WGDF

[Shanahanapp]

Is it possible that the Escapist gets them to make these when they need to cull the userbase on the forums a bit?

 

[Rad Party God]

I guess it's spring cleaning for the forums.

I've ran out of popcorn, why are you torturing me like this! D:

 

[MCerberus]

Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! Step right up, step right up!
Today we are taking bets on the subject of the WGDF.

In one corner, we have a racist with a history of housing discrimination thinking he's a victim.
In the other, a murdering coward who thought himself a "supreme gentlemen".

Bet now, my fine friends, for we shall know the answer soon.

 

[Gorrath]

Indeed, and I don't find it particularly admirable or humorous to attack the insecurities of people, regardless of what group they belong to, unless there is some larger point to be made. I took no personal offense to the comic myself, I just found it to lack humor and thought it was in bad taste. Insecurities are derived by the individual based on their own experiences, not on which group they belong to (though you will find correlation between the two, it isn't axiomatic.) I just don't find being vicious to people all that amusing is all.

You're confusing "attack" with "expose". Exposing and clarifying insecurities helps everyone, perhaps especially the insecure people themselves. However, insecure people themselves don't see it this way, since they are protecting themselves from their insecurities and thus anyone unprotecting them is "attacking" them.

The bitter medicine analogy applies here - it may taste bad but it's good for you. After your insecurities are dealt with and you're a happier person as a result you'll understand.

I don't think I am. Exposing insecurities is fine, but WGDF was polemic. It made a caricature of those insecurities, it didn't just point them out. Making a mockery of people's insecurities doesn't tend to help them overcome those insecurities, it makes them get defensive, which is exactly what happened in the comments section. Defensive people tend to become unresponsive to communication, not open to change. WGDF wasn't some great travesty, I just thought it was needlessly vicious and not very funny because of it. Anything indelicate as WGDF which had a target as anything but white men would have been called abominable by far more people than it was. It demonstrates the sort of cognitive dissonance people have when it comes to stereotypes.

 

[Gorrath]

Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! Step right up, step right up!
Today we are taking bets on the subject of the WGDF.

In one corner, we have a racist with a history of housing discrimination thinking he's a victim.
In the other, a murdering coward who thought himself a "supreme gentlemen".

Bet now, my fine friends, for we shall know the answer soon.

My money is on both of those and the reaction of MRAs on twitter. As the last WGDF showed, we don't have to stick to one issue, we can make a soup out of the whole thing.

 

[MCerberus]

Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! Step right up, step right up!
Today we are taking bets on the subject of the WGDF.

In one corner, we have a racist with a history of housing discrimination thinking he's a victim.
In the other, a murdering coward who thought himself a "supreme gentlemen".

Bet now, my fine friends, for we shall know the answer soon.

My money is on both of those and the reaction of MARs on twitter. As the last WGDF showed, we don't have to stick to one issue, we can make a soup out of the whole thing.

With a healthy chunk of #RedskinsPride

 

[Grahav]

That's just an attempt to perpetuate stereotyping.

Exactly, as was the premise of the original WGDF comic. But based on the original, I think we're far more likely get a comic that follows the framework I described in the post you quoted, lol.

Since there is not a like button, have one:

Spoiler

Indeed, and I don't find it particularly admirable or humorous to attack the insecurities of people, regardless of what group they belong to, unless there is some larger point to be made. I took no personal offense to the comic myself, I just found it to lack humor and thought it was in bad taste. Insecurities are derived by the individual based on their own experiences, not on which group they belong to (though you will find correlation between the two, it isn't axiomatic.) I just don't find being vicious to people all that amusing is all.

You're confusing "attack" with "expose". Exposing and clarifying insecurities helps everyone, perhaps especially the insecure people themselves. However, insecure people themselves don't see it this way, since they are protecting themselves from their insecurities and thus anyone unprotecting them is "attacking" them.

The bitter medicine analogy applies here - it may taste bad but it's good for you. After your insecurities are dealt with and you're a happier person as a result you'll understand.

