WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE GO!

[Dragonbums]

My god.

I come back to this thread after making a post after...I'd say 5 pages, and this thing blew up to 37.

It's a shame really too.
I can take the comic at face value. It was just poking fun at all the stereotypical arguments and rebuttals we see on a day to day basis.

I mean- the comic is so obviously flame bait, sometimes it surprises me that people still got angry over it. Feel some real pity for the mods though.

I know that even when I commented earlier, people were getting dangerously close to the banhammer, or to receive a warning.

Please guys.
It was a joke comic.

Let's not blow this over the top (too late for that I guess.)

Give the mods a break.

 

[Lilani]

Why is one ethnicity being blended out of existence a genocide, but the same for whites is 'progress'?

Because one involves rounding up living people of a certain ethnicity and killing them in droves, and the other is simply people of different races coming together and having children, and otherwise leading happy lives? And I'll let you figure out which is which.

I mean...yikes. If you really think race-mixing is genocide, then you really have no idea what a genocide even is. Either that or...yeah, I'm not going there.

 

[nyysjan]

This comic has committed the gravest sin a comic can do.
It failed to entertain me.

 

[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.

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.

That is true if you are biracial, but Hispanic is used on paper and in common conversation as a word that describes the people that I specifically mentioned. If what you're saying is true, than why is there only "White, non-Hispanic" and not "Black, non-Hispanic", or "Asian, non-Hispanic" considering that IIRC South America had slaves brought in from the Atlantic Slave Trade and places like Brazil has a rather large size Asian community?

 

[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.

That is true if you are biracial, but Hispanic is used on paper and in common conversation as a word that describes the people that I specifically mentioned. If what you're saying is true, than why is there only "White, non-Hispanic" and not "Black, non-Hispanic", or "Asian, non-Hispanic" considering that IIRC South America had slaves brought in from the Atlantic Slave Trade and places like Brazil has a rather large size Asian community?

Probably because this is the US government, where it's always one step forward, two steps back. Heck, "Hispanic" isn't even the politically correct word anymore, it's "Latino."

Besides, they have a check box for "multiracial," and white doesn't count as a minority on its own. All the other races do, whether "hispanic" also applies or not.

Edit: and also, seriously, white hispanic really is a thing. There are a lot of people in Central and South America who are almost pure European[footnote]which you can say the same thing about "whites" in the US -- find me a pure European, and I'll show you someone who immigrated in the last two or three generations, if not someone who is first generation.[/footnote], because the conquistadors were only /slightly/ less racist than the English when it came to intermarrying. They pretty much only did it because they didn't initially bring any of their own women with them.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Why is one ethnicity being blended out of existence a genocide, but the same for whites is 'progress'?

Because one involves rounding up living people of a certain ethnicity and killing them in droves, and the other is simply people of different races coming together and having children, and otherwise leading happy lives? And I'll let you figure out which is which.

I mean...yikes. If you really think race-mixing is genocide, then you really have no idea what a genocide even is. Either that or...yeah, I'm not going there.

Not saying that I'm supporting Dansrage but I think you should look up what Genocide actually is, as opposed to what people commonly believe it to be(and associate it with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust]). As stated in the U.N. defenition:

[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

You will see that while murder is mention, the act of murder doesn't have to take place for something to be labeled a genocide. For a real life example of what I am referring to, just look at the treatment of German populations in the mid 1940s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_%281944%E2%80%931950%29].

Also, it seems a bit dishonest on your part to read what Dansrage has to say and then completely ignore his comparison between Native Americans and his ideas of "White Genocide". While I don't necessarily agree with the guy, I think he brings up an interesting point about what can be the blurred line between what's considered Ethnic Cleansing and what's considered Genocide.

Why is one ethnicity being blended out of existence a genocide, but the same for whites is 'progress'?

I think you might mean to be referring to something along the lines of Ethnic Cleansing as opposed to Genocide.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

I

Well, I laughed at the Alpha Omega Beta bit. As for Zimmerman, it's not that simple.
First off, Zimmerman isn't white. He's mixed race, leaning towards hispanic. Just saying.

I was thinking pretty much the same thing about the Zimmerman joke but I was to confounded by it to say anything. I don't know whether I should view the misnomer as an intentional way of poking fun at the way the media tried to say he was white and make the trial a black v white racial issue or if Carter is one of those people who still thinks that he is white which he clearly is not

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Probably because this is the US government, where it's always one step forward, two steps back. Heck, "Hispanic" isn't even the politically correct word anymore, it's "Latino."

