I mean, if you're fighting mecha-Hitler I'd posit getting upset over a username is kinda pointless. There must be someplace in the world for people with that sort of humor
Yes
the trash bin of history
Damn.
It's just wierd to me how much this matters to some people. The entire European side of my family save 1 was wiped out in concentration camps, but I can still see a silly name in a silly game and laugh. And yet we throw out this "trash bin of history" rhetoric, mostly because people like me might be offended by it?
I hate to think we're at the point where someone can't play a silly nazi game with a silly over-the-top name without the locals breaking out torches and pitchforks.
Many people aren't as ready to laugh about this topic as you are.
Absolutely true. But some are.
0
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
I mean, if you're fighting mecha-Hitler I'd posit getting upset over a username is kinda pointless. There must be someplace in the world for people with that sort of humor
Yes
the trash bin of history
Damn.
It's just wierd to me how much this matters to some people. The entire European side of my family save 1 was wiped out in concentration camps, but I can still see a silly name in a silly game and laugh. And yet we throw out this "trash bin of history" rhetoric, mostly because people like me might be offended by it?
I hate to think we're at the point where someone can't play a silly nazi game with a silly over-the-top name without the locals breaking out torches and pitchforks.
Many people aren't as ready to laugh about this topic as you are.
Absolutely true. But some are.
You'll make do without seeing "jewkiller" and laughing
I just want to apologize for breaking forum rules. I'm ashamed now of what I did that back then and by sharing what is an embarrassing personal anecdote I was hoping to save others from making the same mistake I did. It wasn't meant to be demeaning towards anyone. I'm sorry.
I keep seeing Hearthstone names that I want to report, but the process is confusing and I think it involves friending the person. I don't ever want to give the impression that I want to be friends with someone named "N-WORDFACTORY"
Is Hearthstone as full of Naga-as-the-N-word is WoW was? The fact Blizzard wouldn't crush those people really annoyed me.
I've never seen it, but I've only ever seen a handful of bad names, I think people don't bother as much with offensive names since most people don't even notice what their opponent is called. It's not like you can meaningfully interact with them anyway.
A cursory look at The Armory makes it look like it isn't a thing anymore. If it is, good on them for doing the right thing even if it took awhile.
0
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
another comic another typo. Brightside at least the supposed donations to childs play or whatever will be plentiful this year if they keep on submitting strips like this.
I have no problem if the forum admin or GM of a game comes out and says I'm banned or I have to change my character name because he/she is personally offended by it. They make the rules, and I respect their authority.
But I take exception when they justify it by saying "Certain people are offended", or worse "Certain people might be offended".
Everything is offensive to someone. Are we going by majority decision here? If X number of people are offended by "Jewkiller", it must be banned? It all seems very subjective and arbitrary.
I have no problem if the forum admin or GM of a game comes out and says I'm banned or I have to change my character name because he/she is personally offended by it. They make the rules, and I respect their authority.
But I take exception when they justify it by saying "Certain people are offended", or worse "Certain people might be offended".
Everything is offensive to someone. Are we going by majority decision here? If X number of people are offended by "Jewkiller", it must be banned? It all seems very subjective and arbitrary.
if you really think the screen-name jewkiller is too subjective and arbitrary to make a definitive ruling on
It's simple: I believe the rules must be consistent. Not just in a game or forum, but pretty much anywhere.
It may well be offensive to you, but have you never seen anything that people describe as offensive and you are just ambivalent towards it? Should something be banned/changed just because some groups find it offensive? Is it so unlikely that people can not be offended by "Jewkiller"? A few posters have expressed this view, right here on this thread.
Looking at things objectively, it seems we either apply the same rules to everyone, in which case either everything is banned or nothing is, or we defer to authorities, and respect their judgement.
You know it's funny, I've never seen anyone say "This profoundly offends me, but I'm not going to object to it because I'm tough." No, it's always other people who have to toughen up and not take offence so easily, and for the ones saying that it's always the end of the fucking world when something hits home for them.
