WGDF

[JimB]

Bang on about ideology if you must, but I never assume the angry masses will "learn" save possibly by accident.

Using cynicism to absolve people of responsibility just so you can heap it onto a party that doesn't deserve it is extremely unfair, not to mention insulting to pretty much all of humanity, though I suppose that second bit was probably intentional.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Using cynicism to absolve people of responsibility just so you can heap it onto a party that doesn't deserve it is extremely unfair, not to mention insulting to pretty much all of humanity, though I suppose that second bit was probably intentional.

So, now one internet forum = all of humanity.
After that claim, you lost the right to make any reasonable argument involving "fairness".
I cannot even begin to take you seriously anymore.

So, is there any other wildly exaggerated claims you want to make?
Perhaps you can go Full Godwin, perhaps?
Because at this point, your attempts at preaching to me are making me chuckle more than anything.

EDIT: Nobody wants to dredge up this farce again, so I'll edit my responses in here.

No, the angry masses you mention are all of humanity. Two people together in a bad mood are an angry mass, so if enough people in a bad mood get together, they are apparently completely incapable of being held responsible for their actions, according to your standard.

1) You are bending over backwards to justify your hyperbole. 2 people = an angry mass. Yeah. Sure.
2) I never said they shouldn't be held responsible. Ever. I said I don't expect to hold them responsible. Why? Because it's a meaningless gesture, because the masses of angry idiots on the net never learn and I don't expect them to learn. Ever.

It's like expecting a dog to eventually feel shame for licking his balls. It's stupid.

But the people I do expect to learn are the creators. Carter and co are clever folks, I know this. More clever than to rely on a shitstorm to bring in the ad-hits and comments.

I note that your inability to take me seriously has not stopped you from responding to me so you can announce your superiority to everyone still reading this thread.

Tragedy ain't it?

If you think I have misrepresented your argument, then please tell me where and how I've done so, but I'll thank you not to mock me by accusing me of making statements I haven't even hinted at.

I'll mock you for all the foolishness you've stated where I see it and as I please.

If you wanted to get to the heart of the matter, this comic wouldn't even exist if the previous White Guy Defense Force strip didn't cause such an incredible shitstorm. Yeah, a lot of folks behaved badly. Shame on us. In fact, that's the punchline of this comic: that this is going to cause another shitstorm.

A fact that you've gone out of your way to downplay just to jab at me for being rightly cynical.

What do you think preaching is, if stating my own opinions in disagreement with your own is preaching?

You aren't just sharing your opinions like you're putting them out there, but are directly attacking mine with them. That's preaching 101 bucko.

And as long as I'm asking you questions, why do you think I care either positively or negatively about what level of comedic amusement you derive from this conversation? Am I supposed to hold your esteem of me so dear that this should somehow matter to me?

Well it obviously mattered enough for you to ask.
But I'll grace you with the answer: Because I'm arrogant. Deal with it.

 

[JimB]

So, now one internet forum = all of humanity.

No, the angry masses you mention are all of humanity. Two people together in a bad mood are an angry mass, so if enough people in a bad mood get together, they are apparently completely incapable of being held responsible for their actions, according to your standard.

I cannot even begin to take you seriously anymore.

I note that your inability to take me seriously has not stopped you from responding to me so you can announce your superiority to everyone still reading this thread.

So, are there any other wildly exaggerated claims you want to make? Perhaps you can go Full Godwin, perhaps?

If you think I have misrepresented your argument, then please tell me where and how I've done so, but I'll thank you not to mock me by accusing me of making statements I haven't even hinted at.

Because at this point, your attempts at preaching to me are making me chuckle more than anything.

What do you think preaching is, if stating my own opinions in disagreement with your own is preaching? And as long as I'm asking you questions, why do you think I care either positively or negatively about what level of comedic amusement you derive from this conversation? Am I supposed to hold your esteem of me so dear that this should somehow matter to me?

 

[ClanCrusher]

Huh. I feel kinda cheated. I came to this thread expecting at least one good ban or suspension, but all I saw were a handful of warnings. Still, I do find it utterly hilarious that the only thing Grey had to do to make a thread that got over three hundred comments in it was to REMIND people about a certain comic they've already done.

