WGDF
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
I can't say I took that from my readings of the strip and I felt it was likely far more the latter situation you mention than the former. Picking on the insecurities of people who belong to the majority is about as safe as you can play it, since pissing those people off is easy and no one's going to care except those being negatively portrayed. As the thread that accompanied the strip showed, people expressing anger over how they thought they were being criticized actually just got more ridicule dropped on them.thaluikhain said:
I don't even mind the idea of the drunken octopus punching in every direction, but that's not really what they do. What they do is they punch in very specific directions. I've seen good, funny comedy done that picked on people because the comic would pick on everyone. If no one is safe from the bite of the comic, everyone can laugh. If the comic seems to have it out for only certain people though, it makes the comic look like they are vicious. Based on what I've seen of this kind of strip from Critical Miss, they look far more like the latter than the former.
This is all opinion of course, and mine's probably not worth the screen it's typed on, I freely admit.
Oh, was that it? I thought it was poking fun at the fact that a large number of internet MRAs/video game boyz club members happen to also be bronies?RJ 17 said:
I'm probably wrong, though. I go out of my way to avoid these kinds of controversies for the sake of my peace of mind.
Ah yes, "punching in every direction... like a starfish. A starfish made of fists."thaluikhain said:
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.1Life0Continues said:
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.
Very strongly disagree with this. Comedians attacking minorities is par for the course, it only gets called "daring" and "edgy" by those insecure members of the majority who thinks they are being oppressed.Gorrath said:
If you want to safely pick on a group, you pick on a relatively powerless minority that everyone else is picking on. Picking on the majority is very much not the way to go about it. Hell, as mentioned, quite a number of people got angry enough to get themselves banned in the fallout from the last one. Nobody got that angry when they made fun of gender neutral pronouns, because people who care about that sort of thing are a minority most people at best don't care about, or at worst are actively hostile to.
That only works if you hold all those people to be morally equal, though. If you hold any sort of opinion, you are going to think that some groups are more deserving of ridicule than others.Gorrath said:
But then, yeah, you comedy becomes a polemic if you aren't careful.
Oh, that was it, yeah.balladbird said:
Oh boy, this is gonna be fun.
Though it does remind about what annoyed me the first time around. People are more scared of accusations of racism slash sexism than actual racism slash sexism.
Though it does remind about what annoyed me the first time around. People are more scared of accusations of racism slash sexism than actual racism slash sexism.
Very much this.erttheking said:
OTOH, though, I can sort of understand it. Racism can be subtle, but calling people out on it is not. OTOOH, racism can be very unsubtle and still not be seen be people not wanting to see it.
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.Gorrath said:
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.
So I am guessing your going for the whole hurricane effect here. First you see the storm on the horizon, than you spend two or three strips inside, and just when you think it was over because their was a strip about something else, you get plunged back in. Afterwards everything is broken, but also soaked clean. With this you create a complex meta commentary on how internet rage is just another unchecked force of nature we must simply survive.
Gordon_4 said:
RJ 17 said:
I can't comment on ban-counts, but MovieBob's (rather unphrophetic) <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2911-PC-Gaming-Is-Dead-Long-Live-PC-Gaming>PC Gaming is Dead video racked up considerably more comments.IceForce said:
OT: Time to cleanse the forums again!
Now, if only they'd make yet another Neon Genesis Evangelion comic after hyping us for White Guy Defense Force...
The forums would crash.
The forums would crash.
I'm not sure how you reconcile this with what's in common media though. Commercials often portray men as dumb creatures who only manage to get through the day because of their wise wives and the only people that seem to take issue with this are MRAs. The Colbert Report makes fun of some combination of white/male/rich/stupid people constantly and only Fox News (and their ilk) seem to think it's a problem, but one out of context joke that offended some Asian people caused a media shitstorm.thaluikhain said:
Lots of people got angry about the last WGDF for sure, but that anger was totally impotent, all it got the people who were angry was ridiculed/banned. It's perfectly safe to pick on them because there is no consequence for the content creator. Sure, jokes making fun of white people might piss some white people off, but it's not going to cause every media outlet in the country, the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center to jump on a ban wagon. Impotent rage is completely non-threatening. (Just to be clear, I understand totally that there are other details of this issue that are extremely important. I am merely discussing the ramifications of race/sex targeted jokes, not ignoring the reasons why there is a difference.So please be aware that I'm not blind to why our society is like this.)
Sure, but those groups might be more or less deserving of ridicule based on what the group believes. The comic who makes fun of a group like the KKK is under no obligation to also make fun of the Black Panthers in order to avoid being a bad comic or labeled a racist. But if you see a trend where the comic is say, targeting "white guys" all the time this does not come off as "Punching in all directions" it comes off as "here's a target we can pick on because it'll only piss off white guys, and who the hell cares if you piss off white guys other than the white guys?" All groups are not morally equal in thought and belief, but groups like race and sex are amoral, so choosing just one sex/race and being vicious to them at the exclusion of others tends to make one look, as you say, polemic at least.
Picking on the insecurities of individuals and then hiding behind "but they're white and so shouldn't be offended," seems to fly in the face of logic to me. Not that you have said that, but it does seem to be implied rather a lot (by people who are not you.) I often like having these talks with you by the way, you seem rather reasonable. I appreciate your willingness to avoid platitudes and discuss things in a way that gets at the meat of the subject. Thanks for being an amiable person.