If you want objectivity you won't find it using your own, personal experiences and sensitivities as an absolute measure for what everyone else should feel.
Now I have no idea what that instrument is. You'll have to educate me.
And I did not say that people should change how they feel. I'm saying the rules should be consistent for everyone, regardless of how they feel. If the people who make the rules decide that once someone complains something is offensive it should be banned, so be it. I'm not against that, even if I don't find it offensive.
The rules are the rules, and they should apply to everyone in equal measure. I'm not advocating for more lax rules, not am I saying the rules are overly draconian now. But there is a problem if things that were allowed are banned/changed just because some group decides they don't like it.
This swings both ways. Acting like you're the smartest person in the room and trying to sarcastic doesn't make you right.
If we are going strictly by rules, most online games have a clause that neatly covers the offensive specific example in question (from the comments, not the comic!). For example, here's section 11, rules of conduct, of EA's:
You may violate the Terms of Service if, as determined by EA in its sole discretion, you:
- Post, transmit, promote, or distribute Content that is illegal.
- Harass, threaten, embarrass, spam or do anything else to another player that is unwanted, such as repeatedly sending unwanted messages or making personal attacks or statements about race, sexual orientation, religion, heritage, etc.
- Organize, effectuate or participate in any activity, group, guild that is harmful, abusive, hateful, racially, ethnically, religiously or otherwise offensive, obscene, threatening, bullying, vulgar, sexually explicit, defamatory, infringing, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, encourages conduct that would violate a law or in a reasonable person's view, objectionable and/or inappropriate. Hate speech is not tolerated.
- Use abusive, offensive, or defamatory screen names and/or personas.
The last part is an extension of the previous points, just to be clear (also, there's a LOT more to it). Not that this does any good, of course.
But hey, rules are rules, or something? Maybe they should start enforcing the rules, if that's the stance you want to take. It is right there in writing (and aside from EA, most other online games have something similar).
I mean, the joke is that there are so many offensive names out there that we start to see them in innocuous names, too. Somehow, this is being lost in a defensive protest about rights to have offensive names, which is not what the comic is saying (the comic tacitly endorses reporting!).
Now I have no idea what that instrument is. You'll have to educate me.
And I did not say that people should change how they feel. I'm saying the rules should be consistent for everyone, regardless of how they feel. If the people who make the rules decide that once someone complains something is offensive it should be banned, so be it. I'm not against that, even if I don't find it offensive.
The rules are the rules, and they should apply to everyone in equal measure. I'm not advocating for more lax rules, not am I saying the rules are overly draconian now. But there is a problem if things that were allowed are banned/changed just because some group decides they don't like it.
This swings both ways. Acting like you're the smartest person in the room and trying to sarcastic doesn't make you right.
I am genuinely trying not to misrepresent your position here, but you seem to be saying you'll accept a system of "one complaint and the behaviour is instantly banned forever"
but having an intelligent dialogue about what should and shouldn't be allowed and making rule changes based on that is beyond the pale?
My position is that the rules, once in place, have to be clear, and have to apply to everyone in equal measure.
If, for example, EA decides to enforce their rules, and bans someone because somebody reported their name. It follows that every name can and should be banned if someone reports it. Not to say that this is a great rule, but once its in place no one should be above it.
It doesn't make sense to support a rule when it helps you, and oppose it when it doesn't, does it?
Obviously we can have intelligent dialog. But again, the same question arises. If we decide "jewkiller" is not allowed because someone is offended by it, can we honestly say we are being objective if someone is offended by "Jew Lemon" and we tell them they are being ridiculous?
I have no problem with a system that says this is all at the discretion of the company/authorities/decision-makers, but I do have a problem when they declare certain things offensive to certain groups and simultaneously declare other things to be innocuous, based on the same standard of "someone reported this to be offensive".
Or even "someone might find this to be offensive".
