WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!

[Zarbear]

I'm going to stop reading Critical Miss. These guys are only interested in self-righteous flame bait. That's great at producing clicks, not for rational conversations on serious issues.

People who claim that they don't get what's offensive about this comic. Imagine someone drawing the same exact comic, but replaced the three white men with a feminist, African-American, and a transgendered person. You can bet that you and the comics' creators will be crying, "OMG!!! BIGOTRY!!!"

Thing is those 3 white guys are already bigots.
They're the people that fight against diversity. When someone complains about representation, sexism, and/or racism, these are the people that try to shut it down because they have it worse or something. They're condescending, rude, and basically don't want anyone to have any of their pie.

Walk into a gender issue thread, especially about games, and see the people that bring up pretty much these exact arguments and you'll generally see those people that the comic is aimed at.

I'm not saying an african american, a feminist, and a trans gendered can't be bigoted, but what sense would it make? Why the heck would they be mad about a black guy talking about the lack of black people as protagonists when one would be seemingly on his side?
More over, you're picking on the victims in your swap. The people who're under-represented, so yeah, it'd get more heat. The comic isn't even picking on white men in general, but the people that defend the sea of default white males in te manner I described..

Of course those 3 white guys don't represent all of white men. I'd like to say we all know that, but apparently that'd be a lie.

Re-read the comic again. The 3 white men are Alpha, Beta, and Omega. Basically, the writers are saying all white, heterosexual men are bigots. That is prejudice. What's even more troubling is what these guys are saying. If you disagree with a minority about anything, you are a bigot.

I'm going to take the liberty of quoting the author from his Twitter account:

"Take a shot every time an idiot takes "some" to mean "all." You will not survive the day. Seriously, if you take the WGDF as a representation of ALL white men you're A: Illiterate. B: Retarded. Then again, this is the same bunch of people who read the SCUM manifesto and go, "THIS APPLIES TO ALL FEMINISTS." Some Muslims blew some shit up. ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRIBLE. Etc."

If Grey & Cory had made a comic that was offensive to all white men, then I'D be offended. But I'm not because I have reading comprehension skills and understand satire.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I'm going to stop reading Critical Miss. These guys are only interested in self-righteous flame bait. That's great at producing clicks, not for rational conversations on serious issues.

People who claim that they don't get what's offensive about this comic. Imagine someone drawing the same exact comic, but replaced the three white men with a feminist, African-American, and a transgendered person. You can bet that you and the comics' creators will be crying, "OMG!!! BIGOTRY!!!"

It rather depends why exactly you have them there. What exactly would they be there to be criticized for? If you mean in the exact same comic it'd be rather bizarre given that those arguments don't exactly tend to come from feminists or African-Americans and I've never recalled hearing many of them being transgendered though maybe I think a few I've seen are. But you seem to have already made up your mind without actually having any evidence of the reaction. Almost as if the scenario you brought up was just there to give empty confirmation to what you already think.

I figured someone would call "B.S.!" on my theory of people getting upset if someone flipped the script on the comic. I'm not an artist. Yet, I can write up a script of what that comic would look like.

"P.C. Defense Force Go!"

A white guy sitting at a table talking to Erin.

White Guy: I got called a sexist troll. All I said was, "Anita Sarkeesian's argument about how detrimental tropes are to women is nonsensical. When you take into account, that there have always been negative tropes about men throughout history and videogames."

Voice off the side of the panel: Sorry to interrupt your speech, "Cracker". But this is the job for...

Standing there are 3 Power Ranger inspired characters.

Feminist whose logo is a female symbol with a plus sign connected to it: A Feminist!

African-American Male whose costume is a complete urban stereotype complete with doo-rag, grill, gold chains, and baggy pants that is buckled at his crotch: An African-American!

Transgendered Person whose logo is a gender symbol with question marks where the male arrow and female plus would go: A Transgendered! Together we are...


(All Three): P.C. Defense Force


Feminist: (Pointing a finger at the White Guy) Men have always been oppressing women with their filthy, and might I add, laughably small penises forever. Therefore anything you say that doesn't completely agree with me means that you are a sexist!

African-American: (Cornering Erin) Sup Baby? You a ho?

