Support NeoGAF

[rSpooky]

no, people are asking for it to be removed FROM A PRIVATE EVENT

they can still express their ridiculous views elsewhere, but they should not be at PAX. pressuring PA to do away with this kind of thing is no more censorial than boycotting companies that advertise on fox news, or boycotting chick-fil-a for supporting hate groups

Or .. if society/community indeed feels the topic is bad , then no one visits the panel and they talk to an empty room. And that will be the end of that. Or.. visit and counter argue during Q&A etc. .. so many options..

Why is is always free speech unless I disagree ... ?

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Can we all stop equating asking PAX to remove a panel to censorship. That's incorrect.

I didn't mention censorship.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

so instead we shut down the opposite side

I don't think there's a clear answer here. I understand that refusing to hear out a viewpoint can be considered as a barrier to progress, as it would be perhaps more beneficial to simply debate the issue and make your case as opposed to saying you would rather not hear it at all. However, not just anyone can get a panel. For organizers, allowing a panel to go on can be considered an implicit endorsement of the topic being discussed. And if it runs counter to your views, or supporters of the event think it runs contrary to the desired climate of the event, then it's worth considering not allowing the discussion at your event.

I know analogies always muddy the waters, so forgive me in advance if this seems disingenuous. But without needing to revoke constitutional rights, I would argue that I would think less of some political forum that allowed controversial topics like "Was freeing the slaves a mistake? In this panel, we discuss how modern America might benefit from the cheap labor afforded by slavery, and why we should consider resuming the practice." It's a free country, and if the organizers want to allow that discussion to go on, then so be it. But I can tell you that not only would I want nothing to do with that panel, I'd steer clear of the event in general. It's just a bad judgement call in my book.

 

[aeolist]

Also to add, I don't know if there is a previous description that I'm unaware of that makes the panel sound worse than the current description.

previous description had this line as well: "Any titillation gets called out as sexist or misogynistic, and involve any antagonist race aside from Anglo-Saxon and you’re called a racist. It’s gone too far and when will it all end?"

 

[Conciliator]

Great, that seems like an appropriate move for the devs.

A direct, non-defensive, non-snarky apology can go a long, long way Penny Arcade. Something to consider.

 

[Sqorgar]

Sqorgar, you and your oh-so-conveniently conditional arguments sound like part of the biggest problem I have with everything related to PA: the people who watch this crap happen, then ultimately shrug it off.

I'm one of Penny Arcade's biggest detractors. It's just that, in this case, I don't think Gabe was wrong. I think the reaction was wrong. It's off for me to have Penny Arcade being the innocent victim, so please try to understand that I'm trying to be objective, not shrug off their behavior.

You may argue that people ganging up on Mike won't change his mind, yet you simultaneously admit he has the mind of a child, which I agree with, and suggests that he's a hopeless case.

I don't think I ever said that he was a hopeless case. Just that he is very defensive and takes things very personally. Any time someone argues with him, he clams up or uses his PA fans as a weapon to fight back. I don't think he's hopeless though. I think he can learn. That he hasn't thus far is depressing, not fate.

...but I'm sure there's a part of you that understands why that rapidly stops being acceptable after multiple offenses. Two wrongs don't make a right, and neither do 900 of them from the same source.

Gabe is an asshole. This I agree. But do I think he is such a monumental asshole that I should boycott Child's Play and PAX? That's a bit iffy. I would avoid such things if they were directly in line with his idiot beliefs, but as it happens, those parts represent the few good qualities the man has. At the end of the day, he's a father and a gamer, and sometimes this shows through.

So yeah, in this particular case, with this particular mountain of evidence, I think it's okay for a bunch of people to call out and attempt to hurt someone who says stupid things in public and rally other people to join them, especially when that someone has done very similar things since day one of them being famous.

It is NEVER okay to attempt to hurt someone, no matter what stupid thing they say. If you want to bring the trans community down to Gabe's level, that's your choice, but I don't think the best way to gain support in the gaming community is to be petty and vindictive.

So he doesn't learn; fine, fuck him. The end goal shouldn't even be educating him, but educating those around him.

