Salty wrote:http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3150#comic
Alright Zach, you made your point. You are okay with gay people. You are representing them in media. Congratulations. You can make a comic that diverges from that topic for a day - we won't be offended.
Ysann wrote:If you think that gay people are the point of this comic, read again. But let's talk about it.
Zach is more than okay with gay people. He include them even when their homosexuality is not related to the topic.
It's like he rolls a dice every time he wants to draw a couple and he randomly choses if the couple is heterosexual or not.
I think it's great. Being okay with gay or not is not relevant to the fact that most of the gay couples go through the same problems as we do. Therefore, they are just as good as a heterosexual couple for most of the situations.
Including them in these comics makes the gay couple something that seem to us more common, less weird.
I know gay people that feel emprisonned by the society that dictates that heterosexual couple is the norm, implying that being gay is not something that can be publicly admitted.
Thanks, Zach, to do something about it.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.
smiley_cow wrote:After reading through this discussion I was expecting something a lot gayer than just 2 out of 8 of the scenarios in there. That's a lot less than 50%. Also you talk about overrepresentation of gay couples as though it's a bad thing.
Salty wrote:I'm talking about a trend of unrealistically portrayed social situations designed to get him brownie points as his comics do not by themselves. It reminds me of his comic when tribal white men where chasing a black anthropoligist, and the comic was simply saying "why not to date a scientist." Am I being a racist for noticing the stretch he made? It was obviously made to gain looks. It is not "a natural set of characters" as has been previously suggested. it is being disingenuous towards reality, and is only helping his own ego and the moral status of his comics in a very easy way.
This is the comic I was talking about. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 1480#comic
(I was actually counting the panel where the man was already qualified as being bisexual, but who's counting...)
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.
smiley_cow wrote:And maybe he is doing it for brownie points, I don't really know his motivations though, so I can't really comment on that side of it.
Carcinogeneticist wrote:See, I didn't even notice the race thing in that tribesmen comic.
Salty wrote:smiley_cow wrote:And maybe he is doing it for brownie points, I don't really know his motivations though, so I can't really comment on that side of it.
Think of it this way. Imagine a male professor walks into class every day wearing a pink dress. Is their anything wrong or immoral with that? We all agree, no. But if the class is about urban planning and not gender studies - (and Zach's comics are about fill in and not just making a social point - then the professor and Zach are being presumptuous about what is necessary and even okay. Is it a valid point to discuss how our society designs genders? Yes. Does it need to be made every single class while the proffesor is discussing something entirely unrelated? No
All I'm seeing is unfunny, repetitive comics that only leave a "did you know I'm so not homophobic/racist" aftertaste, regardless of whatever the comic was about.
Salty wrote:Carcinogeneticist wrote:See, I didn't even notice the race thing in that tribesmen comic.
That, I have a hard time believing. Am I implicitly racist for noticing?
It would be pretentious of me to say I know anything about psychology, but I am convinced that it is an some people's ego trip to "not even notice" something like this. And I am increasingly convinced that this ego trip is the prime reason many people entertain this type of media.
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.
smiley_cow wrote:
So just to be clear, so I understand you, you're arguing that these types of discussions/challenges to social norms should be kept to specific areas designed to challenge them? If so, I don't think I agree. We live in a society that's pretty saturated in strict binary gender roles, heteronormative culture and white washing. And assuming we want to break out of that, we can't normalize it if we keep it only to specific areas designed to discuss it. It's normal if people can break them anywhere and it's no big deal.
To talk about your hypothetical professor, I don't actually see an issue with wearing a pink dress everywhere. I mean, there's huge stigmas on men wearing women's clothes, and a lot of very complicated reasons for that, and I'm sure a professor insisting on crossdressing everyday would be an issue for a lot of people. So I see why people would think it's inappropriate, but should it be? A lot of men really like wearing traditionally feminine clothes. If his female colleague can teach urban planning in a pink dress, why can't he?
DonRetrasado wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Bitcoin.
smiley_cow wrote:You're saying then that the problem is that it overshadows the actual point of the story, then? Yeah, I understand that. And it can be a balancing act sometimes based on what you want audiences to get out of something. Though personally I'd rather it was done to desensitize audiences rather than encouraging creators to avoid doing it.
Return to Latest Comic Discussion 3: Revenge of the Son of Latest Comic Discussion 2
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests