That Penny Arcade Controversy

[mythago]

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.

Okay, I didn't think this was the "CAH: threat or menace" thread, but my point was not that CAH is an awesome game; only that it's a teensy bit difficult to shriek that everybody criticizing Krahliuk is a politically-correct oversensitive meaniepoo when the guys who wrote Cards Against Humanity think he's behaving like a chump.* (And, if you read the article, it's not out of pure humanitarian concern for the feelings of others; it's for the impact Krahliuk's inability to behave like a grownup has on the industry in general, and CAH in particular.)

*And of course the criticism is also from people who like PA and who actually consider themselves current friends of the PA guys, like MC Frontalot.

 

[DMZ2112]

Okay, I didn't think this was the "CAH: threat or menace" thread, but my point was not that CAH is an awesome game; only that it's a teensy bit difficult to shriek that everybody criticizing Krahliuk is a politically-correct oversensitive meaniepoo when the guys who wrote Cards Against Humanity think he's behaving like a chump.

I would never suggest such (and of course, you didn't say I did); in my opinion it is never unreasonable to be offended by anything. It's not even unreasonable to demand an apology when you are offended. What is unreasonable is mobilizing your Twitter followers into an online vigilante army when you don't get your apology -- no matter which side of the issue you're on. And from what I have read over the years, one side of this particular issue has been good about trying to talk the masses down, while the other has not.

(And, if you read the article, it's not out of pure humanitarian concern for the feelings of others; it's for the impact Krahliuk's inability to behave like a grownup has on the industry in general, and CAH in particular.)

I noted this, and did read the whole article to make sure my post wasn't off-base. The reference to PAX becoming a "carnival of rape culture" is undeniably his, but I will say that given his game design preferences it is difficult to tell whether he is being tongue-in-cheek or not.

 

[mythago]

What is unreasonable is mobilizing your Twitter followers into an online vigilante army when you don't get your apology

"Online vigilante army"? If by this you mean, exhorting others to make death threats or engage in actual harassment like trying to take down a website, I would hope we would agree that is unreasonable (and probably illegal) regardless of whether the motive is "I didn't get my apology" or "somebody made fun of my favorite game" or anything, really. If by "online vigilante army" you mean, exhorting others to join one in criticism or a voluntary boycott, then you're using 'vigilante army' to say that some speech is freer than others.

And from what I have read over the years, one side of this particular issue has been good about trying to talk the masses down, while the other has not.

I am wondering what exactly you have read 'over the years' that people who are personal friends of Krahliuk and have supported PA seem to have overlooked. I'm also puzzled as to how Krahliuk's repeatedly bringing up and inflaming the 'dickwolves' controversy (first with the T-shirts, and then with the PAX comments three years after the incident) constitute 'trying to talk the masses down'. Which, of course, carefully phrases the issue as one where there are two (2) sides, one of which is the Good Guys and the other the Unreasonable Masses + Evil Demagoges, and is begging the question more than a little.

 

[DMZ2112]

"Online vigilante army"? If by this you mean, exhorting others to make death threats or engage in actual harassment like trying to take down a website, I would hope we would agree that is unreasonable (and probably illegal) regardless of whether the motive is "I didn't get my apology" or "somebody made fun of my favorite game" or anything, really. If by "online vigilante army" you mean, exhorting others to join one in criticism or a voluntary boycott, then you're using 'vigilante army' to say that some speech is freer than others.

I absolutely am suggesting that. Without a doubt. I think the legal boundaries of free speech are archaic and have yet to be updated for the digital age. I absolutely agree that exhorting one's friends to boycott something that offends you is perfectly acceptable, but I also believe that leveraging resources to crush something that offends you is not. The blogosphere blurs the line between "friends" and "resources" in ways that our legal system cannot cope with, which is why you get all the recent buzz about social media bullying.

As I said in my earlier post, everyone should walk a mile in the other guy's shoes before bringing down the sword of Damocles. Snap judgements are always bad.

I am wondering what exactly you have read 'over the years' that people who are personal friends of Krahliuk and have supported PA seem to have overlooked. I'm also puzzled as to how Krahliuk's repeatedly bringing up and inflaming the 'dickwolves' controversy (first with the T-shirts, and then with the PAX comments three years after the incident) constitute 'trying to talk the masses down'.

You are conflating being offensive with being inflammatory. PA didn't bring up the Dickwolves merch at the recent panel with the intention of inciting their followers to bash rape victims, nor did the mention do so, as near as I can tell.

The only thing I know of that Krahulik has done to be "inflammatory" was exhorting people to wear Dickwolves shirts to PAX. That was, frankly, unconscionable, given the circumstances. He has acknowledged as much. Krahulik is often offensive, but I have not seen him generally issue calls to action in defense of his ignorance.

 

[billd91]

I absolutely am suggesting that. Without a doubt. I think the legal boundaries of free speech are archaic and have yet to be updated for the digital age. I absolutely agree that exhorting one's friends to boycott something that offends you is perfectly acceptable, but I also believe that leveraging resources to crush something that offends you is not.

??? What do you think a boycott is but an attempt to marshal resources to make the target feel the pain of some kind of deprivation?

 

[DMZ2112]

??? What do you think a boycott is but an attempt to marshal resources to make the target feel the pain of some kind of deprivation?

Deprivation, fine. Destruction, over the line.

