If you go through the comments to this chapter in order (I don’t recommend it), you’ll see people going through increasingly bizarre contortions to demonize Gurwara.

Basically it boils down to: he’s a brown guy calling a white girl on her shit, so he can do no right and must be evil and doing evil no matter what a stretch it is. Either he has to be an awesome supervillain, or he has to be an abusive monster. He’s absolutely not allowed to be a human being.

But y’know. it’s ~not racist~ because reasons

Yes, yes I do.

Is this an actual question asked in good faith? No, no it is not.

Am I going to do the work of proving it to the satisfaction of someone who thinks the important thing to challenge here is the notion that anyone in the SFP fandom could *possibly* do *racist* things? No, no I am not.

But for the record, nobody who experiences & deals with racism goes “This is RAAACIST” for fun. What we actually do is see it over and over and over, and spend months biting our tongues because if we do speak up, we’ll have to deal with the clueless entitlement of the people who will, with 100% certainty, jump in to tell us that we don’t really know it’s racist and can’t prove it.

Sometimes we let our guard down, and get reminded why we didn’t say it before.

Nobody calls out racism without good reasons, because the personal cost of doing so is too high. In the case of comments about Gurwara it’s more a cumulative effect than the fault of any one post, which actually makes the cost much higher.

I’ll paraphase your question: “do you really have a reason for thinking what you just said???”

Presupposing that the person you’re responding to is just blowing it out their ass unless proven otherwise? Is not good faith.

It’s also entirely predictable any time a marginalized person speaks. You are being judged quickly because you sound like you’re playing racefail bingo.

Thanks.

Please do be aware for future that the way you phrased it, both times before, was very close to the phrasing racist trolls tend to use when trying to exhaust POC with endless “debate” about whether our lived experience counts for anything vs their uninformed opinions.

There’s probably other ways to ask that wouldn’t set off those flags but, migraine threatening so I can’t think atm.

Speaking as a Jew who can barely go a day without seeing a news article that doesn’t so much talk about anti-semitism as glorify it, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Sometimes you find yourself having to wave at a cumulative pile of evidence, only to have it dismissed out of hand anyway.

But… I’m not entirely certain that the negative reception of Gurwara is about racism so much as the trope called “Protagonist centered morality.” In other words, I think that people don’t hate him (or Max) because of their skin tone or gender. I think they hate him (and Max) because Alison didn’t like him, and therefore must obviously be evil.

I even commented on this back when Max and Alison had their first dates (the evening walk, and then that disastrous rooftop dinner), before everything went sour. How people were literally jumping on every single possible thing to condemn him. And how it would be like having friends watching obsessively and sending text messages like “Did you see that? He ordered the bleu cheese! Run, girl! That’s proof! HE ORDERED THE BLEU CHEESE!!!”

Well… when Gurwara strolled into class, he started ordering the bleu cheese.

Speaking as one of the people defending Max… I’ve also been defending Gurwara, literally since his introductory scene where people were demonizing him for daring to question Alison’s moral rightness in everything she does.

I’ve also been NOT demonizing Alison. I’ve condemned her actions against Max, which were both evil AND stupid (for reasons I’ve elucidated in past comments, and which boil down to “killing the goose that laid the golden eggs”), but I’m very pleased that she’s now owning up to her responsibilities. Which is why I’ve also been saying that Gurwara might be the hero that saves the world, because he’s pulling Alison back from the brink of no return, away from the path of self righteous good intentions that results in inordinate amounts of evil and misery.

Huh. Does the adorable naif count as low status? …isn’t that a stock role? (My exposure to fan fiction isn’t that great, so I don’t know their popularity.)

(I am totally the wrong demographic. Max annoyed me from the start, and my more or less immediate reaction to Guwara is that he amused the hell out of him, and in the case of a real world analog, I’d like to ask him out to coffee.)

Huh – I read Max as Germanic! (High cheekbones and distinctive eyebrows is a ridiculously dominant trait from one branch of my family.* And the height…) Still, it’s one not uncommon in my German colleagues…

* Okay, possibly not a good example. One cousin who traveled with an uncle when they were investigating the family roots – and then removing anything untoward from his official account because he’s like that**, swore that they found a family crest with a star of David on it, the star mysteriously disappearing by the time they reached this side of the Atlantic. This is all to believable of that uncle, and since this is the side of the family I’ve been thrown out of, and that cousin is dead, I suppose I’ll never know. (I’m unlikely to repeat the research, unless I happen to be living in the area, I suppose.)
** Which is really too bad, because all the good stories then came from other sources, of course.

