WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!

[Plunkies]

Zimmerman bears more responsibility for the conflict than does the child he killed.

He was 6'1", 170lbs, and a football player. He was nearly a head and shoulders taller than Zimmerman in height. In all likelihood, he would have been tried as an adult had he survived the conflict. The only question is how many years Trayvon would have spent in jail. It's not even a question whether he would have been guilty or not.

There is only one person that bears responsibility for his actions that night, and it is the man who attacked Zimmerman without provocation.

I don't think that bears up. Let's ask ourselves what could have been done differently to avoid this conflict.

Trayvon Martin could have not attacked George Zimmerman. That's fine, but it doesn't hold up, because if Zimmerman is justified for shooting Martin on some "stand your ground" principle, then Martin is equally (and probably more, since he didn't use a lethal weapon) justified for standing his own ground.

George Zimmerman could have not shot Trayvon Martin. No, that is apparently off the table because he was smaller than Martin, so it's a wash when it comes to actively participating in the conflict itself. If one person was justified attacking, then the other was as well. Let's go back in time further.

George Zimmerman, having alerted the police, could have not followed Trayvon Martin, as the 911 dispatcher said. I think that's fair, but let's see what Martin could have done.

Trayvon Martin could have stayed home to not go buy Skittles so George Zimmerman would not have seen him to be suspicious of him. That's fucking ridiculous.

Viewed purely from the lens of "whom could we reasonably ask to have done something different that would not result in a dead child," George Zimmerman is the one who erred. He bears the responsibility for creating this conflict. It did not exist before George Zimmerman made it exist.

What you're saying is racist. "How can I be racist if I'm defending Trayvon Martin?" you may likely ask. It's the racism of low expectations. You inherently attribute violent behavior to blacks (in this case Martin), and give him zero personal responsibility or self control that a normal human being would have. Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that just being near this "child" (a large athletic 17 year old child, lol), warrants a beating. As though being in the general vicinity of a young black male is the equivalent of poking a bear or jumping into a lion's cage.

Trayvon Martin wasn't a wild animal, despite his behavior. He was a member of society, and as a member of society, you have a personal responsibility to not to try to beat people to death with zero provocation. You place all of the blame on Zimmerman for being nearby, but none of the blame on Martin for initiating and continuing a violent confrontation.

Oh, and by the way, you don't seem to have watched the trial at all. I'm guessing you're one of those people who were simply told what to think by the media, instead of going to the source and forming your own opinion.

There was no stand your ground. That simply removes the duty to retreat first in a life or death situation. Zimmerman had no retreat since he was on his back, which all witness and forensic evidence verifies. The dispatcher didn't tell Zimmerman to stop following because he's not allowed to do that, he said "we don't need you to do that" to which Zimmerman replied "ok" and then stopped, as you can hear in the 911 tapes and was established in the trial. The reason Zimmerman got out of his car, was because he lost sight of Martin completely. Zimmerman had no knowledge of Martin's location for 4 minutes. In fact, during the trial, the defense put up a clock and had everyone sit there in silence and contemplate on an entire 4 minutes where Martin could have walked less than 100 yards to his house, or even just removed himself from the situation. But he didn't. He went back and ambushed Zimmerman just a few yards from his truck.

Zimmerman did nothing illegal. He did nothing to provoke a physical attack from Martin. If Zimmerman hadn't defended himself and also survived the attack, he wouldn't have been charged for somehow "creating a conflict" by being near another person at some point in time. That's not a law. That's not even common sense. Trayvon Martin would have been charged with at least aggravated battery, if not attempted murder.

Even if Martin hadn't ambushed Zimmerman. Even if Zimmerman got out of his truck, walked directly behind Martin, and insulted him for the next 4 minutes, Martin STILL wouldn't have been justified in escalating it to physical violence, and then further escalating it to deadly violence when the victim tried to escape.

Ironically, most people try to paint Zimmerman as being a racist, yet your apparent argument is that he wasn't racist enough. That he should have been more racist and stayed far away from the black person because they're very likely to attack you, and if you get attacked it's your own fault.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!

*Guitar Solo*

Read Full Article

And to think you managed to beat out Coelasquid in the Webcomic competition.

This webcomic has gotten really sad as of late, especially compared to Manly Guys Doing Manly Things.

