OOTS #1230 - The Discussion Thread

[Good Coyote]

I do want to note, V explained what non-sentient meant when Elan asked. Which itself is a bit of development from giving everyone the dismissive treatment in the past. Seems like communication really is key.

True. To be honest, even before what we think of as V's big growth moment following Familicide, V was a very good teacher to Elan on how to use illusions. With the celestial lion on the junk, V could have just told Elan "No questions! Make exactly what I tell you and move it where I say when I say," and not try to explain how they were attempting to fool the goblins. Elan didn't need to understand why in order to cast the spell and control the illusion.

It could be that V thought Elan wouldn't cooperate if he didn't know what was going on and would mess up somehow, but considering the popular theory that "Elan not knowing the plan makes it more likely to succeed," that's fairly generous of them already.


On the Mechane... very good point. Elan could learn the same lesson about what he wants in life, by thinking about what kind of priorities you need to have in life, in order to stick with a ship that will only ever let you barely succeed (but guarantee at least the partial success of showing up in time, and maximum drama), at the expense of people you care about being guaranteed to experience lesser pain while they wait for you. But it does make Julio's choices look a lot better.

[danielxcutter]

It seems the "non-sentient" joke was something Elan preempted so he'd see it coming to me.

[Goblin_Priest]

Elan was right, though. V didn't have to spend all those years and all that effort to become a wizard. That's 100% on V.

In his defense, though, a lvl 5 wizard is much better than a lvl 1 rogue/lvl 4 wizard. Multiclassing saves time and effort, but gives way less bang for your buck when the currency is XP.

Just because some people put in a ton of work towards something, doesn't mean that easier alternatives can't be used or pointed out. "I spent years of my life towards this, and thus only people who put equivalent years and effort are worthy of the same results" is 1) elitist beyond belief, and 2) hold innovation and efficiency in complete contempt, promotes institutions like nepotism.

When someone's cutting a log with a butter knife when there's a chainsaw next to him, he's not entitled to be shielded from the folly of his choices. Another would be well within their rights to point this out. And someone choosing to cut his own log with the chainsaw instead of imitating his predecessor with a butter knife is not in any way wrong.

What's the difference between offensive things and inoffensive things if not that the former cause feelings that the latter do not?

I suppose something being called "offensive" generally indicates that it offends whoever is using the word "offensive", but in that context taking issue with anyone else's use of "offensive" is fairly nonsensical, isn't it? Like, "Well, I'm not offended, so you're wrong to feel otherwise". Attempting once again to accurately generalize about usage in practice, I suppose that "wrong" feelings in this context are feelings that are at odds with one's own. But at that point "wrong to feel other than I do" becomes redundant at best. Perplexing.

An inherently offensive statement is offensive to a reasonable person, not merely for being offensive to a single person. It needs a basis, logic, in which it yields offense.

To censor speech based on the most easily offended people to roam the earth is a path to folly, because some people get worked up for the most ridiculous of things.

And as a result of this, to offend someone is not inherently wrong. To illustrate, think of the metaphor of the butterfly effect, where a butterfly's flap of its wing causes cascade reactions that cause a hurricane on the other side of the world. Is the butterfly wrong? Was flapping its wings wrong? It could not predict with any level of certainty what the results of its actions would be, it was just doing what is not only normal, but vital for him. He could not be faulted for the impacts he had on others. You cannot promise to not repeat unforeseeable consequences. Such is with offense over words. One can be held to account with uttering things than a reasonable person could find offensive. But if one offends another by triggering an unknowable personality flaw or quirk, then one cannot be said to have dome something wrong, for the consequences of his actions were unforeseeable.

[dancrilis]

I think a problem with offence is that it cannot be given only taken - but it is very easy to take even by accident.

As such:
On the part of the person with the offence they should not scatter it around as it might cling to other people and annoy them - instead they should keep it contained and only use it in controlled circumstances, this is obviously difficult as one might not know they even have any offence in the first place.
On the part of the person who takes the offence they should put it back and try to avoid it in the future - maybe taking steps to ensure that such offence would be properly contained.

However there are two types of people that make this even more difficult.
1: People who do try to leave offence everywhere in the hopes that someone might step in it.
2: People who try to take as much offence as possible regardless of how securely it is contained or the cirsumstances in which it was deployed.

Elan was not trying to give offence - Vaarsuvius took it.
Elan's mistake was they didn't consider how easy the offence would be to pick up and so didn't contain it properly.
Vaarsuvius's mistake was taking the offence at all.

