WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!

[Rebel_Raven]

WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE!! MY MORTAL NEMESES... Nemesi? Ne... ENEMIES!!

Infernal keepers of the white straight male status quo, oppressing those who want some diversity in protagonists!
Sadly, they exist. or at least their agents do. Wade through a videogame gender/race issue threads, and you'll see these agents. Threads like this one.

Lets not forget their most insidious tactic! Not complaining about anythng for the most part until someone decides they want to talk about representation, be it female, or POC. Then they use it as ammo to get people to shut up!

And their latest tactic, ignorantly spouting off "Well, amek your own game!" as if they know anything about the people they're directing the cop-out at.

The way some talk it's as if they've been pandered to so much, so long that they can't fathom it when others want to be catered to, or are catered to. It's as if what's good enough for them HAS to be good enough for everyone else.

I'm kinda reminded if Billy's inner Frat Boy from Billy & Mandy.

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

<youtube=F0TEvK-mjlg>

Pretty obvious there's more than a few WGDF people here.

P.S. Great comic! I utilized my ability to laugh internally to prevent odd looks while at work seeing this.

 

[generals3]

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.

The behavior I'm mocking is (almost) entirely exclusive to straight white men under 30, or at least, people who identify themselves as straight white males under 30.

How do you know they're under 30? This reminds of the stereotype that trolls and obnoxious people on the net are teens while there are actually plenty of adult dicks on the net (agism ftw?).

But that was barely relevant. More relevant is: how does that matter? My criticism is that the only characteristics the antagonists share is being white and male which is quite shady seeing how "diverse" the cast is. (and their names being "White Guy *Greek Letter*" just makes it 100% clear). It would have already been better if the names would have been "Frustrated Neckbeard Beta", "Chauvinistic Ladiesman Alpha" and "Arrogant Hipster Omega". At least there you put less emphasis on the trait "White Guy" and more on what actually are THE relevant traits. This comic simply puts WAY too much emphasis on "White Guy" as a trait instead of the ones which actually are "problematic".

 

[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.

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.

Ill leave there portrayals value to the hands of subjectivity. I myself didnt mind it. In any case what I see from his work is not a philosophy that sees women as lesser than him but rather: A desire to be needed by the ones that he loves and desires. To be useful and ultimately save her because he himself lacks worth without the ability to do such. Its colloquially called "white knight syndrome" and the respondents to that are called love avoidants. Ive had to do alot of research on this because its something I deal with on a daily basis. It makes finding love next to impossible because the people who find you attractive like to keep you at poles length for fear of getting too close. thats why as a kid I loved games like this and legend of zelda. They mirrored the fantasy in my head unhealthy though it was.

So you see it has nothing to do with what he thinks all women are worth or are capable of. Just the one that he wants. Me and him both know there are women out there that can woop our asses.

Heres a good dr nerd love article on the subject:http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/01/white-knight-syndrome/all/1/

Personally I cant fully say that this is the directors intent or basis of inspiration but Im pretty confident that this is where it stems.

I suppose that's a reasonable enough interpretation. I don't really see anything totally wrong with feeling the need to be needed (in the sense that I don't think it makes you an immoral person), but I do think it could lead to some relationship problems, which I guess Shadow of the Colossus (the one of those two games I've actually played) does address in a way, in that his desire to save his girlfriend and be the hero brings him to ruin. You sorta did choose a poor example, as those two games aren't really that bad, they just can be seen that way if you don't look at the greater context. It's somewhat like saying that Starship Troopers (the movie) can be interpreted as supporting war and imperialism, but to a lesser extent.

No seriously go ahead and read that article. having that syndrome is very damaging it sucks. but anyway yeah I always try to find varying explanations for why something is the way it is rather than simply jump on the "its some kind of ist clearly" train that so many are content to do.

 

[Lucane]

...but Zimmerman isn't even White. Or am I missing a joke here?

