• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Penny Arcade's Gabe (Mike) apologizes for being a bully.

It's an apology for him being himself, and wanting to be better. Can't it just be that?

I think that's all it is. But if you're an avid Penny Arcade hater, you need to read more into it. You have to find the bad in this, because there's no way there could be a shred of good in it.

I can't go anywhere on the internet without seeing at least one person posting what their new years resolution is. I don't see this being any different. He wants to strive to be a better person in 2014... but people are like "BULLSHIT, EVIL PEOPLE CAN'T CHANGE. Why bother even posting this. Probably just a PR stunt."

Wait, this really is just about dick wolves? Did he actually genetically engineer a wolf with dicks for legs in the meantime because that was 2010? Does this issue just keep getting brought up causing Mike to insult people every other month? Is that what this is really about? If so what did he say?

It's more about some stuff he said on Twitter when he was backed into a corner about a few ignorant comments he made (note: I mean "IGNORANT" and not "RUDE"). He really didn't understand the social complexities of transgendered men and women and when he was confronted about it, he made even worse comments (because "humor" is his outlet when stressed).

I think he's mostly apologizing about that. Probably some stuff about dickwolves too. I can't think of anything else but I'm sure there is plenty more. I find that people that dislike Mike follow him more closely than his fans do, so they're probably more in tune with everything Mike has done wrong more than I am.
 
The most ironic part of their insults, is that they have basically turned into exactly what he described in his post. Social justice warriors that feel they have been victimized or bullied in some way, and so they manifest this very aggressive, no tolerance, witch hunt style of rebuttal.

And just like how he did, they are basically the bullies now. It's kind of hilarious how similar they are to the person they hate.

Its a vicious cycle that accomplishes nothing

You want to make a world a better place? Get to know the people with differing views and engage in positive conversations in an attempt to understand the cause of the ignorance and insensitivity.

Then encourage them to do the same. Sounds easy right? It isn't and nothing of value was ever accomplished by taking the easy route.
 

besada

Banned
... what? Why would you even DO these mental gymnastics?

Because there's a certain kind of person for whom no motive is ever clear, no act is ever anything but a subterfuge to confuse others, and nothing is as it seems.

Frankly, it says more about how their mind works than it does their subject's. Machiavellian sociopaths think everyone else thinks and acts the way they do.
 
What are these homophobic or transphobic things Gabe has said? All I know was of how he reacted during the dickwolves fiasco.

He made some statements that showed a very poor understanding of some of the issues that transgender individuals deal with. None of them were actually hateful in nature, but they contained some leading arguments/phrases that transgender individuals are used to hearing as a prelude to outright hate-speech.

I believe the statement people most took exception to was something roughly along the lines of, "I have no problem with people wanting to dress however they want or be called whatever they want, but people are born with a biological gender and that doesn't change, that's just what they are."

Again, nothing outrageous, considering he is 36 and grew up in a rural environment. It's hardly even up to, "Crazy stuff your grandpa says without realizing how bad it sounds." It's fairly common insensitivity that usually comes about due to not actually having a real frame of reference for the issue.
 

ratzombie

Neo Member
At least he now admits to being a bully, rather than like in the past when he would act as if the things he said was not intended to be antagonistic.
 

rjcc

Member
eh, people are going to harp on the me me me, but the apology part of it was, imo, enough of an apology to accept it.

words are whatever though, we'll see what his actions are going forward.
 
Let me get this straight...
He moved often, had difficulty to make friend, started getting in the arguments and ALWAYS was on the receiving end... Now i should feel sorry for him because of that and justify his bullying?
I can understand getting into a fight because you don't want to stand-down, did the same myself for similar reason (changed town, came to school with broken arm, had to do rehabilitation 4 days a week for almost 6 years to recover fully the arm...) and yet..
I'm not a douche with people having different opinion..
W/e..
PA comics were good, the authors' attitude on the other hand...

And really if one doesn't want to be on the receiving end, one has simply to train.. But hey, complaining and self-victimizing is way easier...

?

