Reasonable Comics For Reasonable People

[Darth_Payn]

What's this? Honest, open, rational discussion of problems in the video game industry? What madness is this? First Jim Sterling gives us a Jimquisition not about gender or publisher dickery, now this?! WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?!

Oh don't worry, Mr. Strawman, you'll still find plenty of work in political cartoons. And YouTube comments. And on cable news. And on prime time cartoons when the episode gets political. Man, does this not look good for us.

 

[Eric the Orange]

I approve of this new direction the comic is taking. Keep it up with the calm rational discussion chaps.

 

[Agayek]

Reasonable Comics For Reasonable People

A mild comic that won't hurt your tum tum.

Read Full Article

This is really pedantic and irrelevant, but once I spotted it, I just had to ask:

Why does the Strawman's magazine have a penguin of all things next to Weird Al?

 

[Ticklefist]

After the last one I guess some epic backpedaling was necessary.

Oh come on, this is as far from backpedaling as humanly possible.
It's cycling.
With a jet attached.
Whilst screaming "YOLO" at the top of your lungs.

Maybe it's going over my head. Last week's post equated a frustrating group of posters to a murderer. This one condemns such strawmanning. It's not self-referential and seems to be pointing the finger away from itself instead of toward it, but it's still quite the about face.

 

[Vegosiux]

Why does the Strawman's magazine have a penguin of all things next to Weird Al?

The fact that it makes no sense is the perfect proof that it's exactly what had to be there. It is Weird Al we're talking about, after all.

 

[Agayek]

Well, its about parody. Weird Al does parody, so I assume the penguin/duck/swan/birdthingy is somehow related to a noteworthy parody or series of parodies.

Yea, that's my assumption too, but I don't remember there being any penguins involved in any major parodies, so I was hoping Grey would chime in and tell me.

Or reveal that it put there for the sake of being pretty.

Either works really.

Edit:

Maybe it's going over my head. Last week's post equated a frustrating group of posters to a murderer. This one calls out such strawmanning. It's not self-referential and seems to be pointing the finger away from itself instead of toward it, but it's still quite the about face.

1) It wasn't equating anything to murder. It was mocking them by taking their position and normal behavior to the logical extreme. This is known as satire and/or parody. It was drawing attention to the ridiculousness of their behavior, not condemning it as equal to murder.

Seeing such says a lot more about you than the comic.

2) Even if it had, that isn't a strawman. It's being self-righteous and an Appeal to Extremes fallacy, but it's not a strawman.

 

[Vegosiux]

Maybe it's going over my head. Last week's post equated a frustrating group of posters to a murderer. This one calls out such strawmanning. It's not self-referential and seems to be pointing the finger away from itself instead of toward it, but it's still quite the about face.

Actually, this comic is more along the lines of "Well people got upset over our last one, so we're just going to put a placeholder 'politically correct' thing here and use it to passively-aggressively mock people who took issue with our last one".

Thing is. If this comic was serious, it would have been awesome. Because it would drive the point home that level-headed discussion is needed, that clear communication is paramount, and that strawmen ineed need to lose employment. THAT IS AN ACTUAL, LEGITIMATE POINT.

But in the context of recent events, I can't take the comic seriously. It's a parody again, and again, it's a parody that's gone wrong and been misdirected. A bit like the "worst chiropractor ever" comic would have been funny if not burdened by the references, but the moment I figured out what it referenced, it suddenly stopped being funny and started being pretentious. Context is a *****.

Of course word of the author might correct me, and tell me I'm wrong, and that he tried to make a serious point about the need for communication. In which case I will offer apologies for misinterpreting the comic. But if this is a parody directed at the people who took issue with the last one, it's just more self-gratifying, pretentious bullshit.

 

[Something Amyss]

*Sigh* Another one selfishly living off the government benefits paid for by hard working Americans.
Thanks Obama.

