Penny Arcade reopens the "dickwolves" controversy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really?

They couldn't just say "I'm sorry we offended people even though that wasn't our intent. We're not perfect, but we have heard and understood the complaints and will try to be better with respect to this issue in the future."

Seems pretty fucking simple to me.
No, because the people offended by that should just stop reading PA. With all the jokes they made, some with bestiality and pedophilia involved, one should be enable to admit at that point that PA humor is not for him/her. They shouldn't apologize for the type of humor they have been doing for years.

Even moreso when people offended by it totally misunderstood or interpreted the joke in the wrong way.
 
Really?

They couldn't just say "I'm sorry we offended people even though that wasn't our intent. We're not perfect, but we have heard and understood the complaints and will try to be better with respect to this issue in the future."

Seems pretty fucking simple to me.
Except if they don't understand the complaints -- if they find them ridiculous in the context of the strip -- then they won't try to be better in future. This is the actual case. It's not that they didn't listen to people complaining, it's that they disagreed with them.
 

Lambtron

Unconfirmed Member
Penny Arcade doubling down on the joke and lampooning the offended is really just a more visually absurd and uncouth version of the always lovely Mr Fry's viewpoint:
I think the moronic doubling down is a lot like this image you posted, but I don't think it's for the same reason you are saying that. This image gets thrown around all the time on the internet when people are discussing their offense to things. It's almost always posted by someone who has a hell of a lot more privilege than the one who is offended. And I mean, of course it is. Part of having privilege is having a whole lot less things in your life that are going to offend you. Gabe's a straight white dude with a ton of work who has one of the greatest jobs in the world. Life pretty much rules for that dude.

How are you going to offend him? So it's pretty easy for him to say "fuck you" in so many words to people who are offended.
 
Mike should have known better than to direct his PA minions to leave comments on the articles criticizing the comic (if he did actually do that). Which is not to say he's responsible for the behavior of every person who visits PA. But the inevitability of stupid internet death threats and the seeking out and posting of personal information, etc., is sadly commonplace, especially when the anonymous mob feels it is on the right side of an argument. That's potentially bad PR and is better off avoided, from a pragmatic viewpoint.

I agree PA made a mistake when pulling the merch, though. Concessions tend to make the "outraged" stick around and get louder, while ignoring demands generally moves them on to the next "controversy" where they might get more traction and exposure for their cause. (Or they burn themselves out in insular, echo chamber discussion communities.)

Mike's an idiot. Rape jokes, no matter what the context, aren't funny, and is a sign of an extremely lazy writer. (In my opinion, of course.)
Anything at all can be the subject of a joke. That not all people find a particular joke funny is not surprising. That is the very nature of humor.

Mike's not an idiot. You being offended by or mad at him doesn't make him stupid. Grow up.
 
Really?

They couldn't just say "I'm sorry we offended people even though that wasn't our intent. We're not perfect, but we have heard and understood the complaints and will try to be better with respect to this issue in the future."

Seems pretty fucking simple to me.

Really. These people are bullies who want to control the content of the website and actually accused PA of some pretty horrible things. So yes, really, fuck these people. Not only they don't deserve an apology but I'd argue that they deserve all the mocking they got and more.
 

LAUGHTREY

Modesty becomes a woman
Really?

They couldn't just say "I'm sorry we offended people even though that wasn't our intent. We're not perfect, but we have heard and understood the complaints and will try to be better with respect to this issue in the future."

Seems pretty fucking simple to me.
"To all fans level-headed enough to know the difference between rape jokes and advocating rape; we will now be changing our comic in a way that we will probably lose a large number of you. Apologies."

Until the first amendment is revoked, they can make every comic about rapist NPCs in MMOs if they wanted.

You're not saying what they should do as if they actually broke a rule or something, you're saying what they should do to appease one tiny group of people and alienate another huge one. Smart business strategy.
 
something something something far-fetched conclusion.
Good argument. Read up on rape culture or the many provided links with explanations about how PA contributes to rape culture with the way they've been reacting to the objections.

Its at that point what you're proposing is to end all comedy, shut down the internet, and have people live in soundless, wordless bubbles really.

