WGDF

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Welp, we've already got 6 pages, several of which are "Shitstorm Imminent," and a lengthy Martin/Zimmerman argument.
Add into that a recent shooting and controversy surrounding sexism and "nice guys" and we could have something.

It's looking like Massive White Guy Defense Force Comments Section 2: Electric Boogaloo could be promising.

With any luck /tv/ will drop by to defend their current mascot.

 

[Therumancer]

Snip

This is just for the record: I'm done with this topic.

I don't control how people respond to my work. If people can't read a joke without descending into idiocy, that's their problem (and the problem of the forum mods, who perform their rather thankless duties admirably). I'm in no way obligated to censor my work because some people can't control themselves. The forums are provided as a courtesy, they are not an implicit part of CM and I have no control over them or any moderating privileges. I wouldn't want them if offered.

As for WGDF being an "attack piece," it is no more so than any other CM strip. If you perceive a parody of fringe culture racists as an attack on all white people, that says a lot more about your opinion of white people than it does mine.

Actually you've thrown up commentary about issues like George Zimmerman and the like, and what's more the very fact that you consider some of these issues and comments "fringe racism" without looking at the legitimate issues is exactly the problem.

Understand something also, I have no problem with you posting this. As I've said many times, free speech is not simply the freedom to say what you agree with. My issue is the moderation that takes place when you bait people. Hence my comments about declaring the forums attached to your work a "free-fire" zone devoid of moderation. Editorial control being exercised on you is not ideal, but represents a possible alternative to letting you bait people and spread chaos. I mention it (and mentioned it first) in part because The Escapist has pointed out before it has the right to set policy and disallow free speech.

What your doing is (as someone pointed out) akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater and then blaming people who get trampled to death for being stupid. If it wasn't for the first WGDF leading to what was it... 50 moderator actions? There wouldn't have been an issue. That's unprecedented and we both know it, as your not commenting on a fringe which is why the results were legendary.

Also understand I'm not appealing to you to censor yourself, it would be nice to see a bit more self control, but as you literally are insisting this is "no different from other installments of Critical Miss" when the results in terms of mod action, and the response here, make it painfully obvious that it is because this does not USUALLY happen, I don't expect that to happen. Instead this is something I'm throwing out there for the people you work for, and who pay you, basically having the editors do their job in response to your work and vet your strips before they are purchased and put up online. OR as an alternative simply removing the forum policies that prevent equally volatile responses from the other side, which would probably be better. The thing is, I think you know your not dealing with a "fringe" on these issues when you start invoking things like the Zimmerman case which is one of the more divisive issues in the country's history, not a case where "nearly everyone things this was an injustice" or even close. Your basically using Critical Miss to snipe from a position of protection, as another respondee pointed out, were you not a contributor putting up a feature and did something like this in the forums you and your partner would both likely be banned, especially when it inspired such vitriol to lead to 50 mod actions.

You simply cannot sit here and make some free speech claim and say you have the right to not be censored, when you yourself are relying on censors to reinforce your position and quash dissent, whether your wielding the banhammer or not (given the special color of your name, and your profile text about being a big deal, I confess I assumed you had authority at least in your own forums, that was a mistake on my part).

That said, we are done here and there isn't much more to be said here. We've both said our piece on the subject. It all comes down as to whether upper management in The Escapist will agree with me or not, personally I'm not even sure if they'll take note of this discussion or consider my points. In the end it's no big deal since this is an opinion and appeal, not an ultimatum, and it is your site. As your part of the team doing this, it makes sense that your of course going to be opposed to what I'm saying, and disagree with how I am portraying things. At the end of the day it comes down to whether The Escapist will take action against your strip or forums, perhaps telling you to move on if you can't deal with it, or simply do nothing. Your obviously not going to admit you've done anything wrong... you've made that clear, and seem convinced that your WGDF strips were reasonable despite the furor and criticism.

 

[Therumancer]

Yes, this is your soapbox. And, you're free to say whatever you wish. But, to create content that's so obviously flame-bait, then throw your hands up and disown any responsibility of the aftermath is a bit of cowardice.

All satire is "flamebait" to people who disagree with it. To use an example as overblown as yours, the people beheading people in the street over newspaper cartoons make a very similar argument.

Also, I would remind you that if you had tried to pull what you did in the forums, rather than the comic, you'd have been held accountable as any of the rest of us.

