Support NeoGAF

[Quadraphonic]

Is the issue really that he "spiked the football" with the tee shirt?

Yes. Because it's hypocritical. He was bullied himself and now he often uses his fanbase to do the bullying for him now.

And it's NOT the first or last time this happened.

The insulting transgender people got so bad he had to fucking spend $20k to make up for his ignorance.

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/penny-arcade-creator-apologizes-and-donates-to-trevor-p-544666999

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

This is ridiculous.

Spoiler

I also think it's pretty lame.

 

[SolidChamp]

They're famous for video game comics.

Yeah, I know. I read a few of those as well. I never once laughed, despite my best intentions to do so.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I still don't get why this specific comic inspired so much outrage. Penny Arcade has had jokes about prostitution, rape, bestiality and pedophilia for years now. They've had comics where Gabe is raped or implicating Tycho as a closet zoophile since its inception.

I mean, it's a joke about what happens to the NPCs that get left behind once you finish the quest, with the signature over the top, gross out style that's been in PA basically since day one.

PA's sense of humor has been pretty constant throughout their history, but they've gotten increasingly popular over the years. They were bound to run into problems when some of their more extreme humor hit a nerve with people not accustomed to it. Coupled with the often unpredictable ways things go trivial and otherwise blow up on the internet, and a pretty terrible set of actions in response, it just escalated.

I never found the original comic objectionable, but I did find their response to criticism highly problematic.

 

[scytheavatar]

I still don't get why this specific comic inspired so much outrage. Penny Arcade has had jokes about prostitution, rape, bestiality and pedophilia for years now. They've had comics where Gabe is raped or implicating Tycho as a closet zoophile since its inception.

I mean, it's a joke about what happens to the NPCs that get left behind once you finish the quest, with the signature over the top, gross out style that's been in PA basically since day one.

The specific comic didn't inspire much outrage. PA's response to the criticisms from a tiny group of people however fanned the flames and made a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[nbthedude]

Not all criticism is valid, nor does all criticism warrant opening a dialogue because it has been made. I don't find the criticism of the comic to be particularly valid or worthy of a larger discussion. Perhaps he doesn't either. If that is the case, why would he have to accept criticism and open a dialogue on the subject? What does that achieve, other than to legitimize criticism that he may well find illegitimate? By engaging in some sort of intellectually rigorous debate with an absurd critique, it sometimes does the critique a favor. It's not fun to not have your criticism of something acknowledged and accepted as legitimate, but it doesn't mean it's automatically "asshole" behavior. It well could be, but it's not necessarily so.

Thus...is the issue really that he "spiked the football" with the tee shirt?

EDIT: I admit to not knowing the details about the authors and their actions, nor do I know/care about anything surrounding the expo (as cited in that repeatedly quoted post above), I simply read the comic and enjoy it.

He had three choices:

1) Engage with them.

2) Ignore them.

3) Insult them.

He chose the least noble of the three. Repeatedly.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

In regards to whether or not something should be considered off limits or can ever be funny, I think it's worth considering a few things. Who's making the joke, and who is the audience? More to the point, how talented is the comedian, and what's the general atmosphere/rapport with the audience? And what's the person's reputation with criticism?

Someone up above cited a South Park episode. Perhaps that's a good observation in terms of potential hypocrisy ("where's the outrage for that?"), but I think this can easily be explained by an understanding of what that show is and who creates it. That's not to say that they've earned a pass, but I'd almost argue "what's the point." People know what the show is, and they understand who Matt and Trey are. Even if you are legitimately outraged at something they've done, one probably realizes that any condemnation probably just feeds into the shows rep and will actually prove beneficial.

Not everyone has that kind of cover. And that's not a bad thing. As for another comparison, people often cite the short list of people that can joke about anything. And while those comedians do exist, clearly, not everyone can be Louis CK. And for that matter, I'm sure if you look hard enough, you'll find criticism to the effect that Louis CK is insensitive.

