grey_space said:
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.
Mr F. said:
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?
Mr F. said:
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:
Mr F. said:
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.