Vaarsuvius did however realise that they overreacted and effectively put the offence down (panel 6) likely somewhat based on Elan indicating that they didn't know they had left any offence out (panel 9), and Elan then moved to contain the offence by effectively indicating they understood offence had been taken because they had left it out to be found (panel 11).

[mjasghar]

That’s blatantly false
If you were to use a racially pejorative word to someone knowing it was offensive then how can you say you weren’t being offensive and it’s the fault of the person you were abusing for being offended? Seriously?

[dancrilis]

If you were to use a racially pejorative word to someone knowing it was offensive then how can you say you weren’t being offensive and it’s the fault of the person you were abusing for being offended? Seriously?

Had he been aware Redcloak might be offended by being called a greenskin (panel 3) and that hobgoblin might have intended it in an offensive manner - however if Redcloak (an no one else) was not offended then no offence would have been taken taken, now you could still regard it as offensive on Redcloak's behalf but that is you taking offence that wasn't even intended for you.

As mentioned above some people who try to be offensive do try to give offence - but ultimately if one does not actually take offence then none can be given.

[bunsen_h]

But if one offends another by triggering an unknowable personality flaw or quirk, then one cannot be said to have dome something wrong, for the consequences of his actions were unforeseeable.

That's a bit context-dependent, and depends partially on what events follow.

I once saw a woman rough-housing with a young girl. Everything looked like fun and games for both, until the woman picked the girl up to swing her around. The girl freaked out. The woman put her down and asked what was wrong. The girl couldn't talk.

Another person nearby quietly explained to the woman that the girl had been abused by her mother's ex.

The decent thing for the woman to do was to apologize to the girl. "I'm sorry I scared you. I didn't mean to do that."

As opposed to what she actually did, which was to confront the girl. "I didn't hurt you, did I? No? Then you don't have anything to be upset about, do you?"

One of my long-standing regrets is that I didn't think to step in at that point.

[Good Coyote]

Elan was right, though. V didn't have to spend all those years and all that effort to become a wizard. That's 100% on V.

In his defense, though, a lvl 5 wizard is much better than a lvl 1 rogue/lvl 4 wizard. Multiclassing saves time and effort, but gives way less bang for your buck when the currency is XP.

Just because some people put in a ton of work towards something, doesn't mean that easier alternatives can't be used or pointed out. "I spent years of my life towards this, and thus only people who put equivalent years and effort are worthy of the same results" is 1) elitist beyond belief, and 2) hold innovation and efficiency in complete contempt, promotes institutions like nepotism.

When someone's cutting a log with a butter knife when there's a chainsaw next to him, he's not entitled to be shielded from the folly of his choices. Another would be well within their rights to point this out. And someone choosing to cut his own log with the chainsaw instead of imitating his predecessor with a butter knife is not in any way wrong.

Yes. As I said, there was nothing wrong with Elan's jokes, and if he runs into a wizard who appreciates them, he should absolutely go for it.

The only problem was continuing to make someone else the butt of a joke after they clearly didn't find it funny. It doesn't matter what the joke was about.



Personally I don't think Elan ever really planned to take a level in wizard. He wasn't talking about some future opportunity after all, he was talking about the one that they all just dinged up to.

Why wait for however long (I read it coming downstairs the next day while they were eating breakfast, but that's just my reading), find a costume and a fake beard that he knows wizards don't need, pick a new name that he knows wizards don't need (V has never complained about anyone shortening their name), and put on a show instead of just taking the level?

Even if he actually did intend to take the level though, it's separate from his jokes, even though I agree taking the level would be fine in itself too.

[dancrilis]

... instead of just taking the level?

The Giant seems to run on needing the trappings of a different class to adopt it - Belkar couldn't just become a barbarian he had to go to the guild first, Elan couldn't become a Dashing Swordsman he needed to a book (or training or both).

For a wizard at the very least Elan would likely have had to acquire a spell book.

Of course it all depends on how the Giant rules it.

[Good Coyote]

The Giant seems to run on needing the trappings of a different class to adopt it - Belkar couldn't just become a barbarian he had to go to the guild first, Elan couldn't become a Dashing Swordsman he needed to a book (or training or both).

For a wizard at the very least Elan would likely have had to acquire a spell book.

Of course it all depends on how the Giant rules it.