 

[Palette Swap]

Scrutiny and censorship are two different things.

People didn't just voice their disgust, they actually demanded it be removed from the game.

I really didn't see that. The journalist who wrote an opinion piece about it never asked for such a thing and in the thread we had about it on GAF, the only people mentioning censorship were the ones who'd rather avoid a discussion and equated criticism to censorship to defend the game. So honestly, I didn't see what you mention.

In other words, prove "people saw no issue with demanding it be removed from the game", ie that the debate was about removing stuff from the game rather than discussing what's in the game. This sounds like a huge strawman.

 

[Nairume]

Not all criticism is valid, nor does all criticism warrant opening a dialogue because it has been made. I don't find the criticism of the comic to be particularly valid or worthy of a larger discussion. Perhaps he doesn't either. If that is the case, why would he have to accept criticism and open a dialogue on the subject? What does that achieve, other than to legitimize criticism that he may well find illegitimate? By engaging in some sort of intellectually rigorous debate with an absurd critique, it sometimes does the critique a favor. It's not fun to not have your criticism of something acknowledged and accepted as legitimate, but it doesn't mean it's automatically "asshole" behavior. It well could be, but it's not necessarily so.

Thus...is the issue really that he "spiked the football" with the tee shirt?

EDIT: I admit to not knowing the details about the authors and their actions, nor do I know/care about anything surrounding the expo (as cited in that repeatedly quoted post above), I simply read the comic and enjoy it.

Consider this.

Your job is based around satirical humor. That you are in comedy at all means that, at some point, somebody is likely to get offended by something you say. As such, something you do raises the ire of a small group of critics. Though they do not directly ask that you censor your material, they ask that you consider not doing that again and perhaps find alternatives to approaching that sort of material.

Now with all that in mind, which of the following are reasonable reactions?

1) Consider that the joke in question isn't worth isolating a group of people from your humor and take steps to make them not feel unwelcomed to your humor.

2) Acknowledge that people getting offended is a part of being a comedian and shrug it off, going back to working on your humor for those who do find it funny.

3) Publicly antagonize those upset by the material by selling merchandise based on the offending materials and encouraging fans to wear said merchandise in public and specifically to public events where said critics are likely to encounter them.

 

[AppleMIX]

I really didn't see that. The journalist who wrote an opinion piece about it never asked for such a thing and in the thread we had about it on GAF, the only people mentioning censorship were the ones who'd rather avoid a discussion and equated criticism to censorship to defend the game. So honestly, I didn't see what you mention.

Various people on twitter/bloggers demanded it.

You can watch a video on it here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PgI_qKd8eM

 

[Cagey]

Yes. Because it's hypocritical. He was bullied himself and now he often uses his fanbase to do the bullying for him now.

3) Insult them.

He chose the least noble of the three. Repeatedly.

Now with all that in mind, which of the following are reasonable reactions?

3) Publicly antagonize those upset by the material by selling merchandise based on the offending materials and encouraging fans to wear said merchandise in public and specifically to public events where said critics are likely to encounter them.

If the above is the issue, then the source -- rape joke -- is irrelevant. I was under the impression that their use of a rape joke was also an issue for people, and that's what I was writing about.

I don't have an interest in discussing the proper response -- whether for decency's sake, PR's sake, etc. -- that the PA guys should have taken. I think it's undeniable that stoking flames of a non-issue can create an issue, and the response on that front is pretty stupid.

 

[SolidChamp]

Yes. Because it's hypocritical. He was bullied himself and now he often uses his fanbase to do the bullying for him now.

And it's NOT the first or last time this happened.

The insulting transgender people got so bad he had to fucking spend $20k to make up for his ignorance.

http://groupthink.jezebel.com/penny-arcade-creator-apologizes-and-donates-to-trevor-p-544666999

Yeah. As far as assholes go, these hacks are the complete fucking shit-package.

 

[SolidChamp]

If the above is the issue, then the source -- rape joke -- is irrelevant. I was under the impression that their use of a rape joke was also an issue for people, and that's what I was writing about.