Oh well, I'm looking forward to the WGDF reboot that will polarize the fanbase.

 

[Vegosiux]

A more cynical person (like me) would say "Everyone's hoping for a shitstorm so they have a reason to feel good about themselves."

I mean, these threads always get kind of moral-masturbatory in the end.

I'm reminded of a childhood prank, you'd take a coin and you'd glue it to the floor in a public space where it was easily visible and then you'd wait for someone to pick it up and laugh.

Often, since it was just a coin, you'd have to wait for ages, not to mention the time and coin spend setting the whole thing up.

Now I wonder who really was the butt of that joke, the guy/gal wasting 10 seconds trying to pick up that coin or us hiding in plain sight nearby for entire afternoons waiting for that to happen?

Wow. This is pretty much exactly how I feel about the entire thing. Serves me right for expecting grown-ups to act like grown-ups when it comes to stuff like this I suppose.

I mean, nothing wrong with letting "the kid in you" out now and then, but come on, does it really have to be at someone else's expense?

 

[Dinosorcerer]

I've got no idea what's going on or what this comic is about, but clearly something is going to happen. Guess I'll make some popcorn, camp the thread, and try to work out why people are angry about super-sentai Jesus fighting a swarm of bees.

In case you are not joking it is a reference to a previous comic that they did.

WGDF stands for White Guy Defence Force.

The other one was... divisive to say the least.

EDIT: Double Ninja'd.

EDIT 2: I just noticed the Yellow one has a Fedora and is tipping it constantly, plus they mention Euphoric. I don't think I had a clue about those stereotypes back when it first came out.

Beta holding an MLP doll was crossing the line in my opinion.

That was my favorite part about the last comic. =P

Bronies get enough **** for going against the grain for what they love.

Not an MLP fan myself but I can empathize with them on this one.

Do you understand that that's exactly why it was put into the comic in the first place? The entire comic - from start to finish - was specifically designed to poke as many possible hornets' nests as they could. That's why they're not just making up "white guy" excuses. Red is a "bro", Blue is a "brony", and Yellow has a fedora. It's layers upon layers of flame-bait!

I thought they were caricatures for the people who have kneejerk reactions to claims of racism or sexism in media or society.

yeah, insecure white guys

You're talking like straight, white America doesn't have a reason to feel insecure. I get correcting bad behavior, or socially unacceptable viewpoints, but in essence, getting on the case of a "bro" or "fedora" for their lifestyle, is essentially like getting on the case of a "ghetto thug", or "undocumented immigrant" for their lifestyle. Actually the only difference is, one is racist, and the other is "funny" or "social justice"

I'm white, I'm good with it. I'll hate on whoever I want for whatever reason I want. I'll love on whoever I want, for whatever reason I want. It's that creeping sense though that a shift is taking place from "light hearted ribbing" to "flat out racial fascism"

It wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

Again, to reiterate my stance, it's obviously not a problem, and people are free to say as they wish, but I just want to point out that I don't think there is one Critical Mass, or any other featured content that is poking a finger in the fundamental chest of any other ethnic group other than white folk.

Prove me wrong?

Let's see if we can break this statement down. buy your logic I am claiming that Straight, white America doesn't have a reason to feel insecure. And that's right, we have no damn reason to feel insecure. by demographic, straight white Americans still make more money, have better healthcare, and have more rights than pretty much any other demographic. we're in a damn good position. we don't have to deal with racial profiling or judgments made against us based on our sexual orientation. we certainly don't have the right to complain to someone on the internet when we're called out on how good we have it. and that is the joke being made with WGDF. we have it good. but we think that because our society technically doesn't promote racism that we shouldn't be called racist. we want to shove it under the rug. but certain things can't be ignored.
you're very confident that you can hate whoever you want for whatever reason you want. why can't anyone else? why can't this comic, for instance.
and now we come to the crazy part where you talk about "racial fascism". because you know what, you're right, it has happened before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid.
I realise that there isn't much media on this comic or in a lot of places that makes fun of a race or culture other than whitebread american. but you know why? because other groups have had to struggle and fight for generations for us to recognize them as human. and in many ways that still hasn't happened. making fun of them would be kicking them while they're down. us white guys though? we are on a better footing than most. we complain about perceived injustices committed against us but willfully ignore injustices committed against others. we're insecure because we know sooner or later that there'll be retribution. and it won't just be some post on the internet that hurts our feelings. what we should be doing is trying not to be assholes and admitting the wrongs that members of our culture commit and distancing ourselves from them through our actions and words. not circling the wagons just because we feel offended

