I don't know enough about psychology to speak to this really, but your average Joe Citizen has not obtained enlightenment, nor are they able to enter the Avatar state and shed their emotions like a hoodie. Therefore it is up to everyone else to know that going through life saying whatever pops into mind is likely going to offend someone at some point in time, and, recognizing that, not get all pissed off at the person for being offended.
I hope I'm not coming across as mad at folks for being offended. I just don't see the logic that our society gives the "offended" so much weight to their arguments.
I really am trying not to be snotty right now but: our society maybe shares a value of respecting other people and not wanting to hurt them?
I'd say it's extremely goosey to be professionally offended and constantly demand that you're a sacred cow that can't be the butt of jokes. People like that deserve to be mocked.
I agree, but who are you talking about exactly?
I was referring to the people that get all up in arms over a rape joke and the fools that rush to white knight the crap out of the situation. These fools should be mocked relentlessly as being overly sensitive. And there are groups of people that do nothing but seek out shit to be offended by, those people should also be mocked and hounded.
I bring up that group because a rape joke triggered this mess. If it were about say cartoons and Islam, I'd be all for mocking the hell out of them as well.
Nope, both situations still make you an goosehole who only fuels the fires that you are apparently trying to combat.
What am I trying to combat? I think people that get overly offended and go out looking for reasons to be offended are obnoxious. I find humor in the things that get them offended, I find it extremely amusing when they get offended and freak out. So further offending them amuses me to no end. And really, I don't give a damn about the feelings of somebody that goes out looking for a reason to flip their lid.
I get a great laugh out of it, and they get to engage in their favorite activity of freaking out, it's win win.
Actively trying to upset others is called sadism, and really supports your self-diagnosis. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, the whole point was to do something that they knew upset people's sensitivities, so they decided to illustrate depictions of Mohamed as a terrorist and pedophile. They had the right to do it, but they deserved everything that followed.
The original joke is not told with the intent to offend. But if someone is going to freak out and act like a goose over it, then sure, pile the fuck on them. I don't have to step on eggshells around people just because they are a goose and enjoy freaking out.
You have the right to get offended, but you deserve the mockery that comes after it.
Just like, right now, as I type this, someone is putting an opinion on the internet to satisfy their ego by scribbling on an electronic wall with something less substantial than chalk (that someone being me...or maybe YOU).
These fellows that produce these comics are comedians. Comedians have free reign over every topic. You cannot assume that every visual representation you see will have a content-warning label on it, saying "Hey....if you've been raped...you might not want to see this".
I guess if I'm at the mall, I should walk into Hot Topic and tell them to stop making fun of me because I'm depressed and they're being insensitive.
Grow up, people.
Now, I've got to go eat an abortion sandwiched between two bibles. After I have sex with it.
Offense is an emotion. You have no control over whether something offends you. Accusing someone of "choosing" to be offended is tantamount to calling someone a liar, or at least an exaggerator.
The question of whether or not you are offended is distinct from whether your offense is justified -- that is, whether someone else was in the wrong for their words or actions. In general, though, it is simply polite to refrain from saying things that you have reason to believe that people will be offended by, and that if someone voices their offense to something it is similarly polite to offer a (possibly faint) apology and avoid doing it again in their presence.
People have a right to be as offensive as they please, and the offended have a right to voice their feelings. But just because you have a right doesn't mean you should exercise it; this goes both ways.
Say what? Are you trying to say that you have no control over your emotions? Maybe you don't, but I sure do. You *do* get to choose whether or not something offends you. Whether or not something annoys you. Whether or not something makes you feel happy, sad, angry, offended, etc. All of these are emotions that you control.
In fact, I think one of the greatest secrets in life is that you always have control over your own emotions. It's one of the few things you really do have control over. Once you learn to control your own emotions, you can live a better life. People who suffer for years because they let other people control their emotions... could easily stop suffering if they just understood that they are in control. If someone makes you mad... well you know what? You can choose to not let them make you mad. It's really that simple.
I don't know enough about psychology to speak to this really, but your average Joe Citizen has not obtained enlightenment, nor are they able to enter the Avatar state and shed their emotions like a hoodie. Therefore it is up to everyone else to know that going through life saying whatever pops into mind is likely going to offend someone at some point in time, and, recognizing that, not get all pissed off at the person for being offended.
Honestly, the only thing that really pisses me off about our easily offended culture is the faux-apologies all the celebrities and politicians make. I'd rather they just went about their business and just said fuck it...
But why do you let it piss you off? Why not just shrug and say "screw it"? I couldn't care less about what celebrities and politicians do. It's not really apathy, it's just not letting other people piss you off.
Well, I think in general that's the best thing to do. Just say screw it and move on. However, I think if someone has a platform and uses that platform to exposit things I find offensive, it makes sense to me to try and counter that offense in the best way I can, if only because they have the ability to influence others.
The beauty of this is that most everyone gets offended by something, and it all seems to even out in the end.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Aren't most rape victims set off by intimacy? Are jokes about intimacy kosher?
I think you're verging on being a silly goose here.
Do you understand that there is a set of jokes about rape that will, statistically speaking, make rape victims uncomfortable?
I'm not saying I know exactly where the boundaries of this set are. Clearly jokes about intimacy are not in this set. Perhaps dickwolves are near or even over the boundary. But do you understand that reasonable people can usually tell when a joke will make someone uncomfortable? It's not usually an arcade mystery.
Wait, there have been studies showing what proportion of victims will get offended by what, or did you just misplace your claim of statistical backing?
You're really going to demand a statistic for "rape jokes make a significant number of rape victims uncomfortable"?
No, I'm saying that you're claiming that "jokes about rape [will,] statistically speaking, make rape victims uncomfortable," which implies statistical backing.
You are missing the point, and really just having your own little argument which is, frankly, not the subject of this thread. Please cease and desist.
What's odd is that while plenty of folks describe the criticism of the "raped to sleep by Dickwolves" strip to be an over-reaction or people intentionally getting offended, nobody's pointed out that Gabe and Tycho also tend to freak out and get offended and over-react when their strips are criticized, with the current "response" cartoon being the most recent example.
