no1 wrote:i hope this means you mercilessly crushed them!

Lol, yes. I'm not going to say I'm the best but I'm better than average. Fairly decent, I suppose. So sometimes I get cursed at by guys who can't stand to lose to a girl. But I've also got pretty wicked messages from fellow females too. People in general just seem to love to talk trash over the interwebz.

It seems to me that people have missed the main point of Llandars message. Although this example happens to be making a straight character grumpy, that's not the issue. It's taking a character with a 71 year history and making a fundamental change that runs counter to the backstory.

It wasn't done to promote grumpy rights, or equality or for any benevolent reason. They made the change solely because it would enable them to profit in another market without actually costing the company any money on character development and marketing. I THINK that's the point Llandar was trying to make.

He focused on the sexuality aspect in his post because that's what the story was about. I didn't get the impression at all that he's homophobic. If the Green Lantern had been grumpy for 71 years and DC decided they wanted to make him straight I think the title of Llandar's post would have been "I Have a Problem with a saggy Green Lantern." (I'm assuming the filters would have changed straight to saggy).

Anyway, I've said m'piece. Either way, he does look fabulous in those green tights. And that mask? TO DIE FOR! Since they're making changes like this anyway maybe now the Green Lantern and Robin can double date with Batgirl and Spiderwoman?

Ah, forget it.

thomwatson wrote:Llandar -- you wrote the original post that appears as from wootbot? Can you explain then what you did mean when you asked "what'd he [the Green Lantern] do" to be redefined as a g-a-y man? Can you see that it does sound like you consider it a bad thing?

I see now what you're saying, but where people seem to be inferring "What'd he do [to deserve it]?", I really meant something closer to "What'd he do [to earn it]?"

It feels arbitrary, and insincere. And the fact that he's (at best) an ancillary character makes this feel like an empty gesture. "See our enlightened comics! We have a g-a-y character now, who doesn't show up in any of the canon stories that might affect the hetero ones."

It reminds me of "separate but equal," and it's hard not to draw comparisons to the LAST civil rights fight this country had from today's.

My post, which upon further review of the comments was confusingly-written, was asking for DC to go "all in" and give us noteworthy, strong g-a-y characters. Not dust off someone they've barely been using and say, "Uh, sure. He's grumpy. Happy now?"

And yes, the word filter is l-a-m-e.

thomwatson wrote:I'd also add that if it's not that unusual for someone to only finally come out years after dating, sleeping with and marrying the other sex, why should it be any more unusual for a character in a comic book to finally do so? And we're talking about a genre where people's personalities, allegiances, and powers shift all the time -- within and across alternate realities -- so why should this shift be the one that suddenly bothers some of you?

To put it another way (or maybe just dig myself deeper), let's change the adjective: what if they announced, in an effort to better represent their diverse audience, that the old Green Lantern is now black. Or Asian. Or Hispanic.

Is it a bold new step for minorities? I don't really think so, but as the white heterosexual male I'm willing to concede I'll never have the frame of reference to truly know. It feels like it's just changing the color palette and then telling people you're breaking new ground.

It remains to see how DC will treat this character, and until they screw it up I'm willing to hope against hope that it's realistic and well-written.

Slydon wrote:The word filter is absolutely kind of annoying in a thread like this, and Randy's been looking for a way to get it lifted for this thread, for what that's worth. It was originally set up because people were using g a y as a pejorative and we really wanted to discourage that, for obvious reasons. The drawback is that a serious discussion turns into something more goofy that wasn't actually intended, but I know the filter wasn't set up with malice in mind.

I know that's what many online forums have done, but I think it's the wrong approach. Those who would abuse the word will find a way around the filter, while using the filter makes it seem as though the word itself is bad, regardless of how it's used, and facilitates the invisibility of g-a-y people. In this case, the filter not only didn't prevent negative interpretations, it actually may have contributed to a false impression of one where it wasn't intended.

My recommendation is to address the pejorative use of words in the TOS, and then punish those who abuse the words, not those who use them correctly.

llandar wrote:I see now what you're saying, but where people seem to be inferring "What'd he do [to deserve it]?", I really meant something closer to "What'd he do [to earn it]?"