Transgendered: The word "man" is an offensive term. You should start referring to yourselves as CISacalifragilisticexpealidocious-identified hetero male.

Erin: What...What is this?

White Guy: This happens every time I try to have a discussion about gender and race. I don't have time for this I'm going home. Now, where did I put my bus pass?

Feminist: Watch out! He's trying to end the discussion with dignity!

PCDF: (Take out laser guns and fire) Justice For Trayvon! Activate!

White Guy disintegrates into a pile of bones.

African-American: Justice been served, dawg. Let's bail.

Feminist: Hover Hand Mode. Activate.

Transgendered: Current Status: Euphoric.

P.C. Defense Force flies away.

The End

 

[locoartero]

I'm going to stop reading Critical Miss. These guys are only interested in self-righteous flame bait. That's great at producing clicks, not for rational conversations on serious issues.

People who claim that they don't get what's offensive about this comic. Imagine someone drawing the same exact comic, but replaced the three white men with a feminist, African-American, and a transgendered person. You can bet that you and the comics' creators will be crying, "OMG!!! BIGOTRY!!!"

It rather depends why exactly you have them there. What exactly would they be there to be criticized for? If you mean in the exact same comic it'd be rather bizarre given that those arguments don't exactly tend to come from feminists or African-Americans and I've never recalled hearing many of them being transgendered though maybe I think a few I've seen are. But you seem to have already made up your mind without actually having any evidence of the reaction. Almost as if the scenario you brought up was just there to give empty confirmation to what you already think.

I figured someone would call "B.S.!" on my theory of people getting upset if someone flipped the script on the comic. I'm not an artist. Yet, I can write up a script of what that comic would look like.

"P.C. Defense Force Go!"

A white guy sitting at a table talking to Erin.

White Guy: I got called a sexist troll. All I said was, "Anita Sarkeesian's argument about how detrimental tropes are to women is nonsensical. When you take into account, that there have always been negative tropes about men throughout history and videogames."

Voice off the side of the panel: Sorry to interrupt your speech, "Cracker". But this is the job for...

Standing there are 3 Power Ranger inspired characters.

Feminist whose logo is a female symbol with a plus sign connected to it: A Feminist!

African-American Male whose costume is a complete urban stereotype complete with doo-rag, grill, gold chains, and baggy pants that is buckled at his crotch: An African-American!

Transgendered Person whose logo is a gender symbol with question marks where the male arrow and female plus would go: A Transgendered! Together we are...


(All Three): P.C. Defense Force


Feminist: (Pointing a finger at the White Guy) Men have always been oppressing women with their filthy, and might I add, laughably small penises forever. Therefore anything you say that doesn't completely agree with me means that you are a sexist!

African-American: (Cornering Erin) Sup Baby? You a ho?

Transgendered: The word "man" is an offensive term. You should start referring to yourselves as CISacalifragilisticexpealidocious-identified hetero male.

Erin: What...What is this?

White Guy: This happens every time I try to have a discussion about gender and race. I don't have time for this I'm going home. Now, where did I put my bus pass?

Feminist: Watch out! He's trying to end the discussion with dignity!

PCDF: (Take out laser guns and fire) Justice For Trayvon! Activate!

White Guy disintegrates into a pile of bones.

African-American: Justice been served, dawg. Let's bail.

Feminist: Hover Hand Mode. Activate.

Transgendered: Current Status: Euphoric.

P.C. Defense Force flies away.

The End

How can you have a Will MacAvoy avatar and still...
If only Sorkin could see you.

 

[DjinnFor]

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

I'm simply amazed that this post passed your own litmus test of a sensible, reasonable post. I'm not sure if you're simply misinformed or if there are more sinister reasons.

Trayvon Martin could have not attacked George Zimmerman. That's fine

The post really should have ended here. Assault & Battery is patently illegal by any stretch of the imagination, and Trayvon bears the FULL responsibility for the resulting events, period.

because if Zimmerman is justified for shooting Martin on some "stand your ground" principle

First of all, he's justified for shooting Martin on basic self-defense grounds, period.