Then it's a good job I don't post CM on the forums, isn't it?

I wouldn't bother. Did you read his other posts attempting to make Tray von Martian out to be the guilty party, was deserving to get shot, denying the facts of the case and distorting one of the most traumatic and heinous cases in recent American history?

I don't think a person who would argue such a distasteful thing is worth giving much heed to. He obviously did not like his narrow world view being challenged by reality, other people's view points or pesky facts.

Trayvon was though, he's the one who committed an assault and tried to kill Zimmerman. At the end of the day the only thing that really matters to this kind of case is that Trayvon was ramming Zimmerman's head into the pavement when he was shot.

See, all of the stuff about whether Zimmerman had the right to get out of his car and approach Trayvon is more or less irrelevant. None of that justifies attempted murder.

Another point to consider though is that Zimmerman had the right to do this, he was a part of the neighborhood watch. Meaning he's been approved to approach people in the neighborhood he doesn't like the looks of, or otherwise don't belong, and get them to move on. It's perfectly legal, and actually encouraged in a lot of places. I don't know exactly what the policies are where he happened to be, or what role the police played in organizing and training the volunteers. Being a part of a neighborhood watch group does NOT make you a cop, but it does oftentimes give you a slight free hand in the public areas of the assigned location (approved by the police). The agreements inherent in these organizations also usually mean that a Neighborhood watchman can act as a representative of the property owner on private property through the neighborhood. Basically meaning he's like an unpaid bouncer or security guard, if some guy walks onto a neighbors property, the guy can confront them as if it was HIS house and property, stand his ground, and similar things, and depending on the local laws forcibly eject people (again it depends on how much of a free hand bouncers and such get in representing the property).

To be honest "Neighborhood Watch" shouldn't be a foreign concept, they recently did a movie (that flopped) spoofing it, not to mention it inspiring things like the whole "Police Academy: Citizens On Patrol" movie.

As far as Zimmerman being armed, that's not surprising, the guys in Neighborhood watch groups tend to carry something, and pistol permits and the like are actually one of the thing that contributes to who gets selected by the community when organizing such things. Pepper spray, collapsing batons, etc... whatever is legal, basically if someone's job is to wander around looking for trouble makers, even if their first action is to call the police most of them are going to be ready for trouble.

The point here being that given the way the police threw it out before public outrage, and the ease which he won the trial, the bottom line is that he had every right to do what he did, up to and including approaching Trayvon. If Trayvon tried to flee before attacking him (there are mixed stories), a lot also comes down as to whether he fled onto private property, which actually gave him less rights.

While it's mentioned, the whole "Neighborhood Watch" angle of this is downplayed in the media, usually saying Zimmerman was a member, but the news rarely makes the connection as to this perhaps being why Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. Likewise little is said about how often other people were confronted in that neighborhood, chances are if they have an active Watch it's a problematic area and it happens with some frequency, such organizations usually don't stick around when things are too quiet (or too quiet for a long period) because it's voluntary, and as a general rule people don't always want to go out on patrol when nothing is going to happen.

I understand a lot of people disagree with me, but this is not, and never was a clear cut enough case to be a "travesty" nor does it have a substantial majority of the population believing anything wrong happened here, which is why it remains an issue.

I side with Zimmerman because I did security work for casinos the size of small cities (I'm not kidding), even though I was a professional, I have a degree of respect for people that are willing to volunteer themselves for the benefit of the community. This kind of crap and the blowback discourages one of the few community-based constructs which works and both helps the police, and helps secure neighborhoods that can't otherwise afford expensive security services. It's gone on for decades already with relatively few incidents. The crap with Zimmerman is going to make it more difficult to get volunteers, especially in areas that need it, because really nobody wants to deal with this kind of garbage for checking people out in a neighborhood, or getting them to move on. Violence rarely happens, but if your sticking your neck out for your neighbors, you don't want to be at risk should you need to defend yourself.

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

OT: The only thing that really drew me into the last were just the shear amount of ignorance about the Zimmerman/Martin case. This comic, while referencing the last comic, is lacking that. And, since it seems that Cerebrawl has done an admirable job of educating those who have spoken out of ignorance, I see little need to retread those posts.

But, I will here remark, however...

I mean Zimmerman. The "cooky" Florida neighborhood watch that murdered someone.

I see in your profile that you French, so there may be some misunderstanding caused by the language barrier, but you really ought to look up the definition of the word "murder".

