Topic: WCDT Strips 3221 to 3225 (16 - 20 May 2016) (Read 97084 times)

Baphomet · « **Reply #150 on:** 18 May 2016, 01:02 »

Quote from: MrNumbers on 17 May 2016, 20:35

Regarding 'normal' and 'average' I'm actually a big fan of the usage of the words 'neurotypical' and 'neuroatypical'.

It sounds far more factual and far less judgemental than most alternatives.

I mean, yeah, I guess it sounds better since it's less common? Just, for the record, neurotypical translates to something like "has a normal brain" while neuroatypical and neurodivergent both translate to something like "doesn't have a normal brain". The dividing line is still being drawn between people who think the way they're "supposed" to and people who don't, instead of groups of people who think in two different but equally valid ways. The fact that it seems less judgmental has less to do with the terms actually being without judgment and more to do with the fact that people don't use the terms often enough for them to develop culturally-saturated connotations. If "neurotypical" replaced "normal" in these sorts of conversations I'm pretty sure it would develop exactly the connotation you're hoping to avoid.

pwhodges · « **Reply #151 on:** 18 May 2016, 01:18 »

Quote from: Baphomet on 18 May 2016, 01:02

If "neurotypical" replaced "normal" in these sorts of conversations I'm pretty sure it would develop exactly the connotation you're hoping to avoid.

Maybe; but perhaps each time such a change is made, the degradation might be a little slower to happen, as a few more people get the point. But that won't happen at all unless we try, right?

Case · « **Reply #152 on:** 18 May 2016, 01:23 »

Quote from: mikmaxs on 17 May 2016, 21:27

Quote from: TheEvilDog on 17 May 2016, 19:38
Quote from: mikmaxs on 17 May 2016, 08:42
I'm all for representation, but I'd rather that representation be with positive characters.

Why? Is that really an accurate representation? I think a fairer representation is showing that sometimes there can be negative people. Being different from thes societal norm doesn't preclude that sometimes people can be jerks. Even if they don't set out to be.

If we do see a broad spectrum of people in the QC-verse, than isn't it more realistic and engaging to the reader that they run the gamut of of the emotional and temperamental spectrum as well?
It's not that people can't be jerks, it's that I don't really know of many autistic characters in fiction who *aren't* jerks.

...

I'm optimistic about Brun, but the introduction of her character made it clear that she really wasn't a likeable person in the slightest. This might change overtime, Jeph usually takes a few weeks or months of comics to really pin down his characters, and even if the most recent comics her negative traits haven't been around at all (Though this is mostly true because there's not been a chance to showcase them), but if she keeps her personality from her introduction, she's just a repellent person to be around.

Ok, I 'get' why Sheldon and the Rainman tick you off, in terms of representation. And that you don't like a particular character - well, contrary to popular opinion (and local custom), there's this proverb that "there's no accounting for taste".

But ... quite a few people (myself included) seem to like Brun - and her 'special' (sorry - sleepdep & 2nd language. Usually, I'd strangle folk for that one, but I can't come up with better right now) isn't played for laughs-and-pointing-fingers (well, not more than any other character in a webcomic), so in terms of "representation to the world at large", she might not be as much of a worry as you seem to believe? (Assuming, of course, she does indeed represent people with ASD)

(And neglecting, of course, the teensyweensy problem of being represented by a character that you personally can't stand $:-\$ )

Undrneath · « **Reply #153 on:** 18 May 2016, 02:26 »

Quote from: ZoeB on 18 May 2016, 00:41

Super luck out that Clinton's there. I expect others to join in as needed. Claire, Marten....

If she is in fact on the spectrum introducing new people during a meltdown could be a really bad idea.

blt · « **Reply #154 on:** 18 May 2016, 04:12 »

"I know I'm not a murderer"

I dunno Clinton, that sounds exactly like what a murderer would say...

Tova · « **Reply #155 on:** 18 May 2016, 04:17 »

This reminded me of a scene from a film...

Clementine: You're not a stalker, or anything, right?
Joel: I'm not a stalker. YOU'RE the one that talked to me, remember?
Clementine: That is the oldest trick in the stalker book.
Joel: Really? There's a stalker book? Great, I gotta read that one.

Tova · « **Reply #156 on:** 18 May 2016, 04:38 »

Quote from: pwhodges on 18 May 2016, 01:18

Maybe; but perhaps each time such a change is made, the degradation might be a little slower to happen, as a few more people get the point. But that won't happen at all unless we try, right?

Isn't the intent and meaning behind the words the point, rather than the use of a euphamistic word with an identical meaning? And if so, how will the practice of adopting more euphamistic language result in more people getting it?

Are you sure that you are not promoting the politician's syllogism here? ("Something must be done; this is something; therefore, we must do it")

Is it possible that the euphamism treadmill (which Baphomet was describing) does harm rather than good?

Wildroses · « **Reply #157 on:** 18 May 2016, 04:56 »

Quote from: Lubricus on 18 May 2016, 00:27

I like Brun better for each strip she appears in. And I don't agree at all that she is anything like Faye - she seems a completely different animal to me. I'm amazed at Jeph's ability to write (and draw) interesting female characters.

I was one of the earliest persons comparing Brun to Faye in Brun's first few strips. Initially it was because both worked in the hospitality industry and thought it was perfectly acceptable to insult and casually threaten the patrons of your beverages. Then it was because both had their houses burn down.

And that's basically it. The sole two things they have it common.

But the more strips she appears in, the more it becomes obvious she and Faye are quite different characters with different reactions and motivations, so I will no longer be making such statements. I don't remember any occasions off the top of my head that Faye ever tried to make it up to a patron she pissed off the way Brun did. Now I've said that people with better knowledge of archives than I will probably post strips proving me wrong there.

