Reasonable Comics For Reasonable People

[Mr F.]

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.

The guy who stole someone elses artwork and joke structure (And did not credit them in any way.) is more original than the original creator?

Right.

Uh.

Anyway, if you want to discuss that, jump over to the thread in which it is being discussed. It is extremely off topic for this thread.

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.

Actually, he (Sorry if I am incorrect, assumptions) makes a fair point.

None of my friends found this anything other than hilarious. As of yet, the only people who found it to be anything other than funny were people who... Well, you know the kind of people.

People who accurately fit that stereotype.

Now, I am not one for saying that racism aint racism if it does not equally offend everyone, cause that aint how racism works. However, this is not an attack on white guys, or white people, it is an attack on those stereotypes and the kind of people who make those comments.

If I showed that comic to my mum she would not found it offensive as I would have to explain every single bit of it to her from bullshit PUA lingo down to the Zimmerman case (She doesn't follow American news due to being a British expat in the UAE.)

In other words, it is not offensive to the vast majority of white guys and the people who have been genuinely offended by it, the people who are calling it racist (Bar those calling out the shitty Zimmerman "Lets make fun of a black guy dying" joke) are people who are guilty of those comments.

Plus within the rules you can say whatever you like as long as you do not directly insult someone. You can call someones argument ill thought out and potentially stupid, but you cannot call them stupid. One is a valid point, the other is an insult.

And hell, If you think of yourself as an "Alpha" and women to be something to be manipulated and then fucked, yeah, you need to be taken down a peg. If you think of yourself as a "Beta", because you cannot fuck women and you look up to the Alphas, you need to be taken down a peg. And if you are wearing a fedora and making shitty strawman arguments and trying to come across as intellectual through using graphs that a 3 year old could make you most certainly need to be taken down a peg.

And if you identify with those, well, maybe you should have a bit of a think. Because those are not "White" traits, they are not things I associate with "White" people, they are not stereotypes about "White" people but a certain GROUP of "White" people.

And we just had a thread discussing why we all hate fedoras! Which is one of the stereotypes!

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

SNIP!

My comment wasn't based on the specific nature of his comment, but on the broader scale. If one person "deserves to offended" then nobody should complain when anyone gets offended. Who "deserves" it is subjective. Secondly this kind of crap is what starts those toxic hive-mind communities ala reddit. Where anyone who's viewpoint opposes the popular one is to be cast out and ignored regardless of the legitimacy of their argument/opinion.

None of the things you mentioned about the "Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Hierarchy" really even apply to the comic's point, (the comics point was about a character in a video game being a certain race) even though they are accurate. That is what I don't like about the comic. (Along with the fact that Grey literally just took a look at the first pages of /fit/ and pasted them into his comic.) It's just flame-bait race politics. When you make broad statements like the one presented in the previous comic, then you can expect a wide variety of interpretations to emerge. I could tell from the moment I saw the title of WGDF that it was basically (though sarcastically) implying that white people don't have a right to defend themselves in arguments concerning race. It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought, but it still wasn't funny though. Likely because none of the jokes were actually original, and they were hardly jokes at all. Like a comedian walking up on stage and spouting political bullshit, and everyone laughs. They don't laugh because it was funny, but because they agree with it. That's the vibe I got.

 

[Lord Krunk]

SNIP!

My comment wasn't based on the specific nature of his comment, but on the broader scale. If one person "deserves to offended" then nobody should complain when anyone gets offended. Who "deserves" it subjective. Secondly this kind of crap is what starts those toxic hive-mind communities ala reddit. Where anyone who's viewpoint opposes the popular one is to be cast out and ignored regardless of the legitimacy of their argument/opinion.

None of the things you mentioned about the "Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Hierarchy" really even apply to the comic's point, (the comics point was about a character in a video game being a certain race) even though they are accurate. That is what I don't like about the comic. (Along with the fact that Grey literally just took a look at the first pages of /fit/ and pasted them into his comic.) It's just flame-bait race politics. When you make broad statements like the one presented in the previous comic, then you can expect a wide variety of interpretations to emerge. I could tell from the moment I saw the title of WGDF that it was basically (though sarcastically) implying that white people don't have a right to defend themselves in arguments concerning race. It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought, but it still wasn't funny though. Likely because none of the jokes were actually original, and they were hardly jokes at all. Like a comedian walking up on stage and spouting political bullshit, and everyone laughs. They don't laugh because it was funny, but because they agree with it. That's the vibe I got.

