|
|
Post by snowflake on Mar 21, 2017 9:19:37 GMT
As much as I disagree with Centurion's opinions, I do take issue with your point1. Appealing to minorities is often very profitable compared to the majority. trying to appeal to the majority often means that your content will get lost amongst the massive amount of content already designed for the majority. Making content which appeals to the minority means you have a niche audience who often have very little other content designed for them, can can be a very good way to make a name for yourself. Except that's nothing like the statement I objected to, which ridiculously used childlessness as a proxy for queerness and implied not that "sometimes appealing to a niche audience is more profitable than appealing to the mainstream", but that "queers have the disposable moneys, so Tom has to pander to them to make a living; disregard the queer characters he writes as him selling out due to necessity". It was not some nuanced point about niche markets, but pants-on-head nonsense contrary to the real world's workings. |
|
|
|
Post by lisanela on Mar 21, 2017 11:35:05 GMT
How many people made topics about how practically no one in Gunnerkrigg Court is overweight or chubby? How many cited statistics about it? No one seems to care about that. We don't ever question that -even though many people around us are not thin- because it's not a fictional standard. We don't question the lack of black characters, or asian characters, or any minority whatsoever. We do have a black character in Margo. Paz is from... Catalonia? I think? Or was it Galacia? Gamma is Polish and doesn't speak English. To the "overweight" or "chubby" I have no response because I can't recall any counter examples. So it would seem you're on point with that one. I will say that, given that the comic is presents a stylized representation the human form, I don't feel comfortable identifying the characters as being "thin" or "chubby" either way. None of them are exceptionally fit either, bar a few and definitely bar Eggers and Parley. There are a variety of ways to be a minority. I think Tom may just be going off his experience at school/around town. A lot of the physical setting has been based on Birmingham and/or his old school, why not the population and characters come a little bit from the kind of people he sees and people he knows/knew? Sorry if I wasn't clear - I'm not saying there are no black characters or asian characters in Gunnerkrigg (there are and it's not difficult to find them), I'm saying that if they weren't there at all, few people would question that. It's true some people now question the lack of minorities in some films or TV Series for example, but I feel our reaction to any minorities (disabled characters, LGBTQ characters..) appearing in a comic or on screen is still much stronger, negative or positive. |
|
QuotePilgrim
Full Member
Behind my door, there are twelve other doors.
Posts: 142
|
Post by QuotePilgrim on Mar 21, 2017 14:33:31 GMT
There were too many posts since my last one for me to read all of them carefully, So I'm just going to address what was meant for me. The strange hair colors in anime is immersion breaking for me. I understand it isn't comprehensible to you, but that it alright. To an earlier point, using humans in a story is a short-hand for "these humans are just like normal humans in the real world", to whit; they should be like humans in reality. Without establishing that these particular humans are substantially different, which Tom may have done, they should seek to be similar to reality. (emphasis added) You see, I'm a writer, and I completely disagree with that. To which extent the characters in a story should be like real people is for the writer to decide, and that is a completely arbitrary decision, bound by no rules. One can have a bunch of characters with unusual hair colors without the need to explain it, or have every character have, I don't know, green skin, without necessarily having to provide a reason for that. Of course, the reader should, and will assume that anything not shown to be different is similar to reality, but they also should accept what's different as part of how the world in which the story is set works, without the writer having to explicitly state that it is. (As long as the story is, as I mentioned before, internally consistent.) If all the characters are green-skinned, and no explanation is provided, the reader should (and will) just assume that's simply how this particular fictional world works. Yeah, that is kind of an absurd example*, but I think it applies to everything, including character sexuality. I can decide to write a story that strives to mimic reality as best as it possibly can, but I can also write a story that has no regards for how reality works, and if it's a consistent story, that shouldn't interfere with suspension of disbelief. I've recently read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (by which I mean I read it much later in life than I should have, as it's been a few years since I read it), and it's an amazing book. There are a bunch of non-human characters, but the ones that are human behave and talk nothing like you would expect real people to behave, including the main character (although she is a little bit more normal than the others), and apart from the ending, no justification is provided for their behavior**. Of course, the ending explains away all the weirdness, but the reader doesn't (or shouldn't) know that, and the immersion isn't (or shouldn't be) broken by the fact that the story does not reflect reality in any way. I've said it before, and I'll repeat: the assumption that a story should mimic reality at all in order for it to be believable is a false one. What makes a story believable or not has nothing to do with how much it resembles reality. --- *Not really, now that I think of it. Most characters in The Simpsons have yellow skin, and a bunch of them have presumably natural blue hair, and no in-universe explanation is provided for that. Nor is one needed. **Honestly, I don't think whether or not a character is human should matter when it comes to deciding/measuring how much they are like real people, because the reader doesn't care. If they expect the characters to behave like real people, they'll expect that of all the characters, human or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Mar 21, 2017 15:55:52 GMT
