|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 26, 2013 16:18:35 GMT
And don't tell me "it was foreshadowed". The "headband of straitness" story was about social awkwardness, worrying about others' perceptions —in which reality is irrelevant. Yes, looking back it makes sense, which is the sign of a well-executed plot twist, but that doesn't mean there was actual evidence that the plot was going to move in this direction. Only that it could have. (And I have yet to see anything other than that which isn't extremely reading into things.) It WAS forshadowed, the "headbang of +5 straightness" was about Kat's sexuality, it could have been about social awkwardness but it wasn't. We don't know if Renard and Kat are talking about stuff that far back or if "a while" just means Paz has been hanging around Kat recently or what. Next update may clarify that. Also it's "headband of +5 straightness" guys. It's from a nerd-argument relating to tactical studies rules 1979 before the "and so forth" clause got dropped. I was meaning to go to meme sites and use its rebirth to promote GC but I couldn't get my cousin to confirm my memory of it so perhaps geek culture from that far back should remain in the grave after all. |
|
|
|
Post by goldenknots on Nov 26, 2013 16:24:07 GMT
Someone mentioned "not knowing many gays", upthread. I'd like to point out that everyone probably knows a few LGBTs, but since it doesn't come up, they remain oblivious, either in truth or because it's absolutely none of their business. (Or, unfortunately, because their bigotry is so clear that nobody with any sense would confide in them anyway.)
I've had people say to me "Didn't you know so-and-so is gay?" because I failed to react to some fairly obvious clue, and my response to that is "I'm so pleased that you couldn't tell that I knew." I don't think I was ever in much doubt about my own inclinations, even when I was young and interested in experimentation, but I did worry about what others thought -- now I'm quite comfortable with the fact that there may be people who think I'm straight, others who may think I'm gay. Anytime I can mess with bigots and make them uncomfortable, I'm happy to do so.
I'm tickled that Kat is discovering love, in whatever form, and nervous about how it will propagate through her other relationship, primarily because it has to be key to the story in some way. Even though she's a figment of Tom's imagination, I wish her happiness and fulfillment, as I would anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 26, 2013 17:04:39 GMT
It WAS forshadowed, the "headbang of +5 straightness" was about Kat's sexuality, it could have been about social awkwardness but it wasn't. We don't know if Renard and Kat are talking about stuff that far back or if "a while" just means Paz has been hanging around Kat recently or what. Next update may clarify that. Also it's "headband of +5 straightness" guys. It's from a nerd-argument relating to tactical studies rules 1979 before the "and so forth" clause got dropped. I was meaning to go to meme sites and use its rebirth to promote GC but I couldn't get my cousin to confirm my memory of it so perhaps geek culture from that far back should remain in the grave after all. But come on, "headbang of +5 straightness" sounds just so much.... well, not necessarily more straight, it really depends... maybe if Kat received a "headbang of +5 straightness", kind of... but I doubt it would add to her straightness... gee, I can't stop laughing  "headbang of +5 straightness", I guarantee you, it was not a mistake, they made it intentionally. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 17:05:56 GMT
Someone mentioned "not knowing many gays", upthread. I'd like to point out that everyone probably knows a few LGBTs, but since it doesn't come up, they remain oblivious, either in truth or because it's absolutely none of their business. (Or, unfortunately, because their bigotry is so clear that nobody with any sense would confide in them anyway.) That's true, but from the objective viewpoint, not knowing any LGBT people means exactly the same as being unaware that some friends of yours are LGBT. Anytime I can mess with bigots and make them uncomfortable, I'm happy to do so. Making people uncomfortable about your sexual preference may satisfy you personally, but doesn't serve to stop discrimination by sexual preference. I wish you would reconsider. |
|
|
|
Post by eyemyself on Nov 26, 2013 17:11:07 GMT
