The Maru Mari feedback thread

JaggerG

2008-12-13 09:53:52 pm

Shifty Leader

That M2k2 guy

I for one have never imagined having AIDS. O_o

Quote from Soap on a Rope:

i told a your mom joke to a cubone once it was kind of mean aiwebs_008

Quietus

2008-12-15 05:48:13 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

Quote from Opium:

You're right, as I said before the point is moot.

I HATE that word. Evil or Very Mad

I never understand why it is used so often, especially since it's normally misused.

Moot's primary definition = Worthy of debate.
Moot's tertiary (yes, not even secondary) definition = Not worthy of debate.

But more often that not, it's used when the latter is meant... I gits confoozed. Eh?

Chanoire

2008-12-15 07:28:59 pm

It's not misused. This is a very common usage, appearing in print as early as 1807 -- and whether it's a primary, secondary, or tertiary definition depends entirely on what dictionary you use. For example, here's what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say for the two adjectival definitions it lists, and the noun meaning referenced by the first:

Quote from OED:

[adj.]
1. Originally in Law, of a case, issue, etc.: proposed for discussion at a moot (MOOT n.1 4). Later also gen.: open to argument, debatable; uncertain, doubtful; unable to be firmly resolved. Freq. in moot case, moot point.

2. N. Amer. (orig. Law). Of a case, issue, etc.: having no practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic. Now the usual sense in North America. [emphasis mine]

[noun]
4. Law. The discussion of a hypothetical case by law students for practice; a hypothetical doubtful case that may be used for discussion.

You seem to be confused because the original sense of the word, which still exists as a legal usage, supports both of the meanings you cite, in different contexts. A hypothetical may be presented as the topic of a discussion... or it may be dismissed out of hand due to being irrelevant to or obsoleted by reality. "the point is moot" => the point only matters if we want to have a hypothetical discussion, because the situation is such that it doesn't affect anything.

Incidentally, I strongly disagree that a joke is by definition neutral and that the listener is to blame if it is offensive. Jokes that depend on an insulting stereotype do not become less insulting for being considered humorous by some people. (Judging by Toozin's comments on the Maru Mari strip that prompted this discussion, it doesn't sound like it was based on the stereotype Butterfly[something] read into it, but I haven't looked at it myself.) I also think it's entirely inappropriate to tell people who are suffering some grim situation that they MUST find humor in it... this sounds more like advice to make the non-sufferer feel better so they don't have to feel so bad about the sufferer's situation. People have to come to terms with their situation on their own; humor helps, but it's unreasonable and cruel to demand it.

Ark already knows that I disagree with most of what he said about this as we've had this conversation before about offensive sexist jokes -- the pervasive opinion that it's okay to continually demean half the human race as long as it's considered funny by some of the other half is a major reason why I withdrew from gaming communities such as this one -- but I do agree completely with this: "You have no way of knowing what people around you are going through, so if you don't want to risk offending someone, you shouldn't joke at all." The problem is, people aren't willing to follow through with that second part, because they think it's all right to offend people. And that phrasing makes it clear that it is the person telling the joke that causes the offense.

It's not misused.  This is a very common usage, appearing in print as early as 1807 -- and whether it's a primary, secondary, or tertiary definition depends entirely on what dictionary you use.  For example, here's what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say for the two adjectival definitions it lists, and the noun meaning referenced by the first:

[quote="OED"]
[adj.]
1. Originally in [i]Law[/i], of a case, issue, etc.: proposed for discussion at a moot (MOOT n.1 4). Later also [i]gen.[/i]: open to argument, debatable; uncertain, doubtful; unable to be firmly resolved. Freq. in moot case, moot point.

2. N. Amer. (orig. [i]Law[/i]). Of a case, issue, etc.: having no practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic.   [b]Now the usual sense in North America.[/b] [emphasis mine]

[noun]
4. [i]Law.[/i] The discussion of a hypothetical case by law students for practice; a hypothetical doubtful case that may be used for discussion.[/quote]

You seem to be confused because the original sense of the word, which still exists as a legal usage, supports [i]both[/i] of the meanings you cite, in different contexts.  A hypothetical may be presented as the topic of a discussion... or it may be dismissed out of hand due to being irrelevant to or obsoleted by reality.  "the point is moot" => the point only matters if we want to have a hypothetical discussion, because the situation is such that it doesn't affect anything.