I'm not entirely sure on the ACTUAL number of rape survivors that read the dickwolves comic and had truly terrible emotional reactions, but then thats impossible to prove anyway unless I was omnipotent or had Big Brother/1984 access to the entire worlds rooms with PA reading devices. Therein sort of lies the problem. These hypothetical people that were so greatly affected by a comic already known for violence and swearing and generally non-PC subject matter are like some kind of philosophers stone or golden fleece. Who cares if they do genuinely exist, of we go to war in their name! Then somehow that whiteknighting army like angry waves of an ocean made of screaming outraged bodies began crashing down on the PA beachheads and surprise surprise things got heated!

I do still love Gabe's reply to "how does it feel to support rape culture?" and that seemingly thousands of people couldnt turn their sarcasm detectors on.
False conclusion. It isn't censorship to criticize someone for the expressions and statements they make. Freedom of speech does entail freedom from criticism! (I feel this is the 12345th time I've had to stress this whenever anything is challenged)

Basically, you don't get to make jokes about people who are already discriminated or traumatized without hearing a reaction to such jokes

I mean, it's so fucking ridiculous to think of all the privileged people who feel like they want and need to kick down on other groups and when the privileged get told to take other groups feelings into account, they act all like "why am I not allowed to denigrate rape victims without repercussions? Why can't I make jokes about homosexuals and Black people and poor people and women, and so on? You're infringing on my right to freedom of speech! Political correctness!" And so on. It's fucking abhorrent and selfish thinking.
 
Look, Penny Arcade has a problem. On the one hand, they want the freedom to write absolutely anything they want in their comics without being criticized for it and anyone who doesn't like the comic can fuck right off. On the other, they want PAX to be a welcoming and inclusive place especially for sub-groups that have previously not been well-represented in the gaming community such as women, hence the banning of booth babes, and they don't want anyone to feel threatened there or made to feel uncomfortable.

There isn't inherently wrong with either of these goals. On a general level, I think most people would support both. And if they were capable of separating PA the comic from PAX the convention entirely, this probably wouldn't have been as big a deal. But unfortunately, there is overlap between them, and Mike chose to respond to a controversy in one of them with his mindset from the other (probably because he doesn't really have any other way of thinking). The comic received criticism on a handful of feminist blogs but no more. That was it. But rather than attempt to engage them honestly or even just ignore them (everyone saying feminists should simply not read Penny Arcade if they're offended by it is displaying a staggering lack of self-awareness), he chose to antagonize and mock them and his fanbase took up the cause. If you're going to respond the way Mike did to some bloggers criticizing your work, you don't get to tell anyone else to grow a thicker skin.

But even that wasn't enough, he had to make the shirt and then sell it, and then encourage people to wear it to PAX and brag about him wearing his own. Let's be clear about what this signified: It was a blatant "fuck you" to all of the women and actual sexual assault victims who had expressed feelings of discomfort about rape-related humor. No, it was not a banner of free speech or brave and noble weapon to wield against the scourge of censorship; if you have been told explicitly and in no uncertain terms by a group of people that "This joke makes me uncomfortable and here is why" and you proceed to make a shirt embodying exactly that joke then there are only two possible conclusions: 1) You have the short-term memory of a goldfish, or 2) You are deliberately intending to make those people uncomfortable. You have found their weak point and you intend to exploit it. You cannot claim ignorance or naivete as an excuse; you have been informed of how these people feel and you are using that knowledge to your advantage.

And hey, PAX is their convention. They have the right to do that. They have the right to flagrantly disregard the comments of actual women who expressed concern about how it would make them feel to go to the convention surrounded by people literally wearing rape joke T-shirts. They have the right to say that the convention will be just like the comic, a free-for-all for rape-related humor and anyone who doesn't like it can fuck right off, just like they should with the comic. They absolutely have every right to run PAX with the same mindset that they write their comic.

But then they don't get to claim that PAX is inclusive and everyone is welcome. They don't get to say that they want to make sure women are not made to feel uncomfortable the same way they often are at other conventions. They don't get to say that they care about PAX being better than other conventions about this. The dirty little secret that they never realized is that free speech and making people feel welcome are both perfectly noble ideals that are in conflict with one another and if you choose to side with the former in every possible circumstance, even if it means antagonizing rape victims, even if it means alienating women, even if it means going against your own stated goals, then you're not a martyr for free speech. You're just an asshole.
 