You don't have to be Hispanic(though Zimmerman is partially Hispanic?) to murder a black guy who isn't holding a traditional weapon(a lawyer argued the sidewalk was a weapon [I'd say it was available to both of them if that was the case.]) is the point of that part.
Zimmerman ultimately killed someone who at best was winning a hand-to-hand fight and then decides to shot to kill first chance he gets. The fact that no one else is a direct physical witness to the conversation before the fighting or during taking the only version of events of the "victor" shouldn't immediately be considered truth or fact.

There's a saying that goes: History is written by the Victors. If that's you making yourself out to be the hero is a pretty sweet deal if you can "quiet" any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Saltyk]

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.

That was shown to be staged. [http://ivn.us/penigma/2013/07/25/george-zimmermans-heroic-car-crash-rescue-appears-to-be-a-fraud/] A police officer who was a friend of Zimmerman's called him to the scene of the accident so that he could show up and get good PR.

Make of that what you will.

Interesting. I had not heard that. In light of new information, I will stop referencing that. Still doesn't change my opinion on his self defense claim and trial.

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?

Because these are mutually exclusive facts. I don't think I'll respond to you again. You're obviously too emotional on this topic.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

If the timeline on that site is accurate then from the time of the gun firing and the first police officer arriving at the time scene was roughly a minute it would take serious amount of effort to crack a human skull open if again by the timeline the fight before the gunshot was roughly a minute as well,then another minute wouldn't of likely been enough to kill him. The Police were already on the way there Zimmerman was the first to call them in the first place. He knew that but still got of his vehicle against the police phone operator's advice. You're forgetting how ever if Trayvon would also be alive then the number of witnesses doubles and the stories would then have something to stand-up against instead of being almost unable to verified as factual or not.

It's hard to say one way or the other. I gave two possible versions of events if Zimmerman had not shot. A best and worst case. Also, with a person on top of you and attacking you, you're probably not clocking the police on when they will arrive. Just because they were on the way, does not invalidate self defense. As a Supreme Court ruling has stated, the police do not have to protect you.

Also, just because Zimmerman got out of his car does not mean he was in the wrong. I have a coworker that has done the same thing. He saved a girl from a rapist and even testified at the trial. He was not charged with any crimes. Getting out of one's car does not equate wrong doing.

And the timeline you posted shows that the operator told him they didn't need him to follow and Zimmerman replied with "Okay". This is about 2-3 minutes after he made the call and 2-3 minutes before he got off the call. It's also about four minutes before the first call about the fight. So, since there is no mention of the confrontation taking place while Zimmerman was on the phone, we can extrapolate that the confrontation started within the time-span of one minute. In addition, Zimmerman lost track of Martin before he hung up according to the timeline. Now, you mentioned that you don't think one minute would have made a difference in the hypothetical. But you don't know. One minute was enough for the course of events as they ran, it may have been enough to kill Zimmerman by beating him to near death. Or even Martin finding Zimmerman's gun and using it on him. There's no way to account for all the variables when so much can happen in so little time.

I don't pretend to know what happened in the confrontation. No one does.

In the event that both survived, Martin would either be confirming Zimmerman's version of events, or disagreeing with it. In which case, it would be one person's word against another. I didn't forget anything. It was irrelevant to the facts as I see them. I prefer to just disregard Zimmerman's version of events and look at other evidence. Such as the eye witness testimonies. And the lack of injuries on Martin, other than the gunshot wound, that indicates that Zimmerman did not attack Martin at all. So, either he is really bad at punching a person, or he never attacked Martin.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know what would have happened if things had been different. And there is not enough evidence to suggest that Zimmerman had attacked Martin. Nor is there evidence of who attacked whom first. All we can do is look at the evidence. Which suggests self defense. You can say there is reason to suggest Zimmerman was the aggressor, but I can say there is reasonable doubt. And that's enough to acquit.

 

[The Wooster]

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.

The behavior I'm mocking is (almost) entirely exclusive to straight white men under 30, or at least, people who identify themselves as straight white males under 30.

