WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

Um, what? I've never heard that comedy "should always "punch upwards"". Why can't everybody be the subject of jokes?

I agree with you that white guys should be able to be made fun of in a humorous way, but the same should go for black guys or anybody else. It seems kind of....well I don't know if racist is the proper word, but close minded[footnote]Before there are any conclusions drawn, I'm not calling you(Grey Carter) close minded because it sounds as if you are referencing something that you heard before. So the person I would be calling close minded would be whoever came up with the idea that comedy is to always "punch upwards". Again, I'm not calling you(Grey Carter) any names or insults.[/footnote] to conclude that only "certain" people are allowed to have jokes made about them while others should be regarded with extra care.
The only time I think I could agree with this idea of an "upward punch" would be in a scenario where there was a victim of violent criminal behavior/sexual violence in the crowd and a comedian chooses to not tell a joke at that particular time as a way to be considerate to the victim of such a horrific crime. Otherwise, if a victim of violence/sexual violence isn't there, it seems perfectly fair for "shock comedians" like Daniel Tosh to make crude, childish jokes like this.....

Spoiler: punching downwards joke

especially since he has also told jokes like this...

Spoiler: punching upwards joke

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Why can't everybody be the subject of jokes?

The idea, very basically, is that if you are making fun of somebody you have power over, you are not a comedian, you are a bully.

But that doesn't really hold up when you realize that guys like Daniel Tosh don't have "power over" his (I presume) imaginary sister and even if he does, so what? Since when was humor never mean spirited? Making fun of a man for lighting himself on fire is mean spirited, but its didn't stop Richard Pryor from making a joke about people finding humor in his situation [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjD4PHojNBU].

Like I said, if the person you're making fun of is right in front of you and you are joking about a particularly horrible thing(rape, domestic abuse, being engulfed in flames) then I can understand why you would bite your tongue. However, if that particular person isn't there, it seems like discrimination to only go after certain groups of people.

 

[EvilRoy]

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.

Fair enough, but as I saw it the original question was about whether one could reasonably argue for a change in race if race did not matter. From what I understand from your post you're saying that race can matter, and it can be positive, which is legit, but not really what I felt was being discussed.

 

[McMarbles]

I'm a chubby white male My Little Pony fan, but I've decided I'm not offended because I don't own a fedora.

You got lucky, Grey.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

t would be really problematic for a white American comic to make jokes about how stupid black people are, and to jokingly say that the only thing they're good for is picking cotton, because the history of extreme racism against black people in this country put them at a social disadvantage so massive that they still haven't fully recovered from it.

"Problematic"? So [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqPcjm-X5GQ]...what [http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=29555]?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not cold hearted. I could understand if Grey Carter was a former convict who went to prison for human trafficking and false imprisonment[footnote]To be clear, I am not claiming that Mr. Carter is/was a convict and/or that he has acted out any of those crimes listed, nor am I accusing you(Trilligan) of thinking that Grey Carter has any kind of criminal background.[/footnote], and he made a comic about slavery in a humorous fashion. However, seeing as how Grey Carter didn't do any of those things, he should be able to joke about black people, or any group of people, with the same ease that he can when he jokes about white people.

I dunno what to say about your Tosh example, cause I have never found him funny and I think he's a massive asshole. As for Pryor, since the man who lit himself on fire was Pryor himself, I don't think that actually speaks to this particular issue.

The point of my example with Tosh is that he "punches" both "upwards" and "downwards" without picking sides, hence why I said that the idea of having "power over somebody" hasn't stopped people from making jokes about those "below" them and those "above" them. As for Richard Pryor, I was pointing out that its absurd to think that humor isn't/hasn't been mean spirited before, hence the clip where Richard acknowledges(in a humorous way) that other comedians were making jokes at his expense about him lighting himself on fire.

I was always taught that if you wouldn't say something to a person's face then you shouldn't say it behind their back. I don't see why that shouldn't hold true for comics as well.

Your coming at this the wrong way. I'm not referring to spreading rumors about a person, but making humor about a particular situation that the general crowd might find funny but the group of people at the butt of the joke won't find funny do to their personal experience with the crime that is being portrayed in a humorous way.

