Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 20:20:05 GMT
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. I consider that unfair. My own perception of these same people would likewise be limited to a figment of my imagination; I may know the ressentiments, but I would not learn the individual reasons from a cursory glance. 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. Aggression or humiliation will not encourage people to change themselves for the better; instead, they may learn that aggression or humiliation are valuable tools to assert one's dominance at will. That's not to say one shouldn't speak up against ignorance — I think it's great that you do — but rather that a discussion cannot be won if no insights are gained. |
|
|
|
Post by philman on Nov 26, 2013 20:22:44 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 Well some people say love is like a drug, but in that case the comparison between hetero and homo is between taking cocaine dyed red or blue. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 26, 2013 20:29:42 GMT
Gamer syntax can be so fun. The +0 Headband of +5 Straightness just sounds so wrong I doubt that was ever a possibility. Even if a second modifier went before an effect, the +0 before Headband would still be incorrect since to be a magical item, the item in question must be of at least Masterwork quality. At its very base, therefore, it would be a +1 headband. Of course, I think this varies slightly depending on which version of the rules you are working with. I'm a 3.5 man, myself.  |
|
Momo
Junior Member
Big meanie jerkface
Posts: 58 
|
Post by Momo on Nov 26, 2013 21:07:39 GMT
OK so I think I'm going to have to refrain from commenting on things in this topic after this because I'm going to say things I regret (this is one of the very few subjects that really gets my ire up). But I will say this: If you think stuff like this is harmless just because it's politely worded or calmly stated, you are wrong. Just because you aren't doing direct physical harm to someone doesn't mean you aren't part of the problem. In fact, the crazy nutjobs like the WBC aren't the problem. There are relatively few of them and their antics make them look like nutters so they very rarely get anywhere. The real problem is the people who just quietly let it happen because they are "uncomfortable" or "just don't like gay people" or "it's against my religion." Those are the people who pass laws, and influence the opinions of others, and create the impression that it's an ok mindset to have. Being a polite bigot is still being a bigot. It's the same thing as saying "I just don't like black people, they make me uncomfortable." Not ok in any universe. I know I'm being "that guy", but technically the correct form would be +5 Headband of Straightness. Would that be a bluff or a disguise check? Either way Zimmy's pretty OP in that department, clearly. Or Kat had a crit fail in there somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by eyemyself on Nov 26, 2013 21:13:03 GMT
OK so I think I'm going to have to refrain from commenting on things in this topic after this because I'm going to say things I regret (this is one of the very few subjects that really gets my ire up). But I will say this: If you think stuff like this is harmless just because it's politely worded or calmly stated, you are wrong. Just because you aren't doing direct physical harm to someone doesn't mean you aren't part of the problem. In fact, the crazy nutjobs like the WBC aren't the problem. There are relatively few of them and their antics make them look like nutters so they very rarely get anywhere. The real problem is the people who just quietly let it happen because they are "uncomfortable" or "just don't like gay people" or "it's against my religion." Those are the people who pass laws, and influence the opinions of others, and create the impression that it's an ok mindset to have. Being a polite bigot is still being a bigot. It's the same thing as saying "I just don't like black people, they make me uncomfortable." Not ok in any universe. I really hope you don't stop commenting Momo. I am in perfect agreement with everything you have said so far. Bigotry is still bigotry now matter how prettily it is packaged. "Polite" does not excuse "exceedingly offensive." On that note: comparing same sex intimacy to hard core drug use is just about one of the most offensive things I have ever read. |
|
Kuraru
Junior Member
The mind is just a plaything of the body, is it not?
