WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!

[The Wooster]

I rather think the difference is that here on this site people tend to be familiar with the particular sort of person being made fun of. They've seen them around, know what's actually the target. You try and make it out to be a white stereotype, but its not. Unsurprisingly the people who 'defend' white guys unnecessarily tend to be white. Does not mean it is a stereotype of white people anymore than the KKK is.

People also tend to be rather familiar with the person being made fun of when you're talking about gang bangers. Gang banging is not necessarily a stereotype of black people, and yet if you made a comic with a black gang banger acting ignorant, I have my doubts as to whether people would think it was acceptable.

Oh black people can be just as stupid as white people when it comes to kneejerk reactions to comedy, but, as with most jokes, it does kind of depend on who writes them. Would a strip about the black defense force be controversial if written by a white man? Yes, but I strongly suspect the same people calling me racist right now would be in that thread telling people to learn how to take a joke.

Is the fact a white man has to be extra careful when mocking minorities fair? Perhaps not, but there is a good argument that comedy should always "punch upwards" and that it should "speak truth to power" and all that. Even if that's not true, engaging in shitty behavior (in this case, overreacting to a joke) purely because another race can do so doesn't make things fair, it just takes away any right you might have to criticize. Ask people in this thread what they think of political correctness and many will say it's terrible, yet here they are, trying to enforce it when it suits them.

 

[JimB]

What justification?

Using force to defend oneself from a perceived threat.

Once again you give Trayvon Martin no control over whether or not he chooses to act like a violent thug.

You will note that, according to your standard, I give George Zimmerman no control over himself, either.

Again, he wasn't stalked. You're using charged and biased words instead of relying on facts.

I have already explained earlier in this thread why I believe "stalked" is an appropriate word. I do not, at this time, choose to repeat myself.

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).

I challenge you to prove that it was a deliberate lie rather than an innocent mistake made by misremembering precise words spoken months after the fact. There is a reason eyewitness testimony is nearly useless in court.

But in both stories, the thing that remained constant was Trayvon Martin initiating the confrontation by saying, "Why you following me?"

Where I come from, a question is not a confrontation. Maybe I'm sheltered.

Neither the location of the fight, nor witness testimony, nor Zimmerman's story immediately after the incident, would indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin.

I do not consider approaching someone to be the tipping point of a confrontation.

You seem to have few facts at all.

Then I will ask you, as I've asked so many people before you, if I am wrong, to provide evidence of it. Provide links to sources. Don't just sit there and tell me I should take your word over my own when I clearly do not believe you.

When you call them and they suggest you do X, you're perfectly within your rights to completely ignore them.

That does not make it a good idea.

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

I'm talking more about the actual shooting than the legal hoopla surrounding it. I don't much care about trials, because trials have very little interest in actual events or facts. Things that can be proven to be happened can be excluded from trials for any number of reasons. Legality and actuality are at odds more often than not, so it can generally be assumed that I am talking about the things that really happened rather than the outcome of a legal procedure.

I was continuing to respond as if we were the two people talking about having whatever character be black.

Ah, my mistake. I apologize. As you can tell, I'm kind of in antagonism-mode right now, and that colored my understanding of your post.

In fact, I could probably do worse than to bow out of this thread until my hackles are down.

 

[Hover Hand Mode]

There's also a shameful history connected to white people making fun of minorities.
At least, that's what the wikipedia article on blackface would suggest.

 

[Shingro]

I rather think the difference is that here on this site people tend to be familiar with the particular sort of person being made fun of. They've seen them around, know what's actually the target. You try and make it out to be a white stereotype, but its not. Unsurprisingly the people who 'defend' white guys unnecessarily tend to be white. Does not mean it is a stereotype of white people anymore than the KKK is.

People also tend to be rather familiar with the person being made fun of when you're talking about gang bangers. Gang banging is not necessarily a stereotype of black people, and yet if you made a comic with a black gang banger acting ignorant, I have my doubts as to whether people would think it was acceptable.

Oh black people can be just as stupid as white people when it comes to kneejerk reactions to comedy, but, as with most jokes, it does kind of depend on who writes them. Would a strip about the black defense force be controversial if written by a white man? Yes, but I strongly suspect the same people calling me racist right now would be in that thread telling people to learn how to take a joke.

