That Penny Arcade Controversy

[Vyvyan Basterd]

There's an important point in this analogy.....

If it's "don't get in shark-infested waters" I agree personally. But others are braver and interact with the rest of the world despite the danger. They shouldn't suffer for the acts of a hateful coward that isn't content to extol the virtues of his beliefs, but instead believes he must tear down others. And in his ignorance lumps in even those who practice their beliefs peacefully.

 

[Dannager]

I understand that a handful of people have decided to take a stand on this and "boycott" PAX, but given that they run three massive, annual conventions and that they all sell out within days (if not hours) of tickets going on sale, I think there's precious little chance that there will be any impact on PAX whatsoever (as an aside, part of me hopes that they actually follow through on their boycott because it means I stand a slightly better chance of actually being able to snag a ticket this next year). And the developers who have decided not to go are, as far as I can tell, indie groups with little overall impact on the games industry. Indeed, the pro-boycott reactions have run dangerously close to concern trolling (such as Christine Love's assertion that she doesn't feel "comfortable" at PAX, Leigh Alexander describing her outrage as "challenging to contain", or Elizabeth Sampat - in a post riddled with lies, mischaracterizations, and insane internet rage - attempting to shame everyone (EDIT: Link was broken due to profanity in URL; fixed now) planning on attending PAX at some point in the future). One way to examine this issue is to look at who is choosing to be outraged over it. It's not finding serious traction in the community at large, or even in reasonable people, but instead is largely kept perpetually aloft by a small flock of dedicated but minor internet personalities who have made gender issues their personal banner, and piggyback off the manufactured PA controversy to try and generate notoriety for their opinions.

The most ironic part is that a lot of these same internet personalities are advocating that people boycotting PAX instead attend cons dedicated to female gamers. Because voluntary segregation is how you advance feminism, right?

Long story short, Penny Arcade is absolutely massive and does hundreds of times more good than harm. A bunch of people upset over comedians being comedians isn't going to change that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...I think there's precious little chance that there will be any impact on PAX whatsoever.

...And the developers who have decided not to go are, as far as I can tell, indie groups with little overall impact on the games industry.

On this point though, I think it is fair to say that the people who do end up boycotting PAX probably aren't doing it for other people... they're doing it for themselves.

I don't think any of them are naive enough to think "If I boycott, then others will boycott, then PAX will get shut down, and we win!" Rather... they just have made a personal moral decision for themselves that they just don't want to be associated with the Penny Arcade group. And because it's a personal choice, they don't give a rat's ass if anyone else agrees with them or doesn't. Because their choice isn't for other people, it's for themselves. Which I think is a pretty ballsy thing to do... stand up for your personal ethics, even if doing so causes yourself a bit of difficulty (which for some indie game companies, not getting the exposure at PAX certainly does), or on a macro level doesn't "do anything" per se (which is true inasmuch as that the con isn't shutting down and people aren't stopping to go just because they've chosen not to attend.)

You've made a personal choice for yourself so you can look at yourself in the mirror in the morning-- and it matters not whether anyone else thinks you are wrong or right for doing it.

 

[Dannager]

On this point though, I think it is fair to say that the people who do end up boycotting PAX probably aren't doing it for other people... they're doing it for themselves.

I don't think it's fair to say that. In fact, I have literally seen many of them talking about how they need to "send a message" to Penny Arcade that they can't be allowed to do what they did. If they're doing it for themselves, why are they making and publicizing blog posts about it?

More importantly, why are they shaming others into doing the same?

I don't think any of them are naive enough to think "If I boycott, then others will boycott, then PAX will get shut down, and we win!"

Perhaps not, but I think some of them truly believe that a large enough boycott (I've seen suggestions of protests in front of the convention hall) would generate attention for their cause.

Rather... they just have made a personal moral decision for themselves that they just don't want to be associated with the Penny Arcade group. And because it's a personal choice, they don't give a rat's ass if anyone else agrees with them or doesn't.

It is patently obvious from many of the people in question that they do give a rat's ass - one of them literally titled her blog post "Quit F*cking Going To PAX Already, What Is Wrong With You".