EDIT: Thinking about it more, why would jokes about black people have to be about slavery and not something more lighter in tone like that in which you saw in this comic?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

"Hispanic" just means someone's ancestry is from Spanish (and sometimes Portuguese, depending on who you ask) territories.

Clearly you don't realize that the word is not generally used that way in the US, and instead referrs to the people that live in Central and South America(as well as a few island countries like Cuba). I highly doubt that the majority of the people on this thread that are focusing on Zimmerman's mother's background is using the word to mean "a person of Spanish ancestry", and are in fact using the word Hispanic to mean "the people that live in Central and South America[sub]and a few places like Cuba[/sub].

 

[Teshi]

"Hispanic" just means someone's ancestry is from Spanish (and sometimes Portuguese, depending on who you ask) territories.

Clearly you don't realize that the word is not generally used that way in the US, and instead referrs to the people that live in Central and South America(as well as a few island countries like Cuba). I highly doubt that the majority of the people on this thread that are focusing on Zimmerman's mother's background is using the word to mean "a person of Spanish ancestry", and are in fact using the word Hispanic to mean "the people that live in Central and South America[sub]and a few places like Cuba[/sub].

Yes. Have you ever been to any of those countries? They got colonized by Spain. Plenty of people there are of white European descent or predominantly white European descent. Ergo, both white AND Hispanic. Because Hispanic is an ethnicity and white is a race.

 

[Gorrath]

Fair enough, but as I saw it the original question was about whether one could reasonably argue for a change in race if race did not matter. From what I understand from your post you're saying that race can matter, and it can be positive, which is legit, but not really what I felt was being discussed.

Right-o, it was probably unfair of me to not go back and read the whole transcript of your discussion so sorry for that. I didn't intend to misrepresent your point at all.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Because Hispanic is an ethnicity and white is a race.

...except in America, where its considered a race referring to the people living in the locations I previously described.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Because Hispanic is an ethnicity and white is a race.

...except in America, where its considered a race referring to the people living in the locations I previously described.

No, even in America that description holds. Next time you fill out a government form with questions about race, look at the boxes. The one for "white" actually specifies "White, non-Hispanic," because it's entirely possible to be both.

 

[kklawm]

Huh, so we're back to anyone who didn't like the comic did not realize they're hypocrites, and isn't it funny the politically correct crowd turn out to be offended by this comic? I think the comic is good, I think the meaning is fine, it's the pigeon holing EVERYONE who doesn't like into the WGDF that's insulting, if not a little racist. It's like making a 9/11 joke and calling anyone who didn't like it a politically correct whingeing rich American. I think 9/11 jokes are okay, (depending on the context I suppose) but don't be surprised if NORMAL people find it offensive.

 

[schrodinger]

THIS WHOLE THREAD:

Spoiler

But seriously guys

[HEADING=2]37 pages[/HEADING] for rather obvious baiting comic. Beta had a fedora for god sakes, A FEDORA. The very hat many on this site despise for those who wear it inappropriately; that should of tipped off some of you. Whether or not the topics in the comic is justifiable, just by reading this thread shall show there's some truth to the WDGF. About the Zimmerman topic, yeah...
Fuck that, i'm not even going to touch that. I've had to deal with that enough in my own state(aka Florida)

Oh Escapist, you never fail to be predictable.

so now i shall slink back to my shadowy lab!

Spoiler: Mod edit: Please add spoilers for images!

 

[furai47]

That does not make it a good idea.

I know. Just pointing out something a lot of people have a problem with.

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'm sorry, the institution that decides the fate of suspected criminals based of facts does not have interest in said facts? Can you provide anything that was excluded from the trial and that could have an impact on the verdict? Can you provide your own 'actual course of events' that apparently happened? Anything besides vague phrases?

 

[Plunkies]

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.

That's fine, you didn't have anything to back up any of your arguments anyway. You refused to even present the one thing you claimed to have a response for, that being an excuse for your exaggeration. I suggest you do much more research on the trial, because if you're going to hold on to such an incorrect position, you should at least be able to defend it a little.

 

[WindKnight]

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.