Posts: 75
|
Post by Kuraru on Nov 26, 2013 21:30:47 GMT
I know I'm skipping six pages of discussion (and, apparently, heated debate), but I thought I'd add my thoughts on this issue - which are all extremely positive! I've liked Paz since her first appearance (mainly because I liked her design, though now she's a more fleshed-out character I like her personality too) and I like the relationship sub-plot so far - it's certainly better set up and more sensical than most romantic sub-plots in fiction. Also I don't see anything wrong with homosexual relationships, but you've probably inferred that already.  |
|
|
|
Post by goldenknots on Nov 26, 2013 21:36:35 GMT
Aggression or humiliation will not encourage people to change themselves for the better; instead, they may learn that aggression or humiliation are valuable tools to assert one's dominance at will. That's not to say one shouldn't speak up against ignorance — I think it's great that you do — but rather that a discussion cannot be won if no insights are gained. You don't think that a sudden realization that one is coming across as an asshole could possibly lead to change for the better? Having personally had that particular experience when I was younger, I'm pretty sure that it works. I learned to think before I speak or act, and to get to know people rather than judge them by appearances. You seem to be confused. I was never aggressive, I merely expressed confusion and asked questions. "What do you mean by that?" "Why is it funny?" etc. |
|
|
|
Post by eyemyself on Nov 26, 2013 21:49:15 GMT
Back to the original question posed in this thread, I think there has definitely been enough context put into the comic during the previous chapters to support Paz/Kat. Additionally, I think Tom had handled the development of this relationship beautifully and naturally. I agree with the people who have cautioned that it is too soon to put a label on Kat, but I think it is clear that her romantic feelings for Paz are genuine, moreover, it's sweet that she's drawn experiencing that "head over heels" everything else in the universe seems to stop heady sort of love. She's a lucky girl.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 26, 2013 21:57:11 GMT
You're totally being that guy. Oh my god, Jim North is Eglamore?  To be honest, you guys lost me long since. All these references were lost on me, I don't know a tad about what you're talking about; I was only in for the headbang.  |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 26, 2013 22:06:40 GMT
Gamer syntax can be so fun. The +0 Headband of +5 Straightness just sounds so wrong I doubt that was ever a possibility. Even if a second modifier went before an effect, the +0 before Headband would still be incorrect since to be a magical item, the item in question must be of at least Masterwork quality. At its very base, therefore, it would be a +1 headband. Of course, I think this varies slightly depending on which version of the rules you are working with. I'm a 3.5 man, myself. Tactical Studies Rules 1979 like I said which I guess would be 1.1 to you..? Even though it would be CHArisma base that is freaky limited and high-powered enough to sprout that into a special 2nd ability therefore it merits syntax as written. But the claim to fame is this "proposed rule-abusing" magic item completely destroyed a regional sub-con full of geeks that gathered to discuss proposals for rules-changes for 2.0 in an age when geeks took themselves very seriously. [edit]I should say tsr 1.1 is what/when The Headband of +5 Straightness is from. The last version of D&D I played was with immortals rules and I lost interest after that. The last p&p rpg I played was cyberpunk and that was maybe 2008.[/edit] Oh my god, Jim North is Eglamore? To be honest, you guys lost me long since. All these references were lost on me, I don't know a tad about what you're talking about; I was only in for the headbang. Don't forget to wear your headbrella. |
|
lit
Full Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by lit on Nov 26, 2013 22:31:33 GMT
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? Thanks for clarifying! |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 27, 2013 1:21:19 GMT
I know I'm being "that guy", but technically the correct form would be +5 Headband of Straightness. Would that be a bluff or a disguise check? Either way Zimmy's pretty OP in that department, clearly. Or Kat had a crit fail in there somewhere. I figure the Straightness effect would work as a shield against Detect Sexual Orientation spells and similar abilities, as well as giving off a mind-effecting glamour to cause those within its area of effect to perceive her orientation as (probably Lawful or Neutral) Straight. This has no effect on Zimmy, of course, because she has True Seeing and various Detect spells as always-on supernatural abilities thanks to her stanky ol' wizard eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by freeformline on Nov 27, 2013 1:36:19 GMT
I know I'm skipping six pages of discussion (and, apparently, heated debate), but I thought I'd add my thoughts on this issue - which are all extremely positive! I've liked Paz since her first appearance (mainly because I liked her design, though now she's a more fleshed-out character I like her personality too) and I like the relationship sub-plot so far - it's certainly better set up and more sensical than most romantic sub-plots in fiction. Also I don't see anything wrong with homosexual relationships, but you've probably inferred that already. I basically agree with you. As an incredibly typical straight male, I think non-standard binary sexuality/gender identity is just as dandy as the heterosexual norm, so long as my favorite science-fantasy-mystery-adventure webcomic doesn't entirely change its focus to addressing major social issues. I think Tom is handling it quite well, so I'm happy with the development. Honestly, I'm just frustrated that it is even a problem for some people, and that some have gone so far as to stop following the comic because of it. |