I'm pretty sure they're just saying that their critics are idiots, rather than stating offense. It's mockery.
So when Penny Arcade makes a comic that's intentionally offensive, readers should could possibly take offense should en masse enter a zen-like state of total emotional apathy.
But when the creators of Penny Arcade read a criticism of their intentionally offensive comic, they should freak out and spend their creative energies mocking that criticism.
Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?
Were you unable to read my post? Do you think that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are offended by every comment they show the stupidity of on their shows? G&T saw something they felt was dumb, and made a strip to mock said stupidity. It just so happens that the idiocy they were mocking in this specific strip was a response against them.
A lot of rape survivors, women, or advocates for rape survivors just read the Penny Arcade comic. They don't do it to get offended, they do it for the same reason as everyone else: because they think it's funny and like the drawings.
I think this comment and nstf's comments are thinking about two different groups. I can't say that this happened specifically with the comic but I can definitely understand where NSTF comes from.
There are two levels to a situation like this.
Level 1 is your average reader/player/viewer gets offended by something. If it's something that is one of societies hot buttons proceed to Level 2. Hot buttons include but aren't limited to: Rape and Discrimination against minorities (Racism, Sexism, etc)
Level 2 a group and/or media outlet gets wind of an offence. Maybe the media outlet alerts the group, maybe the group alerts the media outlet. Suddenly you have a shitstorm of activity with things getting blown out of proportion and arguements (like these ones!) backed by a ton of people who were never originally involved and are coming into things biased, usually towards the emotional side because if you're not sided with them you're a (Racist/Sexist/Evil Bastard/Take your pick).
Those in Level 1 almost NEVER NEVER want Level 2 to happen. There are a few, sure, but most of them want to say their bit and go on with life. So while both parties might be involved (the average reader and the activist group/media coverage) they aren't necessarily affiliated, even if they have the same opinion.
The original joke is not told with the intent to offend. But if someone is going to freak out and act like a goose over it, then sure, pile the fuck on them. I don't have to step on eggshells around people just because they are a goose and enjoy freaking out.
You have the right to get offended, but you deserve the mockery that comes after it.
Of course it's told with the intent to offend. That's the whole point.
There's no reason that comic had to include a rape reference. The only possible reason it was written as a rape reference is to make the situation more offensive.
It's disingenuous at best to assume that artists never intentionally try and provoke and offend, and to shift all of the responsibility to the audience.
What's odd is that while plenty of folks describe the criticism of the "raped to sleep by Dickwolves" strip to be an over-reaction or people intentionally getting offended, nobody's pointed out that Gabe and Tycho also tend to freak out and get offended and over-react when their strips are criticized, with the current "response" cartoon being the most recent example.
I'm pretty sure they're just saying that their critics are idiots, rather than stating offense. It's mockery.
So when Penny Arcade makes a comic that's intentionally offensive, readers should could possibly take offense should en masse enter a zen-like state of total emotional apathy.
But when the creators of Penny Arcade read a criticism of their intentionally offensive comic, they should freak out and spend their creative energies mocking that criticism.
Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?
Were you unable to read my post? Do you think that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are offended by every comment they show the stupidity of on their shows? G&T saw something they felt was dumb, and made a strip to mock said stupidity. It just so happens that the idiocy they were mocking in this specific strip was a response against them.
So when someone reacts to something that offends them with humor, it means they aren't actually offended?
I can see your logic here that statistics makes the case for "Offensive vs. Not Offensive," but it still misses the point--I'm not arguing about censorship. I'm saying people make a choice to be offended, and then make a choice in their actions. It's the idea that "I'm offended" or even "a significant number of people are offended" (who decides what is a significant number?) tends to disregard the fact that no one forced you to choose to be offended.
I don't think anyone's arguing that Mike and Jerry "forced" people to get offended at the dickwolf joke. I certainly don't think they meant to make rape victims uncomfortable.
I don't think deciding what is "significant" is really rocket science. Lots of people have been rape. Explicitly joking about rape will likely make some of these people uncomfortable. I don't know what exact number of such uncomfortable people is necessary for a comedian to avoid a joke.
But like, you wouldn't go into a miscarriage support group and start making dead baby jokes. Not because dead baby jokes should always be off limits, but because much of the audience of these jokes will obviously be made extremely uncomfortable. What if 15% of your audience has had recent miscarriages? Still probably not a good idea.
While I firmly believe that everyone has the right to get just as offended as they want to at whatever they feel like being offended about, my problem is that, unlike other forms of expression, voicing your feeling of offense automatically carries with it the implication that Something Should Be Done.
You don't like Wednesday's comic. Fine. I thought it was funny, but I see where some people wouldn't. The difference lies in that when I say, "Man, that was a funny comic strip" the only expectation of response is that someone will agree, disagree, or be neutral to my statement. If I say, "I am deeply offended by that comic strip" then the implication is that someone has done something wrong to have offended me and some form of restitution should be performed. Nobody is actually obligated to do a damn thing just because someone, or indeed a lot of people or even everyone, is offended by something you did, but where a failure to respond to any other type of opinion-statement is, at worst, considered rude for having ignored the statement itself, not responding to an allegation of offense paints you as being purposefully offensive.
Yes, you have the right to be offended by something and you have the right to tell me or anyone else that I offended you. I just think it's screwed up that our culture essentially demands that I address your offense. If I paint a picture that you think is a piece of shit I am not socially obligated to apologize for your low opinion on the quality of my work. If I paint a picture that you think is a masterpiece I am not obligated to thank you for your praise. But if I paint a picture that you think is offensive and you yell loudly enough about it, I am obligated to address your offense lest our peers believe me to be insensitive to your plight. Assuming I'm not just immediately labeled a bad person for having made the offense in the first place, restitution aside. Sure, sometimes a person really is insensitive and that's why the offense was caused, but since we, as a culture, side with the victim, it doesn't really matter what my intent was once you become offended by my work.
I have no idea what should or could be done about this, if anything.
The problem I have with people taking offense in most cases is that they do not add anything to the discussion. They state their opinion, demand an apology or retribution or whatever, but often do not actually want to discuss the larger issues. In this case for instance the criminal justice system in the US is based centrally around threatening people with rape if they get convicted, it occurs in TV shows and is passively accepted knowledge.
