When I re-read your first post it dawned on me how horribly off I was, not to mention how badly I want to shoehorn hyperlinks or alt-text into anything I post (a contributing factor to the narrow-minded view I had half an hour ago).
Maybe it would help to try to make the gestures described?
I’ve read things that were written in phonetically rendered German dialects. I can understand those dialects fine, but in writing it looked like gibberish. But when I tried pronouncing it, purely phonetically, without understanding, it started to fall into place and make sense. I could imagine something similar happening with written ASL.
*Right hand’s fingers pointing outward together, thumb tucked behind, palm facing towards self. Draws hand in a downward circular motion over chest slowly*~???
That is the worst typo of “mute” I have ever seen. Don’t you at least look at what you post before hitting the “Post Comment” button? BTW Marcie is talking! I’m with the other people thinking we may be seeing a tragic origin story beginning.
What features???
What sites? and how do they not work “like you want”??
I am not aware of IE having any features that are unique to it, aside from some Windows Domain integration stuff that doesn’t apply outside a corporate network. (Some few features in IE might not be in FF/Chrome out of the box, but they should be available as addons)
Basically no modern site on the public internet targets IE initially/primarily. They basically all target FF and/or Chrome as first targets, then verify others, IE typically being last. Depending on their target demographics they may exclude all IEs beside the most recent one or two (and breath a sigh of relief). Some that do support older IEs allow a greater degree of brokenness there than for other browsers.
IE has made big jumps in standards compliance in the more recent versions (9, 10, 11), but it still is *easily* the worst of the big players on that score. Google doesn’t even support IE9 since 11 came out.
Usually the only places you find sites that work properly only in IE are very old unmaintained sites, certain internal corporate sites at very large, ossified companies, and some small percent of the worst government sites.
Many deaf people can read lips. I’ve worked with several during my years at a college where they pride themselves on the large deaf community.
But I’m pretty sure Marcie’s not deaf anyway. :0
I think Willis specifically said once or twice that she isn’t deaf. And I’m certain she has understood things Sal has said while wearing her motorcycle helmet, so it can’t be that she reads lips.
Willis has shown she can hear she can hear she is just mute. Now neither it’s psychologically or physical remains to be seen. Most like physical. A lot of different kinds of injury especially to the brain (speech centers) and throat can cause mutism. Not to mention diseases. Plus vocal cords can easily be injured, hence smokers having their voices change. But I fear for the next strip. Cause…. high metal playground equipment…..
I kind of ignored the possibility that it was a brain injury…..WELP. I guess we all know how this little game of king of the mountain is going to end….
I got the idea from an episode of Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei where Meru’s muteness was because when she her own voice, she hated it so much, she never spoke again.
From what I recall, when they deprived Meru of her texting abilities, her “talking” was more in the form of C’thulu-like growls. Did they say she hated the sound of her voice in the episode where people auditioned to “speak” for her?
in “practice,” it would have been her being shipped off to Tennessee, but I can’t entirely vouch for that working, since my own growing up there means I have no objective basis for comparison
I would say that might be the case, I lived in TN off and on all my life and my accent is still Not From Here in spite of more than 25 years in TX to go with all the years in TN and GA. Even learning to talk in Canada didn’t give me an accent.
My brother on the other hand sounded like a native of where ever about 2 weeks after moving there.
I have a friend who visits often from Germany – for the first day or so, his English is accented with German, but after a few days, it disappears. He’s a linguistic chameleon. Some people are like that.
Yea, I am like that too, comes from being an air force brat and moving a lot. It would take me about 2 to 3 months until I lost the accent and sounded like I grew up wherever I happened to be living, then we would move and I would start the process all over again.
I don’t think so…Marcie refers to herself as “I” in the second panel. Willis usually has Sal phonetically pronounce it as “Ah” when she’s using the accent.
What if Marcie’s parents had the southern drawl going on. If Sal spent alot of time at Marcie’s house, she may have picked it up. As an homage to them, especially if something tragic happened to them.
I can see Sal doing a Billie, where she aquires parents of a friend because hers are the way they are.
Hard to think of a good term for the Walkertons that doesn’t make them sound like the abusive bastards they are not.
2010!Willis: I can’t show Marcie’s eyes, but I want continuity on the glasses and most of them have see-through lenses, WHAT DO? I know! Goggles are opaque! I’ll just have her wear goggles all the time!
I’ve done just that with a character–intentionally opaque/100% reflective lenses–because I like the joke of not even ME knowing what that character’s eyes look like
At one point I tried to sit down and work out glasses stuff for all my characters, because I was trying to reconcile them all into one big universe, and I noticed that, bizarrely, any character with glasses I’d created before ninth grade had opaque lenses, and any character with glasses I’d created after that had transparent ones. But more bizarrely it seemed I’d given something like one third of all my protagonists ever some kinda eye covering, which weirded me out a bit.
The bigger problem ultimately turned out to be that trying to reconcile all this stuff turned the universe into a giant unwieldy clusterfuck, so I abandoned the project.
I also used to have a habit of hiding characters’ eyes so that I could then reveal dramatically that they’d had some sort of infection or operation or scar or something that made them even more visually impaired than the audience had been led to believe. It was pretty shitty and I’ve long since stopped.
that IS where I got the name from, though the character is actually Commander Keen, and not agent. Basically, there’s another shareware game about a secret agent that references Commander Keen, so as a kid I always assumed the agent in that game was a grown up version. Thus, he would be Agent Keen.
Apparently, it’s also the name of a character in some show I’ve never seen.
“Villian” just means that someone is proactive and has bad publicity, really. They could be committing heinous crimes, sure, but it does not seem to be a requirement.
I once did four classifications for villian; antagonist, laughable, fantasy, and scary. Sal would fall into the antagonist classification, where she’s more rival than enemy.
Once I have the territory I will release it to the masses WHILE forcing them to adhere to my rule. They’ll comply because the slide is fun. They won’t even notice they’ve become my SLAVES.
Because… she clearly knows Sal in the present day and apparently grew up in the same place as the Walkerton and Billingsworth families. She probably met Billie other times beyond this one scene.
Billie and Sal and Walky pretty much grew up together. Marcie would have encountered Billie at some point – likely many many times, and you don’t forget such people easily even after several years.
But even if she only met her once, memory can last far longer than you seem to be implying – I remember people from fourteen years ago still – some of which I never encountered again. Quite a few people from my childhood, I haven’t seen in like, seven years but I still remember them.
Trust me – memories don’t fade away quickly, your brain clings onto them like a greedy octopus. XD
So how come everyone is thinking know that shit is going to down because talking Marcie Shows up, again we don’t even know what’s This flashbacks about.
Because generally, people don’t go out of their way to learn sign language if they are simply choosing to not speak, meaning she has somehow lost her ability to speak and needed to learn a different way after this point – so we think we know WHERE this is going to eventually lead to as that is a question that will burn in our minds otherwise but not yet why or how.
It seems to me that using sign language to circumvent a vow of silence would violate the spirit of the vow, if not the letter. The whole point is to eschew communication with others, not just speech. I don’t believe they’re supposed to write letters or pass notes, either.
your reminder (or maybe your TIL!) that the term “mute” is offensive. and I know DOA commenters are smart enough to know that the word “dumb” referring to those who do not speak is no longer in any kind of clinical or correct usage!
I think you have posted that before, and I am trying to find out where on this page it says “mute” is offensive. It says “deaf-mute” is offensive, because it is used to refer to people who are deaf but are not necessarily mute, and notes that the term is offensive because folks who are deaf are often perfectly capable of making noises and are thus not mute. The page itself uses the word “mute” a few times afterwards during the explanation for this, and no alternative is given.
I am perfectly willing to be made to understand that the term is offensive, but I don’t see anything to that effect in the page you linked.
My dictionary lists mute as one without speach and gives no hint that it is an offensive term. Regardless, I would just as soon not give offence unless I intend to. What is the inoffensive term for someone unable to talk verbally. I’d just as soon use it until someone decides it too is offensive, but that should give a few years.
We don’t know if Marcie’s lost her ability to speak or simply refuses to talk. If she’s indeed still capable of using her voice chords, then “mute” is an offensive term to describe her & persons with a similar condition, because it’s technically inaccurate.
At least, this is what I understand from reading Rachel’s link.
I think “pretend to not have the ability” might not be the nicest way to represent someone who doesn’t vocalize due to trauma. the word “pretend” belies the seriousness of the effects of that kind of trauma, I think.
I was not talking about trauma. I was talking about pretending to be mute because it is cool, which is a silly possibility someone else brought up elsewhere. I am reiterating, again, that Marcie does not talk because she cannot.
oh whoops – my bad. didn’t know you were referring to someone thinking someone might do that. I try to keep up on conversations across comment boards but it’s hard to keep track of it all
To be fair, at least one person bringing up the “She might be pretending to be mute!” idea was on Patreon which isn’t exactly a public board of debate.
First off, I presume that this encounter between Marcie and Sal is the beginning of the friendship that is evident in the ‘real’ DoA strip.