I don't think I am. Exposing insecurities is fine, but WGDF was polemic. It made a caricature of those insecurities, it didn't just point them out. Making a mockery of people's insecurities doesn't tend to help them overcome those insecurities, it makes them get defensive, which is exactly what happened in the comments section. Defensive people tend to become unresponsive to communication, not open to change. WGDF wasn't some great travesty, I just thought it was needlessly vicious and not very funny because of it. Anything indelicate as WGDF which had a target as anything but white men would have been called abominable by far more people than it was. It demonstrates the sort of cognitive dissonance people have when it comes to stereotypes.

All of what you said.

Side A is basically saying: "Look how side 1 is stupid". "A" people have a laugh and get smug, "1" people get furious and defensive. If anything, it doesn't make people consider new ideas, it makes them hold their old views with more force, putting concrete in the situation making it more unchangeable, which I doubt is the author's purpose.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/you-idiot-course-trolls-comments-make-you-believe-science-less

 

[Lightknight]

That would belittle the fear that the Zimmerman case caused. These men were robbing a place with a gun exposed. Zimmerman's victim was terrorizing the neighborhood with what? Skittles and tea?

He was sitting on him, punching him and knocking his head repeatedly against the pavement when he got shot, not a victim in my book, a criminal thug.

Yeah you can kill people that way too, Zimmerman is lucky to be alive after his encounter with the drug seeking* former american football player thug.

Zimmerman pursued Martin at night after being told by 911 responders not to do so. Martin was concerned that he was being followed and saw Zimmerman as the threat. This is entirely Zimmerman's doing. Just because Martin defended himself with fists doesn't make Zimmerman's defense of himself more valid just because he had a gun. Some people do stupid stuff. Zimmerman is "lucky" that his recklessness didn't get him killed, yes. But Martin didn't do anything wrong. I get that Zimmerman feared for his life but in the same way a man who runs up an punches a bear is afraid for his life. Doesn't make the bear unjustified in responding.

*He was out to score "Purple drank", a codein cough syrup based drug, this based on text messages found in his phone, and entered into evidence in court, and a matter of public record.

And this equates him to a gunman or dangerous criminal that should be confronted and threatened by an adult man with a gun, why? Last I checked, getting high on stuff is generally a victimless crime and it's generally considered ok to walk into your own neighborhood without being pursued by a stranger.

 

[WindKnight]

I think Jim C Hines summed it best when he talked about the angry reaction by men to the #yesallwomen hashtag.

Spoiler: screencap of his words

The idea that some people want their upset at 'being lumped in' with unpleasant types to be seen as more important than the harm those unpleasent types are actually doing needs calling out and mocking.

I can agree that it is ridiculous that someone would try and say their hurt feelings are more important than the shooting deaths of a bunch of people. If someone says that, they rightly deserve to be mocked. If someone says that they don't want to be lumped in a group with crazy people, and would prefer if they aren't stereotyped, that is completely rational and is not worthy of derision. I often see people being accused of the former when they are simply saying the latter.

Being part of a majority in power does not make one automatically immune to the pressures and problems caused by stereotyping, and so people wanting to avoid stereotyping is completely understandable. People trying to claim that the "real" problem is that they're the ones who are being discriminated against are often out of touch with what other people experience. Unfair discrimination and stereotyping is its own problem. It's bad no matter who it happens to and we don't have to engage in arguments of degree when we can just fight the problem where ever we see it. I've never thought of this as a 0 sum game.

I guess a good way to sum up my stance on things is that I am not a women's advocate or a men's advocate, I am not an advocate for any race or gender. I am an advocate for people who are suffering and for ideas that bring about equality. I don't know a great deal about the yesallwomen hashtag, as I find hashtag movements tend to readily get hijacked by loudmouthed people on two or more sides of any issue who make their living off of being as divisive as possible. Not sure if everything i said was actually warranted as a response to you, so please excuse me if my post is needlessly long-winded or misses your point.

Because frequently its invoked as a way of shutting down the discussion not engaging it, and frequently misses or flat out ignores that their often not being lumped in. Going back to what Jim C Hines said, comments using the #yesallwomen very rarely blamed or attacked all men, just laid down examples of how many women have had how some men act like their owed sex affect them both in general and in specific cases.