No he is just giving a personal story and reflecting on whether it contributed to his poor judgement

And you are meant to take the letter however you want to take it. its not meant as a justification and no where does he make that claim.

Honestly none of the matters anyway unless you deal with him on a personal level.

The main takeaway should be that... He is aware of the issue and he has removed himself as the face of PAX
 
It's like every other week someone from PA is apologising for something or other.

It's mostly just Mike, or people apologizing for Mike. No apologies were ever issued for the PA Report being total shit. (Though I suppose burning it to the ground is the best apology anyone really could have asked for.)
 
He made some statements that showed a very poor understanding of some of the issues that transgender individuals deal with. None of them were actually hateful in nature, but they contained some leading arguments/phrases that transgender individuals are used to hearing as a prelude to outright hate-speech.

What's the pretext of him making these remarks? A twitter fight? From what I known of Gabe he usually doesn't run his mouth unless someone starts something with him online.
 

JDSN

Banned
This apology can only mean that the dickwolves shirt is coming back to circulation. According to the Gabe cycle.
 

Nzyme32

Member
Everybody needs a first step and doing that publicly on the internet takes a fair amount of courage. A good start
 

Sixfortyfive

He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
None of them were actually hateful in nature
You're being a little too generous. One specific outburst I remember was "If you use the word 'cis' then I probably hate you too." That's almost verbatim.

I mean, taking into context the actual argument he was in, it's not as bad as it sounds, but he really has no one to blame but himself for digging his hole even deeper.
 

Nymphae

Banned
I can't believe I'm reading people shitting on Mike for this. Come on people. He's basically saying "I've been a malicious shithead for the better part of my life and I think it's time to put a stop to that, and am going to try to be a better person going forward."

Fuck him, right? The admission is a great first step and I hope it works out for him.
 

Pie and Beans

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
You're being a little too generous. One specific outburst I remember was "If you use the word 'cis' then I probably hate you too." That's almost verbatim.

I mean, taking into context the actual argument he was in, it's not as bad as it sounds, but he really has no one to blame but himself for digging his hole even deeper.

To be honest, 'cis' has long since ceased to be a neutral invented word for perceived parity wrenched from latin when it became the piss du jour of quick, biting twittered/tumblr'd hate speech from the warrior sects spoiling for a go around. As a word, its well has been in my opinion completely and irrevocably poisoned.

It was always going to be hard sell of a word anyway when the unenlightened would just class it as "normally gendered" anyway while the sudden and alien replacement to them shipped in from a centuries dead language just sounds like a low, negative hiss. Far better language choices for the cause would have been "standard-gender" (stan-gender? lol) and "trans-gender", where standard sounds boring, and not a preferred state if that makes any sense.
 

Sixfortyfive

He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
To be honest, 'cis' has long since ceased to be a neutral invented word for perceived parity wrenched from latin when it became the du jour of quick, biting twittered/tumblr'd hate speech from the warrior sects spoiling for a go around. As a word, its well has been in my opinion completely and irrevocably poisoned.

It was always going to be hard sell of a word anyway when the unenlightened would just class it as "normally gendered" anyway while the sudden and alien replacement to them shipped in from a centuries dead language just sounds like a low, negative hiss. Far better language choices for the cause would have been "standard-gender" (stan-gender? lol) and "trans-gender", where standard sounds boring, and not a preferred state if that makes any sense.
I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying that Mike has typically hung himself over his own words and actions in the past when he could have completely prevented it and at least not picked a fight he really shouldn't have.

His reflective attitude is indeed an appreciated step forward. I could nitpick it as being too self-centered and not apologetic enough to be an "apology," but it's intended as more of a new year's resolution than an apology anyway, so whatever.
 
What's the pretext of him making these remarks? A twitter fight? From what I known of Gabe he usually doesn't run his mouth unless someone starts something with him online.

Kotaku ran an article concerning a game intended to teach female masturbation. The author included a bizarre tangent about how the game was "exclusionary" because it only teaches masturbation to women who have a vagina. I'm not a habitual Kotaku reader, so I honestly can't say if this is in line with their normal standards for journalism and editorial oversight. If perhaps well-meaning, it nonetheless stuck out like a sore thumb for being bizarrely over-reaching and kind of ham-fisted.