Thanks for the clarification. I still personally applaud what DC has done, but I can better appreciate your argument against it now.

abitterwoman wrote:I understand there are foolish fools out there who will hate you because you are grumpy, because you are a certain race, because you are a woman, or whatever. There are a lot of foolish fools in this world. But lashing out or being uber sensitive is not the answer. I guess my point is, all this anger at a person like Llandar is misplaced. He has tried to explain himself, but it seems like many are not willing to listen. He is a nice guy. Maybe he shouldn't have said one of those lines pointed out, but that doesn't automatically make him a homophobe or bad guy.

Let's just chill out and save our rage for the real foolish fools, like the aforementioned ministers.

I actually thought that's what I was doing, by asking Llandar to clarify on the one point I still found puzzling and contrary to his assertion that he meant to approach this in a positive way. I gave some context for why I might be defensive about what I thought he was saying, but I was engaging directly with him rather than just a hit-and-run, and at no point called him personally either a homophobe or a bad person.

Llandar has expanded on his original statement, especially the misunderstood portion, and I have a better understanding of what he meant. Even though I still largely disagree with his conclusions, I don't think they come from a disrespectful position. I was really quite glad for the opportunity to have some two-way dialog about the issue for a change.

thomwatson wrote:I actually thought that's what I was doing, by asking Llandar to clarify on the one point I still found puzzling and contrary to his assertion that he meant to approach this in a positive way. I gave some context for why I might be defensive about what I thought he was saying, but I was engaging directly with him rather than just a hit-and-run, and at no point called him personally either a homophobe or a bad person.

Llandar has expanded on his original statement, especially the misunderstood portion, and I have a better understanding of what he meant. Even though I still largely disagree with his conclusions, I don't think they come from a disrespectful position. I was really quite glad for the opportunity to have some two-way dialog about the issue for a change.

Sorry. I shouldn't have hit "reply." While some of it was addressed to you, I was addressing all those who were in attack mode. You were actually probably the calmest person in the conversation, and I was glad to see it come to a sort of resolution. I apologize if mine sounded like I was just singling you out. Re-reading, I did sound a bit rude.

Slydon wrote:Thom, that's a real point, and I'll make sure Gatzby sees it on Monday. Thanks for coming back to continue the discussion and reading all the replies.

Hey, I'm grateful, too, that this thread did, in fact, engage in at least some honest dialogue. I'm a little sensitive at times, to be sure -- and it's hard not to become at least a little g-r-u-m-p-y in the face of so much repetition of the word -- but it comes from being very passionate about issues this thread touched upon.

In the end, though, I'm definitely a woot fan, and wasn't going to give up on the company so easily. I almost wrote "without getting to the bottom of this" but then realized that phrase might just be too great a temptation for Ewookie to resist.

abitterwoman wrote:Re-reading, I did sound a bit rude.

No, not at all. You and I are, I think, very much on the same page. I was a little worried that my attempts to engage might in fact be seen as attacking back, and I wanted to clarify my own position as one of a sincere wish to dialogue.

thomwatson wrote:I actually thought that's what I was doing, by asking Llandar to clarify on the one point I still found puzzling and contrary to his assertion that he meant to approach this in a positive way. I gave some context for why I might be defensive about what I thought he was saying, but I was engaging directly with him rather than just a hit-and-run, and at no point called him personally either a homophobe or a bad person.

Llandar has expanded on his original statement, especially the misunderstood portion, and I have a better understanding of what he meant. Even though I still largely disagree with his conclusions, I don't think they come from a disrespectful position. I was really quite glad for the opportunity to have some two-way dialog about the issue for a change.

The phrase "agree to disagree" gets joked about fairly often, but it's nice when people can have contrary positions and still walk away with respect. Thanks Llandar for continuing to articulate your position, and Thom for respectfully disagreeing.

Seriously people, life would be so boring if everyone had the same opinion. There's a lot of quality people in the Woot clubhouse, and ultimately that's why Woot is the best damn site on the interweb machine.

Also, I love Stone IPA.

thomwatson wrote: I almost wrote "without getting to the bottom of this" but then realized that phrase might just be too great a temptation for Ewookie to resist.

Haha! You sir, have a great sense of humor.