That's a good point. If you're in the "Elan is as intellectually dumb as he ever appears" camp, then he might not know the spellbook is what he needs, and just grab "wizard stuff."

It seemed like he was saying he could take the level and it would be assumed that he already did all that work, looking over V's shoulder. That's already his equivalent of his later training montage. He could be wrong though.

It would be retroactively changing a lot for V too if he went that route, since either he had V's consent or V was careless with their notes, or it's enforced that V knew he was learning and didn't approve and didn't do anything about it the whole time.

Maybe he actually did need V's consent in order to be their pseudoapprentice (like Belkar got guild consent through the arena ritual fight), and that's why he didn't take the level yet, but was being obtuse on what would actually get him that consent.

[danielxcutter]

I think Elan was pretty dumb(and still is), but he also didn't think that much for a while either, or didn't try to.

He's still about as sharp as a sack of wet mice, but he tries. And sometimes that makes all the difference.

[bunsen_h]

I think Elan was pretty dumb(and still is), but he also didn't think that much for a while either, or didn't try to.

Mediocre INT and WIS.

He's still about as sharp as a sack of wet mice, but he tries.

Those things do have teeth, and will use them if given the opportunity. They won't stay in the sack for very long if it's left undisturbed.

EDIT:

That's a good point. If you're in the "Elan is as intellectually dumb as he ever appears" camp, then he might not know the spellbook is what he needs, and just grab "wizard stuff."

To be fair, V's spell books and components have only been visible a couple of times.

[dancrilis]

Those things do have teeth, and will use them if given the opportunity. They won't stay in the sack for very long if it's left undisturbed.

But while they are in the sack the sack probably isn't that sharp.

[Goblin_Priest]

That’s blatantly false
If you were to use a racially pejorative word to someone knowing it was offensive then how can you say you weren’t being offensive and it’s the fault of the person you were abusing for being offended? Seriously?

A reasonable person could expect a racially pejorative word to offend. To knowingly act in a way as to be hurtful is generally wrong.

That's a bit context-dependent, and depends partially on what events follow.

I once saw a woman rough-housing with a young girl. Everything looked like fun and games for both, until the woman picked the girl up to swing her around. The girl freaked out. The woman put her down and asked what was wrong. The girl couldn't talk.

Another person nearby quietly explained to the woman that the girl had been abused by her mother's ex.

The decent thing for the woman to do was to apologize to the girl. "I'm sorry I scared you. I didn't mean to do that."

As opposed to what she actually did, which was to confront the girl. "I didn't hurt you, did I? No? Then you don't have anything to be upset about, do you?"

One of my long-standing regrets is that I didn't think to step in at that point.

Well, to knowingly act in a way as to create discomfort may not be as bad as to knowingly act in a way as to be hurtful, but it's still generally wrong.

And in your example, it's justified to display empathy ("I'm sorry I scared you"), even if it's not really an apology ("I'm sorry I picked you up to swing you around"). Both have their purposes. And it's fine to display empathy for the consequences one's actions, even if said actions aren't inherently wrong. Another example: if there's a contest for, say, a scholarship, and you and your friend worked really hard for it, and you end up winning it yourself. It's fine to express empathy to the friend (though probably a delicate feat to accomplish), even if you didn't do anything wrong by winning it. Negative externalities (such as the friend's loss of the scholarship to you) aren't proof of wrongdoing.

[bunsen_h]

But while they are in the sack the sack probably isn't that sharp.

I'm not willing to try the experiment of stuffing a bunch of mice in a sack and holding my hand against the sack, and not just because it'd be inhumane. I've been bitten by a pet gerbil, just for extending a finger near it so it could get used to my scent. Those things have vicious teeth.

A reasonable person could expect a racially pejorative word to offend. To knowingly act in a way as to be hurtful is generally wrong.

And in cases where such language is blatant, I think it's often appropriate to call out someone for using it, even if one isn't part of the group in question. Not always, but often.

[Goblin_Priest]

And in cases where such language is blatant, I think it's often appropriate to call out someone for using it, even if one isn't part of the group in question. Not always, but often.

While I don't fundamentally disagree with this sentiment, I think there's there a problem around what is actually blatant, and the history of words. A *lot* of words seem to mutate every decade or so, in order to be "more inclusive", "more respectful", "less racist", or things like that. Often, the "target group" doesn't even have issues with the words being used, and it's people from the majority group who are imposing new words for them, deciding for them what words are or aren't acceptable, and banning words that they themselves are using.