When this kind of thing is brought up explicitly people act offended, but even if they legitimately feel this way it can overshadow debate over the real issues of how to solve these problems. Not talking about it will NOT solve the problems.
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
I'd say it's extremely goosey to be professionally offended and constantly demand that you're a sacred cow that can't be the butt of jokes. People like that deserve to be mocked.
I agree, but who are you talking about exactly?
I was referring to the people that get all up in arms over a rape joke and the fools that rush to white knight the crap out of the situation. These fools should be mocked relentlessly as being overly sensitive. And there are groups of people that do nothing but seek out shit to be offended by, those people should also be mocked and hounded.
I bring up that group because a rape joke triggered this mess. If it were about say cartoons and Islam, I'd be all for mocking the hell out of them as well.
Nope, both situations still make you an goosehole who only fuels the fires that you are apparently trying to combat.
What am I trying to combat? I think people that get overly offended and go out looking for reasons to be offended are obnoxious. I find humor in the things that get them offended, I find it extremely amusing when they get offended and freak out. So further offending them amuses me to no end. And really, I don't give a damn about the feelings of somebody that goes out looking for a reason to flip their lid.
I get a great laugh out of it, and they get to engage in their favorite activity of freaking out, it's win win.
Actively trying to upset others is called sadism, and really supports your self-diagnosis. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, the whole point was to do something that they knew upset people's sensitivities, so they decided to illustrate depictions of Mohamed as a terrorist and pedophile. They had the right to do it, but they deserved everything that followed.
The original joke is not told with the intent to offend. But if someone is going to freak out and act like a goose over it, then sure, pile the fuck on them. I don't have to step on eggshells around people just because they are a goose and enjoy freaking out.
You have the right to get offended, but you deserve the mockery that comes after it.
Actually, that's exactly where the Muhammad cartoons came from. An illustrator found out that Muslims don't like depiction of Muhammad and proceeded to make a set of illustrations designed to distress as many Muslims as possible. It's no different from secretly replacing all the chicken fat in halal establishments with pork fat or grabbing a veil and pulling.
While I firmly believe that everyone has the right to get just as offended as they want to at whatever they feel like being offended about, my problem is that, unlike other forms of expression, voicing your feeling of offense automatically carries with it the implication that Something Should Be Done.
You don't like Wednesday's comic. Fine. I thought it was funny, but I see where some people wouldn't. The difference lies in that when I say, "Man, that was a funny comic strip" the only expectation of response is that someone will agree, disagree, or be neutral to my statement. If I say, "I am deeply offended by that comic strip" then the implication is that someone has done something wrong to have offended me and some form of restitution should be performed. Nobody is actually obligated to do a damn thing just because someone, or indeed a lot of people or even everyone, is offended by something you did, but where a failure to respond to any other type of opinion-statement is, at worst, considered rude for having ignored the statement itself, not responding to an allegation of offense paints you as being purposefully offensive.
Yes, you have the right to be offended by something and you have the right to tell me or anyone else that I offended you. I just think it's screwed up that our culture essentially demands that I address your offense. If I paint a picture that you think is a piece of shit I am not socially obligated to apologize for your low opinion on the quality of my work. If I paint a picture that you think is a masterpiece I am not obligated to thank you for your praise. But if I paint a picture that you think is offensive and you yell loudly enough about it, I am obligated to address your offense lest our peers believe me to be insensitive to your plight. Assuming I'm not just immediately labeled a bad person for having made the offense in the first place, restitution aside. Sure, sometimes a person really is insensitive and that's why the offense was caused, but since we, as a culture, side with the victim, it doesn't really matter what my intent was once you become offended by my work.
I have no idea what should or could be done about this, if anything.
See, I don't get this either. We wouldn't have even known people found this offensive if Mike and Jerry hadn't made such a big deal about how upset they were at the people they upset.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
What's odd is that while plenty of folks describe the criticism of the "raped to sleep by Dickwolves" strip to be an over-reaction or people intentionally getting offended, nobody's pointed out that Gabe and Tycho also tend to freak out and get offended and over-react when their strips are criticized, with the current "response" cartoon being the most recent example.
I'm pretty sure they're just saying that their critics are idiots, rather than stating offense. It's mockery.
So when Penny Arcade makes a comic that's intentionally offensive, readers should could possibly take offense should en masse enter a zen-like state of total emotional apathy.
But when the creators of Penny Arcade read a criticism of their intentionally offensive comic, they should freak out and spend their creative energies mocking that criticism.
Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?
Were you unable to read my post? Do you think that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are offended by every comment they show the stupidity of on their shows? G&T saw something they felt was dumb, and made a strip to mock said stupidity. It just so happens that the idiocy they were mocking in this specific strip was a response against them.
So when someone reacts to something that offends them with humor, it means they aren't actually offended?
Do you have any evidence that they were offended? Are all Penny Arcade jokes a sign that they were offended?
I think it is impossible to talk about this kind of thing at this level of generality. Without a concrete frame of reference, people are just going to talk past each other.
You might be right. This thread is already moving too fast for me to keep up.
I really am trying not to be snotty right now but: our society maybe shares a value of respecting other people and not wanting to hurt them?
Interesting point. That may be my disconnect. I think I agree with that value, but it seems to be too easily take to the absurd; (as has been mentioned) there will always be people who choose to be offended, over incredibly varied things. I think it's logically impossible for our society to respect ALL views and not hurt anyone, but it seems to expect redress for anyone's offense.
a group and/or media outlet gets wind of an offence. Maybe the media outlet alerts the group, maybe the group alerts the media outlet. Suddenly you have a shitstorm of activity with things getting blown out of proportion and arguements (like these ones!) backed by a ton of people who were never originally involved and are coming into things biased, usually towards the emotional side because if you're not sided with them you're a (Racist/Sexist/Evil Bastard/Take your pick).
I like what you're saying here. This is the source of this post.
While I firmly believe that everyone has the right to get just as offended as they want to at whatever they feel like being offended about, my problem is that, unlike other forms of expression, voicing your feeling of offense automatically carries with it the implication that Something Should Be Done.