And what are you teaching them? That's it's not okay to share your opinion on the off chance you might offend someone? That making mistakes should be punishable by public shaming? That it is not okay to disagree with someone, ever?

If you think you are teaching tolerance, you are actually teaching the exact opposite.

I just don't want to say any word or make any action that shows I like, support, or otherwise tolerate people I find to be consistently top-shelf annoying fucking assholes. Why do you?

Because I don't think anybody is an asshole 100% of the time. Gabe does many regrettable things, but he does a lot of good things as well. Part of my dealing with Penny Arcade has taught me that public perception doesn't always show the whole truth about a person's character. It creates cruel caricatures - effigies to to misunderstandings and mistakes - and it burns them in your face.

I think Gabe was wrong, but my disagreement with what he said does not mean that I condemn the man and everything he has ever touched. I'm still deciding what my own position is on certain transgender issues, and the thing about all this that really pisses me off is that the trans community is so god damned sensitive that they refuse to let any conversation happen that they don't approve of. They don't get to dictate the terms of how people see them. They can earn it. They can work towards improving it. But they do not have the right to punish and to hate because of it.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The description I read of the panel appeared to question if some attacks, specifically the of the personal and professional nature, made against reviewers, developers and publishers had maybe gone too far and what is needed to collectively work towards a new gaming age.

Considering that Gabe has received death threats, I don't think that it's uncalled for to have a discussion about what need to be done to create a better environment of providing constructive feedback about the problems within the gaming industry that doesn't marginalize the frustration of minority viewpoints.

I think people do sometimes overreact. I think violence being threatened on anyone -- including things like prison rape jokes or vigilante violence threats against criminals who skate charges, including the most vile people on earth -- is wrong. I think harassment is wrong. I think purposefully backing people into a wall to watch them combust is wrong.

But anyone who starts the conversation with "I have the right to my opinion", "The other side overreacted", "I didn't do anything wrong", "Those damn activists" isn't looking for "having a discussion". People overreacted to Adam Orth, but it's ridiculous for him to start the conversation with "I was persecuted".

Humility means starting with "I don't understand how I did it, but I did something that caused a massive reaction, and I'd like to talk about how I could improve my actions and I'd also like to talk about what I think would have been the best way to react for us to improve things instead of make them worse, and then I'd like to hear from others what they think."

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Great, that seems like an appropriate move for the devs.

Yeah, It was pretty good statement.

I don't agree with every single issue they have with PA (the Dragon Dogma debacle, ugh) but it was a pretty classy way to get your pint across.

 

[MYeager]

previous description had this line as well: "Any titillation gets called out as sexist or misogynistic, and involve any antagonist race aside from Anglo-Saxon and you’re called a racist. It’s gone too far and when will it all end?"

I saw that part in the description I read. That's certainly a dumb blanket statement, like pretty much all blanket statements, but I still think that a panel discussing if the level of vitriol in these sensitive discussions has reached the level where the positive part of the message has been lost. While the composition doesn't lead me to believe that the hosts of the panel would be able to carry out that discussion well, I don't see that as a bad topic to attempt to discuss.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I'm saying it is unhelpful. There's an opportunity to move forward here, to reach new understanding and improve the industry for all members, and instead, these guys are taking their ball and going home. They don't want to enter the discussion, they want to apply peer pressure to those that do.

I would argue that entering the discussion is exactly what they are doing. Fullbright has handled this thing with nothing but class. They explained themselves in clearly and reasonably. They have simply expressed something that they are uncomfortable with. What do you think they should have done? Gone to a convention that they weren't comfortable being a part of? Gone and tried to make people talk about it there? What you say is "taking their ball and going home" I would say is taking the high road.

 

[Sqorgar]

... I would think less of some political forum that allowed controversial topics like "Was freeing the slaves a mistake? In this panel, we discuss how modern America might benefit from the cheap labor afforded by slavery, and why we should consider resuming the practice."

I would judge them based on the content of their arguments, not on the topic itself. Posed as a question, "was freeing the slaves a mistake?" presents an interesting thought experiment which could prove just how much of a mistake it truly wasn't. If the content of the message was just that black people are lesser humans, then yeah, I'd think less of it. But I wouldn't ignore it until I first heard what they had to say.