The fact that 18-year-old Marcie is so adept in AMSLAN — as well as Sal’s ability to communicate with her through the same medium of sign language — tends to make me believe that this is not a recent development and that both of them acquired the skills together; Marcie because she had to, and Sal because she wanted to still be able to ‘talk’ to her friend.
Quick research divulges that the main reasons for mutism (a legitimate medical term, btw) are an injury to the Broca’s region of the brain; damage to the speech organs such as the larynx or vocal cords; autism; or a traumatic incident resulting in psychological mutism. It will be interesting to see which of these Willis uses to turn Marcie into the non-speaking person she is today.
definitely a case where someone told me the term was offensive, so I took them at face value for that, and then looked up references later. yeah, the offensiveness of “deaf-mute” is all I saw there, too, & have seen elsewhere. I think what Thomas said is probably a better way to say it, esp since I think a lot of people who don’t speak have working vocal chords (and brainpower!), but there is a lot more to speech than those two things, but since terms like “mute” rarely leave room for nuance, I personally avoid it.
That is a legitimate complaint, but I’ve also come up with a probably smug-sounding explanation [not that I mean it that way, but sometimes it comes across as “well, actually”ing]: A lot of condescension comes from reductivism, such as calling African[-American/-European/-etc.-an] people “blacks”–that is, using the otherwise okay adjective as a noun. It makes sense, because the condescending person is reducing the target to as small a being as possible.
I’ve actually used this as a literary technique: the shorter a descriptive term, the more reductivist/insulting the term is. It’s only recently that I realized the extent to which I was deriving that from real life =p
So, via this logic, “black people” is okay right? Because I’ve never bothered using the African-[insert place here] since most of the black people I’ve met have never been to Africa.In fact, the person who has the most connection to Africa I know is a white girl. I just use black as an adjective, and you said its alright but… well, I’m often an insensitive git.
“Black” as an adjective, as in “black people” is fine–same with “deaf people.” “Black” as a noun by itself is what’s offensive. They are not pigments, they are PEOPLE.
When in doubt, ask the person in question how they identify!
If that was true, then “American” would be just as offensive, they are not just a property, a thing, belonging to the continent or country, they are people. Besides, I’ve always been under the impression that “black” is the preferred term these day, that’s what they use in all the main stream media at least.
Yep! Then you can just feel stupid and have white guilt brushed all over you again when your friends tell you just to use “black” or “Indian” for them, because “African-American” or “Native American” have nothing to do with them. >_>
MindLink: There’s a distinct difference between “That person, who is black” and “That black.” “American” is different because the -an specifies “person from [country/state/planet]”.
Also, I may not hang around enough POCs [which is weird, given the ethnic shift in this area], but I’ve NEVER heard anyone say, “I’m a black” vs. “I am black.”
Mindlink: Yes, you’ve discovered the secret, all nouns are incredibly offensive, and what those nouns have been used on or for has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Go play.
Jen: I have heard, and used myself, nouns as self identification, but nearly always as a mockery of people using things as something scary. Also, you and Plasma’s posts are kinda assuming a premise. It doesn’t get much shorter than ‘gay’, for instance.
I can see what you mean but if this enlarging euphemising keeps up, one day the proper terminology will be in the form of whole bloody sentences and that sort of thing will be more annoying than even doubleplusungood.
Dude, that would rock! We could be like the ancient egyptians, who had names like Beatiful-in-the-sight-of-Isis or Resting-Easy-in-the-House-of-Ra! I love those mummy wrapping bastards!
I have to work with lots of Indian names like that–some of these folks have like five names, all at least seven letters long <=p like "Ramakrishna Siddharth Kumar Amit Chakravoorthy Mukherjee"
Many people who have lost their hearing dislike the term “hearing-impaired” because it implies that they are broken. Many prefer the term “deafened.”
Not talking out of my ass on this. This is actually my oldest sister’s preferred term for herself.
Or maybe ‘aphasic’? Not sure the difference between aphasia and mutism. I have heard aphasia used in reference to loss of speech due to brain damage. I have also read about “elective mutism”, where a person stops speaking in response to trauma.
As an aphasic person myself (not all the time but it can be paralyzing when it decides I’m not speaking right now) I can definitely say that aphasia =/= “mute”. And aphasia can be a side effect of TBI so there is a possibility that Marcie is about to get a major blow to the noggin coming up.
Especially since, due to the way humans are wired, whatever new “inoffensive” word or phrase is chosen will rapidly become so as all the usual connotations are applied to it.
You can change the labels, but changing the feelings and assumptions and misconceptions is much harder.
Exactly, it is not the word that is offensive, it is the connotations that the speaker puts in the word. If a culture believes that persons with certain characteristics have a different, negative, subset of characteristics, then eventually the descriptor for the-persons-with-certain-characteristics becomes offensive by assosication. The solution is not to stop using the descriptor, as the offence is still there whether or not you use another word instead, labelling the word as tabu is kind of a retreat and not dealing directly with the problem that causes the prejudice in the first place.
I agree, with an addendum – if someone doesn’t want you to label them in a particular way, go along with it, ya? changing terminology doesn’t fix the problem, BUT changing it to people-focused, like Cimorene was talking about below, paying respect to the ways that people want to be called, is a slight change in perception in the noggin of the call-er (as in, NOT the person who doesn’t speak), and that slight change in perception can do wonders. it has for me & I’ve seen it happen in other people. so, “a person who is/does/has x” rather than “an x” or “an x-er.” it’s all got to start somewhere. people are trying to legislate anti-discrimination stuff, so yes, support that, but also support the change in language that supports people’s needs. there are many ways up the mountain!
So saying “Marcie is mute” or “Marcie is a mute person” should be fine and it’s only bad to say “Marcie is a mute.” To choose to another similar term, we say “gay people” not “the gays.”
Reducing a person to an adjective is more problematic than the actual word used.
However, sometimes the proper term is grammatically a noun, so it can’t be that simple. But it does seem that in this case, it does seem correct. Looking at dictionary.com, definition 3 is an adjective meaning “incapable of speech” while definition 7 is a noun meaning “person incapable of speech.” The later is marked as offensive, but not the former.
I think people here so far have been using the adjective.
They are both terribly unaccurate though, and mute is the most technical term without any bad connotations, so I would still say that it is the unoffensive one. And “mute” does not say anything about the cause of the muteness, otherwise every single remote control on the planet is wrong, it just means that the sound is stopped.
I would bet that some folks don’t want to be compared to an action you perform at your tv? though this is all still with the caveat that I’ve ever only known one person who I was told that the term “mute” was inappropriate and offensive, and I haven’t been able to find proof that any more than just “deaf-mute” was offensive.
Why not just call Marcie deaf? Do we have some reason to think she isn’t? I imagine that people like Snake-Eyes, who can hear but not talk, are actually pretty rare. The fact that Sal uses ASL to talk to Marcie strongly suggests that Marcie is deaf and not simply incapable of speech.
I like marcie, but I do well with non-verbal communication. (Rubs fusion cannon lovingly.)
With you posting in character as a cartoon villain it’s hard to tell if you’re serious or you’re intentionally being obtuse by arguing in favor of the one thing everyone else agreed was wrong.
rachel, what term would you like us to use to describe a person who cannot speak? I mean, besides ‘a person who cannot speak’, that gets awkward, I’d like something shorter.
‘Mute’ seems to work, I don’t see why it would be considered offensive. Then again, I don’t see why ‘black’ is offensive, either, and people do find it so. I guess it’s just a matter of history.
the shortest description is easiest for the describer, not for the describee! it’s about taking the time to care enough to say “person who doesn’t speak” rather than a shorter label.
I remember the last time this discussion came up, and I think the conclusion was that “mute” is offensive when applied to people who are actually just deaf. I don’t think anyone was able to confirm that people who legitimately can’t talk are offended by being labeled “mute” or “mute people”. Corrections appreciated.
I can think of four reasons someone would stop speaking.
1. A physical inability to speak such as a lack of vocal chords or tounge.
2. A mental inability to speak as caused by brain injury or emotional trauma.
3. An inability to control the speech mechanism properly as in the lack of feedback from sound or positional sensations.
4. A volentary cesation of speech for some believed or anticipated good, as with a religious vow of silence.
My immediate thought was ‘Is that a kid version of Tedd from El Goonish Shive’? Can’t be. Then I somehow convinced myself this was kid Amber, but I somehow totally forgot Marcie existed.
Marcie is going to serve as some sort of Satanic figure who encourages Sal to do ever more horrible things until losing her voice due to divine punishment!
Wait, sorry, Joyce was in my head. Which is too bad because then it led to Ethan and Danny making out while she watched.
After teaching on the Apache reservation I had two selectively mute students in my class. That’s what special ed departments refer to it as, I don’t think it’s considered offensive. Though you are supposed to use person first language “This student is hearing impaired” vs. “The hearing impaired student”, or whatever special need is being talked about.
yeah I have seen it in someone that it was trauma-borne, so that’s what they would say “selectively mute” about? hmm. that seems like the kind of terminology that might be changed before long, but til it actually is (or til I hear otherwise) I won’t quibble with it. would you say “the student who doesn’t speak?”