Is the fact a white man has to be extra careful when mocking minorities fair? Perhaps not, but there is a good argument that comedy should always "punch upwards" and that it should "speak truth to power" and all that. Even if that's not true, engaging in shitty behavior (in this case, overreacting to a joke) purely because another race can do so doesn't make things fair, it just takes away any right you might have to criticize. Ask people in this thread what they think of political correctness and many will say it's terrible, yet here they are, trying to enforce it when it suits them.

Ah yes, "Speak truth to power..." like Bronies and Evangelion fans. >_>

 

[The Wooster]

I rather think the difference is that here on this site people tend to be familiar with the particular sort of person being made fun of. They've seen them around, know what's actually the target. You try and make it out to be a white stereotype, but its not. Unsurprisingly the people who 'defend' white guys unnecessarily tend to be white. Does not mean it is a stereotype of white people anymore than the KKK is.

People also tend to be rather familiar with the person being made fun of when you're talking about gang bangers. Gang banging is not necessarily a stereotype of black people, and yet if you made a comic with a black gang banger acting ignorant, I have my doubts as to whether people would think it was acceptable.

Oh black people can be just as stupid as white people when it comes to kneejerk reactions to comedy, but, as with most jokes, it does kind of depend on who writes them. Would a strip about the black defense force be controversial if written by a white man? Yes, but I strongly suspect the same people calling me racist right now would be in that thread telling people to learn how to take a joke.

Is the fact a white man has to be extra careful when mocking minorities fair? Perhaps not, but there is a good argument that comedy should always "punch upwards" and that it should "speak truth to power" and all that. Even if that's not true, engaging in shitty behavior (in this case, overreacting to a joke) purely because another race can do so doesn't make things fair, it just takes away any right you might have to criticize. Ask people in this thread what they think of political correctness and many will say it's terrible, yet here they are, trying to enforce it when it suits them.

Ah yes, "Speak truth to power..." like Bronies and Evangelion fans. >_>

Yeah, it turns out I'm not above self-mockery. Funny that.

 

[Plunkies]

What justification?

Using force to defend oneself from a perceived threat.

That's not enough. Perceiving a threat is not justification. You must have a REASONABLE belief that your life is in danger. Someone being near or talking to you isn't reasonable. Someone trying to beat you to death IS reasonable.

Once again you give Trayvon Martin no control over whether or not he chooses to act like a violent thug.

You will note that, according to your standard, I give George Zimmerman no control over himself, either.

What are you talking about? You've repeatedly put the onus on Zimmerman with no logic to back it up. The only point that matters is the moment Trayvon Martin chose to escalate the confrontation to physical violence. That is the moment a crime was committed and that is the reason he was killed. Not because Zimmerman called 911, or because Martin bought candy, or whatever else you want to list out while glossing over the crime that actually took place.

Again, he wasn't stalked. You're using charged and biased words instead of relying on facts.

I have already explained earlier in this thread why I believe "stalked" is an appropriate word. I do not, at this time, choose to repeat myself.

Whatever your excuse is, it would be wrong. You're just using charged words in lieu of actual facts. Legally, the stalker would have know the victim or else it can't be considered stalking. And it would be a ridiculous exaggeration in this case.

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).

I challenge you to prove that it was a deliberate lie rather than an innocent mistake made by misremembering precise words spoken months after the fact. There is a reason eyewitness testimony is nearly useless in court.

Whether she's a liar or simply unreliable is irrelevant. But at least we agree that her testimony is nearly useless and you shouldn't have tried to use it. She helped the defense more than the prosecution during the trial as well.

But in both stories, the thing that remained constant was Trayvon Martin initiating the confrontation by saying, "Why you following me?"

Where I come from, a question is not a confrontation. Maybe I'm sheltered.

It's a confrontation when the initial question is hostile, and is followed by a beating within 30 seconds. Unfortunately I don't think getting into a semantics battle over the word "confrontation" is going to help your argument.

Neither the location of the fight, nor witness testimony, nor Zimmerman's story immediately after the incident, would indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin.

I do not consider approaching someone to be the tipping point of a confrontation.

YOU were the one saying Zimmerman approached Martin. That's the reason it was brought up. You make an incorrect statement, I disprove it, then you act like I'm nuts for bringing it up in the first place. The tipping point was Martin physically assaulting an innocent person, which we've already established.

You seem to have few facts at all.

