WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!

[furai47]

The police having the monopoly on violence is a big marker for every western country with rule of law and that we call "civilised" except for the USA. Not trusting the police with that is in my opinion a huge societal problem in your country that reflects in gun culture, in crime, in the xenophobia of self-organised border patrols and so many other issues the USA have in my opinion. When someone doesn't trust the police with the monopoly on violence and takes it in his own hands, which you described as being one of the establishing factors of the USA, he doesn't trust a person /just as himself/ who gets (ideally) trained and prepared for that and instead arms himself. This kind of cognitive dissonance is pretty much unique to the USA and leaves pretty much the entire world baffled.

I can understand your frustration with people not trusting the police to take care of things, but consider this:
You decide to break into someone's home. You smash the door in, kill the person in the house then pick up the phone and call 911. If you're in any moderately large city in the US you can then turn on the TV, watch it for about 10 minutes and then casually walk out of the house. When you've done all that, the first police cruiser _might_ just show up and when they do they won't immediately run into the house to help the person you've killed; they don't know what's inside so they'll wait for backup. Only then will they enter the house and find the body.

This is pretty much what you can expect. You will get instances where there's a police cruiser nearby and they can respond quicker, but generally this is what you're looking at. THIS is why neighborhood watch exist in some communities.

The unofficial border patrol aren't angry Texans with shotguns. They're people who once every few days or weeks go out on the lookout for people illegally crossing the border and then relay this information to the official border patrol (in some cases the two have direct communications channels). Think official border patrol without the authority to detain people.

What I meant with the monopoly of violence thing is that while US citizens have surrendered a set of rights and given the police authority to do their thing to keep society running, they haven't done so fully. They've allowed the government and it's proxies to exercise their power over the general populace as to provide a stable country; in return, the government has given the citizens the right (or rather, the citizens have kept their right) to step up when the government goes out of line. This is a large part of what the 2nd amendment protects.
The entire US government is built on a system of checks and balances. It's a different system than what we're used to almost everywhere else.

I wrote "we're used to everywhere else" because I don't live in the US.

As I speculated in my first post I think Martin assaulted Zimmerman because he felt threatened by him, being followed around his own neighborhood, at least that is what I heard from the case. That is one of the oldest things in the world. Besides, by attacking Zimmerman who followed him around Martin too stood his ground, just that he didn't have a gun. I'm sure Martin had a cellphone too but he didn't trust the police enough to check out that guy following him around either and assaulted him himself.

The problem with Martin and Stand your ground (same goes for Castle doctrine) is that he wasn't a victim of a crime/there was no crime being committed against him at the time he decided on the assault. In fact, the only illegal action in that scenario was Martin's which automatically strips you of SYG/castle doctrine/self defense/whatever.

Again, imagine Zimmerman threw the first punch/assaulted Martin. If the entire thing after that happened exactly as it did in February, Zimmerman could not invoke SYG nor self defense because in that moment he threw the punch, he surrendered that option. By law, he would be guilty of assault and probably even 1st degree murder (though more likely manslaughter), convicted and put in jail.

 

[Spearmaster]

I found the comic to be pretty funny, even the Zimmerman bit but that was more of a morbid groan kinda funny, not like the rest of the comic. The Zimmerman bit just didn't seem to fit the context of the rest of the comic. It was probably added to generate controversy...seems to be the norm for some of the escapist featured content creators.

Anyway, I'm male, I'm white, I'm strait and ill never feel a shred of guilt for it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Except you have the starting phrase wrong. It's an obvious reference to the arguments over things like, again, Idris Elba as Heimdall, where one side would say "they shouldn't cast a black actor, because the character has always been white." And the other side says "But the race was never a big part of the character, so why does it matter if he's black now?" Then this comic jumps in halfway through the argument, where the guy with the second position has apparently managed to get the guy with the first position to concede that the race didn't matter.

Which comic are you talking about, and are you talking to me or to Evil Roy? Your quote nesting is very confusing.

That would be both comics and both of you, because neither one of you seem to be getting the context behind the first comic.

 

[EvilRoy]

"If his race doesn't matter, why should I go back and redo this modelling/drawing/writing work to make him black?"