I hope Claire isn't sitting at home freaking out because Clinton hasn't come home so he must still be mad after all *sob*

J · « **Reply #158 on:** 18 May 2016, 05:04 »

Quote from: emsilly on 18 May 2016, 02:09

Saying an autistic person has severe psychological issues seems a bit like describing a white person as having a pigmentation defect.

it seems to me that a more apt comparison would be saying that a person with albinism has a pigmentation defect. or that a person with deafness has a sensory deficit.

Tova · « **Reply #159 on:** 18 May 2016, 05:14 »

As someone with partial deafness, I would cringe if anyone ever used a term llike 'sensory deficit' anywhere near me.

Zebediah · « **Reply #160 on:** 18 May 2016, 05:16 »

Quote from: Wildroses on 18 May 2016, 04:56

I hope Claire isn't sitting at home freaking out because Clinton hasn't come home so he must still be mad after all *sob*

Nah, Claire is at Marten's, having hot sex on the sofa. Even if she was at home, that's not where Clinton was headed - he was going back to his dorm at UMass. And as far as we know, Claire has no idea that he didn't make it there.

BenRG · « **Reply #161 on:** 18 May 2016, 05:23 »

When Clinton tells her that he visited a bar and it subsequently burned down... oh, and he's sort of been self-nominated as the carer for the former barkeep...? Well, I doubt that Claire will let him out on his own ever again.

TheCollector · « **Reply #162 on:** 18 May 2016, 05:26 »

Y'know, quick thought I had to post.

So, I'm not saying Clinton burned down her bar. I'm just saying it didn't burn down till he went there.

mikmaxs · « **Reply #163 on:** 18 May 2016, 05:29 »

Quote from: Case on 18 May 2016, 01:23

Quote from: mikmaxs on 17 May 2016, 21:27
Quote from: TheEvilDog on 17 May 2016, 19:38
Quote from: mikmaxs on 17 May 2016, 08:42
I'm all for representation, but I'd rather that representation be with positive characters.

Why? Is that really an accurate representation? I think a fairer representation is showing that sometimes there can be negative people. Being different from thes societal norm doesn't preclude that sometimes people can be jerks. Even if they don't set out to be.

If we do see a broad spectrum of people in the QC-verse, than isn't it more realistic and engaging to the reader that they run the gamut of of the emotional and temperamental spectrum as well?
It's not that people can't be jerks, it's that I don't really know of many autistic characters in fiction who *aren't* jerks.

...

I'm optimistic about Brun, but the introduction of her character made it clear that she really wasn't a likeable person in the slightest. This might change overtime, Jeph usually takes a few weeks or months of comics to really pin down his characters, and even if the most recent comics her negative traits haven't been around at all (Though this is mostly true because there's not been a chance to showcase them), but if she keeps her personality from her introduction, she's just a repellent person to be around.

Ok, I 'get' why Sheldon and the Rainman tick you off, in terms of representation. And that you don't like a particular character - well, contrary to popular opinion (and local custom), there's this proverb that "there's no accounting for taste".

But ... quite a few people (myself included) seem to like Brun - and her 'special' (sorry - sleepdep & 2nd language. Usually, I'd strangle folk for that one, but I can't come up with better right now) isn't played for laughs-and-pointing-fingers (well, not more than any other character in a webcomic), so in terms of "representation to the world at large", she might not be as much of a worry as you seem to believe? (Assuming, of course, she does indeed represent people with ASD)

(And neglecting, of course, the teensyweensy problem of being represented by a character that you personally can't stand $:-\$ )

Well, that's why I started this whole discussion by saying that *I* wasn't a big fan of her representing.

pwhodges · « **Reply #164 on:** 18 May 2016, 05:31 »

Quote from: Tova on 18 May 2016, 04:38

Isn't the intent and meaning behind the words the point, rather than the use of a euphemistic word with an identical meaning?

Yes - but how do you get that across? There are various ways to explain, but sometimes using a different word provides a hook for that which would not otherwise arise.

Quote

Is it possible that the euphemism treadmill (which Baphomet was describing) does harm rather than good?

Harm? - probably not. But for there to be a benefit, there has to be explanation going along with the modified vocabulary at some point; while a few people might get it on their own as a result, that will not necessarily be a significant proportion.

J · « **Reply #165 on:** 18 May 2016, 05:35 »

Quote from: Tova on 18 May 2016, 05:14

As someone with partial deafness, I would cringe if anyone ever used a term llike 'sensory deficit' anywhere near me.

must...resist...easy...joke...

Tova · « **Reply #166 on:** 18 May 2016, 05:37 »

Quote from: TheCollector on 18 May 2016, 05:26

So, I'm not saying Clinton burned down her bar. I'm just saying it didn't burn down till he went there.

Well, you know. When one of the story's protagonists turns up at your quiet little bar, you know that it won't be a quiet night.

Quote from: pwhodges on 18 May 2016, 05:31

Harm? - probably not. But for there to be a benefit, there has to be explanation going along with the modified vocabulary at some point; while a few people might get it on their own as a result, that will not necessarily be a significant proportion.

Yes, there does, and that is one of the issues. People discussing these issues often think the terms they use are common coin, but they are akin to jargon. Most people have their own interpretations of such euphemisms, and those interpretations probably would not be to your liking.

Any more thoughts on the topic will have to wait until I've slept.

Quote from: J on 18 May 2016, 05:35

Quote from: Tova on 18 May 2016, 05:14
As someone with partial deafness, I would cringe if anyone ever used a term llike 'sensory deficit' anywhere near me.

must...resist...easy...joke...