First of all, I removed the obnoxious Fry image. Secondly, it should be noted perhaps that doubling down isn't a good strategy. Obviously, someone taking offense to something you've said does not automatically mean that you are in the wrong. However, I don't understand why anyone would think that perhaps trying to exercise empathy first before just sticking to one's guns isn't the better strategy. Ultimately -- after a good night's sleep and some inner contemplation over your favorite cocktail (or whatever you drink to relax) -- you might conclude that you are still right on this one. But I would argue that it's still a better move to at least pretend that you understand where people are coming from and calmly explain the disconnect as opposed to just arrogantly doubling down.
Not necessarily. You don't actually have to respect a critic's opinion and pretending you do when you don't only waters down your integrity. Mockery was the best recourse here because some opinions simply deserve ridicule and scorn. You have to go out of your way to be offended by the joke and you should be mocked and ridiculed for going so far out of your way to say "My heavily-searched-for offense trumps all other opinions. Appease me." The professionally offended should not be appeased. No one's rights were trampled by this joke, nor the response. Was the response dismissive? Hell. Yes. Rightfully so. No threat of violence was made by the joke, rape was tangential to it, and the implied takeaway was "game mechanics that present you as a hero and present liberation from slavery and likely rape as a minor quest" are bit ridiculous.
 
Really?

They couldn't just say "I'm sorry we offended people even though that wasn't our intent. We're not perfect, but we have heard and understood the complaints and will try to be better with respect to this issue in the future."

Seems pretty fucking simple to me.
That's part of my point. That's a non-apology, that's what you say when you're not sorry.

See the difference:

"I'm sorry for the Dickwolves comic, it was offensive."

vs.

"I'm sorry you were offended by the Dickwolves comic."

Yeah, they probably could have gone with the non-apology but I'm sure some people would have seen through it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology
 
"To all fans level-headed enough to know the difference between rape jokes and advocating rape; we will now be changing our comic in a way that we will probably lose a large number of you. Apologies."

Until the first amendment is revoked, they can make every comic about rapist NPCs in MMOs if they wanted.

You're not saying what they should do as if they actually broke a rule or something, you're saying what they should do to appease one tiny group of people and alienate another huge one. Smart business strategy.
Another huge group? Rape supporters?

I mean, how is a simple apology going to hurt their business at all? I don't think it would alienate a sizable portion of their fanbase.
 
Good argument. Read up on rape culture or the many provided links with explanations about how PA contributes to rape culture with the way they've been reacting to the objections.
From wikipedia, as rape culture doesn't seem to appear in a dictionary online

Rape culture is a concept which links rape and sexual violence to the culture of a society,[1] and in which prevalent attitudes and practices normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape.[2]
Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing rape. Rape culture has been used to model behavior within social groups, including prison systems and conflict areas where war rape is used as psychological warfare. Entire countries have also been alleged to be rape cultures.[3][4][5][6][7]
Although the concept of rape culture is used in feminist academia,[8] there is disagreement over what defines a rape culture and to what degree a given society meets the criteria to be considered a rape culture.[3]
Now please, aside from trivializing rape (which is the misunderstanding of most people regarding the strip), how did they exactly promote rape culture? I want quotes that prove this you're saying, if possible.

You'd make it illegal to ORGANIZE a boycott? That's crazy, dude.
By a company that wants another boycotted? yes I would if it can be demonstrated. Now, if you're okay with mcdonalds organizing a boycott to a small burger restaurant from the shadows, for example... okay I guess.
 

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.
False conclusion. It isn't censorship to criticize someone for the expressions and statements they make. Freedom of speech does entail freedom from criticism! (I feel this is the 12345th time I've had to stress this whenever anything is challenged)

Basically, you don't get to make jokes about people who are already discriminated or traumatized without hearing a reaction to such jokes

I mean, it's so fucking ridiculous to think of all the privileged people who feel like they want and need to kick down on other groups and when the privileged get told to take other groups feelings into account, they act all like "why am I not allowed to denigrate rape victims without repercussions? Why can't I make jokes about homosexuals and Black people and poor people and women, and so on? You're infringing on my right to freedom of speech! Political correctness!" And so on. It's fucking abhorrent and selfish thinking.
But they... didn't do that. Thats not actually what they did. And I don't think they ever said you dont get to criticise the strip. I mean its been flat fucking terrible for a year, maybe because theyve lost their nerve because of all this shit. They'd just tell me thats nice, pat me on the head, and keep on. Thats their "privilege" (ugggggghhhhhhh) and thats the end of the matter.