Then race does matter after all.

Only if its dynamic. If race is static then it has no bearing on the situation, but if race is dynamic - that is, if race must change - then it does matter.

In fact it is specifically the change that matters, not the starting or finishing states, as the change itself drives the need for additional work but the endpoint provides no more or less value than the starting point.

 

[SnipErlite]

Wow. That was actually hilarious. Loved the little touches, the pony, the mirin', the fedora. 36 pages of comments so far but damn, that was funny. Excellent stuff.

Spoiler

That gif also made me lol hard. Thanks for that.

 

[The Wooster]

I rather think the difference is that here on this site people tend to be familiar with the particular sort of person being made fun of. They've seen them around, know what's actually the target. You try and make it out to be a white stereotype, but its not. Unsurprisingly the people who 'defend' white guys unnecessarily tend to be white. Does not mean it is a stereotype of white people anymore than the KKK is.

People also tend to be rather familiar with the person being made fun of when you're talking about gang bangers. Gang banging is not necessarily a stereotype of black people, and yet if you made a comic with a black gang banger acting ignorant, I have my doubts as to whether people would think it was acceptable.

Oh black people can be just as stupid as white people when it comes to kneejerk reactions to comedy, but, as with most jokes, it does kind of depend on who writes them. Would a strip about the black defense force be controversial if written by a white man? Yes, but I strongly suspect the same people calling me racist right now would be in that thread telling people to learn how to take a joke.

Is the fact a white man has to be extra careful when mocking minorities fair? Perhaps not, but there is a good argument that comedy should always "punch upwards" and that it should "speak truth to power" and all that. Even if that's not true, engaging in shitty behavior (in this case, overreacting to a joke) purely because another race can do so doesn't make things fair, it just takes away any right you might have to criticize. Ask people in this thread what they think of political correctness and many will say it's terrible, yet here they are, trying to enforce it when it suits them.

 

[JimB]

What justification?

Using force to defend oneself from a perceived threat.

Once again you give Trayvon Martin no control over whether or not he chooses to act like a violent thug.

You will note that, according to your standard, I give George Zimmerman no control over himself, either.

Again, he wasn't stalked. You're using charged and biased words instead of relying on facts.

I have already explained earlier in this thread why I believe "stalked" is an appropriate word. I do not, at this time, choose to repeat myself.

Yes, I clearly remember the embarrassing and perjury filled testimony of Rachel Jeantel. She placed Trayvon Martin as instigating the confrontation, despite changing the words of said confrontation (lying under oath).

I challenge you to prove that it was a deliberate lie rather than an innocent mistake made by misremembering precise words spoken months after the fact. There is a reason eyewitness testimony is nearly useless in court.

But in both stories, the thing that remained constant was Trayvon Martin initiating the confrontation by saying, "Why you following me?"

Where I come from, a question is not a confrontation. Maybe I'm sheltered.

Neither the location of the fight, nor witness testimony, nor Zimmerman's story immediately after the incident, would indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin.

I do not consider approaching someone to be the tipping point of a confrontation.

You seem to have few facts at all.

Then I will ask you, as I've asked so many people before you, if I am wrong, to provide evidence of it. Provide links to sources. Don't just sit there and tell me I should take your word over my own when I clearly do not believe you.

When you call them and they suggest you do X, you're perfectly within your rights to completely ignore them.

That does not make it a good idea.

Oh, so you were talking about prior to the trial then? Sure.

I'm talking more about the actual shooting than the legal hoopla surrounding it. I don't much care about trials, because trials have very little interest in actual events or facts. Things that can be proven to be happened can be excluded from trials for any number of reasons. Legality and actuality are at odds more often than not, so it can generally be assumed that I am talking about the things that really happened rather than the outcome of a legal procedure.

I was continuing to respond as if we were the two people talking about having whatever character be black.

Ah, my mistake. I apologize. As you can tell, I'm kind of in antagonism-mode right now, and that colored my understanding of your post.

In fact, I could probably do worse than to bow out of this thread until my hackles are down.

 

[Hover Hand Mode]

There's also a shameful history connected to white people making fun of minorities.
At least, that's what the wikipedia article on blackface would suggest.

