fatally flawed basic premises" is a neutral statement. There really isn't any emotion, niceness, or lack thereof attached to it.


The fact that the author of this sentence, or the ones that defended him, didn't try at all to say something like "I apologize, I didn't mean to sound rude" but say instead things like "you don't know english, stupid", says a lot.

Firstly, I would think it's because the poster whom the prase was adressing didn't even comment on it, it was another poster, and they added needless aggresiveness to their posts by strawmanning, mis-quoting and belittling other posters.

Secondly, you are strawmanning yourself. Noone told candybarsuvius "you don't know english, stupid". They explained that they view "fatallt flawed" as a neutral, commonly used expression.


That's not something I would tell to someone unless [...] I want to show my strong disagreement with it.

Like Kish did?


Like in "It's a fatally flawed opinion to think that you can steal my cake, and leave this room alive" - see that? These two words are so strong that they can't be used in a normal conversation without being humourous.

What's humourous about your sentence is the added death threat which removes it far, far away from anything expressed by Kish in this thread.

[DaggerPen]

This is a friendly and in no way official or 'vigilante modding' type heads up that double posting is frowned upon in these forums (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1). If you need to reply to multiple posts, there's a little button that looks like a quote with a plus sign next to it that lets you easily reply to multiple posts within one post!

I have already said everything else I have to say on this thread, and offer nothing new.

[hroþila]

https://media.giphy.com/media/T259vhHiVfqz6/giphy.gif

À propos of nothing, of course.

[Razade]

Someone whose don't knows grammar shouldn't even asks the question.

You mean someone who doesn't know grammar?

[candybarsuvius]

You mean someone who doesn't know grammar?

That faint whistling sound was the joke going far, far, over your head.

[Kantaki]

Very well said. I get the impression that Nerdy and Kish don't understand this at all, though. I've said it before, and I'll say it again--it's a consequence of spending all your time in the artificial environment of the internet instead of reacting with people in the real world. My mommy taught me not to disagree with people on matters of simple opinion so vehemently, but what really drove the lesson home was when someone to whom I expressed such disagreement took a swing at me :). No such repercussions on the internet, though.

Wow. If you call others out on the fact that they are rude you might want to avoid acting the same way.
And maybe it would be a good idea not to assume that everyone was raised the way you were. I for one was taught to stand to my opinion*.


And therein lies your problem...

What problem? Calling out a flaw- and even calling it a fatal flaw -seems like a pretty normal argumentation technique to me.
And working off the assumptions that V is definitely male when his whole deal is that her gender is ambiguous or that Miko would have care when we can see she didn't seems like it could be called a fatal flaw.
It's not calling Earth a disk bad, but I wouldn't base my argumentation on it.


Someone whose don't knows grammar shouldn't even asks the question. But I'll answer anyway: the US. I was equating the lack of civility on this forum with the overall lack of civility of discourse in the US due to the recent election. And no, I'm not really talking politics here. I'm more referring to the way people talk to and treat each other in the absence of restraints and repercussions--such as on the internet.

I think it is kinda hilarious you consider the Playground bad. This place is pretty nice all things considered. I’ve seen worse in RL.
And if you think it is so bad it might be a good idea to lead by example instead of making it worse.

*Besides, isn't almost everything based on opinion?

[Razade]

That faint whistling sound was the joke going far, far, over your head.

No I got it, I just wanted to see how long I could drag you on for. I for one find you hilarious. I want to go on tour with you across the U.S.

[Ruck]

And therein lies your problem...
As far as I can tell, my problem seems to be that you don't understand what "fatally flawed" means.


Quote from NerdyKris:

"I'm sorry you're not comfortable with sex..."

So what it means in this context is an invitation for someone to make an unwarranted, insulting speculation about the poster.

Gotta love the internet!
You continue to insult other posters rather than give straightforward answers. You are the "lack of civility" you have spent half this thread complaining about.

[Lombard]

Àpropos of nothing, of course.

December 2016 is such a fine vintage is it not

[candybarsuvius]

*Besides, isn't almost everything based on opinion?

Actually, no. The sun rises in the east and is yellow even if it's your or my opinion that it rises in the north and is chartreuse.

What many people are doing here is elevating their opinions to the status of absolute and irrefutable truth, and anyone who doesn't share those opinions is "fatally flawed." Stating your opinion loudly and obnoxiously, in language that suggests that you are a shining beacon of absolute truth and that the person whose fatally flawed argument you are utterly destroying with the sword of your blindingly brilliant logic is an idiot, is not noble or tough-minded or praiseworthy or manly. I can't help but refer to a certain public figure of whom many have said, "He speaks his mind." Well, your drunk uncle Dan also speaks his mind, which is why you dread Thanksgiving dinner every year.

[candybarsuvius]

As far as I can tell, my problem seems to be that you don't understand what "fatally flawed" means.


You continue to insult other posters rather than give straightforward answers. You are the "lack of civility" you have spent half this thread complaining about.

See, that's the type of crap you spew that I object to. I never showed any misunderstanding of the term. I simply objected to your silly, condescending, insulting, and inaccurate use of it. Big difference between not understanding something and not agreeing with YOU about it.