You don't like Wednesday's comic. Fine. I thought it was funny, but I see where some people wouldn't. The difference lies in that when I say, "Man, that was a funny comic strip" the only expectation of response is that someone will agree, disagree, or be neutral to my statement. If I say, "I am deeply offended by that comic strip" then the implication is that someone has done something wrong to have offended me and some form of restitution should be performed. Nobody is actually obligated to do a damn thing just because someone, or indeed a lot of people or even everyone, is offended by something you did, but where a failure to respond to any other type of opinion-statement is, at worst, considered rude for having ignored the statement itself, not responding to an allegation of offense paints you as being purposefully offensive.
Yes, you have the right to be offended by something and you have the right to tell me or anyone else that I offended you. I just think it's screwed up that our culture essentially demands that I address your offense. If I paint a picture that you think is a piece of shit I am not socially obligated to apologize for your low opinion on the quality of my work. If I paint a picture that you think is a masterpiece I am not obligated to thank you for your praise. But if I paint a picture that you think is offensive and you yell loudly enough about it, I am obligated to address your offense lest our peers believe me to be insensitive to your plight. Assuming I'm not just immediately labeled a bad person for having made the offense in the first place, restitution aside. Sure, sometimes a person really is insensitive and that's why the offense was caused, but since we, as a culture, side with the victim, it doesn't really matter what my intent was once you become offended by my work.
I have no idea what should or could be done about this, if anything.
While I firmly believe that everyone has the right to get just as offended as they want to at whatever they feel like being offended about, my problem is that, unlike other forms of expression, voicing your feeling of offense automatically carries with it the implication that Something Should Be Done.
You don't like Wednesday's comic. Fine. I thought it was funny, but I see where some people wouldn't. The difference lies in that when I say, "Man, that was a funny comic strip" the only expectation of response is that someone will agree, disagree, or be neutral to my statement. If I say, "I am deeply offended by that comic strip" then the implication is that someone has done something wrong to have offended me and some form of restitution should be performed. Nobody is actually obligated to do a damn thing just because someone, or indeed a lot of people or even everyone, is offended by something you did, but where a failure to respond to any other type of opinion-statement is, at worst, considered rude for having ignored the statement itself, not responding to an allegation of offense paints you as being purposefully offensive.
Yes, you have the right to be offended by something and you have the right to tell me or anyone else that I offended you. I just think it's screwed up that our culture essentially demands that I address your offense. If I paint a picture that you think is a piece of shit I am not socially obligated to apologize for your low opinion on the quality of my work. If I paint a picture that you think is a masterpiece I am not obligated to thank you for your praise. But if I paint a picture that you think is offensive and you yell loudly enough about it, I am obligated to address your offense lest our peers believe me to be insensitive to your plight. Assuming I'm not just immediately labeled a bad person for having made the offense in the first place, restitution aside. Sure, sometimes a person really is insensitive and that's why the offense was caused, but since we, as a culture, side with the victim, it doesn't really matter what my intent was once you become offended by my work.
I have no idea what should or could be done about this, if anything.
See, I don't get this either. We wouldn't have even known people found this offensive if Mike and Jerry hadn't made such a big deal about how upset they were at the people they upset.
I didn't read that as Mike and Jerry being upset. I read it as them taking another swipe at the geese that got offended the first time.
While I firmly believe that everyone has the right to get just as offended as they want to at whatever they feel like being offended about, my problem is that, unlike other forms of expression, voicing your feeling of offense automatically carries with it the implication that Something Should Be Done.
You don't like Wednesday's comic. Fine. I thought it was funny, but I see where some people wouldn't. The difference lies in that when I say, "Man, that was a funny comic strip" the only expectation of response is that someone will agree, disagree, or be neutral to my statement. If I say, "I am deeply offended by that comic strip" then the implication is that someone has done something wrong to have offended me and some form of restitution should be performed. Nobody is actually obligated to do a damn thing just because someone, or indeed a lot of people or even everyone, is offended by something you did, but where a failure to respond to any other type of opinion-statement is, at worst, considered rude for having ignored the statement itself, not responding to an allegation of offense paints you as being purposefully offensive.
Yes, you have the right to be offended by something and you have the right to tell me or anyone else that I offended you. I just think it's screwed up that our culture essentially demands that I address your offense. If I paint a picture that you think is a piece of shit I am not socially obligated to apologize for your low opinion on the quality of my work. If I paint a picture that you think is a masterpiece I am not obligated to thank you for your praise. But if I paint a picture that you think is offensive and you yell loudly enough about it, I am obligated to address your offense lest our peers believe me to be insensitive to your plight. Assuming I'm not just immediately labeled a bad person for having made the offense in the first place, restitution aside. Sure, sometimes a person really is insensitive and that's why the offense was caused, but since we, as a culture, side with the victim, it doesn't really matter what my intent was once you become offended by my work.
I have no idea what should or could be done about this, if anything.
See, I don't get this either. We wouldn't have even known people found this offensive if Mike and Jerry hadn't made such a big deal about how upset they were at the people they upset.
Oh, in this case I think they're in the wrong for having brought it back up, but their tendency to publicly air their laundry isn't exactly a secret.
I was speaking in general with this as an example of an item of offense. If, say, I were in an art gallery showing my work and people yelled various comments, my statement above would apply. The internet is the internet and damn near everything anyone says or does on it that's an opinion or related to their opinion is probably wrong, including me.
The problem I have with people taking offense in most cases is that they do not add anything to the discussion. They state their opinion, demand an apology or retribution or whatever, but often do not actually want to discuss the larger issues. In this case for instance the criminal justice system in the US is based centrally around threatening people with rape if they get convicted, it occurs in TV shows and is passively accepted knowledge.
When this kind of thing is brought up explicitly people act offended, but even if they legitimately feel this way it can overshadow debate over the real issues of how to solve these problems. Not talking about it will NOT solve the problems.
Basically, they think that being offended doesn't have to have a basis in reality. How many people has this board mocked for making that same assumption about opinions?
Do you have any evidence that they were offended? Are all Penny Arcade jokes a sign that they were offended?