My read was that Max was too light complected to run into that… and in theory the US rule is that white is white unless you’re hispanic or of obvious enough, say, Middle Eastern extraction to make an issue of it. (There’s a huge amount of covert colorism – I mean, god forbid that you’re sallow – but there were also policies building an illusion of uniform whiteness.)

(I’m dark haired and was darker skinned than either parent – though tech and academia both tend to breed pallor – which in retrospect was a source of racial insecurity to my mother, but I grew up in a multicultural enclave, and was pretty oblivious. Whenever I was taken as the one non-european member of the family growing up, I was delighted… ah, Seattle in the seventies. Of course, I also didn’t find out that my mother had grown up bilingual in spanish and english until I was in my late twenties. But I’ve said many times how much I despair of my family. It’s only been in the past few years that I’ve been figuring out what a lot of the fraughtness was all about.)

Well Clevin is adorable and dorky yes, but he’s kind of chubby and has glasses. Which is not a bad thing nor does it make him unattractive! It’s just that he’s not “traditionally attractive” (or what media says is attractive), which is probably why he doesn’t get the same treatment. Although he also seems to be a really nice person so I can’t understand how someone could justify liking Max and disliking Clevin for anything but shallow reasons.

Depends on how you define low-status. Spike from Buffy didn’t really have much ‘status’ and tons of people loved him; although he was a vampire so that’s kind of a status (maybe?). Same with Sephiroth (although he was insanely powerful so that’s also kind of a status in itself). General Hux is Kylo’s second most common match and he’s not even in the movie for very long. Honestly, just go through TVTropes examples for ‘Draco in leather pants’ if you think you can without getting trapped on that cursed website.

I find TVTropes to be more seductive than entrapping. Just one more page, baby. Five more minutes, and then you can go…

I am sorry that you can see an element of racial insensitivity in my response to Micah. I’d like to do my best at a real apology.

I have the privilege of only intellectually considering racial discrimination, rather than viscerally understanding it. It is an unearned luxury that I did not even consider Gurawa’s race as positioning his arguments to Alison. It is probably not going to budge your opinion of my comment but I will gladly apologize for flippantly disregarding that component of the scene.

My perspective sees an intellectually established adult figure dissecting the ‘axioms’ of one of the most powerful individuals on the planet. Gurawa has a PhD and knows all the points and counterpoints in the literature about metaethics. Alison seems not to. Therefore I considered the situation to feature a power differential in Gurawa’s favor over Alison. His leveraging of this power does not strike me as benign: Gurawa is lessening Alison’s belief in the force of moral arguments. Given that Alison is (likely) unstoppable as a force for interpersonal violence this seems like a mistake.

Now that you have pointed me at the racial issue I see that my initial read is informed by unsavory stereotypes of people of color. There is a bias to consider non-white characters villainous; this might be predisposing me to consider Gurawa’s intentions to be malicious. There is a bias to consider non-white characters immoral; this might lead me to offer no charity to an opposing philosophical view (I am a moral realist, in case that isn’t clear yet). There is apparently a context of anti-Gurawa comments that I wasn’t aware of which may be more intentionally racist.

While I still think that Gurawa is (and all anti-realists are) most likely up to something suspicious, I can see that my initial post was short-sighted.

“in what context can a random civilian get in the face of the president of the US and shake their finger in said president’s face while screaming abuse, without being seen as a threat, and without the president being able to do or say anything without being themself perceived as the threat, and not be treated like a criminal by the US media?”

…fantasizing about women of color being able to do so on similar terms with our current president is going to get me even more off topic than we were on the previous page.

I am, though I belong to a number of groups cited as not deserving of protection by the current administration. For the moment, I am continuing on in loud-mouthed obliviousness.

Well, not really obliviousness.

When it comes to internet policy… I’m a Pirate. I just wish they could get their economic policy together. (And yes, having some background there, and coming out of the open source community, that does imply that I should get involved. Just… a) I’m really busy right now and b) I’m in the US, which tends to devolve to two parties at any given time…)

“groups cited as not deserving of protection by the current administration”

So non-Trump voters then 😉

I think you’re probably right.