Then I will ask you, as I've asked so many people before you, if I am wrong, to provide evidence of it. Provide links to sources. Don't just sit there and tell me I should take your word over my own when I clearly do not believe you.[/quote

You said you watched the trial. You said you're not a sheep that just takes the media's word for it. I've said nothing that wasn't covered multiple times in the trial. Hell just watch the defense's closing arguments. You can even watch the prosecution's closing arguments too if you want a perfect example of what a closing argument should never look like.

 

[WindKnight]

"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.

Only if its dynamic. If race is static then it has no bearing on the situation, but if race is dynamic - that is, if race must change - then it does matter.

In fact it is specifically the change that matters, not the starting or finishing states, as the change itself drives the need for additional work but the endpoint provides no more or less value than the starting point.

I think of it more like this. lets imagine a hypothetical property that has 12 named characters, one of them who is not white. In each case in of themselves, the character race does not matter.

Lets say the property is adapted fo film, and in that adaptation, one of the white characters is made non-white. you have increased the non-white characters representation by 100%, and decrease the white representation by 9%. Non-whites gain a great amount of representation, for only a light loss of white representation.

Flip that around, and say the non-white is made white. you've just cut non-white representation by 100%, and incresed white representation by abouut 9%. You've eliminated non-white representation and given only a small increase in white representation.

In short, make a white character non white, and the white audience still has plenty of characters to represent them. Make a non-white white, and non-whites LOSE their represntation, and the whites gain just one more guy to root for. This is not about individual cases, but overall trends.

For those who want another hypothetical flip, where its a property with 11 non-white characters and one white character? Going by Hollywood examples (as demonstrated by the differance between the Tower Heist pitch and the final movie, the Last Airbender, and the Anansi Boys adaptation that Neil Gaiman emphatically shot down) they rend to recast ten of the non-whites as white, with the option to make the last one white also.

 

[chikusho]

That's not enough. Perceiving a threat is not justification. You must have a REASONABLE belief that your life is in danger. Someone being near or talking to you isn't reasonable. Someone trying to beat you to death IS reasonable.

So, all you really need to do if you want to legally kill someone is provoke them to take a swing.
Yeah, that sounds fair.

 

[Shingro]

I rather think the difference is that here on this site people tend to be familiar with the particular sort of person being made fun of. They've seen them around, know what's actually the target. You try and make it out to be a white stereotype, but its not. Unsurprisingly the people who 'defend' white guys unnecessarily tend to be white. Does not mean it is a stereotype of white people anymore than the KKK is.

People also tend to be rather familiar with the person being made fun of when you're talking about gang bangers. Gang banging is not necessarily a stereotype of black people, and yet if you made a comic with a black gang banger acting ignorant, I have my doubts as to whether people would think it was acceptable.

Oh black people can be just as stupid as white people when it comes to kneejerk reactions to comedy, but, as with most jokes, it does kind of depend on who writes them. Would a strip about the black defense force be controversial if written by a white man? Yes, but I strongly suspect the same people calling me racist right now would be in that thread telling people to learn how to take a joke.

Is the fact a white man has to be extra careful when mocking minorities fair? Perhaps not, but there is a good argument that comedy should always "punch upwards" and that it should "speak truth to power" and all that. Even if that's not true, engaging in shitty behavior (in this case, overreacting to a joke) purely because another race can do so doesn't make things fair, it just takes away any right you might have to criticize. Ask people in this thread what they think of political correctness and many will say it's terrible, yet here they are, trying to enforce it when it suits them.

Ah yes, "Speak truth to power..." like Bronies and Evangelion fans. >_>

Yeah, it turns out I'm not above self-mockery. Funny that.

I don't think anyone would expect that the author to self parody himself in hugely racist, bigoted characters who immediately proceed to kill a black man in 'Zimmerman mode' considering. Probably asking a little too much involvement and suspension of disbelief from people browsing to see if the Microsoft made any more dumb moves with the XBox.

 

[Thespian]

This comic is meant for a different audience I think. As in, maybe not the audience it is actually making fun, especially when the thing it's making fun of them for is that they are notoriously awful at recognizing criticism.

 

[Warachia]

Then race does matter after all.

The only reason it matters in that case is because you would be asking people to do additional work without explaining why they should do that work.

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 was just saying any character in general, but you've provided reasons that the comic did not, if the black guy in the comic actually provided any reasons these comments wouldn't have gone on this long because would either agree or disagree, then move on.

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?

The Critical Miss comic did, the black guy asks why not make a character black without providing any reasons for it.

