Reasonable Comics For Reasonable People

[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.

 

[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.