In the classroom you don’t really have the luxury of saying that much in the quick moment. If you have a guest you could say “Jonah is very quiet/doesn’t speak” or the kids will do it “HE DON’T TALK!” *face palm*. The two boys I had would communicate with writing, nodding, head shaking, and gestures. They also would talk with other kids, but not to adults. And I think it was from the home they were taught not to speak to adults. One boy came back and said there was a “thing” in the bathroom. I send Isaac, because he was trustworthy, and forgot he wouldn’t be able to confirm or deny the presence of a “something”. He comes back and I ask “Was there something in the bathroom.” and he nods. “Was it good or bad?” *shrug* “Was it big or small?” *big arms* At that point another adult in the hall said there was nothing in there, but all the boys were convinced there was.
A lot of people who identify with Deaf culture consider the term “hearing impaired” to be offensive. It is a term imposed upon them by those who consider them impaired,: broken, in need of fixing. I also recall choclear implants being called a form of genocide, but I believe that rhetoric has calmed down quite a bit.
yeah that’s a world that though I don’t have personal experience with it, I find it really awesome that a culture, worth preserving, has been born around the experience. as I guess all cultures are!
Has it? I seem to recall that deafness is not genetic, so cochlear implants really is “killing” a deaf person in order to create a person who can kinda sorta hear and as a result will spend a lot of time having to “catch up” to everyone else and so is at a disadvantage compared to if they just learned sign language.
Certainly some deafness is genetic, some is not. No idea of the ratio. But I don’t see how genetic or not would influence whether it was killing the culture. (which is all I have heard of, I never heard of it compared to “killing” a person)
Removing the only potential members of a community is kind of genocide by definition! Sure, there can still be deaf *culture*, but there’s a distinct difference between learning about deafness and actually not being able to hear.
MythBusters tested a myth about a blind person being able to drive a car, and their results from driving blindfolded were distinctly different from someone who was 100% blind from birth.
[Counterpoint: People are regularly destroying their hearing, so maybe that’s a trade-off?]
As a person who is legally blind, terms like visually-impaired or half-blind are perfectly fine to use, they’re not inheritedly insulting unless the person says it in such a way that they mean for it to be insulting.
And that can always occur. ‘Mute’ is offensive for the same reason that ‘black’ is – people of that culture have had it used derogatorily against them, and it’s left a mark. Neither term is inherently offensive.
I find it interesting when individuals who share a handicap form a culture out of the handicap, and start defending it against those who would seek to ‘cure’ it. Then again, there are a few instances in modern history where physical or cultural differences were viewed by societies as ‘diseases’, who sought to wipe them out.
Without question, Braille and sign-language are incredibly useful tools, and it does not surprise me that a culture has grown up around them – I’m a computer programmer, and I know the ridiculously cool culture that’s grown up around our language-tools. Would it be worth the hit that culture would take to eliminate the impairments that caused the culture to develop? It’s a hard question.
and harder still: how do you stop it when it gets out of hand? Imagine if someone cured away the entire autism spectrum! I wouldn’t exist!
.
.
.
and I like existing.
Deafness is not something inherited from your parents, like red hair or blue eyes, so deaf parents will not necessarily have deaf children to “pass down” the culture.* Therefore, the parents who would rather mutilate their children to make them “normal” are throwing away their chance to be part of a special community, in order to have children who will be farther behind their peers as a result.
*per the vehement argument against cochlear implants I read that I can’t find because I don’t want to spend all tonight searching for one specific internet article AGAIN
**sorry, I know I really ought to be better than that, but an exercise for the reader, yay
As I understand the argument, if it’s genetic, it’s possible to pass it on to your kids, so a cochlear implant that enabled the deaf person to hear wouldn’t necessarily be “genocide”, since it doesn’t resolve the root cause of the deafness and doesn’t remove that person from the deaf gene pool, as it were. Whereas if someone was born with the ability to hear, but somehow lost it (or was born deaf but from non-genetic causes) then they wouldn’t be able to pass the deafness on to their offspring, so by restoring their hearing you’re removing that person from the culture, period.
As I say, that’s as I understand it. Now, whether or not restoring or imparting the ability to hear to someone who previously was unable to hear counts as a form of genocide or not, is another entirely different argument; but as I understand it that’s how the genetic question fits into the argument.
Most people who receive cochlear implants as infants have language skills on par with hearing children by the time they enter kindergarten (results aren’t as good if they get implants after age two or three). Children without implants, on the other hand, graduate high school on average reading at a third-grade level, and something like 60% of them will be chronically unemployed or severely underemployed.
Really ? I find that very hard to believe, I find it almost impossible to believe that most people with disabilities, especially ones that form after an accident, *would not* see themselves as “impaired,: broken, in need of fixing”. It is an injury they suffered, it is not part of who they are. It would be like if I got ebola, I wouldn’t take offence with anyone trying to cure me. Show me a blind person that would not immediately jump at the chance to see again, or a mute to speak or deaf to hear. Or a paraplegic to walk. Disregarding reality does not equal respect, and seems a whole lot more offensive in my mind.
It’s not hard to understand when someone has lived all or the majority of their life deaf wouldn’t see it as a condition that needs to be fixed because that is part of who they are.
This a completely different situation than a person who is disabled following an injury or trauma.
Also being deaf and having Ebola is not a valid comparison especially in two major concepts. Being deaf is not contagious nor is it fatal.
Then consider diabetes. Diabetes is not contagious and the risks can be managed with a careful diet and medicine. It’s wanting to cure that more comparable? I’m willing to bet they’re are people out there who consider being diabetic an important component of their identity.
I have a diabetic friend whose life has changed drastically as a result of his diabeetus [he is among the biggest fans of the Wilford Brimley meme]: it forced him to eat better and exercise, and as a result he’s more fit than he’s ever been, despite having to do all the insulin shots and that. I don’t think he’d care about being defined by his diabetes–but then, everyone’s too busy defining him as an accidental racist instead =p [I don’t know how much of that is joke]
ANYWAY JUST SAYIN’ MAYBE BEING BROKEN IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
That’s kind of my point. What is “disabled” and what isn’t is largely subjective. Even in an official sense, disability pay can change over time based on the expectations of your job changing, essentially making you “more disabled.”
However, I don’t think anyone would say that we should stop researching ways to mitigate or even cure diabetes. Such a cure is something enough people want and would provide enough of a benefit to them that we should pursue that. Some people not being interested in such doesn’t mean we’re dehumanizing them, as long as we don’t force it on people.
I feel like other disabilities like paraplegia, deafness, blindness, or muteness aren’t much different.
Speaking as someone with experience: I know *many* disabled people who do not consider themselves in need of fixing, including myself. Some use wheelchairs, some are Blind, many Autistic spectrum including non-speaking Autistic people.
Many would also take a cure if offered, but assuming that all would is just as inaccurate as assuming none would.
I have a hearing impaired student this year. All of that student’s documents say that and I get to wear a nifty microphone so she can hear me directly to her hearing aides. I have lots of friends who are deaf or sign language interpreters. The terms are only offensive if they’re used to be degrading, but normally are just the easiest way to explain something.
Maybe in college she’s majoring as a special ed teacher/sign language interpreter and is just practicing? Also, sign is great for not telling other people things. My friends and I would talk to each other in our educator classes behind the professor’s back. Or other people would and I’d eavesdrop >.>
My mum went to a boarding school; she and the other girls used sign language to be able to keep talking after they were supposed to be asleep. *Grin* And every time I’m in a bar I have to admit to wanting to be able to carry on a conversation with it.
When my son was very little, before he could talk, we taught him a few basic signs (hungry, thirsty, sleepy, all full, want milk/apple/water, thank you) which was a tremendous help for figuring out what he wanted! Nothing like a toddler who can come up and sign that they’re hungry instead of crying at you until you figure it out.
Babies can make signs long before they can form understandable words. Trust me, especially for the first kid, do yourself a favour and teach them a few!
All sorts of useful applications for AmSlang even for hearing/verbal (or pre-verbal lol) people.
Man, after reading all of the “something TERRIBLE must have happened” in this comment section, I’m kind of hoping Willis never addresses the events that lead to Marcie’s disability, or if he does, that they are relatively undramatic. I am just excited to see baby Marcie! And learn things about her besides the facts that she signs and is super badass!
The weird thing is, this isn’t even <a href="http://www.scarygoround.com/?date=20140923" title="A really unexpected CHALLENGER APPEARS”>today’s most horrifyingly portentous webcomics flashback.
Dammit! Why does Sal have to be misunderstood and good at heart? Why can’t she, like Ethan the Kidnapper, be a cruel evil person! It’d be much more enjoyable that way.
No, I thought Ethan was at his coolest right before the Blue Screen of Death. I always liked the idea that underneath the moral certainty was the heart of a Walter White. Sadly, we haven’t seen him peddling toys of the backroom with Ultracar as the Shortpacked finale wearing a pork pie hat.
Oh right, I need to stop turning all things into Breaking Bad.
On one hand, these pages are the most adorable thing! But I can’t help but think that he’s just softening us up before he goes for the jugular… of feels. Everything has been nice for a good few weeks now. Its suspicious.
Calling it now: Sal robbed the store to help Marcie because she feels responsible for her mutism. Probably something like needing money for an operation or something like that.