Awww, I was kind of hoping someone would, actually. I left the opening...

P.S. I have a bad habit of misspelling "euphemism"... :p

Mordhaus · « **Reply #167 on:** 18 May 2016, 06:10 »

Is it just me or is Jeph slowly drawing Clinton as a more studly type guy? Since the fire I keep expecting him to do a Fabio hair flip.

dexeron · « **Reply #168 on:** 18 May 2016, 06:12 »

I can definitely relate to Brun here. In extremely stressful situations (like a car accident) I've been the coolest head in the "room," making sure everyone was ok, speaking with authorities, arranging pick-up etc... and then once I was sure that everyone was safe and that everything had been taken care off, adrenaline or shock or whatever else wore off and all the emotions and memories flooded in and I turned into a gibbering wreck.

I don't personally shut down communication-wise when overwhelmed (I'm on the spectrum, and do have rare issues where I get overwhelmed by stimulus/stress, but I don't shut down in that way), but I can see how, now that the most pressing crises have been more or less "resolved," and now that shock is wearing off and the body is letting down its defenses, that's when it all starts crashing in.

Zebediah · « **Reply #169 on:** 18 May 2016, 06:31 »

Yeah, I'm pretty much the same way. I panic after the problem is resolved.

Roxtar · « **Reply #170 on:** 18 May 2016, 06:44 »

I really wish people would stop projecting their identities onto characters based on trivial details.

"OMG, SHE LOOKED AT A PINK THING, THAT MEANS SHE'S TOTALLY (insert random bullshit here) BECAUSE I ALSO LOOKED AT A PINK THING AND HAD THE SAME REACTION ONCE 13 YEARS AGO"

jwhouk · « **Reply #171 on:** 18 May 2016, 07:36 »

I dunno, being called "vertically challenged" is a lot nicer sounding than being called "short and fat," IMNSHO.

mikmaxs · « **Reply #172 on:** 18 May 2016, 07:38 »

Quote from: Roxtar on 18 May 2016, 06:44

I really wish people would stop projecting their identities onto characters based on trivial details.

"OMG, SHE LOOKED AT A PINK THING, THAT MEANS SHE'S TOTALLY (insert random bullshit here) BECAUSE I ALSO LOOKED AT A PINK THING AND HAD THE SAME REACTION ONCE 13 YEARS AGO"

Except these aren't trivial details. Her speech patterns, trouble with emotion, and going nonverbal are all a pretty damned specific set of traits. And I don't think anyone is projecting their own identities - I'm saying she's probably autistic, not that she's me.

Roxtar · « **Reply #173 on:** 18 May 2016, 07:45 »

Quote from: emsilly on 18 May 2016, 07:16

Also @Roxtar: I think that's uncalled for. Going non-verbal is a pretty specific issue. If Brun isn't autistic, there aren't a great deal of other explanations which make sense.

Quote from: mikmaxs on 18 May 2016, 07:38

Quote from: Roxtar on 18 May 2016, 06:44
I really wish people would stop projecting their identities onto characters based on trivial details.

"OMG, SHE LOOKED AT A PINK THING, THAT MEANS SHE'S TOTALLY (insert random bullshit here) BECAUSE I ALSO LOOKED AT A PINK THING AND HAD THE SAME REACTION ONCE 13 YEARS AGO"
Except these aren't trivial details. Her speech patterns, trouble with emotion, and going nonverbal are all a pretty damned specific set of traits. And I don't think anyone is projecting their own identities - I'm saying she's probably autistic, not that she's me.

here's a common one that does make sense. We've all been to the point where we're on the verge of crying and we need to not talk in order to keep us from going over the edge.
this has happened to literally everyone... making it a trivial detail.
speech patterns: german name, cuckoo clock: likely german immigrant.
problem with emotion: see speech patterns above.

heyjames4 · « **Reply #174 on:** 18 May 2016, 08:18 »

On neurotypical/neuroatypical: Those words have the appearance of being neutral descriptive terms. Like most neutral descriptive terms used in emotionally charged environments, they will accrete value judgements, if they haven't already. One of the other posters already brought up the idea of the euphemism treadmill (google it, can't link from work).

All that being said; in my experience I've seen neurotypical used pejoratively by spectrum advocates more often than the other way around.

Clinton's totally right to check in with the investigators before leaving the scene of an ongoing structure fire. 'hello authority, i'm witness #4, witness #5 and I are going to motel 6, you've already interviewed us, here's my contact info, she's got nowhere else to go"

On what happens next:
If Brun goes deeper, Clinton may panic. Which of the QC crew are best equipped to help him through it?
It's been a while since Faye's had to deploy the +3 breasts of slumber. I assume she's also got a very steady heartbeat.
I want to see Hannelore interact with Brun--Clinton. Hanners knows how to care-give, and it would be neat to see her seeing Clinton's character growth given his introduction, and her history includes episodes of going into safe mode in response to overwhelming stimulus. Though she's probably the last person in the crew he'd think to call.

Milayna · « **Reply #175 on:** 18 May 2016, 08:25 »

Chiming in here to mostly agree with #128, sans forum-stalking - the only other time I've viewed this forum was when Claire's trans status came up.

But yeah, as an aspie myself it definitely looks to me like Brun is autistic...my thoughts on her basically went from "she's a jerk he just wants a friggin wster / ok, I'm kinda starting to identify with her, hmmm... / (after the fire) the way she describes it, the way she just stares, I wonder if...? / Ok, she's melting down. she's definitely autistic."

I'm going to address a few other posts than say more about my reaction...

#173: Yeah how dare we try to identify with character. Especially when characters like us are nearly nonexistent! When people like you are literally every single character and our very existence down't warrant acknowledgment! Excuuuuuse us for latching onto what representation we can find! Why are you even reading this comic? (Also her behavior is not a "trivial detail".

