Wapsi Square Forum

Sgt. Howard wrote:

shadowinthelight wrote:

Sgt. Howard wrote:'angry faggot'

'angry hairy-chested wangsucker'

Nice to know your manner of dealing with offensive behavior is to be offensive in return.

I honestly don't know polite terms for such people as I have described. I am not good at 'politically correct' and am not interested in learning. PC holds the absurd notion that one can pick up a turd from the clean end... I don't buy that. "Angry Faggot" is a term that I learned from a gay man who explained the concept to me- the gay community is as much embarrassed by such people as anyone else. "Angry hairy chested wangsucker"... I am trying to remember where and when I first heard it, but this is the first time somebody called me on it.

If somebody is displeased by a profile they have been tagged with, they might want to do a self-check to see if it's a fair cop. If it is, then they MIGHT consider a re-evaluation of their own being... if not, then they ought either consider if the source is worth their concern. If one acts in an offensive manner, one ought not be surprised by offensive response... and yet, I have always been astounded at the number of people who go looking for trouble and are shocked when they find it.

Here we have, by all appearances, an individual that gets a thrill, a power surge, from belittling underage girls at their vanity, 'body shaming' I believe is the term used.

By comparison- are my words NEARLY as offensive as this nimrod's action's?

PS= I always got a giggle when I hear gays refer to heterosexuals as 'breeders'... among some of them, the term is considered HIGHLY offensive...

Sorry, I'm not going to bite at your attempt at deflection. You are the one touting living near SF as if that makes you some sort of authority on gay culture but use language just like homophobes I hear constantly here in the Bible belt.

Sgt. Howard wrote:If one acts in an offensive manner, one ought not be surprised by offensive response...

Hurling insults at someone isn't a requirement. You have the option of taking the high road. It's your decision if you choose not to take it.

am not interested in learning

I guess that explains it all. This isn't about political correctness run amok, it's about not being callously hurtful towards others. For the record I am not gay. I am not black either but one doesn't have to be to be offended by someone being called a nigger.

shadowinthelight wrote:Sorry, I'm not going to bite at your attempt at deflection. You are the one touting living near SF as if that makes you some sort of authority on gay culture but use language just like homophobes I hear constantly here in the Bible belt.

Sgt. Howard wrote:If one acts in an offensive manner, one ought not be surprised by offensive response...

Hurling insults at someone isn't a requirement. You have the option of taking the high road. It's your decision if you choose not to take it.

am not interested in learning

I guess that explains it all. This isn't about political correctness run amok, it's about not being callously hurtful towards others. For the record I am not gay. I am not black either but one doesn't have to be to be offended by someone being called a nigger.

Very well- here you have an individual that by all appearances is dealing with his own insecurities about his sexual orientation by abusing his authority to body shame a teenage girl that is ALREADY having body image issues-

Show me the high road- what would YOU call him?

Sgt. Howard wrote:Very well- here you have an individual that by all appearances is dealing with his own insecurities about his sexual orientation by abusing his authority to body shame a teenage girl that is ALREADY having body image issues-

Show me the high road- what would YOU call him?

Insecure and authoritarian?

Sgt. Howard wrote:Very well- here you have an individual that by all appearances is dealing with his own insecurities about his sexual orientation by abusing his authority to body shame a teenage girl that is ALREADY having body image issues-

He may have struck what might be considered an effeminate pose but extrapolating his orientation from that is making a great assumption. A good friend in my short time in college was assumed by many to be gay for his speech and mannerisms. The truth was he was straight as an arrow but had been brought up in an extremely sheltered religious household and mainstream "masculine" behavior was simply foreign to him. And sometimes people can just have thick, dark eyelashes that look like they are wearing makeup.
actor Billy Zane
Someone I knew in middle/high school would also qualify. People made fun of him because his lips were full and naturally very red.

Show me the high road- what would YOU call him?

Bad behavior can be called out without insulting someone. But if you feel a label is really necessary there are plenty of alternatives that can be applied to anyone from the simple "jerk" to vulgar "a-hole" that at least are a reaction to someone's behavior, not singling them out for what they are perceived to be.

hmmm,all this sexuality stuff may well be caused by TOO many people shouting about it, causing all sort of 'overthinking'...
take it down to a much more basic level... go to the middle of Africa, the tribesmen there have not been influenced.. they are all mostly naked, and think nothing of it...

and for those that have not READ what Devyn said..

"you can't punish based on the shape of their body!
Atsali cannot control the way she looks, and that's not fair to dictate what she wears!
I'm showing more skin than she is!
And frankly, we could both be naked and that shouldn't connote anything sexual!"

Why are we getting so combative? This is two threads with political/ideological arguments that look to turn nasty (er).

I'm starting to think we need a "Conduct In This Forum" sticky.

1. This is Paul's place. He's opened it up to us.
2. If you wouldn't say or do things at the house of a good friend, DON'T DO IT HERE.
3. Treat others with the same level of respect you would want.
4. Yes, we know about the main characters and their bustlines. They're not the focus of the overall story. Don't dwell on it.
5. Yes, there aren't a whole lot of male characters. We know that doesn't make this some sort of reverse misogyny. The lead character is female, she has female friends.
6. It's just a story. Yes, it touches on real-life issues, but for crying out loud - there's an undead Demon Barista running a freaking COFFEE SHOP.
7. If you don't like what you see or read, then don't. The "X" in the upper right of your browser is always there.
8. Yes, the story is convoluted. There are helps available to get you through some of what you might have missed. Just ask - politely.
9. Politics and SJW stuff is for places like Facebook and Tumblr. Not here. If you can be civil about it, take it to the pub. If you can't, leave.
10. Don't take it too seriously. Paul's trying to make a living, same as you and the rest of us. If you like it, donate to his PayPal, buy a book or a sketch, or participate in one of his eBay auctions. If you don't like it, see #7 above.

