Reasonable Comics For Reasonable People

[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.

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

No, I'm using the fact that I can't humanly protest against everything as an argument against the logic that "silence is agreement" and "inaction is condoning". That's all.

Of course I have priorities, everyone does, but if that line of thought is consistently applied, we're all condoning a whole lot of despicable stuff, because we're all silent and inaction-y about a whole lot of despicable stuff.

Captcha: Kangarooo court
Yeah, another thing I oppose but haven't ever actually spoken out against specifically.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Well, I hope this is sincere and that you've learnt your lesson.

Never write a strip that might possibly offend anyone again.

 

[LetalisK]

I'm retreading already worn ground for the thread, but oh well.

Does respectfully disagreeing with a part of this comic make one unreasonable?

"Occassionally, through inaction, I let a vocal minority say awful things in my name, but these people do not represent my true interests." This seems to imply a person is responsible for the horrible things a minority of the group does simply because they didn't let everyone know they don't support it. Kind of like how Fox News expects moderate Muslims to rise up and scream louder and louder about how they don't support Al-Qaeda or the Taliban every time those groups blow something up or else the moderates are complicit. Shouldn't the onus be on Fox News to not assume that in the first place?

Some have responded with the argument along the lines of "Well, obviously you can't protest everything you disagree with to everyone, but you can still protest some of the things to some of the people." Correct. So? That doesn't solve the problem. What if someone doesn't hear me protesting A? How do I make sure everyone knows I protested A so they know that they shouldn't assume I'm complicit in B? You're still left with the problem that you can't make even a tiny portion of the knowledge of your opinions universally known, so silence being consent can't be acceptable and thus one should not feel responsible for someone else making an erroneous assumption about their opinion on such a basis.

I enjoyed the comic though.

 

[Lunar Templar]

The name of the magazine he's reading is totally a jab and the people who actually take this comic seriously isn't it? Cause I was all "HA!! like that'll happen" till I saw the Magazine that was being read.

Well, I hope this is sincere and that you've learnt your lesson.

Never write a strip that might possibly offend anyone again.

I give em a week at most before another one comes along to piss people off.

 

[McMarbles]

Grey Carter, you magnificent bastard.

 

[Laser Priest]

I dunno, Grey. I feel this comic needs some more Satyr.

But nevertheless, at least this one hasn't offended me in any way. And that's what I look for when going on the internet and communicating with people around the world; Everybody agreeing with me.

 

[Laser Priest]

snip

Yeah! Right! Gamers are perfect and should not be portrayed as anything else!

Not like we personally attack writers or developers if they say things that we disagree with! Not like we send death threats to people because they imply that women might not be portrayed as equals in some games! Not like we harass reviewers who fail to give a game a high score! Not like we are one of the most exclusionary groups to share a hobby out there, ready to shout slurs at anybody who we don't deem worthy!

Not like we harass comic writers for showing us as anything but the shining beacons of goodness that we are!

 

[Abomination]

snip

Yeah! Right! Gamers are perfect and should not be portrayed as anything else!

Not like we personally attack writers or developers if they say things that we disagree with! Not like we send death threats to people because they imply that women might not be portrayed as equals in some games! Not like we harass reviewers who fail to give a game a high score! Not like we are one of the most exclusionary groups to share a hobby out there, ready to shout slurs at anybody who we don't deem worthy!

Not like we harass comic writers for showing us as anything but the shining beacons of goodness that we are!

Who the fuck are "we"? Because I most certainly do not do any of that yet I would be identified as a gamer. Or are you trying to say performing at least one of those acts is a prerequisite to being a gamer?

That very same argument could be applied to almost any other group and it would be considered incredibly offensive.

 

[russman588]

I totally agree with the point i assume this comic strip tries to make: it's either total blandness or painting people one does not agree with as racist murderers. And i also wholly agree with the makers of this comic strips that painting people one does not agree with as racist murderers is both a valid and effective strategy in discussions (/sarcasm, if that isn't clear by now).

You do realize that the previous comic is making fun of actual racists, right? The White Guy Defense Force is representative of those groups of people who think that diversity isn't needed in entertainment, the people who got upset when Heimdall was played by Idris Elba, or when Ultimate Spider-Man rebooted with a black teenager as Spider-Man. He's painting racists as racist murderers. Really, even the murderer part isn't that far off when you consider how some of the same people worship Zimmerman as some kind of hero, and villify Martin because he was black and wasn't perfect.

Sure, the original comic was making fun of people that the artists disagree with in a very over-the-top and exaggerated way. However, you're not supposed to sympathize with those people, because they are actual racists.

 

[broca]

snip

I find linking people on the other side of an argument with morally unacceptable actions they don't do both bad taste and unacceptable and even harmful for debate. I feel the same way about people that call feminists "femnazis". And if you (like so many people) don't see the use of such tactics in a debate as problematic, we will just have to agree to disagree.