WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!

[Lucane]

Most disturbing of all is the strange persistence in which the WMDF in equating all white males with the WMDF. This comic is parodying the WMDF, a subset of white males. It is not 'making fun of' white males, but this particular radical group. That much should be clear to anyone here, as much as the WMDF tries to conflate the two.

There is a problem though. If you look at the three WMDF guys what is the only characteristic they share? Being white males. For the rest they are clearly different. One is a Brony fat dude, the other a ladies man and than you have a hipster. Three different types of white dudes all being WMDF members... Doesn't really send the right message (mainly since no white men are on the "right" side of the equation). If all three WMDF members shared an other characteristic than just being white and male i'd agree (or there being a white male on the other side) but it isn't the case.

I think the idea to use those 3 types of characters is due to the real world recurring actions of people who dress and/or act like that who are white over other fashion/emotional types. I think it'd be safe to safe if you think of some who's "Emo" you'd might think of a white person first off. Non them look traditionally nerdy, have text written to be of a foreign dialect like French or German. say that you could cover the the entirety of a particular race with 3 examples is a bit ambitious.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

just because the group consists exclusively of white males.

What, just because their suits are white you think they have to be white skinned? What are you some kind of racist? [/sarcasm]

 

[Saltyk]

Oh that's nice, so the man who was acquitted of all wrongdoing in a court case broadcast live on TV is still getting shit for defending himself, just because the person who attacked him was black?

Oh and it's nice you hypocrites protest any negative portrayal of everything from women to transexed genderqueer pan-sexual non-binary vegans to the point of personal attacks, but feel it's totally acceptable to make shit like this.

Well lets put it this way, if Zimmerman never had a gun in the first place they both would of likely been alive by the time the police arrived if not today if every other event occurred the same way but then would Zimmerman of gotten out of his vehicle without a gun in the first place?

Also court decisions have and can be reversed in light of new evidence. Say for being framed for a crime someone else committed.(clearly that won't apply to the Zimmerman/Martin trial.)

This assumes that Zimmerman would have survived without shooting Martin. Personally, I am not prepared to make that assumption.

Best case scenario, Martin would have been charged with several crimes and we probably wouldn't have heard of this case at all. Zimmerman himself may have had some minor legal troubles as well, but that assumes some details that no one knows for certain, despite the claims to the contrary by so many.
Worst case scenario, Zimmerman would have died and we still may not have heard of the case. Meanwhile, Martin would have been the one defending himself in court against likely First Degree Murder charges.

Also, it should be noted that since his acquittal, Zimmerman has saved a family from an overturned SUV. Find the story here [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/23/family-saved-george-zimmerman-grateful-terrified-t/]. Make of that what you will.

The fact of the matter is that there is too much speculation in this case. No one knows the details that is speculating on it. No one witnessed the confrontation, so no one knows who started what. Going solely on the evidence, even disregarding Zimmerman's testimony, it points to self defense. That's my stance.

 

[Dansrage]

I'll admit that I laughed. But it's getting a little tiring to see Critical Miss go from creating shallow, indefensible caricatures of issues to mock to wallowing in stereotypes (women taking men shopping, amirite?) without even apparently noticing the whiplash. I recognize that a comic isn't the easiest podium from which to address serious issues, but it sometimes seems like that's being used as an excuse for shallow, heavy-handed work rather than a hurdle to be overcome to make better work.

Remember when videogame websites used to talk about videogames?
Now videogames is the best platform for voicing your social commentary and political opinions.
Maybe I should take my Xbox to a feminist rally and see if anyone wants to play Gears of War, maybe we can trade mediums.
I'll let them play as Anya.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Most disturbing of all is the strange persistence in which the WMDF in equating all white males with the WMDF. This comic is parodying the WMDF, a subset of white males. It is not 'making fun of' white males, but this particular radical group. That much should be clear to anyone here, as much as the WMDF tries to conflate the two.

It is pretty weird that, just because the group consists exclusively of white males, the group apparently represents all white males everywhere and an attack on the former is an inherent attack on the latter. Do people get this upset when the KKK, or skinheads are ridiculed by the rest of intelligent society? They're both exclusively white and tend to be males; I'm not sure if women can even join the KKK or if they can really be considered skinheads, but that's not really the issue.

Is it no different than when people say that ico and shadow of the collossus poorly represent all females? cant have your cake and eat it too ya know.

Yes I can. I can like those games but still recognize their flaws, just like I can have cake and I can eat it.

Then the same is true for the person your debating. If its alright to take one bit of media. look at the character/s and think that it represents for example an entire gender. THan its ok for him to do so as well in regards to this comic.

 

[Muspelheim]

-Properly shielded against the vile miasmic vapours of whining and needlessly wounded feelings, I shall now descend down into the comments.