...complacency towards attitudes such as Nnelg's feed into a much bigger problem. Civil polite debate sometimes has the side effect of giving people the idea that their bigoted opinions are valid opinions and something to just "agree to disagree" on rather than seriously harmful things that they should work on changing. Whether it's about sexual preference, gender, race, etc. ^^^^^This, this, this, this! Overt expressions of heterosexism, no matter how politely worded they might be, are bigotry. "I am uncomfortable with character X because s/he has been revealed to be queer" is tantamount to "I am uncomfortable with character X because she is female, or of a minority ethnicity, or homeless, etc..." Unless the OP is seeking to deepen his or her understanding of people with sexuality different from his or her own thereby working past the discomfort towards a greater understanding of fellow human beings (Which in this case comments coming from the OP are unclear on whether or not that is the goal of continued discourse. Lines like "I don't want my favorite character to become something I am uncomfortable thinking about. And call me homophobic, but I don't think it'll ever stop making me uncomfortable." lead me to believe that the OP has already made up his or her mind about dehumanizing queer people and is not actually seeking to relieve that discomfort through greater understanding but rather to have his or her discomfort validated and reconfirm that "it's ok for you to continue to be unhappy about the existence of people with sexualities different from your own because they make you uncomfortable." Like Momo said: allowing these attitudes to continue unchecked and unchallenged has a very real impact on the lives of people who are on the receiving end of the "well I just don't want to interact with you because your lifestyle makes me uncomfortable" attitude. |
|
|
|
Post by eyemyself on Nov 26, 2013 17:18:29 GMT
This has almost certainly been the most successful first post in history, judging purely by the number and speed of responses it generated. Four pages in a day may be a record. YEAH WOW HOLY CRAP. I did a thing! I'd been meaning to make an account and post this question for weeks, but work has been keeping me busy. I get back to my apartment, make an account, post this, crash, workfriendserrands and finally get back to check this! Hoping to see a few interesting comments and four pages? I don't even know where to start! I guess I'll just say that, in summary, we feel pretty positive about being gay. Some people are on the fence but accepting (like me), others are all for the PazKat "adorbs", and a small minority are not very receptive. That's really about what I expected, I suppose.. I think the reason I made this thread was to try to sort out how I feel. I still feel a bit awkward about it, but I think that's more personal than having a problem with Kat. Watching Kat embark on opening up about her attraction makes me feel uncomfortable, only because it reminds me how much I have - and how much I haven't. Kat having to face Annie makes me think about all the people in my life I'll have to one day face, and just how heavy that makes me feel. So in conclusion, rock on Kat you awesome gaystraightbiquestioningawesomeengineeringwhateverthehellyouare girl. Thanks for calling me on my shit. This is a really amazing bit of introspection and self reflection. Awesome. Props to you darklingthrush! |
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Nov 26, 2013 17:24:26 GMT
In response to the original post: I'm somewhat against PazKat, because homosexuality does make me somewhat uncomfortable, but I don't think it's ever going to be a huge part of the story. If this comic does ever entirely focus on romance, I'll probably stop reading it, whether it's straight or homosexual romance. However, Renard's response was hilarious.
Ty: Thanks for setting me straight on Robot/Shadow 2 (pun intended)
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 26, 2013 17:31:57 GMT
In response to the original post: I'm somewhat against PazKat, because homosexuality does make me somewhat uncomfortable, but I don't think it's ever going to be a huge part of the story. If this comic does ever entirely focus on romance, I'll probably stop reading it, whether it's straight or homosexual romance. However, Renard's response was hilarious. Ty: Thanks for setting me straight on Robot/Shadow 2 (pun intended) Have to say, I'm not entirely enthusiastic about this going towards romantic moods either. I don't really care what the sexuality, but if this turns into teen girls romance story, it really just would not at all be for me. Actually, I would feel somewhat criminal reading that stuff. But I really see that big epic storyline where KatPaz has its role, and that ends in a freaking Götterdämmerung. So, I'm not really worried about this turn in romances. That happens in life, so it can happen in literature and we'd better just accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by rand337 on Nov 26, 2013 17:49:13 GMT
Well, I had like a five paragraph post written to de-lurk and post, explaining why I was uncomfortable with PazKat, and then I checked the thread again and found it had grown by like 3 pages. So here's the piece of my original post I haven't seen expressed yet. As an up-front disclaimer, my discomfort is based off my religious beliefs, so I don't expect everyone to share in it.