Said it better in two paragraphs than I could in four posts. You're awesome.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Just about everyone believes that they're the 'reasonable person' voicing their opinion on behalf of a 'silent majority' from deep within a shitstorm of madness, but the truth is that there is no such thing as a reasonable person.

 

[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.

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.

Here's the problem with your argument. Look up the definitions of parody and "straw man." One is exaggerating and twisting a given character or subject to make it appear more ridiculous and ... one is exaggerating and twisting a given character or subject to make it appear more ridiculous. The only difference is the context in which they're used. One is a comedic tool, the other is for debate. This is not a debate.

Look at any comedic work that parodies a given group and you can find so-called "straw men." Black Adder's vision of commissioned officers during WW1. The Christians and Romans in The Life of Brian. The Klansmen in Blazing Saddles. Every character in the Young Ones. The list goes on.

Essentially, while "straw man" is legitimate term, the internet seems to use it as "parody I don't agree with."

 

[Miroluck]

Here's the problem with your argument. Look up the definitions of parody and "straw man." One is exaggerating and twisting a given character or subject to make it appear more ridiculous and ... one is exaggerating and twisting a given character or subject to make it appear more ridiculous. The only difference is the context in which they're used. One is a comedic tool, the other is for debate. This is not a debate.

Look at any comedic work that parodies a given group and you can find so-called "straw men." Black Adder's vision of commissioned officers during WW1. The Christians and Romans in The Life of Brian. The Klansmen in Blazing Saddles. Every character in the Young Ones. The list goes on.

Essentially, while "straw man" is legitimate term, the internet seems to use it as "parody I don't agree with."

Too many people today don't know what straw-anything actually means. I guess it was inevitable due to popularisation of the term.

Here's helpful comic by Kevin Bolk:

Spoiler

And there is ways to see if "opposition" is being portrayed more or less fair (if they deserve it).
http://webcomicoverlook.com/2013/03/13/world-of-straw-guest-opinion-by-david-herbert/

 

[The Lugz]

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

think you have it bad? come over to the uk, 50% tax on earnings over 30k plus 20% vat on goods and services... just to support the teen pregnancy leaches and we still have shitty healthcare, potholes in every road and speed cameras on every street corner.. thanks, democracy. but seriously some of the leaches do turn out to be decent people earning their way out of poverty.. but, just not enough of them... /sigh.

life sucks, but what ya gunna do

 

[MeisterKleister]

The man made out of hair first caught my eye and I wondered what was up with that.
And then I actually read the comic and realized that that's a 'strawman'.

I think both the color and structure look too much like hair rather than straw.

Though I seem to be the only one so far who sees it that way. >_>

 

[grey_space]

SNIP!

Yup, that's pretty much what I meant.

My comment wasn't based on the specific nature of his comment, but on the broader scale. If one person "deserves to offended" then nobody should complain when anyone gets offended. Who "deserves" it is subjective. Secondly this kind of crap is what starts those toxic hive-mind communities ala reddit. Where anyone who's viewpoint opposes the popular one is to be cast out and ignored regardless of the legitimacy of their argument/opinion.

Don't know where you are getting that from. I am certainly not jumping on any any moral bandwagon or attempting to defend any populist agenda. However, I do come from the 'either everything is funny, or nothing is funny' school of thought ie; everything should be available for a lampooning of one type or another. And I still stand by what I said; anyone who identifies with such extremist nonsensical views such as those portrayed in the comic need to be laughed at a little.

And you are perfectly entitled to disagree with me if you want.