I'm sorry, but a blurb isn't enough to draw conclusions from. Getting upset before anything has truly been discussed is premature.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

previous description had this line as well: "Any titillation gets called out as sexist or misogynistic, and involve any antagonist race aside from Anglo-Saxon and you’re called a racist. It’s gone too far and when will it all end?"

...is this what has everybody so upset? No matter which "side" you're on, you can't deny there is some truth to this. Not every claim of racism/sexism/homophobia etc. in gaming is valid, and having a discussion about that is not attacking anyone.

At the very least, maybe people should wait until the panel has actually taken place to make a judgement.

 

[MYeager]

I think people do sometimes overreact. I think violence being threatened on anyone -- including things like prison rape jokes or vigilante violence threats against criminals who skate charges, including the most vile people on earth -- is wrong. I think harassment is wrong. I think purposefully backing people into a wall to watch them combust is wrong.

But anyone who starts the conversation with "I have the right to my opinion", "The other side overreacted", "I didn't do anything wrong", "Those damn activists" isn't looking for "having a discussion". People overreacted to Adam Orth, but it's ridiculous for him to start the conversation with "I was persecuted".

Humility means starting with "I don't understand how I did it, but I did something that caused a massive reaction, and I'd like to talk about how I could improve my actions and I'd also like to talk about what I think would have been the best way to react for us to improve things instead of make them worse, and then I'd like to hear from others what they think."

Good point. You're right, it's impossible to start a positive discussion if you're already starting out making accusations. In which case, their panel is kind of ironic.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

it's kind of amazing that doublenagger lasted as long as he did with that username

 

[aeolist]

I saw that part in the description I read. That's certainly a dumb blanket statement, like pretty much all blanket statements, but I still think that a panel discussing if the level of vitriol in these sensitive discussions has reached the level where the positive part of the message has been lost. While the composition doesn't lead me to believe that the hosts of the panel would be able to carry out that discussion well, I don't see that as a bad topic to attempt to discuss.

but if that were the tack they were taking it would be described as "the arguments online about sexism etc aren't actually doing minorities any good" or something rather than just being defensive about minorities asking for equality

 

[Schnozberry]

I think the panel would be a great opportunity for those in marginalized communities to educate those who come off as intolerant, whether it be through ignorance or malice. If you're worried about controversial and embarrassing opinions being expressed by the other side of the debate, I think it's actually more of an opportunity for explanation than a hindrance to progress. It just further proves your own argument, and you can try to turn that into a teachable moment for those of good faith in the audience listening to the panel. Removing the panel will just reinforce the idea that gamers are incapable of having a discussion on the subject without devolving into epithets and name calling. Gaming as a whole needs to reverse the coarsening effects that the internet has had on our culture.

 

[Enjay]

Classy move. Funny how if they would've actually attended I might not have ever heard of them or this game.

 

[Sqorgar]

I would argue that entering the discussion is exactly what they are doing.

A boycott is the end of a discussion, not the beginning of one. If they truly cared about this matter, rather than making a grandstanding show of their support, they would take their concerns to the PAX administration directly rather than going straight to the public with a press release. PAX deserves a chance to respond - in private - before they are publicly humiliated. If that attempt failed and there was no other choice but to go public, that's different - going public is effective, but only as a last resort. But I see no evidence that Fullbright made any attempts to resolve this issue before making it a spectacle.

This is exactly like that woman who complained about sexist remarks during some tech convention over twitter. She got someone fired, created a shitstorm, and got fired herself. The correct course of action was to tell the convention runners, not the entirety of the internet.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

but if that were the tack they were taking it would be described as "the arguments online about sexism etc aren't actually doing minorities any good" or something rather than just being defensive about minorities asking for equality

"We know what's better for them" hardly sounds like it would have made a better description.