Oh, I’d actually been wondering about that. So they didn’t meet at the catholic school, and Marcie hasn’t always been mute. So Sal didn’t just show up at the Catholic School and start learning sign language to communicate with some stranger. Presumably they were friends for a while, the incident occurred, and then Sal learned sign language so she could continue communicating with her friend.
Wasn’t thinking about it, but do you mean the one about where if you do something good and noble in the name of Tash, even though you used the name ‘Tash’, it’s as if you said ‘Aslan’?
Not because they’re the same, but rather because they’re such opposites that no good deed can serve Tash and no vile deed can serve Aslan…
Rugrat sized kids should not be on the top of playground equipment, since Marcie is on the roof of a slide. So we know exactly who’s to blame… the mother and the father.
Plus baby Sal does have non-walky style hair, even at this age.
Oh, five-year-olds talking politics. Please let Marcie keep her speech for a bit longer. She can lose it in a different flashback. This one can be about Sal losing favor in the eyes of her parents or something.
Typically in media, rebel types are more prone towards evil than good unless there’s some evil empire to rebel against. But it seems like Sal is very much the opposite. She likes going against authority, but she’s actually a rather kind person. Other than racism and related self image issues, she’s been very patient and good to just about everyone, even though her mannerisms are distant at times. Think of how she treats Joyce, Danny, Billie, and Walky when he goes to apologize.
After that realization, I’m suddenly much more interested in finding out even more about the robbery. We’ve only seen it from Amber’s perspective, and she was hardly objective about it. There’s almost definitely more to that picture. Why did Sal do it? What were things like from her perspective? Where was Marcie? The more I see of Sal and the more I think about her, the more I like her.
Oh snap! Marcie talks…that’s another character we gotta add to Dubbing of Age. Actually, maybe all the flashback kids should be voiced by actual kids. Hmm.
Loading ...
Marcie??? MARCIE??? Young lady, you stop being so gosh-darned cute this instant!
*gestures with right hand: thumb, index, and middle finger outstretched closing together*
I’m probably thinking of the wrong thing. The inclusion of the middle finger is throwing me off as well.
*may have described that awkwardly*
When I re-read your first post it dawned on me how horribly off I was, not to mention how badly I want to shoehorn hyperlinks or alt-text into anything I post (a contributing factor to the narrow-minded view I had half an hour ago).
*makes reverse “hang ten” sign in your general direction*
Whoops, I’ve been doing it wrong. (included ring finger)
Wow. I know sign language. But wow. Trying to decipher written descriptions of it is impossible.
Maybe it would help to try to make the gestures described?
I’ve read things that were written in phonetically rendered German dialects. I can understand those dialects fine, but in writing it looked like gibberish. But when I tried pronouncing it, purely phonetically, without understanding, it started to fall into place and make sense. I could imagine something similar happening with written ASL.
well, I imagine reading–say–Korean would be difficult when being described through someone who can’t read it…
[oh hey I have my ASL book sitting next to me, maybe I shoulda used the descriptions out of that instead]
[[even though those are written in second-person instead of first-]]
*Right hand’s fingers pointing outward together, thumb tucked behind, palm facing towards self. Draws hand in a downward circular motion over chest slowly*~???
*rubs belly, pats head*
*pats bel- wait, rubs- argh* *admits defeat*
*puts index fingers at corners of mouth and wiggles them in outwards, upwards motions*
rubs head on pats belly. Pat giggles.
Between Billie, Sal & Walky, Marcie is not the cutest.
Absence of visible eyes contributes to that status.
Referring to the kid versions, I mean.
I’m sort of hearing her voiced by a squeakier Daria.
No, her glasses definitely make her the cutest.
Yay Marcie.
…Marcie…talks? OH GOD, THERE’S A TERRIBLE ORIGIN STORY COMING, ISN’T THERE?
Somehow I’m sure trucks are involved
Sal’s whole friendship with her is gonna turn out to be redemption for rendering her mitr pr something like that.
She joins her at a 45 degree angle?
This is DoA. All signs point to, “Yes.”
Damn you cellphone keyboards~!
That is the worst typo of “mute” I have ever seen. Don’t you at least look at what you post before hitting the “Post Comment” button? BTW Marcie is talking! I’m with the other people thinking we may be seeing a tragic origin story beginning.
Until I was able to fix my IE a fortnight ago, features like the spell-checker was unavailable to me.
>IE
AH, it burns!
Speak not that name of evil!
I tried things like Firefox and Opera but they either lacked certain features I wanted or didn’t work with some sites like I wanted them to.
That’s like wearing no blouse to church because it would not go with the shoes.
well, it’s a valid reason unless you show up naked to church.
I support showing up naked to church.
On my list of “People I do not want to see naked”, Church Ladies are way up near the top.
I support showing up naked to church, and I support people using IE, but I am vehemently against people who use IE showing up naked to church.
IE is my favorite browser, too. The only problems I ever have is with specific sites, and that’s usually the site’s fault, not IE’s.
I don’t know about your specific sites, but IE is still the least standards compliant browser, so pure statistically it is more likely IE’s fault.
I…
WAT
What features???
What sites? and how do they not work “like you want”??
I am not aware of IE having any features that are unique to it, aside from some Windows Domain integration stuff that doesn’t apply outside a corporate network. (Some few features in IE might not be in FF/Chrome out of the box, but they should be available as addons)
Basically no modern site on the public internet targets IE initially/primarily. They basically all target FF and/or Chrome as first targets, then verify others, IE typically being last. Depending on their target demographics they may exclude all IEs beside the most recent one or two (and breath a sigh of relief). Some that do support older IEs allow a greater degree of brokenness there than for other browsers.
IE has made big jumps in standards compliance in the more recent versions (9, 10, 11), but it still is *easily* the worst of the big players on that score. Google doesn’t even support IE9 since 11 came out.
Usually the only places you find sites that work properly only in IE are very old unmaintained sites, certain internal corporate sites at very large, ossified companies, and some small percent of the worst government sites.
That’s what I’m guessing.
Doom is coming.
But David can not use Dr. Doom character 😉
Just like he can’t use Batman or transformers in strips in Shortpacked!, yes.
Shortpacked! is different. For DoA I think he’s disinclined to use references beyond, say, name-dropping Jack Kirby purely in dialogue.
Peppermint Pattie arrives and tears out Marcie’s vocal cords in a fit of ‘roid rage.
Or rather jealousy.
Yeah, with the name and the glasses, I keep waiting for her to call Sal “Sir”.
omg, marcie could speak! Let the speculation about why she doesn’t anymore commence!
She sold her voice to a sea witch in return for badass skateboarding skills.
Funny thing: We’ve never heard Marcie speak. Nothing’s ever been said about her being deaf.
In fact, we know that she’s not deaf, merely mute. We’ve seen Sal talk to her.
Many deaf people can read lips. I’ve worked with several during my years at a college where they pride themselves on the large deaf community.
But I’m pretty sure Marcie’s not deaf anyway. :0
Willis confirmed in an earlier strip that Marcie is mute but not deaf.
We’ve seen Sal talk to her while wearing a motorcycle helmet.
That could still work if those glasses Marcie are wearing are really X-ray goggles, though 😀
I seem to recall Word Of God saying that she was not deaf, only mute.
I think Willis specifically said once or twice that she isn’t deaf. And I’m certain she has understood things Sal has said while wearing her motorcycle helmet, so it can’t be that she reads lips.
Sure about that? Sal’s clothes are rather tight.
Willis has shown she can hear she can hear she is just mute. Now neither it’s psychologically or physical remains to be seen. Most like physical. A lot of different kinds of injury especially to the brain (speech centers) and throat can cause mutism. Not to mention diseases. Plus vocal cords can easily be injured, hence smokers having their voices change. But I fear for the next strip. Cause…. high metal playground equipment…..
OH NO YOU’RE RIGHT
I say she’s either doing it to mess with peoples heads or she made a bet with someone.
I kind of ignored the possibility that it was a brain injury…..WELP. I guess we all know how this little game of king of the mountain is going to end….
Maybe she heard a recording of her voice, was so freaked out by it that she never spoke again.
Least tragic possible explanation: INSTANT IMMERSION
Or a vow of silence.
I got the idea from an episode of Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei where Meru’s muteness was because when she her own voice, she hated it so much, she never spoke again.
ZETSUBOU SHITA!
From what I recall, when they deprived Meru of her texting abilities, her “talking” was more in the form of C’thulu-like growls. Did they say she hated the sound of her voice in the episode where people auditioned to “speak” for her?
She’s the female version of Silent Bob and only talks when it is really really important.
Not saying it was Head Alien…but it was Head Alien.
D’awww, she talkin
Chaotic Good really. Or Neutral. Yeah, neutral.
OH MARCIE BABY NO RUN BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE
Holy Toledo, Marcie spoke actual words. :O
I have a feeling that the iconic phrase* will be screamed across the land within the next few pages.
* Damn you Willis!
Adam West; the best. 😛
NO!
NO NO NO!
Why is she talking?!
Why is she talking in this flashback but not in the present?!
So you mega-evolved your gravitar, huh?