 

[EvilRoy]

"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.

Only if its dynamic. If race is static then it has no bearing on the situation, but if race is dynamic - that is, if race must change - then it does matter.

In fact it is specifically the change that matters, not the starting or finishing states, as the change itself drives the need for additional work but the endpoint provides no more or less value than the starting point.

I think of it more like this. lets imagine a hypothetical property that has 12 named characters, one of them who is not white. In each case in of themselves, the character race does not matter.

Lets say the property is adapted fo film, and in that adaptation, one of the white characters is made non-white. you have increased the non-white characters representation by 100%, and decrease the white representation by 9%. Non-whites gain a great amount of representation, for only a light loss of white representation.

Flip that around, and say the non-white is made white. you've just cut non-white representation by 100%, and incresed white representation by abouut 9%. You've eliminated non-white representation and given only a small increase in white representation.

In short, make a white character non white, and the white audience still has plenty of characters to represent them. Make a non-white white, and non-whites LOSE their represntation, and the whites gain just one more guy to root for. This is not about individual cases, but overall trends.

For those who want another hypothetical flip, where its a property with 11 non-white characters and one white character? Going by Hollywood examples (as demonstrated by the differance between the Tower Heist pitch and the final movie, the Last Airbender, and the Anansi Boys adaptation that Neil Gaiman emphatically shot down) they rend to recast ten of the non-whites as white, with the option to make the last one white also.

However, from the starting position of 'race doesn't matter' we are required to say that the characters must be empathetic or representative of the audience regardless of their race, and therefore switching the race of any of the characters from any start to endpoint should not affect the ability of the audience to empathize with them. If there is no difference to the audience then the act of changing race has only served to create work without providing any benefit.

Put in simple terms, if race does not matter then there is no situation that merits a change in the race of a character. If race does matter then any change in the race of a character runs the risk of negatively impacting audience enjoyment.

 

[Gorrath]

Oh black people can be just as stupid as white people when it comes to kneejerk reactions to comedy, but, as with most jokes, it does kind of depend on who writes them. Would a strip about the black defense force be controversial if written by a white man? Yes, but I strongly suspect the same people calling me racist right now would be in that thread telling people to learn how to take a joke.

Is the fact a white man has to be extra careful when mocking minorities fair? Perhaps not, but there is a good argument that comedy should always "punch upwards" and that it should "speak truth to power" and all that. Even if that's not true, engaging in shitty behavior (in this case, overreacting to a joke) purely because another race can do so doesn't make things fair, it just takes away any right you might have to criticize. Ask people in this thread what they think of political correctness and many will say it's terrible, yet here they are, trying to enforce it when it suits them.

Thanks for the response Grey, I appreciate it. If someone told me that they took a little time to amend a comic they made because they didn't want to offend the wrong people, I would hardly consider that unfair. I agree that people who are anti-pc might turn around and use the same arguments against your comic (as has been done in this thread in several instances) but that bit of hypocrisy isn't a one-way street either. I noted an instance or two of people using the 'thicker skin' argument. It's funny how people can do a frame-shift on their usual arguments when you reverse the players.

As I mentioned, I took time to think and digest this, exactly because I didn't want to fall into that trap. This is also why I came to the conclusion that your comic was indeed fair, as, much like the stereotypical gang banger does not represent black people, nor does your use of stereotypes here represent most white people. I realize you aren't straw-manning, you are forming a caricature of ignorant people. And that's fine. I was simply musing on how your comic is indeed fair, but many of those who understand that would condemn the comic I used as a hypothetical. Is that hypocrisy? I'm not certain, but it does trike me that way. It is a topic worthy of thought and discussion I think, which is why I brought it up.

Lastly, I do maintain that while the great majority of your strip is fair, the Zimmerman part is not. I don't think the way it is used here is a good or fair representation of either the facts surrounding that terrible event nor is it fair in the way it seems to suggest that people with ignorant beliefs about 'white defense' are also inclined to be fine with the blatant murder of someone just because they are minority and hold a differing opinion. It seems akin to calling someone who thinks Johnny Storm should stay white a Nazi. Perhaps you did not intend for it to read like that, but that's what it seems to be suggesting.

Again, your input is appreciated and I thank you for it. Hopefully the discussion your comic has incited will lead people to think about these issues in depth.