How do you know they're under 30? This reminds of the stereotype that trolls and obnoxious people on the net are teens while there are actually plenty of adult dicks on the net (agism ftw?).

But that was barely relevant. More relevant is: how does that matter? My criticism is that the only characteristics the antagonists share is being white and male which is quite shady seeing how "diverse" the cast is. (and their names being "White Guy *Greek Letter*" just makes it 100% clear). It would have already been better if the names would have been "Frustrated Neckbeard Beta", "Chauvinistic Ladiesman Alpha" and "Arrogant Hipster Omega". At least there you put less emphasis on the trait "White Guy" and more on what actually are THE relevant traits. This comic simply puts WAY too much emphasis on "White Guy" as a trait instead of the ones which actually are "problematic".

I disagree and I'd argue you're being oversensitive. Their race and gender are the traits that tends to unite these people, and they're the banner under which they chose to argue. It makes sense to use it in their label. It's assumed that the reader has enough common sense to understand when a general term is being applied to a smaller group, but people often suddenly disregard that common sense when it suits them. When a comedian refers to "black/white/Asian/Armenian people" he obviously doesn't mean all of them. It's simply a useful shorthand used for conveying important information.

 

[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.

Ill leave there portrayals value to the hands of subjectivity. I myself didnt mind it. In any case what I see from his work is not a philosophy that sees women as lesser than him but rather: A desire to be needed by the ones that he loves and desires. To be useful and ultimately save her because he himself lacks worth without the ability to do such. Its colloquially called "white knight syndrome" and the respondents to that are called love avoidants. Ive had to do alot of research on this because its something I deal with on a daily basis. It makes finding love next to impossible because the people who find you attractive like to keep you at poles length for fear of getting too close. thats why as a kid I loved games like this and legend of zelda. They mirrored the fantasy in my head unhealthy though it was.

So you see it has nothing to do with what he thinks all women are worth or are capable of. Just the one that he wants. Me and him both know there are women out there that can woop our asses.

Heres a good dr nerd love article on the subject:http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/01/white-knight-syndrome/all/1/

Personally I cant fully say that this is the directors intent or basis of inspiration but Im pretty confident that this is where it stems.

I suppose that's a reasonable enough interpretation. I don't really see anything totally wrong with feeling the need to be needed (in the sense that I don't think it makes you an immoral person), but I do think it could lead to some relationship problems, which I guess Shadow of the Colossus (the one of those two games I've actually played) does address in a way, in that his desire to save his girlfriend and be the hero brings him to ruin. You sorta did choose a poor example, as those two games aren't really that bad, they just can be seen that way if you don't look at the greater context. It's somewhat like saying that Starship Troopers (the movie) can be interpreted as supporting war and imperialism, but to a lesser extent.

No seriously go ahead and read that article. having that syndrome is very damaging it sucks. but anyway yeah I always try to find varying explanations for why something is the way it is rather than simply jump on the "its some kind of ist clearly" train that so many are content to do.

I try to, though I admit I do not always succeed. I jump on "its some kind of ist" then sometimes talk myself down from there.

 

[Overquoted]

If you assume something about somebody or treat somebody differently because of their race and/or gender it's discrimination. Just because they can prove you wrong afterwards doesn't mean you were not being discriminatory.

Completely ignore anything I said about the comic, huh? Figured out your ideas were indefensible?

You experienced no discrimination. You lack the ability to even understand what it is, and proved that by claiming the comic was making fun of white guys who weren't displaying hypocritical behavior.

That I give your opinion on discrimination less weight because of the likelihood that you've experienced little to no discrimination, is just logical. I won't give your opinion about sexism as much weight as I would a woman or gay man, either, at least until you give me concrete examples of how you're an exception to the rule. The fact that you want your opinion to be held at equal standing in every situation is an ego problem.

If I weighted your opinion less on everything because you're a white guy, I'd be discriminating against you. If I did so because of intrinsic characteristics, assuming any race had any, it'd be discrimination. I don't. I do so on the real world knowledge that there are a lot of white guys out there who only scream about discrimination when they are less likely to experience it than any other group. I do it on the knowledge that most white guys have experienced little to no discrimination. You cannot divorce reality from this discussion solely to feel like a victim.

