WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!

[Teshi]

Apparently hispanics are now in that awkward place where they're counted as white or as a minority depending on what suits the guy making the argument more. This was quite puzzling to me at first. After years of people counting hispanics as an oppressed minority with the likes of African Americans, Asians and Ron Paul supporters, they suddenly became part of the massively priveleged white race when Zimmerman happened.

I am convinced that if Zimmerman had been shot by a white guy, we would now be talking about how differently the police would have treated the case if he had been white and not an oppressed hispanic guy.

"Hispanic" just means someone's ancestry is from Spanish (and sometimes Portuguese, depending on who you ask) territories. In case you've never been to Spain, news flash, it's full of white people. Many of them came to live in the colonies and had babies and stuff! Someone who is Hispanic can be pretty much any race or mix of races.

Tangentially, generally speaking, Hispanic people with less Indio and/or African ancestry HAVE been more privileged. Significantly so.

You could consider reading a bit about history.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Yeah, they're held to a different standard than regular forum threads. That's how this works. Regular forum threads aren't attached to a piece of content on the site with a years-long lifespan. They can go away, and that's fine. It's disingenuous of us and unfair to you all if we take away the way you have of commenting on our work. We can stipulate how you do it, fine, and ask that you be constructive, sure, but taking away your avenue of speech here isn't something we think is fair.

Huh, that's actually kind of interesting.

Featured content threads generally seem to serve the purpose you stipulate, a venue to comment on the work. But in certain cases such as this one we get long derails only tangentially related to the work at hand (see, Zimmerman derail). This leads to a certain disconnect where the mods treat it like it's an open comments section while the commenters end up treating it as an R&P thread on a bigger, mostly unrelated issue.

I'm not sure if this is actually a big issue, as the end result is the community gets to decide where the direction of comments go even if they want to take it off the rails. But it does lead to cases where people end up taking ideological corners and it becomes another war zone on the controversial topic of the week and it gets really off-topic fast.

Personally if I ran the site I would close these threads once they reached a critical mass of silliness and rage to save this hypothetical mod-self the trouble even at the cost of the communities supposed "free speech", but I suppose since you guys are the ones who have to clean up this 1000+ post cesspit you have the right to decide what to do with the remains.

 

[Ticklefist]

Post removed. Would rather stay out of this... discussion.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

George Zimmerman is only partially Hispanic. Without bothering to look it up, I believe he's also got some Polish in him.

Whatever he is, he's hardly the model of what they're supposed to be deriding.

Uh...Maybe I missed something because of how fast this thread moves, but I don't remember anyone saying he is the model of anything other than shooting unarmed, black people.

The comic's supposed to be about white stereotypes (emphasis on white and stereotypes) racially discriminating blacks. The Zimmerman thing breaks the pattern of the comic. I'm not offended by it, I just think it's poor writing.

 

[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.

There was a teenage boy that saw the whole thing who said everything zimmerman said was true. Listen to the phone calls, zimmerman approached trayvon, trayvon ran, came back and said now you got a problem then attacked him, held him down mma style and tried to grab his gun, yes trying to grab someones holstered gun is enough reason to believe they are trying to kill you. You are completely ignorant and did not follow the case at all, you are just following this tumblr of the week race baiting new bullshit.

Actually I was watching the trial on and off and I never heard of this witness that (saw everything) ever not during the trial or any of the follow up talks on it could you point me in the direction of where I could find info with that?

And the reason I choose to say what happened the way I did was because I find it difficult to believe the story of someone based only on their own words in general if there's no way to actually verify what they say happened or not.
It's not common for people whether as individuals, armies or rulers to portray themselves as the bad guys.

Side note: I'm sorry but I don't use tumblr.
Edit: Please don't say he was justified in killing out of self-defense for reason X because I said "Murdered" the exact point of which I used that word is it's what happened there's no question in that and the WGDF can't very well say that a Bus PassRace Card was ever going to harm them physically.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

It's the nature of our relationship with staff and our content types that we don't use the forum system to talk to them about rules, correct. That's how that works and I won't explain it further.