BABY MARCIE OMG
Talking Marcie? What kind of twilight zone are we in?
Cute Marcie? Cute Sal? Me thinks I shall die of the cute. Don’t bring me back.
And Sal speaking without her accent. It so hard to imagine what she sounds like without it.
Cree Summer, is what I’m thinking.
When Sal discovered the 90s X-men cartoon, she liked the character of Rogue so much, she started to talk like her.
in “practice,” it would have been her being shipped off to Tennessee, but I can’t entirely vouch for that working, since my own growing up there means I have no objective basis for comparison
I would say that might be the case, I lived in TN off and on all my life and my accent is still Not From Here in spite of more than 25 years in TX to go with all the years in TN and GA. Even learning to talk in Canada didn’t give me an accent.
My brother on the other hand sounded like a native of where ever about 2 weeks after moving there.
I have a friend who visits often from Germany – for the first day or so, his English is accented with German, but after a few days, it disappears. He’s a linguistic chameleon. Some people are like that.
Yea, I am like that too, comes from being an air force brat and moving a lot. It would take me about 2 to 3 months until I lost the accent and sounded like I grew up wherever I happened to be living, then we would move and I would start the process all over again.
Okay, I don’t have a good grasp of English accents; tell me, is it possible that adult!Sal’s accent is the same as kid!Marcie’s?
If yes, I am willing to bet brownie points that after Marcie loses her ability to speak, Sal speaks this way as a tribute to her.
I don’t think so…Marcie refers to herself as “I” in the second panel. Willis usually has Sal phonetically pronounce it as “Ah” when she’s using the accent.
What if Marcie’s parents had the southern drawl going on. If Sal spent alot of time at Marcie’s house, she may have picked it up. As an homage to them, especially if something tragic happened to them.
I can see Sal doing a Billie, where she aquires parents of a friend because hers are the way they are.
Hard to think of a good term for the Walkertons that doesn’t make them sound like the abusive bastards they are not.
I’m pretty sure Sal took on the accent to appear whiter in hopes of her parents loving her more, but you never know.
HOLY CHRIST MARCIE SPOKE!
Yeah…and it’s freaking me out! O_o
Hrn. Stop being adorable, Lil’ Marcie.
WHAAAAAAT?????
Marcie could vocalize once O.o
Uh oh.
SHE SPEAKS!!
Which probably means something… damaging… on the horizon.
🙁
This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
It’ll get worse and then more worse.
Ain’t that the truth!
Sal/Dr. Horrible OTP
BFFs the beggining. dawww
Attempting heroism in every universe.
2010!Willis: I can’t show Marcie’s eyes, but I want continuity on the glasses and most of them have see-through lenses, WHAT DO? I know! Goggles are opaque! I’ll just have her wear goggles all the time!
2014!Willis: Fuck it. Opaque glasses.
If he constantly gives her goggles, sooner or later she’s going to become a Digidestined and there’s no telling where that could lead!
Humm. DoA cast as Digimon Digidestined. Awww crap…Amber would get Leomon, wouldn’t she??
🙁
NO! FUCK YOU FOR REMINDING ME OF THAT!
Leomon, the Sean Bean of Digimon
nope she would definitely get a version of wizardmon
Oh man. Suddenly I really, really want to see a crossover of Digimon and DoA. Anyone else super excited for the new Digimon coming out?
And Willis said no one dies, so having Leomon in DoA might not be so bad, right?
…No, this is Willis. It’d end even worse, somehow. But it would also involve some interesting character growth, too. So maybe still not so bad?
Actually, her eyes are bigger than Joyce’s, but pure white.
I’ve done just that with a character–intentionally opaque/100% reflective lenses–because I like the joke of not even ME knowing what that character’s eyes look like
[tbh, nothing looked good anyway]
At one point I tried to sit down and work out glasses stuff for all my characters, because I was trying to reconcile them all into one big universe, and I noticed that, bizarrely, any character with glasses I’d created before ninth grade had opaque lenses, and any character with glasses I’d created after that had transparent ones. But more bizarrely it seemed I’d given something like one third of all my protagonists ever some kinda eye covering, which weirded me out a bit.
The bigger problem ultimately turned out to be that trying to reconcile all this stuff turned the universe into a giant unwieldy clusterfuck, so I abandoned the project.
I also used to have a habit of hiding characters’ eyes so that I could then reveal dramatically that they’d had some sort of infection or operation or scar or something that made them even more visually impaired than the audience had been led to believe. It was pretty shitty and I’ve long since stopped.
– I once drew a character with no eyes!
– How did she look?
– Terrible!
Nah, doesn’t work with the eyes.
Wait, Marcie used to talk?! Oh god, this is going to get depressing, isn’t it?
Wait, who’s flash back is this ?
Their grade school’s. It’s conscious, psychically recording the traumas that take place on schoolgrounds, like Hill House or the Overlook Hotel.
While I love that theory and it’s implication, considering the title of this chapter…
actually, wait, that would fit too, in a weird way.
Probably Sal’s. So far, she’s the constant in both flashback comics.
Holy Shi~….she can talk!!!
I’m now hopeful/nervous for lots of Sal/Marcie interaction
Commenter below you is AgentKeen.
Your avatars got mixed up somehow…
???
that IS where I got the name from, though the character is actually Commander Keen, and not agent. Basically, there’s another shareware game about a secret agent that references Commander Keen, so as a kid I always assumed the agent in that game was a grown up version. Thus, he would be Agent Keen.
Apparently, it’s also the name of a character in some show I’ve never seen.
I like how the comments are split between ‘ADORABLE BABY MARCIE’ and ‘OH GOD SHE USED TO TALK, WHAT HAPPENED, THIS IS GOING TO BE SAD’.
DoA in a nutshell.
What other reactions would there be ?
“Even though she was asked to be the villain and willing to play along, notice how Sal’s first reaction is to fight for equality.”
possibly also “WHOA SOME WEIRD TALKING MARCIE-CLONE”
In the name of EVIL!
“Villian” just means that someone is proactive and has bad publicity, really. They could be committing heinous crimes, sure, but it does not seem to be a requirement.
I once did four classifications for villian; antagonist, laughable, fantasy, and scary. Sal would fall into the antagonist classification, where she’s more rival than enemy.
Oh god MARCIE. I DON’T WANT TO KNOW HER STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED BUT I ALSO DO.
Once I have the territory I will release it to the masses WHILE forcing them to adhere to my rule. They’ll comply because the slide is fun. They won’t even notice they’ve become my SLAVES.
Watch as kid Amazi-girl just shows up a challenges her in order to over throw her.
Ooooh, that’s why Marcie recognized Billie in her first appearance.
How can her memory go back that far ?
I remember loads of people from when I was five.
Granted, I saw them for years afterwards.
Because… she clearly knows Sal in the present day and apparently grew up in the same place as the Walkerton and Billingsworth families. She probably met Billie other times beyond this one scene.
By…not being a goldfish?
That’s insulting to goldfish.
Go back how far? Billie and Sal grew up together, ifn you knew one you’d pretty much have to know the other.
Billie and Sal and Walky pretty much grew up together. Marcie would have encountered Billie at some point – likely many many times, and you don’t forget such people easily even after several years.
But even if she only met her once, memory can last far longer than you seem to be implying – I remember people from fourteen years ago still – some of which I never encountered again. Quite a few people from my childhood, I haven’t seen in like, seven years but I still remember them.
Trust me – memories don’t fade away quickly, your brain clings onto them like a greedy octopus. XD
Huh, Sal and Marcie go back farther than I would have thought.
Sal knew the concept of public property before I even knew how to tie my shoes at that age.
Damn. I hoped Marcie became mute prelingually. Damn. Damn.
Marcie….. TALKED?!
Oh no.
Then that means there’s a reason she doesn’t anymore.
A terrible reason.
Probably.
You think there can be a good reason why she’s mute now?
She once said the most perfect thing ever uttered, and hasn’t bothered talking since, because anything else she could say would be a step down?
UNEXPECTED.
So how come everyone is thinking know that shit is going to down because talking Marcie Shows up, again we don’t even know what’s This flashbacks about.
Because we have faith in the Willis.
Horrible, HORRIBLE faith. Like worshipping Cthulhu.
Because generally, people don’t go out of their way to learn sign language if they are simply choosing to not speak, meaning she has somehow lost her ability to speak and needed to learn a different way after this point – so we think we know WHERE this is going to eventually lead to as that is a question that will burn in our minds otherwise but not yet why or how.
It seems to me that using sign language to circumvent a vow of silence would violate the spirit of the vow, if not the letter. The whole point is to eschew communication with others, not just speech. I don’t believe they’re supposed to write letters or pass notes, either.
I’m inclined to agree, but apparently not everyone agrees.
Also, Ada McGrath in The Piano.
Marcie is now the badass of cast.