Spoiler: Coelasquids response to the Harley Quinn committing suicide issue (as well as showing her displesure at the new Lobo)

 

[Lono Shrugged]

Wow, the comic while originally not really funny, unoriginal and misinformed, made the basic point that the "average white male" (a stereotype) is whiney and self absorbed. Considering the views and responses and anger that has been whipped up over a few panels, I think the authors have created their finest work. Here I was chuckling at 'hover hands' without any idea of the hilarity that would ensue in the comments. Man alive...

 

[Strazdas]

This was unexpected. but the references there kinda went all in. hover hand will make them famous! Though you should have tried putting the talk to the hand in there too.

Of all the things that attract attention in this comic, of all the things that draw one's eye, one thing sticks out to me:

.....what exactly is the "Son zone"?

Its when Milf friendzones you.

 

[The Wooster]

Wow, the comic while originally not really funny, unoriginal and misinformed, made the basic point that the "average white male" (a stereotype) is whiney and self absorbed. Considering the views and responses and anger that has been whipped up over a few panels, I think the authors have created their finest work. Here I was chuckling at 'hover hands' without any idea of the hilarity that would ensue in the comments. Man alive...

Show me one other comic that characterizes angry internet white dudes as motherfucking Gorangers. I'll take unfunny and misinformed, but unoriginal? Please.

 

[JimB]

"If his race doesn't matter, why should I go back and redo this modelling/drawing/writing work to make him black?"

Then race does matter after all.

Except you have the starting phrase wrong. It's an obvious reference to the arguments over things like, again, Idris Elba as Heimdall, where one side would say "they shouldn't cast a black actor, because the character has always been white." And the other side says "But the race was never a big part of the character, so why does it matter if he's black now?" Then this comic jumps in halfway through the argument, where the guy with the second position has apparently managed to get the guy with the first position to concede that the race didn't matter.

Which comic are you talking about, and are you talking to me or to Evil Roy? Your quote nesting is very confusing.

I wasn't aware we were fighting about it.

I was using "you" in the generic sense. I thought that was obvious from the context, since neither you nor I have mentioned any specific character of any race.

I'm not sure that it's so much them not caring but still fighting for it, and more that they want to know why anybody cares enough to make the change in the first place if it doesn't matter.

This is an impossible question to answer in a hypothetical, since I don't know what character is being referred to. There probably isn't a specific one at all in mind, but let's say it's Link just for the sake of having a name to use. I would guess that the black dude from Critical Miss is arguing to change Link to a black character because Hyrule is as white as a Saltine dipped in mayo, and he would like to feel as if Nintendo isn't excluding him not out of active hatred but out of passive dismissal, as if black people are beneath being represented as protagonists in video games.

I'm in the same boat as Specter, so maybe you can help me understand why some people change it simply for the sake of changing it.

Who said anything about changing for the sake of change rather than to accomplish a specific goal?

A dispatcher cannot order or instruct you to do anything as their authority extends only as far as suggesting a course of action.

Then why call 911, if you're just going to ignore them anyway?

Stand your ground was never invoked in the trial, because this was a simple case of self defense.

It was by the police when they refused to arrest Zimmerman for the forty-something days between the shooting and his arrest.

Martin, in this case, if he survived, could not have invoked stand your ground or self-defense, seeing how he assaulted Zimmerman; these two laws only apply when you're not acting illegally, which Martin did.

The eyewitness accounts conflict on that, and I think Martin would probably have a different story to tell if he had been left capable of telling it.

While not as effective as a handgun at close range or as godlike as they are in Call if Duty, fists and feet are not non-lethal.

Christ. Nothing on the planet Earth or the reaches beyond is non-lethal.

When you're being assaulted, you're justified defending yourself. Zimmerman already lost Martin when he was following him, the latter then came back to initiate the conflict.

And you have the evidence of this, yes?

What you're saying is racist. "How can I be racist if I'm defending Trayvon Martin?" you may likely ask.

No, my question is, "How is it racist to apply the same justifications to both Martin's and Zimmerman's actions?"

You inherently attribute violent behavior to blacks[...]

Wow. No, you're the one doing that. I never said a word about any black person other than Trayvon Martin, and I never said a word about the motivations behind his behavior. He felt threatened, so he took violent action. This is exactly the same thing George Zimmerman did. To extrapolate from that that I think his actions were motivated by inherent violence rather than the fundamental human instinct of fight or flight, and then to further extrapolate that I think black people are inherently less capable of controlling animal instincts, is completely insupportable and is nothing but you projecting.

[...]and give him zero personal responsibility or self-control that a normal human being would have.

What does self-control have to do with being stalked by an armed man twice your age who is following you with aggressive intent?

Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that just being near this "child" (a large athletic 17 year old child, lol), warrants a beating.

No, my argument hinges on the belief that Zimmerman lied when he said he didn't approach Martin. Remember the testimony of the girl Martin was on the phone with.

Oh, and by the way, you don't seem to have watched the trial at all. I'm guessing you're one of those people who were simply told what to think by the media, instead of going to the source and forming your own opinion.

Guess whatever you want if it helps you sleep better at night, secure in your belief that anyone who disagrees with you is a mindless sheep bleating out the media's spin rather than someone who believes he has a better understanding of the facts than you.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

snip

I have never seen any other film where Mario Van Peebles plays a Battleship captain, but it doesn't mean American Warships is not a Battleship knock off piece of shit.

 

[Xelien]

I just noticed this had over 1000 posts and I just had to laugh, oh you guys.

Anyways, I immediately shared this to a good amount of people when it first came up. It was a crowd pleaser.

 

[Plunkies]

What you're saying is racist. "How can I be racist if I'm defending Trayvon Martin?" you may likely ask.

No, my question is, "How is it racist to apply the same justifications to both Martin's and Zimmerman's actions?"

What justification? There is no justification. That's what makes it illegal. You can't go around violently assaulting people.

You inherently attribute violent behavior to blacks[...]

Wow. No, you're the one doing that. I never said a word about any black person other than Trayvon Martin, and I never said a word about the motivations behind his behavior. He felt threatened, so he took violent action. This is exactly the same thing George Zimmerman did. To extrapolate from that that I think his actions were motivated by inherent violence rather than the fundamental human instinct of fight or flight, and then to further extrapolate that I think black people are inherently less capable of controlling animal instincts, is completely insupportable and is nothing but you projecting.

Fight or flight? He felt threatened? Once again you give Trayvon Martin no control over whether or not he chooses to act like a violent thug. He didn't feel threatened or he wouldn't have gone back to confront Zimmerman, and there's no fight or flight instinct when you GO BACK and attack someone. Fight or flight is a defensive mechanism, not an offensive one.

[...]and give him zero personal responsibility or self-control that a normal human being would have.

What does self-control have to do with being stalked by an armed man twice your age who is following you with aggressive intent?

Again, he wasn't stalked. You're using charged and biased words instead of relying on facts. Zimmerman could not have followed or stalked martin because he lost sight of Martin, as indicated by the 911 call. Martin had 4 minutes to go home and instead chose to wait for Zimmerman near his truck at the T intersection. And based on where Martin sprinted away while Zimmerman was still in his truck, Martin would have had to double back to initiate a confrontation at that intersection, in the opposite direction of the house he was staying at.

So, once again, self control has everything to do with not attacking people for no reason.

Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that just being near this "child" (a large athletic 17 year old child, lol), warrants a beating.

No, my argument hinges on the belief that Zimmerman lied when he said he didn't approach Martin. Remember the testimony of the girl Martin was on the phone with.

Yes, I clearly remember the embarrassing and perjury filled testimony of Rachel Jeantel. She placed Trayvon Martin as instigating the confrontation, despite changing the words of said confrontation (lying under oath). But in both stories, the thing that remained constant was Trayvon Martin initiating the confrontation by saying "Why you following me?" to which Zimmerman in her first story said "What are you talking about?" and in the second story said "Why are you in my neighborhood?" or something to that effect.

Neither the location of the fight, nor witness testimony, nor Zimmerman's story immediately after the incident, would indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin. If you have evidence of this, you should present it, because the prosecution had no evidence of this either and I'm sure they'd be happy for your expertise.

Oh, and by the way, you don't seem to have watched the trial at all. I'm guessing you're one of those people who were simply told what to think by the media, instead of going to the source and forming your own opinion.

Guess whatever you want if it helps you sleep better at night, secure in your belief that anyone who disagrees with you is a mindless sheep bleating out the media's spin rather than someone who believes he has a better understanding of the facts than you.

But you clearly don't have a better understanding of the facts. You seem to have few facts at all. You rely on emotion, charged words, lies, misrepresentations, but I've yet to hear many facts from you. You insist Zimmerman is the cause of the incident but fail entirely to provide evidence for that claim just as the prosecution failed during the trial.

