OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread

[Peelee]

Are you saying you were the one? I can't recall us ever having an argument.

I was jokingly accepting the blame, largely because I thought you knew who did it. We've had a couple of friendly debates, usually short, but no animosity. So no, it wasn't me, and I wouldn't have made that joke if I'd believed you didn't know the person's identity. Sorry 'bout that.

[hamishspence]

So no, it wasn't me, and I wouldn't have made that joke if I'd believed you didn't know the person's identity.

I've no idea whodunnit.

I figured it was after one of the harsher debates - but not sure which one.

Or, of course, it could be unconnected to the forums - but I don't socialise that much in "real-life" and can't think of anyone I might have offended.

I was googling myself in the hope of finding anything of interest - and that Urban Dictionary article was what came up. It was quite a shock to say the least.

[Angel Bob]

Topic smiley is highly appropriate. Awww.

I'm so happy to finally have an LGBTQ+ character -- see, naysayers? It doesn't have to be the main thing about the character, just a side detail. Perfectly executed, Giant.

[Peelee]

I've no idea whodunnit.

I figured it was after one of the harsher debates - but not sure which one.

Or, of course, it could be unconnected to the forums - but I don't socialise that much in "real-life" and can't think of anyone I might have offended.

I was googling myself in the hope of finding anything of interest - and that Urban Dictionary article was what came up. It was quite a shock to say the least.

Wow. I just looked it up (I think this marks the third time I've realized, "wait, it's SHS, not just SH"), and I don't blame you. I usually enjoy stealing the credit in blatantly "I do not deserve this credit" ways, but it kinda backfired on me there. Probably should have looked it up before I tried, too.

[hamishspence]

No harm done.

Strip 959's definitely got me wondering what's in store in future.

[Peelee]

No harm done.

Strip 959's definitely got me wondering what's in store in future.

Puppies. Puppies of various breeds, all frolicking around to end all debate ever. Either that, or more establishing what each character is doing around this time. I think we'll get a peak in on V finishing his magical detections, or a little more Haley or Bandana time. Don't think they will be landing in the next couple of strips, much as I would like.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Wow. I just looked it up (I think this marks the third time I've realized, "wait, it's SHS, not just SH"), and I don't blame you. I usually enjoy stealing the credit in blatantly "I do not deserve this credit" ways, but it kinda backfired on me there. Probably should have looked it up before I tried, too.

Umm, wow, I just looked it up too. I can understand why hamishspence wouldn't like the site now.

[hamishspence]

According to TV Tropes - the site used to be half-decent but has gone way downhill.

[DaggerPen]

Gonna bow out of the discussion of anything related to representation/privilege in this thread because it's starting to seem really close to the line.

I just emitted a high-pitched 'AWWWWWWWWW' that may or may not have cracked a nearby window and my computer screen. They're adorable! And so fluffy!

It's a husky/corgi mix, innit?

If I had to guess, I'd say it was random letter spamming to parody the fact that it does end up looking like a jumble of random letters (Try saying LGBTQQAI with a straight face, and then remember there are more of them).

Side note: this is the reason I like the "MOGII" acronym (short for Marginalized Orientation, Gender Identity, and Intersex). Less of a mouthful and of finite length no matter how many identities you add in.

[jere7my]

In this case, "average" has an application: anyone who falls in between the extremes of actual privilege and serious disadvantage. Imagine three racers, one with a head start, one who starts out behind, and one in the middle. Only that first one has privilege. It is also hard to apply concepts of race/gender/etc to the nebulous concept of "privilege." There are rich gays out there, rich black women, people who are born with physical ailments as well as great wealth. At a point, the argument over privilege becomes ridiculous, as only a small group of people can ever be said to have everything "working for them" at the same time: white/straight/male/healthy/rich/not part of a group that is looked down on, etc.

Privilege is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It's a relative thing. Your middle racer has privilege relative to the third, and lacks it relative to the first. If you switch perspective to the head of the third racer, he probably thinks both of the others have privilege that he doesn't.