One of my religious beliefs is that acting out homosexual practices is highly spiritually self-destructive. (I could write an essay on why, but I'd rather spare you – just know that the basis for those beliefs is religious. I should note that I do see a distinction between being gay and acting on it.) So now that Kat is openly engaging in a gay relationship, it's rather alarming to see her doing something that, from my belief set, is so harmful to her. For everyone who doesn't share that belief set, here's an analogy: imagine that instead of the current plot arc, Kat had always wanted to try cocaine, and has now started using it. It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully that gives you some idea of how the relationship looks from my perspective.
Again, I respect that most of you probably won't share this view. My goal isn't to persuade you to my religiously-based views on homosexuality, nor is it to offend anyone reading who's in a homosexual relationship. I totally see how PazKat is adorable, it's just offset by my moral discomfort with the relationship. I've also quite enjoyed the last couple pages, since they touch on issues that anyone attracted to the same gender has to deal with, whether or not they act on that attraction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 26, 2013 17:58:07 GMT
How is gay sex 'spiritual self-destruction'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Nov 26, 2013 17:59:00 GMT
Well, I had like a five paragraph post written to de-lurk and post, explaining why I was uncomfortable with PazKat, and then I checked the thread again and found it had grown by like 3 pages. So here's the piece of my original post I haven't seen expressed yet. As an up-front disclaimer, my discomfort is based off my religious beliefs, so I don't expect everyone to share in it. One of my religious beliefs is that acting out homosexual practices is highly spiritually self-destructive. (I could write an essay on why, but I'd rather spare you – just know that the basis for those beliefs is religious. I should note that I do see a distinction between being gay and acting on it.) So now that Kat is openly engaging in a gay relationship, it's rather alarming to see her doing something that, from my belief set, is so harmful to her. For everyone who doesn't share that belief set, here's an analogy: imagine that instead of the current plot arc, Kat had always wanted to try cocaine, and has now started using it. It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully that gives you some idea of how the relationship looks from my perspective. Again, I respect that most of you probably won't share this view. My goal isn't to persuade you to my religiously-based views on homosexuality, nor is it to offend anyone reading who's in a homosexual relationship. I totally see how PazKat is adorable, it's just offset by my moral discomfort with the relationship. I've also quite enjoyed the last couple pages, since they touch on issues that anyone attracted to the same gender has to deal with, whether or not they act on that attraction. Are you willing to tell us why homosexuality is spiritually damaging? It bothers me when people use religion to say a point is not debatable, and close a discussion entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Nov 26, 2013 18:24:06 GMT
Well, I had like a five paragraph post written to de-lurk and post, explaining why I was uncomfortable with PazKat, and then I checked the thread again and found it had grown by like 3 pages. So here's the piece of my original post I haven't seen expressed yet. As an up-front disclaimer, my discomfort is based off my religious beliefs, so I don't expect everyone to share in it. Why did you come then? It doesn't make much of a conversation to declare, in essence, that "you are wrong, I am right, doesn't matter what you say". Polite expressions don't remove the content of a passive-aggressive message. Mutual respect for different beliefs requires the ability to have real dialogue, not "agree to disagree". Starting with a point of "this is against my religion" doesn't tell us anything about why do you believe that way or what you wish to accomplish by telling so. Saying that it's for the own good of a discriminated group to be discriminated against does nothing to remove the bigotry of the act. Making yourself the victim and asking for understanding for your discriminative attitudes does nothing but alienate you. So what is the point? What kind of response are you after? |
|
|
|
Post by goldenknots on Nov 26, 2013 18:28:51 GMT
