Dangerously Chloe 11-01-16 Are you a lesbian

[hightechartist]

Sorry, none of that supports your assertion about the motivations of the voters. It represents the interpretation by a couple of judges about the motivations of the voters, which is still mind-reading and contentious - but even there, there is no suggestion that it was the idea that gay parents would, as you claimed, "indoctrinate their children to be gay."

Well, unless someone polled every voter for their reasons for voting for or against it, it is difficult to tell either way. However, having lived in CA at the time, I can say it was a very common theme in the pamphlets made against gay marriage, and when arguing with people about prop 8 it was pretty much guaranteed to be brought up. Yes, I'm aware that is anecdotal evidence. /shrug

Honestly, I think a bigger factor was the confusing wording of the proposition on the ballot making it seem like voting for Prop 8 was a vote for gay marriage instead of against.

[tityanya]

Wooooah they changed the page. Guess the can of worms they opened up here in the forum was a little too much

[christopheftw]

Sorry, none of that supports your assertion about the motivations of the voters. It represents the interpretation by a couple of judges about the motivations of the voters, which is still mind-reading and contentious - but even there, there is no suggestion that it was the idea that gay parents would, as you claimed, "indoctrinate their children to be gay."

You seem to be confusing me with Tython. I made the original assertion. Tython posted the Prop 8 ruling excerpt. For the sake of clarity, you may wish to edit this, inserting "christopheftw" where you have typed "your" and "you".

[bridgetvoid]

ok so you went from straight up homophobic to passive homophobia by implying it is a choice. it's still a while lot of no honestly.

no I didn't

yeah you kind of did. i mean you thought it was cute or funny to have a lesbian couple adopt a bunch of girls and essentially condition them to be lesbians because somehow there is humor in that sort of abuse (which is problematic since this hypothetical situation was literally used to deny people the right for same sex marriage for years - though to be clear it would be just as gross if it was a straight couple forcing a gay kid to be straight for laughs because hey, abuse isn't funny) and then you changed it to "lesbianism is a choice" which it totally isn't. i don't know what you're knowledge is of queer culture, though based on what i've read in this comic it seems to be pretty lacking.

just because you caved to a few complaints and tried to retconn the text to make it less offensive doesn't really erase the fact that you were setting this storyline to go down a pretty sketchy path irt to gay parents forcing gayness on a kid, and you've only accomplished making it awkward with the new forced dialogue. just because -you- say that -you- didn't hurt people with what you wrote doesn't mean you didn't.

[FuzzyFace]

i mean you thought it was cute or funny to have a lesbian couple adopt a bunch of girls and essentially condition them to be lesbians because somehow there is humor in that sort of abuse (which is problematic since this hypothetical situation was literally used to deny people the right for same sex marriage for years

Um, what?

No, the reason that societies have denied people the so-called "right" to same sex marriage include:

• morality - homosexuality has been considered immoral in Western society for a couple of millennia. Not because of some fear that gays would indoctrinate children, but because homosexuality was long-regarded to be immoral in of itself. The idea that gays might indoctrinate, etc. may have been used as an additional reason to shun/fear them, but it is hardly the original reason.
• resistance to novelty - there are no societies with multi-generational experience in gay marriage. Anybody who claims to know the consequences of such a change is lying. Maybe nothing will happen; maybe it will destroy those societies.

just because -you- say that -you- didn't hurt people with what you wrote doesn't mean you didn't.

And sometimes the fact that people declare themselves hurt or offended is more about them than about what anybody else did. Nobody here has been put in any physical or economic danger by words. This kind of oversensitivity is killing our society by making it impossible to have conversations.

[vampire hunter D]

Ok, should I get some Abandon Thread macros ready?

[Hyper Magi]

ok so you went from straight up homophobic to passive homophobia by implying it is a choice. it's still a while lot of no honestly.

no I didn't

yeah you kind of did. i mean you thought it was cute or funny to have a lesbian couple adopt a bunch of girls and essentially condition them to be lesbians because somehow there is humor in that sort of abuse (which is problematic since this hypothetical situation was literally used to deny people the right for same sex marriage for years - though to be clear it would be just as gross if it was a straight couple forcing a gay kid to be straight for laughs because hey, abuse isn't funny) and then you changed it to "lesbianism is a choice" which it totally isn't. i don't know what you're knowledge is of queer culture, though based on what i've read in this comic it seems to be pretty lacking.

just because you caved to a few complaints and tried to retconn the text to make it less offensive doesn't really erase the fact that you were setting this storyline to go down a pretty sketchy path irt to gay parents forcing gayness on a kid, and you've only accomplished making it awkward with the new forced dialogue. just because -you- say that -you- didn't hurt people with what you wrote doesn't mean you didn't.

There are multiple interpretations. Why do you automatically assume that the ones that upsets you is the "intended" one? We literally haven't even met Lacy's parents yet, the only thing we know about them is they apparently don't want their daughter hooking up with a guy. That in itself isn't even being played for humor so much as Lacy's ignorance is(which is less about the parents and more about Lacy's own ditzness... or the schools failure) Lacy has previously shown attraction towards females(or rather, due to her limited screentime, Triana) so... is it really "brainwashing"? As for Teddy. We can't really say for certain yet. It could just be ah.... curiosity(of multiple kinds) or something else.

And why exactly does ONE pair of gay parents represent gay parents everywhere? Why is THIS example supposedly Dave going "This is how they all act?"