Except it isn't because thats not what the bloodhounds (whose limbs are not erect phalluses) want. They wanted to be told it would never happen again and that they'd changed the way PA would be made forever.
 
Really?

They couldn't just say "I'm sorry we offended people even though that wasn't our intent. We're not perfect, but we have heard and understood the complaints and will try to be better with respect to this issue in the future."

Seems pretty fucking simple to me.
No one is obligated to apologize for something they don't feel is worth apologizing for (unless ordered to by a court or something). I think that is a part of free speech as well.
 
Look, Penny Arcade has a problem. On the one hand, they want the freedom to write absolutely anything they want in their comics without being criticized for it and anyone who doesn't like the comic can fuck right off. On the other, they want PAX to be a welcoming and inclusive place especially for sub-groups that have previously not been well-represented in the gaming community such as women, hence the banning of booth babes, and they don't want anyone to feel threatened there or made to feel uncomfortable.

There isn't inherently wrong with either of these goals. On a general level, I think most people would support both. And if they were capable of separating PA the comic from PAX the convention entirely, this probably wouldn't have been as big a deal. But unfortunately, there is overlap between them, and Mike chose to respond to a controversy in one of them with his mindset from the other (probably because he doesn't really have any other way of thinking). The comic received criticism on a handful of feminist blogs but no more. That was it. But rather than attempt to engage them honestly or even just ignore them (everyone saying feminists should simply not read Penny Arcade if they're offended by it is displaying a staggering lack of self-awareness), he chose to antagonize and mock them and his fanbase took up the cause. If you're going to respond the way Mike did to some bloggers criticizing your work, you don't get to tell anyone else to grow a thicker skin.

But even that wasn't enough, he had to make the shirt and then sell it, and then encourage people to wear it to PAX and brag about him wearing his own. Let's be clear about what this signified: It was a blatant "fuck you" to all of the women and actual sexual assault victims who had expressed feelings of discomfort about rape-related humor. No, it was not a banner of free speech or brave and noble weapon to wield against the scourge of censorship; if you have been told explicitly and in no uncertain terms by a group of people that "This joke makes me uncomfortable and here is why" and you proceed to make a shirt embodying exactly that joke then there are only two possible conclusions: 1) You have the short-term memory of a goldfish, or 2) You are deliberately intending to make those people uncomfortable. You have found their weak point and you intend to exploit it. You cannot claim ignorance or naivete as an excuse; you have been informed of how these people feel and you are using that knowledge to your advantage.

And hey, PAX is their convention. They have the right to do that. They have the right to flagrantly disregard the comments of actual women who expressed concern about how it would make them feel to go to the convention surrounded by people literally wearing rape joke T-shirts. They have the right to say that the convention will be just like the comic, a free-for-all for rape-related humor and anyone who doesn't like it can fuck right off, just like they should with the comic. They absolutely have every right to run PAX with the same mindset that they write their comic.

But then they don't get to claim that PAX is inclusive and everyone is welcome. They don't get to say that they want to make sure women are not made to feel uncomfortable the same way they often are at other conventions. They don't get to say that they care about PAX being better than other conventions about this. The dirty little secret that they never realized is that free speech and making people feel welcome are both perfectly noble ideals that are in conflict with one another and if you choose to side with the former in every possible circumstance, even if it means antagonizing rape victims, even if it means alienating women, even if it means going against your own stated goals, then you're not a martyr for free speech. You're just an asshole.
Excellent post.
 
I wish more people would see that it's OK to think the original joke isn't particularly offensive (I think it's fine) while simultaneously acknowledging that it might make some people uncomfortable and that we should try to show some empathy for those people instead of making comics and t-shirts to mock them.

Many people feel disenfranchised and ostracized because of this incident and I think we could all benefit from trying to see the story from that perspective instead of thinking things like "this doesn't offend me, so what's the big deal?"
Bingo. The original joke was not even a 'rape joke', it was a joke in which rape was mentioned. This got some heat, no doubt, but everything really kicked off due to the guys at PA's reactions to this, and their terrible handling of criticism.

Penny Arcade doubling down on the joke and lampooning the offended is really just a more visually absurd and uncouth version of the always lovely Mr Fry's viewpoint:
If you understood the context of that image macro, you would realise why it is not appropriate to use it here.