There's a distinction to be made between "words that aren't socially accepted among certain circles anymore" and "word that are legitimately hurtful to those they target".

Most of the PC words being used today, stuff like "POC" (people of color) or "marginalized", which are now preferred to other words deemed less appropriate, are probably gonna be in the bin by next decade, replaced by something else.

I think there's a distinction to be made between words that are no longer in favor, and words that were always overtly pejorative/demeaning, but that many people don't make that distinction.

[Peelee]

I'm not willing to try the experiment of stuffing a bunch of mice in a sack and holding my hand against the sack, and not just because it'd be inhumane. I've been bitten by a pet gerbil, just for extending a finger near it so it could get used to my scent. Those things have vicious teeth.

Don't forget the need to repeat it for consistent results. And a control group!

He says to the professor.

[dancrilis]

And a control group!

How would you even do a control group 'sharp as a sack of wet mice' can't really be compared to empty sack nor against unsacked wet mice and a sack of dry mice wouldn't really be the same thing at all.

Would you just choose a random sharp think and see if the sack was sharper or less sharp then it?

[arimareiji]

usually the answer is that the dead are dead. but even dante's inferno had an exit. i think heaven should also have an exit too, but that is another story. but in roy's afterlife, it seemed that they could at least change, though i would say only within their selected afterlive's setting. because they could settle down at the "tavern of unlimited one night stands" until they became bored and decided to move on. that suggest some kind of change. but mostly, i would say that is a lightening, a shedding off, rather than an evolution. other realms with eternal fighting and feasting, i would say that they participate in this endless cycle until one day there is a distraction that catches their attention and they move on.

At least for the tendencies of humans IRL, this sounds about right. (^_~)

Not sure about the Stickverse... Roy's Archon gave me the impression of inevitably getting bored with "perpetual happiness" and moving on to "enlightenment", but I wonder whether they can actually go in two directions: Moving up (enlightenment), or moving on (their "divine spark" gradually dissolving into a perpetual state -- i.e. boredom in the Giant's example of an eternity of LN paperwork, or for others the bliss of something like Negima's Kosmo Entelecheia).

Those things do have teeth, and will use them if given the opportunity. They won't stay in the sack for very long if it's left undisturbed.

Excellent point if we're talking about the biological variety, which is what my favorite uncle's spirit animal^* (Foghorn Leghorn) almost certainly meant by the expression.
_{* - Same Suth'n accent, different set of expressions, but pretty close to the same personality behind them.}

And I'd like to join in echoing about rodent teeth. For all that hamsters are some of the gentlest, sweetest animals on earth, you don't want to startle one who's asleep or drowsy if you want to remain unpunctured.

But I think the metaphor works beautifully for Elan if we're talking about the computer variety. (^_~)b

[Peelee]

How would you even do a control group

That's the joke.

[dancrilis]

That's the joke.

Joke, PhD topic, Postdoc paper - tomato tomato.

[arimareiji]

Joke, PhD topic, Postdoc paper - tomato tomato.

Indeed. XD (^_^)b

Piled higher and deeper, as the old joke goes.

[Peelee]

Joke, PhD topic, Postdoc paper - tomato tomato.

What else is academia for?

Indeed. XD (^_^)b

Piled higher and deeper, as the old joke goes.

The person I learned this from was a family friend who had an MD and Ph.D, and married to someone with an MD and Ph.D.

I think she had a grudge against graduate school or something.

[hroþila]

Don't forget the need to repeat it for consistent results. And a control group!

He says to the professor.

This is a good time to mention that Redcloak's control group is my favourite joke in the whole comic.

[dancrilis]

This is a good time to mention that Redcloak's control group is my favourite joke in the whole comic.

For me it is Shojo throwing the dead wizard at Roy - just everything about it from the leadup to the act to the aftermath I think is kindof perfect.

[Rrmcklin]

Which would be fine, if he were still the guy who went drinking with Buggy Lou, but he's not. He's actually trying to get better and change who he was. (It's just a whole lot of ground to get past, considering who he was----and a lot of that is covering the graves of his victims.)

Frankly---and he'd be bored silly if they let him in---he deserves to be in Celestia more than Roy's Dad. (Whose name I hilariously can't remember right now, but i can remember him winning some awards for Best Illusion. Darned if I'll go look it up, though.)