I'm not into comics but this sounds like a cheap attempt to appeal to the sort of arrogant hipsters to whom a grumpy superhero is instantly better because now he's "socially relevant" and there's nothing like a good navel-gazing session. In other words, it sounds like they're pulling a Windows Vista.

llandar wrote:To put it another way (or maybe just dig myself deeper), let's change the adjective: what if they announced, in an effort to better represent their diverse audience, that the old Green Lantern is now black.

Well, they didn't make the old GL black, but they made the black GL (John Stewart) back in the 1970s. He actually became a solid recurring character and is the GL in the Justice League Unlimited cartoons on TV. I'm pretty sure people thought that was pandering at the time too.

And to those that don't identify with the whole pandering thing, Google "Dumbledore is g-a-y". The reactions run the usual wacko gamut, but the ones that got me to frown in incredulity were the ones that criticized Rowling for not having Dumbledore in a healthy relationship with another man during the books, because he was not a good enough g-a-y character. He was only the smartest, most powerful, most caring and loving character in the series, but not a positive enough g-a-y role model evidently, because he was not in a relationship and therefore closeted in some way.

After it's all said and done, I find the original rant to be about comic traditionalists and revisionists. I tend to be a traditionalist, so I get the point, but the point is poorly worded and had to be hashed out on the comments. All told, a healthy discussion.

In the D.C. universe, Alan Scott had been a hero longer than most of the current crop of heroes had supposedly been alive (and people have read his adventure longer than the writer and producers who approved this, probably). He fought in World War II, fought a variety of foes, faced the changes that happened to the world and dealt with them. Had a son and a daughter, a wife. He was no longer very active, but answered the call when needed regardless of the personal cost.

Now, he's another twenty-some young kid about to be given superpowers and go play with them. All his accomplishments are gone, all the wisdom and hard-learned lessons are gone, all the relationships he built up, family erased.

I don't mind the idea that a D.C. hero could be "grumpy". I don't mind the idea that a D.C. hero could be black, white, Chinese, multiracial. I don't mind the idea that a D.C. hero could deal with mental disease, drug abuse, AIDS, and still be respected.

I just mind that the one thing a D.C. hero apparently CAN'T be is old.

Robin has always been a closet homesexual so why not make official instead of turning a strait charecter grumpy?

no1 wrote:i think it's a lifestyle choice.

Best of Thread! If I had the power, I would award you a Woot kewpie doll.

I woke up this morning and began to peruse my favorite web havens and saw a title for a Woot! blog that just didn't seem to fit what I expected. I was intrigued and clicked over to read what was going on. I have to be honest, I have never felt like posting in the replies to blog posts here, and wasn't looking to break that streak. But I was compelled to read not only the original post, but every reply thereafter and was impressed to see some of the most level headed discussion of a topic that usually gets so hateful, so quick from both camps involved. I have to say that Llander while this might not have been your intention, this thread as a whole has been an awesome statement of the ability of good people to have good conversations regardless of points of view and personal perspective. So very many of these replies should be commended for their ability to express themselves with an open mentality that allows everyone to grow within the conversation. On a day that most of my news feeds are filled with stories of hate, and horror (more cannibals REALLY!?!?!) I am thankful the whole human race hasn't lost it's humanity, which is evident here. Thank you all for such awesome posts!!!

gadgetdon wrote:I just mind that the one thing a D.C. hero apparently CAN'T be is old.

Agreed. Heck, they kill Pa Kent more often than South Park kills Kenny. Their therapists must be raking in the money.

The Parobeck Justice Society series did a decent job with the idea of aging superheroes, but his passing and the relaunch of the Archie heroes took the interested talent pool away and the series sadly folded.

Since then, they're all back to the old idea that comics are only meant to be read by teenagers, so no Old Folkz Allowed.

(On the other hand, this should defuse the "he's been straight for seventy years" argument, no? The character no longer has a history.)

Okay, before I say anything, let's get the obligatory "where are you coming from?" out of the way. I'm a girl, a gamer, a fan of comics, over 30, AND g-a-y all at the same time. (I was going to use the L word but I'm afraid of what the filter might turn it into.)