And that's an opinion, mind you, not a fact. Just so we're clear about the vehemence of disagreement here, e.g., not very.

 

[Dannager]

What's baffling me about this controversy is the sheer level of doublethink generated by fanlove of PA.

Oh god.

Rape jokes are OK because free speech,

There weren't any "rape jokes". There was a joke that referenced rape, but the topic of the strip was not rape, and neither rape nor the rape victim was the punchline.

but if you say it's crummy to poke at rape victims, that's not free speech and you should STFU.

No. Full stop.

We're saying rape jokes (which this wasn't) - and jokes in general - are okay because they're jokes. Humor is one of the ways we, as human beings, deal with difficult situations. Rape is not off-limits for comedy, just as murder, dismemberment, tragedy, war, or any number of potentially uncomfortable topics are not off-limits. Because if we made a habit of self-censoring our comedy every time someone decided to be offended by it and (rather than simply removing themselves from exposure to that bit of comedy) complain loudly on the internet, we'd rapidly have very, very little humor left.

(I mean, come on, have you ever seen a comedy roast? The stuff that gets said on there would be incredibly offensive were it not for the context of comedy surrounding it. It's many times worse than anything PA has ever done, and it's funny as hell and shouldn't have to take crap from people who think the ability to laugh at knock-knock jokes constitutes a well-developed sense of humor.)

This is not something that is optional for you to understand. You need to wrap your head around this, before you discuss this any further.

It's perfectly OK for Krahulik to behave badly because people are being mean to him and it hurts his feelings,

People threatened harm to his family.

but people who think PA behaved badly need to stop being so gosh-darn sensitive and grow a thicker skin

People who think that making a joke that references rape in their comedy webcomic strip constitutes "behaving badly" do need to stop being so sensitive.

and let's not talk about whether they are getting rape and death threats from PA fanbois.

What the hell do "PA fanbois" (I really cannot believe you are stooping to that kind of terminology) have to do with this? Mike lashed out because people threatened his family. The best you can come up with is that people lashed out at Mike because "PA fanbois" threatened them? That makes sense to you?

If Krahulik drags the Dickwolves thing up again and again - three years after the initial tempest - that's totes OK,

Yeah, it is, because he shouldn't feel the need to keep quiet about his own work.

but if anyone criticizes him, Great Chukulteh on a bicycle can't you people let it drop already?!

He brought it up because he was asked a question and he felt it was the correct response. The people who refuse to drop it refuse to drop it because they are engaged in a concerted, drawn-out effort to tear Penny Arcade down for its perceived insensitivity. I wish I were joking, but that is their explicit goal.

Bullying is bad, unless it's done by a massively powerful guy with an enormous web platform whose comic we adore?

Are you really going to be one of those people who sees a kid getting bullied finally lash out at the people harassing him, and then go and blame the kid?

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?

No, because that isn't something worth defending.

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.

Because that's not a point worth defending, either (though some of the bloggers in question definitely want to make PAX out to look like a haven for pro-rape knuckledraggers because that suits their agenda).

 

[mythago]

Oh god.

Yes, that was pretty much my own reaction when I read your post, which was a long screed in which you 1) attributed things to me I did not actually say, 2) ignored and distorted what I did say, and 3) also ignored the fact that regardless of my own personal opinion, people who are or have been close to PA - not exactly the Shadowy Masters of the Hidden Agenda - are critical of how Krahulik has behaved.

If you were trying to have an actual discussion where you made meaningful points, you made a hash of it. If, instead, you were trying to reinforce the stereotype that Krahulik's defenders are simply of the mindset that PA is awesome and everyone else can STFU *micdrop*, well done.

 

[Dannager]

Yes, that was pretty much my own reaction when I read your post, which was a long screed in which you 1) attributed things to me I did not actually say,

Then show that.

2) ignored and distorted what I did say,

Then show that.

and 3) also ignored the fact that regardless of my own personal opinion, people who are or have been close to PA - not exactly the Shadowy Masters of the Hidden Agenda - are critical of how Krahulik has behaved.

Being critical once is not the same as repeatedly and persistently hounding them for every perceived slight against people they choose to be offended on behalf of, which is what I was talking about. Hell, I've been critical of Mike's decisions on how to engage the people harassing him, but that doesn't mean I think he's a bad person for handling it the way he did.

If you were trying to have an actual discussion where you made meaningful points, you made a hash of it.

Because you don't like how I broke down what you said, or what? You're not responding to anything here. You're just handwaving away my entire post. That's fine, but it doesn't contribute to the discussion.

If, instead, you were trying to reinforce the stereotype that Krahulik's defenders are simply of the mindset that PA is awesome and everyone else can STFU *micdrop*, well done.

If that's the extent of your takeaway, then there really isn't anything that can be done for you. I went through the effort of breaking down and explaining what you were missing. I don't mind if you ignore it; it's there, and others will be able to judge for themselves what viewpoints have merit. But you're veering incredibly close to personal attacks (starting out by insulting PA "fanbois", painting "Krahulik defenders" as a monolithic group with unseemly traits, and then trying to lump me into that group), so either produce reasonable counter arguments, or maybe skip this thread?

 

[3catcircus]

There is an easy solution to this - that everyone on any side of this insipidness eat a bullet...

Mod Edit: Suggestions of violence, even in jest, are not appropriate. ~Umbran