I've given lots of straightforward answers, and as far as any lack of civility, I've only responded in kind. But you are, in one sense, absolutely right--I should never descend to your level. And as far as being evasive goes--what about the insult leveled at the OP? Has the person who did that copped to that or, God forfend, apologized for it? Have you acknowledged it?

It might be that some here are so sexually frustrated that a discussion of sex, even tangential to the topic as it was, sent them into a tizzy. I can't otherwise explain all the name-calling, insults, and provocative language. "I'm sorry you're not comfortable with sex"--I mean, what kind of horsecrap is that? Would you EVER say that to a stranger in public?

I can understand your attempting to evade your own behavior by accusing me of the same, though. It's a natural impulse: "you too!!! Nyahh nyahh, smarty!"

[Keltest]

Actually, no. The sun rises in the east and is yellow even if it's your or my opinion that it rises in the north and is chartreuse.

What many people are doing here is elevating their opinions to the status of absolute and irrefutable truth, and anyone who doesn't share those opinions is "fatally flawed." Stating your opinion loudly and obnoxiously, in language that suggests that you are a shining beacon of absolute truth and that the person whose fatally flawed argument you are utterly destroying with the sword of your blindingly brilliant logic is an idiot, is not noble or tough-minded or praiseworthy or manly. I can't help but refer to a certain public figure of whom many have said, "He speaks his mind." Well, your drunk uncle Dan also speaks his mind, which is why you dread Thanksgiving dinner every year.

A couple problems. V's gender ambiguity is not a matter of opinion either. It is pretty explicit within the comic that characters cannot tell what sex V is (or their former spouse, for that matter). Its understandable that somebody would decide one way or the other (and many people have), but youre going to run into problems when you base a premise off of that decision, which the OP did.

Secondly, Miko's open mindedness about these matters is not a matter of opinion either. On multiple occasions she has been shown to be perfectly OK with the idea of sex and same-sex relationships.

So yes, in this particular instance, Kish is perfectly within his right to make an absolute statement such as this because he is, in fact, factually correct.

[Kantaki]

Actually, no. The sun rises in the east and is yellow even if it's your or my opinion that it rises in the north and is chartreuse.

Almost being the operative word. Of course some things are fact.
Others depend on on our individual perception and are thus opinion.
For example I'm pretty sure the last time I saw the Sun it wasn't yellow. It was more reddish.


What many people are doing here is elevating their opinions to the status of absolute and irrefutable truth, and anyone who doesn't share those opinions is "fatally flawed." Stating your opinion loudly and obnoxiously, in language that suggests that you are a shining beacon of absolute truth and that the person whose fatally flawed argument you are utterly destroying with the sword of your blindingly brilliant logic is an idiot, is not noble or tough-minded or praiseworthy or manly. I can't help but refer to a certain public figure of whom many have said, "He speaks his mind." Well, your drunk uncle Dan also speaks his mind, which is why you dread Thanksgiving dinner every year.

I see.
But isn't every argumentation the attempt to present your* opinion as fact and other opinons as... fatally flawed? I seem to remember something like that.

More importantly, who is Uncle Dan?:smallconfused:
And what is Thanksgiving?
I don't think we do that in this part of the world.:smalltongue:

*As in the opinion you argue for.

[137beth]

Alright, there seems to be a huge misunderstanding about what you're actually asking here. Here are the reasons I, and I think many others, thought you wanted to talk about sex:

* You asked if Miko trusted V to "be faithful". "Being faithful" is very commonly understood as "only having sex with your partner".
<Snip>[/QUOTE]
Point of information: many couples between romantic-but-asexual individuals define their own boundaries as to what constitutes cheating in a romantic but non-sexual relationship.
I agree with the overall thrust of your post, though: in the most commonly used meaning of the phrase that the OP used, it refers to the possibility of V having extramarital sex, so the OP should have expected people to respond to that meaning.



1) Yes, because Miko, the definition of a stick in the mud paladin, would clearly not care about that.
2) While that's true, not everything is based around sex. The reason a kindergarten has split toilets has nothing to do with the adults fearing that, I'm sure.
3) I said "if it is any indication" for a reason, because I feared that I may have missed characters calling her female (is ambigious a gender? I honestly don't know).
Presumably Miko let V stay in whichever room made V (and the possibly the others) more comfortable, and that happened to be the same room as Haley and not the room with the male OOTS members. Which room do you think Miko should have insisted on V being in? V isn't male, nor is V female, so if you thought the rooms should be segregated by gender, than which one would you have put V in? More importantly, why would Miko care about segregating her prisoners by gender when she didn't mind them sleeping all together on the side of the road?




Given that preachy aspect, the religious values (of not all religions, to be sure, but of popular ones)

I'm actually not sure what the values of the most popular religion in Azure City (i.e., the Southern Pantheon religion) are. I mean, we know some of their religion's values based on the actions of Azure City clerics. And I hope you weren't talking about any other religions, since the only other religions in this world that we know of are the Northern, Western, Elven, Goblin, and Giggles religions, none of which are popular in Miko's culture.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked.