Blog post: Kin's story is kind of true

[willpell]

I am really uncomfortable with making these "strong" people out to be heroes at the expense of people whose coping skills are different. If you can put something behind you quickly, then great. But if you can't, then you can't.

You're creating a false dichotomy here. "If you can put something behind you quickly, then great" is exactly what I said. It's not at the "expense" of those who can't; it's just not at their reward either. The ones who HAVE earned praise for their swift and doughty recover can receive it, without impoverishing those who have not. If the latter feel put-upon just because deserved adulation is being heaped upon someone else, that's their own problem, not the adulation-heapers'.

The person to whom Aurora Moon is referring did, IIRC. I remember her kind of yelling that not-Walter was threatening Kin with gang rape when he was telling GoldMax to look forward to a group ass-kicking upon his arrival in the hells.

Having been molested is not an excuse for Failing Reading Forever. There is no conceivable way that page could be interpreted in that light by any sane or reasonable person. If that was seriously how she reacted, she's not fit to be exposed to the Internet at all, nor even to go out among the general population. If she's really that fragile and out-of-touch with reality, she needs 24/7 therapy until she becomes capable of functioning again. Otherwise, what's going to happen when she tries to go through a TSA scanner and the agents need to frisk her? Or when she gets pulled over for speeding by a cop? Or a billion other things. You can't use one (or even several) miserable incidents in your past as an excuse for not being able to engage in society as an equal. Everybody else is dealing with problems of their own, so regardless of the nature or severity of your own issues, you owe it to the rest of the world to either pull yourself together, or keep yourself out of the mix.

[13Swords]

At the end of the day, we either believe something is realistic or unrealistic. If I had to base my belief on the world around me to see what should or should not be believable...

to give a brief example: My grandfather saw his best friend get sucked through a jet engine. He came out the other side without a scratch on him. (until he hit the pavement, but that became a 'battlescar' at the bar. )

Other lucky bits-
He had 3 ships shot out from under him in WW2. He knew how to swim.
He manually disarmed water-mines with no prior training.
He personally witnessed Japan signing the surrender documents in WWII (and took a picture).
He shook hands with a Japanese sniper who recognized him from the war. (think about that for a moment.)

This is from a single man in an enormous world constantly producing new people. I'm not about to assert what no person can do if they try- too many instances of me being wrong on that account.

[Soyeong]

Thank you to everyone who has shared their story. And kudos for surviving your trauma, however you did it.

Can we try not to suggest that any one way of dealing with trauma is better than any other way? The best way of dealing with any kind of trauma is both literally and figuratively, whatever gets you through the night. It doesn't make you a better person to pull yourself up by your whatever and insist that nothing can touch you. And it makes you look like a dick to insist that people who don't do what you think you would do are somehow inferior.

In a race everyone runs at their own pace, but I think it would be silly to suggest that there is no best way to run a race. The winner of the race is not a superior person, but they certainly are a superior runner.

[willpell]

In a race everyone runs at their own pace, but I think it would be silly to suggest that there is no best way to run a race. The winner of the race is not a superior person, but they certainly are a superior runner.

I would say instead that they are a superior person, but that doesn't make everyone else an inferior one. The granting of favor to some does not automatically mean stigmatizing others.

[mxyzplk]

Heavy blog post! I liked the email and the response. It seems to me like in cases like this, people want to either project their own experience or what is seen as the "average" experience too much onto the character. "Kin was raped and how I reacted was X and so if she reacts like Y it's wrong." Or "well as a therapist I know that the default reaction to rape is X, so if she reacts like Y it's wrong." These are both understandable I guess, but not correct.

Of course, there are as many different reactions as there are different people. There are people that have had consensual sex days after being raped, for a variety of reasons ("I must get over this NOW," "I can't let anyone know anything's wrong"...). Then on the other side there's being affected so deeply that they "never had sex again" or "committed suicide." That's all just documented fact. So clearly there's a wide variety of reactions possible beyond the average/most typical. I always think it's weird when any reaction that is indeed a valid reaction someone in the real world has had is critiqued as unrealistic or otherwise bad (unless it's clearly being used to push a negative/harmful viewpoint Gor style). You shouldn't have to prove "this is EXACTLY how it happened to a loved one" to get cut some slack on that.

It's tough to deal with hard topics on the Internet because there's always a thousand people willing to tell you you're doing it wrong. Take the critique for what it's worth, but congrats on keeping at it and trying.

[Soyeong]

I would say instead that they are a superior person, but that doesn't make everyone else an inferior one. The granting of favor to some does not automatically mean stigmatizing others.

I think that in order to be a superior person, someone would have to be superior in all ways, not just one. If Person 1 is a superior runner and Person 2 is a superior swimmer, then who is the superior person? I don't think there is an objective way to answer that, whereas the person with the best speed is objectively superior at that particular event.

Saying that one person is superior at an activity necessarily implies that everyone else in inferior at that activity relative to them, but that does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with that.

[AntMac]

Yeah, I agree with you that we must be as helpful to one another and try not to label people, RocketScientist.

However, facts are what they are, and people do reveal themselves sometimes. Someone can be a survivor of an assault and still be an a-hole, imho. People deserve no attacks anyway, and when we become aware someone is suffering we can/ought even go further and carefully avoid adding to their distress. Yet, that isn't a pass card to their behaviour if they in their turn attack.

The person I was referring to when I said I thought sometimes Thunt goes too far out of his way was literally a crazy malignant, raging and violent bigot, who made not one concession to civility. Her excuse for this behaviour was she had been assaulted once, and that gave her the permission to rage and shriek accusations at the lad. Not one first reasonable attempt to point out how she would prefer he conducted himself.

We can't allow that sort of behaviour from anyone, it means most to the community at the mercy of a portion, merely because they have an issue.

The obligations of society go both ways.

[xpace]

I'm a rather new reader and I just caught up with the new pages today. And after I read THunt's blog I registered with this board just to comment on this topic.

THunt is brave to tackle this dark and touchy subject, both as a background for a central character and in this blog entry. I am impressed. But given the nature of this subject I'm not surprised by the responses.

Reading the email comment about abuse he quotes is gut wrenching. And informative. Intellectually, I knew it must be nightmarishly horrible. But it's hard for me to fathom as I don't have an experience to compare it with.

Clearly, what happened THunt's mom also had some impact on THunt - him being told her story, especially. Again, it's hard for me to fathom. As the blog points out, it also impacts those around the victim.

But I can also see how victims of abuse might argue that it'd be impossible to fully appreciate what they've been through unless someone has actually experienced it for themselves. And I wonder if such sentiment may be part of what fueled the criticism.

Thing is, Goblins is a blend of different elements: Adventure, fantasy, silliness, RPG humor, situation comedy, action, drama, a dash of romance, and what TvTropes used to refer to as "Crowning Moments of Awesome".

As such, it's impossible to deal with this dark and serious subject in a fully realistic manner without ruining (contrasting in a failed way) the feel of a comic like this. It's a webcomic designed to entertain with... (see above list) and to keep it that way you really can't... Well, it's a delicate balance.

Yes, the way Kin "recovers" or seems to heal or be strong does seem rather "fantastically improbable", especially after mere days after escaping and 2 years of torture. Though, I think it's important to remember that all the characters in this comic are "fantastically improbable". This is very clearly a fantasy and they're all improbably something: strong, stupid, clever, wise, skilled, etc.

And while it may only be a few days for Kin, with how often the webcomic updates it feels more like years to readers.

Bottom line: I think Kin's portrayal as a victim and her path towards recovery - while fantastically improbable - is rather well done for a webcomic that's not often very serious and doesn't revolve around drama. Kin's character is, well, it's very easy for readers to empathize for her. And the drama between Kin and MinMax is touching and heartwarming. To do all that and keep it entertaining is a difficult balance to pull off.

To really do a story about abuse justice would probably have to sound a lot like that blog. And, being the gut-wrenching naked truth that it is, that's not entertaining. In fact, I don't even want to read or think about such things. That's why I hate watching the news.

Many of the points youÔÇÖre bringing up with me are about to be brought up in the comic...

I think this will add more depth to Kin's character, allowing readers to empathize even more and maybe dampen some of the criticism. I'd say I'm looking forward to learning more about her character, but it'll probably be a bit on the gut wrenching side.

[willpell]

I think that in order to be a superior person, someone would have to be superior in all ways, not just one. If Person 1 is a superior runner and Person 2 is a superior swimmer, then who is the superior person?