Don't be surprised. I feel exactly the same way you do about this. You are not crazy, you are simply politically incorrect. But that world is slipping away. In the meantime, take a break from the comic and consider who is the target audience. People with no children have a good deal more disposable income. Part of that income goes to things like Patreon, no doubt. Tom Siddell likes to eat, like many of us. He gets a fair sum from this effort, and to be fair, most of it is quite good reading. But don't bring reason to the table. It is quite unwelcome. Simply withdraw and wait a few months. Cruising the archives will relieve your issues with the plot speed. It will also somewhat dilute the issue of so many non-hetero couples in the limelight. Huh? I have many issues with this post. 1) The target audience is people with no children? Are you implying that Gunnerkrigg has a majority gay following or something? Because I'm pretty sure that's patently untrue. Hundreds of kids/teenagers read the comic as well, by the way. 2) How does "cruising the archives" get rid of the so-called problem? I hate to tell ya, but there are gay characters included from chapter 8 onwards. If you don't like homosexuality, the portrayal of Red and Ayilu being so physical and affectionate will probably rustle your jimmies quite a bit. If it bothers you so much, then maybe...don't read the comic? 3a) Absolutely nothing the OP said, as proved many times throughout this thread, was "reasonable." In fact it's quite silly and ridiculous. 3b) And on that subject, "withdrawing and waiting a few months" isn't going to help anything. There are still going to be a plethora of people here who don't think the same way as the OP a few months from now. How about just withdrawing forever? |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Mar 21, 2017 16:11:27 GMT
GK Sierra , Tom Siddell : Either of you around? Just tagging you as the flaming starts, rather than when it intensifies. If GK isn't going to be present, we need a new moderator who actually hangs around.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoyoteReborn on Mar 21, 2017 16:57:10 GMT
EDIT: I do not want a flamewar. Does posting that you don't want a flamewar, necessitate a flamewar? Oh, Grand Admiral, you silly Chiss, of course it does! A man as tactical as you should know the intricacies of memetic warfare, yes yes! Did they teach you nothing in the Academy? Also, a REAL roleplayer never breaks kayfabe. You are weak, like your father before you. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Siddell on Mar 21, 2017 17:21:04 GMT
This thread has been reported as a possible troll/hate thread. If people wish to see it gone, please post below.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Mar 21, 2017 18:09:14 GMT
This thread has been reported as a possible troll/hate thread. I would say it isn't... so far. Although the last few posts are getting close. |
|
|
|
Post by kukapetal on Mar 21, 2017 18:15:32 GMT
Doesn't seem like a hate thread to me. Most people are discussing the writing, and it's interesting. If people start saying nasty things, then yeah, maybe the admins should crack down, but I don't see a lot of that here.
One person said some mildly un-pc things, but other than that it's been pretty civil *shrugs*
|
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Mar 21, 2017 18:15:48 GMT
This thread has been reported as a possible troll/hate thread. If people wish to see it gone, please post below. I concur with warrl (similar to what I said earlier). It's not a troll/hate thread... yet. The last page or so is starting to head in that direction, and I thought I might as well tag you preemptively so that you could decide. |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Mar 21, 2017 18:19:29 GMT
This thread seems pretty clearly like a hate thread to me, and despite the OP's insistence that he doesn't want a flame war, his posts seem designed to cause flames. If not, I don't know what he expected, having posted something so obviously fraught with controversy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Mar 21, 2017 18:33:08 GMT
This thread seems pretty clearly like a hate thread to me, and despite the OP's insistence that he doesn't want a flame war, his posts seem designed to cause flames. If not, I don't know what he expected, having posted something so obviously fraught with controversy. For context, this is the last time this topic came up on the forum. That turned into a true flame war, and led to multiple bans and people quitting the forum. By comparison, this thread is mild (at the moment). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 20:24:31 GMT