 

[Shingro]

I rather think the difference is that here on this site people tend to be familiar with the particular sort of person being made fun of. They've seen them around, know what's actually the target. You try and make it out to be a white stereotype, but its not. Unsurprisingly the people who 'defend' white guys unnecessarily tend to be white. Does not mean it is a stereotype of white people anymore than the KKK is.

People also tend to be rather familiar with the person being made fun of when you're talking about gang bangers. Gang banging is not necessarily a stereotype of black people, and yet if you made a comic with a black gang banger acting ignorant, I have my doubts as to whether people would think it was acceptable.

Oh black people can be just as stupid as white people when it comes to kneejerk reactions to comedy, but, as with most jokes, it does kind of depend on who writes them. Would a strip about the black defense force be controversial if written by a white man? Yes, but I strongly suspect the same people calling me racist right now would be in that thread telling people to learn how to take a joke.

Is the fact a white man has to be extra careful when mocking minorities fair? Perhaps not, but there is a good argument that comedy should always "punch upwards" and that it should "speak truth to power" and all that. Even if that's not true, engaging in shitty behavior (in this case, overreacting to a joke) purely because another race can do so doesn't make things fair, it just takes away any right you might have to criticize. Ask people in this thread what they think of political correctness and many will say it's terrible, yet here they are, trying to enforce it when it suits them.

Ah yes, "Speak truth to power..." like Bronies and Evangelion fans. >_>

 

[The Wooster]

I rather think the difference is that here on this site people tend to be familiar with the particular sort of person being made fun of. They've seen them around, know what's actually the target. You try and make it out to be a white stereotype, but its not. Unsurprisingly the people who 'defend' white guys unnecessarily tend to be white. Does not mean it is a stereotype of white people anymore than the KKK is.

People also tend to be rather familiar with the person being made fun of when you're talking about gang bangers. Gang banging is not necessarily a stereotype of black people, and yet if you made a comic with a black gang banger acting ignorant, I have my doubts as to whether people would think it was acceptable.

Oh black people can be just as stupid as white people when it comes to kneejerk reactions to comedy, but, as with most jokes, it does kind of depend on who writes them. Would a strip about the black defense force be controversial if written by a white man? Yes, but I strongly suspect the same people calling me racist right now would be in that thread telling people to learn how to take a joke.

Is the fact a white man has to be extra careful when mocking minorities fair? Perhaps not, but there is a good argument that comedy should always "punch upwards" and that it should "speak truth to power" and all that. Even if that's not true, engaging in shitty behavior (in this case, overreacting to a joke) purely because another race can do so doesn't make things fair, it just takes away any right you might have to criticize. Ask people in this thread what they think of political correctness and many will say it's terrible, yet here they are, trying to enforce it when it suits them.

Ah yes, "Speak truth to power..." like Bronies and Evangelion fans. >_>

Yeah, it turns out I'm not above self-mockery. Funny that.

 

[Plunkies]

What justification?

Using force to defend oneself from a perceived threat.

That's not enough. Perceiving a threat is not justification. You must have a REASONABLE belief that your life is in danger. Someone being near or talking to you isn't reasonable. Someone trying to beat you to death IS reasonable.

Once again you give Trayvon Martin no control over whether or not he chooses to act like a violent thug.

You will note that, according to your standard, I give George Zimmerman no control over himself, either.

What are you talking about? You've repeatedly put the onus on Zimmerman with no logic to back it up. The only point that matters is the moment Trayvon Martin chose to escalate the confrontation to physical violence. That is the moment a crime was committed and that is the reason he was killed. Not because Zimmerman called 911, or because Martin bought candy, or whatever else you want to list out while glossing over the crime that actually took place.

Again, he wasn't stalked. You're using charged and biased words instead of relying on facts.

I have already explained earlier in this thread why I believe "stalked" is an appropriate word. I do not, at this time, choose to repeat myself.

Whatever your excuse is, it would be wrong. You're just using charged words in lieu of actual facts. Legally, the stalker would have know the victim or else it can't be considered stalking. And it would be a ridiculous exaggeration in this case.