 

[Jux]

But there's no reason to be offended by this image out of context.

The context is pretty easy to see imo, just look into the #Notallmen twitter hashtag as a response to #yesallwomen (that being response to Elliot Rodgers shooting rampage). Pretty sure it's easy enough to see where this is going.

 

[Jux]

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.

Hardly. The CoC is posted for all to see. If they choose to break those rules, that's on them. There is no imminent threat to ones life, which makes the panic in the theater/kneejerk forum post comparrison horribly flawed.

 

[Vegosiux]

But there's no reason to be offended by this image out of context.

The context is pretty easy to see imo, just look into the #Notallmen twitter hashtag as a response to #yesallwomen (that being response to Elliot Rodgers shooting rampage). Pretty sure it's easy enough to see where this is going.

As someone who frequents twitter about as much as people frequent the core of Chernobyl reactor 4, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I am torn between whether or not I actually want to have any idea about it...

Because I can't see how, at a glance, two pretentious hashtags like that in response and re-response to a shooting spree can be anything but self-aggrandizing stuff.

'sides, people weren't waiting to get offended (so Hunter85792 kinda missed the point there), it's more like what Hagi wrote a few posts up

 

[Jux]

As someone who frequents twitter about as much as people frequent the core of Chernobyl reactor 4, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I am torn between whether or not I actually want to have any idea about it...

Because I can't see how, at a glance, two pretentious hashtags like that in response and re-response to a shooting spree can be anything but self-aggrandizing stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YesAllWomen

I may be off about the timeline of the origin of the two tags, but here is a short explanation.

 

[Vegosiux]

As someone who frequents twitter about as much as people frequent the core of Chernobyl reactor 4, I have no idea what you're talking about, and I am torn between whether or not I actually want to have any idea about it...

Because I can't see how, at a glance, two pretentious hashtags like that in response and re-response to a shooting spree can be anything but self-aggrandizing stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YesAllWomen

I may be off about the timeline of the origin of the two tags, but here is a short explanation.

Yeah, I was right, I didn't want to have an idea. *sigh* Well what's done's done, I guess it's expected with so many crates of detergent lying around on the internet. But, hey, trust human beings to reduce every single case of a mentally disturbed individual to one dimension. SO yeah, I find it in poor taste, and more like people just latching onto something that looks vaguely convenient to hammer on a point they were going to hammer on to begin with as opposed to actual "response".

A bit like "Thanks, Obama"; only it's "See, sexism everywhere!" and "Well, not everywhere!" in this case.

Now, how about that mental healthcare system, I think we could get around to fixing it once we're done watching people having yet another gender war on the internet...

 

[Jux]

Now, how about that mental healthcare system, I think we could get around to fixing it once we're done watching people having yet another gender war on the internet...

A couple of issues here. First, Rodgers didn't just slip through the cracks. His parents knew he was troubled, he had been seeing mental health professionals for years. What exactly was the failing? You might blame the police for not searching his property when they had the chance (if you aren't familiar with this incident, I think it was his mom that called the police to check on him after seeing one of his videos. They didn't search his apartment.), or actually watching the video in question, but that has nothing to do with the mental healthcare system.

My second issue is that the mental healthcare system is triage, not a cure. Social/cultural issues, from attitudes towards gun culture to 'gender wars' (in this case the whole mess of PUA/misogyny/sexual entitlement echochamber) are a huge driving force[footnote]If you're interested in reading the neuroscience behind it, Chapter 6 of the book 'Whos in charge?' by Gazzaniga provides a lot of information about this[/footnote] behind in what ways the mentally ill act out. Being on the autism spectrum, which Rodgers was, is not a predictor of violent behavior.

edit: And lastly, the #yesallwomen tag is not an attempt to reduce the Rodger killings to one dimension. I have no idea how you got that out of the page I linked.