Mike was one of many people on twitter who commented on the story with something along the lines of, "I feel pretty comfortable saying that a game for people with vaginas was aimed at women." This was probably intended as sarcasm, but being that it was Mike who made the comment, people zeroed in pretty quick.

From there, it was a combination of twit-fighting at its nadir and Mike being Mike: doubling down, one-upsmanship, and a frantic race to the bottom, all ably facilitated by a character limit that allows you only just enough room to say something profoundly stupid without the necessary qualifiers to make it merely awe-inspiringly stupid. The results have been immortalized across the internet - well, Mike's end of it, at least, amusingly no one seems to have been interested in it as a conversation so much as trying to read his posts sequentially out of context, another thing that makes Twitter such a magnet for hilarious stupidity - and his stubborn refusal to back down dragged the whole thing out into an increasingly embarrassing public spectacle.

(I believe a lot of people were also offended by him saying that he didn't want people to send him tweets containing the term "cis", though in-context that's fairly easy to understand considering his twitter was blasted at the time with people tweeting things like "I hope you die in a tar fire cis-scum". It's one of those sorts of statements that you really have to raise your eyebrow at when people obviously try to run it out of context.)

So, basically a perfect storm of stupidity: Mike at his dumbest, fighting on a topic he was ignorant about and had no business discussing, via a medium that's basically built for making a fool of oneself on, all through the venue of a website that seems to thrive on manufactured controversy. Not actually as big or enduring a controversy as the Dickwolves debacle, but just on the basis of being such a phenomenally ill-advised course of action it remains worthy of special mention.
 

Pie and Beans

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just saying that Mike has typically hung himself over his own words and actions in the past when he could have completely prevented it and at least not picked a fight he really shouldn't have.

His reflective attitude is indeed an appreciated step forward. I could nitpick it as being too self-centered and not apologetic enough to be an "apology," but it's intended as more of a new year's resolution than an apology anyway, so whatever.

Its easy to forget Twitter is an incredibly new and imho, a totally terrible medium of conversation. You have to condense what you need to say into what amounts as a bullet, and you can fire it off from any device within nanoseconds of finishing that thought in your head, sometimes faster than you could even speak it, and be able to do so globally and with a sense of no repercussions whatsoever.

Gabe, a hothead, is an incredibly poor fit with that medium, as is seemingly the majority of the population. Not to run too much defence for the guy because he really is dumb as bricks a lot of the time, but his inbox is inundated with shit specifically aiming to jam his buttons as hard as possible, and we see the fallout.

Why do you think he immediately associated the word "cis" as being used by a group of people he has no desire to communicate with and views as the loony bins? Because sadly as I said, that word became like a goddam n-word in social justice circles with the amount of venom its so frequently spat with and loudest and most prone to spamtacular twitter wars were what was influencing him and his opinions. Enter real life situations like PAX where he can connect with reasoned human beings and have face to face discussions and you see a different human being almost entirely. Which is what made the then further outrage over "designated gay/trans zones" even more distressing because it all became a case of "HANG PENNY ARCADE FOR ANYTHING", as is the bizarre "NOT APOLOGETIC ENOUGH" sentiment buzzing bits of this thread.
 

Sixfortyfive

He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
Which is what made the then further outrage over "designated gay/trans zones" even more distressing because it all became a case of "HANG PENNY ARCADE FOR ANYTHING"
Nah, what made those distressing was supposedly-progressive posters firing shots at PA from a position of complete ignorance on the history of a progressive concept (safe spaces).
 
Nah, what made those distressing was supposedly-progressive posters firing shots at PA from a position of complete ignorance on the history of a progressive concept (safe spaces).

I would love to hear more reasoned opinions on this

My initial reaction was roughly the same since the idea of segregation seems counter intuitive to promoting diversity.