 

[Gestahl]

it's kind of amazing that doublenagger lasted as long as he did with that username

I figured when forums user "doublenagger" pulled out the "final solution" card a while back that would be the end of it

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

A boycott is the end of a discussion, not the beginning of one. If they truly cared about this matter, rather than making a grandstanding show of their support, they would take their concerns to the PAX administration directly rather than going straight to the public with a press release. PAX deserves a chance to respond - in private - before they are publicly humiliated. If that attempted failed and there was no other choice but to go public, that's different. But I see no evidence that Fullbright made any attempts to resolve this issue before making it a spectacle.
.

WAH?

 

[Silky]

Good for them.

 

[KHarvey16]

A boycott is the end of a discussion, not the beginning of one. If they truly cared about this matter, rather than making a grandstanding show of their support, they would take their concerns to the PAX administration directly rather than going straight to the public with a press release. PAX deserves a chance to respond - in private - before they are publicly humiliated. If that attempt failed and there was no other choice but to go public, that's different - going public is effective, but only as a last resort. But I see no evidence that Fullbright made any attempts to resolve this issue before making it a spectacle.

This is exactly like that woman who complained about sexist remarks during some tech convention over twitter. She got someone fired, created a shitstorm, and got fired herself. The correct course of action was to tell the convention runners, not the entirety of the internet.

He's already responded to the concerns Fullbright has. If I ask someone a question and that person answers, do you also have to ask that person the same question to consider the issue as having been addressed?

 

[BlastProcessing]

A boycott is the end of a discussion, not the beginning of one. If they truly cared about this matter, rather than making a grandstanding show of their support, they would take their concerns to the PAX administration directly rather than going straight to the public with a press release. PAX deserves a chance to respond - in private - before they are publicly humiliated. If that attempt failed and there was no other choice but to go public, that's different - going public is effective, but only as a last resort. But I see no evidence that Fullbright made any attempts to resolve this issue before making it a spectacle.

This is exactly like that woman who complained about sexist remarks during some tech convention over twitter. She got someone fired, created a shitstorm, and got fired herself. The correct course of action was to tell the convention runners, not the entirety of the internet.

If you think that the point of a boycott is to end a discussion, then we have such wildly different concepts of what a boycott is that we aren't going to get much further in this discussion. You seem so certain in all of this about who "deserves" what.

So you are offended that PAX has given someone a platform on which they can discuss conflicting ideas, or that PAX doesn't agree with you completely in all things and shut out all competition for discussing these ideas?

I don't have a lot of pity here. If you are right, then you have an opportunity make your argument to a large audience of receptive ears. Whether those other guys are right or wrong or jerks or saints, it doesn't mean that listening to them is going to make their audience automatically follow suit.

So get up there and say what you think needs to be said. Just allow for others to do the same.

No pity indeed.

 

[Fistwell]

Was his follow-up posted?

 

[guek]

Thank you for this post

I'm one of Penny Arcade's biggest detractors. It's just that, in this case, I don't think Gabe was wrong. I think the reaction was wrong. It's off for me to have Penny Arcade being the innocent victim, so please try to understand that I'm trying to be objective, not shrug off their behavior.


I don't think I ever said that he was a hopeless case. Just that he is very defensive and takes things very personally. Any time someone argues with him, he clams up or uses his PA fans as a weapon to fight back. I don't think he's hopeless though. I think he can learn. That he hasn't thus far is depressing, not fate.


Gabe is an asshole. This I agree. But do I think he is such a monumental asshole that I should boycott Child's Play and PAX? That's a bit iffy. I would avoid such things if they were directly in line with his idiot beliefs, but as it happens, those parts represent the few good qualities the man has. At the end of the day, he's a father and a gamer, and sometimes this shows through.


It is NEVER okay to attempt to hurt someone, no matter what stupid thing they say. If you want to bring the trans community down to Gabe's level, that's your choice, but I don't think the best way to gain support in the gaming community is to be petty and vindictive.


And what are you teaching them? That's it's not okay to share your opinion on the off chance you might offend someone? That making mistakes should be punishable by public shaming? That it is not okay to disagree with someone, ever?

If you think you are teaching tolerance, you are actually teaching the exact opposite.