Based only on those two data points, neither one is superior to the other, but both are "superior" in the abstract, as compared to the hypothetical average person. It needn't be a comparison to anything save your past self, the statistical mean, or the people who said you couldn't do it.

Saying that one person is superior at an activity necessarily implies that everyone else in inferior at that activity relative to them

That is precisely what I've been saying is NOT true. That implication is false and should not be drawn.

[endikux]

It's fine that Thunt blogs about his family's personal experiences, that is his prerogative. His mother seems like a strong willed woman who wants to protect her son as well s defend herself. That is also fine.

What isn't fine is feeding the trolls; which is exactly what Thunt did when he first apologized for "offending" people by referring to rape. The "offended lobby" is out there always waiting to pounce on people with a voice, like Thunt. Every time they are capitulated to it only empowers them to continue their righteous crusade against free speech.

The only speech which should be retracted or apologized for is threatening speech. Saying "I will hurt you" is wrong, just about anything else isn't. Having an opinion, making a comment, and especially making a joke or artistic statement is never something that needs retraction or apology. In the end it only weakens freedom of thought. It always starts with something everyone agrees is totally offensive; the trend then flows to what most find offensive, to what some find offensive, and finally to what one person finds offensive. In the end every utterance you make might offend someone and you become a crippled thinker who walks on egg shells in fear of offending someone out there.

Thunt never encouraged rape, threatened rape, or acted on rape. Rape is a real thing that happens, and he made it a part of a story. There was never anything for him to opine about just because someone decided to be offended.

Don't give "the offended" power over your freedom of thought or expression.

[Sessine]

This discussion had me thinking back to Brassmoon a bit and it occurs to me that we are not necessarily seeing an unnaturally fast recovery on the part of Kin here. I refer to the "something must change so I will never run away again" conversation that Kin has with Dellyn. A case could be made that she had already started to recover some sense of herself if she had got to the point where she could make that statement to her abuser. In hindsight I am just now getting a feeling for how amazingly powerful Kin was to do that. I'm not sure whether that is a comment on her astonishing intelligence or her essential non-humanity (or both).

I think this bears repeating. Our Kin has psychological scars, how could she not? but she didn't just start recovering after she was rescued. She began the process long before -- on her own, while she was still a captive, and while she was still enduring torture and rape every night.

Some of the other Kins may have done this too. The Altsplanations don't give that level of detail; their means of coping while captive may also have been slightly or greatly different. All the same, they weren't any of them broken. They're all very capable and functional.

I don't think Ruby has 'planted doubts' in our Kin's mind. Or at least, no more nor less than our Kin's 'I'm healing, you aren't!' line planted doubts in Ruby's... Both sides of the argument are thoughts a Kin could think, and which side prevails depends crucially upon small differences in initial temperament and major differences in their post-release experience. Our Kin has understood this.

[Zezune]

I honestly don't know what is more disgusting........the fact that the prior incident was from someone who thinks murdering a rapist in a fiery death is taking rape lightly........or this woman in this email that seems pissed that other rape victims can/have recovered sooner than she did and is almost seemingly demanding they be traumatized for a long period of time while irrationally holding it against other men.

[Soyeong]

Based only on those two data points, neither one is superior to the other, but both are "superior" in the abstract, as compared to the hypothetical average person. It needn't be a comparison to anything save your past self, the statistical mean, or the people who said you couldn't do it.

What if Person 1 is better at belching the alphabet and Person 2 is better at humming the theme song to Gilligan's Island? I don't think there is an objective way to abstract all of the data points or to prioritize some data points over others, so it's better just to compare specific data points than to generalize.

That is precisely what I've been saying is NOT true. That implication is false and should not be drawn.

If 2 is greater than 1, then 1 is necessarily lesser than 2. If B is warmer than A, then A is necessarily colder than B. These words only get their meaning by contrast, so no sense can be made by saying D is superior to C, but C isn't inferior to D. If it's also possible for F to be inferior to E, but that E isn't superior to F, then there is no connection between superior and inferior and the words have no meaning.

[willpell]

What if Person 1 is better at belching the alphabet and Person 2 is better at humming the theme song to Gilligan's Island?