And yet... apparently you've nothing to say to the single father who is NOT their for his children? (Not to mention the sheer unlikelyhood of a male getting solo custody)


I'm sorry if you personally feel hurt, but maybe you shouldn't attempt to speak for anyone else. And maybe you shouldn't automatically assume the worst case scenario is what is actually going on. Instead of going "I'm mad, I'm going to complain", think. "Was was the intention of this?" "If negative, was this deliberate?"

I'd like to consider myself a cautious person, and I still don't see the homophobia present.

[Clairvoyant]

When I was younger, I didn't start dating girls until I was in college because I'd misinterpreted "the talk" my parents had with me when I was younger as them not wanting me to date women until I was a lot older. They'd actually meant they wanted me to be careful so I didn't accidentally knock up a girl before I was old enough to have kids, but I misunderstood their intent.

Given how ditzy Lacy has acted thus far, I'd automatically assumed she'd interpreted a similar "talk" she'd had with her parents as such. When I came onto the forums to see what everyone thought of the comic, I was positively taken aback at the torrent of negative feedback it had. It drove me from my status as a lurker, so compelled was I to comment upon everyone else's comments. Given how little we know about her parents and her family life, there are a multitude of possible interpretations for what's going on. Why automatically assume the worst one is true? Especially seeing as we don't know all the information? Especially since we haven't yet seen where the writer is going with the story and what he intends to do? Instead of being angry that a lighthearted comedy-oriented comic is doing something so foul, why not protest that you think it might veer down unreasonable paths then wait and see what actually comes to pass before passing judgement?

[cg313]

When I was younger, I didn't start dating girls until I was in college because I'd misinterpreted "the talk" my parents had with me when I was younger as them not wanting me to date women until I was a lot older. They'd actually meant they wanted me to be careful so I didn't accidentally knock up a girl before I was old enough to have kids, but I misunderstood their intent.

Funny thing is my mom said the same thing about dating but she actually meant basically do not talk to girls or at least thats what it seemed to be because she didn't want to be a grandparent while I was in school. Plus the fact i was not doign so well in school at the time too so that attributed to her saying it among other things. (Me looking at my Uncle's Playboy and stuff). She honestly thought if I got a girlfriend then first thign I would do is get her pregnant. She even got angry one day when a girl from school called me just to talk. She calmed down over time and probably most of reaction came from the state she was in at the time but still it was crazy.

Given how ditzy Lacy has acted thus far, I'd automatically assumed she'd interpreted a similar "talk" she'd had with her parents as such. When I came onto the forums to see what everyone thought of the comic, I was positively taken aback at the torrent of negative feedback it had. It drove me from my status as a lurker, so compelled was I to comment upon everyone else's comments. Given how little we know about her parents and her family life, there are a multitude of possible interpretations for what's going on. Why automatically assume the worst one is true? Especially seeing as we don't know all the information? Especially since we haven't yet seen where the writer is going with the story and what he intends to do? Instead of being angry that a lighthearted comedy-oriented comic is doing something so foul, why not protest that you think it might veer down unreasonable paths then wait and see what actually comes to pass before actually passing judgement?

And I do find it highly weird people want to jump on Dave for this. Like someone stated earlier, look at the whole Pixie Trix line. If anything they are super supportive of all orientations and lifestyles. They never bad mouth any of them and if they write a character that says something negative sooner or later that character gets taken down a peg for being so small and closed minded. I mean I can get that maybe a few were offended by the original strip but I think that has something more to do with them than the comic who has at great length teaches tolerance. Not everything is so black and white and you should wait until a story plays out in full before thinking you know what is intended. That's how a lot of people get in trouble assuming one thing without knowing all the facts first. I wish Dave didn't have to change the original strip and had tim to play it all out before he got so much vitriol just for one strip in an ongoing storyline.

Also this doesn't mean I agree with everything that has been in this comic because sometimes I do feel some of it goes a bit too far or irks me the wrong way but at the same time I don't take it as an attack on me and don't feel they are rong for going in the direction they go at times. You can please some of the people some of the times but not all ofthem all of the time.

[LegendaryKroc]

For the record, from now on I am sitting this discussion out and waiting for the next strip. Have fun without me, everyone.

[Cortez]

[
While I kind of get Alice Macher's point as far as politeness goes, I gotta agree with Fuzzy here that the way it was worded was WAY too absolute. Simply being "non-privileged" (a rather subjective term to begin with) .

It's not subjective at all. It basically means anyone that isn't straight white males. And ultimately they can really judge what is or isn't offensive. They usually don't suffer from it.

[Dave Zero1]

and then you changed it to "lesbianism is a choice"

I did no such thing.

A human being can convince themselves of a great many things, but they cannot lie to themselves forever.

but until that point, there is still a finite period of time where they will believe the lie.

[cg313]

I agree Dave. So right. You can believe anything but sooner or later the truth prevails.

Quote removed. The DAMNed

[Varanus]

It's not subjective at all. It basically means anyone that isn't straight white males. And ultimately they can really judge what is or isn't offensive. They usually don't suffer from it.

That implies that being a straight white male automatically makes one "privileged" when it doesn't. There are plenty of straight white men in identical economic and social positions as the "underprivileged" of other races. To claim otherwise is a gross generalization. It's almost as illogical as claiming that only whites can be racist.

And again, what logic is there in giving disadvantaged people automatic power to determine what is offensive and then dictate it to others? How does that help them or anyone else when all it amounts to is bullying people over words? It doesn't get anyone work, it doesn't raise their wages, it rarely even changes minds/biases. I mean really how often will someone actually be sorry for something when the apology is something they are basically forced to do?

[LarsenSan]

I'm just going to leave this here:

Just because you don't see the arrow...

Just because you see an arrow doesn't mean there really is an arrow