@156: I wouldn't agree that it's a bad thing NECESSARILY to introduce her with a meltdown, but that's just my view. It's similar in a way to if Claire was introduced by someone walking into her changing. I think it kind of has to be that way though, which is itself problematic. Like, Claire can pass for Regular Woman in normal interaction, but with mental disorders, it's much harder to do that...the alternative to introducing her this way would be to have her around for months before coming out as autistic...which would invite months of people going "WTF is wrong with her, why is she acting r-------?" And it's very hard to justify her just casually dropping the a-bomb on a stranger. I actually kind of hope that Jeph is able to address this aspect...

#148: That's a fair way of stating it. When I was young my response to dealing with being overwhelmed was the opposite, to let it all and scream and hit and be uncontrollable. As I matured I was finally able to understand that my behavior was unacceptable and I needed to learn to assess, filter and control my responses to things; but given the processing needed to communicate coherent thoughts I can easily understand that shutting down under stress.

#130: I agree with this as well. Most of my like for her comes from identifying with her; so far she seems to be a jerk. Well, if I throw stones I'll end up on the same boat. I'll address this more in my own response but for now I'll say that I really hope she doesn't just confirm the idea that autistic people are too r------- to know how to act with people without being intolerable jackasses.

#115: Adding another data point. Especially after the fact, I am often able to analyze what people say and find their underpinnings; in context, when dealing with emotions and stress, it takes most of my ability to remember how to output Words in a Coherent Argument while Remembering What's Already Ben Said. Being autistic does not mean that one is incapable of understanding social things; for me, at least, it means that I have to process a lot of it intellectually because my emotional processing does not interface with my output well. #107: For me, the "Immediate" part is not in my wheelhouse; the "precise" part, I'm decent enough, I think.

Ok, so for my part: First, to continue what I said in #130 about her being a jerk: I can speculate on this: Given what she's said about her name I think she's probably been given a lot of crap in her life about being "abnormal" and expects that in general from people. It looks to me like she puts up a wall, limiting her interaction to avoid people cottoning on to her mind and causing conflict, and being standoffish so that if they DO have a problem it can be attributed to being a jerk in general, rather than a sincere effort that she failed. OF COURSE she's barely been introduced so I'm pulling this almost entirely out of my ass.

I can't remember which post but someone noted her focus on that clock...having a Thing to focus on, especially one that makes regular, predictable movement, can help greatly to calm and focus my mind, so I can concentrate on what people are doing and what's going on rather than spending half my attention controlling the other half. It's also an excuse to not look directly at people, which can be very stressful (in the bar, she looks at Clinton obliquely pretty often, and after the fire she almost never looks directly at anyone).

That's all that I have for now. If I think of something pertinent or want to address subsequent posts I may chime in again.

Oh, and kind of late I guess, but first post. Greetings to everyone here ^_^

Y · « **Reply #176 on:** 18 May 2016, 08:33 »

I actually thought she had a normal reaction for someone who has just lost everything they owned. Some people would try to fight their tears in that case, other people might get mad. Though I'm a diagnosed aspie so I don't see certain behaviors as 'wrong' or abnormal.

Actually telling the police that you're not a murderer is very suspicious, so I first though Clinton was being paranoid.

Quote from: heyjames4 on 18 May 2016, 08:18

If Brun goes deeper, Clinton may panic. Which of the QC crew are best equipped to help him through it?

Not sure what you mean by deeper. I think Clinton would do fine to comfort her, she knows Clinton the best from the cast anyway.

Milayna · « **Reply #177 on:** 18 May 2016, 09:46 »

I was also going to mention that she closed her eyes, she's shutting out stimulus because she's getting overwhelmed. That and her body language in the third panel, scrunching herself up, are the biggest things that signals to me that she's autistic.

Also: She wants Clinton's help, rather than the officer. While she doesn't know a LOT about Clinton, over the past few hours she's seen him enough to know that a) he's safe, and b) she's seen him enough to develop SOME familiarity with his disposition and behavior. She knows nothing at all about the officers. She doesn't know how to predict or respond to them, and she's not in a position to easily identify and analyze that. This makes a lot of sense to me, it's FAAAAR less stressful to deal with a quantity you know at least a little about and have already figured out how to deal with than one you know know nothing at all about.

aliensporebomb · « **Reply #178 on:** 18 May 2016, 09:56 »

I think Milayna's assessment is spot on about the closing eyes and body language in trying to shut out stimulus - that's how I perceived it too.

And Clinton displayed unexpected leadership tendencies when he got people out of the bar safely, acted as liaison between Brun and said policewoman and made efforts to make sure she had a place to go.

Well who wouldn't trust a guy like that to do the right thing?

Carl-E · « **Reply #179 on:** 18 May 2016, 10:59 »

Quote from: Milayna on 18 May 2016, 09:46

Also: She wants Clinton's help, rather than the officer. While she doesn't know a LOT about Clinton, over the past few hours she's seen him enough to know that a) he's safe, and b) she's seen him enough to develop SOME familiarity with his disposition and behavior. She knows nothing at all about the officers. She doesn't know how to predict or respond to them, and she's not in a position to easily identify and analyze that. This makes a lot of sense to me, it's FAAAAR less stressful to deal with a quantity you know at least a little about and have already figured out how to deal with than one you know know nothing at all about.

That, and if she's an immigrant, she may be from a place where you can't really trust the police.

Not that you always can here, of course.