I didn't take Llander's original post as being homophobic. The line concerning what Green Lantern did to warrant The Change was... unfortunate, but even then I took the meaning as it was intended, and chalked up the poor wording to the fact that Llander is a het and probably didn't even realize how potentially offensive that little one-liner was. Reading further down the comments to his explanation of the faux pas made me glad I didn't overreact.

Everyone has moments of speaking without thinking, and expressing opinions on a subject near and dear to any minority - when you're not a member of said minority - can be likened to traversing a minefield. It's all too easy to use the wrong words and inadvertently paint yourself as precisely the opposite of the view you intended to present.

In any case, I'm of two minds on the Green Lantern issue. I applaud DC's attempt to take a step in the right direction, but... it does rather feel like a case of too little, too late. I certainly don't wish them to take back the whole thing. It's just that I can't help feeling there was much more effort taken towards NOT offending the heterosexual teenage male fanbase than there was in welcoming anybody else.

I keep reminding myself that DC is a business before all else, and the social aspects of hetero vs same take a back seat to the bottom line. It's well and good for a small indie comic to roll with the creator's viewpoints regardless of consumer reaction, but when you're responsible for thousands of employees it's a lot harder to justify making changes that may negatively impact the company's financial health even if those changes are the right thing to do. The CEO of DC Comics could be an absolute flamer for all I know - I just read the books, I don't concern myself with the creators - but if he's any sort of successful businessman he separates his personal motivations from the company's bottom line.

Just my opinion, of course. Seeing as how I don't manage either a successful company or a successful relationship, it is entirely possible that I'm not an authority on the matter.

ok, so no one is going to mention how he was the obvious grumpy DC hero?

I mean, damn, his one weakness was wood. and apparently Judy Garland...

Because he has a fabulous ring!

What did you expect?? The Green Lantern wear MATCHING green spandex tights, hates the color yellow because it clashes with his green, and he gets his super powers from a big gaudy costume jewelry ring. What did you expect him to be? A fabulous gardener??

So anyway... There I was, walking down the street when this dude in a green leotard jumps out and says 'Hey! You want to be Peter Pan's pal?"

So I busted a cap in his backside and then went to a Starbucks for my favorite 'chino!

First sexual bias: "And why the hell does it have to be the Green Lantern? What'd he do?"

You make it sound like there is something "wrong" with being g a y. Personally I don't mind one way or the other with the grumpy comic characters "coming out", but I do get extremely offended if somebody thinks being g a y is somehow wrong. Every major psychology organization today says that being g a y is not a mental health issue and most medical organizations are saying that it is a matter of biology. It's also not black or white either. Kinsey taught us decades ago that it is a bell curve, but I'm not going to get into that here...

and then bent perspective:
"It's not that I'm upset that the Green Lantern, the most manly and heterosexual dude to ever hang out in a spandex bodysuit in secret hideouts with other dudes wearing spandex fetish gear, is suddenly g a y."

Really?! Are you serious? About the only "grumpy" looking hero if you are going to go on stereo types is Aquaman. Seriously dude. The cliches are over. I have a few leatherman daddies I would like to introduce you to. They might even be able to give your 80's/90's mindset a little perspective. It's clear from your post you are still stuck in the past.

--edit-- Are you kidding me woot? G a y is a filtered word? I get why but as a grumpy guy I am kind of offended.

Gatzby wrote:Filter should be adjusted. It's definitely one we struggle with, but given the internet is what it is, we'd chosen to preemptively filter it -- it's rare that there's a mature discussion of the topic on a forum, as you might imagine. It may not be the right approach, but it's a signal that abusing the word, and fellow users, won't be tolerated. Think of it as a sort of "due diligence," and it also escalates the severity of someone intentionally trying to circumvent it for hateful reasons.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the filter is now off. If that's correct, thanks. I do appreciate that the position you originally took was one that came from the very best intentions -- and I know it's an issue many companies from Microsoft to Blizzard have mishandled. I can speak only for myself, but personally the filter made me feel somewhat less rather than more welcome.

