WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!

[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.

 

[lacktheknack]

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, I think it's utterly hilarious.

 

[Dansrage]

Why is white people enslaving black people okay?

I never said it was and you avoided my question.

Why is racial profiling only Blacks and Hispanics okay?

I never said it was and you avoided my question.

Why is genocide okay if it's Jews?

I never said it was and you avoided my question. Also oh boy these fallacies, you're arguing on a pre-school level.

Oh and btw, it's not genocide for racial mixing to happen. The only ones concerned about that are racists. This is one of the most telling bits.

It is genocide if an ethnicity ceases to exist because of aggressive immigration. This isn't a natural process, people are being imported in huge numbers, a lot of them hostile to the host culture, as a means of social engineering.

You just put an importance on your race and want it to be distinct and separate.

So, it's also fine if Native Americans go extinct and are absorbed because their unique culture and ethnicity has no value, right?

Stop pretending your race owns these countries.

If cultures and ethnicity have no value, then why are you opposed to colonization at all? Surely if countries are just lines on a map it's fine if white people take over Africa, am I not correct? I mean, black people don't 'own' Africa, so why shouldn't white people become a majority in Africa and wipe out the natives through higher birth rates and mass immigration?

Let me ask you: Is it okay to feast on poor black immigrants in a cannibalistic orgy?

I never said it was and you avoided my question. Where did you even get that from? More fallacies, I'll make a neat list for you at the bottom of my post detailing your collection.

LOL. Women's rights, a white accomplishment. Not said by a racist at all.

So, who takes that one? The Arabs? No, they seem to still be stoning women for adultery, hmm. Maybe Asians? Nope, looks like the Chinese are still killing baby girls because they want sons. Wow this is problematic. Maybe Africans? Nope, looks like they have the highest rape rates of all the world, damn.

So here's my promised list of your logical fallacies:

Strawman: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

Loaded Question: Asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that it can't be answered without appearing guilty.

Tu Quoque: Avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser, answering criticism with criticism.

Appeal to Emotion: Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

 

[Overquoted]

And it isn't discrimination for me to assume so.

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.

Things that count as "discrimination" using your definition.

[ul][li]Urinals.[/li]
[li]Hair care products[/li]
[li]Sun cream[/li]
[li]Medicine[/li]
[li]Science[/li][/ul]

Equality doesn't mean treating everyone exactly the same. If it did, we'd be giving pregnancy tests to men and forcing paraplegics to drag themselves up the stairs like everyone else. Equality is caring for people's unique needs in equal measure, as far as this is possible, and giving equal time to their views, assuming they're relevant.

Thank you. I could not, for the life of me, say that so clearly.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Shit, we've almost hit 1000.

I predicted a hot, predominately white ball of rage, but I didn't expect us to break 1000.

 

[generals3]

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, I think it's utterly hilarious.

You two are missing the point entirely and comparing apples with oranges. There's a difference between an empty joke and badly conveyed message in a satirical comic. In Iron Man 2 they made a joke about Belgians and waffles, I laughed just like a lot of people in the cinema. I didn't get angry because it was a joke involving my country. The difference being that was just an empty joke thrown in there purely for comedy. This comic however clearly tries to criticize a behavior and thus send a message. This makes the joke loaded, and wrongly loaded at that. If Yahtzee's review was about transsexuals maybe you two would have point but it wasn't.

 

[Overquoted]

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.

....Fat brony dudes are only white? Ladies' men are only white? Man, you'd better inform the Latin Lovers and Players of that.

But hipsters are predominantly white, you're right about that. But most white people are definitely not hipsters. *shudders*

He could have just as easily made them say...leering construction workers, embezzling CEOs or any other group that is derided for obnoxious behavior. But let's face it, bros, bronies and hipsters have their own subset of WGDF. That doesn't mean every bro, brony, hipster or white guy is a member of the WGDF. (Which has been pointed out about 200 times by now.)

I guess his mistake was not in making them all Fox News "journalists."

 

[lacktheknack]

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, I think it's utterly hilarious.

You two are missing the point entirely and comparing apples with oranges. There's a difference between an empty joke and badly conveyed message in a satirical comic. In Iron Man 2 they made a joke about Belgians and waffles, I laughed just like a lot of people in the cinema. I didn't get angry because it was a joke involving my country. The difference being that was just an empty joke thrown in there purely for comedy. This comic however clearly tries to criticize a behavior and thus send a message. This makes the joke loaded, and wrongly loaded at that. If Yahtzee's review was about transsexuals maybe you two would have point but it wasn't.

So... the fact that I laughed at a loaded attack on me means that I'd likely be upset about the unloaded joke from the review if I was transsexual?

That's what I'm reading here.

And it makes no sense.

 

[generals3]

....Fat brony dudes are only white? Ladies' men are only white? Man, you'd better inform the Latin Lovers and Players of that.

Never said that. But being "White Guy ****" pretty much makes them all white in the comic? You seem to actually have missed the whole point of my post. The point is, and i'll repeat, is that the only characteristic they all share is being white dudes. There is way too much emphasis on the fact they're all white dudes.

 

[generals3]

So... the fact that I laughed at a loaded attack on me means that I'd likely be upset about the unloaded joke from the review if I was transsexual?

That's what I'm reading here.

And it makes no sense.

The point was simple: trying to find irony by comparing apples with oranges is silly. A loaded joke part of a comic trying to actually send a message is different from an empty joke thrown in purely for comic reasons. If Yahtzee's review was about transsexuals and wanted to send a message about it than it would have been comparable but it is not.

"NOW do you see why everyone got up in arms over Yahtzee's transsexual joke? Not so fun being made fun of, is it?" => Implies both cases are equivalent and the "fuss" is present for the same reasons. They're not, period.

 

[Farther than stars]

OK... Here are my two cents on the issue, to be lost in the whirlwind of complete nonsense.
Is racism bad? Yes. Is it fair to blame all of it on one person? No, that would essentially make him a scapegoat.
It already was legal to shoot people in Florida when you feel your life is being threatened. After all, Von Martin certainly wasn't 'just reaching for his bus pass'. Do I feel bad for him dying? Of course, but that doesn't mean I blame Zimmerman, who was acting within the parameters of the law to 'stand his ground'. In that sense, the court didn't set any precedence that wasn't already enshrined in law.
And I've only heard one journalist question the righteousness of that law and I don't think she was even American. Let's be honest here, if you have a legal system in which you allow armed vigilantes to patrol the streets at nights, then this kind of thing is going to happen. And let's not forget that this took place within a gated community, which by definition take a segregationist approach to society. But instead of focusing on these root issues of gun culture or social divides in the U.S., all the media are focused on Zimmerman and the court.
This is one of those rare cases in which both parties are right, but they're arguing with each other so fiercely that they can't see the forest for the trees.