Eastrim · « **Reply #180 on:** 18 May 2016, 11:06 »

I'm seeing a lot more projection than actual evidence that Brun is autistic - I'll point out Tova's signature to everyone. Just because autistic people have some behaviors, and Brun has had some of those behaviors, doesn't automatically make her autistic. Being overloaded to the point of not speaking in the manner she does is not an inherently autistic reaction. Getting overwhelmed is a normal reaction, and the wide variety of ways people react to being overwhelmed is also normal. What's different about stuff like autism is the amount and character of what constitutes overwhelming, which can vary dramatically.

It seems like there are two trends going on in this thread. There's the overblown conversation about normality and typicality that's tipping into implications that there isn't any human behavior that's abnormal, letting the occasional negative connotations of that label override its actual applicability. Real talk here; EVERYONE is a little bit abnormal, just like everyone's a little bit crazy. What changes is how much our abnormalities affect people's perception of us, and what is considered abnormal; those with social abnormalities are more noticeable, but there are plenty of people who may seem 'normal' in a conversation but wash their hands 5 1/2 (right hand an extra time) every time they squash a bug. 'Normal' is a cultural construct, but that doesn't invalidate it any more than other cultural constructs get invalidated; it's okay to feel uncomfortable if someone gets in your personal space even if your a German in Brazil.

At the same time, there's an eager discussion about what kind of abnormal Brun is, which is at odds with the other trend in that it keeps assuming normal behaviors are abnormal. I just mentioned the main one at the top, but we've seen plenty of other. Even within the universe, Dora, generally considered 'normal' until her abnormal trust issues got more focus, pulled a sword on a person, and unlike Brun brandished it with anger in her eyes. Her syntax is just as associated with linguistics as it is with atypical thought processes. And so on. Again, speculation is cool, but declarations are doing her character a disservice.

Question: Where the heck are all the other bargoers she was apparently more familiar with? I wouldn't trust him with a fishing pole, but where's Barry?

Atherea · « **Reply #181 on:** 18 May 2016, 11:23 »

I've been following QC and lurking the forums here for a couple years, but never posted until now.

I tend to have a very similar reaction to Brun when I'm under extreme stress. Talking becomes difficult, as does the simple act of breathing. Even the way she keeps her eyes shut from the fourth panel onward. I'm often reduced to rigid, forced gestures and silence. This is generally an attempt to keep from completely breaking down and becoming hysterical in front of people (particularly people with whom I'm not entirely comfortable yet).

I've also noticed (pre-fire) that some of her behaviors are similar to my own when dealing with the public. My jokes are awkward and deadpan, I limit my conversation and responses, and I often come off as rude or a snob when it's not at all what I intended. Even the whole "threatening" with the harpoon is something I might have done -- I would have seen it as amusing and absurd, but there have been a lot of people here in the forums who blew it way out of proportion in a way I don't understand.

Despite that, I'm not on the autism spectrum; I DO have severe anxiety from past trauma that makes dealing with most people extremely difficult for me. That's not to say Brun doesn't have some degree of autism, but there ARE other explanations for the behavior and reactions we've seen thus far.

brasca · « **Reply #182 on:** 18 May 2016, 12:00 »

If Brun does become a regular her presence will make Clinton less quirky.

oddtail · « **Reply #183 on:** 18 May 2016, 12:04 »

OK, two things.

Regarding the use of the word "normal" - I understand why the word raises some red flags for some people, but I think the word is useful. There *is* an average in everything, and this average is both the basis and the result of both innate and cultural expectations. There are people who are outside the bracket that we can call "normal". I don't see a problem with the word itself. In everything, including human behaviour and interaction, there is a template, a default go-to for the given time and place. I should know, I've been outside this behavioral bracket way more often than I would've liked to, usually with either hilarious or painful results. Denying that the "normal" exists is, to me, akin to closing one's eyes and hoping the concept of "normal" goes away. Which it never does. And I doubt it ever will. Humans are conditioned to assess things based on norms of one kind or another.

What I *do* have a problem with is both the automatic assumption that abnormal is bad, and the prejudice and fear that any kind of abnormal behaviour usually provokes. This automatic fear of what is unusual is ridiculous and leads almost universally to harm rather than good. But I don't think denying the term "normal" its weight is the way to go. I think it's better to repurpose the word so that it does not have universally negative connotations. But maybe that's just me.

As to Brun being autistic or not, and whether people are projecting... OK, I'm not seeing much projecting. Based on my limited knowledge about the autism spectrum and interactions with autistic people, her behaviour broadly and consistently just... fits the mold. It's not just one or two things that someone has latched on. It's a lot of signs that point in one particular direction. And yes, each of those can be explained differently. But I think Occam's razor, combined with the fact that the comic is a work of fiction, make other explanations unlikely.

Firstly, autism or another disorder from the autism spectrum seems, at least to me, like the simplest, most elegantly fitting explanation. Other explanations require some, for the lack of a better word, squinting. Yes, she might be an immigrant and also be just unusual in some behaviours, or have trust issues etc., but those do not seem to fit easily what we've seen in the comic. It takes some interpretation to *make* certain explanations fit. Autism seems more natural.

Secondly, this is a comic. I would not jump to conclusions too fast with a real person after just one interaction, but in a work of fiction, there are only so many details and signs that can be presented. Unless it's a deliberate misdirection by the author, usually the clear, simple explanation works, because otherwise the work gets confusing. It's a matter of conservation of details. If there's a scene in a movie when someone has to go to the bathroom, that usually serves a narrative purpose (usually something goes wrong in their absence or something bad happens to them in the bathroom; alternatively, they have a moment of introspection related to them being alone). There aren't many stories where someone goes to the bathrom, returns from it and nothing happens outside of more experimental works. Similarly, if a person displays certain traits, it's usually to signal something. Brun's behaviour points to a possible explanation and the comic has explored things like OCD in the past, so Brun's being autistic seems to be a plausible explanation. If some people do not see this? It's perfectly fine. I personally see this as near-certain based on what I've seen. It's OK if you disagree.

