That Penny Arcade Controversy

[Cadence]

That said, it's ironic that you said "just to clarify," and then completely misrepresented my post and put words in my mouth. No, I don't think that freedom of expression necessarily entails having the right to force others to let you use their stuff - questions of "force" are another focus on legal ability, rather than on ethics.

To reiterate, I think that issues of censorship need to focus on ethics as much as on the law, and that we need to recognize that private enterprises, particularly when acting in concert, have a great deal of power to censor freedom of expression.

Thank you for the clarification and sorry. The "just to clarify" was there because that's how I read your last line in light of the Rockstar example and wanted to see if that's what you meant. I should have put something like "I read that as .... Assuming I'm misreading it, help!" instead.

I agree with the desirability of focusing on ethics as well as the law (the example of non-compete clauses in some contexts, etc...) and that private enterprises certainly do have a great deal of power over the distribution of creative products (and thus over what products are attempted).

In the case of the Rockstar example, is there a particular way you feel the ethical failure occurred? (Systematically in the sense that a few huge companies function as gate keepers - kind of like a few large states in the case of school textbooks; that the distributors opted not to distribute things they disagreed with; that they outsourced the decision making on what was disagreeable; or...?)

Also sorry about the colors - cut and pasted something back in that I had accidentally snipped out.

 

[Janx]

Janx, I thought the issue was that the original comic was NOT joking about rape (as the later comic clarified); it was mocking the amorality of certain games' quest systems. When did the story become that they were in fact trying to joke about rape all along?

My response here should cover a rebuttal to Cadence as well.

I haven't read the comic. I've read Gabes new apology. I can reasonably guess that because the joke involved rape ( a word that I've been trying to avoid using in this thread), somebody who was raped or worse, somebody who thinks they need to stand up for people who were raped when they are quite capable of speaking for themselves in America) has taken offense at the comic despite the fact that the comic was not aimed at, nor making fun of them specifically.

This would be the 4th option to Cadence's list. The reader could assume that the tasteless joke has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM and move on to something more pleasant.

Just because I make a joke about getting "raped in Halo" does not mean I think it is OK to rape actual people, nor do I think its OK for police to ignore victims, nor do I think it is OK for society/families to shame the victim of actual rape.

I am quite capable of differentiating the context of "raped in Halo" being completely unrelated to the actual crime and impact of a violent act.

I may in fact be insensitive to others listening in, when I say "raped in Halo", but that does not diminish my right to say it in the context that people playing Halo or on a Halo forum are expected to know exactly what I am talking about.

Furthermore, it is arrogant and wrong to presume that a person's situation as a victim of actual rape entitles you to special communication restrictions on my part when participating in a public forum that is not about that person's situation.

Now EN World has a policy about not discussing the R word, and I apologize for crossing that line to make my point.

As such, whether I apologize or not, EN World has the right to punish me per their rules. Outside of violating that rule, say in the context of being in a Halo match or on a Halo forum that may not have an R word restriction, I have every right to use the phrase with the expectation that its common usage in the game is known what is meant and that a sensitive person does NOT have any right to expectation of special treatment due to their situation or verbal-restraint on my part.

 

[Janx]

It is censorship. Stop focusing on the question of "are they allowed to do this?" and ask "is it (ethically/morally) right for them to do this?" instead. Having the theoretical ability to find another venue for expressing yourself is purely a question of theory, not of practical reality. Yes, someone who is shut out of every major avenue of a given venue can attempt to create a new venue, but this creates a near-insurmountable burden for most individuals and organizations.

I think this is the danger zone of where some supreme court suits have mis-stepped (thus politics, for which I will try to not cross the line, and speak vaguely and neutrally).

As a company is larger and more powerful, it's ability to manipulate politics (Corporations are People!), impact your health care choices (Hobby Lobby can violate HIPAA and restrict you from certain medical treatments that they shouldn't even know you're getting!), and fire you for speaking contrarily to what the company leadership prefers (don't have a case for that), we cross the line from government violating your defined rights to Companies being able to do it because "Corporations are Governments!"

If I'm the CEO and I decide to contribute to the candidate who favors things that benefit the company but screw the employee, I am exerting an unfair advantage over my employees. In a democracy, my vote is getting more power.