If that sort of twist is going to happen at this point, his name ought to be Professor Shyamalan.

AA doesn’t argue in good faith, ftr. They’ve misrepresented past events in the comics, without links to the relevant pages, in ways that *have* to have been deliberate.

The main point as far as I could tell was to woobify Max by convincing people that everything between Al and Patrick was so unconscionable that she had no right to boundaries with Max.

srsly. but wanted to provide that context in case you hadn’t seen it.

Actually, in a large number of my posts I’ve posted links. Nor have I “woobified” Max or anyone else. Nor have I declared that what happened with Al and Patrick was “so unconscionable.” I simply pointed out that she offered a great deal more empathy and understanding to someone who was guilty of far, far worse crimes than mister “doesn’t want to give the night off to gardeners being employed by someone else.” You want to talk about arguing in good faith, then speak of what I’ve actually said.

(You might try providing some actual quotes of mine, assuming you’ve read anything that you feel actually supports your accusations)

Excuse me. I have not been obsessively following every single post you’ve made, so no I don’t have a clue about went on in your marriage aside from the last post you made; hence my clarification about not assuming a thing. Nor did I try to tell you how I think you should feel. I pointed out that what Alison did to Max was fueled by the very same “my moral beliefs are superior and therefore you should suborn your free will and do what I say” that fuels abusive behavior in general. You’re jumping to assume offense where none was intended, and assuming a considerable amount besides that.

Rude… right. I pointed out that Max’s situation held parallels to her own, in regards to someone else stating “my beliefs are correct, my desires are paramount, you must ignore your own beliefs, desires, and self-interests in favor of doing what I want you to do.” She’s the one who brought it up in the specific comment I then replied to. If it was wrong of me to point at a personal experience she had just referenced, then it was wrong of her to bring it up as if it mattered. And if it DID matter, then the only way it would have been rude of me to respond to it would have been if I had deliberately said something sexist about her belonging in the kitchen or made light of her issues. Which I did not.

In point of fact, this is something I jump on other people for, and that I try not to do myself. Namely: choosing to be offended where no offense was intended or meant. I’ve got enough people in my life who actively want to make me feel like crap (or worse than that, but they don’t feel they can safely get away with violence and persecution at this time). I don’t need to go rushing to take offense at people who never intended any, or drown out the “excuse mes” with angry rants that just make the other person think “wow, you’re a jerk. I no longer feel sorry.”

Yes, you’re right – I did point out errors in her logic. That’s called “debate.” “Your position is in error, and here’s why.”

And before you jump on me further: I belong to a few subgroupings that could allow me to claim oppression, including a few medical disorders that are still considered socially acceptable to mock. And I’ve got a lot of friends and acquaintances with their own issues and/or belonging to assorted subgroups that are often subject to harassment. And I’m not going to identify them because I get SO tired of hearing it brought up at every turn. My issues have given me challenges, and overcoming those challenges have made me stronger. And as I said: I’m used to people actively wanting to make me feel like crap, who have been truly and utterly delighted to realize I could be an acceptable target for their malice. I’m also used to people who are simply ignorant and unaware. And one of the things I’ve learned is that treating the latter like the former is the least productive thing you can do. It’s called “being a jerk.”

Yeah… you’re telling this to someone who has friends in wheelchairs. And a mother in a wheelchair. And I don’t consider that to be inspiring – I actually find it insulting in the case of my mother (she’s in that chair due to health complications arising from morbid obesity as a result of extremely deliberate and willful life choices, of a “Imma get angry at anyone who tells me to diet or exercise” variety), since she deliberately put herself in the chair that others would like to escape.

I didn’t know about your disability until you posted about it just now. Just like you didn’t know I had any issues until I mentioned it in my previous post. Because they’re IRRELEVANT. Courteous conduct and rude behavior are both things completely unrelated to the person who engages in them. Your gender, your race, all of that – that means nothing when it comes to rational conversation. Your intelligence, your education, those matter – but the fact that the chair you’re sitting in while you type happens to have wheels on it is about as relevant as what kind of armrests it has.