Making people uncomfortable about your sexual preference may satisfy you personally, but doesn't serve to stop discrimination by sexual preference. I wish you would reconsider. When did I say I was making them uncomfortable about _my_ sexual preference? They might've been uncomfortable with some figment of their imagination, but that's not my problem. Usually, though that doesn't come up. Here's one of the things I used to do, back when I had a job. Some guys would be chatting, and one would come up with a racist or mysogynistic joke or comment, and I'd play dumb, asking for clarification. If I did it right, by the time I'd made the guy go through it a couple of times, most of the rest were shuffling their feet and looking for an excuse to go elsewhere, and he'd be red in the face. I call that a win, but your mileage may vary. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Nov 26, 2013 18:35:59 GMT
I'll come back when I figure out what's wrong with PazKat now. You might be gone for a while.  Well, I had like a five paragraph post written to de-lurk and post, explaining why I was uncomfortable with PazKat, and then I checked the thread again and found it had grown by like 3 pages. So here's the piece of my original post I haven't seen expressed yet. As an up-front disclaimer, my discomfort is based off my religious beliefs, so I don't expect everyone to share in it. One of my religious beliefs is that acting out homosexual practices is highly spiritually self-destructive. (I could write an essay on why, but I'd rather spare you – just know that the basis for those beliefs is religious. I should note that I do see a distinction between being gay and acting on it.) So now that Kat is openly engaging in a gay relationship, it's rather alarming to see her doing something that, from my belief set, is so harmful to her. For everyone who doesn't share that belief set, here's an analogy: imagine that instead of the current plot arc, Kat had always wanted to try cocaine, and has now started using it. It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully that gives you some idea of how the relationship looks from my perspective. Again, I respect that most of you probably won't share this view. My goal isn't to persuade you to my religiously-based views on homosexuality, nor is it to offend anyone reading who's in a homosexual relationship. I totally see how PazKat is adorable, it's just offset by my moral discomfort with the relationship. I've also quite enjoyed the last couple pages, since they touch on issues that anyone attracted to the same gender has to deal with, whether or not they act on that attraction. The flaw in your analogy is that Kat is not railing lines of Paz off of her backpack and dropping out of school to score Paz money. To anyone who has actually seen drug addiction, the comparison is pretty heinous. Coke causes physical and mental self-destruction. Can you please point out what damage Kat has done to her spirit? Because from where I sit, I see none. |
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Nov 26, 2013 18:44:08 GMT
Well, I had like a five paragraph post written to de-lurk and post, explaining why I was uncomfortable with PazKat, and then I checked the thread again and found it had grown by like 3 pages. So here's the piece of my original post I haven't seen expressed yet. As an up-front disclaimer, my discomfort is based off my religious beliefs, so I don't expect everyone to share in it. Why did you come then? It doesn't make much of a conversation to declare, in essence, that "you are wrong, I am right, doesn't matter what you say". Polite expressions don't remove the content of a passive-aggressive message. Mutual respect for different beliefs requires the ability to have real dialogue, not "agree to disagree". Starting with a point of "this is against my religion" doesn't tell us anything about why do you believe that way or what you wish to accomplish by telling so. Saying that it's for the own good of a discriminated group to be discriminated against does nothing to remove the bigotry of the act. Making yourself the victim and asking for understanding for your discriminative attitudes does nothing but alienate you. So what is the point? What kind of response are you after? Are you asking why rand337 answers questions? Come on, darklingthrush asked how we feel, not why we feel that way. rand337 has given a perfectly good answer to that question. If you don't want that answer, perhaps you should avoid the question. |
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Nov 26, 2013 18:49:22 GMT
Come on, darklingthrush asked how we feel, not why we feel that way. rand337 has given a perfectly good answer to that question. If you don't want that answer, perhaps you should avoid the question. What I like to see is conversation, dialogue. I don't mind differences of opinion, but declaring a "I am right and you are wrong"-closure as your opening seems decidedly pointless and passive-aggressive. What I am trying to do is to get rand take a few paces back and actually think about what he is saying, and maybe provide some sort of context and, well, content to his statement. |
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Nov 26, 2013 18:50:23 GMT