This post is too long, but frankly, I'm too lazy to redact it any further. One could probably just roll two dice, read only the paragraph numbered by the eyes, and gain the same insight. Next time I'll post a six-word joke again; I can only do one or the other. ---- First, re the childlessness: I would actually find it interesting to see anonymous demographics on Gunnerkrigg Court readers, not only in that category. Off-hand I can think of two people who have mentioned their children on this forum, one of whom mentioned reading the comic to their kid. I did not see Thrawn object to the depiction of homosexuality in itself, but rather the prevalence he perceived at odds with a statistical average. There's an undercurrent to it, which I'll put laconically: I think he sees a slight danger that GkC, one of his favourite webcomics, could shift in tone towards the same soap opera known from certain different webcomics. I'm not naming names. In that vein, I was actually dissatisfied with some parts of Chapter 57 (Get It Together), but I wouldn't place the issue with any character's sexuality, and in fact, I find the chapter's first pages strongly evocative of what I'd call Gunnerkrigg's style, i.e. what I'd find nowhere else ( p. 1628 is one of the best in that chapter). -- Before someone gets the wrong impression: many recent chapters have been great; New Data, Meetings and Re-Meetings, Jeanne and The Other Shore are already among my favourites. I wouldn't be posting here at all if the comic bored me right now. That particular argument has actually seen on-point discussion ( Lightice , as I see it, has made reasoned counter-arguments, to single out someone for recommendation; I also always enjoy imaginaryfriend 's posts, for the record) -- peer groups form based on a few shared traits; a work of art isn't bound to feature a representative demographic sample but rather characters the author selects and finds interesting; the comic actually features a lot of heterosexual couples who haven't been seen lately -- then again, chapters 59-60 featured Jeanne, who was French but not lesbian (!), yet rudely overlooked by the thread creator, no doubt to skew his data. (I'm kidding, of course. While her lover may seem to have received little development, which may have been why Thrawn didn't list him, I think the retrieval of the hairclip already says a lot about why Jeanne might have loved him.) Then again, lisanela astutely noted that Thrawn did single out homosexuality rather than, for example, the good health of most characters (Ysengrin notably excluded; Eglamore and Parley have undergone Etheric chakra doping; Annie technically has a terminal condition ever since her birth, but I'm just having a smirk fitting fire elementals onto the DSM axis here). Whether this is for personal reasons or a certain "political osmosis", I don't know. I can't imagine a slightly chubby Odysseus (to be a fink: on the other hand, Joyce could -- I love that there are papers on this), not only in the prime of his adventures, but even as he languished on Ogygia (same for Baudelaire in "La vie antérieure" -- just a nod to a few people on these forums, don't mind me) -- though maybe I should look for hints more closely, in that regard? I too find it peculiar that, among tree-creatures, bodysnatching foxes, a gardener who married a dryad, the coexistence and rivalry of the all-cutting Tooth and the all-resisting Eye (or omnipotent force and immovable object, if you will), strong A.I. (for which there is no "realistic" precedent, no matter the precision of assembly lines) and human/flame hybrids, the unusual density of homosexual humans would break realistic immersion, and rather than deserving mythical exploration as anyone else, would incur a chiefly political judgment, when e.g. the Forest-Court divide could also be interpreted politically. I'll abbreviate it, sacrificing precision: monarchy vs. oligarchy, ecology vs. technology, both with their respective food-chains. One could argue that the comic is "unfair" in "representing" these systems, as both are headed by essentially immoral leaders and suspected warmongers (see also: what may or may not happen in the now-begun chapter). Both co-opted the original purpose of the Court, breaking the covenant, the seed of which might nonetheless still be sprouting endless trees and buildings. In contrast, nobody cares about the minority of bookstore owners resisting the maw of franchising -- those are probably my favourite avian minority that I don't belong to myself. Pardon the lazy quib; I'm sour (not in the German sense). ---- I want to single out part of a post for personal reasons. faiiry : You're making an argument from majority and not respecting a minority opinion. Essentially, you reverse the situation; i.e. you agree with the methods of "the oppressor", just not with who is being oppressed. I know that argument because I've also picked up cardboard that I thought a piece of the True Cross. I think, in hindsight, that it was appalling personal vanity. I hope not to sound all teachy and preachy (apparently I often do): Don't make the same mistake I made. You invoke a battle of phantasmal armies where you should read carefully, and carve out common ground with force of reason. It's true that sometimes, people mix their own devious fun into reasonable arguments when they smell heated blood, but I don't think Thrawn is arguing in bad faith at all (I might be dead wrong; sometimes I'm essentially blind) and even then, sometimes people mix their knowledge with arrogance because they feel you're intruding upon them, just as you feel the same about them. Or perhaps I'm merely Odin in disguise trying to drag you from the protection of Thor's hammer (note that it's his gloves that Thor loves most of all, though). That's always hard to say. Or I'm a condescending idiot and not noticing it -- again. You can tell me to fuck right off in that case. That's also meant sincerely -- believe it or not. ---- From my own and probably not representative experience, talk