And I'm not on the autistic spectrum, that I know of, so I don't think my opinion is due to my projecting.

As a side note, isn't the "you're projecting!" argument non-falsifiable, and therefore not very useful in a discussion? One can always say that, but it's better to talk about the actual comic and discuss whether a certain explanation is valid. I personally think accusing someone of projecting is slightly patronising and condescending. It's also a kind of an ad hominem.

Case · « **Reply #184 on:** 18 May 2016, 13:06 »

Quote from: Roxtar on 18 May 2016, 07:45

...
speech patterns: german name, cuckoo clock: likely german immigrant.
problem with emotion: see speech patterns above.

I'd ask you to re-read that & to try again. Discussing "cultural conventions about emoting" is one thing - equating "(having) problems with emotions" with "(being) German" is another.
Thanks for your understanding.

Quote from: oddtail on 18 May 2016, 12:04

OK, two things
...

+2 Internets

---
General ether: I find it quite easy to understand that people who experience-, and deal with a thing 24/7 tend to have a rather thorough grasp on the subject matter - second only to medical professionals.
I do not think this is due to my also being neuro-a-typical (albeit not on the spectrum) - it's simple logic.

As to the general tone of the debate, which quite frankly borders on "explaining" to people what they can and cannot think and say about a medical condition they live with every day ... I'll just point to oddtail, because I'm not in a emotional state suitable for explaining things calmly and rationally right now. If this was about OCD and/or ADHD, I'd have to stare very hard at my (non-existing) cuckoo-clock in order not to give an ... impressive ... demonstration of Germans' emotive abilities.

It's common courtesy, common sense and explicit forum policy that *trans people are "the leading experts on their condition" (points to forum rules). While *trans-issues are undoubtedly on the most urgent possible level, I fail to see how that difference frees us from continuing to muster the simple decency of treating people as if they know what is happening in their lives, and which problems they face on a daily basis.

This forum is better than this.

(click to show/hide)

J · « **Reply #185 on:** 18 May 2016, 13:14 »

Quote from: emsilly on 18 May 2016, 07:16

Quote from: J on 18 May 2016, 05:04
Quote from: emsilly on 18 May 2016, 02:09
Saying an autistic person has severe psychological issues seems a bit like describing a white person as having a pigmentation defect.
it seems to me that a more apt comparison would be saying that a person with albinism has a pigmentation defect. or that a person with deafness has a sensory deficit.

People with white skin are globally a minority, less than 10%. Their skin aren't dark, what's up with that? They can't block out harmful UV rays effectively, I think it's perfectly appropriate to call that a defect.

This is clearly a ridiculous argument, but defects are subjective and can only be characterised in reference to a baseline. What that baseline is is entirely arbitrary.

the human body has adapted via natural selection to produce a chemical called melanin, which among other things regulates the amount of UV radiation that the body absorbs. humans who produce more melanin are indeed more resistant UV damage, but makes them more susceptible to vitamin D deficiency. humans who's bodies produce less melanin have the opposite problem. both of these traits are ultimately the result of the same mechanism performing the same task toward the same end, only calibrated to do so in different environmental conditions.

this does not hold true for humans who are unable to produce melanin at all, which is a severely maladaptive trait. there is nothing arbitrary or subjective about distinguishing between a mechanism which functions at varying specified levels, and one which is physically incapable of doing so.

if you have a 6-cylinder car which is unable to reach highway speeds because only 3 of the cylinders fire, then the car is broken. damaged or non-functional components are preventing it from performing the task for which it was designed and built. this has nothing to do with arbitrary baselines, or cultural expectations, or statistical norms; it is an objective assessment of a machine & its level of functionality.

Eastrim · « **Reply #186 on:** 18 May 2016, 13:49 »

Quote from: oddtail on 18 May 2016, 12:04

As a side note, isn't the "you're projecting!" argument non-falsifiable, and therefore not very useful in a discussion? One can always say that, but it's better to talk about the actual comic and discuss whether a certain explanation is valid. I personally think accusing someone of projecting is slightly patronizing and condescending. It's also a kind of an ad hominem.

No. Projection is fairly simple; Person A has seen/experienced/have characteristic X, Person B exhibits characteristic X, therefore Person A extrapolates other qualities and identifies with person B. Noting that something is projection is a statement of objective fact when a person directly says "I have experienced X before, they're doing X, therefore they have this other trait.' At least 10 people have made and reiterated arguments to that effect, with several more who were more vague. It's bad because it's based on a single reference point (what Person A has observed) which ignores that both Person A and B are individuals with individual reactions, and wrongly associates characteristics that may be only loosely related.

There are actual diagnostic criteria for the Autism spectrum, but they aren't even being discussed. It's all personal experiences, opinions, and comparisons to other fictional characters. It also keeps crossing from opinion to being discussed as assumed fact.

The bottom line is that it's premature. No, a comic won't have lots of detail, but we haven't even finished one encounter with her, and a lot of people have said that their assessment is based on her reaction to the fire, which is hardly indicative of someone's regular state of being.

Quote from: J on 18 May 2016, 13:14

Quote from: emsilly on 18 May 2016, 07:16
Quote from: J on 18 May 2016, 05:04
Quote from: emsilly on 18 May 2016, 02:09
Saying an autistic person has severe psychological issues seems a bit like describing a white person as having a pigmentation defect.
it seems to me that a more apt comparison would be saying that a person with albinism has a pigmentation defect. or that a person with deafness has a sensory deficit.
People with white skin are globally a minority, less than 10%. Their skin aren't dark, what's up with that? They can't block out harmful UV rays effectively, I think it's perfectly appropriate to call that a defect.