Zimmerman did not "murder" anybody. What happened was not only a homicide, but it was a justified homicide. Not illegal, not murder.

America has had a long and proud history of Standing its ground. In no way has it ever bin immoral and always justified. I agree with you full heartily.

and the law has always bin applied fairly, and has no racist undertones in any way.

There is zero reason to be upset by the stand your ground law. Its a justified law that protects innocent Americans every day. Any one who disagrees needs to be edumacated.

The Stand Your Ground law wasn't a factor in the Zimmerman case. For SYG laws to be relevant to the case, Zimmerman would have needed ground to retreat to. At the moment that Zimmerman shot Trayvon, Zimmerman was on the ground while Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman beating him. There was no ground to retreat to and it was a classic case of self defense. This was why Zimmermans defense team built their case as self-defense rather than SYG.

I wish there was a way people could learn this information for themselves. If only there were some sort of freely available computer program that would run on a shared computer network that would allow someone to run vast searches against various public records and media reports and compile them into a usable format. We could call this computer program an inquiry machine or perhaps an engine of searching. Or perhaps you could name it after an inconceivably large number to symbolize the sheer scale and impact of such technology. With the aid of this engine of searching, anyone with a bit of intellectual curiosity could thoroughly research an issue and dispassionately examine it from different perspectives. It is an interesting speculation, perhaps it could make for a nice ancillary plot element in a science fiction story. But I doubt we'll see anything like that anytime soon. Ah well, c'est la vie! Enough of my utopian musings.

 

[KissingSunlight]

WGDF

No man left behind.

Read Full Article

I accidently came across your comic, because I didn't know what your acronym meant. Now I know it's an ill-advised follow-up to your controversial comic. All I got to say is this:

Bigotry in the name of "Tolerance" is still Bigotry.


Just ask yourself this before you submit this comic to the website. If this was being directed to a woman or any other minority group, would they be justified in being offended by it? If the answer is "Yes", then I would suggest maybe change what you are trying to say to something more tactful and more respectful. If you want your target to be more respectful to other people, why don't you start yourself?

 

[Vegosiux]

I wish there was a way people could learn this information for themselves. If only there were some sort of freely available computer program that would run on a shared computer network that would allow someone to run vast searches against various public records and media reports and compile them into a usable format. We could call this computer program an inquiry machine or perhaps an engine of searching. Or perhaps you could name it after an inconceivably large number to symbolize the sheer scale and impact of such technology. With the aid of this engine of searching, anyone with a bit of intellectual curiosity could thoroughly research an issue and dispassionately examine it from different perspectives. It is an interesting speculation, perhaps it could make for a nice ancillary plot element in a science fiction story. But I doubt we'll see anything like that anytime soon. Ah well, c'est la vie! Enough of my utopian musings.

Now, all I have to say is, you set up something with great potential there, but it kinda trailed off at the end. There was so much more "smug" that could have been put into that. I mean, I know I would have gone for broke, if I was on the way already.

 

[lacktheknack]

Just ask yourself this before you submit this comic to the website. If this was being directed to a woman or any other minority group, would they be justified in being offended by it? If the answer is "Yes", then I would suggest maybe change what you are trying to say to something more tactful and more respectful. If you want your target to be more respectful to other people, why don't you start yourself?

Because toothless satire is crap.

Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" wouldn't have been effective if it wasn't a giant middle finger to cowardly bureaucrats ("Oh, you want a simple answer? HERE'S YOUR SIMPLE ANSWER.")

George Orwell's "Animal Farm" wouldn't have been worth reading if the communists weren't fat, greedy pigs (literally).

The Onion wouldn't have anything to say if they weren't constantly insulting their targets. Neither would Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart.

South Park wouldn't exist.

Etc.

If you ever get the opportunity to make your own satirical media soapbox, go ahead and neuter it (five bucks says you totally won't). Until then, if you don't like a satire comic, then don't freaking read it. Telling them to change it misses the point and will be ignored.

 

[lacktheknack]

The WGDF "incident" made me ask one question; Why wasn't the damn thread locked already? It was suspicious how the thread kept going after the number of bans that were handed down. This looks like we're in for another bout of spring cleaning.

Official content comment threads cannot be locked. Lord knows that the mods would love to do so.

There's nothing "suspicious" about it. It's common knowledge that official threads cannot be locked.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

It's ironic, since they'll be taking the main female character out of her own strip.