Secondly, "stand your ground" has nothing to do with the situation. Stand your ground is a legal principal that allows you the legal right to refuse to move if someone attempts to push past you, and resist their attempts to push past you by matching it with equal force of your own. These actions are not legally recognized as "self-defense" in most States, and doing so might cause you to bear some partial or significant (civil/criminal) liability for any resulting harm. In some States, however, you can refuse to move if someone attempts to push through you, and can escalate the situation to violent self-defense IF the person in question escalates the situation to violent aggression.

then Martin is equally (and probably more, since he didn't use a lethal weapon) justified for standing his own ground.

Attacking someone is not "standing your ground", it's called "assault & battery" and "attempted murder". During the commission of either of those acts you literally forfeit your legal and moral right to your own life, at least in the United States.

George Zimmerman could have not shot Trayvon Martin.

He could do that. Of course, that would involve repeatedly having his head bashed into concrete or possibly getting shot, neither of which I imagine he was looking forward to. And as such, in the heat of the moment, he exercised his legal right to defend himself with deadly force in response to deadly force.

If one person was justified attacking, then the other was as well. Let's go back in time further.

What in the fuck? Neither person was justified in attacking, but since one of them did the other is allowed the moral (and, might I add, legal) right to defend himself. "Attack" != "defense".

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.

The dispatcher did not suggest that. The 911 dispatchers statement was "we don't need you to do that", which is a standard line EVERY dispatcher states ANY time an individual takes ANY actions, as giving the contrary impression causes the government to assume legal liability of the resulting situation. "We don't need you to do that" is not a suggestion for or against taking any action whatsoever, merely a statement of fact, and as such Zimmerman followed the dispatchers instructions to the letter.

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.

You mean, Martin could have stayed home and not purchased the ingredients for "Purple Drank" (candy and pop, combined with the drugs he had), which he most likely proceeded to consume in order to get himself high as a kite during the time of the incident. Y'know, being a drug addict and all, and testing positive for the drug when autopsied.

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.

Yes, the brutal and unprovoked assault by a well-built high school senior on a random man on the street who happen to be following him for a short period of time is totally not an "error" of judgment at all.

He bears the responsibility for creating this conflict. It did not exist before George Zimmerman made it exist.

The conflict began when Martin attacked Zimmerman and ended when Zimmerman shot Martin. The full responsibility of starting the conflict rests in the hands of Martin. This is not the schoolyard where little kids beat up other kids for all manner of stupid reasons, including mean words or acting in an unwanted manner.

 

[Plunkies]

Interesting choice of words there guy.

Interesting how? Feel free to try to disprove what I said instead of just spamming.

 

[JimB]

I'm simply amazed that this post passed your own litmus test of a sensible, reasonable post. I'm not sure if you're simply misinformed or if there are more sinister reasons.

And you won't be sure, either, because you never asked, not even by implication. Your preference was to accuse me, albeit as gently as possible, of being a liar. From that, I kind of have to assume you don't actually care whether I'm genuinely misinformed, because you'd rather treat me as an enemy to defeat in some crusade for...I don't know, let's say moral superiority. I don't suppose it matters to me either way what you think you're winning from such a fight.

I dunno. Maybe it's just that it's early and I'm tired, but I just don't see the point of bothering. I'm guessing from the rest of your post that you think I believe Trayvon Martin is the instigator of the fight, yet I still side with him because I think black people deserve to attack and possibly kill white(-ish) people for the crime of being white(-ish) because that's totally a thing sane people think. I'm not interested in dealing with that, so I won't.

I wish I could convince you that I simply don't believe Zimmerman's self-serving recitation of events, but I just don't think it's possible for anyone but yourself to make you believe I think anything other than that Trayvon Martin was the instigator, a rabid dog in the shape of a man who attacked a human being without any provocation other than the evil voices in his head commanding him to kill in the name of the Beast whose mark is 666, yet whom I support while condemning Zimmerman because I think a foaming-mouth dog is a better creature than a human who's half white because Caucasian blood invalidates a human's right to self-defense. The amount of work to do so seems exhausting and beyond my capacity, though, so I'm out. So I guess "have fun with this" would be the tl;dr version of the post.

 

[ShipofFools]

Blablablablabla... people defending their horrible viewpoints all sound alike. Kind of like a... childish droning of the ego, you know?

'T was a fun comic. I especially liked the fat guy with the pony. Nice touch.