But '#notallmen' was invoked by people who didn't bother to notice that, and just wanted it shut down. The' I didn't do any of this, this is not my fault SO STOP TALKING ABOUT IT NOW' attitude where rather than just ignoring it, they want it stopped because they don't like other people talking about it.

 

[Lightknight]

That's just an attempt to perpetuate stereotyping.

Exactly, as was the premise of the original WGDF comic. But based on the original, I think we're far more likely get a comic that follows the framework I described in the post you quoted, lol.

You think? It seems like the point of the original thread would be to mock or ridicule anyone saying anything to override a rational race statement. I don't know how it could possibly use a situation in which an old white guy deters two armed criminals.

But if it does I'll recant.

 

[Cerebrawl]

That would belittle the fear that the Zimmerman case caused. These men were robbing a place with a gun exposed. Zimmerman's victim was terrorizing the neighborhood with what? Skittles and tea?

He was sitting on him, punching him and knocking his head repeatedly against the pavement when he got shot, not a victim in my book, a criminal thug.

Yeah you can kill people that way too, Zimmerman is lucky to be alive after his encounter with the drug seeking* former american football player thug.

Zimmerman pursued Martin at night after being told by 911 responders not to do so. Martin was concerned that he was being followed and saw Zimmerman as the threat. This is entirely Zimmerman's doing. Just because Martin defended himself with fists doesn't make Zimmerman's defense of himself more valid just because he had a gun. Some people do stupid stuff. Zimmerman is "lucky" that his recklessness didn't get him killed, yes. But Martin didn't do anything wrong. I get that Zimmerman feared for his life but in the same way a man who runs up an punches a bear is afraid for his life. Doesn't make the bear unjustified in responding.

Well Zimmerman was a neighbourhood watch and probably took that a bit too seriously, but judging by what we know, he probably confronted Martin verbally, asking him what he's doing there(he was dressed as a punk, saggy pants and hoody, and it was inside a high class gated community where he and his mom was temporarily, he looked out of place), and was met with sudden violence, taken off-guard and knocked down, and then the beating began in earnest.

So while Zimmerman was stupid not to follow 911s advice, and probably a bit too zealous in his neighbourhood watch role, that doesn't mean he deserved to be beaten to death in the street by a punk, and was certainly in the right to save his own life by lethal force when he was on his back, on the ground, getting pounded and bleeding. Heck the media made a big deal of "stand your ground", but he'd be perfectly in his rights to shoot even without that, because "duty to retreat" does not apply if the bad guy is sitting on you.

 

[wAriot]

Friendly reminder that the Elliot guy wasn't white. Just in case someone didn't get the memo.

 

[Lightknight]

Well Zimmerman was a neighbourhood watch and probably took that a bit too seriously, but judging by what we know, he probably confronted Martin verbally, asking him what he's doing there(he was dressed as a punk, saggy pants and hoody, and it was inside a high class gated community where he and his mom was temporarily, he looked out of place), and was met with sudden violence, taken off-guard and knocked down, and then the beating began in earnest.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he confronted Martin aggressively. Grabbing him to make him stop walking and acting generally threatening like so many of these self-appointed neighborhood watch people do with shit that isn't their business. I have no reason to believe that Martin didn't feel threatened. If he'd had a gun, he would have had to have been let off for the same reason Zimmerman was. Except that Zimmerman caused this.

So while Zimmerman was stupid not to follow 911s advice, and probably a bit too zealous in his neighbourhood watch role, that doesn't mean he deserved to be beaten to death in the street by a punk, and was certainly in the right to save his own life by lethal force when he was on his back, on the ground, getting pounded and bleeding. Heck the media made a big deal of "stand your ground", but he'd be perfectly in his rights to shoot even without that, because "duty to retreat" does not apply if the bad guy is sitting on you.

We'll never know if he was going to get beaten to death or just subdued. All we know is that he followed a kid at night and certainly made Martin feel threatened. If you take it upon yourself to confront strangers on the street at night then you assume a risk of getting punched. It's not like Zimmerman had a badge or any authority to do this.

 

[Cerebrawl]

Friendly reminder that the Elliot guy wasn't white. Just in case someone didn't get the memo.