Since in this context "offended" means "expressing any negative reaction to something", yes, it's pretty obvious they were offended by criticism of their Dickwolves cartoon. If they weren't, they wouldn't have reacted at all.
So, if the feminist blog criticized the Penny Arcade strip through mockery would that not count as them being "offended"?
What makes rape a special case—and here is where I'm flabbergasted that Tycho and Gabe are so confused about this—is that rape is an incredibly common trauma. One in four women have been raped. So while, yes, it's no more "offensive" than jokes about pedophelia or murder, the chances are much higher that if you joke about rape, you are making someone uncomfortable.
I think they were more confused that this particular rape comic was the one that got people offended. It's not like they've never made comics about rape before. As they said, they've created a character whose sole existence is to rape fruit. And don't forget the comic where corporations created a robot for the sole purpose of raping their customers.
Bionic Monkey on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
So, when I see feminists mad at the world, or entire countries threatening death because their particular spiritual value was not shared by another (remember the whole "Muhammad in cartoon" issue a few years back?), it just feels like such a waste of time and energy.
Both of these examples are completely lacking in nuance.
I'm glad you made this thread, because I think the topic of offense is pretty interesting. I agree that in too many cases, people are actively seeking to be offended and leverage said offense into some kind of political weapon. This happens across the political spectrum. There are also subcultures with a tendency to define themselves as victims, and taking offense bolsters this sense of victimhood identity. In general, I think we should avoid getting offended at things. I don't think getting offended serves much useful purpose.
However, I think another way to think about this question, especially with rape, is in terms of sensitivity. There are topics that make people uncomfortable, and they don't have any control over this. For example, joking about the Holocaust is probably going to make a Holocaust survivor uncomfortable. Even if the HC survivor isn't trying to get offended, the joke will remind him or her of trauma. So, you shouldn't make jokes about the Holocaust near Holocaust survivors.
What makes rape a special case—and here is where I'm flabbergasted that Tycho and Gabe are so confused about this—is that rape is an incredibly common trauma. One in four women have been raped. So while, yes, it's no more "offensive" than jokes about pedophelia or murder, the chances are much higher that if you joke about rape, you are making someone uncomfortable.
I would love to see a cite for "one in four." I've heard every variant, from one in four women have been raped to one in four women knows someone who has been raped to one in four men has raped a woman, and never a cite. I would also like to see what proportion of women have been kept in camps where they are raped to sleep every night by mythical creatures.
A study was conducted in the 90s that gave a data point that made everyone go "WHAT THE SHIT?! THATS FUCKING HORRIBLE", and to my knowledge no one since has bothered to follow up to try and trend rape in America so we got stuck with that number.
Marc Maron talked about being shouted at by someone while telling a joke that involved suicide. It turned out that the heckler's brother committed suicide a few weeks earlier. The joke was only tangentially related to suicide.
In the same vein, the offense over dickwolves is mind-numbingly asinine. If you are going to be offended by the mere utterance of a certain term (rape, holocaust, abortion, et cetera) regardless of context, then you have no business seeking pleasure from creative works. I mean, of course those people have a right to be offended. But they are fucking ignorant, un-nuanced, damaged-beyond-repair human beings who have reverted to pavlovian levels of critical thinking. They are to be ignored.
And as to Qingu's idea of 'knowing the audience' and the self-censorship implicit in that statement: I'm far more disgusted by the bland and safe than the offensive. I'd hope most people fall into that camp.
Actively trying to upset others is called sadism, and really supports your self-diagnosis. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, the whole point was to do something that they knew upset people's sensitivities, so they decided to illustrate depictions of Mohamed as a terrorist and pedophile. They had the right to do it, but they deserved everything that followed.
Wait, are you saying that threats of violence are a deserved response to insensitive cartoons?
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Art with intent to offend can be a wonderful, thought-provoking exercise. Similarly, talking about something in order to explore hurt is a great way to kill that hurt.
Neither applies in this situation. A flippant public joke about rape is almost guaranteed to hurt someone -- someone who has done nothing other than be the victim of sexual violence.
Offending religious fundamentalists? Fine, be provocative. Offending rape victims by making lolz about their trauma then getting pissy about it? Are you even fucking human?
Actively trying to upset others is called sadism, and really supports your self-diagnosis. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, the whole point was to do something that they knew upset people's sensitivities, so they decided to illustrate depictions of Mohamed as a terrorist and pedophile. They had the right to do it, but they deserved everything that followed.
Wait, are you saying that threats of violence are a deserved response to insensitive cartoons?
Oh yeah those cartoonists definitely deserved it. It was their fault for drawing Muhammed so sexily and letting him walk down those alleyways by himself.
To be fair, the phrase "raped to sleep by the dickwolves" is incredibly funny. It may offend a few people. But I bet it brought joy to many more people.
And I sincerely doubt that every person that has been raped is going to find this line traumatic.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
The original joke is not told with the intent to offend. But if someone is going to freak out and act like a goose over it, then sure, pile the fuck on them. I don't have to step on eggshells around people just because they are a goose and enjoy freaking out.
You have the right to get offended, but you deserve the mockery that comes after it.
Of course it's told with the intent to offend. That's the whole point.
There's no reason that comic had to include a rape reference. The only possible reason it was written as a rape reference is to make the situation more offensive.
It's disingenuous at best to assume that artists never intentionally try and provoke and offend, and to shift all of the responsibility to the audience.
Or maybe, just maybe, they were trying to mock a video game contrivance and getting a laugh out of an absurd situation. But I guess that's too simple an answer for you, and that assuming guilt makes much more sense.
anonymity on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Actively trying to upset others is called sadism, and really supports your self-diagnosis. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, the whole point was to do something that they knew upset people's sensitivities, so they decided to illustrate depictions of Mohamed as a terrorist and pedophile. They had the right to do it, but they deserved everything that followed.
Wait, are you saying that threats of violence are a deserved response to insensitive cartoons?
Of course not! He's saying...
...
oh wait, it looks like he actually is saying that. o_O
I think they were more confused that this particular rape comic was the one that got people offended. It's not like they've never made comics about rape before. As they said, they've created a character whose sole existence is to rape fruit. And don't forget the comic where corporations created a robot for the sole purpose of raping their customers.