This is clearly a ridiculous argument, but defects are subjective and can only be characterised in reference to a baseline. What that baseline is is entirely arbitrary.
The human body has adapted via natural selection to produce a chemical called melanin, which among other things regulates the amount of UV radiation that the body absorbs. humans who produce more melanin are indeed more resistant UV damage, but makes them more susceptible to vitamin D deficiency. humans who's bodies produce less melanin have the opposite problem. both of these traits are ultimately the result of the same mechanism performing the same task toward the same end, only calibrated to do so in different environmental conditions.

This does not hold true for humans who are unable to produce melanin at all, which is a severely maladaptive trait. there is nothing arbitrary or subjective about distinguishing between a mechanism which functions at varying levels, and one which is incapable of doing so.

If you have a 6-cylinder car which is unable to reach highway speeds because only 3 of the cylinders fire, then the car is broken. damaged or non-functional components are preventing it from performing the task for which it was designed and built.

This is clearly a ridiculous argument

Though I'll add that there is far more than 10% of humans who are white. Europeans aren't the only pale people.

St.Clair · « **Reply #187 on:** 18 May 2016, 14:49 »

Shout out to all my fellow East African Plains Apes, of any and all shades of brown. (I tend to "fishbelly" myself, and have been known to joke that I don't have a color, but an albedo.)

Also:
The euphemism treadmill is absolutely a thing, and any term you pick, no matter how clinical or neutral, will acquire moral and/or judgmental implications in popular use. That, for good or ill, is simply how people are. We name and sort things into categories, reduce them to generalizations, because if we had to constantly evaluate every single situation or object or person on their own observed qualities, in real time, without resorting to these cognitive shortcuts - and there are case studies of people with, let's say "differently functioning" brains who literally have to do this - we'd never get anything else done. And in the process, we tend to attach positive or negative weight to these observed traits, mostly on the basis of how similar they are to us. :/

Reducing the complex to the simple and manageable is not, in itself, a problem. Refusing to reevaluate, reconsider and possibly recategorize on the basis of new data is.

Zastie · « **Reply #188 on:** 18 May 2016, 15:04 »

There's a lot more people up in arms about opinions and early speculation than I anticipated.

In any case, I'm glad she's becoming "a character." I was hoping she would from when she was first shown, her first panel made it looks like she was just a one or two-liner character for comedic relief in the moment though.

Also hi everyone, first post here - thought I made an account about a month ago but apparently I didn't so I made one yesterday.

Storel · « **Reply #189 on:** 18 May 2016, 16:13 »

Quote from: neurocase on 17 May 2016, 23:02

WRT the shortening of names, one could consider me unfortunate. "Seb" is really the only way to shorten Sebastian, so I definitely don't have any options!

The protagonist of The Neverending Story is named Bastian, which could certainly be an abbreviation of Sebastian. For that matter, there was an Egyptian goddess named Bast, and someone else already mentioned Bas (pronounced "Bass", like the fish, not the vocal range or the stringed instrument).

Roxtar · « **Reply #190 on:** 18 May 2016, 16:41 »

Quote from: Case on 18 May 2016, 13:06

Quote from: Roxtar on 18 May 2016, 07:45
...
speech patterns: german name, cuckoo clock: likely german immigrant.
problem with emotion: see speech patterns above.

I'd ask you to re-read that & to try again. Discussing "cultural conventions about emoting" is one thing - equating "(having) problems with emotions" with "(being) German" is another.
Thanks for your understanding.

I did word that poorly, but you seem to have gotten my point which was that in addition to being unaware of typical syntax, being unaware of social norms regarding expression of emotion in another culture is common amongst immigrant populations.

Perfectly Reasonable · « **Reply #191 on:** 18 May 2016, 18:11 »

AFAIK, French 'u' is pretty close to German 'ü', at least to an American ear.
The world should make a place for umlauts.

And it seems clear that Brün will be with us for a while and Clinton will have to deal. He's doing fine so far. Attaboy!

And 'normal'? I'm neromediocre, thank you very much.

~~mustang6172~~ · « **Reply #192 on:** 18 May 2016, 18:12 »

Quote from: Near Lurker on 17 May 2016, 21:37

Quote from: Perfectly Reasonable on 17 May 2016, 19:30
Brün.
Definitely the umlaut, from the way Clinton tries to say it.

Wouldn't the umlaut make it more like "Breen"?

No, a helmet would make it more like Breen.

Undrneath · « **Reply #193 on:** 18 May 2016, 18:59 »

Every time I see the word umlaut I can't help of think about oubliettes 'deep dark oubliettes'.

Tova · « **Reply #194 on:** 18 May 2016, 19:45 »

As I expect that I was at least one of the targets of this post (see below, right down the bottom), I felt that I should respond.

My post did suggest that I disrespect the way that people self-identify, and I apologise for that. As you say, people are the experts on their own experience, and I should in no way suggest that they are somehow incorrect in the way that they describe themselves.

Unfortunately, in more general discussion (which was the original context of the discussion as far as I was aware at the time), the euphemism treadmill is a very real occurrence, whether you like it or not. My intention was that people consider this, rather than to impose my own ideas of what language to use (which is why my initial post was in the form of questions). Careful selection of language is indeed a good and useful thing, but it needs to be done mindfully. And yes, the intent behind the language is the most important thing. There was a suggestion that this cannot be divined, but I disagree. I think that people are surprisingly good at divining the intent behind language - I saw some posts that back this up somewhere, but I don't have the time to find them now.