Come on, darklingthrush asked how we feel, not why we feel that way. rand337 has given a perfectly good answer to that question. If you don't want that answer, perhaps you should avoid the question. This is a discussion. On the internet, stating a controversial position is even more provocative of an answer than asking the question itself. Also, he specifically stated that he had more to say, and only didn't say it because he thought we wouldn't want it. We're stating that we do want it. That being said, it is based off religion, and I for one would rather not go there. Rand also stated that he didn't expect anyone else to share his views. |
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Nov 26, 2013 18:58:34 GMT
But then you say that romance doesn't make sense to you. I'm curious as to how you envision romance - for instance, I have a friend who has this very..."girly-girl" idea of romance: husband bringing her breakfast in bed, mowing a heart into the lawn - what I think of as stereotypical romantic gestures. (To balance the "girly-girl", I think the "manly-man" idea of romance divided between growing old together and making some grand sacrifice for family; goal related, now that I think of it, while the girly-girl stuff is event-related. Hm. Anyway) This isn't particularly relevant to the thread at hand, and I don't want to derail too much, but I wanted to point out that your concept of the "girly-girl" version of something is relatively shallow, while your concept of the "manly-man" version is deep and meaningful. I think it's interesting that you chose these words, associated with gender, to get your point across. Was that intentional? That's not a good understanding of the point I wanted to get across. I'm not a good writer, so let me try again. Those things sound meaningful - but the reason I used "manly-man" and talked about goals was because they're goals reached magically. Somehow he's still married when old, with no real thought of what it'll take to get there. Somehow he'll make some grand sacrifice, but it might not even be needed and also weighs a big, showy gesture (Look at how selfless I am!) above smaller daily ones (Who gets a medal for cleaning the litter box?) Also, you say the "girly-girl" things are relatively shallow, but I know a woman who had among her requisites in a husband, that he take out/deal with the trash. That seems shallow, but multiply a day-to-day task by say, 60 years. It's something that for whatever reason, she strongly doesn't want to mess with, so she looked for a partner who would. Put that way, it doesn't sound as shallow. Another example. Have you seen The Incredibles? At the end, when Bob tells his wife that he has to fight this fight alone - yes, he loves his wife and that's a great thing, but it's about protecting his heart. What about Helen's? Is Helen supposed to just wait there, watch him get slaughtered and grieve afterward? Is she supposed to be haunted by whether or not she could've made a difference? Yes, he loves her, but she equally loves him. And I used "girly-girl" "manly-man" because that's understood amongst my crowd as meaning 'the extreme end of the stereotypical CIS man/woman gender roles'. I used quotes because I don't really associate it with actual people as much as...tropes? themes? that can be found in fiction. I think real people can be influenced by these views, but are more moderate in the implementation, thus not extreme. Oh. I'm trying to describe that with mostly real examples though, that might be where the problem is? I hope I did better at trying to get across my thoughts this time. Apologies for not being able to do it with fewer words. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 26, 2013 19:01:13 GMT
We don't know if Renard and Kat are talking about stuff that far back or if "a while" just means Paz has been hanging around Kat recently or what. Next update may clarify that. Also it's "headband of +5 straightness" guys. It's from a nerd-argument relating to tactical studies rules 1979 before the "and so forth" clause got dropped. I was meaning to go to meme sites and use its rebirth to promote GC but I couldn't get my cousin to confirm my memory of it so perhaps geek culture from that far back should remain in the grave after all. But come on, "headbang of +5 straightness" sounds just so much.... well, not necessarily more straight, it really depends... maybe if Kat received a "headbang of +5 straightness", kind of... but I doubt it would add to her straightness... gee, I can't stop laughing "headbang of +5 straightness", I guarantee you, it was not a mistake, they made it intentionally. Normally I wouldn't bother but because I know its proper context (which stands out a bit in this thread) and I was replying to that post anyway, I couldn't help it. Let's just say it's about resisting those DMs who would force their preferences on players via npc proxy... |
|
|
|
Post by Gulby on Nov 26, 2013 19:03:48 GMT
I really don't see how homosexuality (or bisexuality, for instance) could possibly be compared to cocaine. Really don't. I'm like : O_________O "..." "WHAT ?"