I don't have an interest in discussing the proper response -- whether for decency's sake, PR's sake, etc. -- that the PA guys should have taken. I think it's undeniable that stoking flames of a non-issue can create an issue, and the response on that front is pretty stupid.

Boy is that a copout, if I ever saw one.

 

[Quadraphonic]

If the above is the issue, then the source -- rape joke -- is irrelevant. I was under the impression that their use of a rape joke was also an issue for people, and that's what I was writing about.

I don't have an interest in discussing the proper response -- whether for decency's sake, PR's sake, etc. -- that the PA guys should have taken. I think it's undeniable that stoking flames of a non-issue can create an issue, and the response on that front is pretty stupid.

He's picking on rape survivors. That's as low as it gets.

Specifically. He set out to insult people who have been raped. Not even a rape joke at that point, he specifically wanted to profit off of AND insult and hurt people who have been raped.

 

[Arkage]

In regards to whether or not something should be considered off limits or can ever be funny, I think it's worth considering a few things. Who's making the joke, and who is the audience? More to the point, how talented is the comedian, and what's the general atmosphere/rapport with the audience? And what's the person's reputation with criticism?

Someone up above cited a South Park episode. Perhaps that's a good observation in terms of potential hypocrisy ("where's the outrage for that?"), but I think this can easily be explained by an understanding of what that show is and who creates it. That's not to say that they've earned a pass, but I'd almost argue "what's the point." People know what the show is, and they understand who Matt and Trey are. Even if you are legitimately outraged at something they've done, one probably realizes that any condemnation probably just feeds into the shows rep and will actually prove beneficial.

Not everyone has that kind of cover. And that's not a bad thing. As for another comparison, people often cite the short list of people that can joke about anything. And while those comedians do exist, clearly, not everyone can be Louis CK. And for that matter, I'm sure if you look hard enough, you'll find criticism to the effect that Louis CK is insensitive.

I think a lot of it boils down to the relationship between the comic and PAX, like faceless007 pointed out. Speakers pulling out started a larger dialogue that was otherwise just scattered twitter/message board arguments. If PA were simply a webcomic and nothing more I doubt much of this would've stirred up, but when PA is attempting to become a legitimate, positive cultural force through PAX then it places expectations upon itself, and the comic, whether it wants them or not. CK and SP don't have these constraints because, in the end, all they represent is a cartoon and stand-up show.

 

[Surface of Me]

He's picking on rape survivors. That's as low as it gets.

Specifically. He set out to insult people who have been raped. Not even a rape joke at that point, he specifically wanted to profit off of AND insult and hurt people who have been raped.

You assume the only people offended by the joke have been raped, I really doubt this is the case. Nice strawman.

 

[Cagey]

Boy is that a copout, if I ever saw one.

Why is my lack of interest in a topic a cop-out? I find the rape joke discussion interesting, but I really don't care for the asshole v. non-asshole nature of their response to rape joke criticism. Their response was a dick way of going about it from a decency standpoint, and the absolute worst way possible from a PR standpoint. I don't think there's much in the way of debate there. That's not a very compelling discussion to me, thus my post.

 

[IrishNinja]

man, i only made it a few pages into this reductive thread, got all the memes in from "THEY DIDNT RAPE NOBODY" to get over it" a few too many times

The biggest issue wasn't the original comic itself, though that will as usual be ignored.

...yup
to quote another "let me build an empire of people feeling excluded/marginalized from other groups, so they can do that to others"

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Consider this.

Your job is based around satirical humor. That you are in comedy at all means that, at some point, somebody is likely to get offended by something you say. As such, something you do raises the ire of a small group of critics. Though they do not directly ask that you censor your material, they ask that you consider not doing that again and perhaps find alternatives to approaching that sort of material.

Now with all that in mind, which of the following are reasonable reactions?

1) Consider that the joke in question isn't worth isolating a group of people from your humor and take steps to make them not feel unwelcomed to your humor.