I know a guy who is currently a fire chief. According to him, he was passed over for a promotion in favor of a black guy because of affirmative action. In other words, he was discriminated against on the basis of race. And yet, it never occurred to him that the reason for this could have been anything but discrimination. There was no chance that this other guy just might have had better leadership skills. No chance that it was your typical office politics. And, assuming it was affirmative action, that affirmative action in this case was not simply a correction of decades' worth of a system that had, in actuality, favored him over and over again while dropping this same black guy to the bottom of list in terms of pay and promotion (without any cause beyond race). But it never occurred to him that it could even be the first. The default reason upon learning that a non-white male got the promotion was to assume he (the fire chief) had been discriminated against.

And this is why your opinion gets weighted. Because you are shaped by your experiences. And if most of your experiences have given you a leg up on everyone else, that is your default. You don't recognize the disadvantages it may have caused others. You only see that when it stops, even if it stops for any other reasons, it's just discrimination against you and not the leveling of the playing field.

That's what the comic is making fun of. That's why a statement supporting the first quip about white guys being the only ones made fun of is so utterly astounding to almost everyone else. You only see the changes to your status. You don't see that, in relation to everyone else, you're still equal or advantaged. Not disadvantaged. Not discriminated against.

 

[Dansrage]

It's not targeting your gender or race, it's targeting a viewpoint that is spouted by certain white males. But you're so oversensitive about it apparently to mock a specific set of white males for one thing they do that most don't is to mock all white males.

Oh I'm the hypersensitive one? Oh wow.
I'll just have to assume you're trolling now, what with all the Tumblr feminists reacting with explosive violence to whatever they can contrive to be sexist, Quiet's outfit in MGS5, God of War trophies, Yahtzee's tranny joke, a long list of petty and infantile grievances they're forced to invent because they don't have any real oppression to tackle and their movement has been irrelevant since about 1980.
These same people get tabloid space on shitty sites like Kotaku and Escapist to voice their poorly informed and contrived complaints.

But I'm the sensitive one for responding to a direct, unapologetic attack.

Talking about others that may be oversensitive, amazingly, does not mean you aren't being such.

And the oversensitive bit is where you imagine it's a direct attack when told otherwise a million times, and it is even said by the author who it targeted. Hint: He didn't say "All the while males!"

And yes, South Africa, where white people are being massacred daily and systematically exterminated by a government that is as racist as the one it replaced, but the international community doesn't care because 'white people can't be victims'.

I'm just marveling that you probably don't consider yourself racist while seemingly suggesting it shouldn't have changed, nor seem to recognize the issues came from colonialism and racism from whites in the first place.

So:

Racist whites ruling over blacks and segregating them = racist.
Racist blacks raping and murdering whites in a systematic extermination = not racist because of colonialism?

See, you try very hard to be a victim. But I just never said the last bit. I'm saying that you're ignoring the consequences of what racism spawned.

So in the same logic Native Americans being wiped out and replaced by a foreign population is evil and regrettable, but white people being wiped out and replaced by a foreign population is just peachy because white people once did a bad thing?
Where does your double-standard end?
Sounds to me like you just hate white people and want to see their genocide.

Sounds like you want to accuse everyone of wanting a white genocide. See, you fit perfectly.

This is why I call you a spineless coward, by the way. Oh I don't have to defend myself to you and prove I'm not a racist, calling me a horrible Nazi KKK racist who wants to gass 6,000,000 Jews has no effect, because it's infantile and pointless. It's not in the least bit shocking.

Well I'd suggest you're a racist by the way you accuse me of wanting to kill whites for disagreeing with you.

Well no I accuse you of wanting white genocide because of your dismissal of white people who are actually oppressed and under attack but who receive no international aid or support because of the color of their skin.