Incidentally, I strongly disagree that a joke is by definition neutral and that the listener is to blame if it is offensive.  Jokes that depend on an insulting stereotype do not become less insulting for being considered humorous by some people.  (Judging by Toozin's comments on the Maru Mari strip that prompted this discussion, it doesn't sound like it was based on the stereotype Butterfly[something] read into it, but I haven't looked at it myself.)  I also think it's entirely inappropriate to tell people who are suffering some grim situation that they MUST find humor in it... this sounds more like advice to make the non-sufferer feel better so they don't have to feel so bad about the sufferer's situation.  People have to come to terms with their situation on their own; humor helps, but it's unreasonable and cruel to demand it.

Ark already knows that I disagree with most of what he said about this as we've had this conversation before about offensive sexist jokes -- the pervasive opinion that it's okay to continually demean half the human race as long as it's considered funny by some of the other half is a major reason why I withdrew from gaming communities such as this one -- but I do agree completely with this: "You have no way of knowing what people around you are going through, so if you don't want to risk offending someone, you shouldn't joke at all."  The problem is, people aren't willing to follow through with that second part, because [i]they think it's all right to offend people.[/i]  And that phrasing makes it clear that it is the person telling the joke that causes the offense.

BioSpark

2008-12-15 08:30:50 pm

I think the thing is, though, that people shouldn't be offended by things they find on the internet. If you don't like it, then just ignore it.

arkarian

2008-12-15 11:47:01 pm

red chamber dream

That's impossible for some people, though. I don't think it's the responsibility of those making the jokes to avoid offending people, but if they want to have a relationship with those who are offended, it IS their responsibility to do so. A good example would be when Chanoire let me know right off the bat that I really turned her off with my usual jokes, and I've since tried to rescind them when she's around (though until recently that hasn't been very often), because I know they either offend her or are detrimental to our relationship, however paltry it may be.
Does that mean I'm going against what I believe? Sure, but it's often necessary to keep friends (particularly internet ones).

JaggerG

2008-12-16 04:25:08 am

Shifty Leader

That M2k2 guy

To a point, I'm actually glad that people voice their opinions. Sometimes people joke about things I don't find funny and might be offensive to someone that isn't in the conversation, but am not personally offended, so I don't say anything. I have asked someone if they actually have feelings against a certain group of people because someone left after they said something offensive, though.

I just figured a moot point is something that can be debated and not reach a conclusion, so once it gets so far, it just can't go any further. Nice to see the dictionary definition, though.

Also, I'm sorry if I phrased that one post in the sense meaning I'm offended that he didn't think it's funny. It just seemed like he felt it more important that other people feel bad about it than to enjoy it. He basically boiled the joke to the point that Samus should be feared simply for possibly having AIDS. To be honest, it makes slightly more sense for a rape victim to take offense, and if they did, Nintendo might actually change the name of the attack altogether to kill the apparently everlasting "joke." I suppose it's possible misuse of "rape" is almost as offensive as misuse of "gay." In retrospect, though, I feel bad that I brought that up after he dropped it.

To a point, I'm actually glad that people voice their opinions. Sometimes people joke about things I don't find funny and might be offensive to someone that isn't in the conversation, but am not personally offended, so I don't say anything. I have asked someone if they actually have feelings against a certain group of people because someone left after they said something offensive, though.

I just figured a moot point is something that [i]can[/i] be debated and not reach a conclusion, so once it gets so far, it just can't go any further. Nice to see the dictionary definition, though.

Also, I'm sorry if I phrased that one post in the sense meaning I'm offended that [i]he[/i] didn't think it's funny. It just seemed like he felt it more important that [i]other[/i] people feel bad about it than to enjoy it. He basically boiled the joke to the point that Samus should be feared simply for possibly having AIDS. To be honest, it makes slightly more sense for a rape victim to take offense, and if they did, Nintendo might actually change the name of the attack altogether to kill the apparently everlasting "joke." I suppose it's possible misuse of "rape" is almost as offensive as misuse of "gay." In retrospect, though, I feel bad that I brought that up [i]after[/i] he dropped it.

arkarian

2008-12-16 04:30:49 am

red chamber dream

It's very difficult for me to understand other people's feelings. Dunno how it's like for everyone else.