 

[Cerebrawl]

To be fair though, Elliot Rodger is the quintissential bullied kid who snaps. He'd been treated badly for too long, until finally the only thing he could think of was getting back at his tormentors, real and imagined. He hated interracial couples because he'd suffered from being mixed race himself, one more thing to be bullied for, he hated women because they all turned him down, etc.

It's also notable that he'd rejected the psychiatric treatment that he did recieve. Which isn't all that uncommon either, but still relevant. I know someone with paranoid schizophrenic tendencies who for a long time was convinced the doctors gave him toothpaste as medication, because that's what it tasted like, and even escaped from closed psychiatric care. He's better now, he takes his meds. Rodgers googled his meds and decided not to take them, and the united states doesn't have closed psychiatric rehab centers anymore, so he wasn't sent to one, which he probably needed.

Judging by the drug he was prescribed, he probably had more problems than just being on the autistic spectrum, from what I've read of him, he probably had some ADHD, borderline or narcicistic symptoms mixed in. And well, add in the bullying and beatings... it becomes an explosive mix.

 

[JimB]

To be fair though, Elliot Rodger is the quintissential bullied kid who snaps. He'd been treated badly for too long, until finally the only thing he could think of was getting back at his tormentors, real and imagined.

Treated badly by whom? Is this explained somewhere in that four hundred page manifesto of his I refuse to dignify by reading?

 

[Vegosiux]

To be fair though, Elliot Rodger is the quintissential bullied kid who snaps. He'd been treated badly for too long, until finally the only thing he could think of was getting back at his tormentors, real and imagined.

Treated badly by whom? Is this explained somewhere in that four hundred page manifesto of his I refuse to dignify by reading?

I refuse to dignify it by calling it anything other than "deluded ravings" myself, so I have read a few bits. And I quite agree this isn't the "quintessential kid who was bullied and snapped", it's a person whose perceptions of reality were terribly skewed, and the reasons for that can't be narrowed down to "that one thing".

As I said in the R&P thread, in order for something like this to happen, many things have to go exactly wrong for quite a while. But humans have a hard time dealing with something they can't point a finger at, so we tend to look for patterns/details sticking out and go "Yup, that's it."

-snip-

I concede that I've not done enough research on his entire mental healthcare history. As for the hashtag, well, he's "that woman-hating misogynist who hated women so he went and killed people and this is evidence of the violence inherent in the system", or have I paraphrased that wrong? (I know I'm being cynical, but that's my attitude, not my point)

 

[Jux]

I concede that I've not done enough research on his entire mental healthcare history. As for the hashtag, well, he's "that woman-hating misogynist who hated women so he went and killed people and this is evidence of the violence inherent in the system", or have I paraphrased that wrong? (I know I'm being cynical, but that's my attitude, not my point)

The campaign attempts to raise awareness of the intimidation and sexism women experience, often from people they know.

Afterwards [the killings] some commenters claimed the killer was simply mentally ill, while others maintained his beliefs and actions had been influenced by a misogynist culture that rewards male sexual aggression. An anonymous female Twitter user then created "#YesAllWomen," which quickly became used by women around the world to share their experiences of everyday sexism.

The hashtag is used to share stories of sexism directed at women. That's the purpose. There isn't anything about the hashtag that denotes commentary on Rodgers, his motivations, or 'violence inherent in the system'. The only connection to Rodgers as far as I can see is that the hashtag came up after the killings to raise awareness about everyday sexism women face.

The part of the quote above about mental illness is only commentary about why Rodgers did what he did. To say though that we (America) have a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression says nothing about 'inherent violence in the system' (tbh it sounds like a buzz phrase, what does that even mean?).