Right. Because of the color of their skin. *yawn* You seem like the type that any time someone bad happens to someone white every last aspect is about racism against the white guy.

I'm not a victim, but there are people who are victims and my race has the very real potential to become victims.

Sure, right. See, I'm thinking it's because it's making fun of something rather close to that mentality that you take it personally. Then for some reason make it about ALL white guys. You know you keep moaning about how hard it is for white guys, but really you're missing out on how exactly this is targeting ALL white guys.

In 1900 whites made up 36% of the human race, in 2013 they make up 7%. The way trends are going, white people will soon be racial minorities in their native countries, meaning they will be a minority open to abuse. Meanwhile the media is promoting whites as the devil incarnate who deserve no sympathy or protection, and unilaterally deserve whatever they get.

Ah here we go. This standard spiel about white population. Gotta keep up your racial purity, amirite? And right, those countries belong to whites, not to the citizens born there or anything. Just the white ones.

And you don't understand what minority means in this context do you? Hint: It tends to have to do with power, not just sheer population.

And the media is promoting whites as the devil incarnate? Heh, suuuuuuuure.

Can you see how that might go badly? Can you possibly fathom what kind of situation that might create? Not to mention it's all lies, from the slave trade to colonialism. Arabs traded African slaves, where is the outrage against them? Moors colonized Spain, Rome colonized Britain, where are our reparations?

Well yes, I can see it. I see the product... of your rather twisted view on what's actually going on in society. I see you really do identify with one of those arguments and that's why you're so upset.

"The consequences of what racism spawned", so first off, whites are solely responsible for all racism, and second, if a little white girl who never harmed anyone is raped and killed by a black in South Africa, that is "a consequence of what racism spawned" because her ancestors were racists, is that correct?

Who said anything about her ancestors? I'm saying you seemed to be ever so upset about what has *happened* in South Africa to whites, ignoring why it's happening. As if turning back the clock is a good thing.

You're a real piece of work.

For not buying your... rather... 'out there' view? Sure.

Yeah thanks for not directly addressing any of my points, want me to repeat them or do you want a second roll?

Well why is the Native American population being displaced and diminished bad, but the same for whites is good?
Why is racial violence happening to a black minority group bad, but the same happening to a white minority is deserved?
Why is one ethnicity being blended out of existence a genocide, but the same for whites is 'progress'?

I don't need my race to be pure, Europe certainly isn't pure, it's been invaded by and has colonized most of the planet, I've probably got everything from Arab to Mediterranean to Moor in my blood. I do however, want white people to continue existing as a distinct ethnicity and culture just like every other ethnicity has the right to.

You never see anyone say India or China or Saudi Arabia needs more white immigrants, it's always "Europe and America need to be more diverse, Europe and America need to integrate, Europeans and Americans need to blend out of existence", all in the name of 'progress' and 'diversity'. Immigration is good, multiculturalism is good, but drowning a population with a low birth rate in hostile immigrants who will breed them out of existence is genocide.

So again I ask you, and maybe you can actually respond this time: If a white is a victim of a black, is that deserved because of what their ancestors, people they never met, did to other people they never met?
And if I should feel terrible about what my ancestors did, why can't I also feel proud of all their accomplishments? You know like, powered flight, vaccination, the microchip, space travel, women's rights, the end of slavery and segregation, the Geneva convention, the universal declaration of human rights, I could go on.

 

[Lucane]

Snip.

The behavior I'm mocking is (almost) entirely exclusive to straight white men under 30, or at least, people who identify themselves as straight white males under 30.

Snip
My criticism is that the only characteristics the antagonists share is being white and male which is quite shady seeing how "diverse" the cast is. (and their names being "White Guy *Greek Letter*" just makes it 100% clear). It would have already been better if the names would have been "Frustrated Neckbeard Beta", "Chauvinistic Ladiesman Alpha" and "Arrogant Hipster Omega". At least there you put less emphasis on the trait "White Guy" and more on what actually are THE relevant traits. This comic simply puts WAY too much emphasis on "White Guy" as a trait instead of the ones which actually are "problematic".