None of the things you mentioned about the "Alpha, Beta, and Gamma Hierarchy" really even apply to the comic's point, (the comics point was about a character in a video game being a certain race) even though they are accurate. That is what I don't like about the comic. (Along with the fact that Grey literally just took a look at the first pages of /fit/ and pasted them into his comic.) It's just flame-bait race politics. When you make broad statements like the one presented in the previous comic, then you can expect a wide variety of interpretations to emerge. I could tell from the moment I saw the title of WGDF that it was basically (though sarcastically) implying that white people don't have a right to defend themselves in arguments concerning race. It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought, but it still wasn't funny though. Likely because none of the jokes were actually original, and they were hardly jokes at all. Like a comedian walking up on stage and spouting political bullshit, and everyone laughs. They don't laugh because it was funny, but because they agree with it. That's the vibe I got.

And you are perfectly entitled to pick up on whatever vibe you want to from the comic. That is what is great about art; different people can take different things from the same work. I personally found the comic very original and vastly amusing since I've seen behaviour somewhat like those of the caricatures on forums. I felt that the Alpha , Beta and Gamma personae were used effectively enough to warrant a humorous response from myself anyway, and that is the only person who's opinions I'm talking about.

Like you said, different interpretations.

 

[Amir Kondori]

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.

Mel Brooks made two movies about a Nazi musical, while being Jewish - as tongue in cheek as it was, it never pointed any fingers and came out all the stronger for it. That's what his quote meant.

Hope that clears things up.

There is nothing to clear up, I know what you meant and I agree with you, I do not believe the creators of this comic care all that much.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Essentially, while "straw man" is legitimate term, the internet seems to use it as "parody I don't agree with."

True, but just saying that doesn't make it suddenly stop being lazy.

There is nothing to clear up, I know what you meant and I agree with you, I do not believe the creators of this comic care all that much.

Between the latest comic and the recent comments, that's pretty self-evident. It's still an incredible shame though.

 

[Alex Diniz]

If only it was so easy as saying they're trolls to make them go away when not given attention. But they aren't just trolls so that tactic doesn't work

They aren't trolls but the principle is the same. You think your average teenager who leaves mysogynistic and racist comments will care for this or any oher webcomic that mocks them? Or read an article and repent from his actions? You just give them acknowledgment and a sense they their words are having an effect on you.

And again, what should I do about it? Go to forums and say "Guys, please sop, this is bad"? The reason I'm even posting here is because of the line "by inaction I let others speak in my name" which just confuses the hell out of me, as if I'm responsible for others peoples actions and that I have any say what other people choose to do with their lives.

 

[SidheKnight]

I figured today's comic would be something along these lines considering the massive response to WGDF.

Seriously Grey, when writing the script for last Friday's comic, did you know it would evolve (or perhaps devolve would be a better word ) into the monster it became? I mean good god, last time I saw it it was over 1200 posts. Personally I think that says a lot more about the kinds of people on this forum than anything in that comic that may or may not have been offensive.

What does it say, exactly?

Just curious.

 

[RJ 17]

I figured today's comic would be something along these lines considering the massive response to WGDF.

Seriously Grey, when writing the script for last Friday's comic, did you know it would evolve (or perhaps devolve would be a better word ) into the monster it became? I mean good god, last time I saw it it was over 1200 posts. Personally I think that says a lot more about the kinds of people on this forum than anything in that comic that may or may not have been offensive.

What does it say, exactly?

Just curious.

That they can VERY easily be baited simply by bringing up anything regarding race/sexuality/gender/etc.

 

[Alex Diniz]

You make a.poor assumption they're a bunch of teenagers. I see people on this site honestly argue some pretty racist or sexist things. They aren't just out for attention. Your solution only works if they're seeking attention.

Don't have anything to say about what you should do, I'm just saying your solution will not work at all.

And you believe people here aren't teenagers because...?

While my suggestion wouldn't solve the problem, it'd sure as hell diminish that kind of behaviour. There's no absolute solution, but that doesn't mean you should instigate assholes to behave like they do.

 

[RedIvy]

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.

None of my friends found this anything other than hilarious. As of yet, the only people who found it to be anything other than funny were people who... Well, you know the kind of people.

People who accurately fit that stereotype.

The only people?

I simply cannot understand how you can speak so confidently about other people's preceptions and motivations.

Do you honestly think that your explanation of their reaction is the -only- possible one? What do you base this on? Do you truly believe that there is no other nuances to this discussion? That there is NOTHING that you have not picked up, that you are not aware of?

I find the comic offensive.