I think those examples are pretty different. Fruit (unlike the slave) is not sentient (and it's called the "fruit fucker" not "fruit raper"); equivocating the two strikes me as pretty ridiculous.
I don't recall any victim actually shown in the corporation robot one either.
I can see how a reasonable person would not be able to predict that many people would be made uncomfortable by dickwolf rape, but the reaction shouldn't be that hard to understand upon reflection, let alone demanding angry mockery.
People need to look at things from a third person perspective. Which I guess is sort of "enlightenment". Like if you see a person get called an offensive word, most people don't get personally offended by it. But if you get called an offensive word, you DO get offended by it. What's the difference? Because it's you? So what? If you look at yourself as a third person, you tend to let a lot more stuff roll off your back.
How you view a third person insult:
"That person called Bob an offensive word. How will he react?"
How most people view a first person insult:
"That person called me an offensive word." REACTION
How you should view a first person insult:
"That person called me an offensive word. How will I react?"
Notice how the third person insult and how you should view your own insults are identical, only swapping out Bob with you.
Instead of being insulted and immediately having an emotional response to it, you should stop and decide what sort of emotional response you actually want to have. You really do get to choose, I promise. :P
Marc Maron talked about being shouted at by someone while telling a joke that involved suicide. It turned out that the heckler's brother committed suicide a few weeks earlier. The joke was only tangentially related to suicide.
In the same vein, the offense over dickwolves is mind-numbingly asinine. If you are going to be offended by the mere utterance of a certain term (rape, holocaust, abortion, et cetera) regardless of context, then you have no business seeking pleasure from creative works. I mean, of course those people have a right to be offended. But they are fucking ignorant, un-nuanced, damaged-beyond-repair human beings who have reverted to pavlovian levels of critical thinking. They are to be ignored.
And as to Qingu's idea of 'knowing the audience' and the self-censorship implicit in that statement: I'm far more disgusted by the bland and safe than the offensive. I'd hope most people fall into that camp.
You have an interesting perspective. Do you know anyone who has been raped?
To be fair, the phrase "raped to sleep by the dickwolves" is incredibly funny. It may offend a few people. But I bet it brought joy to many more people.
And I sincerely doubt that every person that has been raped is going to find this line traumatic.
I also thought it was funny. And I don't think every rape victim will be traumatized, or even most. Just a not-insignificant number.
Art with intent to offend can be a wonderful, thought-provoking exercise. Similarly, talking about something in order to explore hurt is a great way to kill that hurt.
Neither applies in this situation. A flippant public joke about rape is almost guaranteed to hurt someone -- someone who has done nothing other than be the victim of sexual violence.
Offending religious fundamentalists? Fine, be provocative. Offending rape victims by making lolz about their trauma then getting pissy about it? Are you even fucking human?
This is a good post.
Not that I agree with the subject matter but it really shows how this can take effect.
Now, don't think I'm mocking you or anything, I'm serious and just want answers.
What gave you this impression? Why do you think that the joke is 'flippant'? Why do you think it is 'making lolz about their trauma'? Why does this not apply to religious fundamentalists?
What makes rape a special case—and here is where I'm flabbergasted that Tycho and Gabe are so confused about this—is that rape is an incredibly common trauma. One in four women have been raped. So while, yes, it's no more "offensive" than jokes about pedophelia or murder, the chances are much higher that if you joke about rape, you are making someone uncomfortable.
I think they were more confused that this particular rape comic was the one that got people offended. It's not like they've never made comics about rape before. As they said, they've created a character whose sole existence is to rape fruit. And don't forget the comic where corporations created a robot for the sole purpose of raping their customers.
Not everyone who reads a daily webcomic has an encyclopedic knowledge of that webcomic's entire run.
Not to mention that being offended or triggered by a gratuitous rape joke doesn't mean someone automatically has to be offended by other jokes.
The problem I have with people taking offense in most cases is that they do not add anything to the discussion. They state their opinion, demand an apology or retribution or whatever, but often do not actually want to discuss the larger issues. In this case for instance the criminal justice system in the US is based centrally around threatening people with rape if they get convicted, it occurs in TV shows and is passively accepted knowledge.
When this kind of thing is brought up explicitly people act offended, but even if they legitimately feel this way it can overshadow debate over the real issues of how to solve these problems. Not talking about it will NOT solve the problems.
Basically, they think that being offended doesn't have to have a basis in reality. How many people has this board mocked for making that same assumption about opinions?
That is my point, making a public display at your offense at something just because it makes you feel bad without adding to the discussion makes the problem harder to discuss and hurts efforts to reasonably debate solutions. I am not saying people have to control their emotions, but they can choose how to express them, as meaningless outrage or as fuel to find real solutions.
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
People need to look at things from a third person perspective. Which I guess is sort of "enlightenment". Like if you see a person get called an offensive word, most people don't get personally offended by it. But if you get called an offensive word, you DO get offended by it. What's the difference? Because it's you? So what? If you look at yourself as a third person, you tend to let a lot more stuff roll off your back.
How you view a third person insult:
"That person called Bob an offensive word. How will he react?"
How most people view a first person insult:
"That person called me an offensive word." REACTION
How you should view a first person insult:
"That person called me an offensive word. How will I react?"
Notice how the third person insult and how you should view your own insults are identical, only swapping out Bob with you.
Instead of being insulted and immediately having an emotional response to it, you should stop and decide what sort of emotional response you actually want to have. You really do get to choose, I promise. :P
Why do I have to temper my reaction for the sake of the person who offended me? They don't owe me any consideration but suddenly all my reactions have to be done through some sort of Buddha prism?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Actively trying to upset others is called sadism, and really supports your self-diagnosis. In the case of the Muhammad cartoons, the whole point was to do something that they knew upset people's sensitivities, so they decided to illustrate depictions of Mohamed as a terrorist and pedophile. They had the right to do it, but they deserved everything that followed.
Wait, are you saying that threats of violence are a deserved response to insensitive cartoons?
Of course not! He's saying...