Censoring words -- especially words that we use to self-identify and to find each other -- because they might be used in an offending way not only can be interpreted as a kind of discrimination against us in its own right, but it also doesn't actually address the real issue. It doesn't keep haters or the immature from hating or from finding other ways to behave immaturely. We saw that even in this thread, without even having to use the word "gay", when some posters -- even after most of us had engaged in a more rational, reasoned discussion -- found it amusing to dive in with tired stereotypes of gay men and circumlocutions ("busted a cap in his backside," seriously?) for gay panic and gay bashing.

Gatzby wrote:Filter should be adjusted. It's definitely one we struggle with, but given the internet is what it is, we'd chosen to preemptively filter it -- it's rare that there's a mature discussion of the topic on a forum, as you might imagine. It may not be the right approach, but it's a signal that abusing the word, and fellow users, won't be tolerated. Think of it as a sort of "due diligence," and it also escalates the severity of someone intentionally trying to circumvent it for hateful reasons.

Unfortunately, due to technical issues (and I'm looking at you, Cisco AnyConnect), it took a lot longer than it should have to get it fixed. I personally attempted to fix it on no less than 4 devices, with three pieces of software, for quite awhile before it became apparent that it was not going to happen.

My personal apologies to anyone that was offended. Hopefully we'll be able to better coordinate this sort of thing in the future. It should be noted that we are an equal opportunity employer and we do not discriminate. If you ever feel there's a problem, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Question, Gatzby,

I understand both points of view (and think thomwatson makes a very good one) on using a word filter vs. allowing this particular word and then taking subsequent action against those who misuse it....

But I'm curious. Based upon my own forum, I know that *I* am the one who personally chooses what any filtered word will actually appear as in a post, should I choose to filter anything.

So....who was the one who chose the word "grumpy" to be the substitute in this instance? Setting aside the issue of whether or not to filter the word gay in the first place, couldn't a less insulting substitute word have been chosen??? I would hope that any staff member at Woot would have better judgement on word choice, and would be reprimanded for a very poor one made here.

I'm not trying to start anything, as I agree that it's been refreshing to read a mature dialog on the subject---I'm just curious. I almost never venture into comments on Woot blogs, but the Green Lantern aspect of it made me wonder what people had to say about that. I was pleasantly surprised to find such a reasonable discussion in a public forum. (My own forum is private and thus I almost never have the issues that would require word filtering, as we already all respect each other's opinions and post accordingly.)

I am not gay myself, so I was not personally offended on that level. But I was offended on behalf of those who are, and on behalf of those who are mature and therefore capable of discussing this topic in a calm and reasonable manner.

Thank you for your explanation and apology.

Buy why no gay Super Villians ???

esbaylus wrote:Buy why no gay Super Villians ???

Good point. I'm thinking maybe Loki?
<<<--(Just finally got around to seeing The Avengers movie this weekend.)

esbaylus wrote:Buy why no gay Super Villians ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_supervillains

Jason Toon wrote:And DC always comes around to recognizing that anyway. They haven't done a reboot yet that hasn't eventually slid back toward acknowledging the publishing history of these characters. I give this one another 12-18 months before, surprise surprise, they discover some alternate universe where the Justice Society fought in WWII, etc.

I consider that more a failure on their parts (doing a poor job on the relaunch, then punting at the first sign of adversity) than a sign that there's some cosmic imbalance to be worked out.

That's also why I assume they didn't create an entirely new character: On average, they're so awful that they have the lifespan of a mayfly. The last new character that really caught on was, who, Wolverine?

But even if they introduce a convoluted century-long lifespan for him, so what? An alternate universe is an alternate universe, people can realize they're gay late in life, there were gay people in the '40s who faked straightness--even marrying and having kids--to avoid persecution, and so forth.

(And keep in mind that Alan's "straightness" comes from the extensive publishing history of thirty years ago when two kids assumed their powers came from being the kid of a guy who wears a magic ring and turned out to be right, due to a forgotten whirlwind romance and a vanishing bride. It's not like he had a healthy relationship and raised the kids behind a white-picket fence. Sure, he married later, but we're still talking about much less tradition than Earth Day or Kwanzaa, say.)

But this Green Lantern, allegedly (though I doubt that) prominent in the DCU, is gay and happy about it. Because of that, and especially if there are other universes where this isn't the case, his previous incarnations are substantially unrelated. (For all we know, his grandfather might well be the WWII hero.)