Because their choice isn't for other people, it's for themselves. Which I think is a pretty ballsy thing to do... stand up for your personal ethics, even if doing so causes yourself a bit of difficulty (which for some indie game companies, not getting the exposure at PAX certainly does), or on a macro level doesn't "do anything" per se (which is true inasmuch as that the con isn't shutting down and people aren't stopping to go just because they've chosen not to attend.)

I don't think they're standing up for personal ethics. I think that anyone who paused to give the issue a few moments' calm, serious thought would come to a conclusion very different than theirs. I think that they see a way to generate attention, and they leapt on that bandwagon as fast as they could. And it's served them well, so that same group of people latches onto any new development on the issue and continues to inflate it.

You've made a personal choice for yourself so you can look at yourself in the mirror in the morning-- and it matters not whether anyone else thinks you are wrong or right for doing it.

Their priorities are incredibly messed up if supporting Penny Arcade would cause them to be unable to look at themselves in the mirror. I would like to believe that these are not people who are so out-of-touch with reality, but rather are simply people with a cause that makes them feel superior to others who aren't as fanatical as they are, and are trying to drum up attention for it. And I think that the way they've chosen to argue their case is pretty damning evidence to that effect.

 

[Umbran]

One way to examine this issue is to look at who is choosing to be outraged over it. It's not finding serious traction in the community at large, or even in reasonable people, but instead is largely kept perpetually aloft by a small flock of dedicated but minor internet personalities who have made gender issues their personal banner, and piggyback off the manufactured PA controversy to try and generate notoriety for their opinions.

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief - as if being popular makes it correct). Appeal to motive (dismissing a premise by calling into question the motives of the proposer). A bit of ad hominem with the "reasonable people" remark.

Not doing well in the rhetoric quality there, Dannager.

How about this? Read the comic. Read for yourself their apologies. Decide for yourself whether they were being jerks. Kinda simple.

 

[Dannager]

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief - as if being popular makes it correct). Appeal to motive (dismissing a premise by calling into question the motives of the proposer). A bit of ad hominem with the "reasonable people" remark.

Not doing well in the rhetoric quality there, Dannager.

And if that were the totality of my argument, you'd have a point, Umbran. (But you had to skip two thirds of my post to get there.)

How about this? Read the comic. Read for yourself their apologies. Decide for yourself whether they were being jerks. Kinda simple.

It would be, if people (like some of the bloggers highlighted above) were not doing everything in their power to mislead their readers into forming conclusions in line with their agenda.

For instance, from Elizabeth Sampat's blog, "Mike and Jerry posted a rape joke. They were respectfully called out on it." That's not what happened. Mike and Jerry posted a joke that referenced rape, but which did not make rape or the rape victim the punchline. They were not respectfully called out on it. Mike had his family threatened. She then goes on to state that, "Mike lost his sh*t," as though that was an unreasonable reaction to being respectfully chided for a rape joke, rather than a totally reasonable reaction to having his family threatened over a joke which referenced rape.

And that's only 10% or so of the way into her post. The rest is equally horrid.

These are not reasonable people who are interested in a well-reasoned examination of the subject matter, or interested in an open dialogue over what is or isn't acceptable in comedy. These are people who found a target, and have spent three years concertedly trying to take him down.

 

[Umbran]

And if that were the totality of my argument, you'd have a point, Umbran. (But you had to skip two thirds of my post to get there.)

I still have a point - those bits were weak, and their presence brings the rest of your reasoning into question.

It would be, if people (like some of the bloggers highlighted above) were not doing everything in their power to mislead their readers into forming conclusions in line with their agenda.

You cannot allow readers to make their own choice, because THEY are trying to influence the readers. So you have to try to influence them back. So far, you're on the same playing field, then. Neither really trusts folks to do what's right.

You say THEY are unreasonable, and bad, but you yourself include those emotionally charged, logical fallacies (which are, by definition, not reasonable) to bolster YOUR argument? Really? Pot, kettle, and all that. Basically, if you see someone acting like a poo-flinging monkey, you don't look like a more advanced hominid when you pick up poo yourself. That stuff smears on everything you say.

These are not reasonable people who are interested in a well-reasoned examination of the subject matter, or interested in an open dialogue over what is or isn't acceptable in comedy. These are people who found a target, and have spent three years concertedly trying to take him down.

And if he stopped saying jerkish things each step of the way, they would have failed. While I'm not part of a lynch mob here, the PA people have repeatedly shown themselves to be rather less than thoughtful on the matter.