No, no, releasing the land to the masses is evil. It’s communism in a nutshell. 😛
Exactly! Sal’s got it completely right! XD
Just like Canada…
your reminder (or maybe your TIL!) that the term “mute” is offensive. and I know DOA commenters are smart enough to know that the word “dumb” referring to those who do not speak is no longer in any kind of clinical or correct usage!
check it out, friends: http://nad.org/issues/american-sign-language/community-and-culture-faq
I think you have posted that before, and I am trying to find out where on this page it says “mute” is offensive. It says “deaf-mute” is offensive, because it is used to refer to people who are deaf but are not necessarily mute, and notes that the term is offensive because folks who are deaf are often perfectly capable of making noises and are thus not mute. The page itself uses the word “mute” a few times afterwards during the explanation for this, and no alternative is given.
I am perfectly willing to be made to understand that the term is offensive, but I don’t see anything to that effect in the page you linked.
My dictionary lists mute as one without speach and gives no hint that it is an offensive term. Regardless, I would just as soon not give offence unless I intend to. What is the inoffensive term for someone unable to talk verbally. I’d just as soon use it until someone decides it too is offensive, but that should give a few years.
To be fair, the dictionary is a snapshot of language at a given time, so of course the meaning can change.
In any case, if it’s a thing, someone should update the wiki
We don’t know if Marcie’s lost her ability to speak or simply refuses to talk. If she’s indeed still capable of using her voice chords, then “mute” is an offensive term to describe her & persons with a similar condition, because it’s technically inaccurate.
At least, this is what I understand from reading Rachel’s link.
Marcie does not pretend to not have the ability to make noises come out of her mouth.
I think “pretend to not have the ability” might not be the nicest way to represent someone who doesn’t vocalize due to trauma. the word “pretend” belies the seriousness of the effects of that kind of trauma, I think.
I was not talking about trauma. I was talking about pretending to be mute because it is cool, which is a silly possibility someone else brought up elsewhere. I am reiterating, again, that Marcie does not talk because she cannot.
oh whoops – my bad. didn’t know you were referring to someone thinking someone might do that. I try to keep up on conversations across comment boards but it’s hard to keep track of it all
To be fair, at least one person bringing up the “She might be pretending to be mute!” idea was on Patreon which isn’t exactly a public board of debate.
First off, I presume that this encounter between Marcie and Sal is the beginning of the friendship that is evident in the ‘real’ DoA strip.
The fact that 18-year-old Marcie is so adept in AMSLAN — as well as Sal’s ability to communicate with her through the same medium of sign language — tends to make me believe that this is not a recent development and that both of them acquired the skills together; Marcie because she had to, and Sal because she wanted to still be able to ‘talk’ to her friend.
Quick research divulges that the main reasons for mutism (a legitimate medical term, btw) are an injury to the Broca’s region of the brain; damage to the speech organs such as the larynx or vocal cords; autism; or a traumatic incident resulting in psychological mutism. It will be interesting to see which of these Willis uses to turn Marcie into the non-speaking person she is today.
definitely a case where someone told me the term was offensive, so I took them at face value for that, and then looked up references later. yeah, the offensiveness of “deaf-mute” is all I saw there, too, & have seen elsewhere. I think what Thomas said is probably a better way to say it, esp since I think a lot of people who don’t speak have working vocal chords (and brainpower!), but there is a lot more to speech than those two things, but since terms like “mute” rarely leave room for nuance, I personally avoid it.
If mute is offensive, then what is the preferred terminology?
Fear not: I have looked it up and apparently the preferred term is “non-verbal.” Or just saying, “____ can’t speak.”
Why does every new euphemism always have to have more letters/syllables than the previous term?
That is a legitimate complaint, but I’ve also come up with a probably smug-sounding explanation [not that I mean it that way, but sometimes it comes across as “well, actually”ing]: A lot of condescension comes from reductivism, such as calling African[-American/-European/-etc.-an] people “blacks”–that is, using the otherwise okay adjective as a noun. It makes sense, because the condescending person is reducing the target to as small a being as possible.
I’ve actually used this as a literary technique: the shorter a descriptive term, the more reductivist/insulting the term is. It’s only recently that I realized the extent to which I was deriving that from real life =p
love your explanation!
So, via this logic, “black people” is okay right? Because I’ve never bothered using the African-[insert place here] since most of the black people I’ve met have never been to Africa.In fact, the person who has the most connection to Africa I know is a white girl. I just use black as an adjective, and you said its alright but… well, I’m often an insensitive git.
“Black” as an adjective, as in “black people” is fine–same with “deaf people.” “Black” as a noun by itself is what’s offensive. They are not pigments, they are PEOPLE.
When in doubt, ask the person in question how they identify!
If that was true, then “American” would be just as offensive, they are not just a property, a thing, belonging to the continent or country, they are people. Besides, I’ve always been under the impression that “black” is the preferred term these day, that’s what they use in all the main stream media at least.
Yep! Then you can just feel stupid and have white guilt brushed all over you again when your friends tell you just to use “black” or “Indian” for them, because “African-American” or “Native American” have nothing to do with them. >_>
MindLink: There’s a distinct difference between “That person, who is black” and “That black.” “American” is different because the -an specifies “person from [country/state/planet]”.
Also, I may not hang around enough POCs [which is weird, given the ethnic shift in this area], but I’ve NEVER heard anyone say, “I’m a black” vs. “I am black.”
[/pedantry]
Mindlink: Yes, you’ve discovered the secret, all nouns are incredibly offensive, and what those nouns have been used on or for has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Go play.
Jen: I have heard, and used myself, nouns as self identification, but nearly always as a mockery of people using things as something scary. Also, you and Plasma’s posts are kinda assuming a premise. It doesn’t get much shorter than ‘gay’, for instance.
I can see what you mean but if this enlarging euphemising keeps up, one day the proper terminology will be in the form of whole bloody sentences and that sort of thing will be more annoying than even doubleplusungood.
When p.c. started becoming a thing, I saw a vehicle labled conflagration rescue vehicle. It was red with an attached ladder and a siren on top.
Seriously.
Dude, that would rock! We could be like the ancient egyptians, who had names like Beatiful-in-the-sight-of-Isis or Resting-Easy-in-the-House-of-Ra! I love those mummy wrapping bastards!
I have to work with lots of Indian names like that–some of these folks have like five names, all at least seven letters long <=p like "Ramakrishna Siddharth Kumar Amit Chakravoorthy Mukherjee"
George Carlin covered this concept almost 25 years(!) ago.
Many people who have lost their hearing dislike the term “hearing-impaired” because it implies that they are broken. Many prefer the term “deafened.”
Not talking out of my ass on this. This is actually my oldest sister’s preferred term for herself.
Okay. Non-verbal works for me. At least until someone points out that Marcie uses lots of verbs.
thanks! I think also “doesn’t speak” works as a representation of what they do rather than what others perceive their abilities to be.
will reply to willis above as well
Or maybe ‘aphasic’? Not sure the difference between aphasia and mutism. I have heard aphasia used in reference to loss of speech due to brain damage. I have also read about “elective mutism”, where a person stops speaking in response to trauma.
I learned from Doonesbury that aphasia can definitely be partial, so it’s not exactly descriptive of “cannot talk.”
hmm, thank you for the info, I will look that up too!
As an aphasic person myself (not all the time but it can be paralyzing when it decides I’m not speaking right now) I can definitely say that aphasia =/= “mute”. And aphasia can be a side effect of TBI so there is a possibility that Marcie is about to get a major blow to the noggin coming up.
Until they make a language like Lojban official, we will have to deal with the fact that someone’s gonna get offended for whatever reason.
Especially since, due to the way humans are wired, whatever new “inoffensive” word or phrase is chosen will rapidly become so as all the usual connotations are applied to it.
You can change the labels, but changing the feelings and assumptions and misconceptions is much harder.
Exactly, it is not the word that is offensive, it is the connotations that the speaker puts in the word. If a culture believes that persons with certain characteristics have a different, negative, subset of characteristics, then eventually the descriptor for the-persons-with-certain-characteristics becomes offensive by assosication. The solution is not to stop using the descriptor, as the offence is still there whether or not you use another word instead, labelling the word as tabu is kind of a retreat and not dealing directly with the problem that causes the prejudice in the first place.
I agree, with an addendum – if someone doesn’t want you to label them in a particular way, go along with it, ya? changing terminology doesn’t fix the problem, BUT changing it to people-focused, like Cimorene was talking about below, paying respect to the ways that people want to be called, is a slight change in perception in the noggin of the call-er (as in, NOT the person who doesn’t speak), and that slight change in perception can do wonders. it has for me & I’ve seen it happen in other people. so, “a person who is/does/has x” rather than “an x” or “an x-er.” it’s all got to start somewhere. people are trying to legislate anti-discrimination stuff, so yes, support that, but also support the change in language that supports people’s needs. there are many ways up the mountain!
So saying “Marcie is mute” or “Marcie is a mute person” should be fine and it’s only bad to say “Marcie is a mute.” To choose to another similar term, we say “gay people” not “the gays.”
Reducing a person to an adjective is more problematic than the actual word used.
However, sometimes the proper term is grammatically a noun, so it can’t be that simple. But it does seem that in this case, it does seem correct. Looking at dictionary.com, definition 3 is an adjective meaning “incapable of speech” while definition 7 is a noun meaning “person incapable of speech.” The later is marked as offensive, but not the former.
I think people here so far have been using the adjective.
There’s actually a term for this in linguistics: “the euphemism treadmill”.