It's an interesting question: in a universe where your deeds dictate where you go when you die, how much should you be judged by what you've done, versus by how much you're currently doing?

I mean, sidestepping Eugene for a moment, this is just kind of ridiculous. Belkar starting to feel kind of bad about who he used to be (but still not actually expressing any remorse for all of his victims or wishing to somehow making things better) hardly "deserves" one of the universe's paradises.

Belkar has made huge steps for Belkar, but that's not confuse that as huge steps period. Doing the bare-minimum of maybe becoming a not-horrible person doesn't deserve a reward.

[bunsen_h]

While I don't fundamentally disagree with this sentiment, I think there's there a problem around what is actually blatant, and the history of words. A *lot* of words seem to mutate every decade or so, in order to be "more inclusive", "more respectful", "less racist", or things like that. Often, the "target group" doesn't even have issues with the words being used, and it's people from the majority group who are imposing new words for them, deciding for them what words are or aren't acceptable, and banning words that they themselves are using.

There's a distinction to be made between "words that aren't socially accepted among certain circles anymore" and "word that are legitimately hurtful to those they target".

Most of the PC words being used today, stuff like "POC" (people of color) or "marginalized", which are now preferred to other words deemed less appropriate, are probably gonna be in the bin by next decade, replaced by something else.

I think there's a distinction to be made between words that are no longer in favor, and words that were always overtly pejorative/demeaning, but that many people don't make that distinction.

Bloom County had a dry comment on this subject. Though I don't agree that the process is primarily driven by the majority group, with the minority group not having a problem with the words.

The process is weird. There are words that are later claimed, or reclaimed, by members of group X, and are okay for them to use, and non-X people might be okay with using them if it's clear that it's meant in a non-insulting way -- sort of a pseudo-in-group thing. There are others that non-X people pretty much can't use at all. Which gets weird in a context like an on-line forum where it may not be clear if a person is or is not part of group X. A few weeks ago, I saw a Black guy chatting on his phone with someone about a nearby parked car: "Some n****r left his lights on!" When it was clear that he didn't know the race of the person, and he was using the word in a not-horribly-offensive-but-still-negative way.

What else is academia for?

The person I learned this from was a family friend who had an MD and Ph.D, and married to someone with an MD and Ph.D.

I think she had a grudge against graduate school or something.

There's a Heinlein story, "By His Bootstraps", which begins with a guy who's working on writing up his graduate thesis. He's at the point of no longer caring much if it's valid. I've seen criticism of that, on the grounds of it being unrealistic. It always seemed realistic to me.

[Dion]

Doing the bare-minimum of maybe becoming a not-horrible person doesn't deserve a reward.

But he’s also done the bare minimum of maybe becoming a not horrible tracker.

Those two things together should get him into celestial, easy.

[Goblin_Priest]

Bloom County had a dry comment on this subject. Though I don't agree that the process is primarily driven by the majority group, with the minority group not having a problem with the words.

The process is weird. There are words that are later claimed, or reclaimed, by members of group X, and are okay for them to use, and non-X people might be okay with using them if it's clear that it's meant in a non-insulting way -- sort of a pseudo-in-group thing. There are others that non-X people pretty much can't use at all. Which gets weird in a context like an on-line forum where it may not be clear if a person is or is not part of group X. A few weeks ago, I saw a Black guy chatting on his phone with someone about a nearby parked car: "Some n****r left his lights on!" When it was clear that he didn't know the race of the person, and he was using the word in a not-horribly-offensive-but-still-negative way.

Pretty much. Of all the words used to describe "people of color", some were inherently pejorative, but I think most were inherently neutral, but just got tied up with the stigma attached to the target group, that they became eventually bad themselves. The process applies to other things as well, not just a race thing.

I'm wary of giving any actual examples, though, because of how unclear the line is concerning the rules of what can or can't be discussed.

The fact that, for many terms, the groups in question often use the oldest ("most vulgar/pejorative") term is suggestive that it's the majority group that's evolving around them.

With native Americans, for example, well we've come to have a lot of terms to describe them. In some cases, we've been brought up to consider really offensive the terms they themselves favor. In other cases, they have themselves requested that some other terms be dropped in favor of terms more to their liking.

None of this is probably very clear, though. I don't really agree with these rules, but I try to follow them. Probably should just move on to another topic now.

[Good Coyote]

If Belkar gets into any heaven, I predict it will be a Lawful one because it would require an Atonement and his cleric buddies are LG.