Spoiler: Mod edit: Please add spoilers to your images!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Johann_Melchior_F%C3%BCssli_%281677%E2%80%931736%29%2C_Sketch_of_a_Cordovan-leather-clad_doctor_of_Marseilles.png

-Oh, God! Saints and Apostles! The beak! It does nothing!! Aaaaaaggh!

The real punchline to this comic is the comments.

It's rather clever, in a simple Internet way. It's a bit like the strip reguarding the LGBT gaming con.

"Don't be -that- guy, lads."

Followed by pages of that guys, that guy-ing it up.

Although it also feel a bit like an unusually elaborate baitpost. I can't quite decide what I think of it.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Most disturbing of all is the strange persistence in which the WMDF in equating all white males with the WMDF. This comic is parodying the WMDF, a subset of white males. It is not 'making fun of' white males, but this particular radical group. That much should be clear to anyone here, as much as the WMDF tries to conflate the two.

It is pretty weird that, just because the group consists exclusively of white males, the group apparently represents all white males everywhere and an attack on the former is an inherent attack on the latter. Do people get this upset when the KKK, or skinheads are ridiculed by the rest of intelligent society? They're both exclusively white and tend to be males; I'm not sure if women can even join the KKK or if they can really be considered skinheads, but that's not really the issue.

Is it no different than when people say that ico and shadow of the collossus poorly represent all females? cant have your cake and eat it too ya know.

Yes I can. I can like those games but still recognize their flaws, just like I can have cake and I can eat it.

Then the same is true for the person your debating. If its alright to take one bit of media. look at the character/s and think that it represents for example an entire gender. THan its ok for him to do so as well in regards to this comic.

Except you're looking at one strip. There are other white male characters in this comic overall. There is one in both of those games, and they are both portrayed poorly.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Most disturbing of all is the strange persistence in which the WMDF in equating all white males with the WMDF. This comic is parodying the WMDF, a subset of white males. It is not 'making fun of' white males, but this particular radical group. That much should be clear to anyone here, as much as the WMDF tries to conflate the two.

It is pretty weird that, just because the group consists exclusively of white males, the group apparently represents all white males everywhere and an attack on the former is an inherent attack on the latter. Do people get this upset when the KKK, or skinheads are ridiculed by the rest of intelligent society? They're both exclusively white and tend to be males; I'm not sure if women can even join the KKK or if they can really be considered skinheads, but that's not really the issue.

Is it no different than when people say that ico and shadow of the collossus poorly represent all females? cant have your cake and eat it too ya know.

....

So where did you see LifeCharacter say this?

I would hope people realized that accusing someone of hypocrisy doesn't really work if you're just *assuming* they would say something when they have not.

I asked a question. Then someone answered and based on there answer I called hypocrisy. If someone had said:"No thats bs when they use one female to equate an artists thoughts on an entire gender" which happens so often with these things.(see: laura croft for example) than I would not have equated them with hypocrisy.

but yeah that question mark up there wasnt just there for show. lol

 

[madwarper]

but the fact that Martin tells Zimmerman to "get off" points towards Zimmerman grabbing him.

"Fact" as in supported by evidence... ?

BTW: Several dictionaries says that "to pursue a person" is a valid definition of "stalked".

Such as? Because, the legal definition clearly states;

Stalking [http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking]

Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person. Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior.

Repeated, Series. So, unless you can prove that Zimmerman had met Martin prior to that night and followed him then too, then Zimmerman stalked no one.

Your wording indicates that you are not really arguing in good faith here,

But, it's not my wording, it's the wording of John Good [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=196691611], the only person to witness to the fight between Zimmerman and Martin.

It is not my opinion, it is a fact. And, I might add, it's something actually supported by the evidence of testimony, rather than just the internet conjecture you've provided thus far.

followed Martin, despite being told not to,

Except that's happened. Listen to the 911 tape.

He didn't follow Martin despite being told not to. He followed Martin, then stopped after being advised not to.

so it is really hard to see him as a "victim" by any stretch of the word.

One guy is beating the shit out of another, the other is getting the shit beat out of him.
And, you can't tell which one is a "victim"?

And Martin, well, a reasonable guess would be that he fought Zimmerman because he feared for his life.

And, this is when I'd bring up Martin's history of drug use. Specifically, codeine, which has a tendency of making its user paranoid.

Spoiler

he was just a teenager after all.

So, you're trying to use youthful bravado as an excuse? Didn't you just ask why he's painted as the aggressor?

 

[Vegosiux]

Parody =/= racism.

However,

Either Parody =/= get out of jail free card; or Parody = universal get out of jail free card. We don't want to argue that parodying some people is acceptable, while showing others in a bad light is offensive even in parody.