Quietus

2008-12-16 05:07:16 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

Moot: The word is just another example of a word misused and abused enough to have it's meaning altered, I guess.

Its origin stems from a word that meant 'meeting', and the debate itself was it's primary purpose, not the outcome, although it didn't mean that a conclusion could not be drawn. This was later understood as 'moot' meaning that it was a fruitless debate, which could not be concluded, so it had already altered once. It was then altered again, to later mean that the topic itself was not worthy of debate, so I guess it's evolution through misunderstanding. (I'm coining that phrase) Razz

I noticed that the OED listed it as the usual sense in America, so I would go as far as blaming them for it. But I won't. Because I live in England. And nobody is killing the English language like the English. Evil or Very Mad

Jokes: I tend to lean toward the fact that any joke, about any subject, is acceptable, and only becomes unacceptable if somebody speaks up. I think it also depends on the audience. For example, I used to work in retail, in a small store with a load of other guys the same age as me. We joked about anything and everything: paedophilia, necrophilia, murder, war, sex, drugs, drink, women, because nothing was considered taboo. However, I wouldn't consider making those same jokes with another audience, as they're normally considered a little extreme (the first few, at least).

I would add that people should try not to get too upset by the joke when it's made, but should inform people that they found it offensive. Most people, unless they're a complete arse, would usually accept it, and would try not to make similar jokes aimed in their direction. The same applies to 'general' jokes, aimed at everybody, but I feel it doesn't apply to private jokes, as you have no idea of its history, intimacy, or anything else, and you're better off ignoring it.

Here ends my waffle. Wink

Moot: The word is just another example of a word misused and abused enough to have it's meaning altered, I guess.

Its origin stems from a word that meant 'meeting', and the debate itself was it's primary purpose, not the outcome, although it didn't mean that a conclusion could not be drawn.  This was later understood as 'moot' meaning that it was a fruitless debate, which could not be concluded, so it had already altered once.  It was then altered again, to later mean that the topic itself was not worthy of debate, so I guess it's evolution through misunderstanding.  (I'm coining that phrase) :razz:

I noticed that the OED listed it as the usual sense in America, so I would go as far as blaming them for it.  But I won't.  Because I live in England.  And [b]nobody[/b] is killing the English language like the English. :evil:

Jokes: I tend to lean toward the fact that any joke, about any subject, is acceptable, and only becomes [i]unacceptable[/i] if somebody speaks up.  I think it also depends on the audience.  For example, I used to work in retail, in a small store with a load of other guys the same age as me.  We joked about anything and everything: paedophilia, necrophilia, murder, war, sex, drugs, drink, women, because nothing was considered taboo.  However, I wouldn't consider making those same jokes with another audience, as they're normally considered a little extreme (the first few, at least).

I would add that people should try not to get too upset by the joke when it's made, but should inform people that they found it offensive.  Most people, unless they're a complete arse, would usually accept it, and would try not to make similar jokes aimed in their direction.  The same applies to 'general' jokes, aimed at everybody, but I feel it doesn't apply to private jokes, as you have no idea of its history, intimacy, or anything else, and you're better off ignoring it.

Here ends my waffle.  :wink:

JaggerG

2008-12-16 05:27:48 am

Shifty Leader

That M2k2 guy

The thing about that is I'm not sure if it's something I can't understanding about your feelings, or if it's something you just don't understand about their feelings that I do. Often times it's hard to tell if emotion, or even lack thereof, is logical or not.

I may have misused "moot" in the past, but I've mostly heard it used after it's been debated at least a little bit. Maybe it's not as commonly misused as one might think, but rather, misunderstood. Maybe people define it incorrectly, but have learned to use it in the right situations. I suppose it actually can be used as "moot point" because they're points that tend to arise in a moot discussion, rather than a point that is moot. It's like if "football jersey" had been used to mean a jersey that is a football, and it happened to be about a jersey that is used in the game of football. Or something.

ryu

2008-12-16 05:43:57 am

Quote:

Moot: The word is just another example of a word misused and abused enough to have it's meaning altered, I guess.

Language changes. Of course words obtain new meanings in an official way, if they're used in a formerly wrong way often enough to make the new (or additional) definition common.

There's really nothing wrong with that. That's just something one, even who loves a language much enough to actually care about little thing like this, should accept.