Tiss fine ^_^-Same thing with me I'm not trying to cause trouble just understand-and share my feeling as a member of the community which have been here for years ^_-.

Reading through your response I think I understand/see where you're coming from and while I don't completely like it but at least it makes sense and seems reasonable.

Except the bit I haven't snipped which comes across as really flippant and dismissive surely when a contributor post something on the forums that goes directly against the rules in such a way that would get someone perma-banned they should receive a public warning/health bar block for it as when they don't it comes across to the public like the staff don't care/are purposely more harsher on common users/hold us in contempt/that contributors are above punishment or rules.

Which in turns can be quite infuriating and insulting towards the common user and will create resentment toward the power that be surely to avoid this a simple public statement of some sort would be worth it?

Also can I suggest an update to the health bar system-In my personal opinion the cool down time is too long and users who post alot/have been here for years will build up small mistakes that could prove fatal even if they are normally nice members of the community.

You see if an average user post 10 comments a day that 70 comments a week which is 280 a month which over six month will add up to a large 1,680 and in all these comments you make just one bad post you get a warning-post like this consistently and you will find that small mistakes build despite the overwhelming amount of post being positive.

It gets to the point where a person can have posted 13,432 good posts but because he posted 8 bad post along the way suddenly despite the vast overwhelming goodness he is lost from these forums forever which seems really sad

Everyone has bad days/stupid moments I'm sure over a period of six mounth you had these kinda moments as well at least once each six months so perhaps a better cool down time period,or maybe just suspend them for a year or two instead of a permanent ban please.

Spoiler: PWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE :3

If a person is good for 96% of their life(lets say they are 80 years old right now), never breaking even the slightest rule, but spends the other 4% committing terrible crimes. Should this person be let off the hook because they've been mostly good?

No. I think not.

In life people are very lucky to get three chances of screwing up,(lots don't even get one extra chance), before the consequences get increased in severity. Giving people 8 chances(chances that will regenerate if they go long enough without messing up) seems more than fair.

To be on this site as members, we have to accept the rules of the site. Obviously, if people chose not to follow the rules, they have to pay the consequences.

It would be grand if we never had people getting banned, but sadly people brake the rules knowing the risks. Then pay the price. The rules here are pretty simple. Don't be jerks, and don't do things you wouldn't do in public. Anything else is more specific to good internet behavior.
It's not asking for that much really.

Sometimes life gives us a cute little kitten for being good. Other times...

Spoiler: We are given an altogether different cat when we are bad.

Personally, I like them both. ;3

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

I don't even get it.

I mean, I get the references... Some of them...

I dunno, is it supposed to be funny or something?

Nope, it's supposed to make you, and all "Cis male scum" feel bad because of some videogame artist's design choice.
Oh, you wanted FUNNY!?
TOO BAD.
Here's an edit that explains the comic.
http://i.imgur.com/HkhEtyl.jpg
I found it funny, maybe you will too.

Not the intended recipient, but I did find the alternate funnier than the original. It's like Gray took the excess baggage from the /fit/ board of 4chan and then spiced it with overtones of the /pol/ board in a way that was truly pointless and cringe worthy.

 

[knight steel]

snip

But there is a huge difference between committing crimes in real life and minor infraction on a forum for a low post account saying a short sentence in the real word does not lead to life in jail.

And really if a person was good 96% of their life I would be inclined to let the 4% slide and considering criminal courts do take your past history into account and only give you life in prison for the most horrible of crimes I would say that the law does reflect my view.

And really people can change greatly in a number of years become completely different I mean if your if your perma-banned thats it all gone which seems really extreme-people are young the make mistakes what happens if they age 30 years and really want to rejoin the escapist community stopping them because of 8 post's made when they were 19 it way too harsh

Suspending them for 2 years give them more than enough time to change and become a better person and if they muck up again simply give another 2 year suspension eventually they will learn and even if they don't with such long suspension they don't pose a threat the the forum/community.

