Reasonable Comics For Reasonable People

[RedmistSM]

I didn't really "get" the details in the last comic. I didn't know about scumbags on reddit that not only are anti-feminist and use a hat as their unofficial symbol, but also take pictures of themselves with really stupid captions. I didn't know fat bronies were guilty of the same. I know nothing about the Zimmerman thing besides a white man shooting a black kid, and he was a criminal I think. I still have no idea what MIRIN means. So while I understood the intent, making fun of racists, the particulars werent't very fun for me.

This is a lot better, and I think it's wonderfully portrayed, especially that final panel.

 

[broca]

I'm studying psychology so i just wanted chime in and say that i based on what i learned so far i don't agree with some of Agayeks claims.

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.

This part i totally agree with.

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

...

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.

And this i strongly disagree about. Yes, a person's opinions about anything could reveal a staggeringly huge amount about them as an individual. But to use peoples opinions to make assumptions about them one would first need to proof the connection between such opinions and "whatever" trough scientific study, which would still only leave us with probabilities that mostly are rather low (correlations of .5 are usally considered big!) and not really meaningful on their own. Therefore one would need to combine them into a test or questionnaire, test it for objectivity, reliability and validity, probably rewrite it, test it again and in the end validate it. Only after all of this has happened, a trained interviewer (like a psychologist) could use this test or questionnaire to make assumptions about individuals, but only about individuals it was validated for. And even then there would be a lot of uncertainty involved, as we are talking about probabilities not absolutes.

So, unless you use such a validated scientific test or questionnaire (which is unlikely, as i can't think of on that would work based of just rating random people on the internet) with all the necessary precautions when looking at the findings your method is not better than guessing from a scientific point of view.

And even leaving aside anything else that is problematic about your approach, just think about this: if everyone views everything they come into contact with through the filter of their preconceptions, beliefs, and perspective (as you said yourself) this of course also applies to you which in turn also means that your interpretations of other peoples behavior are heavily influenced by your personal, subjective filters.

 

[Odoylerules360]

Thank You.

 

[itsthesheppy]

I am a reader of online comics.

I enjoy comics that exaggerate contemporary issues for comic effect. Sometimes a comic may take a stance on something I do not agree with, or target something that I identify with, but I maintain a healthy sense of humor and self-deprecation, so that my ego does not get in the way of my enjoyment of media, or other's people enjoyment of my company.

 

[wAriot]

Never write a strip that might possibly offend anyone again.

While I know you are being sarcastic, I also know that a double standard could be applied to it:
"I know this [comic, game, movie, whatever] offends people, but as long as it doesn't offend me, hey, it's alright!"
"Oh, but if this other [comic, game, movie, whatever] offends me, it should be removed from the face of Earth along with its creator(s)"
Either one or the other. You are a hypocrite if you choose both (not directed to you, TheRight, but I've seen people doing it).

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!

Do you know what "vocal minority" means? Gamers are neither better nor worse than any other hobbyists, those things happens everywhere. Do you not remember the death threats GRR Martin received for things like the Red Wedding? Or the dozens of insults George Lucas receives every day? Hell, even things like being a musician or a movie director are more "exclusionary" than being a gamer (see how many people take you seriously if you are too young in those fields).

I'm not defending any of these attitudes, mind you, but gaming is certainly not worse than any other hobby in these matters. But you'll literally never see a (serious) article saying "readers are a bunch of misogynistic assholes", or "cinephiles are immature kids". It's always the gamers. And sometimes, it really hurts that everyone thinks that you, for being a white, young male who likes video games, are automatically a no-life asshole.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

The sarcasm levels in this thread are off the charts!

 

[Lord Krunk]

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.

Thank you for responding. I wasn't expecting that.

Parody doesn't *have* to be borne of affection, but it's never as funny or as penetrating if they are ones borne of resentment and/or genuine mockery. Some people find it funny, sure, but you forget the people you intend to alienate. Evangelion is in a different ballpark; it's an old anime with a very deep-seated fandom. It's observational humour and exaggeration, but no strawmen were needed as crutches to get the point across.