(I've btw never seen the word moot being used outside of "the point is moot"s' context)

JaggerG

2008-12-16 05:57:55 am

Shifty Leader

That M2k2 guy

I just fear for them losing their original meaning. If your "language changes" theory is applied, "sarcasm" may one day be defined as "something that's funny."

Quietus

2008-12-16 06:01:02 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

Quote from Ryudolph:

I've btw never seen the word moot being used outside of "the point is moot"s' context

That was my original point. Very Happy

Since its definitions are contradictory, that statement on its own doesn't state which definition you mean: Debat or not debate.

I also think that it's only if you're interested in the language, or words' etymologies, that it gets confusing, which is a bit of a paradox. The more you know, the less you understand. Rolling Eyes

Usually, 99.9% of words can be understood through context, and things like the abuse / misuse of words like 'moot' are nothing when compared with ever-changing slang.

Anyway, I think I've gone off-topic enough, so Maru Mari rules - 'nuff said. aiwebs_011

tomatobob

2008-12-16 06:34:23 am

One shall stand, one shall ball.

Quote from JesusG:

It just seemed like he felt it more important that other people feel bad about it than to enjoy it. He basically boiled the joke to the point that Samus should be feared simply for possibly having AIDS.

I think this is the big issue in discussions like this, it's one thing to point out that you find something offensive, how you say it and why is another thing entirely. It seems that far too often people will take offense to things and then proceed to complain about it until someone agrees with, or at least claims to sympathize with them. Just because you find something offensive doesn't mean everyone else will or should, it's incredibly difficult to be offended by a joke about something one hasn't experienced. And, quite honestly, I take offense to the idea that I should be offended by anything just because it bothers someone else.

Yeah, AIDS/Cancer/Terminal chronic toe infection/Whatever sucks, I get that. I don't know how much, I may never know, and frankly I don't want to, but no one has any business forcing me to take offense to some joke about whatever they happen to be dealing with.

I might feel bad for you, but don't ask me to be offended for you. That's asking a lot, and if you're just looking for attention or some one to say, "Oh man, I'm sorry, that really sucks." Then I start thinking you're just whoring out for attention rather than genuinely offended.

[quote="JesusG"]
It just seemed like he felt it more important that [i]other[/i] people feel bad about it than to enjoy it. He basically boiled the joke to the point that Samus should be feared simply for possibly having AIDS. 
[/quote]

I think this is the big issue in discussions like this, it's one thing to point out that you find something offensive, how you say it and why is another thing entirely. It seems that far too often people will take offense to things and then proceed to complain about it until someone agrees with, or at least claims to sympathize with them. Just because you find something offensive doesn't mean everyone else will or should, it's incredibly difficult to be offended by a joke about something one hasn't experienced. And, quite honestly, I take offense to the idea that I should be offended by anything just because it bothers someone else.

Yeah, AIDS/Cancer/Terminal chronic toe infection/Whatever sucks, I get that. I don't know how much, I may never know, and frankly I don't want to, but no one has any business forcing me to take offense to some joke about whatever they happen to be dealing with.

I might feel bad for you, but don't ask me to be offended for you. That's asking a lot, and if you're just looking for attention or some one to say, "Oh man, I'm sorry, that really sucks." Then I start thinking you're just whoring out for attention rather than genuinely offended.

JaggerG

2008-12-16 06:40:29 am

Shifty Leader

That M2k2 guy

Looking back, I almost feel like I'm missing a section, because he doesn't seem that obsessed about the joke itself anymore once he really gets offended, and I had debated against him under the assumption that it had been directly related.

On a different note, if I referred to "A jersey that is a football" outside this forum, am I a bad person? I'm probably going to do it nevertheless, because I'm just that kind of guy.

tomatobob

2008-12-16 06:57:13 am

One shall stand, one shall ball.

You may be right, his last post seemed to fall closer to my last point though. I'm not entirely certain what he was going for but he certainly wasn't doing a particularly good job of convincing me that he wasn't just whining.

Chanoire

2008-12-16 02:06:54 pm

Quote from Quietus:

Moot: The word is just another example of a word misused and abused enough to have it's meaning altered, I guess.

It's not misuse or abuse, it's just change. And not very much change at that. The same meaning is being applied -- a discussion point -- it's the relevance of having a discussion to the specific situation which is different and contextual. Language changes constantly. I don't exactly have time to go through all of your posts for examples of words you use whose meanings have changed more drastically, but I assure you, they're there. ("gay" is an obvious one...)