Can someone go over this in more detail?
 

neshcom

Banned
The self reflection and unsolicited acknowledgement is nice, but this sort of admission is like farting in the wind. It's not a response to a specific incident and it will only be effective if there are no more controversies. Its most powerful effect is that nothing happens anymore, otherwise it's a quote that will spring up the next time he runs his mouth.
It really is great that he (finally?) realized this about himself, but he needs to work internally on not needing to rationalize and apologize for his actions in the first place.
 

Sixfortyfive

He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
I would love to hear more reasoned opinions on this

My initial reaction was roughly the same since the idea of segregation seems counter intuitive to promoting diversity.

Can someone go over this in more detail?

It's a bit of an odd duck. Segregation also by default includes an element of "you cannot go here", with the portion providing a place where you can go obviously being a bit of an afterthought intended to defray the overt awfulness of what you're attempting to do.

That's obviously not the case here: the "safe zone" isn't meant to prevent people from going anywhere else, they aren't being barred from going to other parts of the venue or told they must be in attendance. The space exists, and they are free to use it or not at their leisure. Thus, the problem becomes more one of whether or not the existence of that space is also a tacit acknowledgement of the rest of the venue not being a safe place, and whether or not having such a singularly defined area within the venue is causing an unnecessary sense of "otherness". There's no element of exclusion to it, though, so at least segregation is off the table.

I do think it's perhaps unnecessary because the convention in general is not a particularly hostile environment in my experience, but it can still have value regardless as a gesture meant to promote awareness of the issue. I think most people at PAX are generally tolerant, and willing to be even more so if you just remind them that it's something they should be working toward.
 

Hawkian

The Cryptarch's Bane
It's just so ironically sad too.

Basically fully justifies his asshole armor when people still attack him for a very introspective, intimate commitment to be a better person in the new year.
The most ironic part of their insults, is that they have basically turned into exactly what he described in his post. Social justice warriors that feel they have been victimized or bullied in some way, and so they manifest this very aggressive, no tolerance, witch hunt style of rebuttal.

And just like how he did, they are basically the bullies now, and have very limited ability to actually discuss things with people who disagree with them. It's kind of hilarious how similar they are to the person they hate.
Independent or the original or any subsequent controversies, I just watched this unfold before my eyes and had these exact thougts, and it's nice to see them captured already, so thank you Shinta.

It's hard to even adequate describe the sort of weary sadness that hit me reading the reactions of those who would react cynically to this kind of introspective admission. The irony is so thick it's like people are popping up out of central casting to say "no seriously, I'm why people are like this!"

If you cared enough to read what he wrote, you care. If you reacted without reading what he wrote, that's worse. If you take the position that he's "trying to justify being an asshole," "excuse his past behavior," "get us to feel sorry for him" or that "this is a PR stunt for [x] benefit," then regardless of your position versus his on any prior topic, right now, you're the asshole. Even "plenty of people had crappy childhoods and didn't turn into assholes" is a reaction guilty of this irony (we are not comprised solely of how bad the worst things we have done are, nor are Mike's the worst things anyone with a shitty childhood has ever done). It would mean a lot to me if you would try and take a moment and really try to get down to the real reason you reacted that way, on a personal level derived from your past experiences and your view of the world... exactly, and not coincidentally, like Mike has done here.

People who always think the shittiest possible conclusion of others play an active role in forging the origin stories of bullies just like, and far worse than, Mike Krahulik. The instinct to deflect anything being perceived by others in a different way from your own with cynicism, sarcasm, assumption of intent, is exactly what can cause the kneejerk reactions that mirror these approaches and that his comments are often guilty of.

Recognize genuine humility when you see it. Yes, actions speak louder than words- but thoughts don't speak at all. An analysis of yourself like this shows a capacity for honest reflection, self-awareness and maturity. And even when expressed in words like these, they might be shared privately, or kept to oneself, or expressed only to those he thought would react favorably. If nothing else it deserves a moment of respect and thoughtful consideration. This bit in particular:
I know I don’t want to be this angry kid anymore. I take medicine to control my anxiety and depression but there is no pill I can take to stop being a jerk.
can be recognized as a legitimate acceptance of personal responsibility where others might, and he might have once, attempted to pass the blame to any container available.