Ditto. That!

SJW? I have no idea what that is...

Meanwhile...

While it is good to ensure that people remain civil, I think we must be careful not to go too far into speech censorship. Thread do get derailed, that is the nature of forums everywhere. Interesting ideas can come from that, and even the realization that yes, someone's opposite view to ours may just make some sense, too. That would never happen, if we curtail "certain" types of discussions... Sure, put a stop to any flame war, but limit the subjects allowed? I think it may be necessary in some cases, but I also think we must be careful not to go too far in that direction, either...

In another forum I frequent, they have a section called the tin hat tearoom.
There the moderators place and lock and leave up threads that either got derailed too far, or are one step warnings before they got the hamner out.

Folks there learned very very quickly that if they did not want their comments left there for the world to see for eternity, behave.

Also, if threads go too far from polite, anyone here is free to request a mod lock it to prevent such an occurrance. In the many years and forum structures, I've seen it occur a few times on hot button topics.

Just a copper or two worth of my thoughts for you all.

I'm going to bow out of this thread and take care of my sick son who waited until he had a perfect attendance for the whole school year before laying the Lord of all sick days on me. Gotta run off and get soup and hydration solutions for him.

Wakko Warner: Good day everyone!

lake_wrangler wrote:SJW? I have no idea what that is...

Social Justice Warrior.

And there actually IS a set of rules:

Hello everyone! I just wanted to have a formal welcome to everyone who reads Wapsi Square and joins this forum. This is where you can discuss all things Wapsi related and get to know fellow fans.

*Please don't start any off topic threads here or direct any existing threads astray, OT discussion can be had over at the Wapsi Pub.*

General Rules:
-NO SPAM!!!

-NO TROLLING OR FLAME WARS. Period. You will get one warning. Repeat offenders will get NO warning!

-Swear words are not censored but keep obscene language to a minimum.

-Do not bother other forum members on the board or through direct messaging if they have requested you to stop. If someone is bothering you and you have asked them to stop, let the moderators know by sending them a PM.

-Do not post pictures of or links to obscene material. Any link that is potentially not safe for work, let us know: NSFW


Other than that, everyone play nice and enjoy your stay!

Wow... it was never my intent to turn this whole thing as vitriolic as it has gotten- I was useing language I was familiar with to describe a personality I have encountered, a mindset that is it's own obscenity. I still hold my observations to be correct, regardless of the terminology used, only because I've noticed that Paul does not draw individuals in any certain manner by accident- the fellow has what appears to be gay overtones, his authoritive mannerisms are defined, his target is an endowed member of the opposite sex.

If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, swims like a duck... it's probably a duck.

I was going to chime in here, partly because I'm also SF Bay Area, like Sarge used to be, but also because, like him (and like most everybody), I've run across 'that type of person' before.

It's not that I pigeonholed them, or stereotyped anybody, in fact it was less me running across them and more them running over me. And in a lot of ways, that's the whole point; they are obnoxious, in your face, and on a very deep level- disturbing.

I'm not getting into reaction based on Nature vs Nurture, but it's a real thing.

That said, I caution us all that delivery can spoil the content of communication, all too easily.

Boxilar wrote:I sorta want to see her lose it on someone who deserves it. But only sorta, because if she were pushed to that point, she'd be seriously stressed, and she'd be mortified afterwards.

What are you talking about? The guy has a dirt bag mustache. He's evil. Oily passive-aggressive evil, but evil.

Yes, I get it. this is a story line about "don't judge a book by it's cover" parable. Got it. However, in any storyline there are certain archtypes that are embraced for no other reason then because it helps the story line to move along by using the audiences expectations. For example, Dramatic Music to show rising tension. Or Sinister music while you have a close up of the actor while you have extremely limited view of what's going on so you are expecting a jump-scare.

In this case, the guy has a dirt bag mustache. He's a dirt bag, because we can see the dirt bag mustache. If the artist painted a sign that pointed at him and it actually screamed, "DIRT BAG!", you couldn't make it any more clear.

Now, the guy might suddenly turn out to not be a dirt bag, which would be a subversion of the trope, but I'm betting, given the lack of antagonists, this guy is a dirt bag who will fawn all over important people, then snub the un-cool, and stab you in the back, but only if he won't get caught. He's oily evil.

Or he's a dude just doing his job, having to follow the dumb "The Customer Is Always Right(especially if they spend a lot at where you work)" crap which is very much a big issue in reality.

As for trying to censor what we can talk about in these threads... that would make them awfully boring. There would never be any real conversation going on, just a lot of "Oh this comic was very good!" "Yep! I had no issues whatsoever with what happened here!" The current rules in place are more than enough, and I've not seen anyone I'd consider a troll around here anyway.

It was starting to wander into "Flame War" territory, though.

It doesn't matter if the guy is gay or not. He's being an insufferable little snot, and should go stick his head in a pig.

kingklash wrote:It doesn't matter if the guy is gay or not. He's being an insufferable little snot, and should go stick his head in a pig.

A jerk is a jerk, no matter what their personal plumbing is, or what sort of pelvic affiliation they prefer.

kingklash wrote:It doesn't matter if the guy is gay or not. He's being an insufferable little snot, and should go stick his head in a pig.

I may have to bleach my brain to rid myself of that visualization...