That Penny Arcade Controversy

[Dannyalcatraz]

The problem I see is that the KKK are clearly evil. PA's initiating "offense" wasn't.

But the underlying right to espouse a position is the same. In addition, I specifically acknowledged that nothing PA did sank to the KKK's level.

Besides, as I also said, it wasn't the initial event that was the true problem for me, it was PA's subsequent actions that were truly provocative. The meme of "Team ________" is well known to be supportive of whomever's name is in the blank. Even though they're fictional, the Team Dickwolves shirts is deliberately insensitive, especially in the context of already being aware of people complaining they found the joke objectionable, and why.

Were the initial objections from people who might be a bit oversensitive? Did they misunderstand the original comic strip and its context? Arguably yes.*

But to then upping the ante by expanding the joke in the face of those complaints is a violation of Wheaton's Law...well, all I can say is instant karma is a bitch.







* And I'd mostly agree with that assertion, but with the caveat that we're talking about humor that involves a traumatic event, and mental/physical trauma affects different people differently. When you do humor involving trauma, it's essentially a given that you WILL hurt someone's feelings. Its just a question of how you go forward from there.

 

[Janx]

Having only read about half of the blog posts about the issue on the .tumblr collection, I could be wrong... but I thought the riot didn't start over the "initiating offense", but rather over PA's response to those who were offended (the part where PA mocked people were concerned about our culture fostering an attitude where rape happens a lot and people are afraid to report it, where they mocked the idea that trigger warnings ever had a use, and where they made a shirt glorifying the incarnation of rape to make a point about people who attacked his personal cause, and where they seemed to plug into the misogynistic gamer/tech stereotype... ). A lot of the bloggers offended by the later started their posts by defending the intent of the original strip.

The trick is, everybody's looking at the middle. I'm looking at the beginning "over PA's response to those who were offended" in this case.

PA never would have reacted terribly had somebody actually passed the reading comprehension part of the test in school.

As some chunk of the male population learned, "Never start a fight. Always finish it."

Somebody threw the first punch because their neural network couldn't fathom a valid point about crappy MMO quest design was not an insult to their sacred cause, and in fact, was effectively in support of it.

Is it not OL to be offended by what people say when they're mad about being falsely accused of something (even if they keep saying it for a while)?

I don't know.

Since somebody was falsely accused, all bets are off the table on how they'll react. It's kind of like being upset by my reaction when you say I'm crazy and try to get me certified. Ever notice how that trope always leads to the accused acting in ways that might be seen by others as "crazy"

To me, the story hits my pet peeves:
false accusers
misinterpreted message
rallying a mob over a silly comic strip while real injustice remains undealt with
turning an ally into an enemy over an imagined slight

From what I can tell PA was making a valid point that MMOs were guilty of dismissing of Rape Avenging/Prevention as not needed for quest completion, thereby setting the tone that the MMO didn't think it was a big deal.

PAX apparently went out of its way to be less of a sexist booth babe cleavage fest.

But instead, because a few people can't read, the PA guys are Rapeaholics.

i think I'd take a few cheap shots at those people as well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again, talking about rights is the wrong conversation to have (in my opinion). It's about the analysis of a particular action for its moral dimension, not the analysis of when a particular right does or does not apply. Whether or not you have the right to do something says nothing, unto itself, about whether or not that's the morally right thing to do.

All you're talking about is the morality of the proportionality of the response.

My position is clear: I don't think proportionality of the response has an objective moral standard that can be applied.

To put it differently, while you may feel that it would be immoral to boycott PA over the shirts, I do not. I see nothing legally, ethically, or morally wrong in the exercise of free speech or boycotts to protest the Team Dickwolves shirts, etc.

Let me ask you directly: Why shouldn't they speak out? Why shouldn't they boycott? What are the objective moral grounds you see for saying they shouldn't exercise their abilities to speak and act to the fullest?

What are the objective moral grounds for advocating proportionality of response?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As some chunk of the male population learned, "Never start a fight. Always finish it."

As others have learned, sometimes the best way to finish a fight is through de-escalation. I've saved myself quite a few broken teeth & scars living that way.

 

[Janx]

Were the initial objections from people who might be a bit oversensitive? Did they misunderstand the original comic strip and its context? Arguably yes.*

But to then upping the ante by expanding the joke in the face of those complaints is a violation of Wheaton's Law...well, all I can say is instant karma is a bitch.