Because I don't think anybody is an asshole 100% of the time. Gabe does many regrettable things, but he does a lot of good things as well. Part of my dealing with Penny Arcade has taught me that public perception doesn't always show the whole truth about a person's character. It creates cruel caricatures - effigies to to misunderstandings and mistakes - and it burns them in your face.

I think Gabe was wrong, but my disagreement with what he said does not mean that I condemn the man and everything he has ever touched. I'm still deciding what my own position is on certain transgender issues, and the thing about all this that really pisses me off is that the trans community is so god damned sensitive that they refuse to let any conversation happen that they don't approve of. They don't get to dictate the terms of how people see them. They can earn it. They can work towards improving it. But they do not have the right to punish and to hate because of it.

 

[Anoregon]

I'm still deciding what my own position is on certain transgender issues, and the thing about all this that really pisses me off is that the trans community is so god damned sensitive that they refuse to let any conversation happen that they don't approve of. They don't get to dictate the terms of how people see them. They can earn it. They can work towards improving it. But they do not have the right to punish and to hate because of it.

This is probably the most worthwhile post in any of the recent threads relating to this topic.

 

[Delusibeta]

"fuck you, PC police"
"fuck you, privileged scum"

Round and round it goes, whenever it ends, nobody knows.

 

[wildfire]

As someone signed up to do two panels at the upcoming PAX Prime (both about LGBTQ issues), I'm really torn on this. Part of me feels like I should pull myself from the event on that level, but on the other side, I think the best thing to do is to continue to use the chance that PAX provides me to help educate people on the issues that are important.

And, to be clear, my mixed emotions don't come from whatever Gabe/Mike has said on Twitter—it comes from the PAX AUS panel that has been approved and which—at least partially—goes directly against the panels I am a part of and greatly believe in. (Not to mention the other panels that have gone on at PAX which also talk about the importance of inclusiveness in the gaming community.)

Since you were planning to go to PAX don't change your mind. Just go to that panel and speak for everyone who thinks the underlying idea is dumb during the QnA portion.

 

[KHarvey16]

They don't get to dictate the terms of how people see them. They can earn it. They can work towards improving it.

Is this really how you meant to say this? I just want to be sure before I let you know how it makes you look.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

They don't get to dictate the terms of how people see them. They can earn it.

This is pretty disgusting.

 

[faceless007]

A boycott is the end of a discussion, not the beginning of one. If they truly cared about this matter, rather than making a grandstanding show of their support, they would take their concerns to the PAX administration directly rather than going straight to the public with a press release. PAX deserves a chance to respond - in private - before they are publicly humiliated. If that attempt failed and there was no other choice but to go public, that's different - going public is effective, but only as a last resort. But I see no evidence that Fullbright made any attempts to resolve this issue before making it a spectacle.

This is exactly like that woman who complained about sexist remarks during some tech convention over twitter. She got someone fired, created a shitstorm, and got fired herself. The correct course of action was to tell the convention runners, not the entirety of the internet.

This is not a boycott. It's a private company dwciding it does not wish to be professionally associated with an entity whose conduct they find alienating and damaging. PA does not "deserve" to have this kept private because their conduct that started it was not private, but public, nor are they entitled to have any specific party buy booth space at their convention.

 

[Liberty4all]

A boycott is the end of a discussion, not the beginning of one. If they truly cared about this matter, rather than making a grandstanding show of their support, they would take their concerns to the PAX administration directly rather than going straight to the public with a press release. PAX deserves a chance to respond - in private - before they are publicly humiliated. If that attempt failed and there was no other choice but to go public, that's different - going public is effective, but only as a last resort. But I see no evidence that Fullbright made any attempts to resolve this issue before making it a spectacle.

This is exactly like that woman who complained about sexist remarks during some tech convention over twitter. She got someone fired, created a shitstorm, and got fired herself. The correct course of action was to tell the convention runners, not the entirety of the internet.

agreed

 

[odiin]

I understand how they could be offended by those statements, but it's important to remember that penny arcade is a humourous comic strip. They are essentially comedians and they sometimes have a crass sense of humour. You wouldn't complain about a crude joke on south park for instance. If thay isn't your sense of humour then you just don't watch it and move on.

