DaWaffledude said:
...I don't get it. At all. Maybe the Zimmerman bit? Could someone just go through it panel by panel and explain what hte hell it was I just read?
Panel 1: A common problem in comics and video games is the plethora of white, straight, male characters and a dearth of other demographics (or at least in a way that doesn't play toward hetero-normative standards; see Catwoman or pretty much any female superhero). In response, some minor characters, when they get a reboot or reimagining by a new artist will change their race in an effort to add depth or interest in the character (also, publicity so people will actually buy comics).
The usual pushback by critics of the changes usually involves "but now the character doesn't connect with the audience as well," which does suggest that the race of the character is still a factor for human characters even while the same audience are able to connect with totally alien characters (i.e. Fox McCloud). To many, this seems like a double standard stinking of racism. But the moment you mention that...
Panel 2-8: You get the bile flinging rage monsters of the media (particularly the internet) who claim "discrimination" against white males. Beta represents your Rush Limbaugh-types: those who claim that racism/sexism/bigotry is gone except against straight white males. Gamma represents your pseudo-intellectuals who parade around heavily biased/flawed facts to support absurd claims (The chart is likely a reference to this Penny Arcade strip on the subject [http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/12/20]). And Alpha, appropriately, represents the vain Alphamale hypermasculine "douche-bag" who thinks all women are into him and refuses to address his own personality problems that turn everyone else other than himself off.
Panel 9: Essentially the reaction of every rational person trying to have a conversation about diversity and existing social and cultural barriers in which one or more of these "white defenders shows up in" usually abandons the conversation as it tends to be as that tends to be a more productive use of their time. Of course, if they put their hands into their pockets...
Panel 10: there is a hair trigger response that, if are a dark-skinned male, they have a gun. It also is a reference to how if anyone tries to refute their absurd claims with, say, reasonable explanations of institutional barriers, they claim that that person is pulling the "race card."
Panel 11: Andrew Zimmerman was a guy who shot an unarmed black kid in Florida, supposedly in self defense, where there was practically no investigation and he was taken at his word (along with some other shaky circumstances). To many, the case represented the institutional racism in local police departments and how, even decades after the civil rights movement began, there is still a presumption of guilt over the actions of black and brown people (there were also gun issues in that case, but it's not completely relevant to this comic). To some, Zimmerman is a hero for representing shoot-first self-defense.
Panel 12: It's essentially the hypocrisy of those who claim any discussion on the subject of racism is racist while simultaneously engaging in the very kind of activity that demonstrates validity in their claim that race is still an issue (i.e. would they have shot first if he was a white guy?).
Panel 13-14: ... I have no idea what's going on here...