2) Acknowledge that people getting offended is a part of being a comedian and shrug it off, going back to working on your humor for those who do find it funny.

3) Publicly antagonize those upset by the material by selling merchandise based on the offending materials and encouraging fans to wear said merchandise in public and specifically to public events where said critics are likely to encounter them.

Hate to keep digging up the South Park example, but didn't Matt and Trey make an episode based entirely around showing Mohammad after the Mohammad cartoon controversy blew up in Europe? Basically as an FU to censorship and to Comedy Central? They even got death threats over it.

Sometimes, "Deal with it" is the most appropriate response. PA makes T-shirts with the word "Dickwad" displayed prominently on the front, they have another with Jesus throwing up the horns, another saying "A Rhombus is the kind of rectangle a bitch would draw"...Dickwolves is not outside of the realm of their usual repartee.

It's ridiculous that out of all entertainment mediums, gaming has these absolute taboos like Comic books in the 70s or movies in the 50s.

 

[Rafterman]

He's picking on rape survivors. That's as low as it gets.

Specifically. He set out to insult people who have been raped. Not even a rape joke at that point, he specifically wanted to profit off of AND insult and hurt people who have been raped.

That's so fucking not true it isn't even funny. Good god.

Edit: it's these kinds of stupid posts that would make me print up shirts and sell them.

 

[kyoya]

I'm still going to PAX East.

I'm still going to meet some awesome people, making new friends and contacts at PAX.

I'm not forgetting how cool Enforcers are, making me laugh in line, and even finding a chair for me at a panel when the room was almost at capacity.

I've always known that if a female (or anyone for that matter) is ever harassed that they can get an enforcer, or available cop outside, complain, and the problem gets taken care of. I've heard about ass-holes getting kicked out of cons for doing this, their badges are pulled and their escorted out of the convention center.

I just remember all the people I met who passed kindness onto one another while there, from the guy who let me know that I almost lost my camera that one time, to the men who gave up their seats for a couple and their infant on the shuttle bus ride back to a hotel. Even the kid who offered a USB plug for my drained cell phone while we all watched Front-A-Lot perform in the concert hall. People at PAX look out for one another, that's how I see it.

I'm not forgetting how many people whose lives have been positively impacted by PAX panels, especially those who have attended panels dealing with mental illness, (from depression, social anxiety, to PTSD). I have major respect for the panels that have dealt with this and that have opened a microphone to those people who have gone public with their struggles. This is combined with the panel discussions on how females are harassed online, that was eye-opening.

People treat this as if they have to kiss the ring (or ass) of Mike Krahulik. I don't worship the ground that Krahulik walks on. Sorry, but I have better things to do than shout "KHOOO!" at the guy who runs PAX, i'm not that kind of fanboy. I don't know these people personally, and since their internet celebrities soaking it all up, I know they don't care about me either. I get their all about free speech. All I know is that I can find other respectable people at PAX, and I have done just that. That's what PAX is all about. I refuse to let a narrow-minded, inexperienced with social issues, and his fictional comic destroy a convention center filled with gaming heaven. I know everyone (from women to transsexuals) are permitted into this gaming heaven - I would stop going if they were prohibited from entering PAX. Enforcers or police are nearby if some shit were to go down, if it were god forbid ever to get to that. Everybody knows the rules and you can be screwed if you break them.

Krahulik is just going to have to live with what he's said, I wish him the best. This stuff can come back to haunt a man. I just feel sorry for his kids when they'll look this stuff up and ask why he said that. I can't change Krahulik, none of us can, he's gonna have to change himself. If he wants to alienate himself some more, hurt his business and charities - then that's his unfortunate choice.

Now.....when do badges for PAX East go on sale?

 

[Toxi]

It's hilarious how people are complaining about the taboos gaming has in comparison to other media when the subject of this thread is rape joke T-shirt merchandise for a web comic.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

Hate to keep digging up the South Park example, but didn't Matt and Trey make an episode based entirely around showing Mohammad after the Mohammad cartoon controversy blew up in Europe? Basically as an FU to censorship and to Comedy Central? They even got death threats over it.