Hey! Hey! You leave that strawman alone! He's worked his head off and what has he got? A bad back from all those beatings!

OT: This comic offends me because reasons.

...Not really, but I can definitely see people being bothered.

 

[Ruzinus]

Remember when comics were about being amusing and not about fighting nonexistent enemies? What exactly is this in response to? The "shitstorm" the last comic generated? Except, there was no shitstorm. I mostly skipped through pages and skimmed the topic for it, but what I saw was mostly a lot of people predicting a shitstorm, one guy banned for a post that said the comic was flamebaiting and... yeah no, that's all the post said, a couple rational responses against the subject of the comic... and mostly a big old argument about the Zimmerman case. Guess what? The Zimmerman case is a COMPLEX THING. Of course it generates long discussions. That's not equivalent to a shitstorm.

I saw no rage generated from the last comic. Maybe there was an isolated piece or so of it that I missed from my cursory examination, but it sure didn't create any storms or stand out against the things I mentioned above.

Which leaves the question: What the hell is this a response to?

But whatever, the community seems to love it. And if these people need an "other" to hate, a nonexistent one is probably the most harmless one.

 

[Mr F.]

I like to pretend this comic is a call for people to be more level-headed and reasonable when discussing issues, especially in the relatively trivial sphere of gaming. I know it's really a passive aggressive and snarky response to all the people who dared to be insulted and upset by their previous comic and the massive flaming thread that resulted from it, but I like to pretend it could be something more.

Part of what was frustrating about the "White Guy Defense force" comic is that such aggressive, dismissive, and insulting caricatures of different viewpoints or opinions like the ones found in that comic are already far too common in these discussions. They are a major part of why so many discussions devolve into pointless flame wars like the thread on last weeks comic. We need far more encouragement of the attitude of mutual respect that can bring forth actual discussion and growth found and subsequently mocked in this weeks comic.

This comic would have been brilliant if it wasn't for the subtext of "Oh well, people got insulted so I guess we won't try to do anything funny ever again." It's a shame.

Agreed. I just rolled my eyes at the last comic and moved on without responding, because I knew they were just trolling for views. This comic would have been clever if the last one was funny, and not agonizing for anyone other than manginas to read.

Are you being sarcastic? Or did you just seriously call me a Mangina. And quite a few of my friends. And all the people who liked last weeks episode.

mangina
Web definitions
A derisive term for a man with a pronounced feminine side, or a weak masculine side.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mangina

Yeah. What the hell man.

Grey, if you are reading this, enough webcomic artists have turned the medium into a joke

Ok, I am leaning more towards sarcasm unless you mean to say that turning Webcomics into a joke is a bad thing, particularly webcomics like this one which exist to amuse.

by pulling this crap. I know you're better than this. The viewership might be down, but please have some integrity. Please don't jump the shark, if you haven't already.

(inb4 the next comic mocking that last statement)

That's all I really have to say.

All you had to say was "I am going to casually insult anyone who found last weeks comic funny". Awesome. Stay classy.

This weeks comic, whilst less entertaining then last weeks, still got a weak smile out of me. It is hard to beat last weeks comic though.

 

[Vegosiux]

Seeing such says a lot more about you than the comic.

I wish this line of though was gone, purged, put to rest, exterminated and all other synonyms for "erased from history".

A person's opinion on one particular issue doesn't say much about what kind of person they are, unless said opinion is actually in the extreme ends (and "not liking an inflammatory piece of web content" isn't nearly extreme). People who disliked last week's comic aren't necessarily all scum, nor are people who liked it all necessarily good drinking buddies.