Fry was not railing against the concept of offence in abstractia, but the specific usage of it by some on the Christian right to argue against Equal Marriage. Making rape jokes =/= a fundamental human right being denied to a segment of society.

If structured by a lobby and passed as a community response, yes.
Wow. You think boycotts should be banned and yet you're opposed to censorship and all for free speech?

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. Say something dumb? Be prepared to pay for it.
 
Another huge group? Rape supporters?

I mean, how is a simple apology going to hurt their business at all? I don't think it would alienate a sizable portion of their fanbase.
Why they should apologize if they felt they did nothing wrong or going against their own work?

They clearly didn't reacted properly to the criticism and clearly they should have let it go after the first comic response. But I don't see why they should apologize just because some people think they did something wrong when they don't feel that way...
 
Yeah, you know, discriminating people through language and communication is quite real. You don't see how using words and expressions that are regularly employed to marginalize and demean other people might actually hurt and offend the affected people?
They were never making fun of rape. The whole point of the cartoon was to highlight the absurdity of the whole 'rescue 10 villagers' model of games and the meaningless, of narrative by using a horrific example.

You don't see how using the n-word, calling homosexuals fags, or threatening or making light of a severely traumatic experience might negatively affect someone? Or are you that incapable of putting yourself in other human beings' position?
Real people in my life have suffered from rape Lime. I don't think of it lightly, but at the same time I possess the remarkable ability to recognize that the intent of the cartoon was not to make light of it. Feel free to apologise for crossing the line with your usual BS accusations and attempts at broad character assassination though.
 
Wow. You think boycotts should be banned and yet you're opposed to censorship and all for free speech?
I'm starting to understand PA better thanks to responses like this, because clearly my intent was to say that if some bigname company schemes against another one and passes it in a way that it looks like a community response it's not a real boycott, it's unfair competition.
 
Edit: Great post faceless007.

If the PA guys think the criticism levied towards them is entirely off base then they have no obligation to apologize for anything. An apology would be an admission that what they did was wrong, which they absolutely should not do.
Maybe there is indeed nothing to apologize for. I've tried to make that explicitly clear. However, I do think it first merits some introspective contemplation first. Now some have argued that the "What surprised me most about some of the reactions to our Dickwolf joke was not that people were offended. But that this was the comic that offended them." response showed them giving earnest thought to the reaction. And that's perhaps fair -- though it is somewhat dismissive. But let's move on. I think the whole thing becomes exasperated by the fact that -- instead of just letting the whole thing die -- it later turns into a t-shirt wherein the battle lines are again encouraged to be drawn as that whole ordeal is unnecessarily thrown back into the spotlight.

Now, ultimately, maybe they're proud of dickwolves, and they want to have this conversation. But -- without necessarily grabbing my pitchfork and demanding censorship -- I don't think they handled the ordeal well. And it's not the only time they've been in such a situation. Mike's gotten into hot water other times about comments perceived as being transphobic. And in those instances, I have no qualms with saying that he was absolutely in the wrong, and it wasn't just the result of the internet outrage machine in terms of why he caught the ire of the internet.
 
Not spontaneously, but people said they were part of the the rape culture, which by definition involves trivializing, normalizing, and perpetuating a culture where rape is acceptable. Which would mean they are now, by proxy, causing more rape to happen.
I get the jumps they made to get to the comic they made, but they had to make jumps and exaggeration to get there, and doing that when a group of people are upset is, by its nature, going to make them more upset. They could either try to reconcile, ignore the issue, or egg the controversy on. They chose the last option disguised as an insincere version of reconciliation. This is not uncommon, but you have to expect it to upset more people--the people who weren't upset by the initial joke but could empathize with those that were, and don't like seeing them brushed off as crazies. Repeatedly egging the situation on is how it exploded, and that is a choice the PA guys made. They were totally involved in making this as big of an issue as it was, by the ways they chose to respond.
 
I'm starting to understand PA better thanks to responses like this, because clearly my intent was to say that if some bigname company schemes against another one and passes it in a way that it looks like a community response it's not a real boycott, it's unfair competition.
People are confused because they have no idea why you'd even bring up the hypothetical of some big name company organizing a boycott, since it has absolutely no relevancy here.
 