Why is Latino a better word to use than Hispanic? Far as I can tell both are referring to people from Central and South America.

Besides, they have a check box for "multiracial," and white doesn't count as a minority on its own.

Thus making terms like "white hispanic" absurd to use in current American Lexicon.

Edit: and also, seriously, white hispanic really is a thing. There are a lot of people in Central and South America who are almost pure European[footnote]which you can say the same thing about "whites" in the US -- find me a pure European, and I'll show you someone who immigrated in the last two or three generations, if not someone who is first generation.[/footnote], because the conquistadors were only /slightly/ less racist than the English when it came to intermarrying. They pretty much only did it because they didn't initially bring any of their own women with them.

I don't doubt that such people exist, I just would no sooner call them "White Hispanic" than I would call Afrikaners "White Bantu" or White Australians[footnote]I'm referring to White Australians who's family can be traced back to the penal colonies.[/footnote] as "White Aborigines".

So unless these "white hispanic" people have genealogical ties back to the various native populations, the term is as inaccurate as it is absurd.

 

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

You will see that while murder is mention, the act of murder doesn't have to take place for something to be labeled a genocide. For a real life example of what I am referring to, just look at the treatment of German populations in the mid 1940s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_%281944%E2%80%931950%29].

Also, it seems a bit dishonest on your part to read what Dansrage has to say and then completely ignore his comparison between Native Americans and his ideas of "White Genocide". While I don't necessarily agree with the guy, I think he brings up an interesting point about what can be the blurred line between what's considered Ethnic Cleansing and what's considered Genocide.

1. usually ethnic cleaning or else goes as an organised thing, a doctrine by a group with power. It bases on certain ideas of "untermenschentum", lesser value of a group, of humans. The idea that the "other" is the enemy.
ethnic cleansing: srebrenica for example-the killing of men and the raping of women- like in Congo and Rwanda. The men get killed, the women raped and wont get any help so they have to bear the child and "mix" (which is bullshit because there are no human races-but as a construct and race is one it does work. Other means are settling people of other ethnicity there, actually forcing marriages for example in forbidding marriages in the same group or making them hard to impossible(like the rohyinga- you have to pay a LOT money to marry as a rohyinga another member of your group (money which is hard to get because you arent allowed to work because you state does not accept you as member, nobody will give you jobs, you have no right to earn the land you live on
since hounded of years etc. if you marry before, its illegal and you can get to jail(up to 7 years) if you get caught being together w/o marriage- this walls fall if you marry outside the group-if sb wants you, after all, you are one f "them" the lesser ones.

But people who marry freely out for love and have the same possibility to marry people of their group or out of group without any problems or hardship, this cant be seen as ethnic cleansing. If the majority does not see the members of group X as harmful and bad and tries actively to kill them force them out or make their life as miserable as possible to get them out of country, where no systematic barriers are set which discriminate one group and actively supports the other, takes right from one group(e.g women who get raped have no means of getting justice because they are member of the suppressed group and wont get help, for example the police will beat them, rape them again, take their money and chase them of and they cant get medical help because of poverty or because they are no citizens and medical help is for the in-group only.

2.ethnic cleansing is, as said a part of a bigger picture-. its one way to exterminate a group without actually killing them-but it requires systematic work, so the government will have ways to enforce the superiority of one group over the other, media will support the dehumanization and be biased, the bureaucracy makes in-group marriage hard to impossible while "encourages" rape and such through law enforcement which will not help the discriminated minority. the police will try the best to suppress them, give them harder sentences (like the black in the us*) and will maintain the picture of the bad and harmful influence group x has (in their idea) on the society just because they exist.


thats a reason why interracial marriage cant be seen as ethnic cleansing. inter-race people will face hardship, but both are citizens and have rights(sometimes only on paper), can even get benefits through governmental and social programs, but the government has no focus on forcing those. there is no forced settling, no barriers against in group marriage(might be even expected) etc.