The concept of social privilege is really just a way of looking at the unnoticed benefits we enjoy because of who we are. If you're white, you probably aren't pulled over for no reason on a regular basis, or arrested for buying an expensive belt. If you're male, you can probably play online video games without suffering constant harassment, and you probably won't get hundreds of death threats for blogging about it. This is not to say that all black people get arrested, or all women get death threats, or that no white males ever have to deal with that stuff—just that if you're not black or female you probably don't even need to waste brain cycles thinking about it on a regular basis. Sure, there are poor white people with less class privilege than rich black people, but, all else being equal, a black person probably has to deal with crap every day that a white person doesn't have to think about. A rich, famous black person is less likely to have a cab stop for them than a rich, famous white person.

Actually, whether you intended it or not, your footrace analogy is a perfect example of privilege. Your "average" runner isn't too privileged, and he isn't too disadvantaged; he's normal. There's nothing weird or unusual about his situation, right? See, that's one of the biggest privileges we able-bodied straight white males enjoy—the privilege of being the unmarked norm. We think of our experiences as being the default American life, the Goldilocks choice, the zero-point from which divergent experiences (positive or negative) are measured. We're aided in this perception by movies and TV and books, in which a character who doesn't need to be black, or female, or gay, or trans, or disabled will most likely look a lot like us. Anyone else needs a reason for being there (as various bits of this thread demonstrate); we pass without comment. This is not because there are more of us—straight white able-bodied males are actually just a sizeable minority in the US—but because we're thought of as normal, as the default, by a lot of the people who create media. It's a huge privilege to be able to see lots of people like us in the stories we enjoy, and to not have every new character who looks like us picked to pieces to determine whether they have enough of a reason to exist.

So when somebody says "Check your privilege," they're not saying "Shut up" (unless they're a jerk; there are always jerks). They're saying, "Step back for a second and see if there are unexamined assumptions in what you're saying." If you say, "Man, I don't get why so many people complain about winter, this is sooo nice," and you're living in Miami at the time, you shouldn't be surprised if someone in Boston asks you to get outside your own head and see things from their perspective for a change.

[Elan's Modron]

I´ve been a lurker around here for many years, but i simply HAD to come here and comment after the last comic. It´s amazing how you managed to deal with so many important themes in a single page: (i) homosexuality; (ii) weight/beauty issues ("curvy"); (iii) women that always dreamed to fit in positions of authority; (iv) the stereotype that tells that girls are either sister-like friends or enemies that tell each other gender-oriented offenses (you b****, etc); (v) the "chainmail bikini" stereotype ("bare midriff"). I doubt those are mere coincidences. Congrats!

I appreciated all those points too! Plus, Bandana is bi-racial (black dad and white mom) (last panel of the third row) and no one gives a toss. (Unlike in our world = 'infamous' Cheerios commercial and subsequent cretinous outrage).

I've long admired how Rich has always had people of all different skin-tones in his comic, and that the black people, for instance, aren't all from some freakin' in-world "Jungle-land."

[turkishproverb]

Ahh, yes, good catch. Hmm... Any kooky dream sequence/hallucination Roys we're forgetting?

Hmmm... Child Roy? College Roy?

Never let the facts get in the way of having an enemy to hate, I suppose. Alas, poor Linux distros.

Heh. I forgot that version of linux existed, honestly.

I imagine they would find a way to release a completely new Roy figure simply for the addition of Xykon's crown rather than releasing it alone as an accessory, as that would lead to more profits, which Haley would strongly encourage.

Good point.

Side note: this is the reason I like the "MOGII" acronym (short for Marginalized Orientation, Gender Identity, and Intersex). Less of a mouthful and of finite length no matter how many identities you add in.

But it sounds like the Ferengi Term for mother.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Any kooky dream sequence/hallucination Roys we're forgetting?