 

[Jux]

One of my favorite CM comics of all time now. And this thread, my god, laughed almost as hard at this as I did the actual comic. Can't decide which is funnier, UltraTwinkie grinding his axe over TM/GZ or the guy that thinks white people interbreeding = genocide. I'm glad to know though that this thread won't get locked, I have high hopes for this. I kinda envision this thread being like the red spot of Jupiter, a never ending hurricane of shit flinging and mod wrath.

One thing I don't get though is the knee jerk defensiveness. "I exhibit superficial similarities to WGA/B/O and thus I am offended!" Christ on a cracker. I like MLP. I have worn a fedora. I am an athiest. But I don't actually identify with any of the WGDF characters. Because I don't hold their views.

CM has hit multiple nails on the head with this comic, the evidence is clear enough in this thread with the reactions it drew.

 

[Hattingston]

What bothers me about this comic is that it's the "White Guy" Defense Force. That seems to imply that the group is defending white guys and their values. It then proceeds to associate the defense of white guys with the objection to making previously white characters of a different race, what I assume is the offensive version of being friendzoned* (the belief that someone owes you a relationship but won't give you one), arrogance, racism, sexism ("I know how much your kind hates facts"),and more ridiculously the murder of those who disagree with you. The comic also associates My Little Pony and fedoras with these attributes.

I get that it's supposed to be a joke and not taken terribly seriously, but it still kind of stings to see something that indicates that I am what I actively rally against. I know that many more have faced much worse, but just because one group hasn't faced as much discrimination as another doesn't make it okay to stereotype them.

*the inoffensive version of friendzoned, which is what I see used in my social circle, is the object of your affections considering you to be strictly a friend. No feelings of being owed a relationship, just feeling disappointed and a little hurt. The object of your affection is not at all condemnable.

On an entirely different topic, making a character a non-white race seem to be really risky from a business standpoint. If you make them act the same as you would if they were white, you get criticized for whitewashing, if you try to make them different you get criticized for stereotyping, it seems like a no-win situation.

 

[SlashCo]

One thing I don't get though is the knee jerk defensiveness. "I exhibit superficial similarities to WGA/B/O and thus I am offended!" Christ on a cracker. I like MLP. I have worn a fedora. I am an athiest. But I don't actually identify with any of the WGDF characters. Because I don't hold their views.

People keep repeating that in one form or another, but I think it's a fallacy. The comic really does try to paint white men as literally murderous racists. The "it's not really targeting all white guys" defense doesn't hold water. Imagine if someone made a comic about a bunch of Muslims blowing themselves up, or a bunch of greedy Jews, or some black people stealing cars and dealing drugs. Then they went on to defend themselves saying "I never meant to portray all Muslims/Jews/black people that way, only the ones who actually do those things! And hey, if you're offended, maybe you're actually one of those guys the comic is talking about!" Would you think that's acceptable? So why would it be acceptable here?

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

The comic itself is pretty funny.

The accompanying thread, however, is proof that humour is completely lost on too many people.

 

[88chaz88]

The comic itself is pretty funny.

The accompanying thread, however, is proof that humour is completely lost on too many people.

As well as irony, judging by some posts.

 

[DjinnFor]

You tell me, are you offended? Are any of those caricatures representations of you? The qualities shown in that strip are ones of a very small subset of white heterosexual males who legitimately hold the types of views they are mocking.

That would be like me claiming that there are a "very small subset of gay men who go around trying to seduce little boys whilst wearing nothing but spandex".

It could potentially be true (what with the billions of people on earth), but to assert that there are and then proceed to mock it vociferously would be the height of ludicrousness. A parody featuring the above scenario could potentially be the butt of a deliberately over-exaggerated joke [http://youtu.be/coRm-da6dXw?t=2m24s], or a dissection of an insensitive trope (in this case, homophobia) through exaggeration [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hcElGydzb8], but it would be absolutely ludicrous and completely insensitive if meant to be taken on its face.

Yes, please point to me one example of a so-called "white guy defense force" who claims to want to go around shooting black people in the name of Zimmerman. Find me one. If I'm supposed to find it funny that such people exist, it would help for them to exist first.