For the comic their common goal of showing up is WGDF you don't have to be white to be a sexist pig, a hipster or a brony though 2 of those are considered male orientated women could be just as sexist as well.

 

[Grimh]

I laughed, if only for the sheer absurdity and how OTT it was.

Also don't know why I haven't said this sooner but Cory I'm really liking your art.
It's nice to see how you've grown since the start of this comic.

 

[Goremocker]

*Reads the first two pages of the thread, and reads the last two* ... *Slow clap* This comic has done exactly what I imagine it was crafted to do, incite waves of privilege checking and immense internet rage. I understand the reason behind making this, and how it was meant to be funny, but it's a -little- played out in this day and age.

 

[Overquoted]

[snip]

Your avatar trips me out. >_>

 

[rbstewart7263]

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.

The behavior I'm mocking is (almost) entirely exclusive to straight white men under 30, or at least, people who identify themselves as straight white males under 30.

How do you know they're under 30? This reminds of the stereotype that trolls and obnoxious people on the net are teens while there are actually plenty of adult dicks on the net (agism ftw?).

But that was barely relevant. More relevant is: how does that matter? My criticism is that the only characteristics the antagonists share is being white and male which is quite shady seeing how "diverse" the cast is. (and their names being "White Guy *Greek Letter*" just makes it 100% clear). It would have already been better if the names would have been "Frustrated Neckbeard Beta", "Chauvinistic Ladiesman Alpha" and "Arrogant Hipster Omega". At least there you put less emphasis on the trait "White Guy" and more on what actually are THE relevant traits. This comic simply puts WAY too much emphasis on "White Guy" as a trait instead of the ones which actually are "problematic".

I disagree and I'd argue you're being oversensitive. Their race and gender are the traits that tends to unite these people, and they're the banner under which they chose to argue. It makes sense to use it in their label. It's assumed that the reader has enough common sense to understand when a general term is being applied to a smaller group, but people often suddenly disregard that common sense when it suits them. When a comedian refers to "black/white/Asian/Armenian people" he obviously doesn't mean all of them. It's simply a useful shorthand used for conveying important information.

Interesting so would you argue then that its ok to start a joke with "these black/white/armenian people?" serious question Im just curious tis not baiting or mockery

and hes right. If you want a negative uniter to apply to say something non white related you need only look to the many race exclusive gangs or groups like the new black panther party to do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDb2byj74oY

There now we can talk about how racist and hateful the WGDF is since we can clearly see how horribly racistthe NBPP is lol

 

[generals3]

I disagree and I'd argue you're being oversensitive. Their race and gender are the traits that tends to unite these people, and they're the banner under which they chose to argue. It makes sense to use it in their label. It's assumed that the reader has enough common sense to understand when a general term is being applied to a smaller group, but people often suddenly disregard that common sense when it suits them. When a comedian refers to "black/white/Asian/Armenian people" he obviously doesn't mean all of them. It's simply a useful shorthand used for conveying important information.

Yes and no. Those traits don't "unite" them, they just tend to be common but that's it, what unites them is their cause/fight. You have plenty of white males on the "white knight" side (to go to the other extreme). And again it's a matter of context. There is a difference between using a general term for convenience and putting an abnormal amount of emphasis on said terms. Here the gender and race are omnipresent and they didn't even have to, not even for simplicity. How is using "White Guy Alpha" somehow more useful than "Chauvinistic Ladies-man"? Might as well argue "Muslim" is more useful than "Jihadist".

 

[thethird0611]

NOW do you see why everyone got up in arms over Yahtzee's transsexual joke? Not so fun being made fun of, is it?

Actually, from reading the comments, most people who fall under the demographic are either laughing it off or just letting it go. And (well from reading a few good pages), I haven't seen one threat of stopping reading Grey's comics or saying that Grey is bigoted, or anything like that.

Hell, I prescribe myself to the same thing as the Yahtzee joke, laugh it off or leave it alone.