Would you rather witness someone doing those things poorly? They may not be terribly useful or impressive skills, but by definition, a "better" ability to do them would reduce their annoyingness, increase their amusingness, and generally (if fractionally) make it more desireable that such actions, if being done at all, should be done by the superior person.

If 2 is greater than 1, then 1 is necessarily lesser than 2. If B is warmer than A, then A is necessarily colder than B.

Human beings are not mathematical equations or simple abstracts of physics.

These words only get their meaning by contrast, so no sense can be made by saying D is superior to C, but C isn't inferior to D.

Saying a person is "superior" doesn't necessarily indicate that they're superior to another person, only to something. That something might be their past self, or a statistical mean which no actual person corresponds to, or just a vague nebulous sense of "uselessness" which ALL human beings, no matter how deeply flawed and incompetent, are superior to just by virtue of their potential to act usefully.

If it's also possible for F to be inferior to E, but that E isn't superior to F, then there is no connection between superior and inferior and the words have no meaning.

All words have meaning, even when they're definitionally untrue, as long as they're not complete nonsense. "adjsahfdshofaidh" isn't a word, but "jabberwock" is, despite them being equally absent from dictionaries prior to Lewis Carroll's time, because Lewis Carroll created a context in which "jabberwock" meant something. The thing the word described didn't need to actually exist; it didn't need to be scientifically possible. You can create ridiculous concepts such as "pale black" and use them to considerable effect in poetry or the like; as long as a person can squint and sort of see what you're getting at, even if it's not right and proper, then you're accomplishing communication.

[Soyeong]

Would you rather witness someone doing those things poorly? They may not be terribly useful or impressive skills, but by definition, a "better" ability to do them would reduce their annoyingness, increase their amusingness, and generally (if fractionally) make it more desireable that such actions, if being done at all, should be done by the superior person.

The point was not about whether I'd like to listen to it, but to demonstrate there can be any number of data points and that not all data points are weighted the same.

Human beings are not mathematical equations or simple abstracts of physics.

You're the one talking about abstracting data points to a statistical mean. The point I was making was that statements of contrast necessarily come in pairs. It would make little sense to say that B is warmer than A, but that A isn't colder than B.

Saying a person is "superior" doesn't necessarily indicate that they're superior to another person, only to something. That something might be their past self, or a statistical mean which no actual person corresponds to, or just a vague nebulous sense of "uselessness" which ALL human beings, no matter how deeply flawed and incompetent, are superior to just by virtue of their potential to act usefully.

Even if you're comparing yourself to your past self, if you are superior in one aspect, then your past self is necessarily inferior in that aspect. If you're superior to a statistical mean of a particular aspect, then everyone below the mean is inferior to you, as well as those are are above it, but as far above as you are. All humans are superior to a vague sense of uselessness, but superiority is a relative term, so you can simultaneously be superior to someone and be inferior to someone else in the same aspect.

All words have meaning, even when they're definitionally untrue, as long as they're not complete nonsense. "adjsahfdshofaidh" isn't a word, but "jabberwock" is, despite them being equally absent from dictionaries prior to Lewis Carroll's time, because Lewis Carroll created a context in which "jabberwock" meant something. The thing the word described didn't need to actually exist; it didn't need to be scientifically possible. You can create ridiculous concepts such as "pale black" and use them to considerable effect in poetry or the like; as long as a person can squint and sort of see what you're getting at, even if it's not right and proper, then you're accomplishing communication.

If something being superior doesn't mean that something else is inferior, then you are not communicating anything by making the contrast.

[RocketScientist]

I honestly don't know what is more disgusting........the fact that the prior incident was from someone who thinks murdering a rapist in a fiery death is taking rape lightly........or this woman in this email that seems pissed that other rape victims can/have recovered sooner than she did and is almost seemingly demanding they be traumatized for a long period of time while irrationally holding it against other men.

That's all your interpretation, the letter does not say any of those things. I just went and reread it to be sure I hadn't missed something. She said she was "really, really disappointed." She said she thinks he's making a mistake. She did not demand anything, she did not express anger, and she did not say he was taking rape lightly.

[13Swords]

I went ahead and looked up rape statistics. It's not pretty...
Enough to make you want to complain of names.