And here is my solution for gamers who don't know how to deal with issues such as race, gender, sexuality and all this other nonsense: everybody is people, just like you. Leave them the fuck alone if you only have negativity for them.

 

[Luciella]

Yes Yes!!
the shitstorm did formed! mwhahahahahaha.
ah, my day is complete.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I'm going to stop reading Critical Miss. These guys are only interested in self-righteous flame bait. That's great at producing clicks, not for rational conversations on serious issues.

People who claim that they don't get what's offensive about this comic. Imagine someone drawing the same exact comic, but replaced the three white men with a feminist, African-American, and a transgendered person. You can bet that you and the comics' creators will be crying, "OMG!!! BIGOTRY!!!"

It rather depends why exactly you have them there. What exactly would they be there to be criticized for? If you mean in the exact same comic it'd be rather bizarre given that those arguments don't exactly tend to come from feminists or African-Americans and I've never recalled hearing many of them being transgendered though maybe I think a few I've seen are. But you seem to have already made up your mind without actually having any evidence of the reaction. Almost as if the scenario you brought up was just there to give empty confirmation to what you already think.

I figured someone would call "B.S.!" on my theory of people getting upset if someone flipped the script on the comic. I'm not an artist. Yet, I can write up a script of what that comic would look like.

"P.C. Defense Force Go!"

How can you have a Will MacAvoy avatar and still...
If only Sorkin could see you.

75% of that script was taken verbatim from the Critical Miss comic. Now, if I was just changing 25% of an Aaron Sorkin script, it would have been a lot better.

If you don't get the point of what I wrote, it's simply showing what the Critical Miss guys did was bigoted. Just because your intention was to promote tolerance and equality. That doesn't excuse you to hate people who disagrees with you.

 

[JimB]

If you don't get the point of what I wrote, it's simply showing what the Critical Miss guys did was bigoted. Just because your intention was to promote tolerance and equality, that doesn't excuse you to hate people who disagrees with you.

I'm not sure "bigoted" is the correct word here. Hating someone for disagreeing with you is hating them for what they do rather than what they are, so it seems like a perfectly valid reason to hate someone. Like, I pretty much hate everyone who goes on a shooting spree, and I don't think that qualifies as bigotry.

 

[Jux]

Interesting choice of words there guy.

Interesting how? Feel free to try to disprove what I said instead of just spamming.

I'm just highlighting something interesting. You want to call someone out on using charged, biased words, and in the same post you label Martin as a 'violent thug'. I'd call it ironic, but that would be a misuse of the word. I think we'll just call it.... hypocrisy. Yup, that fits.

 

[Klagermeister]

Interesting choice of words there guy.

Interesting how? Feel free to try to disprove what I said instead of just spamming.

I'm just highlighting something interesting. You want to call someone out on using charged, biased words, and in the same post you label Martin as a 'violent thug'. I'd call it ironic, but that would be a misuse of the word. I think we'll just call it.... hypocrisy. Yup, that fits.

I'm not sure what else I would call a brutal minded, drug addicted teenager pounding a man's head into the concrete besides "violent thug"...
But I do see where you're coming from in terms of Plunkies' hypocrisy. No argument there.

 

[Jux]

Interesting choice of words there guy.

Interesting how? Feel free to try to disprove what I said instead of just spamming.

I'm just highlighting something interesting. You want to call someone out on using charged, biased words, and in the same post you label Martin as a 'violent thug'. I'd call it ironic, but that would be a misuse of the word. I think we'll just call it.... hypocrisy. Yup, that fits.

I'm not sure what else I would call a brutal minded, drug addicted teenager pounding a man's head into the concrete besides "violent thug"...
But I do see where you're coming from in terms of Plunkies' hypocrisy. No argument there.

I'm not making the argument that Martin was a saint. I didn't know the guy. But yes, just pointing out that the term 'violent thug' is charged and biased, and simply saying he acted violently would have gotten the same message across without the baggage. Stones, glass houses, that sort of thing ya know?

And people can cast aspirations on Martin all they want, just remember Zimmerman is no choir boy either. I see two people, each with their own flaws, and one comes away dead. Was Martin right to bash the guys head against the concrete? No, but if Zimmerman hadn't followed him as per the dispatchers orders, or hadn't been carrying a gun, the chance of both of them being alive right now would be alot higher.