Equality is about equality. That entails raising the amount of rights and respect that the subaltern receive to the same level as white heterosexual males of the dominant religion receive. That much is common sense and it saddens me that anyone can conceivably not desire that as a goal.

Well, no argument there, I am in agreement.

Most disturbing of all is the strange persistence in which the WMDF in equating all white males with the WMDF. This comic is parodying the WMDF, a subset of white males. It is not 'making fun of' white males, but this particular radical group. That much should be clear to anyone here, as much as the WMDF tries to conflate the two.

This brings me back to the first point there. For example. Sexist, racist, and to a lesser extent, age, profession, nationalisty jokes aren't aimed at all people of a particular race, gender, age profession or nationality, only those that act in accordance with the stereotypes. Jokes are parodies. Why are they sometimes considered offensive simply on the basis of who the butt of the joke is?

Make fun of French pretentiousness, lawyer's sliminess, old people's incontinence, good (after all, we know that not all Frenchmen are pretentious, not all lawyers are slimy, and not old people are incontinent and helpless), make fun of Jewish greed, gay guys' femininity or black people's love for chicken, and things get ugly (despite us knowing that not all Jews are greedy, not all gay guys are feminine, and not all black people love to eat chicken whenever they have a chance).

So, uh, my point?

Basically: "Should parody allow us to say whatever we want and remain above criticism, as long as we claim we weren't seriously insinuating that 'they're all like that', that we were just talking about the specific subset that actually does act that way?"

A simple yes or no will do; and I am perfectly willing to accept either answer, as long as they come with internal consistency - i.e. parodying anything is considered exactly as (un)acceptable as parodying anything else.

 

[The Wooster]

Make fun of French pretentiousness, lawyer's sliminess, old people's incontinence, good (after all, we know that not all Frenchmen are pretentious, not all lawyers are slimy, and not old people are incontinent and helpless), make fun of Jewish greed, gay guys' femininity or black people's love for chicken, and things get ugly (despite us knowing that not all Jews are greedy, not all gay guys are feminine, and not all black people love to eat chicken whenever they have a chance).

You act like a black comedian has never made a crack about black people liking fried chicken. Or that a Jewish comedian has never played up his/her avariciousness for laughs. Likewise gay and female comedians can take shots at their own respective groups. I happen to be white.

 

[generals3]

I think the idea to use those 3 types of characters is due to the real world recurring actions of people who dress and/or act like that who are white over other fashion/emotional types. I think it'd be safe to safe if you think of some who's "Emo" you'd might think of a white person first off. Non them look traditionally nerdy, have text written to be of a foreign dialect like French or German. say that you could cover the the entirety of a particular race with 3 examples is a bit ambitious.

That argument makes little sense to me. Good luck trying to capture all the possible "types" of men in one comic (and you could excuse virtually all racism and sexism with that excuse "Oh but my antisemitic propaganda didn't show non-rich jews who speak dutch so it ain't antisemitic!"). The obvious is still there. The only characteristic all the antagonists share is being white and having a dick and no protagonist has both those characteristics. That seems quite iffy if you ask me, it does create a clear link between that one characteristic and what they are doing. It may have not been the intention but if your comic contains a lot of diversity (race, gender and culture) you should be careful. If there was only one WMDF member it would have been different. Or if all the WMDF members shared other characteristics than just being white males it would have also been different.

 

[DataSnake]

Trayvon's first response to Zimmerman approaching him was to run, and then come back later to tackle him and slam his head against the pavement.
He was violent, belligerent, and a thug.

1. If he was such a "thug", why'd he run away in the first place?
2. If he came back intending to finish Zimmerman off, why was he unarmed? He could at least have picked up a stick, a glass bottle, or a rock off the street.
3. For that matter, if he was such a "thug", why was he unarmed in the first place?

Also, it should be noted that since his acquittal, Zimmerman has saved a family from an overturned SUV. Find the story here [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/23/family-saved-george-zimmerman-grateful-terrified-t/]. Make of that what you will.

He can pull a family from an overturned car but he couldn't get out from under an unarmed 17-year-old he outweighed by almost 100 pounds?

 

[chikusho]

Holy shit, this could be the best internet comic ever produced.
Thank you Grey; Thank you Cory. You brilliant bastards just made my otherwise awful day.

 

[SlashCo]

Really great comic-it really hit the nail on the head and got a good chuckle out of me. Somewhat less entertaining was reading the comments and seeing the parodied subject matter come out of the woodwork and prove, once again, that they can be even more reprehensible than any parody of themselves.

Actually, the comic sets up a position whereby white men are accused of literally being murderous racists, and if anyone disagrees with that, it is taken as an admission of guilt. In other words, you have to either totally agree with the comic or be branded as one of those the comic makes fun of. It's a fallacious, even intellectually dishonest conclusion.