That said, I think it is frequent enough that whether or not it should be included in a story is dependent purely on how gritty the world is you're writing about- Keep in mind that reality is pretty grim in this aspect already. Audience is another key factor- I don't think children's stories should reflect the status quo... that's just a personal opinion, I guess.

That said, this isn't for children, and nothing is being hidden- this comic, to me, is about people in a world whose largest (or at least, most frequent) evil is other people. So far, Kin is the only character we've met whom has been raped, or at least, the only one we know about. Statistically speaking, it should be far more than just her.

Long rant short: It's realistic to include rape victims, and I think for this kind of story, pretending a kind of common evil doesn't exist would be... Not sure what the word is. Incomplete? Not as real?

It doesn't have to be realistic, but if you're not looking for grim, it's not your kind of comic, no?

[willpell]

You're the one talking about abstracting data points to a statistical mean. The point I was making was that statements of contrast necessarily come in pairs. It would make little sense to say that B is warmer than A, but that A isn't colder than B.

True, but they can both feel warm, if their standards for warmth and comfort are different. That's the point I'm trying to make. Whether they actually exceed some artificial, objective temperature standard which has been defined as the beginning of the "warm zone" makes no difference; only how they feel is important in this context.

If something being superior doesn't mean that something else is inferior, then you are not communicating anything by making the contrast.

I'm paying a compliment to the person who I'm claiming is superior to a vague concept of "other people" or "in general", which no actual person necessarily has to find themself included among. Nobody has to feel bad; we can just say "you're superior" as a synonym for "you're awesome" (which isn't necessarily that literal in the first place, so there's little harm in slightly mis-defining terms just to expand our thesaurus, so we're not just repeating the same small set of flattering words over and over again).

I honestly don't know what is more disgusting........the fact that the prior incident was from someone who thinks murdering a rapist in a fiery death is taking rape lightly........or this woman in this email that seems pissed that other rape victims can/have recovered sooner than she did and is almost seemingly demanding they be traumatized for a long period of time while irrationally holding it against other men.

That's all your interpretation, the letter does not say any of those things. I just went and reread it to be sure I hadn't missed something. She said she was "really, really disappointed." She said she thinks he's making a mistake. She did not demand anything, she did not express anger, and she did not say he was taking rape lightly.

I think the first quoted clause was referring to the "prior incident" with the person who still hate-reads Goblins so she can blog about what a misogynist Thunt is, not the writer of the more recent email quoted in the newest Thunt-blog. The second clause might refer to either email, but assuming it means the new one, Zezune is saying the writer "seems" angry and is "almost seemingly" demanding something...so it's just Zezune's impression of her message, not the message itself. (Which is of course exactly what you said, but my impression was that you might be making more of it, and assuming Zezune was making more of the email...so insert some vague mumbling about two wrongs making a right, and I'll shut up about it now.)

That said, I think it is frequent enough that whether or not it should be included in a story is dependent purely on how gritty the world is you're writing about- Keep in mind that reality is pretty grim in this aspect already. So far, Kin is the only character we've met whom has been raped, or at least, the only one we know about. Statistically speaking, it should be far more than just her. Long rant short: It's realistic to include rape victims, and I think for this kind of story, pretending a kind of common evil doesn't exist would be... Not sure what the word is. Incomplete? Not as real? It doesn't have to be realistic, but if you're not looking for grim, it's not your kind of comic, no?

The word you're groping for is "versimilitude", as in a story that seems to take place in Sugar-Plum Fairlyand, where realistic problems never occur, lacks this quality. It is best defined as "perceived semblance of realism"; it's not the same thing as actual realism, because it is itself a crafted artwork, and so is carefully calculated to seem normal in ways that actual normality is not. Dumb coincidences happen in real life, but they aren't capable of happening in a book, because the writer is choosing everything (unless he uses an absurdly sophisticated randomizer to simulate the breadth of happenstance that's possible in reality). Thusly, a real person might move into an apartment building and find out that three other people with his exact name just happen to have all moved in right before him (in a short enough timeframe that they couldn't have seen each other's identical names on the mailboxes and reconsidered their choice of homes, nor deliberately chosen to move in with their namesakes). That reality isn't contrived, but in a book, it would seem so, and thus it would lack versimilitude, at least unless the author took great pains to acknolwedge how odd it seems, both in and out of "character".

[AntMac]

.

