That Penny Arcade Controversy

[Janx]

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.

Well said. That's the concern I been talking about.


While I hate to see news articles about "the alleged bank robber who we see here shooting the teller in the face" there's a reason for it. Even in the face of "facts", some of those facts can be wrong. And while we may need to move forward to take action on the facts we have, we also need to have our foot ready to step on the brake and reconsider what we think we know.

 

[Janx]

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.

I think I agree with this.

There's a whole bunch of bad ideas on the internet.

I don't have an urge to go try to shut them down.

I choose not to visit them. I choose not to view them. I choose not to give them my money.

If asked on the subject, I may deliberate on what I think is bad about them.

Or I may participate on a forum (like this).

but I don't go writing a web campaign and starting an army to kill that which offends me.

Trying to shut down somebody else's speech that I don't like seems wrong to me.

 

[Cadence]

If the sole reason for not distributing something is that they find it to be morally objectionable, then I believe that does violate that particular moral duty. However, in this case we've acknowledged that the action in question is a highly specific one, in that it's an act specifically done to suppress their creative expression - that's not necessarily the case with the follow-up questions you posted, in which case there can be other actions taken that would result in not being able to distribute something without it being an act of suppressing the creative expression therein.

I think I understand, so I'm trying to splitting hairs...

A) Say a store has a stated policy of "All products we sell are legal or approved by their industries for anyone aged 13 and up." because they market themselves as family friendly as a business strategy. That is ok because it isn't specifically designed to curtail anyone's expression.

B) Say a store has the same policy because they find sex and violence immoral and don't want anyone to sell them. That would be bad because they are intending to try and curtail a type of expression?

C) Say a store has the same policy because they believe it is personally immoral for them to run a business involving extreme violence or graphic sex. In that case is he morally ok, or should his morality preclude him from even owning a store that could sell videos? (Analogous to pharmacists with religious beliefs against certain drugs?)

D) Say a store has the same policy because they believe that videos of pornography and violence are actively exploitative and harm the people who make and view them. ?

And then there is this one. An English language bookstore in Cuba was recently profiled on NPR. They only sell books the owner personally likes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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"

i can see it, too- I just won't cut anyone any slack for doing so if they get results out of their comfort zone.

 

[Janx]

And then there is this one. An English language bookstore in Cuba was recently profiled on NPR. They only sell books the owner personally likes.

I think the core of your examples is: does the store have a right to not sell content it doesn't like?

In the Rockstar game example, I'm pretty sure the studio knew exactly what kind of game they were making and the rating they were going to get.

I'm pretty sure the stores had a pretty simple bar they set. Anything less than a certain rating from the rating board.

There were no surprises here. Certainly no favoritism of the picky Cuban book store owner.

I think from a generic standpoint, of course the owner has a right to sell what they want to sell. There's a reason the guy sells books and not hats. Because he wants to sell books. That's his right.

Where the line gets fuzzy on that right, is when the owner's preferences are unreasonable and discriminatory.

If I don't carry books about watermelon because I don't like watermelon, that might be OK. But if I don't carry those books because black people like watermelon (a terrible stereotype on which I have no reason to believe is true) and I don't want them in my store, that might be a different animal entirely.

I suspect that saying "My store doesn't sell naughty games. This game was rated N for naughty by an external board, so we can't sell it" is a reasonable policy. there's no reason a Naughty Game store can't exist, so it's not on me to provide it.

Whereas, if a case can be demonstrated that I'll accept books about other fruit, except Watermelon because I am targeting a demographic of people. That's wrong.

Now should a ton of people rally outside my door? Maybe it depends on the facts. If they do it because they think I'm a racist, when it's really because I just can't stand watermelon, then they are in the wrong.

If you're going to take a stand, you better be doing it for the right reasons and against the right target. I reckon that might be hard to tell which is which. But in that, case I suggest erring on the side of caution and NOT rallying.

 

[tomBitonti]

Trying to figure out the degree of relevance of this topic.

Read the original post. Personally, found it in poor taste. But, the consequence of that -- I'm unlikely to revisit the strip, is pretty much what a boycott would do, so I'm not finding the request to have significance.

As to a request to boycott a trade show carrying the comic ... that is a different matter.

Is there a legal issue here? Can a trade organization (not sure if the show qualifies as this, or even close), prohibit a company? I suppose yes, but there would seem to be some limits.

As to the substance, the fault seems to be more of style than substance. How often are there jokes made about the consequence of being in prison? Those would seem to be of the same substance, but often expressed more carefully. What distinguishes this comic from, say, the Dark Legacy?

As to the ensuing debate and controversy, I'm finding that that fails to find purchase because the original problem has no (or very little) purchase.

Anyone else tending to want a careful deescalation?

Note: Not wanting to sound insensitive to the general topic. Net of that: I don't think this board is good channel for more detailed discussions.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Alzrius]

I think I understand, so I'm trying to splitting hairs...

I want to reiterate, before anything else, that there's no objective framework in play here - as I noted before, everyone defines a given action differently, and likewise ranks actions on the deontological tiers as they like. Ergo, the best I can provide you with is my personal reasoning; as with all forms of moral beliefs, you may not agree.

In regards to the examples you post, I'm presuming that they're operating in regards to an action of a store owner refusing to sell a particular item or material. In which case, we then attempt to devise what specific action is happening here, and where it ranks. (It should be noted that this can sound an awful lot like trying to determine the motivation of the store owner. It's not, however, simply because we don't know what the owner's motivations are - even if he or she tells us, we can't determine their honesty. Hence, we have to make a judgment call in regards to the nature of the action itself.)