Sometimes, "Deal with it" is the most appropriate response. .

PA didn't say "deal with it", that would have been fine. They said "Fuck you, now everyone else please buy this item from us for money to make even more fun out of those guys at our convention, while we'll continue telling the press that this convention (off which we're making a fuckload of money as well) is a place for them to feel welcome.
Oh and also let me put a flimsy "apology" online that I can void within a couple months.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Was unwise, should have left it. I don't think they are wrong though strip gag was funny in its absurdity.

Its annoying that 'rape is no joking matter' wtf. Everything is a joking matter, it's like saying that the 'aim for the bushes' bit in the hilarious movie 'the other guys' is in poor taste because it makes fun of suicide.

People that ignore context and just look at the word are acting foolishly.

Gabe shouldn't be allowed to talk though, the other one should handle that, he's better with the words.

 

[faceless007]

Penny Arcade and the Slow Murder of Satire

This involves a deliberate misunderstanding of criticism. Criticism is not saying “you should not be allowed to say that” but “if you knew X you wouldn’t have said it in the first place.” The deliberate part of the misunderstanding comes from being unwilling to face the possibility that their brilliant, true, funny insight about the world was dull, mistaken, and not very funny. Often, this accompanied by the defense that the joke, is, after all, just a joke; those who take it too seriously are misunderstanding humor itself.

Yet, Penny Arcade is extremely proud of itself for ridiculing corrupt companies, criticizing failed promises, or simply having good taste in video games. You can probably already see the contradiction: Penny Arcade gets to be taken seriously whenever they wish it to be taken seriously. Otherwise it is simply japes.

He’s not the only one, and Penny Arcade, like many satirists of this generation, are complicit in the assassination of a once respected genre of humor. Like their contemporaries, Family Guy and South Park, Penny Arcade believes that it can make claims and state opinions through humor, but those claims and opinions only exist when they want them to. All the brilliance of satire without any of the responsibility or risk that comes with committing to an actual statement.

Penny Arcade is a reflection of how “satire”—which, by refusing responsibility, is no longer satire—has begun to devour itself. Humor, just like anything else, isn’t meaningful unless it risks enough to actually say something. Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins are perfectly willing to make a statement by expressing regret at pulling Dickwolves merchandize (I believe Holkin’s lack of response implicates him until he expresses otherwise) yet, curiously, do not believe that their comic could also have made a statement about rape. The self-proclaimed iconoclasts of contemporary humor have become, in fact, shills for the status quo, selling their shameless endorsement of it as edgy and subversive. They cast oppressed groups as establishment bullies and their legions of fans as plucky rebels—even as video games have become widespread mainstream entertainment. Their humor says nothing new, and it cannot be clever because it involves no reassessment on any level of anything they or their audience already thinks. They are not standing against censorship, but against the idea that their own opinions and ideas, their very form of expression, might be something that should be taken seriously. A stance against criticism is a stance against the legitimacy of their own art, which they are sacrificing to deflect responsibility. Not so different from the industry they posit themselves as critics of when they say “it’s just a game.”

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Penny Arcade and the Slow Murder of Satire

The author completely missed the point of that Cat & Twixby comic. Seeing as how he hates South Park as well, all signs point toward he or she just not having a sense of humor, or the ability to parse even the simplest of satire.

 

[Meia]

In regards to whether or not something should be considered off limits or can ever be funny, I think it's worth considering a few things. Who's making the joke, and who is the audience? More to the point, how talented is the comedian, and what's the general atmosphere/rapport with the audience? And what's the person's reputation with criticism?