If I can enforce my religious restrictions on my employees health care options, I am using undue influence from my superior position on the employees. It is a fallacy that employees can "go work somewhere is if the don't like it"

If I can fire you for posting political beliefs on your Facebook feed, if it isn't censorship, I'm using my power over you to get my way.

That's wrong. We can quibble over the term censorship, but us laymen ain't got a better term for it than that. Given that the circumstances are the same. A powerful entity is exerting pressure on an individual that they should not be able to do so.

 

[Umbran]

... somebody who was raped or worse, somebody who thinks they need to stand up for people who were raped when they are quite capable of speaking for themselves in America)

You too-lightly dismiss the psychological impact and social stigma that still applies to rape victims, that tends to make them hold their tongues.

You also seem to say that only victims have the right (or duty) to speak out about things, which is completely bogus. Men should act to make it clear that some things are not acceptable behavior for men.

 

[Janx]

You too-lightly dismiss the psychological impact and social stigma that still applies to rape victims, that tends to make them hold their tongues.

You also seem to say that only victims have the right (or duty) to speak out about things, which is completely bogus. Men should act to make it clear that some things are not acceptable behavior for men.

You're not wrong, but without my lawyer to make my posts for me, there is no brief way to make my point and cover these exclusionary factors. And lawyerese is never brief.

In the right venue, you're absolutely right. Men all over the planet should stand against rape.

But in the context of some web comic making a joke that references rape, it is not that venue. Nobody's actually being shamed or condoning rape, in such a forum, and thus raising a pitchfork mob is not acceptable reaction.

There is a type of person who feels the need to rally a mob over the slightest insult. The Simpson's stereotypical woman who cries "Will somebody think of the Children?!" or the very thesis of the South Park movie.

Those people suck.

Instead of tearing down Paula Dean's career and overuse of butter, how about actually working to stop the real racists, the KKK.

Instead of jumping on PA's arse, how about working to solve India's treatment of women.

 

[Cadence]

This would be the 4th option to Cadence's list. The reader could assume that the tasteless joke has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM and move on to something more pleasant.

Based on the .tumblr recap, most of the issue seems to be how they chose to respond to criticism of the comic in question, and not about the comic itself (where rape was seemingly used as an example of something horrible to make a different point).

My list wasn't meant to be how the victim of something horrible should react when they run into something related to the horrible event. It was meant to be possible options for the joke teller when someone who had a horrible life experience related to their joke did react to it and pointed out why they thought it was in bad taste.

In the case of Penny Arcade, they opted for #3: making jokes about anyone who thought the original comic was inappropriate, the idea of rape culture, and triggering events, and making and marketing a "Team Dickwolves" shirt (the creature from the original comic that apparently lives only to rape).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Instead of tearing down Paula Dean's career and overuse of butter, how about actually working to stop the real racists, the KKK.

Instead of jumping on PA's arse, how about working to solve India's treatment of women.

Not that I think these particular examples (Paula Dean and PA) are fair jumping points, but the reason the larger problems aren't tackled head on is that it is the small things that need to change first to get the ball rolling.

A good example, IMO, is standing up to people who use the phrase "that's gay." It becomes ingrained that "gay" means "lesser" and perpetuates an unhealthy attitude. It seems innocuous at quick glance but feeds into a bigger problem. Starting here is much easier than storming Westboro and will have more long-term impact, IMO.

 

[Janx]

Not that I think these particular examples (Paula Dean and PA) are fair jumping points, but the reason the larger problems aren't tackled head on is that it is the small things that need to change first to get the ball rolling.

A good example, IMO, is standing up to people who use the phrase "that's gay." It becomes ingrained that "gay" means "lesser" and perpetuates an unhealthy attitude. It seems innocuous at quick glance but feeds into a bigger problem. Starting here is much easier than storming Westboro and will have more long-term impact, IMO.

While you raise a valid point that SOME people can't differentiate between me saying "that's gay" and my beliefs on how homosexuals should be treated equally under the law, I choose to live in a world where most of us can and do recognize the contextual difference.