I hope that he and Penny Arcade both have a great year.
 

Cyrano

Member
Independent or the original or any subsequent controversies, I just watched this unfold before my eyes and had these exact thougts, and it's nice to see them captured already, so thank you Shinta.

It's hard to even adequate describe the sort of weary sadness that hit me reading the reactions of those who would react cynically to this kind of introspective admission. The irony is so thick it's like people are popping up out of central casting to say "no seriously, I'm why people are like this!"

If you cared enough to read what he wrote, you care. If you reacted without reading what he wrote, that's worse. If you take the position that he's "trying to justify being an asshole," "excuse his past behavior," "get us to feel sorry for him" or that "this is a PR stunt for [x] benefit," then regardless of your position versus his on any prior topic, right now, you're the asshole. Even "plenty of people had crappy childhoods and didn't turn into assholes" is a reaction guilty of this irony (we are not comprised solely of how bad the worst things we have done are, nor are Mike's the worst things anyone with a shitty childhood has ever done). It would mean a lot to me if you would try and take a moment and really try to get down to the real reason you reacted that way, on a personal level derived from your past experiences and your view of the world... exactly, and not coincidentally, like Mike has done here.
So is it meta-irony that the people calling Mike an asshole are being called assholes by those who think they're not assholes?
 

Orayn

Member
It's like every other week someone from PA is apologising for something or other.

Well, Mike had a nasty habit of putting his foot in his mouth and making new things to apologize for, which is why it's good that he's owning up to it instead of just carrying on like it's everyone else's fault.
 

Hawkian

The Cryptarch's Bane
So is it meta-irony that the people calling Mike an asshole are being called assholes by those who think they're not assholes?
I guess if that's fun or whatever. I think you maybe missed that both they and Mike are assholes. But I don't want to spoil things if that makes it less ironic or less meta.
 
This is basically what I got from that.

"Sorry I've been an asshole but people were assholes to me as children so it's ok for me to be an asshole as a fully-grown adult."

It gets better as it goes on but I feel like he spends the first two paragraphs painting himself with the most sympathetic brush available.

He's clearly saying he thinks it's not okay now....
 

Cyrano

Member
I guess if that's fun or whatever. I think you maybe missed that both they and Mike are assholes. But I don't want to spoil things if that makes it less ironic or less meta.
So they are assholes for calling Mike, whom you've just admitted is an asshole, an asshole?
 
He's in his mid-30s, justin beiber he ain't, how long do we wait?

You accept that he is a human being like the rest of us that is likely to make many mistakes over the course of his life. The difference being whether he actually learns and deals with them.

But thats not for us to judge since we dont interact with him on a personal level. Which is why its stupid to sit back and demonize someone you barely know
 
Independent or the original or any subsequent controversies, I just watched this unfold before my eyes and had these exact thougts, and it's nice to see them captured already, so thank you Shinta.

It's hard to even adequate describe the sort of weary sadness that hit me reading the reactions of those who would react cynically to this kind of introspective admission. The irony is so thick it's like people are popping up out of central casting to say "no seriously, I'm why people are like this!"

If you cared enough to read what he wrote, you care. If you reacted without reading what he wrote, that's worse. If you take the position that he's "trying to justify being an asshole," "excuse his past behavior," "get us to feel sorry for him" or that "this is a PR stunt for [x] benefit," then regardless of your position versus his on any prior topic, right now, you're the asshole. Even "plenty of people had crappy childhoods and didn't turn into assholes" is a reaction guilty of this irony (we are not comprised solely of how bad the worst things we have done are, nor are Mike's the worst things anyone with a shitty childhood has ever done). It would mean a lot to me if you would try and take a moment and really try to get down to the real reason you reacted that way, on a personal level derived from your past experiences and your view of the world... exactly, and not coincidentally, like Mike has done here.

People who always think the shittiest possible conclusion of others play an active role in forging the origin stories of bullies just like, and far worse than, Mike Krahulik. The instinct to deflect anything being perceived by others in a different way from your own with cynicism, sarcasm, assumption of intent, is exactly what can cause the kneejerk reactions that mirror these approaches and that his comments are often guilty of.