*us:

at the zimmermann case

were there any witnesses who saw the fight? i can only remember that the police told zimmerman to stay in his damn car but he didnt listen. if there are no witnesses-then there is only one-because martin cant state his side of the story because he got shot.
(btw here in germany there is something called "verhältnismäßigkeit"-by equal means. that means if someone has a pistol and shoots somebody unarmed, he killed him and will get punished because he could have 1. let that person go 2. called the police, stay out of the way or follow the guy with his car with no need of engaging and escalating the thing, he could have 3. hold him at gunpoint and wait until the police comes. No unarmed person (okay, maybe someone who is intoxicated) would beat someone who holds ze on gunpoint. that would be suicide. Attacking sb with a weapon if you could evade the situation altogether is this. the police is there for a reason, there is no need to take law in the own hands which are mostly biased(we are humans, thats why)
also
tasrs? there are (mostly) non lethal weapons he could have used. but he did not. he did not stayed in his car, did not followed the orders of the police, he did not followed him from the safety of his car to watch where the guy goes, no he had to engage him at gunpoint. srs, i would have waited in the car. if this guy didnt had the urge top be a fucking hero (with a criminal record as well if i recount correctly) martin wouldnt have to die.

and here in germany there is murder and totschlag and fahrlässige tötung-first is murder, intent, planning, "cold reason" liek greed or a hate crime the second is killing sb but in a fit of emotion, not planning it coldl in advance, excalation. the this is killing sb without intent,a accident which could have been prevented if the killer dint act so careless. often these kidn are accidents, people fight, somebody trips falls, hit ze´s head, boom, dead.

zimmerman wopulve been case 2. he had weapon, teh other person was unarmed. he had no right to kill that kid, he could have followed him in the car, could have chosen to not engage (even if the guy was planning to steal stuff-man, electronics or such is not as important as a human life... so he would have gone into jail here-and that with good reason. sadly the us has a pretty fucked system-or why is every 9th balck person over 25 in jail, the highest percentage of people in jail/per capita. even china has not as many people incarcerated if you compare it to the number of citizens.

 

[Dragonbums]

wow....
nearly 1300 posts.
That's a lot of man hours to write all of this.
I wonder what we could accomplish otherwise with all that time?

We could accomplish a lot.

We could've made another Anita Sarkeesian thread.

Another Nintendo is dying thread.

Yet another Mass Effect thread

A thread on Feminism

And a thread pleading folks to stop hating Xbox One.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Probably because this is the US government, where it's always one step forward, two steps back. Heck, "Hispanic" isn't even the politically correct word anymore, it's "Latino."

Why is Latino a better word to use than Hispanic? Far as I can tell both are referring to people from Central and South America.

Besides, they have a check box for "multiracial," and white doesn't count as a minority on its own.

Thus making terms like "white hispanic" absurd to use in current American Lexicon.

Edit: and also, seriously, white hispanic really is a thing. There are a lot of people in Central and South America who are almost pure European[footnote]which you can say the same thing about "whites" in the US -- find me a pure European, and I'll show you someone who immigrated in the last two or three generations, if not someone who is first generation.[/footnote], because the conquistadors were only /slightly/ less racist than the English when it came to intermarrying. They pretty much only did it because they didn't initially bring any of their own women with them.

I don't doubt that such people exist, I just would no sooner call them "White Hispanic" than I would call Afrikaners "White Bantu" or White Australians[footnote]I'm referring to White Australians who's family can be traced back to the penal colonies.[/footnote] as "White Aborigines".

So unless these "white hispanic" people have genealogical ties back to the various native populations, the term is as inaccurate as it is absurd.

Actually, it's your understanding of the terms that are absurd. Neither term refers specifically to the indigenous peoples of south america[footnote]the term used for them in academic circles, weirdly enough, is "amerindians," even though it's "native Americans" for the indigenous peoples of North America[/footnote], but to the descendents of the Spaniards who invaded starting in the 15th century. Many of those descendants also have native american in them, because especially at first, there weren't all that many European women to go around. But it's a far cry from all of them.

Edit: As for "Latino" vs. "Hispanic," that actually /is/ one of those things that make no sense. It's just another step on the euphemism treadmill, with "hispanic" heading towards the offensive side.

Edit Edit: And actually, there is a reason for it: some people are starting to get offended because if you look in the dictionary, it defines the term as people from the island of Hispaniola. Latino is a more general word. Which is funny, since Latino is Spanish for "Latin Person," and Latinos aren't exactly known for their descent from the ancient Romans (although their language is), but that's how these things work. They don't always make total sense.

 

[dubious_wolf]

wow....
nearly 1300 posts.
That's a lot of man hours to write all of this.
I wonder what we could accomplish otherwise with all that time?

We could accomplish a lot.
...
Yet another Mass Effect thread

This one was my favorite hahaha!

