That Penny Arcade Controversy

[Cadence]

The joke was not about rape , they have not defended rape. I do however thank that they allowed there emotions to get the better of them with some of there responses, , but I get why, , they received not only there share of ridiculous responses but also threats to themselves and there family and they got pissed off about it, which came off badly in some of there responses.

That sounds on target to me.

I wonder how radically it would change the internet if our pcs/phones could sense our anger/outrage levels when posting things and gave a ten minute pause before sending posts through when we were riled up.

 

[jimtillman]

That sounds on target to me.

I wonder how radically it would change the internet if our pcs/phones could sense our anger/outrage levels when posting things and gave a ten minute pause before sending posts through when we were riled up.

I do think that the ability to respond immediately can serve people poorly at times

 

[Dannager]

Thank goodness there are plenty of people willing to jump into the breach and defend edgy millionaire cartoonists from oversensitive rape victims.

Rape is terrible. Absolutely horrific. Life-shatteringly, soul-crushingly debilitating to go through, and awful to even be adjacent to.

But that isn't unique to rape. Rape isn't the only horrible thing humanity has to offer itself. Murder, dismemberment, bullying, bigotry, grievous bodily injury - all of these things are but a small sampling of things that traumatize people every day.

Are these things off limits, in humor? Should they be off limits? Should comedians tread lightly for fear of offending someone with an edgy joke? Should we just shrug and say, "Oh, he deserved to be harassed for being so edgy," when their families are threatened because of a joke they made?

The answer to all of those questions should be an emphatic, "No." Humor is one of the ways that we cope with the awful. If we start to embrace the idea that comedians need to avoid potentially offensive topics, where do we draw the line? Rape? Murder? Injury? Bullying? Sexism? Pets being run over? Car accidents? Deaths in the family? Breakups?

By the way, "bonus points" for using their status as popular comedians as a way of marginalizing anything they may have gone through.

Bonus points for using running a children's charity as a defense argument for something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky#The_Second_Mile

You're comparing a guy who used his children's charity as a tool to allow him to sexually molest young boys to a couple of guys who run a children's charity because they want to see hospitalized children enjoying life a little better. Why would you do this? The point was to remind you that these guys are really warm-hearted people, on a personal level, and that their high crime was being perhaps too insensitive to the topic of rape. Now you're conflating them with child molestation? What the hell?

 

[Janx]

I am a survivor of rape, from 7 to 16 it was a horrible regular occurrence that was inflicted on me and I think that there is some merit int he concept of rape culture though I feel that it is often a term that is to vague to actually be useful but in the case of this comic I am not seeing an issue.
The joke was not about rape , they have not defended rape.
I do however thank that they allowed there emotions to get the better of them with some of there responses, , but I get why, , they received not only there share of ridiculous responses but also threats to themselves and there family and they got pissed off about it, which came off badly in some of there responses.

As for being offended by humor?
I think that I would be hard pressed to find a lot of humor that could not conceivably offend someone, that's the nature of a lot maybe most humor.
It might be more useful to ask what was the humor about, why was it funny or not funny in your opinion and if you were offended what exactly you found offensive.

Thank you for sharing a personal trauma about your life and for having what I feel is a reasonable interpretation of the initial comic, despite having that terrible thing happen.

I know it's not an objective measure of reasonable interpretation, but the fact that some for whom the topic is sensitive, they can read the initial comic and not interpret it as PA supports rape is the problem. How can a human read "rape is bad" and think I just wrote "rape is good"?

The whole problem started when people read the INITIAL comic and sent in irrational responses that caused PA to counter-respond in a cascadingly worse way.

The problem stems from people who can read something and find a completely different meaning and intent than the actual words say, and that the authors claim they had.

Since some people like tossing in the proper debate terms, how do we detect, define and measure that?

To me, they made an interpretive mistake and went on the attack with faulty information. Presumably from there, threats were made against PA, etc.

From that situation is where PA would have been making their retaliatory stikes as posts and terrible T-shirt ideas.

I see a difference from people who respond poorly to threats and attacks from people who start trouble because they have the wrong information in their head about what really happened.

 

[billd91]

Are these things off limits, in humor? Should they be off limits? Should comedians tread lightly for fear of offending someone with an edgy joke? Should we just shrug and say, "Oh, he deserved to be harassed for being so edgy," when their families are threatened because of a joke they made?

The answer to all of those questions should be an emphatic, "No." Humor is one of the ways that we cope with the awful. If we start to embrace the idea that comedians need to avoid potentially offensive topics, where do we draw the line? Rape? Murder? Injury? Bullying? Sexism? Pets being run over? Car accidents? Deaths in the family? Breakups?

All very easy to say when you're priviledged to be unlikely to be raped and unlikely to be threatened with rape by Internet critics (something I'll bet all of PA's female critics over this issue have probably experienced in their blog comments).

I too am so fortunate, but I try to respect their perspective enough that I can see how PA's response to the initial controversy was disrespectful and insulting (particularly the merchandise). Mentioning it again at the PAX interview was a totally bone headed move.

 

[Dannager]

All very easy to say when you're priviledged to be unlikely to be raped

And if rape were the only topic that people objected to in comedy, you'd have a point. But it's not, so you don't. Everyone has things that are unpleasant for them. Some less so than rape, some more so. If you declare them all off limits, you've dealt a mortal wound to comedy.