Someone up above cited a South Park episode. Perhaps that's a good observation in terms of potential hypocrisy ("where's the outrage for that?"), but I think this can easily be explained by an understanding of what that show is and who creates it. That's not to say that they've earned a pass, but I'd almost argue "what's the point." People know what the show is, and they understand who Matt and Trey are. Even if you are legitimately outraged at something they've done, one probably realizes that any condemnation probably just feeds into the shows rep and will actually prove beneficial.

Not everyone has that kind of cover. And that's not a bad thing. As for another comparison, people often cite the short list of people that can joke about anything. And while those comedians do exist, clearly, not everyone can be Louis CK. And for that matter, I'm sure if you look hard enough, you'll find criticism to the effect that Louis CK is insensitive.

This is very true. I've always subscribed to the George Carlin style of comedy, in which virtually anything can be made funny, but it depends on the exaggeration used. But yeah, the flip side is you're going to probably piss off someone.


Then again, I think that's what good comedy is: You're going to have some people with tears in their eyes from laughing so hard, and others flying to their keyboards in outrage. It is what it is.


But hey, this is no different than the point our society itself has gotten to. How many times has someone in the media been asked for their honest opinion, gave it, riled up enough people and got them fired for it? People LOVE outrage!

 

[JABEE]

In regards to whether or not something should be considered off limits or can ever be funny, I think it's worth considering a few things. Who's making the joke, and who is the audience? More to the point, how talented is the comedian, and what's the general atmosphere/rapport with the audience? And what's the person's reputation with criticism?

Someone up above cited a South Park episode. Perhaps that's a good observation in terms of potential hypocrisy ("where's the outrage for that?"), but I think this can easily be explained by an understanding of what that show is and who creates it. That's not to say that they've earned a pass, but I'd almost argue "what's the point." People know what the show is, and they understand who Matt and Trey are. Even if you are legitimately outraged at something they've done, one probably realizes that any condemnation probably just feeds into the shows rep and will actually prove beneficial.

Not everyone has that kind of cover. And that's not a bad thing. As for another comparison, people often cite the short list of people that can joke about anything. And while those comedians do exist, clearly, not everyone can be Louis CK. And for that matter, I'm sure if you look hard enough, you'll find criticism to the effect that Louis CK is insensitive.

Yep and that feedback can be taken from the audience, but doesn't really even need to be addressed.

Making these kinds of jokes has nothing to do with whether it is a quality joke or not, it's about not condoning the idea that comedians should change there material in order to appease a group of people that can hurt their career.

I won't say censorship, but I see these situations in the same way I see the Tipper Gore music labeling in the 80s. By protesting an artist and encouraging others to boycott artists, you are making it impossible for that artist to make a living while making the kind of music they want to make. You are inciting people to make it as difficult as possible for someone to make a creative work that a large percentage of people are willing to enjoy.

I think that criticism of those actions and the precedent they set are worthy. On a personal level, I know when I watch stand-up, read a book, watch television/movies or play a game that the person who is creating this has a job to do. I know that it is fucking hard to be edgy and to try new things when you know that slip-ups mean that you risk being able to do the thing that you do that creates a lot of joy in the world. It may hurt me if they make jokes about subjects that make me sad like death, dementia, and losing people you love, but I understand the context of what they are doing.

I wish that this controversy and criticism of comedians worked like it does for South Park. More people should approach comedy and other forms of art with the understanding that what they are consuming can be brash and the intentions of the work are clear.

On the other side, Penny Arcade runs an expo that has nothing to do with comedy. Their goals as comedians are much different than their goals as people who run a convention. In the context of someone running a convention that wants to be inclusive, their reveling in the hostility and back-and-forth exchanges on Twitter may not be in their interest as convention runners. I don't think it serves their goal of being inclusive and reaching the audiences they want to reach.

I think when you look at how they are positioning themselves, it is difficult to feel sorry for them. I think if they want to continue to serve those goals, they need to create separate roles for who controls and runs the convention/marketing/merchandising and who creates content for the site. They will always be in this controversial position because of the content they create until they demonstrate a clear separation of power.

 

[zon]

To think this is still going on lol. This has been a carnival of stupid since the start.