There is undead (mummy, shadow, and vampire version) Roy in Haley's imagination.

also, Crystal was a cold blood killer.
snuff her out was, as americans like saying , "taking out the trash"

Note that this is a movie cliché and I've never heard anyone actually say that. Maybe you meant "...as American screenwriters like saying..." :)

[DaggerPen]

Note that this is a movie cliché and I've never heard anyone actually say that. Maybe you meant "...as American screenwriters like saying..." :)

... considering the situations where this line is usually used, I'm concerned you have enough experience to judge here.

[Lexible]

Puppies. Puppies of various breeds, all frolicking around to end all debate ever. Either that, or more establishing what each character is doing around this time. I think we'll get a peak in on V finishing his magical detections, or a little more Haley or Bandana time. Don't think they will be landing in the next couple of strips, much as I would like.

Puppies are warm and fuzzy. On the other hand, I am personally a kittens FTW type. True story:

I was once out on my own and saw Jim Jarmusch's film Ghost Dog, and it left me viscerally and emotionally hammered. I exited the theater sobbing (Strangely enough, no one else there interpreted the film that way. Go figure.), and, knowing that some friends were hanging out nearby, I walked to the apartment seeking comfort. They answered the door delighted to see me, but unable to get a single intelligible word out of me, just tears. That is... until one of them placed an 8-week old kitten in my lap. Then it was all smiles, laughter and good times.

I know. I know: what a sob story... BA-dum-CHING!

[rodneyAnonymous]

... considering the situations where this line is usually used, I'm concerned you have enough experience to judge here.

I only said I've never heard anyone say that, not that I've been in lots of situations where someone could have said that but didn't :P Surely some, though. Someone only has to be talking about someone being killed (by someone else, even) for that phrase to potentially appear. Eek not :)

[zimmerwald1915]

But it sounds like the Ferengi Term for mother.

You mean that was a term in general circulation and not just Quark's and Rom's nickname for Ishka?

[Socksy]

Wow... do you think it was just another Hamish Spence who pissed someone off or do you think it was aimed at you?

[Lathund]

(thank you for considering it.) It's not the existence of the non-LGBTW&ct in large narratives that is the objection. It is the assumption (the '-normativity') that because they're a majority or presumed majority, that—and here's the deeply socially constructed part—that is somehow a justification for assuming and/or presenting a large narrative in which only they exist.

Hm. This is not an answer to the question I asked. So please allow me to repeat it:

"[I]is it so strange to assume [that otherwise unspecified persons are straight and cisgender]? Color blindness is about as common as nontraditional gender preferences, but is it so strange to assume that a new person you meet can see all colours?"

When I meet a new person, I don't really think much about what sexual orientation they might have, unless it's incredibly obvious. But I do, at some level, assume they're straight. When I meet a new person, I don't really think about whether they might be colourblind. But unless otherwise specified, I guess I assume they can see colours like 'normal'. Lastly, I read some while ago that about 10% of women has been involved in sexual violence somewhere in their past. Still, when I meet a new woman, I assume they haven't been.

So yes, I suppose I'm heteronormative. I'm also normative towards full chromatic vision and a sexually safe past, as well as to other similarly abundant aspects. But can you, in all honesty, say that you are not? And can other readers?

If Rick had decided to make Bandana colourblind, I would just as much want that colourblindness to have a function in the story; now or in the future. Because else, why bother writing in an explicitly colourblind character? Sure they exist, but why mention it?

[SaintRidley]

Because good, well-written characters are more than their plot function.

[Lathund]

Side note. Is there any chance we might already know Bandana's ex? Maybe someone from Team Tarquin or a daughter thereof? Miko? Julia? Crystal? I can't think of anyone plausible, but maybe someone else can.

[Snails]

I do not find the dialogue clunky. But funny.

The reason is that conversing at all about breast size etc. is just hilarious because the difference between voluptuous and skinny is so few pixels. With stick figures. It reminds me of Élan confused about whether they have thumbs.