Yes, I clearly remember the embarrassing and perjury filled testimony of Rachel Jeantel. She placed Trayvon Martin as instigating the confrontation, despite changing the words of said confrontation (lying under oath).

I challenge you to prove that it was a deliberate lie rather than an innocent mistake made by misremembering precise words spoken months after the fact. There is a reason eyewitness testimony is nearly useless in court.

Whether she's a liar or simply unreliable is irrelevant. But at least we agree that her testimony is nearly useless and you shouldn't have tried to use it. She helped the defense more than the prosecution during the trial as well.

But in both stories, the thing that remained constant was Trayvon Martin initiating the confrontation by saying, "Why you following me?"

Where I come from, a question is not a confrontation. Maybe I'm sheltered.

It's a confrontation when the initial question is hostile, and is followed by a beating within 30 seconds. Unfortunately I don't think getting into a semantics battle over the word "confrontation" is going to help your argument.

Neither the location of the fight, nor witness testimony, nor Zimmerman's story immediately after the incident, would indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin.

I do not consider approaching someone to be the tipping point of a confrontation.

YOU were the one saying Zimmerman approached Martin. That's the reason it was brought up. You make an incorrect statement, I disprove it, then you act like I'm nuts for bringing it up in the first place. The tipping point was Martin physically assaulting an innocent person, which we've already established.

You seem to have few facts at all.

Then I will ask you, as I've asked so many people before you, if I am wrong, to provide evidence of it. Provide links to sources. Don't just sit there and tell me I should take your word over my own when I clearly do not believe you.[/quote

You said you watched the trial. You said you're not a sheep that just takes the media's word for it. I've said nothing that wasn't covered multiple times in the trial. Hell just watch the defense's closing arguments. You can even watch the prosecution's closing arguments too if you want a perfect example of what a closing argument should never look like.

 

[WindKnight]

"If his race doesn't matter, why should I go back and redo this modelling/drawing/writing work to make him black?"

Then race does matter after all.

Only if its dynamic. If race is static then it has no bearing on the situation, but if race is dynamic - that is, if race must change - then it does matter.

In fact it is specifically the change that matters, not the starting or finishing states, as the change itself drives the need for additional work but the endpoint provides no more or less value than the starting point.

I think of it more like this. lets imagine a hypothetical property that has 12 named characters, one of them who is not white. In each case in of themselves, the character race does not matter.

Lets say the property is adapted fo film, and in that adaptation, one of the white characters is made non-white. you have increased the non-white characters representation by 100%, and decrease the white representation by 9%. Non-whites gain a great amount of representation, for only a light loss of white representation.

Flip that around, and say the non-white is made white. you've just cut non-white representation by 100%, and incresed white representation by abouut 9%. You've eliminated non-white representation and given only a small increase in white representation.

In short, make a white character non white, and the white audience still has plenty of characters to represent them. Make a non-white white, and non-whites LOSE their represntation, and the whites gain just one more guy to root for. This is not about individual cases, but overall trends.

For those who want another hypothetical flip, where its a property with 11 non-white characters and one white character? Going by Hollywood examples (as demonstrated by the differance between the Tower Heist pitch and the final movie, the Last Airbender, and the Anansi Boys adaptation that Neil Gaiman emphatically shot down) they rend to recast ten of the non-whites as white, with the option to make the last one white also.

 

[chikusho]

That's not enough. Perceiving a threat is not justification. You must have a REASONABLE belief that your life is in danger. Someone being near or talking to you isn't reasonable. Someone trying to beat you to death IS reasonable.

So, all you really need to do if you want to legally kill someone is provoke them to take a swing.
Yeah, that sounds fair.

 

[Shingro]

I rather think the difference is that here on this site people tend to be familiar with the particular sort of person being made fun of. They've seen them around, know what's actually the target. You try and make it out to be a white stereotype, but its not. Unsurprisingly the people who 'defend' white guys unnecessarily tend to be white. Does not mean it is a stereotype of white people anymore than the KKK is.

People also tend to be rather familiar with the person being made fun of when you're talking about gang bangers. Gang banging is not necessarily a stereotype of black people, and yet if you made a comic with a black gang banger acting ignorant, I have my doubts as to whether people would think it was acceptable.