Many posters here hold those views, and its likely they among others are the reason this strip was made in the first place. Unsurprisingly, they don't seem to find it funny, the poor souls. Wait.. just like you don't find it funny. Hmmm

Clearly, since it's meant to be a loaded joke (in this case, a completely overblown caricature played for laughs), you have to make a simple judgment call: what's the butt of the joke? If it's the protagonist being put in an awkward situation (see video above) then it can be funny. Or maybe it's inventing a caricature in order to demonstrate how absurd a particular stereotype is? No, you say? We're supposed to take the portrayal completely straight? We're supposed to believe that there exist people as absurd as portrayed, and fear or mock them and anything connected to it? Right. So funny I forgot to laugh at the blatant racism and sexism.

Tell me, if I make a comic about a bunch of flaming gay men in spandex, would you find that amusing? Call them "Flaming Gay Men Attack Force", we'll have them go around trying to seduce little boys into becoming gay.
What about a bunch of man-hating lesbian feminists, eh? They'll preach their hate for men in college campuses world-wide.
What about a bunch of gangster thug black guys drinking Kool-aid and eating KFC?

There's probably "a very small subset of [them]" out there somewhere, must mean its okay to caricature an entire race, gender, and sexual orientation under one derogatory label, eh. It has all of the prerequisites:

-Totally absurd (but "actually true") stereotypes!
-Moral superiority (who likes pedos, haters, and thugs, right?)!

/sarcasm, if it wasn't obvious

The fact that there are so many people willing to see such racist, sexist portrayals played perfectly straight clearly vindicates the whole concept of a "white guy defense force". And people are saying they're going to link this stuff next time they see a supposed member of "the force"? I can't wait to see every suspected "WGDF" member expressing any kind of skepticism or cynicism in any thread about discrimination lambasted with links to this, in the hopes of proving some point (false hope, in this case).

The only thing funny here is what initially caused me to chuckle at the comic: the fact that only a bunch of racist, sexist pigs would find vindication in such a portrayal. Or the fact that there would be some prude out there somewhere who thought it was being played straight and would be all uppity about it.

Y'know, kinda like this:

Here's an edit that explains the comic.
http://i.imgur.com/HkhEtyl.jpg
I found it funny, maybe you will too.

Apparently, I was wrong (and so were you, olza). Lots of people were offended by the absurd portrayal, and even more took vindication in the belief that it was criticism directed at what they felt was an actual group. And apparently now we were supposed to take it seriously too.

This is just saddening.

 

[Skeleon]

Why does Omega keep doing Mighty No. 9's Beck's two-finger salute? And why are people saying he's a stand-in for non-plus Atheists?

 

[xdiesp]

Keep fighting the good fight Grey, it's not like you will ever pay the price for it like those who are actually discriminated.

Talking and being part of the fight are really different things. YES, there is a difference between a feminist male talking big and an actual female feminist who lives on her skin what discrimination is like. Same for a totally not-racist white man who can advocate, speak, demonstrate, prove but NEVER risk NOTHING.

That's your hypocrisy. It's too easy and comfortable like this.

(go ahead, send me another warning for telling you the truth in the face)

 

[Caiphus]

That's all there is to 'surviving' on this forum; Get a good feel for the rules, and if you screw up, make absolutely sure you learn from the experience so you don't screw up in the same way again.

(go ahead, send me another warning for telling you the truth in the face)

Incredible irony abound.

Seriously guys, it's a comic. Pull yourselves together.

 

[xdiesp]

And in case this wasn't clear enough: mine is not an argument about who says what: it's about talking versus actually doing something, and instead slyly being BOTH a priviledged and a makeshift hero of the rights. Everyone has a right and the duty to spread the word that sexism and racism are an horrible heritage of a warped past, to be supplanted with a universal message of mutual comprehension.

But talk is talk, it's air: it literally takes zero effort to write big words about progressism (eeeveryone can, hence the inflated ego of many writers) and never fucking changing anything in real life. If you can't prove you've been in the actual fight against sexism and racism bias, keep the actual talk-by-example to those who do. Those who do and maybe don't spend their time with gaming.