You know, "offensive things are things mods consider to be offensive" is a pretty consistent rule. Someone might change their opinion on what they consider to be offensive as a result of someone else telling them something offends them. It is not complicated. Online communities are generally not democracies.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
0
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
i'll admit I'd never seen a dog whistle before @Pony
The point my darling, is that it is not even a good joke.
Not particularly, but not because it's horribly, inherently offensive as some would argue. It's just juvenile on its face. Though I would also argue that the idea of an actual German soldier with the name of "Jewkiller" is absurd enough to be somewhat humorous to the right crowd.
But if anyone finds himself genuinely offended by this to the point where he feels the need to scold the OP while posturing on some kind of imagined moral high ground, but still continues to read Penny Arcade... well, that's hypocrisy at its finest.
But if anyone finds himself genuinely offended by this to the point where he feels the need to scold the OP while posturing on some kind of imagined moral high ground, but still continues to read Penny Arcade... well, that's hypocrisy at its finest.
No, the fact that people read and post on Penny Arcade does not imply their agreement with everything Gabe and Tycho have ever said.
No, the fact that people read and post on Penny Arcade does not imply their agreement with everything Gabe and Tycho have ever said.
That's true, but that's also not what I said. Read it again.
OK, I could have phrased that more clearly. I'm saying there's no hypocrisy. People disagreed with jwalk's choice of character name, but no one wrote him off as a person worth associating with purely because of it. This is consistent with perhaps disagreeing with things Gabe and Tycho have said in the past but still reading PA and posting on the forums.
OK, I could have phrased that more clearly. I'm saying there's no hypocrisy. People disagreed with jwalk's choice of character name, but no one wrote him off as a person worth associating with purely because of it. This is consistent with perhaps disagreeing with things Gabe and Tycho have said in the past but still reading PA and posting on the forums.
Yeah, that's fine. And maybe I'm reading a touch into things, but I'm seeing a lot of what feels like "I'm better than you because I find no humor in what you did." I mean seriously, asserting that only anti-Semites would find such a joke funny in any context? I don't think I have to read anything into that.
But my point was simply that if you find OP's example truly offensive, Penny Arcade is not a webcomic/websitesite for you. Both Mike and Jerry have made far worse jokes in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future. Maybe hypocrisy isn't the word. Is there a word that describes someone who is actively seeking venues to be offended and loudly complain about said offense?
OK, I could have phrased that more clearly. I'm saying there's no hypocrisy. People disagreed with jwalk's choice of character name, but no one wrote him off as a person worth associating with purely because of it. This is consistent with perhaps disagreeing with things Gabe and Tycho have said in the past but still reading PA and posting on the forums.
Yeah, that's fine. And maybe I'm reading a touch into things, but I'm seeing a lot of what feels like "I'm better than you because I find no humor in what you did." I mean seriously, asserting that only anti-Semites would find such a joke funny in any context? I don't think I have to read anything into that.
But my point was simply that if you find OP's example truly offensive, Penny Arcade is not a webcomic/websitesite for you. Both Mike and Jerry have made far worse jokes in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future. Maybe hypocrisy isn't the word. Is there a word that describes someone who is actively seeking venues to be offended and loudly complain about said offense?
I think your argument doesn't take context into account. A racial slur in a dictionary doesn't bother most people, one on my license plate probably would. People reading Penny Arcade regularly (and I think that safely applies to everyone reading this) know a lot of about Mike and Jerry(at least the Mike and Jerry they choose to be in public). We have over a decade of material. Well enough to make guesses about what their actual feelings are on subjects. So when they use offensive words, or describe an offensive situation, we can have decent reasons to decide they don't mean those words to hurt. An otherwise completely anonymous username in an online game is the opposite of that. The only context you have is: they are playing a game, the username they took, and how they play.
All I'm saying is, I think transgressive humor is fine, but maybe a Wolfenstein username isn't the place for it, and don't blame the person who gets offended because you can't craft a joke and pick your audience well.
I understand that, but the question becomes: What exactly is an innocuous name? What exactly is offensive?