Nonetheless, the audience would like themselves to be represented - white people are already represented quite healthily. Changing a white characters race has a very minimal impact on white peoples representation - there are no shortage of big central white characters in most media.

There is a very heavy shortage of non-whites in most media, to the point where if you change a non-white characters race, you will most often eliminate their representation entirely from a given movie/comic/game, or at the very least cut it by 25% or more.

Make a white character non-white, the white audience has plenty of others to represent them.

Make a non-white character white, the non-white audience often has no-one to represent them.

 

[lacktheknack]

Your lack of maturity and arrogant sense of self-righteousness and "Political Correctness" never ceases to amaze me, Johnathan.

In other words, your comic is, has been, and always will be shit in my opinion.

This isn't funny. It never was. It never will be.

You're almost as bad as Ctrl+Alt+Del.

Zimmerman joke

...OK.

 

[EvilRoy]

Fair enough, but as I saw it the original question was about whether one could reasonably argue for a change in race if race did not matter. From what I understand from your post you're saying that race can matter, and it can be positive, which is legit, but not really what I felt was being discussed.

Right-o, it was probably unfair of me to not go back and read the whole transcript of your discussion so sorry for that. I didn't intend to misrepresent your point at all.

Yep, no problem. Its not like you were being an ass or anything.

Nonetheless, the audience would like themselves to be represented - white people are already represented quite healthily. Changing a white characters race has a very minimal impact on white peoples representation - there are no shortage of big central white characters in most media.

There is a very heavy shortage of non-whites in most media, to the point where if you change a non-white characters race, you will most often eliminate their representation entirely from a given movie/comic/game, or at the very least cut it by 25% or more.

Make a white character non-white, the white audience has plenty of others to represent them.

Make a non-white character white, the non-white audience often has no-one to represent them.

Right, so you're arguing that race does matter, which is fine, but as I mentioned a little while ago in this thread the commentary had more to do with whether someone could argue for a change in race of a character if race did/didn't matter.

I'm of the position that its all or nothing, that if race doesn't matter then even what you mentioned regarding audience representation should not be affected by race, therefore changing race of a character is just extra work for no benefit. Or race does matter and as was pointed out there are positives/negatives to changing race depending on how much you value, say, canon loyalty vs - to take your example - audience representation.

 

[Lilani]

Your lack of maturity and arrogant sense of self-righteousness and "Political Correctness" never ceases to amaze me, Johnathan.

I'm not so sure "political correctness" was ever an issue for this comic to begin with. They've been preachy in the past, and they'll continue to be preachy in the future. This is probably the most flamboyant they've ever been, but that was sort of the point. And given the level of maturity displayed by some posters in these 37 pages so far, I'd say they knew their target right from the start, and flawlessly nailed it. An irrationally overblown comic for an irrationally overblown sector of the community.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Gosh, what a lot of posts. I find trendy white guilt extremely irritating, mostly because certain types of people expect me to join in and I have had nothing to do with any of the reasoning behind it, never will and don't feel the need to pontificate, posture, preach or modify my behaviour at all on a basis I had no control over at all.

Then again I live in the UK and we have some utterly hateful proponents of it in positions of power, the BBC rams it down our throats at every available turn and there are reams of heavily biased left wing publications that demand kowtowing to the PC altar as a matter of course.

If a character is written white then make them white, if you want a decent black character, write a decent black character; don't go back and try to socially engineering a solution.

This right here. We need more people like this.

And again, asking why can't a character be black is a loaded question. There is literally no satisfactory answer besides the one the asker is fishing for, namely one that they can run under headlines free of context.

Demanding art tow the social justice line is just dumb.

 

[Mr F.]

Your lack of maturity and arrogant sense of self-righteousness and "Political Correctness" never ceases to amaze me, Johnathan.

In other words, your comic is, has been, and always will be shit in my opinion.

This isn't funny. It never was. It never will be.

You're almost as bad as Ctrl+Alt+Del.

Zimmerman joke

...OK.

Trollface as profile picture and you took it seriously. You know, the rules stating you cannot call someone a troll are helpful in many cases, but not this one.

OT: Funniest Critical Miss in a very, very long time.