I think everybody on the planet agrees that PA should/could have handled it better.

I might be the only person on the planet who sees that PA might not have been capable of handling it better (just as the initiating mistaken offendee may not have been able to read the comic differently).

I can totally see a frame of mind where what PA did as response made sense. From what works I've read from the PA guys, if you irritate them, they will unload more than F-Bomb at you.

And I also suspect, from what I know of the personality types who bristle at imagined slights, is that even if PA had a savvy, professional PR agent who really posted any responses to thus eliminate the communication mistakes, that PA still could not win.

These crazy people, once they latch onto a target, will harry it until they destroy it. They are looking for trouble, and they are yet another problem with society.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I might be the only person on the planet who sees that PA might not have been capable of handling it better (just as the initiating mistaken offendee may not have been able to read the comic differently).

I agree with you insofar as their personalities might have almost demanded the lame apology. I can't agree with you if we apply that excuse to the shirts. That's not being insensitive, that's being provocative.

I'll confess something here: I know myself to be flawed in that I can hold a grudge for decades. I still get worked up over stuff that happened to me in the early 1980s.

However, I have learned how to fight that flaw insofar as I consciously elect to combat the urge to exact revenge or escalate grievances based on my ancient grudges. It takes effort.

So I'm not exactly inclined to excuse people who DO escalate.

 

[Alzrius]

All you're talking about is the morality of the proportionality of the response.

No, I'm not. That's not at all what I'm talking about.

My position is clear: I don't think proportionality of the response has an objective moral standard that can be applied.

This has nothing to do with my position, as stated in my previous (well, prior to the previous) post.

To put it differently, while you may feel that it would be immoral to boycott PA over the shirts, I do not. I see nothing legally, ethically, or morally wrong in the exercise of free speech or boycotts to protest the Team Dickwolves shirts, etc.

I feel that there's nothing immoral about not patronizing something, or telling others why you don't like them. I feel that's different in regards to attempting to make something cease being available to any who want it, however.

Let me ask you directly: Why shouldn't they speak out? Why shouldn't they boycott? What are the objective moral grounds you see for saying they shouldn't exercise their abilities to speak and act to the fullest?

I've never said they shouldn't do those things. I'm simply acknowledging the difference between saying what you feel, and trying to suppress something else.

What are the objective moral grounds for advocating proportionality of response?

I disagree with too many of the premises of this question to be able to answer it. For one thing, I don't believe in "objective morality." For another, absolutely nothing I've talked about has been in regards to "proportionality of response," which makes it very strange that you keep attributing that to me.

 

[Cadence]

To me, the story hits my pet peeves:

<snip>

i think I'd take a few cheap shots at those people as well.

I can certainly understand reacting badly to pet peeves and can't imagine anyone reacting well to being accused of being something they aren't (or even think they aren't).

Subsequent posts dealt with anything else I was going to say. Good points.

 

[Morrus]

Let me ask you directly: Why shouldn't they speak out? Why shouldn't they boycott? What are the objective moral grounds you see for saying they shouldn't exercise their abilities to speak and act to the fullest?

Not talking about this particular issue, but the concept in general: there is a moral problem with the non-fact-checked-pitchfork-mod mentality. Luckily, these days it is limited to blog posts and boycotts, but once upon a time that very same human trait was directed in a much more physical way. Now, in this particular case, it's clear that a lot of folks are railing without checking the facts (and having been on the receiving end of such things more than once, it's frickin' horrible - and there is absolutely nothing you can do); however, those who have checked the facts and still decide to boycott or what-have-you? That's just fine.

So calling for boycotts and stuff without checking the facts first? Morally problematic. Checking the facts and then deciding that action is warranted? Much better. Both are legally OK as long as libel isn't involved.

 

[Janx]

I agree with you insofar as their personalities might have almost demanded the lame apology. I can't agree with you if we apply that excuse to the shirts.

Nah. I can totally see somebody thinking "If you thought my comic about how it was wrong to not help stop a rape was somehow saying rape is OK, then let me show you what ACTUAL offensive material looks like"

Not a good idea. But if you're equally enraged that somebody is so stupid as to misunderstand your point to think that you condone rape, then what happened is exactly how that would play out.

It's two cases of bad software running into each other.