The other thing is that in 3e magical armor will resize for you. So the busty statuesque Amazonian and the short scrawny waif can wear the same set of armor, both being Medium creatures.

Where others seem to have seen clunky dialogue with some kind of gay apologist agenda, I saw two jokes, one poking fun at the art genre and the other at D&D.

[Keltest]

Because good, well-written characters are more than their plot function.

I think his point was more "Why does a character need to explicitly name themselves as gay/transgender/whathaveyou for them to be a good, well-written character if it isn't directly plot relevant?" In this specific comic panel I think it was integrated well, such that it didn't feel like the character was deliberately trying to announce that fact as a way to tell the audience "Yes, she is definitely gay." But there are plenty of media that make a really big deal out of it where a big deal doesn't need to be made. It is possible to write a character that way without them announcing themselves that way.

[Coidzor]

Side note: this is the reason I like the "MOGII" acronym (short for Marginalized Orientation, Gender Identity, and Intersex). Less of a mouthful and of finite length no matter how many identities you add in.

Seems like you'd pronounce it like the British term for a cat of mixed ancestry, the feline equivalent of a mutt.

[The Giant]

If Rick had decided to make Bandana colourblind, I would just as much want that colourblindness to have a function in the story; now or in the future. Because else, why bother writing in an explicitly colourblind character? Sure they exist, but why mention it?

I don't give a damn if diversity in OOTS has a function in the story. Diversity in OOTS has a function in real life. I will happily sacrifice any or all story logic on the altar of accomplishing one fraction of an ounce of real good in the real world. The story is a tool for getting my ideas across, nothing more. Some of those ideas are thoughts on D&D and how it should be played, some are thoughts about right and wrong, and some are thoughts about the world around us and how we should treat other people. If there was a problem with OOTS before, it was that it was not properly reflecting how I see the world; now, it's a little closer.

For you, OOTS is a silly little comic strip you read a few times a month. For me, it's eleven years of my life and a primary source on my thoughts and feelings that people will use to judge my contributions to the world and any future works I create. If I want to make it more closely align with how I really feel, I'm going to ****ing well do it.

Also: Last time I checked, colorblind people enjoy the full extant of rights and privileges that people with full spectrum vision enjoy, and it is in fact thoroughly illegal to discriminate against someone for colorblindness, as it would be for anyone suffering a medical disability. If colorblind people were being denied the same rights as other people—or even getting killed for being colorblind—you could damn well be sure I would be certain to include one in OOTS.

EDIT: Hinjo is red-green colorblind. CANON.

[Lexible]

Hm. This is not an answer to the question I asked. So please allow me to repeat it:

"[I]is it so strange to assume [that otherwise unspecified persons are straight and cisgender]? Color blindness is about as common as nontraditional gender preferences, but is it so strange to assume that a new person you meet can see all colours?"

When I meet a new person, I don't really think much about what sexual orientation they might have, unless it's incredibly obvious. But I do, at some level, assume they're straight.

I don't make this assumption. Making it is a choice. It's also a choice people are indoctrinated to make in a particular way. I once griped about the lack of visibly queer students at Hogwarts, and a straight cis friend of mine said "But those books don't really have any sexuality" Which is patently false: parenting is exclusively heteronormatively presented, dating is exclusively heteronormatively presented, physical and romantic desire is exclusively heteronormatively presented. That exclusive presentation, and the assumption that that exclusive presentation is acceptable and to be expected is a choice. Compare, say, the work of Francesca Lia Block's Dangerous Angels works, or I Was a Teenage Fairy for alternative assumptions.

[Lexible]

Seems like you'd pronounce it like the British term for a cat of mixed ancestry, the feline equivalent of a mutt.

I am intrigued by the MOGI business (although, vocally conversationally, if I need to umbrella, I generally just use queer, and start adding specifics as necessary :D ). How does it get pronounced?