Case in point: “Thug” is becoming the new “N-word” that won’t get you fired for saying =p
They are both terribly unaccurate though, and mute is the most technical term without any bad connotations, so I would still say that it is the unoffensive one. And “mute” does not say anything about the cause of the muteness, otherwise every single remote control on the planet is wrong, it just means that the sound is stopped.
I would bet that some folks don’t want to be compared to an action you perform at your tv? though this is all still with the caveat that I’ve ever only known one person who I was told that the term “mute” was inappropriate and offensive, and I haven’t been able to find proof that any more than just “deaf-mute” was offensive.
Why not just call Marcie deaf? Do we have some reason to think she isn’t? I imagine that people like Snake-Eyes, who can hear but not talk, are actually pretty rare. The fact that Sal uses ASL to talk to Marcie strongly suggests that Marcie is deaf and not simply incapable of speech.
I like marcie, but I do well with non-verbal communication. (Rubs fusion cannon lovingly.)
well, i’ve said she’s not deaf a number of times and also she talks to sal all the time while her helmet’s on
I honestly have never seen you say that Marcie wasn’t deaf. It was a genuine question.
With you posting in character as a cartoon villain it’s hard to tell if you’re serious or you’re intentionally being obtuse by arguing in favor of the one thing everyone else agreed was wrong.
It was a genuine question.
_’your reminder (or maybe your TIL!) that the term “mute” is offensive.’_
No it isn’t. (What term are you implying should be used instead?)
rachel, what term would you like us to use to describe a person who cannot speak? I mean, besides ‘a person who cannot speak’, that gets awkward, I’d like something shorter.
‘Mute’ seems to work, I don’t see why it would be considered offensive. Then again, I don’t see why ‘black’ is offensive, either, and people do find it so. I guess it’s just a matter of history.
the shortest description is easiest for the describer, not for the describee! it’s about taking the time to care enough to say “person who doesn’t speak” rather than a shorter label.
Except when the describer is the describee.
I remember the last time this discussion came up, and I think the conclusion was that “mute” is offensive when applied to people who are actually just deaf. I don’t think anyone was able to confirm that people who legitimately can’t talk are offended by being labeled “mute” or “mute people”. Corrections appreciated.
What ARE the reasons someone would stop speaking?
whoops posted too late. you’re all way ahead of me. good work everybody! thanks
I can think of four reasons someone would stop speaking.
1. A physical inability to speak such as a lack of vocal chords or tounge.
2. A mental inability to speak as caused by brain injury or emotional trauma.
3. An inability to control the speech mechanism properly as in the lack of feedback from sound or positional sensations.
4. A volentary cesation of speech for some believed or anticipated good, as with a religious vow of silence.
The cuter this gets, the more terrified I become of the moment where it’s all going to go horribly wrong.
Yeah, Willis has us trained well.
My immediate thought was ‘Is that a kid version of Tedd from El Goonish Shive’? Can’t be. Then I somehow convinced myself this was kid Amber, but I somehow totally forgot Marcie existed.
Yeah, my first thought was Tedd as well.
Uh-oh. Marcie can talk in this. So that means something removed her ability to speak.
I sense either incoming or implied trauma/injury. O_O
She is sitting on the very top of the play-structure – a far distance for a five-year-old to fall.
By the way, they’re very articulate for five-year-olds.
Marcie is going to serve as some sort of Satanic figure who encourages Sal to do ever more horrible things until losing her voice due to divine punishment!
Wait, sorry, Joyce was in my head. Which is too bad because then it led to Ethan and Danny making out while she watched.
To many conservatives (and the Russian aristocracy), Sal’s using the term “evil” correctly.
Yes, Evil. As interpreted by Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. Bwahaha.
This kind of suggests Marcie having gone through something bad at some point.
Uh oh…I have a bad feeling that Sal accidentally injured Marcie causing he to not be able to talk!
…please let me be wrong.
Doh, i meant – Causing “Her” to not be Able to talk
(Stupid finger not hitting the letter!!!)
Incoming disaster for Marcie
Hark! Something disrupted my alt-text!
After teaching on the Apache reservation I had two selectively mute students in my class. That’s what special ed departments refer to it as, I don’t think it’s considered offensive. Though you are supposed to use person first language “This student is hearing impaired” vs. “The hearing impaired student”, or whatever special need is being talked about.
Also <3 Marcie still =)
yeah I have seen it in someone that it was trauma-borne, so that’s what they would say “selectively mute” about? hmm. that seems like the kind of terminology that might be changed before long, but til it actually is (or til I hear otherwise) I won’t quibble with it. would you say “the student who doesn’t speak?”
In the classroom you don’t really have the luxury of saying that much in the quick moment. If you have a guest you could say “Jonah is very quiet/doesn’t speak” or the kids will do it “HE DON’T TALK!” *face palm*. The two boys I had would communicate with writing, nodding, head shaking, and gestures. They also would talk with other kids, but not to adults. And I think it was from the home they were taught not to speak to adults. One boy came back and said there was a “thing” in the bathroom. I send Isaac, because he was trustworthy, and forgot he wouldn’t be able to confirm or deny the presence of a “something”. He comes back and I ask “Was there something in the bathroom.” and he nods. “Was it good or bad?” *shrug* “Was it big or small?” *big arms* At that point another adult in the hall said there was nothing in there, but all the boys were convinced there was.
A lot of people who identify with Deaf culture consider the term “hearing impaired” to be offensive. It is a term imposed upon them by those who consider them impaired,: broken, in need of fixing. I also recall choclear implants being called a form of genocide, but I believe that rhetoric has calmed down quite a bit.
yeah that’s a world that though I don’t have personal experience with it, I find it really awesome that a culture, worth preserving, has been born around the experience. as I guess all cultures are!
Has it? I seem to recall that deafness is not genetic, so cochlear implants really is “killing” a deaf person in order to create a person who can kinda sorta hear and as a result will spend a lot of time having to “catch up” to everyone else and so is at a disadvantage compared to if they just learned sign language.
Certainly some deafness is genetic, some is not. No idea of the ratio. But I don’t see how genetic or not would influence whether it was killing the culture. (which is all I have heard of, I never heard of it compared to “killing” a person)
Removing the only potential members of a community is kind of genocide by definition! Sure, there can still be deaf *culture*, but there’s a distinct difference between learning about deafness and actually not being able to hear.
MythBusters tested a myth about a blind person being able to drive a car, and their results from driving blindfolded were distinctly different from someone who was 100% blind from birth.
[Counterpoint: People are regularly destroying their hearing, so maybe that’s a trade-off?]
As a person who is legally blind, terms like visually-impaired or half-blind are perfectly fine to use, they’re not inheritedly insulting unless the person says it in such a way that they mean for it to be insulting.
And that can always occur. ‘Mute’ is offensive for the same reason that ‘black’ is – people of that culture have had it used derogatorily against them, and it’s left a mark. Neither term is inherently offensive.
I find it interesting when individuals who share a handicap form a culture out of the handicap, and start defending it against those who would seek to ‘cure’ it. Then again, there are a few instances in modern history where physical or cultural differences were viewed by societies as ‘diseases’, who sought to wipe them out.
Without question, Braille and sign-language are incredibly useful tools, and it does not surprise me that a culture has grown up around them – I’m a computer programmer, and I know the ridiculously cool culture that’s grown up around our language-tools. Would it be worth the hit that culture would take to eliminate the impairments that caused the culture to develop? It’s a hard question.
and harder still: how do you stop it when it gets out of hand? Imagine if someone cured away the entire autism spectrum! I wouldn’t exist!
.
.
.
and I like existing.
What does deafness being genetic have to do with anything? If it’s caused by your DNA, how is that different from it being caused by anything else?
Deafness is not something inherited from your parents, like red hair or blue eyes, so deaf parents will not necessarily have deaf children to “pass down” the culture.* Therefore, the parents who would rather mutilate their children to make them “normal” are throwing away their chance to be part of a special community, in order to have children who will be farther behind their peers as a result.
*per the vehement argument against cochlear implants I read that I can’t find because I don’t want to spend all tonight searching for one specific internet article AGAIN
**sorry, I know I really ought to be better than that, but an exercise for the reader, yay
As I understand the argument, if it’s genetic, it’s possible to pass it on to your kids, so a cochlear implant that enabled the deaf person to hear wouldn’t necessarily be “genocide”, since it doesn’t resolve the root cause of the deafness and doesn’t remove that person from the deaf gene pool, as it were. Whereas if someone was born with the ability to hear, but somehow lost it (or was born deaf but from non-genetic causes) then they wouldn’t be able to pass the deafness on to their offspring, so by restoring their hearing you’re removing that person from the culture, period.
As I say, that’s as I understand it. Now, whether or not restoring or imparting the ability to hear to someone who previously was unable to hear counts as a form of genocide or not, is another entirely different argument; but as I understand it that’s how the genetic question fits into the argument.
Most people who receive cochlear implants as infants have language skills on par with hearing children by the time they enter kindergarten (results aren’t as good if they get implants after age two or three). Children without implants, on the other hand, graduate high school on average reading at a third-grade level, and something like 60% of them will be chronically unemployed or severely underemployed.