 

[Pandabearparade]

I laughed. Zimmerman Mode was comedy gold. I hope the WHITE GUY DEFENSE FORCE makes more appearances. I need more defending, dammit.

 

[ShipofFools]

You know when you see someone who's got so much ethnicity in his or her blood you don't even know what's in there?

That's the future people, get used to it!

 

[Shadowstar38]

Snip

Spoiler

This is a person of latino decent. Notice how she is also white.

Damn it Watson! Stop making things harder than they have to be!

 

[madwarper]

were there any witnesses who saw the fight?

Yes. John Good.

i can only remember that the police told zimmerman to stay in his damn car but he didnt listen.

Then, your memory is at fault. The 911 operator (not necessarily police) asked him is what entrance Martin was heading towards. The audible sound of a vehicle's door opening, and then heavy breathing. Zimmerman responded and the dispatcher asked if he was following. Zimmerman said he was and they told him that wasn't necessary, and the heavy breathing stops.

if there are no witnesses-then there is only one-because martin cant state his side of the story because he got shot.

Again, you're wrong. There was a witness, John Good. His testimony is on youtube, look it up.

1. let that person go

Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground.

2. called the police, stay out of the way or follow the guy with his car with no need of engaging and escalating the thing,

Martin ran off road, behind houses. You know, where a responsible adult wouldn't be driving.

he could have 3. hold him at gunpoint and wait until the police comes.

Again, Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground, beating his head into the ground.

No unarmed person

You say unarmed as if it meant harmless. It doesn't.

(okay, maybe someone who is intoxicated) would beat someone who holds ze on gunpoint.

Funny you mention intoxication... Perhaps you should look up Martin's history of narcotic abuse.

tasrs? there are (mostly) non lethal weapons he could have used. but he did not.

As far as I'm aware, he didn't own one.

he did not stayed in his car, did not followed the orders of the police,

Again, there was no order by any police for him to follow at that time.

no he had to engage him at gunpoint.

Except, you're making shit up, because that's not what happened.

Zimmerman lost sight of Martin for 4 minutes.
Martin could have entered his dad's house, ignored the incident, called the cops, or whatever. Instead, he choose to bring a fist fight to a man he didn't know had a gun.

srs, i would have waited in the car. if this guy didnt had the urge top be a fucking hero (with a criminal record as well if i recount correctly) martin wouldnt have to die.

a) Your recollection continues to fail you.
b) If his school had prosecuted Martin, instead of sweeping the fact he had been caught with burgled jewellery, this incident might not have happened.

he had no right to kill that kid,

Bullshit.

The "kid" was beating his head into the ground. This is self defense, pure and simple.

could have chosen to not engage

Can you cite your source that prove that Zimmerman engaged anyone?

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Kinda hillarious that there's people taking the WGDF personal if they don't act like the WGDF.
It's kinda simple. If you don't act like the WGDF, the comic in no way represents you.
No one's blaming every last white man for their commonality in games.
The comic, instead, pokes at the people that resort to obnoxious arguments just to maintain their dominant status in being catered to/pandered to. A status so dominant, there's always several people that don't get why people are upset that all they have to play are white straight dudes.
Believe me, those people are out there tht will defend the status quo. If you aren't one of them, the comic isn't aimed to mess with you.
Defending the gaming industry's status quo, especially in the face of evidence that they're, well, screw-ups, is defending the status quo, and largely what the WGDF does. They attempt to shoot down people that want something other than a white straight guy in as a protagonist.

 

[Luis Melendez]

Of all the things that attract attention in this comic, of all the things that draw one's eye, one thing sticks out to me:

.....what exactly is the "Son zone"?

Don't mind me, just gonna answer this one real quick:

The son zone is basically getting so far into the friend zone that she thinks you're like a helpless puppy or, as the name states, her metaphorical son.

It's basically when you get to a point in a relationship with a woman that she could never possibly think of you sexually, ever.

It's also complete bullshit made up by people who lack the social skills to enter relationships, but I'm not here to argue that.

You can all return to whatever you were doing before now.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I'm going to stop reading Critical Miss. These guys are only interested in self-righteous flame bait. That's great at producing clicks, not for rational conversations on serious issues.

People who claim that they don't get what's offensive about this comic. Imagine someone drawing the same exact comic, but replaced the three white men with a feminist, African-American, and a transgendered person. You can bet that you and the comics' creators will be crying, "OMG!!! BIGOTRY!!!"