Edit - I also wanted to add that I don't think it should matter who writes a joke. If something is funny, it's funny. If we have no idea who the author of a joke is, and we find it amusing, should we find it less amusing if we find out the race of that person is not what we thought it was? I believe that comedy, like art, stands on its own merits and that the race of the artist is less important than what's written on the bottom of their shoes.

 

[Gorrath]

Put in simple terms, if race does not matter then there is no situation that merits a change in the race of a character. If race does matter then any change in the race of a character runs the risk of negatively impacting audience enjoyment.

I would say that the second part of your statement is true. Changing the race of a character does run the risk of negatively impacting the audience. It also runs the risk of positively impacting the audience. This is why I think changing a character's race is fine. The worst it can do is annoy people and the best it can do is create a great work of art. I think the risk is well worth taking. I would point emphatically to Idris Elba's part in Thor. I saw a lot of people saying that making the character black was a bad idea. I now see many people saying that he was the very best part of that film. Let the artists do as they like and let us sit in judgment of the work when finished. Let us not sit in pre-judgement of the work simply because the artist is taking a risk. That's my 2 cents anyway.

 

[JimB]

Whatever your excuse is, it would be wrong.

That you would say that sight unseen is everything I need to know about the level of good faith with which you entered this discussion. Forgive me if I do not choose to speak with you further on the topic.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

there is a good argument that comedy should always "punch upwards" and that it should "speak truth to power" and all that. Even if that's not true, engaging in shitty behavior (in this case, overreacting to a joke) purely because another race can do so doesn't make things fair, it just takes away any right you might have to criticize.

Um, what? I've never heard that comedy "should always "punch upwards"". Why can't everybody be the subject of jokes?

I agree with you that white guys should be able to be made fun of in a humorous way, but the same should go for black guys or anybody else. It seems kind of....well I don't know if racist is the proper word, but close minded[footnote]Before there are any conclusions drawn, I'm not calling you(Grey Carter) close minded because it sounds as if you are referencing something that you heard before. So the person I would be calling close minded would be whoever came up with the idea that comedy is to always "punch upwards". Again, I'm not calling you(Grey Carter) any names or insults.[/footnote] to conclude that only "certain" people are allowed to have jokes made about them while others should be regarded with extra care.
The only time I think I could agree with this idea of an "upward punch" would be in a scenario where there was a victim of violent criminal behavior/sexual violence in the crowd and a comedian chooses to not tell a joke at that particular time as a way to be considerate to the victim of such a horrific crime. Otherwise, if a victim of violence/sexual violence isn't there, it seems perfectly fair for "shock comedians" like Daniel Tosh to make crude, childish jokes like this.....

Spoiler: punching downwards joke

especially since he has also told jokes like this...

Spoiler: punching upwards joke

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Why can't everybody be the subject of jokes?

The idea, very basically, is that if you are making fun of somebody you have power over, you are not a comedian, you are a bully.

But that doesn't really hold up when you realize that guys like Daniel Tosh don't have "power over" his (I presume) imaginary sister and even if he does, so what? Since when was humor never mean spirited? Making fun of a man for lighting himself on fire is mean spirited, but its didn't stop Richard Pryor from making a joke about people finding humor in his situation [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjD4PHojNBU].

Like I said, if the person you're making fun of is right in front of you and you are joking about a particularly horrible thing(rape, domestic abuse, being engulfed in flames) then I can understand why you would bite your tongue. However, if that particular person isn't there, it seems like discrimination to only go after certain groups of people.

 

[EvilRoy]

Put in simple terms, if race does not matter then there is no situation that merits a change in the race of a character. If race does matter then any change in the race of a character runs the risk of negatively impacting audience enjoyment.

I would say that the second part of your statement is true. Changing the race of a character does run the risk of negatively impacting the audience. It also runs the risk of positively impacting the audience. This is why I think changing a character's race is fine. The worst it can do is annoy people and the best it can do is create a great work of art. I think the risk is well worth taking. I would point emphatically to Idris Elba's part in Thor. I saw a lot of people saying that making the character black was a bad idea. I now see many people saying that he was the very best part of that film. Let the artists do as they like and let us sit in judgment of the work when finished. Let us not sit in pre-judgement of the work simply because the artist is taking a risk. That's my 2 cents anyway.

Fair enough, but as I saw it the original question was about whether one could reasonably argue for a change in race if race did not matter. From what I understand from your post you're saying that race can matter, and it can be positive, which is legit, but not really what I felt was being discussed.