You say you don't "bleat out the media's spin" and yet on multiple occasions you claim the dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop following, which is in fact media spin. You say stand your ground was why he wasn't arrested, but stand your ground never came into play. He wasn't arrested because it was an open and shut self-defense case and there was nothing to charge. You claim Zimmerman stalked Martin which is also impossible based on Zimmerman losing track of Martin for at least 4 minutes prior to the incident. And even if you could somehow prove both of these to be true despite all the evidence to the contrary, they still wouldn't amount to a single crime committed by Zimmerman.

 

[Irridium]

*White Hetero dudes after telling an offensive joke*: "It's just a joke, you guys have no sense of humor. Get a thicker skin and quit trying to kill comedy and censor free speech"

*Oppressed person (or anyone, really) tells joke about white hetero males*

White hetero dude after hearing said joke* "I AM SUDDENLY INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING IRONY OR SATIRE AND YOU ARE THE NEXT HITLER QUIT OPPRESSING STRAIGHT WHITE MALES YOU FUCKING *racist/sexist comment here*"

Well done, Grey and Cory. Comic was great. And as a straight hetero male, I can actually take a joke and laugh because the comic isn't referring to me specifically

 

[Sejborg]

This many comments for a comic that isn't even funny?

Serious business the internet.

 

[Schadrach]

The edit is poking fun about the way most of those people only seem to think that the race doesn't matter for /white/ characters, for minority characters it's suddenly very important.

That's always irked me. I've been firmly on the "don't break canon when working with established characters without a damned good reason, and no 'diversity' for it's own sake isn't one" side. I was on the "racist" side regarding Heimdallr and Johnny Storm, but miraculously switched to the side of virtue fighting against racism when we started talking about Akira.

 

[SidheKnight]

I love facts and statistics and i do happen to be a white male(through no fault of my own, i assure you). This combination of properties i possess clearly puts me in the comic creators definition of the WMDF. I take no pride in this but i also find it difficult to feel too much shame about it which is generally how i feel about race as well despite clearly being pegged as a racist here. I've never understood the concept of racial pride. How can i take credit for accomplishments i have had no hand in?

I do not expect other people to answer for things they have not themselves done or expressed but it seems obvious that as a white male, i cannot be expected to receive the same treatment from others. By virtue of my skin tone/gender i am expected to not protest when i am treated poorly or mischaracterized or else i am shamed by those around me because somewhere someone has been mistreated worse than me and for possibly worse reasons. I do not deny the reality that yes, others have been treated worse than me. A trip to a graveyard will confirm that. And by such an extreme metric, no one has a right to complain as long as they still live.

Have we grown so lacking in empathy that we have to ration it out only to certain groups and not to others? And if so shouldn't the metric be based on suffering or injustice rather than demographic?

The notion of privilege gets thrown around a lot and if it's advocates are to be believed, i am exceedingly well endowed with it. Yet somehow through no irresponsibility of my own, i have been homeless, i have been without employment/income(never been fired), i have been raped/drugged(how i lost my virginity), i have been shot at(drive by), I have had my home destroyed by gang members, my father died last year of a drug overdose, i've been betrayed by numerous supposed best friends and girlfriends, i've been locked up(violated a weapons law while homeless for carrying something i didn't know was illegal to protect myself with), and i have been disowned by all sides of my family because they all think i'm some kind of satanist(spoiler: I'm not).

I don't bring any of that up for the sake of a pity party. My suffering isn't special. But it does exist. To be informed that i have no right to my grief because of aspects of myself i had no choice in, Also denies me my right to empathise with others who have also experienced suffering and grief whether they share my gender/skin tone or not. And this is the objection i have with the subtext that this comic promotes.

/STANDING OVATION

You've just said something I've been wanting to put into words all this time. Thanks!

WARNING: LONG POST INCOMING

BTW, to those of you who say that "If you're offended by this comic, YOU are the problem":

I'll explain why I find this comic in very poor taste.

First of all, I'll say that I totally agree with the point you guys are trying to get across: That there's an awful disproportion of representation of demographics in gaming, in other words, it's pure straight white males as far as the eye can see, and yes, it IS a problem if your goal is inclusion (mine is).

I also agree that, if from the get go, you can easily make a protagonist female/black/gay/etc.. DO IT. You'll be making gaming (and minority gamers) a great service. Hell, even I get tired of playing as white dudes all the time.

So why, then, do I feel.. hmm no, offended is a strong word.. umm.. put off by this comic?

Well, guys, some of the stereotypes you used are hurtful.

Let's analyse who make up the White Guy Defense Force:

This three individuals are very likely nerds and/or gamers, since this issue is mainly a gaming thing.