Recognize genuine humility when you see it. Yes, actions speak louder than words- but thoughts don't speak at all. An analysis of yourself like this shows a capacity for honest reflection, self-awareness and maturity. And even when expressed in words like these, they might be shared privately, or kept to oneself, or expressed only to those he thought would react favorably. If nothing else it deserves a moment of respect and thoughtful consideration. This bit in particular:

can be recognized as a legitimate acceptance of personal responsibility where others might, and he might have once, attempted to pass the blame to any container available.

I hope that he and Penny Arcade both have a great year.

Excellent post!
 
It's a bit of an odd duck. Segregation also by default includes an element of "you cannot go here", with the portion providing a place where you can go obviously being a bit of an afterthought intended to defray the overt awfulness of what you're attempting to do.

That's obviously not the case here: the "safe zone" isn't meant to prevent people from going anywhere else, they aren't being barred from going to other parts of the venue or told they must be in attendance. The space exists, and they are free to use it or not at their leisure. Thus, the problem becomes more one of whether or not the existence of that space is also a tacit acknowledgement of the rest of the venue not being a safe place, and whether or not having such a singularly defined area within the venue is causing an unnecessary sense of "otherness". There's no element of exclusion to it, though, so at least segregation is off the table.

I do think it's perhaps unnecessary because the convention in general is not a particularly hostile environment in my experience, but it can still have value regardless as a gesture meant to promote awareness of the issue. I think most people at PAX are generally tolerant, and willing to be even more so if you just remind them that it's something they should be working toward.

Seems like they would have been better off setting it up as a diversity panel with the express purpose of inviting people to have a positive environment for a discussion on the issues, drive awareness, hand out pamplets and show support for minority causes.

I don't think a so called "safe room" is necessary unless PAX has a history of violence and harassment.
 
Seems like they would have been better off setting it up as a diversity panel with the express purpose of inviting people to have a positive environment for a discussion on the issues, drive awareness, hand out pamplets and show support for minority causes.

I don't think a so called "safe room" is necessary unless PAX has a history of violence and harassment.

Probably, and there have been panels on diversity and gender issues in gaming for a few years now. Though, it's worth noting that the vast majority of the people who attend PAX don't actually visit any of the panels, and most probably don't even actually look at the list of the panels at any given point.

That said, I do think at some point you have to accept you've done as much as is feasible to raise awareness and promote tolerance. The majority of people who go through the hall are there for a consumer-facing electronics expo, and aren't particularly concerned with gender issues in gaming. They also have that right. You do what you can for the people who are keen to listen, but try not to cram it down anyone's throat.
 
Probably, and there have been panels on diversity and gender issues in gaming for a few years now. Though, it's worth noting that the vast majority of the people who attend PAX don't actually visit any of the panels, and most probably don't even actually look at the list of the panels at any given point.

That said, I do think at some point you have to accept you've done as much as is feasible to raise awareness and promote tolerance. The majority of people who go through the hall are there for a consumer-facing electronics expo, and aren't particularly concerned with gender issues in gaming. They also have that right. You do what you can for the people who are keen to listen, but try not to cram it down anyone's throat.

I agree with ya
 
He's in his mid-30s, justin beiber he ain't, how long do we wait?
So your mentality is essentially judge him on what you think he's going to do before he does anything. I'm sure that it'll make it way easier for him and make him feel more inclined to change his bad behavior when a bunch of people are calling him an asshole for actually trying to be a better person.

Do you really think that there is an age limit on when a person can change?
 
Not a lot of people get to build something like he and Jerry have, and the former has done plenty to burn a lot of bridges along the way. I really hope he learns something from this at last and tries to improve for himself, first and foremost. Hopefully even other angry folks follow suit.
 

canedaddy

Member
I believe the statement people most took exception to was something roughly along the lines of, "I have no problem with people wanting to dress however they want or be called whatever they want, but people are born with a biological gender and that doesn't change, that's just what they are."
Is that considered a controversial point of view? Pretty sure 99% of people feel this way.
 
Top Bottom