HTH
March 2nd, 2012

HTH

Another helpful tip: if you really think it’s part of your culture to say dumb things, maybe your culture is dumb.

Chris Sims, not the one from Princeton, wrote about the Street Fighter guy who tried to defend sexual harassment in the pro gaming circles. It’s worth a read, and it’s also a shame that anybody even needs to explain to a guy why that’s such a dumb thing to say.

Just be cool, everybody. Be cool. I know this is the internet and we get real excited about stuff, but just take it easy, think about what you’re about to say, and if you’d be embarrassed to say it to your mom, maybe don’t say it? I know, it’s tough, but we’ll get through it together, everybody.

-cof

^ 41 Comments...

  1. Jordan

    I like all the different kinds of face shapes that have been showing up in recent comics. Good job all around.

    [Reply]

    chrishaley Reply:

    Haha, in our comics, or just comics in general?

    [Reply]

    Jordan Reply:

    In your comics! Nice face shapes.

    [Reply]

  2. Alex

    Thank you! That is all.

    [Reply]

  3. Tony

    I don’t get the middle panel at all . . .

    It is still OK if white males own property, right?. Am I missing some reference immediately apparent to an American, something to do with the buildings behind him or his clothes?.

    [Reply]

    Charlotte Reply:

    The clothing, setting and hairstyle (i.e. wicked sideburns) are meant to indicate an earlier time period, probably mid 1800s, when white men were the ONLY people legally allowed to own property. Black men – including freedmen – could not own property until I believe the fourteenth amendment was passed, legally enfranchising them. No women of any race could own property for the most part; a couple of states prior to the twentieth century granted married women the right to own property separate from her husband’s estate, but single women got shafted. Many, many families both in the US and in Europe practiced “entailment,” in which all property and money left when a male head of household died went to the nearest male relative, making all wives/daughters dependent on him (much of late eighteenth and nineteenth century literature written for and about women deals with this subject).

    TL;DR: Yes!

    [Reply]

    Tony Reply:

    I didn’t get that he was supposed to be from 200 years ago. You got that from the sideburns?. I honestly didn’t, because it looks just like any number of Americans I have seen on TV, in a farm exactly like I have seen on TV. Certainly I got that it was an American farm, that is what they look like, right?. However, I guess I get your point now.
    Though you know, you didn’t really need to write a dissertation. And if you did, you ought to have quailified it a bit better, too many sweeping statements.

    [Reply]

    chrishaley Reply:

    I think you should be much more appreciative of the fact that she went through the trouble of explaining it out for you.

    JoshuaJamesCovey Reply:

    I thought the explanation was solid. Plus she was nice enough to post a TL;DR version. :D

    chrishaley Reply:

    Charlotte – I want to thank you for taking the time to type that entire explanation out. Also, thank you for visiting the site in general.

    [Reply]

    Andrew Reply:

    I don’t understand why the middle panel belongs with the other two.

    Like, I get what you guys were after because Charlotte explained it, but I don’t get how white guys owning stuff is as exclusionist or bigoted as Nazis or that street fighter kid. White guys owning stuff doesn’t stop other people from owning things, and Charlotte’s explanation doesn’t make it seem like, you know, white guys owning stuff was what was stopping other people from owning things.

    David (chudleycannonfodder) Reply:

    Andrew, white men were the only people allowed to own property. The idea is that their view was that allowing women to own land (treat them as equals/humans) would ruin their way of life, which was why they were against treating them as equals/humans.

    Tony Reply:

    OK, Chris, I get the message. I should be grateful that she typed out a long, condesending and non factual reply to “put me in my place” when she simply could have answered my straight forward question of “Am I missing some reference immediately apparent to an American, something to do with the buildings behind him or his clothes?”.

    Only white men could own property?. What, in Samoa? New Zealand? Africa? China? any of scores of other countries where most of the land was owned by local people?. I know for a fact that even in the USA other races could and did own property, so do you I don’t doubt.

    Entailment in very few cases meant that ALL the money from an estate went to the eldest male, almost every case the children were given part of the property, it was standard that the surviving wife controlled ALL the income of the marrige while she lived and was returned any property she brought into the marrige. What discrimination that happened happened exactly as much against younger males as it did against females.

    Even if she had of been completely correct, it was still prolix and condescending when my QUESTION was clear. And that was no accident.

    Might have been clearer comic if you had of made your point more accurate. See you.

    JoshuaJamesCovey Reply:

    I think you may need to check your American history Tony. Also the definition of condescending. See you.

    SeanNOLA Reply:

    Just be cool, everybody. Be cool.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkdP02HKQGc

    [Reply]

    Wade Reply:

    Context clues.
    (If you need me to explain why I said that, then it’s already too late.)

    [Reply]

  4. Metonymy

    I think this is a strawman? You’re claiming the same thought process that goes into eugenics goes into competitors’ taunts, people that show respect towards each other by competing seriously? Or maybe it’s not a strawman, maybe it’s just sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.

    If you’re going to criticize insane social attitudes, you might start with the Jews, who call themselves ‘Gods chosen people.’

    [Reply]

    JoshuaJamesCovey Reply:

    trollolol

    [Reply]

    Ben Siegel Reply:

    …and Christians consider themselves the true Israelites. What’s your point?

    [Reply]

  5. Bobrot

    Ok, who had “4″ in the office pool for “Number of comments before this goes off the rails.”

    Or would it be 6? Do replies to comments count?