Gosh, what a lot of posts. I find trendy white guilt extremely irritating, mostly because certain types of people expect me to join in and I have had nothing to do with any of the reasoning behind it, never will and don't feel the need to pontificate, posture, preach or modify my behaviour at all on a basis I had no control over at all.

Then again I live in the UK and we have some utterly hateful proponents of it in positions of power, the BBC rams it down our throats at every available turn and there are reams of heavily biased left wing publications that demand kowtowing to the PC altar as a matter of course.

If a character is written white then make them white, if you want a decent black character, write a decent black character; don't go back and try to socially engineering a solution.

Speaking as a Brit...

If you accept the idea of national guilt, there are a few nasty bloodstains in our history (Amritsar, Slavery to name but two) that can be called against us. But if you don't, well, that is fine, I guess. Some people do, some people don't.

However...

Trying to address an unbalanced situation is a good thing. I am one of the few that thinks Dr Who should have been a black dude or a woman. There is no reason for the Doctor to not be either of these things, what with the nature of the regenerations, bar "He has never been" which is not a good reason. His skin colour is not part of his character. It is things like that which the comic is addressing.

Considering the lack of black guys in the media, particularly in this medium, if a characters race does not matter why not change it over to try and make it so black guys have more representation? I mean, Racism is less of an issue than it used to be over here. We are quite good on it, what with accepting that immigration is part of our national character (First Indian-Origin MP was in the very late 19th century, for example) and we are quite friendly with some of our ex colonies (Jamaica, for example) so it is not as polarised as it is over in the states. Remember, the stereotypes in this comic are attacking issues which are more prevalent stateside than over here.

Then again I live in the UK and we have some utterly hateful proponents of it in positions of power, the BBC rams it down our throats at every available turn and there are reams of heavily biased left wing publications that demand kowtowing to the PC altar as a matter of course.

Considering most of the argument about being "Politically Correct" center around "Do not be a racist shitface" I see no issue with trying to make people more PC, trying to break down cultural issues and all the rest of that shit. Before you continue your tirade on how the BBC is a bunch of lefty propaganda, could you please explain to me why Muslims have to "Condemn" terrorism yet if Terrorism is committed by white guys, we don't have to do shit? Explain to me why that is.

Because right now there is a bias in the media and in greater society in our favour that treats people as guilty until proven very guilty, there is prevalent Islamophobia throughout British society and it needs to be addressed. Gay people, queer people and Trans people have it hard over here, it is getting far, far better but in the not so distant past they were treated like shit. That is why we "Kowtow to the PC Altar" because we need to be more inclusive as a society.

The reason why you change some iconic white characters into black characters is because if race does not matter to the character, why the fuck not? Things were written in more racist times, our iconic characters within the UK are not white because the Nation is white, they are white because they are products of their time. Times have changed, things need to adapt.

If a character is written white then make them white, if you want a decent black character, write a decent black character; don't go back and try to socially engineering a solution.

*socially engineer

And I just gave you perfectly good reasons for a little bit of social engineering. Society has moved on. Apparently you do not like that society has moved on. Would you prefer it if racism was still the norm? Yes. By stating that you are against political correctness, that is what you are stating. You would prefer it if we were more politically incorrect. Since political correctness is just synonymous with "Moving on as a culture", you are by default reactionary.

I cannot understand your view that it is hateful to push a doctrine that argues against hate. Are "United Against Fascism" hateful for preventing the EDL for marching? Am I hateful for protesting the actions of UKIP and the Tories on a regular basis? Is Gay Pride hateful? Are Carnivals hateful? Is Chinese New Year hateful?

If you do away with Political Correctness, the law trying to protect minorities and punishing those who use hate speech, those who attack people for the nature of their faith, the colour of their skin and the people that they love, you give credence to the hateful. Do away with political correctness and you reaffirm the belief that their beliefs are acceptable.

In this society it is unacceptable to be racist. It is unacceptable to be homophobic. There is no excuse to act in these ways. What you are referring to as political correctness is the belief that these actions are unacceptable.

Please, find me an aspect of Political Correctness that is hateful. Show me why limiting hatespeech is hateful.

Show me why equal representation is hateful. Give me one decent reason why representing minorities is hateful.