|
Momo
Junior Member
Big meanie jerkface
Posts: 58
|
Post by Momo on Nov 27, 2013 1:44:25 GMT
Would that be a bluff or a disguise check? Either way Zimmy's pretty OP in that department, clearly. Or Kat had a crit fail in there somewhere. I figure the Straightness effect would work as a shield against Detect Sexual Orientation spells and similar abilities, as well as giving off a mind-effecting glamour to cause those within its area of effect to perceive her orientation as (probably Lawful or Neutral) Straight. This has no effect on Zimmy, of course, because she has True Seeing and various Detect spells as always-on supernatural abilities thanks to her stanky ol' wizard eyes. What is it with pink frilly things casting glamours? Last session our half orc sorcerer put on a pair of panties he found in the desert and suddenly became a buxom dwarf woman. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 27, 2013 1:49:47 GMT
I'm in this comic for the storyline above all else, but I think Pazkat is adorable and as a lesbian I am thrilled with how well the storyline has been handled thus far. I'm not a lesbian, but I agree. I lack an essential qualification that all lesbians must have, but I also agree. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 27, 2013 1:50:43 GMT
What is it with pink frilly things casting glamours? Last session our half orc sorcerer put on a pair of panties he found in the desert and suddenly became a buxom dwarf woman. If your half-orc sorcerer is just slapping on any ol' pair of panties he finds laying around in dangerous areas, there may be bigger questions about the situation you should be asking yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Nov 27, 2013 1:56:03 GMT
What is it with pink frilly things casting glamours? Last session our half orc sorcerer put on a pair of panties he found in the desert and suddenly became a buxom dwarf woman. If your half-orc sorcerer is just slapping on any ol' pair of panties he finds laying around in dangerous areas, there may be bigger questions about the situation you should be asking yourself. Somehow, this reminds me of this recent jewel of an article. |
|
Momo
Junior Member
Big meanie jerkface
Posts: 58
|
Post by Momo on Nov 27, 2013 1:58:46 GMT
What is it with pink frilly things casting glamours? Last session our half orc sorcerer put on a pair of panties he found in the desert and suddenly became a buxom dwarf woman. If your half-orc sorcerer is just slapping on any ol' pair of panties he finds laying around in dangerous areas, there may be bigger questions about the situation you should be asking yourself. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed. Then again, my ranger ended up joining a cult in exchange for free booze so I can't really talk. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 27, 2013 2:27:50 GMT
Man, all this RPG talk is making me want to play again, or at least get back to working on my setting.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 27, 2013 2:40:27 GMT
- to portray bisexuality as a phase and imply that bisexuals move on to become 'fully' homosexual or heterosexual. Bisexuality is often not seen as a full orientation. In practice, *open* bisexuality very often is a phase. But for indirect reasons. We happen to be at a point in an evolutionary cycle where mature adults, of both sexes, are expected to be monogamous. (According to the book "Why is sex fun?" by Jared Diamond, there is an cycle in the evolution of primate species: a species becomes polygamous because female estrus is easily detectable, female estrus becomes undetectable because the species is polygamous, the species becomes monogamous because female estrus is undetectable, and female estrus becomes easily detectable because the species is monogamous.) Being openly, actively bisexual is not compatible with monogamy. Being openly non-monogamous and non-celibate is often seen as a sign of immaturity and irresponsibility, which impairs one's prospects in ways not closely related to sexuality. What goes on in private is harder to discern, but I would expect that in any sort of a three-person relationship masquerading as monogamous the fake-monogamous pairing tends to eventually take precedence over other relationships so the third person starts feeling like a third wheel and gets an urge for a greater sense of belonging - and eventually moves on, leaving behind a truly monogamous relationship. Not as an absolute rule, of course, but just as a statistical tendency. (A four-way relationship where everyone is slightly-predominantly homosexual but the two fake-monogamous relationships are heterosexual - or vice-versa - might be more stable. I dunno. There's also the issue that it's tough enough getting along with ONE other person you live with most of the day every day...) |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 27, 2013 2:48:25 GMT
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. I seriously don't think that Gunnerkrigg Court is going to turn into a teen high-school romance comedy. But given that several of the major and second-tier characters are currently teenagers in high school, a complete absence of romance would be rather unrealistic. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Nov 27, 2013 3:04:42 GMT
