WGDF

[Hutzpah Chicken]

I know the mods don't like it when one responds with a simple phrase, but this strip can only conger a single word from me. That word is, "LOL"!

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Hoo boy. I'll be in the fallout shelter if anyone needs me, folks. Remember, it's funny to offend people unless you offend me!

[small]PROTIP: If you feel personally offended enough by a comic on the Internet to where you cannot help but write a ban-worthy angry post about it, then you may be taking either it or yourself far too seriously.[/small]

 

[WindKnight]

This should be fun.

I think the last WGDF was the funniest and most biting strip I've seen.

And the response was...delicious.

Poor little white guys making excuses for themselves.

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.

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.

 

[Lightknight]

So the joke here is that it starts with a minority making a rational claim and then a bunch of white guys making outlandish and ridiculous counters? Ok. I guess that'll be exciting. Not sure if it's trying to prove something other than irrational bigots are irrational.

Is the argument being made supposed to be that white people should shut up or is it just that ignorant ass-flap-mouthed bigots should shut up?

Eh, I guess I don't really care. I'll see it when I see it.

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.

So as humans we're basically incapable of handling two different but related issues at the same time without resorting to ridicule because one isn't as important as the other? Interesting.

Stereotyping in all it's forms is a valid issue to discuss. The two topics are not somehow mutually exclusive to be discussed. So it shouldn't be bad for someone to say that what that guy was terrible but not all men have some hidden crazy desire to murder people without someone saying, "Ur part of the problem" for saying that. It's a nonsense conclusion to go from someone feeling stereotyped because of someone else's actions to them being somehow in part responsible for that person's murder (aka, part of the problem). That's just bullshit.

That kind of response that seeks to turn the person speaking into a monster is truly wrong to do. It prevents rational and open discussions on the topic of race from being discussed. For example, I'm conflicted on the subject of affirmative action. On the one hand I strongly believe that people shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of race and yet the practice of affirmative action gives one side an actual advantage because of the color of their skin. So it's sort of a way to fight racism with racism. But to bring this topic up is to open anyone open to immediate ridicule in most circles. Why? Why can't it and anything like it be openly discussed? You'd be amazed at how many time reason is inadvertently stomped into the ground by people who think they are defending a cause then they're really just squashing an unrelated or legitimate discussion.

 

[tangoprime]

Please tell me this is not in response to the shooting...

I hope it is. The entire universe will implode on itself in a storm of white-hot rage. The Escapist will basically become reverse-tumblr.

What if it is about a shooting, but instead, it's about THIS shooting:

Spoiler

Y'know, since the original comic this is referencing had a trio of caricature white guys go all "Zimmerman Mode Activate" and this shooting involved a 71 year old Floridian shooting a pair of armed young men in the commission of a robbery. Who were wearing Hoodies. And very well could look like Obama's son if he had one. That old guy totally activated Zimmerman mode.

Of course, the original comic was just a double barrel shotgun blast of flamebait...
So it'll likely just be about WGDF showing up to help an NRA lobbyist slut-shame Anita Sarkeesian who was in the process of tweet blasting some guys for making an immature joke during a tech conference speech on modern console gaming vs. PC gaming, with lots of booth babes in the background.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

The last time they murdered a human being for having a rational thought-out opinion.

If they don't end up in gibbets or tied to an anthill, I'm going to be sorely disappointed.

238U

 

[Lightknight]

Please tell me this is not in response to the shooting...

I hope it is. The entire universe will implode on itself in a storm of white-hot rage. The Escapist will basically become reverse-tumblr.

What if it is about a shooting, but instead, it's about THIS shooting:

Spoiler

Y'know, since the original comic this is referencing had a trio of caricature white guys go all "Zimmerman Mode Activate" and this shooting involved a 71 year old Floridian shooting a pair of armed young men in the commission of a robbery. Who were wearing Hoodies. And very well could look like Obama's son if he had one. That old guy totally activated Zimmerman mode.

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?

It serves nobody any justice to show that some people in hoodies commit crimes. That's just an attempt to perpetuate stereotyping.

 

[tangoprime]

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.

 

[Irridium]

I first read it as "Some men have grown up... but not all men."

Still works.

 

[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.

*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.

 

[briankoontz]

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.

 

[Gorrath]

This should be fun.

I think the last WGDF was the funniest and most biting strip I've seen.

And the response was...delicious.

Poor little white guys making excuses for themselves.

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.

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.

 

[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.