Oh black people can be just as stupid as white people when it comes to kneejerk reactions to comedy, but, as with most jokes, it does kind of depend on who writes them. Would a strip about the black defense force be controversial if written by a white man? Yes, but I strongly suspect the same people calling me racist right now would be in that thread telling people to learn how to take a joke.

Is the fact a white man has to be extra careful when mocking minorities fair? Perhaps not, but there is a good argument that comedy should always "punch upwards" and that it should "speak truth to power" and all that. Even if that's not true, engaging in shitty behavior (in this case, overreacting to a joke) purely because another race can do so doesn't make things fair, it just takes away any right you might have to criticize. Ask people in this thread what they think of political correctness and many will say it's terrible, yet here they are, trying to enforce it when it suits them.

Ah yes, "Speak truth to power..." like Bronies and Evangelion fans. >_>

Yeah, it turns out I'm not above self-mockery. Funny that.

I don't think anyone would expect that the author to self parody himself in hugely racist, bigoted characters who immediately proceed to kill a black man in 'Zimmerman mode' considering. Probably asking a little too much involvement and suspension of disbelief from people browsing to see if the Microsoft made any more dumb moves with the XBox.

 

[Thespian]

This comic is meant for a different audience I think. As in, maybe not the audience it is actually making fun, especially when the thing it's making fun of them for is that they are notoriously awful at recognizing criticism.

 

[Warachia]

Then race does matter after all.

The only reason it matters in that case is because you would be asking people to do additional work without explaining why they should do that work.

I'm not sure that it's so much them not caring but still fighting for it, and more that they want to know why anybody cares enough to make the change in the first place if it doesn't matter.

This is an impossible question to answer in a hypothetical, since I don't know what character is being referred to. There probably isn't a specific one at all in mind, but let's say it's Link just for the sake of having a name to use. I would guess that the black dude from Critical Miss is arguing to change Link to a black character because Hyrule is as white as a Saltine dipped in mayo, and he would like to feel as if Nintendo isn't excluding him not out of active hatred but out of passive dismissal, as if black people are beneath being represented as protagonists in video games.

I was just saying any character in general, but you've provided reasons that the comic did not, if the black guy in the comic actually provided any reasons these comments wouldn't have gone on this long because would either agree or disagree, then move on.

I'm in the same boat as Specter, so maybe you can help me understand why some people change it simply for the sake of changing it.

Who said anything about changing for the sake of change rather than to accomplish a specific goal?

The Critical Miss comic did, the black guy asks why not make a character black without providing any reasons for it.

 

[EvilRoy]

"If his race doesn't matter, why should I go back and redo this modelling/drawing/writing work to make him black?"

Then race does matter after all.

Only if its dynamic. If race is static then it has no bearing on the situation, but if race is dynamic - that is, if race must change - then it does matter.

In fact it is specifically the change that matters, not the starting or finishing states, as the change itself drives the need for additional work but the endpoint provides no more or less value than the starting point.

I think of it more like this. lets imagine a hypothetical property that has 12 named characters, one of them who is not white. In each case in of themselves, the character race does not matter.

Lets say the property is adapted fo film, and in that adaptation, one of the white characters is made non-white. you have increased the non-white characters representation by 100%, and decrease the white representation by 9%. Non-whites gain a great amount of representation, for only a light loss of white representation.

Flip that around, and say the non-white is made white. you've just cut non-white representation by 100%, and incresed white representation by abouut 9%. You've eliminated non-white representation and given only a small increase in white representation.

In short, make a white character non white, and the white audience still has plenty of characters to represent them. Make a non-white white, and non-whites LOSE their represntation, and the whites gain just one more guy to root for. This is not about individual cases, but overall trends.

For those who want another hypothetical flip, where its a property with 11 non-white characters and one white character? Going by Hollywood examples (as demonstrated by the differance between the Tower Heist pitch and the final movie, the Last Airbender, and the Anansi Boys adaptation that Neil Gaiman emphatically shot down) they rend to recast ten of the non-whites as white, with the option to make the last one white also.