It does, however, create an interesting dilemma when people like the PA guys branch out to different fields. It would be like Trey and Matt starting an indie animation convention and having a participant back out because the operators had made racist or sexually gratuitous statements. It be true, but it is somewhat disingenuous. I can understand where these developers are coming from but at the end of the day Mike an Jerry aren't rapists, nor do they condone the act. They made a joke. Don't pretend you've never said anything crass or offensive before. You can't go around boycotting every one who makes a statement you disagree with. Save it for the people who actually deserve it. Y'know, like ACTUAL rapists. And actual Dickwolves for that matter. Fuck dickwolves... What a bunch of dicks.

 

[Jintor]

Man, he really should have just gone to go play with his dogs instead of firing up the ol' twittermobile.

 

[BiggNife]

I'm still deciding what my own position is on certain transgender issues, and the thing about all this that really pisses me off is that the trans community is so god damned sensitive that they refuse to let any conversation happen that they don't approve of. They don't get to dictate the terms of how people see them. They can earn it. They can work towards improving it. But they do not have the right to punish and to hate because of it.

Wait

WAIT

Hold the fucking phone

You are the same person who, in response to why people were getting so worked up over the Dickwolves thing, said (and I quote) "BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GETTING HURT!"

Now trans people are getting hurt and you're telling them they need to earn the terms of how people see them and that it's frustrating that they're so sensitive

Do you realize how hypocritical this is

 

[jcm]

A boycott is the end of a discussion, not the beginning of one. If they truly cared about this matter, rather than making a grandstanding show of their support, they would take their concerns to the PAX administration directly rather than going straight to the public with a press release. PAX deserves a chance to respond - in private - before they are publicly humiliated. If that attempt failed and there was no other choice but to go public, that's different - going public is effective, but only as a last resort. But I see no evidence that Fullbright made any attempts to resolve this issue before making it a spectacle.

Why? The guy's an asshole. He's demonstrated that many times. There's a pattern of behavior here. This is who he is. Why is Fullbright duty-bound to do anything for him? They said, we don't want to be associated with these people, and we don't want to contribute to their business. They have every right to do that.

They don't owe PAX shit.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

As someone who has always found the enormous, admirable success of a legitimately awesome expo spawned by one of the most inexplicably successful websites built around one of the most consistently unfunny webcomics produced by one of the least admirable people imaginable a prime example of how strangely the world works, I am only amazed at how infrequently people actually do pull out of PAX.

 

[Ventilaator]

Any titillation gets called out as sexist or misogynistic, and involve any antagonist race aside from Anglo-Saxon and you’re called a racist. It’s gone too far and when will it all end?

Oh really? The panel description originally included these lines? Well...I have zero idea what's supposed to be bad about this. None. At all.

 

[jooey]

Wait

WAIT

Hold the fucking phone

You are the same person who, in response to why people were getting so worked up over the Dickwolves thing, said (and I quote) "BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GETTING HURT!"

Now trans people are getting hurt and you're telling them they need to earn the terms of how people see them and that it's frustrating that they're so sensitive

Do you realize how hypocritical this is

I HAVE to see that post

 

[XANDER CAGE]

I think Gabe was wrong, but my disagreement with what he said does not mean that I condemn the man and everything he has ever touched. I'm still deciding what my own position is on certain transgender issues, and the thing about all this that really pisses me off is that the trans community is so god damned sensitive that they refuse to let any conversation happen that they don't approve of. They don't get to dictate the terms of how people see them. They can earn it. They can work towards improving it. But they do not have the right to punish and to hate because of it.

"They can earn it"?

That's disgusting. People shouldn't have to earn not being mistreated.

 

[JDSN]

They don't get to dictate the terms of how people see them. They can earn it. They can work towards improving it. But they do not have the right to punish and to hate because of it.

What? How do you exactly do they earn that? I thought being a functioning member of society was enough but aparently there is something that im missing here. I really want you to explain yourself because it sounds really problematic in the way you phrased it.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Are you really equating not being allowed to have a PAX panel to being denied free speech.
A PAX panel is not a right.
They would still be free to express their opinions elsewhere.