I'm starting to understand PA better thanks to responses like this, because clearly my intent was to say that if some bigname company schemes against another one and passes it in a way that it looks like a community response it's not a real boycott, it's unfair competition.
Passes it? Pass it where? How do you think boycotts work?
 
By a company that wants another boycotted? yes I would if it can be demonstrated. Now, if you're okay with mcdonalds organizing a boycott to a small burger restaurant from the shadows, for example... okay I guess.
That's called refusal to deal and it's already covered by the law as an anti-competitive business practice. What were hypothetically talking about would be driven by objection to Penny Arcade's social views rather than a competing business trying to shut them down.

If a boycott is voluntary, domestic, and not covered by the above laws, there is essentially jack shit you can do to stop it. That's the way it should be, and it's not changing any time soon.
 
Not necessarily. You don't actually have to respect a critic's opinion and pretending you do when you don't only waters down your integrity.
Personally, I think demonstrating a real understanding of what's being argued -- even when you disagree 110% with it -- only helps. Whenever I'm reading an argument of a contentious issue, I generally walk away more impressed with the person that can thoroughly deconstruct the opposition's arguments. And this can only be accomplished when you actually seek to empathize with their position.

Now, dismissive responses that amount to "I'm not going to dignify this bullshit with any serious consideration" have their place. But I think the owners of Penny Arcade -- people that run a convention that seeks to be inclusive -- would probably be better served utilizing more finesse on topics like this.
 
People are confused because they have no idea why you'd even bring up the hypothetical of some big name company organizing a boycott, since it has absolutely no relevancy here.
He made a question, I answered with my reasoning in which boycotting shouldn't be allowed. And if you think it has absolutely no relevance, see people that become targets out of anything they say by a defined profile group.


And to prove something else, jschreier wrote this, you'll all remember:
http://kotaku.com/game-developers-really-need-to-stop-letting-teenage-boy-472724616

I'm glad he apologized for the attack of downplaying the people behind the game due to the artstyle they chose. He had some valid criticism on an overall voluptuous amount of females coming in japanese games/culture, but widely neglected the western games that have them too. He also got easily offended by the dwarfes picture which was intended as a joke (one that we may or may not agree with).

So, was jschreier censored by rabid fans of a game or did he misjudge DC?
 
From wikipedia, as rape culture doesn't seem to appear in a dictionary online



Now please, aside from trivializing rape (which is the misunderstanding of most people regarding the strip), how did they exactly promote rape culture? I want quotes that prove this you're saying if possible.
Writing from my phone, which is a big hassle, so I'll just roughly throw stuff your way, besides the stuff already posted in this thread:

http://ourcatastrophe.tumblr.com/po...er-reviewed-academic-studies-from-pubmed-that

PA, with the way they've handled this situation, have actively, knowingly or not, contributed to legitimizing and normalising rape attitudes by endorsing conceptual rape with their merchandise and going against rape survivors. Hopefully you will see the parallells between the posted articles, the established research on how rape humor and the deployment of rape threats normalize and contribute to people's attitudes to rape, and the behaviour of PA and their community throughout this whole abhorrent ordeal.

And faceless007 summed it up eloquently and to the point:

But rather than attempt to engage them honestly or even just ignore them (everyone saying feminists should simply not read Penny Arcade if they're offended by it is displaying a staggering lack of self-awareness), he chose to antagonize and mock them and his fanbase took up the cause. If you're going to respond the way Mike did to some bloggers criticizing your work, you don't get to tell anyone else to grow a thicker skin.

But even that wasn't enough, he had to make the shirt and then sell it, and then encourage people to wear it to PAX and brag about him wearing his own. Let's be clear about what this signified: It was a blatant "fuck you" to all of the women and actual sexual assault victims who had expressed feelings of discomfort about rape-related humor. No, it was not a banner of free speech or brave and noble weapon to wield against the scourge of censorship; if you have been told explicitly and in no uncertain terms by a group of people that "This joke makes me uncomfortable and here is why" and you proceed to make a shirt embodying exactly that joke then there are only two possible conclusions: 1) You have the short-term memory of a goldfish, or 2) You are deliberately intending to make those people uncomfortable. You have found their weak point and you intend to exploit it. You cannot claim ignorance or naivete as an excuse; you have been informed of how these people feel and you are using that knowledge to your advantage..
But they... didn't do that. Thats not actually what they did. And I don't think they ever said you dont get to criticise the strip. I mean its been flat fucking terrible for a year, maybe because theyve lost their nerve because of all this shit. They'd just tell me thats nice, pat me on the head, and keep on. Thats their "privilege" (ugggggghhhhhhh) and thats the end of the matter.