I don't think you'll find many feminists that claim that Rodgers mental issues, which led to him having difficulty navigating social waters, or his 'affluenza' which contributed to his entitlement, had zero impact on the actions he took. It was likely a 'perfect storm' of a number of these factors. But when people try to handwave it away as 'mental illness', it ignores the fact that mental issues are not accurate predictors of violence, and it ignores that Rodgers was steeped in a misogynistic culture that gave him a target for his failings and an echo chamber for his hate. And that's what feminists are arguing against.

 

[Vegosiux]

The hashtag is used to share stories of sexism directed at women. That's the purpose. There isn't anything about the hashtag that denotes commentary on Rodgers, his motivations, or 'violence inherent in the system'. The only connection to Rodgers as far as I can see is that the hashtag came up after the killings to raise awareness about everyday sexism women face.

Eugh, okay, no comment there, I have this inherent and probably slightly irrational aversion to something like that using a major incident as a springboard. Personal history thing, I don't want to talk about it.

Tbhe part of the quote above about mental illness is only commentary about why Rodgers did what he did. To say though that we (America) have a misogynistic culture that rewards male sexual aggression says nothing about 'inherent violence in the system' (tbh it sounds like a buzz phrase, what does that even mean?).

It was a Monty Python reference.

I don't think you'll find many feminists that claim that Rodgers mental issues, which led to him having difficulty navigating social waters, or his 'affluenza' which contributed to his entitlement, had zero impact on the actions he took. It was likely a 'perfect storm' of a number of these factors. But when people try to handwave it away as 'mental illness', it ignores the fact that mental issues are not accurate predictors of violence, and it ignores that Rodgers was steeped in a misogynistic culture that gave him a target for his failings and an echo chamber for his hate. And that's what feminists are arguing against.

Okay, let me make one thing clear for anyone who might misunderstand. When I say "mental illness" I am not waving it off; I am not saying "Oh, the bloke was just a nutcase *shrug*". Considering what I said in the post you quoted, that should be apparent.

His mental issues were just one of those things that contributed to the end by going exactly wrong for a while. It's also something I'm often led to believe that in USA, dealing with such issues has an abysmally bad record, so I took note of it-

...oh for crying out loud. Excuse me, I need to go slap myself, just realized I did a bit of a stupid through this exchange >.>

 

[Jux]

It was a Monty Python reference.

Ah, I see. Never watched the movies, so I didn't pick up on that.

Okay, let me make one thing clear for anyone who might misunderstand. When I say "mental illness" I am not waving it off; I am not saying "Oh, the bloke was just a nutcase *shrug*". Considering what I said in the post you quoted, that should be apparent.

And that's fair, I didn't mean to insinuate you were one of those people, but it felt that you might have had that leaning based on your first quote about America fixing it's mental health care instead of having a gender war. It appeared as though you were dismissing the 'gender stuff' in favor of just tackling it from a mental health perspective, and I just wanted to address that, and to clear up my own position on what factors I felt contibuted to Rodgers killings.

 

[Vegosiux]

And that's fair, I didn't mean to insinuate you were one of those people, but it felt that you might have had that leaning based on your first quote about America fixing it's mental health care instead of having a gender war. It appeared as though you were dismissing the 'gender stuff' in favor of just tackling it from a mental health perspective, and I just wanted to address that, and to clear up my own position on what factors I felt contibuted to Rodgers killings.

As long as we understand where we're standing. Yeah, I did feel a need to clarify, just in case for the exact reason you mentioned there. Can't really blame people for quoting me out of context if I fail to provide the context, can I?

As for my stance on "gender stuff", though, I don't know, I suppose I'm getting a little exasperated because it gets tacked onto so many things lately. I can't even eat my favorite soup every day, it'd start to taste foul.

 

[Jux]

As for my stance on "gender stuff", though, I don't know, I suppose I'm getting a little exasperated because it gets tacked onto so many things lately.

Not really a sentiment I can really relate to unfortunately. When you say, 'tacked on', is there an unspoken feeling that it's superfluous to do so? Without delving into specifics I can't really comment much further except to say that I think 'gender stuff' is a conversation society should keep on-going.

I can't even eat my favorite soup every day, it'd start to taste foul.

Is this a cultural idiom that I just don't get? Google is turning up nothing.