Plus, not only that, such line of logic creates contradictions the moment it's consistently applied. If getting offended proves people were "right about you"...well...I could employ that fallacy to take over the world. And I mean literally. I wouldn't even have to lift a finger to be rid of those who would stand in my way - a few words and a Batman gambit would do.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Reasonable people? On the INTERNET?
Tread softly, as we begin our search for the endangered and illusive Internet Reasonable Person, or Homo Penitus Irrationabile. It will be a long and arduous journey, we will encounter trolls and be mocked by them for no reason. We will encounter faux reasonables, who the unobservant will consider the real thing. Some believe that the true Reasonable is an extinct animal in this hostile environment of flame wars, trolls, and griefers, or even mythical. However, through time, skill, and effort, we shall locate the creature.

 

[Eric the Orange]

After the last one I guess some epic backpedaling was necessary.

Oh come on, this is as far from backpedaling as humanly possible.
It's cycling.
With a jet attached.
Whilst screaming "YOLO" at the top of your lungs.

Maybe it's going over my head. Last week's post equated a frustrating group of posters to a murderer. This one condemns such strawmanning. It's not self-referential and seems to be pointing the finger away from itself instead of toward it, but it's still quite the about face.

I think "the joke" is that perfectly reasonable discussion isn't funny. He's saying that if the last comic wasn't overblown the way it was it wouldn't be funny.

 

[Something Amyss]

You know you don't actually have to be mean and offensive to do comedy. Look at XKCD, they have been in business a lot longer than you and are still good and not offensive as far as I know.

Basically, what you mean by that is "hasn't offended me personally."

They've (He's?) even had people comment in their forums, clearly offended by content.

Maybe not "mean," but I question whether Grey and Corey are mean in the first place, so....

The best way to deal with them is to ignore their comments, just let it go, stop giving them attention, it might sound crazy but it's not a issue worth stressing over.

In inaction, you are choosing to let them speak for you, to portray the community as such.

It's been repeated so many times as to become cliché and maybe even trite, but if you choose not to act, you've still chosen (and acted).

Ignoring such actions sends the message to the mainstream that we condone it.

Oh, come on. You know strawmen will always have jobs as long as CNN and Fox News exist.

That's unfair. CNN hasn't reported anything since 2003. They don't use strawmen because they're too busy with iReports and dudebro selfies. I'm not sure they even HAVE anything left to strawman.

 

[Vegosiux]

In inaction, you are choosing to let them speak for you, to portray the community as such.

It's been repeated so many times as to become cliché and maybe even trite, but if you choose not to act, you've still chosen (and acted).

Ignoring such actions sends the message to the mainstream that we condone it.

WTB 238 more hours in every day so that I can act/speak out against every single thing I might not agree with and every single thing that I do not condone, while still sleeping, working, engaging in my social life, and my hobbies. 262 hours per day should do for that. 24 are decidedly too few.

 

[The Wooster]

Mel Brooks once said: ([a href="http://dailytrojan.com/2009/10/20/entertainer-mel-brooks-discusses-his-blazing-career/"]Here[/a])

"You have to love {what} you parody."

That, I think is the major failing of Critical Miss, and why their "Parody" comics draw so much heat. There doesn't seem to be much Love from Grey and Carter. Most of their topical comics come across more as mean spirited and derisive. I'd say it's more [a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire"]Satire[/a].

You will never make friends with Satire. It is, by definition ridicule.

If all you're looking for is page views and traffic, I'd say your technique is perfect. Inflammatory statements usually are for that.

However, if you're trying to promote honest discussion and progress... I don't think Ridicule and derision ever lead to anything constructive happening. At least not on the internet.

I really don't think they are super concerned with promoting "honest discussion and progress". I think they are primarily concerned with putting out a popular comic.

The point is that the best referential humour (in this case, satire and parody) are borne from affection. Humour borne from anything else, in the rare event that it is funny, will date quickly. In this case, the humour was borne from intentional controversy (better known as 'trolling') and a desire to draw out a jab at an easy target. Example: I don't think you're going to see any 'blackface' pantomimes any time in the near future, when a century or two ago they were all the rage. This comic is running on the same brand of humour, but directing it at one of our generation's easy targets instead.