Except it isn't because thats not what the bloodhounds (whose limbs are not erect phalluses) want. They wanted to be told it would never happen again and that they'd changed the way PA would be made forever.
The reaction to the criticism, not the first comic strip itself. Besides, I was speaking in general with my post to make you understand that the whole "privileged people should be entitled to denigrate others without receiving criticism" is unsympathetic and selfish.
 
remember these are the people who brought you this comic



goddamn they used to be funny.
And the ones that brought you this (edited by fans because of their kickstarter hypocrisy).



There's a lot of controversy in PA itself, but the case we're discussing was completely misguided to exacerbate the implications of the comic.

That's called refusal to deal and it's already covered by the law as an anti-competitive business practice. What were hypothetically talking about would be driven by objection to Penny Arcade's social views rather than a competing business trying to shut them down.

If a boycott is voluntary, domestic, and not covered by the above laws, there is essentially jack shit you can do to stop it. That's the way it should be, and it's not changing any time soon.
Notice that you made a question and I said "if" certain conditions are met it should not be legal. I didn't know it had a name. But just remember how the kony 2012 thing shifted the world against a man most never heard of, and just with a witness talking about him. Kony 2012 wasn't exactly a boycott (in fact, the boycott came after the whole thing looked like a hoax) but in other circumstances it could've been a boycott structured in a similar way, and it would look like something that came from a voluntary community.


I also dislike the general consensus that seems to be that liking the joke is an indicative of lack of empathy. Empathy flows inside. Words are just that, words. And most "empathy" writings are just an attempt at political correctness (which PA lack, lol).
 
He made a question, I answered with my reasoning in which boycotting shouldn't be allowed.
So you knew the context and you were just playing dumb. Good to know.

And to prove something else, jschreier wrote this, you'll all remember:
http://kotaku.com/game-developers-really-need-to-stop-letting-teenage-boy-472724616

I'm glad he apologized for the attack of downplaying the people behind the game due to the artstyle they chose. He had some valid criticism on an overall voluptuous amount of females coming in japanese games/culture, but widely neglected the western games that have them too. He also got easily offended by the dwarfes picture which was intended as a joke (one that we may or may not agree with).

So, was jschreier censored by rabid fans of a game or did he misjudge DC?
No. A bunch of angry fans have no authority and can't censor anything.
 
Penny Arcade doubling down on the joke and lampooning the offended is really just a more visually absurd and uncouth version of the always lovely Mr Fry's viewpoint:
That image or quote was ment for people who have far more privalage than the person they are offended by. Example, someone being offended at a homosexual couple,

That is the only way it works, every other contest makes the user look like an ignorant ass hole, people being offended is why things happen in this world. Hell if people weren't offended I would have a hell of a lot less rights as a minoirty in America than I do now. So do yourself a favor and stop using that quote wrong.
 
They were never making fun of rape. The whole point of the cartoon was to highlight the absurdity of the whole 'rescue 10 villagers' model of games and the meaningless, of narrative by using a horrific example.



Real people in my life have suffered from rape Lime. I don't think of it lightly, but at the same time I possess the remarkable ability to recognize that the intent of the cartoon was not to make light of it. .
If you had bothered to understand that this whole ordeal isn't about the first initial comic strip, you'd see that the series of actions undertaken by PA are not in any way defensible by anyone with a modicum of empathy.

Feel free to apologise for crossing the line with your usual BS accusations and attempts at broad character assassination though
Your arguments and your behaviour in the way you post and how you adamantly oppose certain social issues carry certain implications. Don't faut me for calling you out on such implications, regardless of who you may or may not know.
 
So you knew the context and you were just playing dumb. Good to know.



No. A bunch of angry fans have no authority and can't censor anything.
vut I thought the whole thing is about fans of PA defending Mike and Gabe from justified criticism, using censorship as a wildcard. And I thought that since the group detracting the strip achieved to stop the merchandise t-shirt (to stop the controversy at the time), they achieved some sort of forced censorship.