 

[karkashan]

I get what this comic was trying to do.

key word is "trying".

The comic authors fail pretty bad when trying to do "white knight humor".

 

[Knight Templar]

freerepublic

If you wish to be taken seriously, don't link to that site. It would be like linking to stormfront. it reflects very negatively on you and your argument in several ways.

 

[Plunkies]

Interesting choice of words there guy.

Interesting how? Feel free to try to disprove what I said instead of just spamming.

I'm just highlighting something interesting. You want to call someone out on using charged, biased words, and in the same post you label Martin as a 'violent thug'. I'd call it ironic, but that would be a misuse of the word. I think we'll just call it.... hypocrisy. Yup, that fits.

You're saying it's true but you think I should have chosen a different word? My issue wasn't that he used a strong word and should speak more gently. My issue was that he was exaggerating or outright lying in his use of the word "stalking" to try to make Zimmerman sound like he was doing something illegal. They couldn't even use "stalking" in court because it legally did not apply and was a biased misrepresentation. The problem is that he used the term and then couldn't back it up with one shred of evidence.

I don't think the phrase "like a violent thug" is at all an exaggeration when we're talking about a person with a history of violence and criminal behavior, violently attacking someone illegally. At worst it's redundant, since thug is sort of implied to be a violent criminal, but nothing about it is false or misrepresented. If you'd like to disprove it, feel free to try.

I'm not making the argument that Martin was a saint. I didn't know the guy. But yes, just pointing out that the term 'violent thug' is charged and biased, and simply saying he acted violently would have gotten the same message across without the baggage. Stones, glass houses, that sort of thing ya know?

And people can cast aspirations on Martin all they want, just remember Zimmerman is no choir boy either. I see two people, each with their own flaws, and one comes away dead. Was Martin right to bash the guys head against the concrete? No, but if Zimmerman hadn't followed him as per the dispatchers orders, or hadn't been carrying a gun, the chance of both of them being alive right now would be alot higher.

Again, someone speaking complete falsehoods. This is the problem. The dispatcher, for the billionth time, did not order (and is NOT ALLOWED to order) anyone to do anything. He said in reference to getting out and following him that you "don't have to do that." To which Zimmerman replied "OK" and stopped. In fact, the one thing the dispatcher did specifically tell him to do, is to keep an eye on the suspicious individual and tell him if he does anything different. He also couldn't have possibly followed him up to the confrontation because Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin for 4 minutes prior. And as you might imagine, it's hard to follow or even "stalk" someone when you don't know where they are.

Zimmerman was licensed and well within the law to carry a firearm, and by all accounts was a responsible gun owner. He even generously took a 40 second beating into concrete while screaming for help before resorting to even using it.

I've yet to see a cogent argument against Zimmerman that didn't entirely hinge around being ignorant of the facts of the case and choosing to ignore or disregard those facts.

 

[KissingSunlight]

If you don't get the point of what I wrote, it's simply showing what the Critical Miss guys did was bigoted. Just because your intention was to promote tolerance and equality, that doesn't excuse you to hate people who disagrees with you.

I'm not sure "bigoted" is the correct word here. Hating someone for disagreeing with you is hating them for what they do rather than what they are, so it seems like a perfectly valid reason to hate someone. Like, I pretty much hate everyone who goes on a shooting spree, and I don't think that qualifies as bigotry.

If I follow your logic, people who posted comments to Anita Sarkeesian that she should go back to the kitchen are not sexist. They simply disagree with what she was doing. Even though I don't agree with Anita, I thought that was sexist. Anytime you put down someone on the basis of their gender, race, religion, etc. instead of the points that they are arguing. You are being a bigot.

 

[JimB]

If I follow your logic, people who posted comments to Anita Sarkeesian that she should go back to the kitchen are not sexist; they simply disagree with what she was doing. Even though I don't agree with Anita, I thought that was sexist. Any time you put down someone on the basis of their gender, race, religion, etc. instead of the points that they are arguing, you are being a bigot.

So you argue that the White Guy Defense Force is being mocked on the basis of the race of its members rather than the stupid crap they espouse? Because I don't think that flies.