Take the name given in the comic. Is Jew Lemon offensive? Gabe thinks so, even though he personally is not affected by it. Should it be banned?
It is entirely the prerogative of EA, or other companies, to decide to enforce their rules or not. They don't even have to explain themselves.
My point is that all of this is extremely subjective, and they need to just stand up and admit it. There's no problem with that.
If the name had been* JewishLemon it probably would have slipped by mostly unremarked. 'Jew' used as an adjective in my experience is usually part of a slur instead of just a descriptor.
@YougFrey That's fair, context is important. And to be clear, I'm not saying people aren't allowed to take offense. That's silly. But to take so much offense as to feel empowered to assert that such a thing could never be funny is equally silly. Because yes it can. To build off your example, had Mike and Jerry made the joke at this point, many people would have thought it funny because of precedent and knowledge of the creators.
@YougFrey That's fair, context is important. And to be clear, I'm not saying people aren't allowed to take offense. That's silly. But to take so much offense as to feel empowered to assert that such a thing could never be funny is equally silly. Because yes it can. To build off your example, had Mike and Jerry made the joke at this point, many people would have thought it funny because of precedent and knowledge of the creators.
It's a pretty tricky path to navigate where you start guessing what jokes other people would make, but I think the point is that Mike and Jerry simply wouldn't make that joke. Based on the material they've used in the past they probably wouldn't be above making a joke in that region, but you'd better believe there'd be more craft to it than just "this game has nazis, nazis killed jews."
For example, a joke about how distasteful it seems that people casually accept that premise because it's presented to them in the context of a game.
@darleysam Honestly, I can totally see Gabe doing something like that, perhaps to troll others. Tycho, of course, would be disgusted, but only at how uninspired Gabe's efforts are. If you're going to do something, do it right.
It doesn't make sense to support a rule when it helps you, and oppose it when it doesn't, does it?
The most important thing to remember is anybody who wants to be in a position where they get to decide what's offensive and what isn't probably doesn't deserve to be in that position.
To get to an example that has nothing to do with race, I remember once upon a time there was a stupid flash in the pan controversy over someone being forced to change their name on a role playing server in World of Warcraft. I don't even remember what the name was. It wasn't anything most people thought needed changing for an RP server. Just an homage to one fictional work or another, same as most people choose.
What made the whole thing hilariously dramatic was the guy who reported the name stepped forward, because he was really proud of what he'd done. He was defending the integrity of the RP server. And his name was also an homage to a fictional character. But he justified how his name was different, because reasons. And as only internet arguments can, it went on forever with him refusing to see things any way but his own, and everyone else yelling at him, making him dig his heels in further.
Professional internet moderation has always been that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If someone complains, professional moderators will almost always delete what was complained about it. It's the way it's always been for as long as I can remember. I've rarely seen a moderator say "No" to a chronic complainer and I've rarely seen community backlash phase a moderator one iota. Half the time the most vocal chronic complainers manage to become moderators themselves. Their frequent interactions with moderators seems to fast track them to such a position. Because the people who own the board want a pro-active moderator. Nobody looking for a moderator wants a moderator who says "I promise to do next to nothing."
And how else could it possibly work? People don't regularly send in reports that names don't offend them. And the people who aren't offended by anything, like myself, don't go around all day reporting people who report too many things. Don't know how I would even if I could.
Sure, it results in cultures that take offense quickly and loudly getting preferential treatment from moderation. But any system that relies on reports to make a moderators job easier has that as an inevitable consequence. And so far, that's been the best system. Automated systems make an even worse mess of things, and nobody in their right might would expect moderators to review every single post on a website with any appreciable amount of traffic.
Only solution really is to go somewhere smaller with less squeaky wheels.
@darleysam Honestly, I can totally see Gabe doing something like that, perhaps to troll others. Tycho, of course, would be disgusted, but only at how uninspired Gabe's efforts are. If you're going to do something, do it right.