Just as we know what is meant when you say "Their, there or they're"

There certainly is a possibility that some words or phrases can condition us negatively. There's a reason why the N word isn't acceptable, and nobody should use it anymore.

However, in equal turn, there is the concern that people who want to restrict my vocabulary because of their inability to interpret my meaning are bringing us closer to 1984's New Speak, where only carefully selected words are allowed in the vocabulary in order to limit and restrict our thoughts.

Society is learning to not use "That's gay" anymore by virtue of knowing our friend standing next to us is homosexual and that the context of using it right then and there might hurt his feelings.

Just like we all learned to stop telling jokes about a black guy, a white guy and a polish man at the water cooler when a chunk of our co-workers were black.

We didn't learn this by restricting our language. We learned it by being integrated with them and seeing them portrayed as real people just like us on TV. The Cosby Show did more to improve racial perception than just about any other show. Heck, Hollywood is doing more to improve and advance acceptability of homosexuals than any other approach from what i can tell and I think it is working.

Just like America is farther along the curve for how to treat victims of rape (not perfect, just better than some other cultures). If your sister gets raped, you are culturally indoctrinated to get a sword and hunt down and kill the football team that did it. Maybe a bit extreme, but more of us are wired to hate the crime and hate the criminal than blame the victim.

 

[mythago]

Janx, speaking of 1984, do you realize that your post contains a truly startling amount of doublethink? Or perhaps I'm thinking of Animal Farm; some free speech is freer than others. Unfortunately, in the real world - which you actually don't have a choice about living in - you can't really expect to have an absolute right to say whatever you like, however you like, yet insist that others have no similar right to respond in kind. Other people have an obligation not to be too "sensitive" to what you say, yet it is perfectly all right for you to be "sensitive" about whether others speech 'limits' or 'restricts' what you might say next - and unlike you, they must consider the sensitivity of their audience. For that matter, you believe that other people have an affirmative obligation not only to listen to you, but to interpret what you say exactly as you wish them to. You also argue that it's a fine and appropriate use of one's time to defend PA instead of helping the much-worse off, but a complete waste of time and energy to criticize PA ditto.

By the way, it's actually not true that we did just fine getting rid of racism and sexism - which, you know, still exist a lot - by shrugging and grinning when people used vile language like the N-word. Those terms became socially unacceptable because people used their free speech to say they didn't approve of such talk, not because they rushed up to introduce the trash-talker to their black best friend.

As to the situation at hand, setting aside the fact that you opened your post by essentially declaring you don't know what's going on and don't really care to, given that people have talked about the situation in detail, the problem is that you are not the only one who buys into the idea that free speech only belongs to us and people we agree with. That's why all the shrieking about how Gabe has a right to say what he wants, but a curious lack of symmetry in noting that Gabe's critics (many of whom are sexual assault survivors, BTW) also have a right to criticize him for being a jackwagon.

 

[Janx]

As to the situation at hand, setting aside the fact that you opened your post by essentially declaring you don't know what's going on and don't really care to, given that people have talked about the situation in detail, the problem is that you are not the only one who buys into the idea that free speech only belongs to us and people we agree with. That's why all the shrieking about how Gabe has a right to say what he wants, but a curious lack of symmetry in noting that Gabe's critics (many of whom are sexual assault survivors, BTW) also have a right to criticize him for being a jackwagon.

The problem is that while both the speaker and the listener have a right to free speech, certain actors in the listening side take it upon themselves to make the situation worse by riding Gabe's ass on it. Gabe's writing portrays him as the kind of guy who will respond badly. So it's kind of predictable on how to make the situation escalate.

It's artificial drama.


I can't win this debate. Folks reading my words may not get that I totally abhor sexual violence and mistreatement of women.

But I also hate it when people focus their energy and rally an angry mob to take somebody down who really isn't the source of the problem in society. It's transforming a positive goal into hate, in order to take somebody out.

If somebody's message are so much better that PA and Gabe's, they should exercise their right to free speech to produce content about that, and spend less time villifying Gabe.

Then, if the society prefers their message over Gabe's, they will have proven their point that Gabe was wrong. Without spending an ounce of negativity on Gabe.