    [Reply]

  6. Robert White

    Great strip guys and thanks for the link to a very revealing article.

    [Reply]

  7. dadicusx

    Great strip all the art was great , and the points were clear Great Job love the site !

    [Reply]

  8. Phil

    Wow, this is going to be an angry reply. Tony, regardless of whether or not your question was clear, your tone was dismissive and confrontational. You were obviously looking to pick a fight. While Charlotte did make sweeping statements, they sum up quite well, and accurately, the prevalent misogyny of the past, and she wasn’t in the least condescending in her explanation to you. She presented to you information that you -obviously- did not know, considering you explicitly stated you did not understand the context.

    If you have seen people in farms in garb like that then it was obviously a period piece, from which you should easily deduce that it was from ye olden times. And, contrary to what you say, the internet has mostly confirmed my suspicion that entailment was commonplace and that property law was never favorable to women. In fact, there’s a glaring error in your comments in that the Chinese Exclusion Act specifically kept Chinese Americans from owning property, nevermind the fact that land ownership by anyone other than white males was rare and controversial. If you have a chip on your shoulder, either against feminism misandry, take it elsewhere.

    And, Andrew, while this was already explained to you, white male ownership was not the issue. The fact that white males had all the political and financial power, and then used that power to prevent anybody not white or not male from obtaining financial independence and political freedom was the issue.

    Metonymy, your antisemitism is showing. All of the Abrahamic religions consider themselves the chosen people. All atheists believe that theirs is the true view of the world. Endorsing the rape of women, objectifying them, and comparing men to women as if somehow women are lesser, are all disrespectful to women, regardless of the context. Think about that the next time you show respect to a competitor by goading him on with “rape that bitch”.

    [Reply]

    chrishaley Reply:

    Yeah, I’ll break it back out for this: http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/58/6a4ef904fd094664be08f4e914c52cfe/l.gif

    [Reply]

    Metonymy Reply:

    I don’t care if I’m called antisemitic. It means about as much to me as being called a heretic or infidel. Ie, nothing.

    If someone can’t handle being called offensive things (much worse than your example) during a competition, they are not my equal, they are not strong enough to compete against me. The people who can beat me are the ones that can take those insults in stride, and I don’t think you’re among them. There’s really nothing you can do to stop me anyway. You will remain weak, I will remain strong.

    [Reply]

    Sally Reply:

    I don’t think an ability to take slurs hurled at you in stride is any test of one’s strength or virtue. The values you place on video game abilities is pretty hilarious too.

    [Reply]

    Daniel McBatman Reply:

    Actually Metonymy, you’ll remain a macho douchebag.

    [Reply]

    Ben Siegel Reply:

    Behold! The √úbermensch! He’s talking survival of the fittest and I hear the goosesteps getting closer.

    [Reply]

    Virus Reply:

    “The people who can beat me are the ones that can take those insults in stride,” .. wait, I can take insults in stride! Does that mean I can beat you at a video game? Also, can you beat somebody without insulting them? Or do you need the insults to hit combos?

    [Reply]

  9. Danny Djeljosevic

    Rather than add to the argument, I’ll just say: LBFA, y’all are righteous bros and make good comics.

    [Reply]

  10. Hollatchaboisenberry

    Metonymy,
    If you don’t mind being called an antisemite then perhaps you shant mind these new titles as well?

    You are a:
    1) Gaping Booty
    2) Unholy Crapdick
    3) Piece of Human Refuse
    4) Shiny Shrimpcock
    5) Some Donkus
    6) Poop Eating Fuckjockey
    7) Plague Ridden Foreskin Elf
    8) Malodorous Butthole Lozenge
    9) Unenviable Merkin Theif
    10) Ghost Fart

    I SAY GOOD DAY SIR.

    [Reply]

  11. Hollatchaboisenberry

    SHIT SON, I CALLED YOU A GHOST FART. GET AT ME.

    [Reply]

  12. Jim

    Hey Y’all?…..Let’s Be Friends Again.

    [Reply]

    StripeyC Reply:

    WINNING COMMENT

    Wow this thread got hectic and crazy….good strip though

    [Reply]

  13. Wolkin

    @metonymy

    I am a Jew, and I do not think of myself as “God’s Chosen People”. I think of myself as “God’s Canasta Partner”.

    [Reply]

  14. Wolkin

    Also, what kind of rational human being refers to the comments section on a webcomic as an arena for competition?

    [Reply]

  15. James Tan

    seems a weird place to post, but it’s worth watching. Implore you all to watch about KONY 2012, definitely worth the half hour

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc

    cheers

    [Reply]

  16. Elliot

    Good comic, guys. And for the record I think the sideburns and old-timey windmill contextualize the second panel pretty well.

    [Reply]

  17. Sken

    I mean, c’mon, are you telling me that bro-oriented videogame competitors are ignorant of early 20th century fashion? Inconceivable! Look at that collar. That is not a contemporary man’s collar, sir.

    Also the red barn, which is an icon of ye olde ancient farming culture and almost entirely absent now.

    [Reply]

  18. Swedish girl

    You guys rock. When I think your comic strips can’t get any better, I press ‘next’ and I’m amazed. Keep up the good work! You’re awesome

    [Reply]

  19. collares de moda

    Pretty part of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to say that I get in fact enjoyed account your weblog posts. Any way I’ll be subscribing to your augment and even I fulfillment you get right of entry to constantly rapidly.

    [Reply]

) Your Reply...