What isn't fine is feeding the trolls; which is exactly what Thunt did when he first apologized for "offending" people by referring to rape.

I know what you are saying, and the feeling of equity that compels you to say it. I know you are right technically too.

However, I don't agree with you, and you, should give the matter a deal more thought, I guess.

I am not holding myself up as your tutor or anything, just pointing out a way of viewing the issue that you might not have considered.

Those of us who have had a happy life, or happy on the averages at least, are like rich people. We have this wealth, maybe we earned it, maybe it was coincidence, whatever.

If giving a tiny bit of our wealth ( in this case, metaphorically of course I mean peace of mind, happiness, un-rape-idness ) to our fellows, in the form of carefully correcting our speech, is too much for us, we ought to take a fucking hard look in the mirror.

If we have to feed a few trolls in the course of making a more perfect union of our community . . . well, after all we can always organise a Official Troll Hunt later on, to keep their numbers in check.

Compassion is never a waste for proper thinking humans. Together we are absolute giants, and we can lift one another to the stars, and if we care for each other on the way we will deserve getting there.

[endikux]

Compassion is a wonderful thing, and I don't believe in causing someone pain on purpose just to prove you have that freedom. Telling someone they are fat when unasked might be technically true, but it's still rude and inappropriate. Rude behavior should be shamed by civilized people. Maturity is about knowing the difference between having the right to say something and the responsibility of saying it.

I understand what you are saying, that being in the right is not the same thing as being compassionate. However I still don't see that it applies here at all. Thunt did not make a joke at any one person's expense, or even comment about any particular person or group of people in a specific way that warrants "correcting our speech" to help hurt feelings.

Case in point: Goblins has featured numerous instances of death, violence, and even outright murder. Now if I was a person who lost a loved one to murder then I could easily make the same complaint about Thunt being an uncaring jerk. He doesn't treat the survivors of murdered family members with the due respect they deserve. He makes light of death and killing. In fact I call on him to stop featuring any killing at all in his comic because it upsets me so much.

Are you going to tell me that rape is a legitimate complaint that Thunt needs to apologize for, because he mentioned it, but murder isn't? He never drew a scene of rape, he only mentioned it; however he has drawn many scenes of death. Murder can easily be argued to be far more painful than even rape. What about survivors of torture? He has featured that in his comic as well.

The fact that one person wrote a compelling complaint does not suddenly make their chosen subject matter worthy of apology while these other areas are not worthy. Once that door is opened it should be opened for everyone and anyone who feels slighted by anything. Who are any of us to judge what one person feels is hurtful to them?

[willpell]

Whether the deaths depicted in the comic qualify as "murder" is somewhat subjective. For the most part, they've been acts of war; there's a transgressiveness to being killed in your own supposedly civilized city that is absent from deaths in a wilderness area or a long-contested region. That transgressiveness may be the root of a psychological disturbance...you feel safe in the place where you live, and the idea of something hitting you right there is disturbing, but the idea of such a thing happening in "a horrible place" might not. We haven't seen a civilian being stalked through city streets by a sadistic maniac with a knife, so anybody who has murder-trauma in their past probably hasn't hit any triggers.

That said, we haven't seen too much detail of Kin's sex-slave existence, just a few public scenes of her being objectified and the aftereffects of how she's been traumatized. There really shouldn't be much triggering going on from the low-impact nature of what Thunt has portrayed. If just seeing the word "rape" is enough to wreck your mood all by itself, when no attempt has been made to heighten the intensity of the word's meaning, maybe you need more therapy. Thunt isn't making us watch Kin *being* raped, nor have we had to watch anyone murdered IMO...the closest thing I can recall is the Brassmoon prison break when monsters were being shot down in their tracks, but that WAS a prison break, and if guards shoot at fleeing felons in one of our prisons, we don't call it murder, even if we know for a fact that the prisoners were unjustly accused and the prison's administration was corrupt. The context of it being a prison changes the semantics; it becomes a conflict zone, and thus risk of death is expected, so the transgressiveness is not so great. You expect that if someone is escaping from a prison, they're at risk of death, so if they die, it isn't really a deep shock, the way having them suddenly knifed on their way home from the grocery store would be.