A) Say a store has a stated policy of "All products we sell are legal or approved by their industries for anyone aged 13 and up." because they market themselves as family friendly as a business strategy. That is ok because it isn't specifically designed to curtail anyone's expression.

Presuming that this was intended to be a question, I'm not sure I understand the policy in question. The legal aspect goes without saying, but the part about them selling materials approved for ages 13 and up suggests that they don't sell materials that are specifically designed for children, which tends to be the opposite of how those sorts of bans usually work (e.g. "we don't sell anything that's only approved for people 17 and up").

B) Say a store has the same policy because they find sex and violence immoral and don't want anyone to sell them. That would be bad because they are intending to try and curtail a type of expression?

C) Say a store has the same policy because they believe it is personally immoral for them to run a business involving extreme violence or graphic sex. In that case is he morally ok, or should his morality preclude him from even owning a store that could sell videos? (Analogous to pharmacists with religious beliefs against certain drugs?)

D) Say a store has the same policy because they believe that videos of pornography and violence are actively exploitative and harm the people who make and view them. ?

In each case, the lens through which these scenarios is examined (at least for me) is, "do not suppress someone else's creative expression." As such, all that needs to be answered is if these actions are those, or is another action that simply happens to have the same consequences. Leaving aside that this is my own personal framework, what you think the answers to each of these are?

And then there is this one. An English language bookstore in Cuba was recently profiled on NPR. They only sell books the owner personally likes.

Then for his sake I hope that he's very widely-read!

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.

I'd tell both sides the same thing I tell my boys when a fight escalates and they point the finger at each other as to who started it (as I'm sure the people offended believe PA 'threw the first punch' by creating the comic): "It doesn't matter who started it. You both made bad decisions on how to handle the situation that led us to where were are now."

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"

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.

There's a HUGE difference between someone actually trying to get a person committed and internet rage accusations. PA had a choice on how to react. And I always find it kind of hypocritical of anyone in comedy to ask their audience to limit their outrage ("Can't you take a joke?"), but then fly off the handle themselves when criticized over the joke.

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.

Agreed. I see no offense in the comic. But one should expect reactions from people that don't find even the mention of a serious subject like rape to be funny. Just like you claim that people should expect PA to react like they did.

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.

You don't (usually) need to win over the overreactionary types. A quick statement like they initially put out to clarify the ridiculous accusation that they condone rape... and then walk away. Let the ranters remaining yell and scream. They look like blahtering fools, while you take the high road.

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.

They are definitely a problem if they're allowed to actually destroy something. And you should certainly defend yourself if the accusations become all too real. But fighting against big noisy blowhards that really have no power to destroy you and that will move on to their next outrage when Miley performs at the VMAs is wasted effort that just makes you look as crazy as them.

 

[Janx]

Presuming that this was intended to be a question, I'm not sure I understand the policy in question. The legal aspect goes without saying, but the part about them selling materials approved for ages 13 and up suggests that they don't sell materials that are specifically designed for children, which tends to be the opposite of how those sorts of bans usually work (e.g. "we don't sell anything that's only approved for people 17 and up").

Based on your apparent preference to not restrict the sale, I would expect to find the Rockstar game in your game store.

I think the challenge is in how each of us interprets the store's policy

A) Say a store has a stated policy of "All products we sell are legal or approved by their industries for anyone aged 13 and up." because they market themselves as family friendly as a business strategy. That is ok because it isn't specifically designed to curtail anyone's expression.

Taken literally, you're right. They said 13 and up. Not 17 and down. Taken with Cadence's "because they market themselves as family friendly as a business strategy", then I might assume the 17 and down was implied.

In seeing such a restriction, I might parse their intent to be family friendly. And a Rated N for Naughty product would surely distress a parent when the kid gets to that aisle. Which might be why a parent doesn't go to a store where Rated N products are found.

but the challenge is, with the brief and imperfect verbiage available, how is a "normal" person expected to interpret a statement or policy?

In my No-Watermelons book store, how are you going to interpret my policy, sans any knowledge of my actual intent (I really do hate watermelon).

I think we know how non-normal humans can read more into something than is actually present and escalate that terribly.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not talking about this particular issue, but the concept in general: there is a moral problem with the non-fact-checked-pitchfork-mod mentality.

Agreed, 100%.

But lets look at facts:

In this case, there was a misunderstanding of the strip on the part of people who had been traumatized by rape. Comprehension error on Team Readers

Instead of a a plain-jane apology and/or explaining the strip in order to correct the misunderstanding, they got a little snarky and kind of "mailed it in." PR error Team Cartoonists.

When the apology wasn't accepted- and given the apology's content and the intended audience, its not a surprise- they upped the ante with the shirts. THAT pissed off the first group more, and got people who WEREN'T rape survivors pissed off. Biiiig PR error Team Cartoonists.

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.

Sometimes- especially in the arts- its not about facts, but understanding.

The initial wave of reactions was a simple misunderstanding that could have been rectified with decent communications skill. The second wave was 100% fine by me.

Do you remember the controversy over Ice-T's "Cop Killer" song? I have multiple copies, despite having family & friends in law enforcement?

I also have G'n'R albums despite the racist lyrical content of some of the songs.

What about Robert Mapplethorpe's art? Lots of controversy there. I fully supported his art, but also understood why people reacted to it the way they did. RM never really tried to educate people as to the "why" of his work: he may have felt it would have been futile- and he may have been right- but he didn't try. Instead, he rode the wave of controversy...until it crashed on him.

Controversial art and speech are necessary for society. But it has a cost to its creators, and it always will. It can backfire, sometimes ruinously. If you don't want to be a part of that equation, don't engage society on that level.