A couple of specific points:

Quote from: Case on 18 May 2016, 13:06

The slurs that ADD, ASD, or the umbrella-term neuro-a-typical are a "euphemism" for are e.g. "Freak", "Spaz", "Schizo", "Idiot", "Retard" ...

At least one of these slurs - namely, retarded - started out as a euphemism for terms like "idiot," or "slow." Did you know?

It is a slur now precisely because of the intent behind its use.

Quote from: Case on 18 May 2016, 13:06

You can live with cis & het, but not with neurotypical?

I am fine with all of those terms. Actually, I quite like 'neurotypical', for whatever that is worth (really not much).

However, in general, my point that such terms can in some cases essentially be jargon to the larger populace, and therefore may not communicate what you think that they do, stands. As does the point that these terms will, in time, inevitably carry the negative connotations you seek to avoid. So long as you are aware of these things, go for your life. Use the language you need to use, that best communicates your intent.

To be honest, I prefer to call a spade a spade, and I'm not so much a fan of calling a spade a 'soil removal device,' but I'm also not a fan of calling a spade a fucking shovel. If that helps to understand my perspective.

I apologise that I'm still probably not explaining myself well. It's too bad we can't discuss face to face.

Quote from: oddtail on 18 May 2016, 12:04

As a side note, isn't the "you're projecting!" argument non-falsifiable, and therefore not very useful in a discussion? One can always say that, but it's better to talk about the actual comic and discuss whether a certain explanation is valid. I personally think accusing someone of projecting is slightly patronising and condescending. It's also a kind of an ad hominem.

Actually, I think that it can be pretty useful, in the right context.

Projecting is perhaps not wrong in and of itself. There's nothing wrong, really, with identifying with a particular character because that character shares a trait or an experience with you (in fact it can be helpful), or loathing another because they share a trait with an adulterous ex, or something. However, while this identification can help you in some cases, it can blind you in others. Maybe that character you identify with waved a shotgun in someone's face, and you refuse to accept that maybe that wasn't such a good thing to do. Or maybe that other character has some quite positive qualities mixed in with the ones that you see as bad, which you are unable to see because you can't look past that ex. In such cases, it is quite useful to point out that your projection is preventing you from acknowledging these things.

The full post that the opening of this post responded to:

Quote from: Case on 18 May 2016, 13:06

General ether: I find it quite easy to understand that people who experience-, and deal with a thing 24/7 tend to have a rather thorough grasp on the subject matter - second only to medical professionals.
I do not think this is due to my also being neuro-a-typical (albeit not on the spectrum) - it's simple logic.

As to the general tone of the debate, which quite frankly borders on "explaining" to people what they can and cannot think and say about a medical condition they live with every day ... I'll just point to oddtail, because I'm not in a emotional state suitable for explaining things calmly and rationally right now. If this was about OCD and/or ADHD, I'd have to stare very hard at my (non-existing) cuckoo-clock in order not to give an ... impressive ... demonstration of Germans' emotive abilities.

It's common courtesy, common sense and explicit forum policy that *trans people are "the leading experts on their condition" (points to forum rules). While *trans-issues are undoubtedly on the most urgent possible level, I fail to see how that difference frees us from continuing to muster the simple decency of treating people as if they know what is happening in their lives, and which problems they face on a daily basis.

This forum is better than this.

(click to show/hide)
EDIT: I also do not have great problems with "normal" - but(ts), that's because I can reasonably fake it, most of the time. I'm one of the "passing In-Valids in Gattaca", so to speak . Doesn't mean I don't know gnawing anxiety about saying smth. wrong, or "weird", or that "special" fills me with acute homicidal wishes. Personally, I'm neuro-a-typical - and allistic, if people feel the distinction is important.
I absolutely 'get' the idea behind "autism pride" (at least I believe I do ...) - because I'm just far enough off of the thin red line to see how tiresomely normative, and (de-)valuing the supposedly neutral "normal" really is.

About neurotypical: Counting all developmental disorders under neuro-a-typical, we're about 2-3% of the populace. You can live with cis & het, but not with neurotypical?
And what was that about the "euphemism treadmill"? Where is this supposed to go? Back to "Calling a spade a spade", perhaps?
The slurs that ADD, ASD, or the umbrella-term neuro-a-typical are a "euphemism" for are e.g. "Freak", "Spaz", "Schizo", "Idiot", "Retard" ...

Maybe it would be good to consider what 'freedoms' exactly one is uncomfortable with loosing? As has been pointed out by smarter people - some weren't worth having in the first place.

TheCollector · « **Reply #195 on:** 18 May 2016, 21:43 »

Ahahahaa, I love Brun. :3 <3

chaospersonified · « **Reply #196 on:** 18 May 2016, 21:46 »

Quote from: TheCollector on 18 May 2016, 21:43

Ahahahaa, I love Brun. :3 <3

I would like to second this.

Eastrim · « **Reply #197 on:** 18 May 2016, 21:48 »

Three pictures. That is two pictures more than I expect to find in a hotel room.

They were out late, it's 11:4something.

Why is his right sleeve still rolled up? Because she needs to recharge?

Zastie · « **Reply #198 on:** 18 May 2016, 22:04 »

O man, hotel bathrooms are loud so I sympathize with wanting him to leave. Also for having all your possessions burned.. I'm not sure how I'd feel about that being the only shirt to now own.

Lubricus · « **Reply #199 on:** 18 May 2016, 22:17 »

Hmm... I wouldn't mind seeing Brun and Clinton out shopping for new clothes. That can only end in hilarious disaster.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Poll

So, now what? (Two votes each)

Author Topic: WCDT Strips 3221 to 3225 (16 - 20 May 2016) (Read 97084 times)