Rhymes with "Bogie"
Rhymes with "Boogie"
Rhymes with "froggy"
Like "mochi" but with a soft 'g'
Like... uh... spoogy... but with an 'm' at the front [grasping for rhymes here :)]
Like "modzy" (that 'dz' phoneme we don't have a single spelling/letter for in English... the sound from decision.)
Like "moodzy"

Or is it simply pronounced 'fabulous?' ;D

[Lathund]

I don't make this assumption. Making it is a choice. It's also a choice people are indoctrinated to make in a particular way. I once griped about the lack of visibly queer students at Hogwarts, and a straight cis friend of mine said "But those books don't really have any sexuality" Which is patently false: parenting is exclusively heteronormatively presented, dating is exclusively heteronormatively presented, physical and romantic desire is exclusively heteronormatively presented. That exclusive presentation, and the assumption that that exclusive presentation is acceptable and to be expected is a choice. Compare, say, the work of Francesca Lia Block's Dangerous Angels works, or I Was a Teenage Fairy for alternative assumptions.

Still curious about your assumptions/expectations regarding colour blindness or sexual violence.

And @The Giant: sorry if I pissed you off. Message received, loud and clear.

[Gwynfrid]

Hm. This is not an answer to the question I asked. So please allow me to repeat it:

"[I]is it so strange to assume [that otherwise unspecified persons are straight and cisgender]? Color blindness is about as common as nontraditional gender preferences, but is it so strange to assume that a new person you meet can see all colours?"

When I meet a new person, I don't really think much about what sexual orientation they might have, unless it's incredibly obvious. But I do, at some level, assume they're straight. When I meet a new person, I don't really think about whether they might be colourblind. But unless otherwise specified, I guess I assume they can see colours like 'normal'. Lastly, I read some while ago that about 10% of women has been involved in sexual violence somewhere in their past. Still, when I meet a new woman, I assume they haven't been.

So yes, I suppose I'm heteronormative. I'm also normative towards full chromatic vision and a sexually safe past, as well as to other similarly abundant aspects. But can you, in all honesty, say that you are not? And can other readers?

If Rick had decided to make Bandana colourblind, I would just as much want that colourblindness to have a function in the story; now or in the future. Because else, why bother writing in an explicitly colourblind character? Sure they exist, but why mention it?

The assumptions you're making are heteronormative but that's not a problem. Or if it's a problem, it's yours and yours alone. In a work of fiction, the situation is different. The depiction of characters is potentially normative for the entire audience. Many authors don't care about that in the least, and until, say, 20-30 years ago, few people even remarked it. Now, many do. More importantly, the Giant believes his works can and should tell us something meaningful about the real world and feels a responsibility for their impact on young readers. So, how the characters are portrayed, how much diversity there is in them, matters to him. Not every OOTS fan agrees with him (I, for one, do) but it's his call to make.

Now, to your analogy: Not mentioning colorblindness is fine, because there is no social issue associated with it. When it comes to LGBT and gender issues, there's plenty of stigma, controversy, and real world problems, some of them truly tragic. So if something needs to be mentioned in a work of art that tries to do its little bit to make the world a better place, colorblindness isn't on the list. The representation of women and gay folks is.

EDIT: Duh. Ninja'd by the Giant himself while I was searching for his earlier quotes

[TheMiningDwarf]

I would say I can't believe it but I think we all knew what this thread was going to become before the end of the first page. Maybe now that the Giant himself has weighed in on things we can stop arguing over what narrative purpose Bandana's sexual preferences will serve. Since that probably isn't going to happen, I might as well add my two cents.

It was mentioned by someone upthread that Bandana might be interested in Haley and that could create some kind of conflict. I have to ask Why? Bandana knows that Haley is in a relationship with Elan why would Bandana go after Haley in spite of that. In fact why is it so far fetched an idea that, no one as far as I know thought of it, Bandana could already have a partner of her own? Just because she has an old set of her ex's clothing doesn't mean she hasn't already moved on. Finally, I wouldn't be all too keen to go after someone that reminded me of my ex.

Not touching any of that SJW stuff with a 100-foot pole