 

[Dannager]

I still have a point - those bits were weak, and their presence brings the rest of your reasoning into question.

Now, see, that's a fallacy. ("One part of his post was an ad hominem argument, therefore the validity of all of his arguments is in doubt.")

You cannot allow readers to make their own choice, because THEY are trying to influence the readers. So you have to try to influence them back. So far, you're on the same playing field, then. Neither really trusts folks to do what's right.

I don't think you understand what I'm doing. I'm not trying to convince anyone that Mike or Jerry or Khoo or whomever is "right" (that's a fool's errand, and not even particularly interesting), I'm highlighting the fact that this issue is kept afloat and magnified by a group of people who are, at the heart of it, disingenuously manipulating their audience in order to provoke an incensed reaction.

You say THEY are unreasonable, and bad, but you yourself include those emotionally charged, logical fallacies (which are, by definition, not reasonable) to bolster YOUR argument?

I'm not attacking them for their formally fallacious argumentation. I'm pointing out that they are deliberately mischaracterizing or misrepresenting what happened (or outright lying, in some cases) in order to provoke a reaction from an audience predisposed to be vulnerable to that sort of manipulation.

Really? Pot, kettle, and all that. Basically, if you see someone acting like a poo-flinging monkey, you don't look like a more advanced hominid when you pick up poo yourself. That stuff smears on everything you say.

I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. You're hunting for something that doesn't exist and trying to paint me as guilty of the same things I'm criticizing others for, without bothering to stop and understand exactly what it is I'm criticizing. Come on, Umbran.

And if he stopped saying jerkish things each step of the way, they would have failed.

Out of curiosity, Umbran, do you believe that it was "jerkish" of him to explain that he thought pulling the shirts was a mistake? If so, why? Do you understand why he said what he said? Or have you come to your own conclusion because it fits your mental conception of the guy, ignoring his own explanation?

While I'm not part of a lynch mob here, the PA people have repeatedly shown themselves to be rather less than thoughtful on the matter.

On the contrary, I have seen no less than three lengthy posts of theirs on the matter (and I may even be forgetting one or two), all three of which struck me as particularly thoughtful. In fact, I'd wager they've given this a metric ton of thought over the past few years. It's almost ridiculous to think otherwise, given how embroiled and embattled they have been in this.

 

[Janx]

If it's "don't get in shark-infested waters" I agree personally. But others are braver and interact with the rest of the world despite the danger. They shouldn't suffer for the acts of a hateful coward that isn't content to extol the virtues of his beliefs, but instead believes he must tear down others. And in his ignorance lumps in even those who practice their beliefs peacefully.

Just a note, as I am not a mod but recently got called out for this. I suspect that "hateful coward" and "in his ignorance" might also be construed as insulting descriptors.

Though we may or may not disagree on it being an infraction or bad thing, mayhap for the rest of the conversation we should doubly endeavor to avoid such terms. We can both consider it a writing challenge.

 

[Janx]

I don't think you understand what I'm doing. I'm not trying to convince anyone that Mike or Jerry or Khoo or whomever is "right" (that's a fool's errand, and not even particularly interesting), I'm highlighting the fact that this issue is kept afloat and magnified by a group of people who are, at the heart of it, disingenuously manipulating their audience in order to provoke an incensed reaction.



I'm not attacking them for their formally fallacious argumentation. I'm pointing out that they are deliberately mischaracterizing or misrepresenting what happened (or outright lying, in some cases) in order to provoke a reaction from an audience predisposed to be vulnerable to that sort of manipulation.

Like you, I assumed that general consensus was that the PA guys didn't do the best response. Had they hired a proper PR person to handle any such stuff, they might have avoided fault in the matter.

It's the extremism of some of the reactions and the inaccurate rhetoric by those specific opponents that I think strike some of us (such as yourself) as bad.

Umbran may be right that popular appeal or "how a reasonable person would see things" isn't a valid test, but I do feel that it is a gut check for smelling that something fishy is going on.

Therefore, using logic, how does one measure if the responsive reaction is appropriate or not?

It's probably good to find logical rules that support the foregone conclusion that our gut says (ex. we don't like their behavior)

But I think there's some clues:
did they tell the truth or speak accurately?
Did their reaction cause harm beyond stopping the bad thing they objected to?