Reasonable Comics For Reasonable People

[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.

 

[Agayek]

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'm going to quote this and leave it here primarily in the (probably vain) hope that by putting it down twice, more people will read it. Especially the bolded line.

My secondary purpose is to go on to this:

That last line is almost certainly why you got so much flak for Friday's comic. People don't like recognizing their own shortcomings.

That said, despite how much ranting and raving resulted, I think you did a good job of exactly what you (appeared to) set out to do. Today too, and several past comics for that matter. You consistently make good points through satire, and while I don't agree with anywhere near all of it, you and Cory are able to consistently express the point quite eloquently in an extremely limited medium.

Thank you for classing up the place.

Also: seriously, what's with the penguin on the magazine in today's comic?

 

[Vegosiux]

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

[citation needed]

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.

You forgot to account for the fact that different beliefs, preconceptions and perspectives may lead to the same conclusion. And since the conclusion is the only thing you have as a frame of reference, knowing nothing of the thought process behind it, attributing one specific possible line of thought to all of them is fallacious - they might not all be the result of the same beliefs, preconceptions or perspectives.

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.

Your tone was rather smug though, so the implication was there.

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 is of course, correct. But also the source of a conundrum. You're failing to separate association with individual traits from association with the entire character. For example, the "omega guy" is wearing a fedora. Anyone who regularly wears a fedora has a degree of association to him - regardless of all other traits.

But just because they identify themselves with "omega guy"'s fedora-wearing doesn't mean they're identifying themselves with any other trait of the "omega guy". They don't have to underhandedly be accused of "omega guy"'s obnoxiousness just because they take issue with the implied link between fedora-wearing and obnoxiousness - yet this is exactly what happened.

This, in turn, reveals his bias and perspective, which reveals a great deal of his view of the world.

[citation needed]

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

Ah yes, "true art" and all that.

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

I do if I want to protest against every single thing that I do not condone, actually. There are many such things and constructing an argument against each one takes some time.

 

[Agayek]

[citation needed]

That's what the rest of the post and the arguments contained therein was all about. I'm reasonably sure I could dig through some psychology journals and find something more concrete to back it up, but I really can't be bothered to put that much effort into an internet argument. Feel free to dismiss everything I've said by attacking that though. I'm sure it will, through some arcane sorcery, counter my points.

You forgot to account for the fact that different beliefs, preconceptions and perspectives may lead to the same conclusion. And since the conclusion is the only thing you have as a frame of reference, knowing nothing of the thought process behind it, attributing one specific possible line of thought to them is fallacious.

This is where inference, logic, and analysis comes into play. The specific language used, patterns of behavior, the content of what they said, etc, etc. In other words, reading between the lines. It is equally effected by the "filter of their preconceptions, beliefs, and perspective", and all of it gives clues to those same things.

Your tone was rather smug though, so the implication was there.

Because written text is so well known for conveying tone. -_-

This is of course, correct. But also the source of a conundrum. You're failing to separate association with individual traits from association with the entire character. For example, the "omega" guy is wearing a fedora. Anyone who regularly wears a fedora has a degree of association to him - regardless of all other traits.

But just because they identify themselves with "omega guy"'s fedora-wearing doesn't mean they're identifying themselves with any other trait of the "omega guy". They don't have to underhandedly be accused of "omega guy"'s obnoxiousness just because they take issue with the implied link between fedora-wearing and obnoxiousness - yet this is exactly what happened.

Of course. Identifying with one trait of the target does not mean someone identifies with every other trait of the character.

But it does mean they identify with one trait of the target. It's then up to them to have the critical thinking ability to deduce if that particular trait is what is being mocked.

If, after such analysis, they're still offended, then it means either a) they're too stupid to do a proper analysis, or b) they do actually share a trait that is being mocked. And then they take their actions which reveal their offense.

Analysis of these actions can then, in turn, reveal which of the two it is and lead to a deeper understanding of the person in question.

[citation needed]

This is where inference, logic, and analysis comes into play. The specific language used, patterns of behavior, the content of what they said, reading between the lines, etc, etc. All of this is equally effected by the "filter of their preconceptions, beliefs, and perspective", and all of it gives clues to those same things.

Ah yes, "true art" and all that.

Oh fuck no. "True Art" is utterly pretentious and stupid and I have no time or patience for any of that. Literally all the guy's displeasure with the comic says about the comic is that some was offended by their interpretation of it. That's it. Whereas it says a great deal about themselves.