of gender identity barely interests the homosexuals I know, who would rather base their "identities" on what they see as actual accomplishments (i.e. not acquired by birthright) -- such as a degree in engineering. We did talk about sexuality -- to circumscribe it curtly -- a few years ago, not extensively but freely, during the sunset of puberty, but never as though there was a divide of life experience driving us apart; they poke mild bewildered fun at such efforts, if anything; rather, they want to live with the person they love without fearing ostracism or Neuengamme, and appreciate support in that, but not endlessly discuss their love, much less to the benefit of someone's academical or political career, or the pandering feuilletonist's wallet (and there's a strong link between love and reticence -- perhaps I'm not setting the best example because I always meander as I try to condense -- including this subclause, notably. If only writing could work like an window of windows where one could open each of them at leisure, rather than essentially playing Snakes & Ladders -- but I digress) It might be a mistake. In the comic, Kat came to terms with her own sexual orientation partly by meeting Zimmy and Gamma, two girls she found eerie, during Divine. There's rarely anything in the world that should be dismissed completely. There may be many people whom gender identity helps, there may not. This is not a rhetorical trick (other than the obvious non-commital tautology) because I want to make clear that I don't have a strong stance, just a bias from how I know my friends. With one exception -- the page where Renard comforts Kat ("Do you think I'm weird?"), which also serves the narrative purpose of reinforcing Renard's slightly vain but also remorseful righteousness and appetite (and, of course, that he cares for Kat), see also the Hetty chapter (I suspect he probably resembles me most of all characters in the comic, including the form switch; though that's for others to judge) -- I have not found a page in the comic which I read as a moral judgment on homosexuality, either of its merit or vice. One could argue that the homosexual characters are at least displayed as virtuous in many other regards; yet here Red is wearing a Maoist uniform, viciously tearing down Annie possibly to prove a point in courtship (no matter how reasonable she might be, that purpose, if she has it, would make her nefarious in my eyes), in a manner that e.g. Kat would never argue with Annie (see her reaction when she heard of Annie copying her homework, or From The Forest She Came -- she was less patient with Mr. Final Records, though), while half-oblivious to her doting hetaera's behavior, who has spun illusions of suicide to get a reaction out of her. As for in-comic judgment, Kat thinks little of her (one of Annie's weaknesses is that she accepts essentially all judgments as equally valid, as long as they aim at something she already doubts herself). Ceterum censeo that Rimbaud was a much better poet than Verlaine. If nothing else from these ramblings proves valuable, maybe that will, to someone. And a salute to you, Grand Admiral -- hope to see you around. PS. Daedalus: I don't think this forum needs a moderator, but I'm not all that active. In any case, I'd like to rematch Sierra now that I can actually play chess, so it's good you tagged him. PPS. I write incense even as I burn it, but fail to notice the smell. Redacted some points that really go nowhere. |
|
|
|
Post by puntosmx on Mar 21, 2017 20:37:52 GMT
Gama and Zimmy have a relation that orbits around dependency, rather than love. Yes, there's appreciation in there, jealousy even, but there's no clear romanticism like it happens with Kat/Paz and Robo/Shadow. There is most certainly more than codependency in Zimmy and Gamma's relationship. They definitely care for one another deeply, and one isn't under the other's thumb. While their relationship formed around Zimmy's dependency on Gamma, it's clearly moved past it during the comic's run. I would hesitate to call it conventionally romantic, but it's also definitely deeper than just friendship. If anything, I'm inclined to go with Jack and say that they are closer than any ordinary romantic couple. Yes, indeed they are more than "friends". But their relationship does indeed have a very strong dependency core (I don't know how much Gama would depend on Zimmy, so i can't say codependency). But the relationship they have shown to date strikes me more as how two orphans would behave, rather than a romantic couple. Bottomline, I'm not discarding the possibility. I just don't see any clear signs of romanticism. |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Mar 21, 2017 20:54:04 GMT
This thread has been reported as a possible troll/hate thread. If people wish to see it gone, please post below. I asked GK Sierra to look at it when it started, because "Too many gay characters" and "I don't want to start a flame war" together in an OP is usually the start of a flame war. I stopped reading this thread after a while; it seemed predictable, annoying, but reasonably polite. The poster is not a newbie, hasn't been around for ages and basically shows up again to say that he doesn't like the comic anymore. If I look at the posts above, I guess it will go pear-shaped eventually. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 21:50:38 GMT
If I look at the posts above, I guess it will go pear-shaped eventually. (drumroll) Hereby we announce that the winner of Gunnerkrigg Court forums' annual Worst Robot Award is @korba (previously awarded in 2014), with one vote by keef ; the rest of the jury perished from natural causes while reading the candidate's post history. (Failed supension of disbelief counts as natural.) (zing!) |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Mar 21, 2017 22:02:31 GMT