 

[IceForce]

The WGDF "incident" made me ask one question; Why wasn't the damn thread locked already? It was suspicious how the thread kept going after the number of bans that were handed down. This looks like we're in for another bout of spring cleaning.

Official content comment threads cannot be locked. Lord knows that the mods would love to do so.

There's nothing "suspicious" about it. It's common knowledge that official threads cannot be locked.

That still doesn't answer the 'why' of it.

WHY can't they be locked? What is the actual official reason? (Just so you know, "Because they never get locked" is not a good enough reason for WHY they can never be locked. Because that's circular logic.)

If the mods would "love to do so", and some official policy is preventing them from doing that, then isn't it time for a policy change?

 

[IceForce]

I thought that the Jim Sterling Adblock one was locked?

You thought wrong.

Lord knows, people requested it.

 

[Azure23]

Out of curiosity, do you often find humor in people being emotionally upset and angry? I mean that as an honest question as I find it fascinating.

What I find humorous is often considered by others to be insensitive. I like dead baby jokes, and I find people offing themselves in idiotic ways intensely funny. I also tend to laugh at people who are part of a majority group with nothing to be offended about getting offended by a comic that was designed specifically to offend insecure people.

So yes, in this case, I derive a LARGE amount of humour from it. Because assholes who treat others with disdain getting upset when someone else does it to them is intensely satisfying. I don't apologise.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate your candor. I find off-color humor to be funny at times as well. If you'll indulge me further, what makes you think someone's status as belonging to a majority group means they have nothing to be offended about? It seems to me that offense stems from an emotional reaction to something based on personal experience. To suggest that they have nothing to be offended about because they belong to a majority group seems to assume that you know what their personal experiences are based on what majority group they belong to. That seems really illogical to me. More specifically, that seems like it might be really racist/sexist. I don't mean that as an accusation towards you, I'm just trying to work my way through what your thoughts on this are.

You also suggest that people who were offended by the previous comic were "assholes who treat others with disdain." I'm curious as to how you know the people in that thread who were upset were themselves "assholes who treat others with disdain." It seems pretty presumptive, so I'm curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

Okay, first things first: I don't know you (or anyone really) very well, and thus don't know how you normally are here, however I have to confess I take your writing style to be...condescending, at best. It's a tonal thing that automatically raises my hackles, as it feels as if you are using turns of phrase designed to draw attention to the fact you feel yourself intellectually or morally superior to me. If this is indeed what you are going for, stop it. I don't like it, and I will not engage with you if you continue this way.

Secondly, your "interrogation" also feels designed to entrap me into admitting that I am horrible human being to others. I'll save you the trouble and admit outright: I am. I have a very small tolerance for people that changes frequently. This intolerance is not motivated by anything other than the attitude and actions of others. Willful ignorance of issues, a reluctance to admit fault or error even when shown why they are wrong, or splitting hairs or relying on semantics to justify a disgusting attitude or action are just some of the things that get me offside. I find many people to be idiots if they do these things, and I cannot abide idiots.

Now, on to address your questions. Belonging to a socially or cultural majority creates a social or cultural immunity (or privilege). As such, as a whole, this privilege is immutable, and for the most part is how the other sections of humanity see the individual. Now, as individuals we all have experiences that shape who we are, however by virtue of belonging to the majority, we are generally shielded from those experiences that are experienced by others outside of our privilege. So while there may be many white straight guys that have experienced racial or sexual problems, they are STILL not as bad as if they did not belong to that majority. By attempting to point out that they are just as vilified, they in fact denigrate the ACTUAL experiences of those who have suffered even more due to their not belonging to that majority. So I find their offense on the whole to be pathetic. Is this fair? No. But then, neither is what happens to the other side, yet we don't seem to say much about that do we? Because they aren't part of our majority.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that I spoke to each of those who had a problem with the original WGDF comic when I used the phrase "assholes who treat others with disdain." I was not. The comic just highlighted the problem people. I was using a generalisation about the privileged group members that find they can't bear when people outside of the majority are seen as equals, and must defend their stance by citing issues they have experienced as if they are somehow justified in this action because hey, the outsiders do it. These are people who frequently think that there should be a white history month, or a straight pride parade. They do it out of disdain for the attention garnered by the outsider group, and it's a pathetic attitude and action to engage in. These people are idiots. And while I have no doubt that many of them were in the initial thread, I was not specifically targeting them, more their attitude as a whole.