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. Aggression or humiliation will not encourage people to change themselves for the better; instead, they may learn that aggression or humiliation are valuable tools to assert one's dominance at will. That's not to say one shouldn't speak up against ignorance — I think it's great that you do — but rather that a discussion cannot be won if no insights are gained. i'm a little confused, isn't shame pretty much THE social deterent for undesirable behavior? like that's its purpose? if putting someones behavior under a magnifying glass make them uncomfortable and ashamed then it's probably because the behavior wasn't socially acceptable in the first place. of course the argument then becomes which behaviors should society be shaming, but i don't think many people are going to defend racism or misogyny as pillars of social decency so i don't quite understand why you took umbrage with goldenknots' story |
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Nov 27, 2013 3:29:13 GMT
- to portray bisexuality as a phase and imply that bisexuals move on to become 'fully' homosexual or heterosexual. Bisexuality is often not seen as a full orientation. In practice, *open* bisexuality very often is a phase. But for indirect reasons. We happen to be at a point in an evolutionary cycle where mature adults, of both sexes, are expected to be monogamous. (According to the book "Why is sex fun?" by Jared Diamond, there is an cycle in the evolution of primate species: a species becomes polygamous because female estrus is easily detectable, female estrus becomes undetectable because the species is polygamous, the species becomes monogamous because female estrus is undetectable, and female estrus becomes easily detectable because the species is monogamous.) Being openly, actively bisexual is not compatible with monogamy. Being openly non-monogamous and non-celibate is often seen as a sign of immaturity and irresponsibility, which impairs one's prospects in ways not closely related to sexuality. What goes on in private is harder to discern, but I would expect that in any sort of a three-person relationship masquerading as monogamous the fake-monogamous pairing tends to eventually take precedence over other relationships so the third person starts feeling like a third wheel and gets an urge for a greater sense of belonging - and eventually moves on, leaving behind a truly monogamous relationship. Not as an absolute rule, of course, but just as a statistical tendency. (A four-way relationship where everyone is slightly-predominantly homosexual but the two fake-monogamous relationships are heterosexual - or vice-versa - might be more stable. I dunno. There's also the issue that it's tough enough getting along with ONE other person you live with most of the day every day...) I am not understanding this post. Are you equating bisexual with polyamory? Because the majority of people-that-are-bi-and-have-shared-stories that I've known are serially monogamous. |
|
|
|
Post by SerenaJo on Nov 27, 2013 3:31:46 GMT
Being openly, actively bisexual is not compatible with monogamy. Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you do realize that monogamous heterosexual people often experience attraction to people who are NOT their partner? And frequently do not act on those feelings? Being attracted to more than one gender is an entirely different thing than polyamory. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 27, 2013 3:33:09 GMT
Being openly, actively bisexual is not compatible with monogamy. Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you do realize that monogamous heterosexual people often experience attraction to people who are NOT their partner? And frequently do not act on those feelings? Being attracted to more than one gender is an entirely different thing than polyamory. Did I type the word "actively" in invisible pixels or something? Two posts in a row taking me to task for things addressed by that word. |
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Nov 27, 2013 3:36:21 GMT
Because all bisexual means is attraction to both genders. "Active" bisexuality would just be....someone attracted to both genders. If they're sleeping with two people at the same time, that's something apart from bisexuality. (In my mind at least.)
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 27, 2013 3:38:12 GMT
Because all bisexual means is sexually attracted to both genders. "Active" bisexual would just be....someone attracted to both genders. I thought "active" required actually doing something. Not just thinking about doing something. |
|
|
|
Post by SerenaJo on Nov 27, 2013 3:42:25 GMT
Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you do realize that monogamous heterosexual people often experience attraction to people who are NOT their partner? And frequently do not act on those feelings? Being attracted to more than one gender is an entirely different thing than polyamory. Did I type the word "actively" in invisible pixels or something? Two posts in a row taking me to task for things addressed by that word. An active bisexual = polyamorous? An active bisexual, to me, is someone who identifies as bisexual. I understand what you mean, just seems like an odd way to put it. Edit: geez I've done it again echoing what everyone else said |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Nov 27, 2013 3:58:37 GMT
Did I type the word "actively" in invisible pixels or something? Two posts in a row taking me to task for things addressed by that word. no, i'm pretty sure you typed it in perfectly visible pixels. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 27, 2013 4:01:27 GMT
Because the majority of people-that-are-bi-and-have-shared-stories that I've known are serially monogamous. I had never heard of "serially monogamous" before. I have heard of "serial polygamy" - I think I was in high school the first time I heard it, and I'm retired now - and think it is a much better description of what I think you're referring to. Multiple spouses, like "normal" polygamy, but in series rather than concurrently. Google searches: Serial monogamy 270,000 results Serial polygamy 297,000 results Hm, much closer than I was expecting. |
|