To answer the original question of the topic, I have no issue about Kat and Paz being a (very cute) couple, no matter if they are both bi, lesbians, bi-curious, "If it's you, it's okay" or any other possible configuration. As long as they're happy together.
But what worry me is the direction of the plot here : I hope it's more like a successful collaboration between those too on the bio-robot thing than a heart-break for Kat that would lead to some sad consequences... :/
|
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Nov 26, 2013 19:06:11 GMT
sidhekinSeconded. The thread asked us how we feel on a topic that inspire strong emotions, so everyone who feels one way or another should try to maintain a respectful demeanor. I mean, what better way to have your questions answered then to ask them without seeming to already have the answer decided? Perhaps one of those who does not appreciate the less-than-straight direction the comic has taken should ask us why we don't think this is such a big deal? Believe it or not, I have gone back and forth on this issue over the course of my life so far, but the place where I am now is one where I have to get along with all kinds of people, and telling someone they are immoral because of the type of relationships they prefer is both counter-productive, and to my experience, not based on any reasoning or logical analysis. Of course, I haven't haven't heard many reasons given as of yet, just a declaration of feeling uncomfortable with it, and it being "spiritually unhealthy". Hopefully the previous posters will clarify exactly what they think is deleterious about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 26, 2013 19:11:22 GMT
I know I'm being "that guy", but technically the correct form would be +5 Headband of Straightness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Nov 26, 2013 19:11:24 GMT
Come on, darklingthrush asked how we feel, not why we feel that way. rand337 has given a perfectly good answer to that question. If you don't want that answer, perhaps you should avoid the question. I get what you are saying, but...It's not like topics ever wander on this forum. Furthermore, the reasons behind someone's choices are as valid or even more important than their choice itself. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 26, 2013 19:18:33 GMT
I know I'm being "that guy", but technically the correct form would be +5 Headband of Straightness. Syntax was part of the original argument but that wasn't the issue. Heh heh heh |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 26, 2013 19:43:16 GMT
I know I'm being "that guy", but technically the correct form would be +5 Headband of Straightness. You're totally being that guy. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 26, 2013 19:45:47 GMT
I know I'm being "that guy", but technically the correct form would be +5 Headband of Straightness. You're totally being that guy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 26, 2013 19:53:09 GMT
I know I'm being "that guy", but technically the correct form would be +5 Headband of Straightness. |
|
|
|
Post by Elysium on Nov 26, 2013 20:13:19 GMT
For everyone who doesn't share that belief set, here's an analogy: imagine that instead of the current plot arc, Kat had always wanted to try cocaine, and has now started using it. That's the stupidest and most offensive analogy I've read for a long time....yup I'm rude, but I will not stand here like a bush while someone is comparing homosexuality with a drug. What the hell is wrong with you ? how can you possibliy compare a nocive chemical substance with a perfectly honest relationship between two consenting people ? Blah why am I wasting times with homophobes anyway ? the ignorance of certain people is simply beyond belief |
|
|
|
Post by philman on Nov 26, 2013 20:16:22 GMT
I know I'm being "that guy", but technically the correct form would be +5 Headband of Straightness. You're totally being that guy. Oh my god, Jim North is Eglamore?  |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 26, 2013 20:18:29 GMT
Gamer syntax can be so fun. The +0 Headband of +5 Straightness just sounds so wrong I doubt that was ever a possibility.
|
|
"headbang of +5 straightness", I guarantee you, it was not a mistake, they made it intentionally.