I guess my counter-argument would have to be that the comic this very thread is for has Gabe wanting to report someone for what he perceives as a racial slur.
Posts
Absolutely true. But some are.
You'll make do without seeing "jewkiller" and laughing
Alliedpowerssomeofwhichwouldbejewishkiller would be more accurate
A cursory look at The Armory makes it look like it isn't a thing anymore. If it is, good on them for doing the right thing even if it took awhile.
And it's not even good childish humor. Like, nicknames like "BUTTFARTZ" are childish, but I have no problem with them
...why would you need to specify the body part?
But I take exception when they justify it by saying "Certain people are offended", or worse "Certain people might be offended".
Everything is offensive to someone. Are we going by majority decision here? If X number of people are offended by "Jewkiller", it must be banned? It all seems very subjective and arbitrary.
if you really think the screen-name jewkiller is too subjective and arbitrary to make a definitive ruling on
i
i don't know what the fuck to say to you, really
like gosh
It may well be offensive to you, but have you never seen anything that people describe as offensive and you are just ambivalent towards it? Should something be banned/changed just because some groups find it offensive? Is it so unlikely that people can not be offended by "Jewkiller"? A few posters have expressed this view, right here on this thread.
Looking at things objectively, it seems we either apply the same rules to everyone, in which case either everything is banned or nothing is, or we defer to authorities, and respect their judgement.
"objectivity"
If you want objectivity you won't find it using your own, personal experiences and sensitivities as an absolute measure for what everyone else should feel.
And I did not say that people should change how they feel. I'm saying the rules should be consistent for everyone, regardless of how they feel. If the people who make the rules decide that once someone complains something is offensive it should be banned, so be it. I'm not against that, even if I don't find it offensive.
The rules are the rules, and they should apply to everyone in equal measure. I'm not advocating for more lax rules, not am I saying the rules are overly draconian now. But there is a problem if things that were allowed are banned/changed just because some group decides they don't like it.
This swings both ways. Acting like you're the smartest person in the room and trying to sarcastic doesn't make you right.
But hey, rules are rules, or something? Maybe they should start enforcing the rules, if that's the stance you want to take. It is right there in writing (and aside from EA, most other online games have something similar).
I mean, the joke is that there are so many offensive names out there that we start to see them in innocuous names, too. Somehow, this is being lost in a defensive protest about rights to have offensive names, which is not what the comic is saying (the comic tacitly endorses reporting!).
Take the name given in the comic. Is Jew Lemon offensive? Gabe thinks so, even though he personally is not affected by it. Should it be banned?
It is entirely the prerogative of EA, or other companies, to decide to enforce their rules or not. They don't even have to explain themselves.
My point is that all of this is extremely subjective, and they need to just stand up and admit it. There's no problem with that.
I am genuinely trying not to misrepresent your position here, but you seem to be saying you'll accept a system of "one complaint and the behaviour is instantly banned forever"
but having an intelligent dialogue about what should and shouldn't be allowed and making rule changes based on that is beyond the pale?
If, for example, EA decides to enforce their rules, and bans someone because somebody reported their name. It follows that every name can and should be banned if someone reports it. Not to say that this is a great rule, but once its in place no one should be above it.
It doesn't make sense to support a rule when it helps you, and oppose it when it doesn't, does it?
Obviously we can have intelligent dialog. But again, the same question arises. If we decide "jewkiller" is not allowed because someone is offended by it, can we honestly say we are being objective if someone is offended by "Jew Lemon" and we tell them they are being ridiculous?
I have no problem with a system that says this is all at the discretion of the company/authorities/decision-makers, but I do have a problem when they declare certain things offensive to certain groups and simultaneously declare other things to be innocuous, based on the same standard of "someone reported this to be offensive".
Or even "someone might find this to be offensive".
Not particularly, but not because it's horribly, inherently offensive as some would argue. It's just juvenile on its face. Though I would also argue that the idea of an actual German soldier with the name of "Jewkiller" is absurd enough to be somewhat humorous to the right crowd.