...
oh wait, it looks like he actually is saying that. o_O
Actually, that's exactly where the Muhammad cartoons came from. An illustrator found out that Muslims don't like depiction of Muhammad and proceeded to make a set of illustrations designed to distress as many Muslims as possible. It's no different from secretly replacing all the chicken fat in halal establishments with pork fat or grabbing a veil and pulling.
It puts drawing a cartoon in the same category as fraud and assault.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited August 2010
if someone holds the broader view that rape is kind of sniggered at or tacitly condoned, then i don't think it's unreasonable that they might object to instances where they feel that rape is being sniggered at.
i wasn't offended by this comic, but i guess i understand why some people might object to it
The original joke is not told with the intent to offend. But if someone is going to freak out and act like a goose over it, then sure, pile the fuck on them. I don't have to step on eggshells around people just because they are a goose and enjoy freaking out.
You have the right to get offended, but you deserve the mockery that comes after it.
Of course it's told with the intent to offend. That's the whole point.
There's no reason that comic had to include a rape reference. The only possible reason it was written as a rape reference is to make the situation more offensive.
It's disingenuous at best to assume that artists never intentionally try and provoke and offend, and to shift all of the responsibility to the audience.
Or maybe, just maybe, they were trying to mock a video game contrivance and getting a laugh out of an absurd situation. But I guess that's too simple an answer for you, and that assuming guilt makes much more sense.
Yes, please be more condescending, it really helps the conversation flow.
The main joke of the strip, the one mocking the contrivances of MMO gameplay, doesn't require them to make a rape reference. So why did they?
Posts
I really am trying not to be snotty right now but: our society maybe shares a value of respecting other people and not wanting to hurt them?
The original joke is not told with the intent to offend. But if someone is going to freak out and act like a goose over it, then sure, pile the fuck on them. I don't have to step on eggshells around people just because they are a goose and enjoy freaking out.
You have the right to get offended, but you deserve the mockery that comes after it.
Just like, right now, as I type this, someone is putting an opinion on the internet to satisfy their ego by scribbling on an electronic wall with something less substantial than chalk (that someone being me...or maybe YOU).
These fellows that produce these comics are comedians. Comedians have free reign over every topic. You cannot assume that every visual representation you see will have a content-warning label on it, saying "Hey....if you've been raped...you might not want to see this".
I guess if I'm at the mall, I should walk into Hot Topic and tell them to stop making fun of me because I'm depressed and they're being insensitive.
Grow up, people.
Now, I've got to go eat an abortion sandwiched between two bibles. After I have sex with it.
Well, I think in general that's the best thing to do. Just say screw it and move on. However, I think if someone has a platform and uses that platform to exposit things I find offensive, it makes sense to me to try and counter that offense in the best way I can, if only because they have the ability to influence others.
The beauty of this is that most everyone gets offended by something, and it all seems to even out in the end.
You are missing the point, and really just having your own little argument which is, frankly, not the subject of this thread. Please cease and desist.
Were you unable to read my post? Do you think that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are offended by every comment they show the stupidity of on their shows? G&T saw something they felt was dumb, and made a strip to mock said stupidity. It just so happens that the idiocy they were mocking in this specific strip was a response against them.
I think this comment and nstf's comments are thinking about two different groups. I can't say that this happened specifically with the comic but I can definitely understand where NSTF comes from.
There are two levels to a situation like this.
Level 1 is your average reader/player/viewer gets offended by something. If it's something that is one of societies hot buttons proceed to Level 2. Hot buttons include but aren't limited to: Rape and Discrimination against minorities (Racism, Sexism, etc)
Level 2 a group and/or media outlet gets wind of an offence. Maybe the media outlet alerts the group, maybe the group alerts the media outlet. Suddenly you have a shitstorm of activity with things getting blown out of proportion and arguements (like these ones!) backed by a ton of people who were never originally involved and are coming into things biased, usually towards the emotional side because if you're not sided with them you're a (Racist/Sexist/Evil Bastard/Take your pick).
Those in Level 1 almost NEVER NEVER want Level 2 to happen. There are a few, sure, but most of them want to say their bit and go on with life. So while both parties might be involved (the average reader and the activist group/media coverage) they aren't necessarily affiliated, even if they have the same opinion.
Of course it's told with the intent to offend. That's the whole point.
There's no reason that comic had to include a rape reference. The only possible reason it was written as a rape reference is to make the situation more offensive.
It's disingenuous at best to assume that artists never intentionally try and provoke and offend, and to shift all of the responsibility to the audience.
So when someone reacts to something that offends them with humor, it means they aren't actually offended?
I don't think deciding what is "significant" is really rocket science. Lots of people have been rape. Explicitly joking about rape will likely make some of these people uncomfortable. I don't know what exact number of such uncomfortable people is necessary for a comedian to avoid a joke.
But like, you wouldn't go into a miscarriage support group and start making dead baby jokes. Not because dead baby jokes should always be off limits, but because much of the audience of these jokes will obviously be made extremely uncomfortable. What if 15% of your audience has had recent miscarriages? Still probably not a good idea.
You don't like Wednesday's comic. Fine. I thought it was funny, but I see where some people wouldn't. The difference lies in that when I say, "Man, that was a funny comic strip" the only expectation of response is that someone will agree, disagree, or be neutral to my statement. If I say, "I am deeply offended by that comic strip" then the implication is that someone has done something wrong to have offended me and some form of restitution should be performed. Nobody is actually obligated to do a damn thing just because someone, or indeed a lot of people or even everyone, is offended by something you did, but where a failure to respond to any other type of opinion-statement is, at worst, considered rude for having ignored the statement itself, not responding to an allegation of offense paints you as being purposefully offensive.
Yes, you have the right to be offended by something and you have the right to tell me or anyone else that I offended you. I just think it's screwed up that our culture essentially demands that I address your offense. If I paint a picture that you think is a piece of shit I am not socially obligated to apologize for your low opinion on the quality of my work. If I paint a picture that you think is a masterpiece I am not obligated to thank you for your praise. But if I paint a picture that you think is offensive and you yell loudly enough about it, I am obligated to address your offense lest our peers believe me to be insensitive to your plight. Assuming I'm not just immediately labeled a bad person for having made the offense in the first place, restitution aside. Sure, sometimes a person really is insensitive and that's why the offense was caused, but since we, as a culture, side with the victim, it doesn't really matter what my intent was once you become offended by my work.