Finally, I take this opportunity to say that I will not be responding further to this conversation. Because I'm not going to argue these points with you or anyone else. So far on this site I have seen people flat out refuse to admit there is a problem in the gaming industry and the world at large with topics such a sexism, racism and transgender issues, and whenever salient points are brought to bear on the conversation (by people who aren't me), these people resort to 'yes, but' or anecdotal evidence or various other excuses, indicating that they are not likely to admit fault or error. Thus, they are idiots in my view, and as I said at the outset, I don't tolerate idiots.

Wow, thank you for being on this thread. I was penning a response to gorrath's first post when I saw your conversation and let me just say, I'm very impressed by both your restraint and your eloquence.

When I see an argument like gorrath's I get angry at the willful ignorance of basic societal mechanics, when I get angry, I get loud. It doesn't exactly create the most artful and measured responses. So let me thank you for saying the things i can't, because I choke on my anger.

 

[McMarbles]

*rubs hands together*

This will be glorious...

 

[lacktheknack]

The WGDF "incident" made me ask one question; Why wasn't the damn thread locked already? It was suspicious how the thread kept going after the number of bans that were handed down. This looks like we're in for another bout of spring cleaning.

Official content comment threads cannot be locked. Lord knows that the mods would love to do so.

There's nothing "suspicious" about it. It's common knowledge that official threads cannot be locked.

That still doesn't answer the 'why' of it.

WHY can't they be locked? What is the actual official reason? (Just so you know, "Because they never get locked" is not a good enough reason for WHY they can never be locked. Because that's circular logic.)

If the mods would "love to do so", and some official policy is preventing them from doing that, then isn't it time for a policy change?

I've TOLD you this before, IceForce. TWICE.

Official threads cannot be locked because the locked threads are then deleted two weeks later. We can't have that happen to official content for obvious reasons.

"Well, why can't we change that?" Because that would require significant rewrite of the websites codebase, and Kross/ThyNameIsMud/etc doesn't want to do that. I don't blame them. I've been part of a company where a simple variable change broke literally everything. It was an awful mess. Code development is unforgiving and mistakes are very hard to fix.

I, for one, say that Official Shitstorms stand as a monument to why people should stop being jerks.

And if nothing else... well, they're really fun to watch.

 

[lacktheknack]

When I see an argument like gorrath's I get angry at the willful ignorance of basic societal mechanics

no you just being insulting making up lies about a person.

<img width=200>http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/5056927+_23d5870fc12348fc2a43857d04bce415.jpg

Are you an alt-account, perchance? Seriously, what was that? The only "making up lies" I'm seeing is you saying that he's doing so...

 

[LobsterFeng]

All this from just a teaser poster? Greg and Cory, if you want to be rich, make this a spin off series.

 

[briankoontz]

Of course this is something I'm bringing up in response to a very rare situation on The Escapist. As a general rule there aren't many cases where you see a feature contributor basically baiting people, followed by bans when people take the bait. Strictly speaking the insulting tone in the WGDF jokes in "Critical Miss" could even be interpreted as an outright group attack.

It's constructive criticism, not an attack. The point in framing it as an attack is so that there can be a morally justified defense, kind of like how Rush Limbaugh views every criticism of white people as an attack and by God, thanks to him there is finally a defense of white wealthy people. The point is to maximize argumentation as a political weapon - for Rush Limbaugh to justify whatever he does from the standpoint of being permanently besieged. "White people are under threat", which means anything goes so that privilege is maintained.

If we begin with the understanding that none of us are perfect and therefore there's always room for constructive criticism we won't view every criticism with hostility.

 

[IceForce]

"Well, why can't we change that?" Because that would require significant rewrite of the websites codebase, and Kross/ThyNameIsMud/etc doesn't want to do that. I don't blame them. I've been part of a company where a simple variable change broke literally everything. It was an awful mess. Code development is unforgiving and mistakes are very hard to fix.

If that's the reason, then fine. I'm no programmer, so I'm going to have to take your word for this.
But from a layperson's perspective, this still seems like rather shaky reasoning.

Remember, this site can change everyone's avatars to Biebers, Grumpy Cats, etc, but they can't prevent threads from getting deleted?

I fine that hard to believe. But like I say, I'm no programmer.