So don't.

and unlikely to be threatened with rape by Internet critics (something I'll bet all of PA's female critics over this issue have probably experienced in their blog comments).

What does that have to do with anything? None of the PA guys did that.

I too am so fortunate, but I try to respect their perspective enough that I can see how PA's response to the initial controversy was disrespectful and insulting (particularly the merchandise). Mentioning it again at the PAX interview was a totally bone headed move.

It was disrespectful and insulting, to people who deserved that disrespect. I don't know if you read PA regularly, but they do not mince words. It wasn't aimed at anyone else. Anyone who decided to hop in on the offendee bandwagon wasn't being spoken to to begin with. Just people hunting for the next thing to be offended by.

 

[Cadence]

Rape is terrible. Absolutely horrific. < snip> Humor is one of the ways that we cope with the awful. If we start to embrace the idea that comedians need to avoid potentially offensive topics, where do we draw the line? Rape? Murder? Injury? Bullying? Sexism? Pets being run over? Car accidents? Deaths in the family? Breakups?

I completely agree with everything you say in those first four paragraphs and posted things in that vein upthread.

I was taking issue with it being "ridiculous to be offended" when a humorist does hit something that was horrible in one's life and that being a humorist gives carte-blanche to be publicly "condescending and insincere" to those who do take such offense.

I intentionally made the post sarcastic (with a last line labeling it as a joke) because I thought it would both make the point I was intending and might also make any angry responses seem somewhat ironic.

The point was to remind you that these guys are really warm-hearted people, on a personal level, and that their high crime was being perhaps too insensitive to the topic of rape. Now you're conflating them with...

I thought that line in my post was clearly aimed at discrediting the particular argument that charitable works implies someone is a good person and was clearly not aimed as an accusation at PA itself. I would not have used such an example if I thought it would be taken that way and I was not attempting anything like a breach of Godwin's law. I apologize for not making it more clear that I was solely commenting on the argument in question. I wish I did as much for good charitable causes as the folks at PA.


Stepping away from anything having to do with PA, humor, comedians, or the internet -- I worry that giving any currency to the argument that "charitable works implies someone is a good person" is a bad thing because of the many cases in modern America where it has been effectively used as a multi-year shield by the truly vile to continue doing heinous things. On the other hand, taking that away from everyone (the only way to deny it to the evil?) seems unfair to all those who are good. I wonder if the whole thing is related to some of the upthread discussions on judging the morality of individual actions based on them alone and not trying to divine intent, but I need to study philosophy more before wading in to that one.

 

[Cadence]

What does that have to do with anything? None of the PA guys did that.

It seems like it's an indication that it wasn't just the "offendee bandwagon" that took PA's strips and posts the wrong way and that PA might not have been as on-target as they thought they were. Similarly, having a group of supporters posting under @t eamrape (or the like) and having to tell some of your supporters to knock off harrassing people seems like a sign that things are getting unintentionally off message. Those threatening PA were also reprehensible, but it doesn't seem like there's a single focal point on the "bandwagon" side who could reign things in (the "Dickwolves Survivor Guild" shirt doesn't seem like it was quite the rallying point as the "Dickwolves" one.)

Also, some defenses of PA seem to take the harassment and threats the PA folks received from some members of the other side as if they invalidate all of those who disagree with PA or validate PA posting anything they like about the matter. The "offendee bandwagon" is no more monolithic than "PA + PA's defenders". If getting or giving threats validates or invalidates an entire side, then aren't both in the same boat?

 

[Dannager]

It seems like it's an indication that it wasn't just the "offendee bandwagon" that took PA's strips and posts the wrong way and that PA might not have been as on-target as they thought they were. Similarly, having a group of supporters posting under @t eamrape (or the like) and having to tell some of your supporters to knock off harrassing people seems like a sign that things are getting unintentionally off message. Those threatening PA were also reprehensible, but it doesn't seem like there's a single focal point on the "bandwagon" side who could reign things in (the "Dickwolves Survivor Guild" shirt doesn't seem like it was quite the rallying point as the "Dickwolves" one.)

Also, some defenses of PA seem to take the harassment and threats the PA folks received from some members of the other side as if they invalidate all of those who disagree with PA or validate PA posting anything they like about the matter. The "offendee bandwagon" is no more monolithic than "PA + PA's defenders". If getting or giving threats validates or invalidates an entire side, then aren't both in the same boat?

No one is talking about threats invalidating an entire "side". What I'm pointing out is that the fact that these threats existed make it much more understandable to see Mike react in the way that he did - something that the blog personalities I highlighted earlier deliberately fail to mention.

 

[Cadence]

What I'm pointing out is that the fact that these threats existed make it much more understandable to see Mike react in the way that he did - something that the blog personalities I highlighted earlier deliberately fail to mention.

I can certainly understand how that would piss someone off and destroy any personal filtering. And I'm not going to defend the way bloggers (and politicians) try to make their points!

As some on the pro-PA side have pointed out, a PR person seems like it could be be helpful for public figures when they're angered and insulted ... well, probably helpful for just about everyone at some time or another.

No one is talking about threats invalidating an entire "side".

Does

It was disrespectful and insulting, to people who deserved that disrespect. I don't know if you read PA regularly, but they do not mince words. It wasn't aimed at anyone else. Anyone who decided to hop in on the offendee bandwagon wasn't being spoken to to begin with. Just people hunting for the next thing to be offended by.

leave anyone among the offended undismissed?