I have no idea what should or could be done about this, if anything.
When this kind of thing is brought up explicitly people act offended, but even if they legitimately feel this way it can overshadow debate over the real issues of how to solve these problems. Not talking about it will NOT solve the problems.
Actually, that's exactly where the Muhammad cartoons came from. An illustrator found out that Muslims don't like depiction of Muhammad and proceeded to make a set of illustrations designed to distress as many Muslims as possible. It's no different from secretly replacing all the chicken fat in halal establishments with pork fat or grabbing a veil and pulling.
See, I don't get this either. We wouldn't have even known people found this offensive if Mike and Jerry hadn't made such a big deal about how upset they were at the people they upset.
Do you have any evidence that they were offended? Are all Penny Arcade jokes a sign that they were offended?
You might be right. This thread is already moving too fast for me to keep up.
Interesting point. That may be my disconnect. I think I agree with that value, but it seems to be too easily take to the absurd; (as has been mentioned) there will always be people who choose to be offended, over incredibly varied things. I think it's logically impossible for our society to respect ALL views and not hurt anyone, but it seems to expect redress for anyone's offense.
I like what you're saying here. This is the source of this post.
This, too.
I didn't read that as Mike and Jerry being upset. I read it as them taking another swipe at the geese that got offended the first time.
Oh, in this case I think they're in the wrong for having brought it back up, but their tendency to publicly air their laundry isn't exactly a secret.
I was speaking in general with this as an example of an item of offense. If, say, I were in an art gallery showing my work and people yelled various comments, my statement above would apply. The internet is the internet and damn near everything anyone says or does on it that's an opinion or related to their opinion is probably wrong, including me.
Basically, they think that being offended doesn't have to have a basis in reality. How many people has this board mocked for making that same assumption about opinions?
Since in this context "offended" means "expressing any negative reaction to something", yes, it's pretty obvious they were offended by criticism of their Dickwolves cartoon. If they weren't, they wouldn't have reacted at all.
So, if the feminist blog criticized the Penny Arcade strip through mockery would that not count as them being "offended"?
I think they were more confused that this particular rape comic was the one that got people offended. It's not like they've never made comics about rape before. As they said, they've created a character whose sole existence is to rape fruit. And don't forget the comic where corporations created a robot for the sole purpose of raping their customers.
A study was conducted in the 90s that gave a data point that made everyone go "WHAT THE SHIT?! THATS FUCKING HORRIBLE", and to my knowledge no one since has bothered to follow up to try and trend rape in America so we got stuck with that number.
In the same vein, the offense over dickwolves is mind-numbingly asinine. If you are going to be offended by the mere utterance of a certain term (rape, holocaust, abortion, et cetera) regardless of context, then you have no business seeking pleasure from creative works. I mean, of course those people have a right to be offended. But they are fucking ignorant, un-nuanced, damaged-beyond-repair human beings who have reverted to pavlovian levels of critical thinking. They are to be ignored.
And as to Qingu's idea of 'knowing the audience' and the self-censorship implicit in that statement: I'm far more disgusted by the bland and safe than the offensive. I'd hope most people fall into that camp.
Rigorous Scholarship
Neither applies in this situation. A flippant public joke about rape is almost guaranteed to hurt someone -- someone who has done nothing other than be the victim of sexual violence.
Offending religious fundamentalists? Fine, be provocative. Offending rape victims by making lolz about their trauma then getting pissy about it? Are you even fucking human?
Oh yeah those cartoonists definitely deserved it. It was their fault for drawing Muhammed so sexily and letting him walk down those alleyways by himself.
And I sincerely doubt that every person that has been raped is going to find this line traumatic.
Or maybe, just maybe, they were trying to mock a video game contrivance and getting a laugh out of an absurd situation. But I guess that's too simple an answer for you, and that assuming guilt makes much more sense.
Of course not! He's saying...
...
oh wait, it looks like he actually is saying that. o_O
I don't recall any victim actually shown in the corporation robot one either.
I can see how a reasonable person would not be able to predict that many people would be made uncomfortable by dickwolf rape, but the reaction shouldn't be that hard to understand upon reflection, let alone demanding angry mockery.
How you view a third person insult:
"That person called Bob an offensive word. How will he react?"
How most people view a first person insult:
"That person called me an offensive word." REACTION
How you should view a first person insult:
"That person called me an offensive word. How will I react?"
Notice how the third person insult and how you should view your own insults are identical, only swapping out Bob with you.
Instead of being insulted and immediately having an emotional response to it, you should stop and decide what sort of emotional response you actually want to have. You really do get to choose, I promise. :P
This is a good post.
Not that I agree with the subject matter but it really shows how this can take effect.
Now, don't think I'm mocking you or anything, I'm serious and just want answers.
What gave you this impression? Why do you think that the joke is 'flippant'? Why do you think it is 'making lolz about their trauma'? Why does this not apply to religious fundamentalists?
Not everyone who reads a daily webcomic has an encyclopedic knowledge of that webcomic's entire run.
Not to mention that being offended or triggered by a gratuitous rape joke doesn't mean someone automatically has to be offended by other jokes.
That is my point, making a public display at your offense at something just because it makes you feel bad without adding to the discussion makes the problem harder to discuss and hurts efforts to reasonably debate solutions. I am not saying people have to control their emotions, but they can choose how to express them, as meaningless outrage or as fuel to find real solutions.
Why do I have to temper my reaction for the sake of the person who offended me? They don't owe me any consideration but suddenly all my reactions have to be done through some sort of Buddha prism?
This comment is even more troubling:
It puts drawing a cartoon in the same category as fraud and assault.
Rigorous Scholarship
i wasn't offended by this comic, but i guess i understand why some people might object to it
Yes, please be more condescending, it really helps the conversation flow.
The main joke of the strip, the one mocking the contrivances of MMO gameplay, doesn't require them to make a rape reference. So why did they?