 

[parazen]

Gabe made a joke he didn't think was a big deal, and people attacked him for it. He felt defensive, so he attacked back.

I think it's also reasonable to not like rape jokes, and to think less of people who make them.

However, outright campaigning against a type of joke is a waste of time. There are a lot of serious things in the world that are really great things to get upset about. None of them are jokes.

 

[Arment]

I hope anyone offended that this also doesn't listen to any of the hundreds of stand-up comics that have joked about rape and murder before.

Some enjoy a darker brand of comedy. Ask Louis C.K. or George Carlin for that matter.

 

[The Foul]

How is this a thing when something like Pewdiepoo screams rape at his 12 million subscribers every 30 seconds and is not at the forefront of these concerns? Is one better than the other? Im lazy but I definitely haven't read any articles about that arsehole pleasedieplease poisoning a generation of kids, yet without trying I've read plenty about Mike and Jerry's naughty jokes.

 

[Carcetti]

I hope anyone offended that this also doesn't listen to any of the hundreds of stand-up comics that have joked about rape and murder before.

Some enjoy a darker brand of comedy. Ask Louis C.K. or George Carlin for that matter.

There was a rebuttal to this argument earlier in this thread, and that rebuttal was actually a quote by Louis C.K. I'ts not that simple.

 

[IrishNinja]

faceless007 stays delivering ether by the gallon - glad i came back to this mess of a thread for that post, so many people (on nearly every page) saying is about internet rage machine/censorship etc need to read that, it was barely about the initial strip to begin with, and it's damn sure well past that now

 

[eastx]

That's so fucking not true it isn't even funny. Good god.

Edit: it's these kinds of stupid posts that would make me print up shirts and sell them.

Agreed... His comment was very stupid, to the point that I want to believe it's a deliberate misunderstanding of the comic and response rather than someone's actual opinion.

 

[Earthpainting]

I feel like most of the Penny Arcade related "controversies" would have gone away if they didn't double-down on the things people were upset over in the first place. I understand the allure of doing this as a defensive lash, especially if comedy is a part of your job. It might sound like a funny way to react, but the it shouldn't come unexpected that the people who weren't laughing before, aren't going to see the humour in this type of response either.

 

[polyh3dron]

faceless007 stays delivering ether by the gallon - glad i came back to this mess of a thread for that post, so many people (on nearly every page) saying is about internet rage machine/censorship etc need to read that, it was barely about the initial strip to begin with, and it's damn sure well past that now

Where's the "ether", because all I see is a reposting of a bad Internet opinion piece.

 

[IrishNinja]

Where's the "ether", because all I see is a reposting of a bad Internet opinion piece.

ah, few pages back so i should've linked - i really dug this post

 

[homulilly]

If you think Mike Krahulik is anything but a despicable waste of air you're either one naive fucker or you're also a terrible person. This shithead literally brought up a years old rape joke for seemingly no other reason than to remind everyone hes still a completely ignorant sack of shit.

Even people like "feminists" and "rape survivors" are generally able to give someone a chance if they make an honest effort to listen and educate themselves but Krahlik seems to have zero interest in anything other than being a raging asshole.

Also, a rich dude throwing money at a charity to get people to shut up is probably the most insincere form of apology one can possibly make.

 

[Cipherr]

The biggest issue wasn't the original comic itself, though that will as usual be ignored.

I remember this whole thing very clearly. Its easy to say that in hindsight, but the comic was ABSOLUTELY held as a source of 'massive outrage' back then. That they didnt back down on it when pressured eventually became the 'new' reason behind it all, but initially people were absolutely pretending that the comic was the worst thing ever.

I found it petty then and still do. Many comics, comedians, and frequently circulated jokes have done much worse on this and many other sensitive subjects.

 

[Harlock]

"I defend the freedom of expression! Unless I dont like what was said."