But if anyone finds himself genuinely offended by this to the point where he feels the need to scold the OP while posturing on some kind of imagined moral high ground, but still continues to read Penny Arcade... well, that's hypocrisy at its finest.
No, the fact that people read and post on Penny Arcade does not imply their agreement with everything Gabe and Tycho have ever said.
Yes, because absurdist humor isn't a thing. At all.
That's true, but that's also not what I said. Read it again.
OK, I could have phrased that more clearly. I'm saying there's no hypocrisy. People disagreed with jwalk's choice of character name, but no one wrote him off as a person worth associating with purely because of it. This is consistent with perhaps disagreeing with things Gabe and Tycho have said in the past but still reading PA and posting on the forums.
Yeah, that's fine. And maybe I'm reading a touch into things, but I'm seeing a lot of what feels like "I'm better than you because I find no humor in what you did." I mean seriously, asserting that only anti-Semites would find such a joke funny in any context? I don't think I have to read anything into that.
But my point was simply that if you find OP's example truly offensive, Penny Arcade is not a webcomic/websitesite for you. Both Mike and Jerry have made far worse jokes in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future. Maybe hypocrisy isn't the word. Is there a word that describes someone who is actively seeking venues to be offended and loudly complain about said offense?
All I'm saying is, I think transgressive humor is fine, but maybe a Wolfenstein username isn't the place for it, and don't blame the person who gets offended because you can't craft a joke and pick your audience well.
*Had been mistaken to be.
It's a pretty tricky path to navigate where you start guessing what jokes other people would make, but I think the point is that Mike and Jerry simply wouldn't make that joke. Based on the material they've used in the past they probably wouldn't be above making a joke in that region, but you'd better believe there'd be more craft to it than just "this game has nazis, nazis killed jews."
For example, a joke about how distasteful it seems that people casually accept that premise because it's presented to them in the context of a game.
[EDIT] - As my friends have pointed out, this shouldn't be offensive due to me being both Jewish and vaguely lemon-shaped.
The most important thing to remember is anybody who wants to be in a position where they get to decide what's offensive and what isn't probably doesn't deserve to be in that position.
To get to an example that has nothing to do with race, I remember once upon a time there was a stupid flash in the pan controversy over someone being forced to change their name on a role playing server in World of Warcraft. I don't even remember what the name was. It wasn't anything most people thought needed changing for an RP server. Just an homage to one fictional work or another, same as most people choose.
What made the whole thing hilariously dramatic was the guy who reported the name stepped forward, because he was really proud of what he'd done. He was defending the integrity of the RP server. And his name was also an homage to a fictional character. But he justified how his name was different, because reasons. And as only internet arguments can, it went on forever with him refusing to see things any way but his own, and everyone else yelling at him, making him dig his heels in further.
Professional internet moderation has always been that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If someone complains, professional moderators will almost always delete what was complained about it. It's the way it's always been for as long as I can remember. I've rarely seen a moderator say "No" to a chronic complainer and I've rarely seen community backlash phase a moderator one iota. Half the time the most vocal chronic complainers manage to become moderators themselves. Their frequent interactions with moderators seems to fast track them to such a position. Because the people who own the board want a pro-active moderator. Nobody looking for a moderator wants a moderator who says "I promise to do next to nothing."
And how else could it possibly work? People don't regularly send in reports that names don't offend them. And the people who aren't offended by anything, like myself, don't go around all day reporting people who report too many things. Don't know how I would even if I could.
Sure, it results in cultures that take offense quickly and loudly getting preferential treatment from moderation. But any system that relies on reports to make a moderators job easier has that as an inevitable consequence. And so far, that's been the best system. Automated systems make an even worse mess of things, and nobody in their right might would expect moderators to review every single post on a website with any appreciable amount of traffic.
Only solution really is to go somewhere smaller with less squeaky wheels.
I guess my counter-argument would have to be that the comic this very thread is for has Gabe wanting to report someone for what he perceives as a racial slur.