The first one is a "beta" overweight male brony with a victim complex. From what I understand, beta means socially awkward loser who doesn't have friends or get girls, and probably resents society ("thanks Obama") because of that.

The second, from what I get (I may be wrong) is a stereotypical XBox Live angry alpha "bro" douchebag that can't go five seconds without throwing a racist/homophobic/misogynist slut. Regrettably gamers now understand this to be 99% of the "modern shooter" fanbase, when actually I think it's just a very vocal minority.

The third is the now (in)famous "Fedora Atheist", which is the stereotype of an obnoxious, arrogant, socially awkward (again), physically unattractive (not always), religiously intolerant, militant atheist with a pseudo-intellectual superiority complex.

Many of those caricatures hit very close to home for me.

I am a white male. I am a little overweight. I am a nerd. I am a gamer. I am socially awkward, which means my IRL friends list is very very short, and I have only had one girlfriend in my entire life, and it didn't last long. I wear glasses (like most Fedora Atheists for some reason). Speaking of which, I am an atheist. I've never worn a fedora, though.

I am NOT religiously intolerant (I'm OK with people believing in ghosts, as long as they don't force their BS into the rest of society through politics, education, the legal system or bullying/intimidation). I don't have a victim complex or a superiority complex (that I know of). Nobody has ever told me that I'm obnoxious or arrogant (quite the contrary). I never use racist/sexist/homophobic slurs (except in jokes in which I make fun of the people that use them). I don't resent society for my condition (It's nobody's fault that I am what I am. People who blame society just want to avoid taking responsability for their own lives).

My point is, I've been bullied since elementary school all the way 'till graduation. Bullied for having these traits that this comics make fun of. I don't want to add "racist/misogynist/homophobic" to the list of prejudices against me just because I share some physical and demographical traits with the WGDF douchebags.

No, I'm not comparing my being bullied in school to the actual sh!t minorities had (and sometimes still have) to go through in their lives. I'm just saying that your problems being greater than mine doesn't make my problems non-existant (fallacy of relative privation).

My point is, authors of Critical Miss, don't piss off your allies.

Oh, and I almost forgot the probably biggest offender: ZIMMERMAN.

I'll admit I don't know much about the Zimmerman case, not being American myself. But if the man was found not-guilty by a jury of his peers in a fair trial, you should respect that veredict, whether you agree with it or not. The justice system of most democracies is based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Using the media to perpetuate the notion that the man is guilty (and tarnishing his reputation in the process) is nothing less than libel.

OK, I'm done.

I just wanted to say that, boy it was a long post. I wish the authors of this comic read this post, even if they don't respond. But I'm afraid it'll be ignored. Please tell me what you think about it. Maybe I'm taking this too personal, I don't know, I just posted what I felt, without filters..

Now you can all go back to argue about Zimmerman vs Trayvon.

 

[Hover Hand Mode]

I understand that these gamer stereotypes exist already and the best thing we can do is not give people fuel to "prove" such stereotypes.
And in that regard, this thread is a massive failure.

 

[furai47]

Then why call 911, if you're just going to ignore them anyway?

To inform emergency services. That's why civil dispatchers exist. When you call them and they suggest you do X, you're perfectly within your rights to completely ignore them.

It was by the police when they refused to arrest Zimmerman for the forty-something days between the shooting and his arrest.

Oh, so you were talking about prior to the trial then? Sure.

The eyewitness accounts conflict on that, and I think Martin would probably have a different story to tell if he had been left capable of telling it.

Which eyewitness account was that exactly? The only one I'm familiar with that did that was Good's; he said he didn't see Zimmerman's head being slammed into the ground while he did see punches or as he called it 'downward movement'. The back of Zimmerman's head speaks for itself, as do Martin's bruised knuckles.

And you have the evidence of this, yes?

Indeed, the trial which you're so familiar with. IIRC, he told the dispatcher he lost Martin.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

So much about this that I love, but the biggest part is the sheer metric volume of balls it takes to publish this

I salute you

 

[RoonMian]

Actually, I think the ones responsible are the guy who came up with the whole "stand your ground"-law idea, the guy who came up with the idea of neighborhood watches and taking the monopoly on violence away from the police and general gun culture.

Let's also blame the guy who invented guns, gunpowder, and metal. I'm sorry but no, the one responsible for the assault is the one who committed said assault, no one else. We can talk about who or what lead to and slowly escalated towards the conflict; ultimately it's the guy who throws the first punch/kick/bullet.

That paragraph was in context to a bigger post. This is where your nit-picking goes wrong.