 

[IrishNinja]

OMG but what if it wasn't about the strip itself tho

 

[blitzcloud]

In regards to whether or not something should be considered off limits or can ever be funny, I think it's worth considering a few things. Who's making the joke, and who is the audience? More to the point, how talented is the comedian, and what's the general atmosphere/rapport with the audience? And what's the person's reputation with criticism?

Someone up above cited a South Park episode. Perhaps that's a good observation in terms of potential hypocrisy ("where's the outrage for that?"), but I think this can easily be explained by an understanding of what that show is and who creates it. That's not to say that they've earned a pass, but I'd almost argue "what's the point." People know what the show is, and they understand who Matt and Trey are. Even if you are legitimately outraged at something they've done, one probably realizes that any condemnation probably just feeds into the shows rep and will actually prove beneficial.

Not everyone has that kind of cover. And that's not a bad thing. As for another comparison, people often cite the short list of people that can joke about anything. And while those comedians do exist, clearly, not everyone can be Louis CK. And for that matter, I'm sure if you look hard enough, you'll find criticism to the effect that Louis CK is insensitive.

I brought up this scene of family guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QUzKkvvH4s

It's in incredible poor taste that they include all the forcing and trying to escape. I assume anyone that had it happen to them would be horrified by it.

Yet i only see a petition with 500 signatures to stop such poor taste jokes in a world-wide famous TV show.


PS: south park does have a disclaimer that everything is offensive and in poor taste and they encourage you not to watch it right before it starts.

I remember this whole thing very clearly. Its easy to say that in hindsight, but the comic was ABSOLUTELY held as a source of 'massive outrage' back then. That they didnt back down on it when pressured eventually became the 'new' reason behind it all, but initially people were absolutely pretending that the comic was the worst thing ever.

I found it petty then and still do. Many comics, comedians, and frequently circulated jokes have done much worse on this and many other sensitive subjects.

Yeah it was something like: this strip is the worst and you promote this and that. Then under pressure, the idiotic response happened, and luckily for those who stirred up all the trouble they found something stable to hold on to "prove" it was totally what they meant at first.

 

[IrishNinja]

Yeah it was something like: this strip is the worst and you promote this and that. Then under pressure, the idiotic response happened, and luckily for those who stirred up all the trouble they found something stable to hold on to "prove" it was totally what they meant at first.

that's a helluva narrative you have there
i mean if i could project that well, i'd be a DLC character for SF IV

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

I just don't fing the phrase "raped to sleep" funny. maybe Mike's internal alram should have gone off.....

 

[polyh3dron]

If you think Mike Krahulik is anything but a despicable waste of air you're either one naive fucker or you're also a terrible person. This shithead literally brought up a years old rape joke for seemingly no other reason than to remind everyone hes still a completely ignorant sack of shit.

Even people like "feminists" and "rape survivors" are generally able to give someone a chance if they make an honest effort to listen and educate themselves but Krahlik seems to have zero interest in anything other than being a raging asshole.

Also, a rich dude throwing money at a charity to get people to shut up is probably the most insincere form of apology one can possibly make.

Holy shit.

 

[Manu]

If you think Mike Krahulik is anything but a despicable waste of air you're either one naive fucker or you're also a terrible person.

Dude.

 

[KiTA]

He's picking on rape survivors. That's as low as it gets.

Specifically. He set out to insult people who have been raped. Not even a rape joke at that point, he specifically wanted to profit off of AND insult and hurt people who have been raped.

No, he was not. You are being a silly goose.

He was mocking people playing the fainting couch game.

 

[polyh3dron]

that's a helluva narrative you have there
i mean if i could project that well, i'd be a DLC character for SF IV

Do you think this passes for a compelling counter argument?

 

[blitzcloud]

Holy shit.

Calls out Mike for being an asshole being an asshole.

PS: It's okay to insult if it's a person of questionable morality!

that's a helluva narrative you have there
i mean if i could project that well, i'd be a DLC character for SF IV

I am offended by your satire because english is not my first language. You better apologize for your lack of tact on the matter

Spoiler

lol