Quote from JaggerG:

I suppose it's possible misuse of "rape" is almost as offensive as misuse of "gay."

There is no "possible" or "almost" there. Misuse of "rape" IS offensive. I can't make a comparison on the offensiveness scale, but I can note that there are far more people who live in actual fear of being raped than there are homosexuals. I think the estimate I've heard most recently is that one out of three women is sexually assaulted, and I suspect the number's higher. And no, one does not have to be in that one-third to find the casual use of the word deeply upsetting. I'll stop there before this gets too long.

Quote from Arkarian:

Chanoire let me know right off the bat that I really turned her off with my usual jokes, and I've since tried to rescind them when she's around (though until recently that hasn't been very often), because I know they either offend her or are detrimental to our relationship, however paltry it may be.

And I appreciate it (and I missed you, too). ^_^ Although you might inadvertently be conveying the idea that you're growing up. ;)

[quote="Quietus"]Moot: The word is just another example of a word misused and abused enough to have it's meaning altered, I guess.[/quote]

It's not misuse or abuse, it's just change.  And not very much change at that.  The same meaning is being applied -- a discussion point -- it's the relevance of having a discussion to the specific situation which is different and contextual.  Language changes constantly.  I don't exactly have time to go through all of your posts for examples of words you use whose meanings have changed more drastically, but I assure you, they're there.  ("gay" is an obvious one...)

[quote="JaggerG"]I suppose it's possible misuse of "rape" is almost as offensive as misuse of "gay." [/quote]

There is no "possible" or "almost" there.  Misuse of "rape" IS offensive.  I can't make a comparison on the offensiveness scale, but I can note that there are far more people who live in actual fear of being raped than there are homosexuals.  I think the estimate I've heard most recently is that one out of three women is sexually assaulted, and I suspect the number's higher.  And no, one does not have to be in that one-third to find the casual use of the word deeply upsetting.  I'll stop there before this gets too long.

[quote="Arkarian"]Chanoire let me know right off the bat that I really turned her off with my usual jokes, and I've since tried to rescind them when she's around (though until recently that hasn't been very often), because I know they either offend her or are detrimental to our relationship, however paltry it may be.[/quote]

And I appreciate it (and I missed you, too). ^_^  Although you might inadvertently be conveying the idea that you're [i]growing up[/i]. ;)

JaggerG

2008-12-17 04:03:51 am

Shifty Leader

That M2k2 guy

Okay, I just figured that gay being used to define a group of people might be more offensive to misuse than an action based on definitions and usages alone, but I can see the indirect problem as being more terrifying, and to assume the misuse is not a big deal can still be pretty offensive.

Zeke

2009-07-01 10:53:58 pm

Time bomb set get out fast!

Anybody know what happened to the last Maru Mari strip? It's not loading.

Phazar

2009-07-02 07:48:34 pm

...

Quote from Zeke:

Anybody know what happened to the last Maru Mari strip? It's not loading.

It's been like that for years. It would be great if someone was able to fix that.

Gamma_Metroid

2009-07-11 04:22:19 pm

Huh. It's always worked for me before now.

Samus-Aran

(user is banned)

2009-07-12 02:54:12 pm

SAMUS ARAN RULES

i can get on it fine

Samus-Aran

(user is banned)

2009-08-22 03:37:56 pm

SAMUS ARAN RULES

Are you Going To Continue The Comic

arkarian

2009-08-22 04:10:56 pm

red chamber dream

no, maru mari ended years ago.

JaggerG

2009-08-22 04:12:01 pm

Shifty Leader

That M2k2 guy

Nope.

Quote from toozin, on the Maru Mari main page:

2004.06.28

This was actually decided a while back, but I'm just telling you now. I'll no longer be working on Maru Mari. No, nothing happened. Yes, Houson and I are still buds. I just won't be doing Maru Mari anymore. It's been fun though. Later.

Houston hasn't been seen since 2006, either. :^(

MetroidHunter26

2009-09-19 09:13:30 pm

I love the Maru Mari comics I was thinking about trying to resurect it somehow but I am not that great with jokes >_> I love it though it was hillarious and entertaining the new ones with the Zero Mission sprites were a riot XD