And that's the big issue I have with the past two comics. A lot of webcomics are falling on the strawman crutch, which is rarely funny to more than a select few, incindiary by design, and like right now, ensuring that the actual things people like the 'WGDF' discuss are just ignored in the public eye in favour of bullshit non-issues like 'the friendzone'. My point is that it's okay to be mean-spirited, but I know you can write better than this. The last comic was just lazy, this one was lazily indignant, and you know it. That's why I'm going out and saying it, rather than just moving on. You guys have talent. You can do better than this.

As for blackface, I'll admit it was a poor example (if only because it 's too dated for anyone other than racists to relate to). Perhaps a better example is the barrage of 'all Muslums are Suicide Bombers' jokes we got post-9/11.

 

[Alex Diniz]

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.

I'll say it again, there's nothing that can be done. Making fun of those people won't stop them, they will not listen to reasonable arguments, they won't be shut down by passive agressive/ironic/sarcastic comments. Unless you can tell me what could be done, because I'd love to know.

Nothing short of censorship can stop them from leaving those comments, but who wants to stop people from voicing their opinion? That is not reasonable either and only raises a shitstorm.

Don't feed the trolls. Has everyone forgotten that? Giving them attention gives them fuel for more.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Never write a strip that might possibly offend anyone again.

While I know you are being sarcastic, I also know that a double standard could be applied to it:
"I know this [comic, game, movie, whatever] offends people, but as long as it doesn't offend me, hey, it's alright!"
"Oh, but if this other [comic, game, movie, whatever] offends me, it should be removed from the face of Earth along with its creator(s)"
Either one or the other. You are a hypocrite if you choose both (not directed to you, TheRight, but I've seen people doing it).

I agree, although I've long since given up trying to argue with people that are so irrational.

Personally there's only one thing that applies to me that would cause me any great offence, and I wouldn't treat a joke about it differently than if it didn't apply to me. That said, I still wouldn't create much fuss over it provided the joke doesn't have a hint of sincerity behind it. Getting offended is just a part of life, people need to learn to deal with it without being a little *****. Someone taking the piss of homosexuals and genuinely meaning it? That's out of line. Someone taking the piss out of homosexuals when you know they're not genuinely homophobic? Not a big deal.

Taking the piss out of white guys being douchey online? That's really not a big deal, regardless of how genuine Grey was. I actually didn't find the strip itself especially fun in of itself but I knew that the people it was aimed at would get so pissed off over it I cracked a smile, and looking at its thread, boy was I right. It was so deliciously hilarious to see them in effect write the punchline to a joke taking the piss out of themselves.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Yeah, I'd love to be calm and reasonable in conversations, but when you're adding something to a thread, calm, and reasonable rarely grows tht thread.
Of course it can get you people PMing you kudos for being that way, though.

Sometimes you have to be loud to get noticed. I usually enter a thread ranting, and then see what crops up.

As for Developers getting blamed for stuff from higher up, I recognize this. It's not right, but it can't be helped sometimes. We don't know, exactly, what producers and developers are guilty, so the innocent tend to get heaped in.

Honest discourse? Yeah, it'd be nice, but I don't see it happening. Honestly, even if it did, just between developers and, well, us, won't do much vs the producers who perpetuate the racial/sexual issues in gaming. Of course no dev team can speak for them all, either. A racist/sexist dev team can't speak for the ones that are progressive, and more egalitarian, nor the other way around.
And these honest discourses could end up outting people, and potentially ruining people with lawsuits, loss of jobs, etc.

Also, beige? What are you? Neutral?
<youtube=k8ws_APXilE>

 

[major_chaos]

Ah, I remember when Critical Miss was about video games, it feels like it was just a few weeks ago...
Also you can't have it both ways Grey. You can't make an intentionally offensive comic designed to piss off as many people as possible then get snide and snippy when people get angry about it.

 

[JakobBloch]

Had to look up straw man. Thanks for that.

 

[grey_space]

And not mean? The last Critical Miss was clearly meant to be offensive and mean to a certain demographic and so were several others. Worse, that demographic was clearly the majority of their own readers.

Good. If said demographic took those caricatures of individuals and identified with one or more of them and thus felt offended, then good.

They needed a bit of offending.