faiiry : You're making an argument from majority and not respecting a minority opinion. Essentially, you reverse the situation; i.e. you agree with the methods of "the oppressor", just not with who is being oppressed. I know that argument because I've also picked up cardboard that I thought a piece of the True Cross. I think, in hindsight, that it was appalling personal vanity. I hope not to sound all teachy and preachy (apparently I often do): Don't make the same mistake I made. You invoke a battle of phantasmal armies where you should read carefully, and carve out common ground with force of reason. I wasn't trying to do any of the above. I was just pointing out the inevitably of "waiting a few months" and then coming back and starting the argument again, because it's not like people are going to magically not object or disagree just because a few months have passed. As for not respecting the OP's opinion, you're right, I completely categorically don't. |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Mar 21, 2017 22:26:23 GMT
If I look at the posts above, I guess it will go pear-shaped eventually. (drumroll) Hereby we announce that the winner of Gunnerkrigg Court forums' annual Worst Robot Award is @korba (previously awarded in 2014), with one vote by keef ; the rest of the jury perished from natural causes while reading the candidate's post history. (Failed supension of disbelief counts as natural.) (zing!) Don't tell me you are trying to derail such an important and serious thread @korba . Don't you know discussing the percentage of deviations of statistical norm in webcomics is of the utmost importance? (Well, to some people. Apparently) |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on Mar 22, 2017 0:04:30 GMT
As a queer person, I do get pretty tired of how seriously and earnestly straight "allies" will insist on treating opinions on why I shouldn't exist or why reading about people like me is upsetting should be treated respectfully and "fairly" as long as they don't venture into personal insults.
The personal insults are a pretty small deal compared to people who think it's a normal and sane thing to do, to gripe that a few queer relationships in a sprawling story with a large cast breaks their suspension of disbelief and is some kind of problem that needs to be rectified.
|
|
|
|
Post by puntosmx on Mar 22, 2017 0:25:13 GMT
As a queer person, I do get pretty tired of how seriously and earnestly straight "allies" will insist on treating opinions on why I shouldn't exist or why reading about people like me is upsetting should be treated respectfully and "fairly" as long as they don't venture into personal insults. The personal insults are a pretty small deal compared to people who think it's a normal and sane thing to do, to gripe that a few queer relationships in a sprawling story with a large cast breaks their suspension of disbelief and is some kind of problem that needs to be rectified. Well, the good thing is that we all here are strangers to you, and thus our opinions on what is normal or expected shouldn't affect you. I mean, I get direct offenses for my nationality online, but that doesn't mean I should feel offended because someone else is bigoted. That's their problem. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on Mar 22, 2017 0:31:08 GMT
As a queer person, I do get pretty tired of how seriously and earnestly straight "allies" will insist on treating opinions on why I shouldn't exist or why reading about people like me is upsetting should be treated respectfully and "fairly" as long as they don't venture into personal insults. The personal insults are a pretty small deal compared to people who think it's a normal and sane thing to do, to gripe that a few queer relationships in a sprawling story with a large cast breaks their suspension of disbelief and is some kind of problem that needs to be rectified. Well, the good thing is that we all here are strangers to you, and thus our opinions on what is normal or expected shouldn't affect you. I mean, I get direct offenses for my nationality online, but that doesn't mean I should feel offended because someone else is bigoted. That's their problem. It turns out that stoicism is dumb. |
|
|
|
Post by kukapetal on Mar 22, 2017 1:55:34 GMT
As a queer person, I do get pretty tired of how seriously and earnestly straight "allies" will insist on treating opinions on why I shouldn't exist or why reading about people like me is upsetting should be treated respectfully and "fairly" as long as they don't venture into personal insults. Because not everyone is saying those things. Some people are simply discussing the writing. Talking about whether the gay relationships are handled believably isn't the same as saying gay people shouldn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Mar 22, 2017 2:28:02 GMT
As a queer person, I do get pretty tired of how seriously and earnestly straight "allies" will insist on treating opinions on why I shouldn't exist or why reading about people like me is upsetting should be treated respectfully and "fairly" as long as they don't venture into personal insults. Because not everyone is saying those things. Some people are simply discussing But saying they shouldn't exist because it's statistically improbable... is. Which is what this thread is entirely about. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on Mar 22, 2017 2:29:33 GMT
Literally people are arguing that they can't enjoy reading a work that features prominent examples of gay couples and you want to pretend that that's not erasure?