Really ? I find that very hard to believe, I find it almost impossible to believe that most people with disabilities, especially ones that form after an accident, *would not* see themselves as “impaired,: broken, in need of fixing”. It is an injury they suffered, it is not part of who they are. It would be like if I got ebola, I wouldn’t take offence with anyone trying to cure me. Show me a blind person that would not immediately jump at the chance to see again, or a mute to speak or deaf to hear. Or a paraplegic to walk. Disregarding reality does not equal respect, and seems a whole lot more offensive in my mind.
It’s not hard to understand when someone has lived all or the majority of their life deaf wouldn’t see it as a condition that needs to be fixed because that is part of who they are.
This a completely different situation than a person who is disabled following an injury or trauma.
Also being deaf and having Ebola is not a valid comparison especially in two major concepts. Being deaf is not contagious nor is it fatal.
Then consider diabetes. Diabetes is not contagious and the risks can be managed with a careful diet and medicine. It’s wanting to cure that more comparable? I’m willing to bet they’re are people out there who consider being diabetic an important component of their identity.
I have a diabetic friend whose life has changed drastically as a result of his diabeetus [he is among the biggest fans of the Wilford Brimley meme]: it forced him to eat better and exercise, and as a result he’s more fit than he’s ever been, despite having to do all the insulin shots and that. I don’t think he’d care about being defined by his diabetes–but then, everyone’s too busy defining him as an accidental racist instead =p [I don’t know how much of that is joke]
ANYWAY JUST SAYIN’ MAYBE BEING BROKEN IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER
That’s kind of my point. What is “disabled” and what isn’t is largely subjective. Even in an official sense, disability pay can change over time based on the expectations of your job changing, essentially making you “more disabled.”
However, I don’t think anyone would say that we should stop researching ways to mitigate or even cure diabetes. Such a cure is something enough people want and would provide enough of a benefit to them that we should pursue that. Some people not being interested in such doesn’t mean we’re dehumanizing them, as long as we don’t force it on people.
I feel like other disabilities like paraplegia, deafness, blindness, or muteness aren’t much different.
Speaking as someone with experience: I know *many* disabled people who do not consider themselves in need of fixing, including myself. Some use wheelchairs, some are Blind, many Autistic spectrum including non-speaking Autistic people.
Many would also take a cure if offered, but assuming that all would is just as inaccurate as assuming none would.
I have a hearing impaired student this year. All of that student’s documents say that and I get to wear a nifty microphone so she can hear me directly to her hearing aides. I have lots of friends who are deaf or sign language interpreters. The terms are only offensive if they’re used to be degrading, but normally are just the easiest way to explain something.
Maybe in college she’s majoring as a special ed teacher/sign language interpreter and is just practicing? Also, sign is great for not telling other people things. My friends and I would talk to each other in our educator classes behind the professor’s back. Or other people would and I’d eavesdrop >.>
No, Marcie has been confirmed to be mute.
My mum went to a boarding school; she and the other girls used sign language to be able to keep talking after they were supposed to be asleep. *Grin* And every time I’m in a bar I have to admit to wanting to be able to carry on a conversation with it.
When my son was very little, before he could talk, we taught him a few basic signs (hungry, thirsty, sleepy, all full, want milk/apple/water, thank you) which was a tremendous help for figuring out what he wanted! Nothing like a toddler who can come up and sign that they’re hungry instead of crying at you until you figure it out.
Babies can make signs long before they can form understandable words. Trust me, especially for the first kid, do yourself a favour and teach them a few!
All sorts of useful applications for AmSlang even for hearing/verbal (or pre-verbal lol) people.
HOLY SHIT SHE SPOKE
Origin story ahoy!
Man, after reading all of the “something TERRIBLE must have happened” in this comment section, I’m kind of hoping Willis never addresses the events that lead to Marcie’s disability, or if he does, that they are relatively undramatic. I am just excited to see baby Marcie! And learn things about her besides the facts that she signs and is super badass!
was gonna say I bet it was something as “boring” as “was running with a ruler, tripped, and choked on it” but that just means my bf has no gag reflex…
[true]
i totally thought that was amber for a sec
me tooooo
Your Gravatars are so appropriate!
Hahaha..so true. So did I.
YESS IM NOT ALONE
ditto
+1
The weird thing is, this isn’t even <a href="http://www.scarygoround.com/?date=20140923" title="A really unexpected CHALLENGER APPEARS”>today’s most horrifyingly portentous webcomics flashback.
Well, bugger.
Sal, villian for the masses! <3
She can’t be Marcie… she’s not calling everyone “Sir”.
Dammit! Why does Sal have to be misunderstood and good at heart? Why can’t she, like Ethan the Kidnapper, be a cruel evil person! It’d be much more enjoyable that way.
Oh well, at least I have Mary.
I think you meant that douche Blaine, not Ethan
No, I thought Ethan was at his coolest right before the Blue Screen of Death. I always liked the idea that underneath the moral certainty was the heart of a Walter White. Sadly, we haven’t seen him peddling toys of the backroom with Ultracar as the Shortpacked finale wearing a pork pie hat.
Oh right, I need to stop turning all things into Breaking Bad.
Yeah that might help
In the last panel especially Marcie looks like a SMBC character. I guess just because Zach draws a lot of opaque glasses?
Yess!!
This will end with a peace treaty that satisfies nobody and will lead to another war. Clearly.
Compromise is the solution where nobody’s happy!
Or rather, a little happy. The alternative is that one side gets f’ed in the a and twenty years later comes back with a vengeance.
On one hand, these pages are the most adorable thing! But I can’t help but think that he’s just softening us up before he goes for the jugular… of feels. Everything has been nice for a good few weeks now. Its suspicious.
I see what you did there
*sets up the tissue box, checks aloe content, runs to get better aloe tissues, returns and waits for the punch to the feels*
So when does storm shadow show up and sever her vocal chords?
You, sir, have taken fear and dread to a whole new level. Congratulations!
And then a fully aged Mike shows up, wearing purple shoes and green striped socks…
Walkyyyy baaabbiiesss…
Mike won’t show up in this flashback, he’s too busy doing moms for nickles.
Calling it now: Sal robbed the store to help Marcie because she feels responsible for her mutism. Probably something like needing money for an operation or something like that.
She robbed the store to force her parents to pay attention to her.
By providing the money for Marcie’s speech treatment.
Oh, I’d actually been wondering about that. So they didn’t meet at the catholic school, and Marcie hasn’t always been mute. So Sal didn’t just show up at the Catholic School and start learning sign language to communicate with some stranger. Presumably they were friends for a while, the incident occurred, and then Sal learned sign language so she could continue communicating with her friend.
I keep thinking that Marcie’s parents were a sort of parent figures to Sal and something happened to them shortly before Sal’s gas station robbery.
Am I the only one thinking of a certain quote from ‘The Last Battle’.
Wasn’t thinking about it, but do you mean the one about where if you do something good and noble in the name of Tash, even though you used the name ‘Tash’, it’s as if you said ‘Aslan’?
Not because they’re the same, but rather because they’re such opposites that no good deed can serve Tash and no vile deed can serve Aslan…
I wonder if it is possible to get a happy meal marcie?
Welp, the title of the comic just took on some horrific new subtext.
Something bad will probably happen, and it’ll be no one’s fault. Bet that Sal will still get blamed for it, though.
Rugrat sized kids should not be on the top of playground equipment, since Marcie is on the roof of a slide. So we know exactly who’s to blame… the mother and the father.
Plus baby Sal does have non-walky style hair, even at this age.
“…and STOP CALLING ME SIR!”
I must say, I love the subtle, fantastic (as in fantasy, not like “super-awesome”) references to walkyverse stuff.
Oh, that’s Marcie? I thought it was Tedd.
I also thought Sal was Sydney Yus.
Everyone has to start somewhere.
Oh, five-year-olds talking politics. Please let Marcie keep her speech for a bit longer. She can lose it in a different flashback. This one can be about Sal losing favor in the eyes of her parents or something.
Typically in media, rebel types are more prone towards evil than good unless there’s some evil empire to rebel against. But it seems like Sal is very much the opposite. She likes going against authority, but she’s actually a rather kind person. Other than racism and related self image issues, she’s been very patient and good to just about everyone, even though her mannerisms are distant at times. Think of how she treats Joyce, Danny, Billie, and Walky when he goes to apologize.
After that realization, I’m suddenly much more interested in finding out even more about the robbery. We’ve only seen it from Amber’s perspective, and she was hardly objective about it. There’s almost definitely more to that picture. Why did Sal do it? What were things like from her perspective? Where was Marcie? The more I see of Sal and the more I think about her, the more I like her.
Oh snap! Marcie talks…that’s another character we gotta add to Dubbing of Age. Actually, maybe all the flashback kids should be voiced by actual kids. Hmm.
Yes, please! UGH, hearing adults who think they can portray young kids, especially, is horrifying after hearing ACTUAL kids.
My little girl is five, if you need someone…
… isn’t this how LOTS of evil people start off?
On the playground?
Whhyyyy….is young Ted in this comic? O.O; (Read El Goonish Shive if you don’t know who I am talking about.)