This is disingenuous. You can extend this logic to essentially cut off every possible avenue for speech. After all where precisely is it your right to speak freely ?

And certain forms of public pressure can be viewed as censorship. Strong disapproval from the public certainly carries with it an implied threat of violence / punishment. People have had their lives ruined for holding unpopular opinions or positions. Admittedly this is not one of those things I can really clearly draw out. One one hand chilling effects apply if any speech is restricted , after all one can never know how the wind blows tomorrow so maybe one should not say anything even potentially controversial. On the other people absolutely have freedom of association and the right to spend their money as they please and likewise they also have the right to speech.

I certainly don't agree with Mike's comments for the record. This whole thing puzzles me because I cannot comprehend why anyone would care about what gender someone else wishes to be identified as and whether or not that matches their biological sex. About the only time I think its relevant is before engaging in a relationship and that's purely for practical issues like the possibility of children.

 

[rohlfinator]

Good on Fullbright, hopefully this encourages PA to reassess the way they handle these situations.

I understand how they could be offended by those statements, but it's important to remember that penny arcade is a humourous comic strip. They are essentially comedians and they sometimes have a crass sense of humour. You wouldn't complain about a crude joke on south park for instance. If thay isn't your sense of humour then you just don't watch it and move on.

Almost none of the complaints have been centered around the comic, they've been about the way they've handled themselves outside of the comic. Being entertainers doesn't exempt them from all criticism.

 

[demidar]

What? How do you exactly do they earn that? I thought being a functioning member of society was enough but aparently there is something that im missing here. I really want you to explain yourself because it sounds really problematic in the way you phrased it.

That sounds like something I can imagine a racist saying.

"[Race] people don't get to dictate the terms of how people see them. They can earn it. They can work towards improving it. But they do not have the right to punish and to hate because of it."

 

[Sqorgar]

Wait

WAIT

Hold the fucking phone

You are the same person who, in response to why people were getting so worked up over the Dickwolves thing, said (and I quote) "BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GETTING HURT!"

Now trans people are getting hurt and you're telling them they need to earn the terms of how people see them and that it's frustrating that they're so sensitive

Do you realize how hypocritical this is

Did you just go through my post history and find that one post, or did you read the entire thread and the context in which it was written?

There is a wide gulf between Gabe making a statement like "girls have vaginas" and the trans community getting upset because this doesn't gel well with the version of the world they prefer to be true and Gabe purposely insulting people to their face, making fun of rape victims, and being responsible for his fans harassing victims by threatening to rape them more.

And you've characterized my statement incorrectly. My response was to this question:

Being immature made him rich and famous. Why expect him to act like an adult now?

Yes. When people are being hurt, I expect every person involved to start acting like an adult - Gabe especially in that case. My entire stance in that thread was that Gabe was being a dick and didn't understand how his actions were literally triggering rape victims with PTSD. It was not a response to "why people were getting so worked up over the Dickwolves thing".

 

[Intheflorsh]

The people who run PAX ought to disassociate with Penny Arcade. The crap that comes out of the mouths of those two guys tarnishes what is an otherwise genuinely terrific event. I appreciate what Fullbright is doing, and even though I already planned to buy Gone Home I will now buy it TWICE as hard.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

Did you just go through my post history and find that one post, or did you read the entire thread and the context in which it was written?

Please don't bring up context. It hasn't been decided if it matters or not today yet.

 

[rohlfinator]

This is disingenuous. You can extend this logic to essentially cut off every possible avenue for speech. After all where precisely is it your right to speak freely ?

Pretty sure a private event with a small, limited number of panels is not it. They aren't obligated to give a microphone to every random person who asks for it. Penny Arcade has 100% full control over which panels are allowed to speak at their convention, and free speech has nothing to do with it.

 

[Anoregon]

That sounds like something I can imagine a racist saying.

"[Race] people don't get to dictate the terms of how people see them. They can earn it. They can work towards improving it. But they do not have the right to punish and to hate because of it."

Or, you know, you can get rid of any qualifier and start the sentence with "People." Is that more or less offensive? Is it more or less valid? I honestly can't tell, these topics on GAF are always such a fucking disaster.