[mortissimus]

What isn't fine is feeding the trolls; which is exactly what Thunt did when he first apologized for "offending" people by referring to rape. The "offended lobby" is out there always waiting to pounce on people with a voice, like Thunt. Every time they are capitulated to it only empowers them to continue their righteous crusade against free speech.

You mean Thunt should not apologise when he feels an apology is in order, because you feel it feeds what you call the "offended lobby"?

Don't give "the offended" power over your freedom of thought or expression.

But abstaining from an apology when you feel like giving one, because of an idea of an "offended lobby" gaining from it, is precisely giving over freedom of expression.

[endikux]

http://www.goblinscomic.org/09172005/

Kore murders an innocent child. I demand an apology because this deeply offended me.

Now you will say "oh, get over it, you aren't really offended. We all know this is just a story." Or some such thing as that. No one will expect Thunt to apologize over this. But I ask you why he shouldn't? Why does one person get to say she is offended by an element of Thunt's story, and get all this apology and attention and heart wrenching soul searching; but this instance of outright child murder doesn't deserve any apology? If a woman who's child was stabbed to death comes across Thunt's comic, reads this page, and becomes deeply offended, will he then apologize for that?

Thunt can apologize to whomever he wants, he can do whatever he damn well pleases. But realize that when you capitulate to one "offended" party then you better be ready to capitulate to more in the future.

I'll leave you with this timely and perfect example http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... to-listen/

"If one person is offended we have to listen." So if 10 million people are fine with something, but 1 individual is "offended" then something must be done.

Does anyone recall sticks and stones breaking your bones but words never hurting you? It's called growing up. Being "offended" is a part of life, deal with it.

I am offended by Thunt's apologizing for offending someone. It's an offense to logic and my sensibilities. But my feeling of offense doesn't warrant consideration does it?

[willpell]

Kore murders an innocent child.

Okay I stand corrected. Kore doubtlessly views this as execution rather than as murder, but it would pretty much qualify to anyone but him. He did sort of explain the act to the child beforehand and give him a moment to prepare himself, so you probably would call it second or third degree murder rather than first (I forget what exactly the legal meanings are for those distinctions), but murder nonetheless.

"If one person is offended we have to listen." So if 10 million people are fine with something, but 1 individual is "offended" then something must be done.

This may demonstrate that the principle is taken too far, but it's a sound principle in theory. The alternative is that anyone who disagrees with the crowd is simply ignored and marginalized, and we "geeks" have nearly all suffered such a fate in our lives, so we're unlikely ever to agree that it's right or just. Even if the alternative is just as bad when taken to an extreme.

Does anyone recall sticks and stones breaking your bones but words never hurting you?

I mentioned that old saw myself earlier in the thread; apparently most of the modern-day public regards it as a discredited trope, right up there with "spare the rod, spoil the child" as the kinds of "wisdom" that prove people were horrible in the olden days. This attitude may have something of a point, in my opinion, but note only that I say "may", not "does". The algebraic increase in communications and interconnectivity of the modern world have unquestionably changed the rules of society, even more than the Industrial Revolution did; we can't necessarily believe all our old maxims. Whether this is one that we should have thrown away is open to debate, IMO.

It's called growing up. Being "offended" is a part of life, deal with it.

You could just as easily say that getting mugged, raped or murdered are parts of life, and people should just deal with those. If enough people agreed, they'd dissolve the government (through bloody insurrection if necessary) and institute a functional anarchy. Strangely, though, very few people seem interested in trying this anymore.

I am offended by Thunt's apologizing for offending someone. It's an offense to logic and my sensibilities. But my feeling of offense doesn't warrant consideration does it?

If he apologizes to you, then I'll be offended that you were offended by someone else's offense, and he'll have to apologize to me for capitulating to you.

[AvalonXQ]

Kore murders an innocent child.

Okay I stand corrected. Kore doubtlessly views this as execution rather than as murder, but it would pretty much qualify to anyone but him. He did sort of explain the act to the child beforehand and give him a moment to prepare himself, so you probably would call it second or third degree murder rather than first (I forget what exactly the legal meanings are for those distinctions), but murder nonetheless.

No, it's first-degree murder.
The differences in the different types of murder have to do with how deliberate/planned they are. There is nothing in Kore's mental state or the circumstances to knock it down from cold-blooded, fully deliberate, premeditated murder - it's murder in the first degree.