Now, to finish off this entire post, I will say that the various methods and arguments I've laid out in this debate is literally the basis of human interaction. We interact with people using these exact principles, it's how we make both friends and enemies and come to a deeper understanding of people as individuals. I'm sorry you don't like that, but it doesn't change it.

 

[immortalfrieza]

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.

I do if I want to protest against every single thing that I do not condone, actually. There are many such things and constructing an argument against each one takes some time.

I'll handle this Zach.

Vego, you seem to be missing the point entirely. OF COURSE you can't protest against everything you have a problem with, that's impossible, as you've mentioned everybody has too many things to protest for there to be time to protest everything. However, you do have the time to protest against SOME of the things you do not condone, and if you truly care about whatever it is you should. You're using the fact that you can't protest everything you have a problem with as an excuse to not protest much of anything.

 

[Miroluck]

snip

Thank you for classing up the place.

"Classing up"? Was you reading same thread as I was?
If I recall correctly, on the couple of first pages of comments to that WGDF comic posters were doing nothing but:

1) Giving empty praise. (Harmless, but not classy at all)

2) Literally praying for flamewar ("OOOH HOO HOO HOOOOO, there's a storm coming, guys!")

#2 is not only silly, it's also a bad, toxic attitude that is not good for any community to have.

Doesn't seem like a class up to me.

 

[Shadowstar38]

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.

Or they could just think the comic is bad and you're making a bunch of bad judgement leaps.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Reasonable Comics For Reasonable People

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

Read Full Article

You know, I was trying to figure out if you had any music playing while creating this comic...


Keep being awesome, you awesome awesomeness.

Captcha: fezes are cool

Morocco Mole approves, Captcha.

 

[Dinosorcerer]

I have no idea why there's a massive shit eating grin on my face. This comic just nails it just right for some reason. Can't say why, I'm not even 100% sure what it's trying to say. I just love it.

Capacha: Good night and good luck. Well said.

for anyone who doesn't know, the comic is making reference to the "straw man" method of debating. instead of arguing a matter, someone will sidestep the issue by linking the argument of the opponent with something else the opponent supposedly supports, or an assumption about the group of people their opponent represent ( this new assumption is called the straw man) and fires. recent examples include that microsoft employee likening unreliable internet in the defense of the xbone to not having reliable electricity and how we shouldn't have electrical appliances. this was done rather poorly. other examples include right-wing christians arguing against mosques because Al Qaeda has used the Quran to justify acts of violence. or the louisiana state legislature voting to not accept the principles of Darwinism because they had been used to justify racial genocide. tl:dr, just look up the term straw man

 

[Vegosiux]

This is where inference, logic, and analysis comes into play. The specific language used, patterns of behavior, the content of what they said, reading between the lines, etc, etc. All of this is equally effected by the "filter of their preconceptions, beliefs, and perspective", and all of it gives clues to those same things.

I think the expression for this is "armchair psychoanalysis", or at least that's what I saw people use to describe the practice of, well, analyzing users on an internet forum from comments they make and claiming that you know their motivations, perspectives and personalities, like how the Total Perspective Vortex extrapolates a genuine, perfect model of the entire universe from a piece of fairy cake.

Because written text is so well known for conveying tone. -_-

Better than you think. Goes both ways, too, trust me. I can't be smug on any forum without someone calling me out on it >.>

Of course. Identifying with one trait of the target does not mean someone identifies with every other trait of the character.

But it does mean they identify with one trait of the target. It's then up to them to have the critical thinking ability to deduce if that particular trait is what is being mocked.

Yeah, no. That's post-hoc rationalization.

If, after such analysis, they're still offended, then it means either a) they're too stupid to do a proper analysis, or b) they do actually share a trait that is being mocked. And then they take their actions which reveal their offense.

[citation needed]

I'm sorry, but that's a rather firm statement ("it's either A or B") on the topic of psychology, and I'll need more than a person's word on an internet forum to consider it seriously.

Now, to finish off this entire post, I will say that the various methods and arguments I've laid out in this debate is literally the basis of human interaction. We interact with people using these exact principles, it's how we make both friends and enemies and come to a deeper understanding of people as individuals.

What you "laid out" in your post, is, so far, your opinion. And while I'm not dismissing it outright, despite my slightly snarky behavior; I'm still not taking it at face value and am most definitely not accepting it as a proven fact.

I'm sorry you don't like that, but it doesn't change it.

I wonder where you got that from, or, actually, why you're trying to presume my position on an issue that I have not actually stated.