There’s an old movie that sums it up, in fact. “Almost an Angel,” where Paul Hogan plays a hardened criminal who becomes convinced that he died and came back as a “probationary” angel, given a chance to do good. In one scene Hogan deals with a jerk at the bar. Who is being rude and verbally lashing out at people because he knows they won’t punch him out… because he’s in a wheelchair. So Hogan offers to trade punches, while remaining seated in his own chair.

Afterwards they have this exchange (which begins their friendship and the main storyline where Hogan helps the guy’s sister):
“Everyone else saw a poor cripple.”
“What did you see?”
“A guy in a wheelchair, being a jerk in a wheelchair.”

Oh, I agree with you that it matters when you’re talking with someone who is dismissive of your condition, or that of others (and the “faking” comment does in fact bring up childhood memories of adults doing exact that to me in regards to my own issues). But in regards to this conversation, being held via online correspondence with anonymity in regards to each other’s physical appearances, it is truly irrelevant.

And as far as demeaning people and whether or not to jump on those who give offense inadvertently… again, I had to deal with people who absolutely LOVED the fact that my issues were (and indeed, still are) considered socially acceptable to mock. You don’t see a lot of characters in wheelchairs on television being portrayed as comic relief (the only one I can think of was from “Scary Movie 2,” and that’s a movie where every character is meant to be comical); there is an entire TV tropes page devoted to one of my issues and how Hollywood still finds it acceptable to mock. As did a lot kids when I was growing up. As did a number of teachers and adults (because Severus Snape is truth in fiction; teachers can be bullies too). So I learned that there is a huge divide between people who truly do not know any better, and those who gleefully jump on acceptable targets. And believe me, after dealing with the latter, I learned to appreciate the simple lack of sadistic glee in the former.

And – again – that is all irrelevant. We almost certainly never met when I was growing up, you’re not responsible for any of my past experiences, I’m not responsible for yours. We are two people engaged in a civil discourse. What I’m talking about, when I speak of inadvertent offense and how to respond with gentle correction and to remember the difference between deliberately malicious intent versus mere ignorance, is what was shown in an episode of “South Park.”

” And now I might mention, Pip, that in London it is not the custom to put the knife in the mouth.”

“Oh, dear, I’m terribly sorry!”

“Not at all, I’m sure. Anyway…(continued story)… this gets me to the cruel part of the story, merely breaking off, Pip , to remark that a dinner napkin should never be placed into the tumbler.”

“Not at all, I’m sure… (continued story) And I break from the tale now
only to mention that one should never pass gas at the dinner table!”

“Oh. Excuse me.”

“Not at all, I’m sure. (Continued story) And the story ends, Pip, with
me suggesting that one should never pull out the wee wee and check it for
scabs whilst at the table.

“Terribly sorry, Pocket.”

“Not at all, I’m sure!”

You’re right. I DO think she’s wrong for condemning Max based on a total lack of evidence. At least, real evidence, not “here’s some minor thing he said and then I’ll ignore the rest of what he said, plus the context, then infer a few things about what he must have meant, and GASP! He’s the worst villain in the story!”

That’s not “rude, presumptious, and belittling.” That’s called DISAGREEMENT. Having a dissenting opinion and stating “I think you are wrong, and here is why.” You want to talk about rude and belittling? How about implying that someone who disagrees with you is on the same moral level as a child killing alcoholic?

Translation: the worst thing he ever did was tell Alison “you’re a rude and unpleasant person, and you can’t even stop insulting me long enough to demand my help. Go away.”

Which, supposedly, means that the worst thing Alison ever did was say “I want your help but I can’t stop being a jerk to you even for Feral’s sake.” (Fortunately, Alison herself has now canonically acknowledged that this is EXACTLY what she did, and needs to at least attempt to make amends for. Edited due to a typo)

Nicely said, and with admirable restraint.

round and round, what goes around comes around…

::strikes a hair band pose, flinging his mane dramatically in faux-slow-mo::

Oh, what I meant by the macro scale is that astronomers are finding that the rules of quantum mechanics developed for the micro-scale of subatomic reactions seem to work in some ways on the cosmological scale involving extremely large bodies (galactic and intergalactic interactions). Which seriously blows my mind (If I really understood astronomy, I suspect i’d be even more mind-blown).

And yeah, quantum encryption and data storage are going to make a huge impact on our world – in a whole lot of ways. Some of those ways scare the hell out of me, frankly.

Now we come across theoretical utility monsters and the mere addition paradox.