AND! I am confident In saying that I am one example that contraticts your statement(s) (and I am sure that there are plenty more). What -I- find offensive is intellectual dishonesty and arrogance. There is nothing that can make me turn my back on someone quicker. You may hold the most admirable views and speak for the most progressive movements, but as soon as you use underhanded means to invalidate or dismiss your opposition, then you will have lost me.

Given what I have stated, do you stand by your words? Why do you think I, specifically, am offended?

And if you identify with those, well, maybe you should have a bit of a think. Because those are not "White" traits, they are not things I associate with "White" people, they are not stereotypes about "White" people but a certain GROUP of "White" people.

That certain group of people are portrayed as overzealous, bigoted, etnocentric and violent (physically violent, but I assume it is also a stand-in for verbal abuse).

The comic then implies that anyone disagreeing with the question it presented would be among that group and share those traits. Why, the comment thread of the last comic have several examples of people saying just that.

I think the question presented was a valid question. But not one with a clear, definate answer. If you intend to mock those overzealous, bigoted, etnocentric and violent people; why choose that question? Why frame it in that manner?

Apart from those characteristics, they were also given a few more traits. You mention some of them here:

And hell, If you think of yourself as an "Alpha" and women to be something to be manipulated and then fucked, yeah, you need to be taken down a peg. If you think of yourself as a "Beta", because you cannot fuck women and you look up to the Alphas, you need to be taken down a peg. And if you are wearing a fedora and making shitty strawman arguments and trying to come across as intellectual through using graphs that a 3 year old could make you most certainly need to be taken down a peg.

Though, I think most people reacting to that particular facet of the comic are not doing so due to their labels of Alpha, Beta and Gamma. I think what irks some people here (it certainly irks me) is that they are given some additional quirks, beyond what you have mentioned.

One is suggested to be a MLP fan, and another is (according to some) a reference to atheists, or so I think? I will speak mainly to the first case as I do not know the second reference:

Why include that trait? Why associate that with the charicatures that you have already tried to establish as disagreeable?

You could certainly claim that every community has its share of rotten eggs and this is just a representation of one of them. But then, why that trait in particular? Why associate -THAT- community?

You cannot ignore that it implies correlation.

 

[Jux]

I'm surprised there isn't more bile here. I mean, it looks to me like he's calling everyone that flipped over the last comic an overreacting moron that employs strawmen and doesn't understand parody. The first part looks like he's saying its watered down because people are too delicate to digest anything else.

10/10

 

[lacktheknack]

The Escapist is an discussion outlet, not a place for inflammation. Please keep your posts civil, respectful, and avoid inflammatory or argumentative language. Contact [user]JonB[/user] if you want to appeal this suspension. -Mod

...wat.

Did the system accidentally itself somewhere?

EDIT: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait... I think I get it...

 

[Kaendris]

I'm surprised there isn't more bile here. I mean, it looks to me like he's calling everyone that flipped over the last comic an overreacting moron that employs strawmen and doesn't understand parody. The first part looks like he's saying its watered down because people are too delicate to digest anything else.

10/10

More than likely, and this is just my personal opinion, people have moved on.

I equate internet rage more to magnesium than coal. The flame from it's combustion can be ludicrously hot, but it never lasts long enough to be anything more than a fire starter at best.

There simply was nothing around worth catching fire to.

 

[Vegosiux]

I'm surprised there isn't more bile here. I mean, it looks to me like he's calling everyone that flipped over the last comic an overreacting moron that employs strawmen and doesn't understand parody. The first part looks like he's saying its watered down because people are too delicate to digest anything else.

If that was the case, he'd look come across a tad petty and spiteful and "I have to have the last say", though.[footnote]To say nothing about how it would come across as rather peculiar to mock that people who prefer a more mild-mannered discourse over parody for whichever reason, and peculiar to imply that there's a bit of an equivalence between wanting a more civil discourse and "not being able to take a joke".[/footnote] Fortunately, the point about level-headed discussions being something that should happen is a very strong one when made seriously, and doing so would indeed leave a lot of strawmen out of jobs.

What am I trying to say, uh, well, basically, this comic makes a rather good point, even if, nay, especially if we forget the previous one.