That Penny Arcade Controversy

[Majoru Oakheart]

It falls far away from your description of 'PA's guns'. That isn't an insensitive bit of comedy, that's a shallow, insincere, condescending apology that belittles the people it claims to be apologizing to.
It also makes them (PA) look like smug gits.

That comic says to me: "All those people who feel that there is some link between our comic and encouraging rape are idiots. But in order to make you feel better, we'll point out that we don't like rape and if you feel we somehow have the power to make people rape or not rape someone else, we'll tell them not to. That should make everything better."

Here's where I feel there is a major issue. I've read enough of the blog entries to know that the argument goes something like this:

-Any mention of rape helps legitimize it, especially mentions of it in a casual context like a comic, ESPECIALLY if it is mentioned lightheartedly
-The more rape is legitimized, the more people will commit it

When people, quite legitimately respond with "Wait, that implies that I'm somehow encouraging or causing people to rape other people. That wasn't my intention and I REALLY don't think ANYONE raped someone else because they read my comic" the response is almost always "We never said your comic caused anyone to go out and commit rape, that would be silly. Of course your comic didn't make anyone rape anyone else. However, it encourages Rape Culture, which means more rapes occur." To which the only sane reply is "So if, by encouraging Rape Culture, I have caused more rapes you occur...then you ARE saying my comic caused rapes."

The argument tends to go around like that, in circles.

I haven't studied the phenomenon of Rape Culture. I'm guessing there's no hard evidence on whether or not the idea of a Rape Culture encouraging rape is a real thing or not. I suspect that those affected by rape believe it is, however. The problem with this as a concept is that it can be applied to nearly every concept in existence. It becomes a slippery slope because every mention of murder encourages a Murder Culture. Every mention of shoplifting creates a Shoplifting Culture.

I think it's a mistake to trivialize bad things. However, I think our entire culture is becoming hyper sensitive. Racial, Gender, Cultural, Religious and all sorts of issues are being actively watched for by people who believe that their particular issue is the greatest threat to humanity. Although these are all issue, we need to be careful as a society that while attempting to punish real incidents of discrimination and hate that we don't also aim our sights at simple misunderstandings and extremely minor incidents. Being hyper sensitive will only hurt us in the long run in creating an "Us vs Them Culture".

Edit: A time line for those interested: http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/3041940865/the-pratfall-of-penny-arcade-a-timeline

Just keep in mind that this particular timeline is extremely biased and created by someone who is an opponent of PA despite claims to the contrary.

 

[Dannager]

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.

A lot of the appeal of PA is the genuineness of the guys running it. There is no middle man, there is no one monitoring what they say (except for Khoo, and he doesn't appear to do much about it). They certainly have the resources to put a PR team together, but they choose not to because that would cost them a lot of the credibility as critical eyes on the industry that they've spent more than a decade building up.

Does



leave anyone among the offended undismissed?

Now you're just crossing wires. There are people who were offended by the original comic and chose to lash out. Those people deserve to have their views dismissed, because it is not okay to respond that way. There is some merit to the idea that the PA guys were less sensitive than they ought to have been when rape victims started to chime in, but I firmly believe that the mocking reaction they had was warranted given how they were personally treated. At that point, a lot of people who were never the target of any mockery or derision to begin with started to act like they were the target of mockery and derision.

So I'm not quite sure what your argument is. I don't think PA's reaction was anywhere near as insensitive as people make it out to be, and I think that what insensitivity was displayed is easily chalked up to the result of deliberate provocation (which included, but was not limited to, threats to their families). There's really nothing noteworthy to get up in arms about, there. Someone was deliberately provoked to hell and back, and he responded with mockery of the people who provoked him.

 

[Cadence]

@Dannager : I hadn't thought of the credibility angle of having a PR guy, good point.

And thanks for the clarification. I don't picture either of us changing our views on how insensitive we think some of their responses were, but threats received certainly explain lashing out. Rereading their final apology again, it seems like it was all they could do to finally put the incident to rest (I'm probably too optimistic that if it had been a few days earlier that it would have). So I'll stop picking over the carcass and move on (unfortunately to things that include chores around the yard and house).

 

[Janx]

I just read an interesting article. Apparently science says rage spreads more readily through the internet than other emotions.

http://vator.tv/news/2013-09-16-does-the-internet-make-us-angry

Assuming it's true (or close enough to true), consider the PA incident. Folks read a comic. Some of them get mad, so they start responding with rage posts. Which in turns spreads to other people.

So basically, once somebody goes off and starts sharing their version of what they're mad about, more people are likely to jump on the band wagon.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Assuming it's true (or close enough to true), consider the PA incident. Folks read a comic. Some of them get mad, so they start responding with rage posts. Which in turns spreads to other people.

I agree with your hypothesis.

 

[jasper]

I agree with your hypothesis.

I DON'T agree with statement.
Ok. You right.

 

[mythago]

What's baffling me about this controversy is the sheer level of doublethink generated by fanlove of PA. Rape jokes are OK because free speech, but if you say it's crummy to poke at rape victims, that's not free speech and you should STFU. It's perfectly OK for Krahulik to behave badly because people are being mean to him and it hurts his feelings, but people who think PA behaved badly need to stop being so gosh-darn sensitive and grow a thicker skin and let's not talk about whether they are getting rape and death threats from PA fanbois. If Krahulik drags the Dickwolves thing up again and again - three years after the initial tempest - that's totes OK, but if anyone criticizes him, Great Chukulteh on a bicycle can't you people let it drop already?! Bullying is bad, unless it's done by a massively powerful guy with an enormous web platform whose comic we adore?

Really?

Would so many people be passionately defending this dude if he were some no-name, anti-geek blogger making a webcomic dedicated to showing how games are stupid and the people who play them are losers? If the 'dickwolves' joke and the T-shirts were produced to make some kind of point about how gamers are all pro-rape knuckledraggers? I doubt it.

Also, seriously, when the people who produce Cards Against Humanity fercryinoutloud think one is behaving badly, that is what we used to call "check yourself before you wreck yourself".

 

[DMZ2112]

Also, seriously, when the people who produce Cards Against Humanity fercryinoutloud think one is behaving badly, that is what we used to call "check yourself before you wreck yourself".

So what you're saying is that bullying is bad, unless it's done by a company that makes a game we enjoy playing?

Personally, I call that an unforgivable level of hypocrisy.

 

[mythago]

So what you're saying is that bullying is bad, unless it's done by a company that makes a game we enjoy playing?

Sorry, are we back to "criticism of PA = bullying"? Because I genuinely can't see any other reason you would get that out of my post.

 

[DMZ2112]

Sorry, are we back to "criticism of PA = bullying"? Because I genuinely can't see any other reason you would get that out of my post.

What I'm saying is that it is possible (I suppose) that "if all of the progressive people boycott PAX it will just become a carnival of rape culture and there will be no cool game show to go to," but Cards Against Humanity will remain blatantly anti-Semitic no matter who plays it.

EDIT: I should have been clearer in my previous post. /you/ (@mythago) are not being hypocritical (directly). The Cards guy is. He's developed a game that is specifically designed to create a space so unsafe that it makes /everyone/ uncomfortable, and then he puts a banner up on his booth and calls it social activism? Ha! Good times.