However, from the starting position of 'race doesn't matter' we are required to say that the characters must be empathetic or representative of the audience regardless of their race, and therefore switching the race of any of the characters from any start to endpoint should not affect the ability of the audience to empathize with them. If there is no difference to the audience then the act of changing race has only served to create work without providing any benefit.

Put in simple terms, if race does not matter then there is no situation that merits a change in the race of a character. If race does matter then any change in the race of a character runs the risk of negatively impacting audience enjoyment.

 

[Gorrath]

Oh black people can be just as stupid as white people when it comes to kneejerk reactions to comedy, but, as with most jokes, it does kind of depend on who writes them. Would a strip about the black defense force be controversial if written by a white man? Yes, but I strongly suspect the same people calling me racist right now would be in that thread telling people to learn how to take a joke.

Is the fact a white man has to be extra careful when mocking minorities fair? Perhaps not, but there is a good argument that comedy should always "punch upwards" and that it should "speak truth to power" and all that. Even if that's not true, engaging in shitty behavior (in this case, overreacting to a joke) purely because another race can do so doesn't make things fair, it just takes away any right you might have to criticize. Ask people in this thread what they think of political correctness and many will say it's terrible, yet here they are, trying to enforce it when it suits them.

Thanks for the response Grey, I appreciate it. If someone told me that they took a little time to amend a comic they made because they didn't want to offend the wrong people, I would hardly consider that unfair. I agree that people who are anti-pc might turn around and use the same arguments against your comic (as has been done in this thread in several instances) but that bit of hypocrisy isn't a one-way street either. I noted an instance or two of people using the 'thicker skin' argument. It's funny how people can do a frame-shift on their usual arguments when you reverse the players.

As I mentioned, I took time to think and digest this, exactly because I didn't want to fall into that trap. This is also why I came to the conclusion that your comic was indeed fair, as, much like the stereotypical gang banger does not represent black people, nor does your use of stereotypes here represent most white people. I realize you aren't straw-manning, you are forming a caricature of ignorant people. And that's fine. I was simply musing on how your comic is indeed fair, but many of those who understand that would condemn the comic I used as a hypothetical. Is that hypocrisy? I'm not certain, but it does trike me that way. It is a topic worthy of thought and discussion I think, which is why I brought it up.

Lastly, I do maintain that while the great majority of your strip is fair, the Zimmerman part is not. I don't think the way it is used here is a good or fair representation of either the facts surrounding that terrible event nor is it fair in the way it seems to suggest that people with ignorant beliefs about 'white defense' are also inclined to be fine with the blatant murder of someone just because they are minority and hold a differing opinion. It seems akin to calling someone who thinks Johnny Storm should stay white a Nazi. Perhaps you did not intend for it to read like that, but that's what it seems to be suggesting.

Again, your input is appreciated and I thank you for it. Hopefully the discussion your comic has incited will lead people to think about these issues in depth.

Edit - I also wanted to add that I don't think it should matter who writes a joke. If something is funny, it's funny. If we have no idea who the author of a joke is, and we find it amusing, should we find it less amusing if we find out the race of that person is not what we thought it was? I believe that comedy, like art, stands on its own merits and that the race of the artist is less important than what's written on the bottom of their shoes.

 

[Gorrath]

Put in simple terms, if race does not matter then there is no situation that merits a change in the race of a character. If race does matter then any change in the race of a character runs the risk of negatively impacting audience enjoyment.

I would say that the second part of your statement is true. Changing the race of a character does run the risk of negatively impacting the audience. It also runs the risk of positively impacting the audience. This is why I think changing a character's race is fine. The worst it can do is annoy people and the best it can do is create a great work of art. I think the risk is well worth taking. I would point emphatically to Idris Elba's part in Thor. I saw a lot of people saying that making the character black was a bad idea. I now see many people saying that he was the very best part of that film. Let the artists do as they like and let us sit in judgment of the work when finished. Let us not sit in pre-judgement of the work simply because the artist is taking a risk. That's my 2 cents anyway.

 

[JimB]

Whatever your excuse is, it would be wrong.

That you would say that sight unseen is everything I need to know about the level of good faith with which you entered this discussion. Forgive me if I do not choose to speak with you further on the topic.