Blackface pantomimes were written by white people. That's the difference. Also, casting aspirations on my intentions - " you're just trolling for hits " - isn't an argument, it's a statement, evidence please. And no "some people got offended!" doesn't count. The strip offends people all the time. I set out to write a funny joke, the fact it was incendiary to a certain strata of people was just a bonus.

"Parody has to be affectionate," is interesting, because it effectively allows you to judge content based on (your estimation of) authorial intent. I get the same shit from Evangelion fans every time I make an Eva strip. I personally agree that parody has to come from a caring place, but what I've noticed is that the people being parodied can't tell the difference.

Finally; Critical Miss is (predominantly) a gaming webcomic on a gaming website. The vast majority of my audience consists of white males under thirty and the Escapist is swarming with the same at varying levels of intelligence. If I wanted an easy target I'd hit EA, Sarkeesian, Activision [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/10282-Conflict-of-Interest] or any of the other sanctioned whipping boys. I wouldn't (on occasion) demand some degree of introspection from my audience.

I saw no rage generated from the last comic. Maybe there was an isolated piece or so of it that I missed from my cursory examination, but it sure didn't create any storms or stand out against the things I mentioned above.

WHAT PLANET IS THIS?

 

[RJ Dalton]

Oh, come on. You know strawmen will always have jobs as long as CNN and Fox News exist.

That's unfair. CNN hasn't reported anything since 2003. They don't use strawmen because they're too busy with iReports and dudebro selfies. I'm not sure they even HAVE anything left to strawman.

Oh, right. Maybe I was thinking of MSNBC? I'm not sure, really. I remember there was some American news outlet that was like Fox, but on the other side of the political spectrum, but I haven't paid attention to the news in a long time.
American news, anyway. I mostly watch BBC and occasionally Russia Today. True, RT has it's own bias, but at least it's apparent what it is and they do occasionally bring up stuff worth looking into on your own time.

 

[Agayek]

I wish this line of though was gone, purged, put to rest, exterminated and all other synonyms for "erased from history".

A person's opinion on one particular issue doesn't say much about what kind of person they are, unless said opinion is actually in the extreme ends (and "not liking an inflammatory piece of web content" isn't nearly extreme). People who disliked last week's comic aren't necessarily all scum, nor are people who liked it all necessarily good drinking buddies.

Plus, not only that, such line of logic creates contradictions the moment it's consistently applied. If getting offended proves people were "right about you"...well...I could employ that fallacy to take over the world. And I mean literally. I wouldn't even have to lift a finger to be rid of those who would stand in my way - a few words and a Batman gambit would do.

Actually, a person's opinion about anything can, and often does, reveal a staggeringly huge amount about them as an individual.

Everyone views everything they come into contact with through the filter of their preconceptions, beliefs, and perspective. We can't help this. It's simply how the human mind works. We draw relations to things we are more familiar with, categorize things in the ways we already know, etc, etc. This colors the things we perceive and is what leads to such wildly different interpretations of the exact same thing. By recognizing that fact, one can then spot bias, preconceived notions, and flawed or incomplete conclusions relatively easily.

Now, this doesn't mean that someone with a strong negative opinion on something is automatically a bad person, and I most emphatically didn't say that. It does, however, reveal that the person in question was offended by the comic in question, and that he therefore identifies in some way with the target of mockery. This, in turn, reveals his bias and perspective, which reveals a great deal of his view of the world.

Whereas it doesn't really reveal anything about the comic beyond the fact that someone in the universe doesn't like it.

 

[Something Amyss]

WTB 238 more hours in every day so that I can act/speak out against every single thing I might not agree with and every single thing that I do not condone, while still sleeping, working, engaging in my social life, and my hobbies. 262 hours per day should do for that. 24 are decidedly too few.

Ah, reducto ad absurdum.

Thankfully, you don't need to spend all your time protesting to make your voice heard.

 

[Ukomba]

Pft, well this isn't going to get a thousand posts.