Neither was Zimmerman for that matter, not classically at least. He was mixed latino/jew.

 

[Lightknight]

Friendly reminder that the Elliot guy wasn't white. Just in case someone didn't get the memo.

Neither was Zimmerman for that matter, not classically at least. He was mixed latino/jew.

Jewish people aren't often considered white? What would you define Sarah Silverman as for example.

Also, isn't White Hispanic a significant demographic? By classically, do you mean white non-hispanic (which would be axiomatically true since he's hispanic)?

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Trying to thin the herd out some, Grey?

Spoiler: Let's do this.

It should be very interesting. xD

Spoiler: I'm actually a bit giddy from the anticipation.

[https://imageshack.com/i/04taokakadance1g]
Should be fun. Just the announcement threat alone has gotten pretty big. xD

Also, good of you to change the the info on that link Grey. xD It was needed.
Sorry I couldn't buy the Bad Dad comic.
:/ I tried, but the sale didn't work for some reason....

Soooooooooooooooooo many bans. I'm surprised the mods didn't just up and lock the comment section like they do for regular threads that seem specifically designed to get people banned. =3

Unfortunately, we can't lock Featured Content or News Room threads.
We can only lock user-made threads, not officially-made threads.

And yeah, the previous WGDF thread became the final resting place for sooooo many users.

I'm sure everyone has learned their lesson, and will behave themselves admirably in the next thread? [small]Oh, who am I kidding...[/small]

Look at the bright side. You now know what to expect.
1000+ angry posts. ;p

Don't let your hope die yet though. We believe in you, Topaz!

 

[Cerebrawl]

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he confronted Martin aggressively. Grabbing him to make him stop walking and acting generally threatening like so many of these self-appointed neighborhood watch people do with shit that isn't their business. I have no reason to believe that Martin didn't feel threatened.

Well Zimmerman was the neighbourhood watch coordinator, so he wasn't simply self-appointed. This neighbourhood watch was administered by the local police department.

You're also treading well into the realm of unsubstantiated speculation. All we know is that Zimmerman approached Martin, was assaulted by Martin, and while on his back and being sat on and beaten by Martin, shot Martin.

And we'll certainly never know what Martin felt.

Oh and you don't subdue people by knocking their head repeatedly into the pavement, that's way past subdue and into attempted murder.

 

[Michael Tabbut]

Just because he stands there and belongs to the WGDF doesn't mean we'll get people raging. I think....

Not in this thread, no.
But what's important in the comic is the bit at the bottom where it says "Coming soon..."

So any raging will likely happen in the next WGDF thread.

Unless this is just another potential future thing we get promised, but it never happens, which has happened before.

To be fair that was posted on April Fools.

 

[Michael Tabbut]

Good speed you Alpha. Not all men were angry at the comic

At first i didn't like the last comic, i thought it was a bit too angry and biting to be funny. But as the thread went on i realized it was perfect. It trolled but it trolled so good, so good. Ooooh my drama glands are salivating just thinking about it. I'm going to enjoy this an uncomfortable amount. I hope it makes it's way into some MRA circles. I want to see new accounts, i want to see claims of victimization, i want to see "Straw man argument" in every single post. I want bloody ban-hammer wounds!

Ye Gods man! Aren't you out for blood.

 

[Lightknight]

Well Zimmerman was the neighbourhood watch coordinator, so he wasn't simply self-appointed. This neighbourhood watch was administered by the local police department.

You are correct. I see now that he was appointed by other members. Lots of misdirection came out on the reporting of the story at the time.

You're also treading well into the realm of unsubstantiated speculation. All we know is that Zimmerman approached Martin, was assaulted by Martin, and while on his back and being sat on and beaten by Martin, shot Martin.

And we'll certainly never know what Martin felt.

We know that Martin started trying to run away. Zimmerman stated this on the 911 call. Zimmerman even eventually lost sight of him. Perhaps Martin was hiding to get away from him. That's the point the dispatcher told him not to follow Martin any further and Zimmerman ended the call. That's the point beyond which we don't know more about.

Martin tried to get away. Does that sound like a person who isn't feeling threatened?