|
|
|
|
Post by kukapetal on Mar 22, 2017 2:36:34 GMT
I'm saying not everyone is arguing that particular point, or for that particular reason.
Gay romances can be handled poorly or unbelievably in a story, same as any other aspect of the story.
|
|
clover
Junior Member
Posts: 79 
|
Post by clover on Mar 22, 2017 3:00:05 GMT
So, this is a perfect example of a Bad Thread. And when I say that, I mean it in a delicate way. The thread itself is bad. It will bear its own bitter fruit as time goes on. The posters inside don't have to have made it bad intentionally, and the original post doesn't even need to be considered bad. It's just a thread that is itself inclined to wind its way down progressively darker and darker attitudes. A poison well.
Bad Threads are harder to deal with than Bad Posters. A Bad Poster you can just single out and hush up. A Bad Thread can wind its way around with several people engaging in several layers of discourse and it doesn't even have to have started poorly, but it will slowly worm in the Badness over time. There's no single point where a Bad Thread erupts in its intended glory. It just gets around to it, and you're stuck afterwards just thinking "no matter the intentions of the people involved at the start of this thread, it would have been better, ultimately, if this thread had never existed." They are insidious because they're like a slow burning fuse, not-unvirtuous-enough yet to close down gently. Then, they explode.
On the subject of this thread, however, I will depart with being cheeky about how ridiculous I find some parts of it, and be a little bit forward. I have to go ahead and say that the original post and the initial underlying query that the thread is based upon is itself a bit of a bitter fruit. This is a thread literally predicated on that it causes someone discomfort/loss of immersion that a fantasy webcomic about fire elementals and machine spirits and trickster gods appears to them to have a greater than fully realistic prevalence of non-heterosexual characters/couplings compared versus irl statistics.
Bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by rosencrantz on Mar 22, 2017 6:57:40 GMT
Your longpost was a journey, korba. Thanks for letting us ride that train of thought with you.
|
|
etera
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by etera on Mar 22, 2017 8:05:36 GMT
I feel like it's also worth (reiterating) that not-straight people do tend to clump together. Anecdotally, in my suite of 5 people, two are bi, one is ace, one is lesbian, and one is (maybe?) straight. Of my close friends (4 people), one person is straight. A lot of these have significant others, which inflates that network even further. It's worth noting that I'm not an active part of the gay community at my school, this just kind of happens. You know how in high school there's usually an asian clique, and a white girl clique, and a 'smart kid clique'? In high school, out of my group of 7 friends, only two were straight, and one of those was male. I'm guessing this number is inflated by a few things. First, we're largely girls, who are more likely to be out. Second, we're young adults in an institutional setting. What I'm trying to say is that it's not at all unusual IRL for this to happen. It might feel that way, because you've never been inside of that kind of group, but I'm guessing that there's some other kind of common group identifier that your friend group overrepresents. (Exploiting this to get research participants is called "Snowball sampling" and it's commonly used to get access to enough participants from small, less-visible, less socially desirable groups. The same kind of thing is used to study drug users or sex workers. Which, for the record, are both significantly underrepresented in this comic  ) |
|
|
|
Post by artezzatrigger on Mar 22, 2017 8:17:56 GMT
I'll never understand the whole "it's only x% of people" criticism. Yeah, if you take a whole landmass or the world it's going to seem like a very small amount, but have you ever looked around your immediate surroundings?
I live in a tiny country, but I still know quite a few non-straight people in real life. And I'm not exactly the most social person to begin with. Just because they're relatively less common doesn't mean you have to go out of the way to find more than one of them.
|
|
Morpheus
Full Member
The Most Adorable
Posts: 242
|
Post by Morpheus on Mar 22, 2017 8:47:18 GMT
I think this was probably a troll from the get-go, and it seems far from unlikely that it's gonna burn at some point. I say shut it down before it goes all wrong.
|
|
) 