So you knew the context and you were just playing dumb. Good to know.
If you want to think like that, go ahead.
 
vut I thought the whole thing is about fans of PA defending Mike and Gabe from justified criticism, using censorship as a wildcard. And I thought that since the group detracting the strip achieved to stop the merchandise t-shirt (to stop the controversy at the time), they achieved some sort of forced censorship.
But they weren't forced to censor anything.
 
vut I thought the whole thing is about fans of PA defending Mike and Gabe from justified criticism, using censorship as a wildcard. And I thought that since the group detracting the strip achieved to stop the merchandise t-shirt (to stop the controversy at the time), they achieved some sort of forced censorship.
Censorship, you realise, is an imposition of direct authority from outside forces. Voluntary changes as a result of consumer pressure is not censorship, it's merely a reaction to market forces and social criticism.
 
If you had bothered to understand that this whole ordeal isn't about the first initial comic strip, you'd see that the series of actions undertaken by PA are not in any way defensible by anyone with a modicum of empathy.
What this whole ordeal is about depends on who you're asking and how they want to frame the debate. You may say its about Penny Arcade's unjustly harsh response to criticism. Others may say its about Penny Arcade's sarcastic response to unwarranted and unfounded claims of promoting rape-culture.
 
What this whole ordeal is about depends on who you're asking and how they want to frame the debate. You may say its about Penny Arcade's unjustly harsh response to criticism. Others may say its about Penny Arcade's sarcastic response to unwarranted and unfounded claims of promoting rape-culture.
Printing out a t-shirt to antagonize rape victims is a "sarcastic response"?
 
But they weren't forced to censor anything.
Probably they thought it was the only way it would show a change of mind, thus avoiding the issue from escalating to a point of no return (even if they constantly fail to see that by keeping their mouth shut or reading what they are going to post as a reply 10 times through they'd most likely avoid any issue to escalate).

But they really do not learn from past mistakes. This is the only one that bothers me, because it was unwarranted issue from my point of view. Yes, the response was silly and inadequate, but it shouldn't have reached the point where they have to make an explanation for it.

Censorship, you realise, is an imposition of direct authority from outside forces. Voluntary changes as a result of consumer pressure is not censorship, it's merely a reaction to market forces and social criticism.
Then I was wrong, I guess. that's the thing I was referring to, some consumer pressure that "voluntarily" made them retire a successful product.

Censorship is used for all the attempts against freedom in spain commonly, so that's why I used it.
 
If they don't have the obligation, why the hell did they open their mouths about it to begin with? If they really don't want the controversy, then why go out of their way to be dicks about it?

Sounds to me like you're making an apology and/or an excuse for their behavior! They could've just said "hey, you misunderstood it, you should read it next time, we didn't mean any ill will by it" then shut up about it and moved on with life without bringing it back up. But they went out of their way to do that shit, and they're basking in the infamy.
I said myself that I think they acted like children, so I think you're heavily misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that this is what they should have done before they started acting like children. They should just avoid getting into discussions and petty arguments with every person they displease because honestly they just end up making an ass of themselves in the end. They should just do what they do and let who they offend be offended. If that really bothers people, their revenue will most likely reflect that and they'll be forced to make a change. For now I think they're doing pretty well off, though.
 
If I'm interpreting the original comic correctly, I always thought it was a joke about how games trivialise otherwise serious events like murder and rape in service of their game mechanics. But their reaction has time and time again been nothing short of idiotic. What is there on those shirts that adds to the conversation? What does it say besides "Fuck your opinion"?
 
If you had bothered to understand that this whole ordeal isn't about the first initial comic strip, you'd see that the series of actions undertaken by PA are not in any way defensible by anyone with a modicum of empathy.

Your attitude and your behaviour in the way you post and how you adamantly oppose certain social issues carry certain implications. Don't fault me for calling you out on such implications, regardless of who you may or may not know.
I don't give shit for your excuses Lime, or for your presumptions about my nature. I don't make it my habit to try and second guess people or natures as a rule, I simply look at what's been written and assess the weight of the words accordingly as to whether I agree or disagree with what's been written. In this particular instance I don't find the arguments for, that compelling in truth based off a mix of real life experience, maturity and sense of a broader perceptive.

So yes I would like that apology, and I'd also like you to refrain from implying that I'm some kind of psychopath simply because I'm not sold on your increasingly earnest shtick. It gets quite wearing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.