Art is meant to challenge and evoke emotion. Last weeks strip did. This weeks strip did. Fair play to them that they maintain enough artistic integrity to so challenge the (apparent) majority of their readers. A little bit of self awareness of their own foibles never hurt anyone.

I read stuff on this website to be challenged, a lot of people on this site have changed my opinion (for the better I'd hope) on a lot of issues by politely pointing out I was an ass.

I didn't die.


Grey, Carter, I have such an enormous man crush on you guys...Sterling work.

(pun intended)

 

[russman588]

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.

It's parody, it's exaggeration for comedic effect. The comic is not debating anything, it's making fun of a specific group of racist people. If you think a webcomic shouldn't have exaggeration for comedic effect, then sure, we'll agree to disagree on that point.

 

[M0tty]

And not mean? The last Critical Miss was clearly meant to be offensive and mean to a certain demographic and so were several others. Worse, that demographic was clearly the majority of their own readers.

Good. If said demographic took those caricatures of individuals and identified with one or more of them and thus felt offended, then good.

They needed a bit of offending.

Art is meant to challenge and evoke emotion. Last weeks strip did. This weeks strip did. Fair play to them that they maintain enough artistic integrity to so challenge the (apparent) majority of their readers. A little bit of self awareness of their own foibles never hurt anyone.

I read stuff on this website to be challenged, a lot of people on this site have changed my opinion (for the better I'd hope) on a lot of issues by politely pointing out I was an ass.

I didn't die.


Grey, Carter, I have such an enormous man crush on you guys...Sterling work.

(pun intended)

Too right.

 

[Lord Krunk]

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.

You just got offended by a criticism of something deliberately offensive. I hope you grasp the irony.

I was wondering if someone was going to fall into that trap. It gives me faith that only one person seemed to.

EDIT: These forums are embarrassingly difficult to use on a phone.

 

[Mr F.]

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.

You just got offended by a criticism of something deliberately offensive. I hope you grasp the irony.

I was wondering if someone was going to fall into that trap. It gives me faith that only one person seemed to.

EDIT: These forums are embarrassingly difficult to use on a phone.

Yeah, looking at the structure of your respone in my inbox did somewhat... confuse me.

Actually, I was not offended by your criticism of something offensive. I was offended by your insulting me and anyone else who found it entertaining.

See the difference?

I mean, there were a few valid criticisms last week, the whole Zimmerman Mode Activate, whilst funny (And perfectly capturing a certain kind of redditor), could be taken to be incredibly offensive. Arguments against that make sense. You just insulting the people who liked it, well...

Spoiler: Derp

I hope you grasp the irony of trying to break out of the White Guy Defense Force by being sexist, which is one of the few stereotypes. Like the guys who made this:

Spoiler: This

You seemed to have missed the point and decided the best way of attacking something you do not like is to conform to the stereotypes portrayed.

And yes, Using the term Mangina is sexist. What with the insult being based on "You have feminine traits and therefore are less of a man", it reinforces the men superior/women inferior dichotomy.

tldr;

I was not offended by your criticism, I was offended by your personal attack upon me and anyone else who enjoyed the comic and your use of sexism to do so.

Try again.

 

[Shadowstar38]

this:

Spoiler: This

That edit was actually one of the funnier ones.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

And not mean? The last Critical Miss was clearly meant to be offensive and mean to a certain demographic and so were several others. Worse, that demographic was clearly the majority of their own readers.

Good. If said demographic took those caricatures of individuals and identified with one or more of them and thus felt offended, then good.

They needed a bit of offending.

Wow. Just wow. I really have no words for this. My brain has just stopped working. There is nothing within the Escapist's forum's rules I can use to properly respond to this. I have utterly lost hope. Damn.

 

[Lord Krunk]

snip

The comment was intentionally sexist, ti gauge whether or not the fans can take the same shit they enjoy dishing out. I think we have our answer.

This post wasn't the pot calling the kettle black. It's the pot demanding the kettle go 'back to the plantations where it belongs'.

this:

Spoiler: This

That edit was actually one of the funnier ones.

Agreed. It was a clever reversal, and an accurate one at that. The joke never changed, but the subject did.

I'd dare say this one was more clever (and original) than the source.