Support NeoGAF

[Anoregon]

there's a character in penny arcade that rapes fruit. no one has ever complained about that. suddenly, when wolves come into the picture, everything is blown out of proportion.

Can sex with a fruit ever be consensual?

NOT THAT I LIKE YOU OR ANYTHING, BAKA APPLE-KUN

 

[mentallyinept]

Don't think you really understand what censorship is. Standing up against censorship is standing up for your right to say things. At no point in anything anywhere were Penny Arcade in danger of being censored.

Wearing a dickwolves shirt is celebrating your right to be a douche... which everyone has, but the exercise of which does actually make you a douche so. "I understand this upsets a lot of people and I hear it hurts you, so look upon me and be unhappy" is a shitty flag to fly.

I wish they'd sold 'em so I'd know who never to talk or listen to.

You should read my previous posts in the thread.

I'm well aware of what censorship is. The post you are responding to was a response to what people who wear them think they are representing.

People who wear those shirts bought them as an anti-censorship protest to wear at PAX that year.

 

[Wynnebeck]

People want so badly to be outraged. People are not content until they are malcontent.

This. I'm not saying that the sentiment was wrong, but the outrage over the comic was for a part of the strip that wasn't even being used for comedy. The slave was explaining their plight adding that they were being raped to sleep for that extra dramatic effect. The punchline? "Yeah I only have to save 5 of you guys so w/e." People are too ready to take up pitchforks for any little perceived slight. I can't even give someone's compliment before being told to check my privilege anymore.

 

[Nymphae]

there's a character in penny arcade that rapes fruit.

He fucks fruit, he doesn't rape it. The fruit consents, right?

 

[partyphone]

Seriously?

Censorship doesn't just pop up overnight. And people don't need to fight against censorship in order to protect the popular ideas.

When people say certain types of jokes are inappropriate and need to not be told anymore, that is a threat of censorship.

Censorship from who? The Feminazi Hivemind?

 

[FyreWulff]

Seriously?

Censorship doesn't just pop up overnight. And people don't need to fight against censorship in order to protect the popular ideas.

When people say certain types of jokes are inappropriate and need to not be told anymore, that is a threat of censorship.

That.. is not censorship

 

[badcrumble]

I don't think people understand that nobody was trying to take away PA's right to say things. They're just saying that they were assholes for saying them.

Free speech doesn't include the right not to be told that your views, words, or deeds make you an asshole.

 

[akidnamededdy]

It is in no way at all a rape joke and you really, really have to make an effort and be as willfully ignorant as possible to label it as such.

Conservatively speaking, I'd say 75% of "controversies" like this begin with someone making an effort to be as willfully ignorant as possible.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

The biggest reason this blew up was their initial response which generally consisted of Mike being a total idiot, and it just get snowballing from there. I took no issue with the strip, but I took issue with him continuing to act like an insensitive jackass and put his foot in his mouth over and over again, which he has done on other topics and issues as well.

I straight up don't go to their site, read their comics, or buy their books/merch (which I did for years religiously) anymore solely because of Mike. The guy is a manchild who doubles down on every stupid thing he says.

Pretty much.

Didn't mind the strip, just how stupid and childish Mike acted.

 

[No Love]

My question is: what are you supporting or representing by buying/wearing a Team Dickwolves shirt? No matter what people claim, it ultimately feels like a celebration of a fictional rape monster to me.

I'm pretty sure a "Team Dickwolves" t-shirt isn't a celebration of a fictional rape monster. It sounds more like a tongue-in-cheek gag about the absurdity of the whole word/concept and that it's been misconstrued.

I mean, a wolf made out of dicks. It's fucking stupid/funny, not some deep metaphor that secretly embraces rape culture and celebrates it. In my mind, it's along the same lines as The Ambiguously Gay Duo from SNL: they're not 'anti-gay', it's just making fun of the early Batman comics and people's goofy obsession with trying to figure out if there was a homo-sexual relationship between Batman and Robin.

I suppose one could easily misunderstand the satire of it all. I think Penny-Arcade hasn't really been great at being subtle and brilliant in their satire, and also definitely not the best at being brutally blunt, ala South Park.

It also doesn't help that Gabe is a dick that loves the attention brought on by fanning the flames of 'controversy.'

 

[darkpower]

Just because her costume is based on a videogame character does not excuse it from being tasteless or showing too much skin. A lot of cons have similar rules (like comicon) because they want to be family friends and don't want regular average joes to think that their conferences are excuses to have women or teenage girls (or guys!) with ultra sleazy costumes parading around.

ComiCon doesn't go around defending some idiotic decision they made then try to back peddle when they see the outrage. They don't make themselves out to be hypocrites.

And more to the point, the problem wasn't exactly the second outfit, but the mess was that they then objected to something she wore before that they didn't have an issue with beforehand. It was like they never saw a cheerleader outfit before, or think that no one would ever expose a midriff.

Or perhaps they wanted to save face because of the Dickwolves thing and decided to make someone who's a very avid gamer and one who I would strongly suggest TotalBiscuit invite as a guest on his Co-optional Podcast on Polaris as an example.

They had a problem with her showing HER skin, but THEIR dickwolves? Perfectly fine!

 

[IdreamofHIME]

The original strip wasn't too bad, but the follow up strip where they addressed the people who were offended was awful. Such a big mistake.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

This. I'm not saying that the sentiment was wrong, but the outrage over the comic was for a part of the strip that wasn't even being used for comedy. The slave was explaining their plight adding that they were being raped to sleep for that extra dramatic effect. The punchline? "Yeah I only have to save 5 of you guys so w/e." People are too ready to take up pitchforks for any little perceived slight. I can't even give someone's compliment before being told to check my privilege anymore.

Personally, I'd offer a slightly different take. I think one of the biggest issues is that with divisive issues, people are generally way too eager to get into position and sound off on the conflict at large based on what they perceive the broader issue to be, rather than listening to what people are actually saying about the current discussion. Now, I'm not saying that there won't be hyperbole on one or both sides, or people there looking to put fuel on the fire. But by and large, I think a lot of the problem is that people simply talk past each other instead of trying to empathize with the actual criticism being levied.

I can't count how many times there'll be a large thread here, and someone will strut into the topic on page 30 (as an example), and offer some meaningless observation like "I can't believe this innocuous event has caused 30 pages of outrage. Don't people have better things to get worked up about!" And for the people actively participating earnestly in the conversation, it's the type of post that is beyond useless, because their reaction will be "you know, there's maybe been a small handful of people legitimately upset. The rest of the observations are mainly comprised of people calmly weighing in with what they think."

 

[Alcoholikaust]

Used to like Penny Arcade before all this mess. Really smug move on thier part.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

Chappelle did it.[/URL]

As I posted earlier, as far as I'm concerned George Carlin settled this shit long ago.

Well Chappelle and Carlin have been banned from posting on tumblr because of their mean and hurtful language.

 

[Retro_]

This is a really good read about just that: http://jezebel.com/5925186/how-to-make-a-rape-joke

Quoted for a new page as it makes a really good point that is relevant to the current dialog in this thread:

It's unlikely but, say, after all this public outrage, Daniel Tosh actually does get fired from Comedy Central.[For saying it would be funny if a heckler was raped after she responded to a rape joke] A person being removed from a position of power at a private company (Comedy Central is not the U.S. government, FYI) after the public speaks up is not an affront to freedom—it is integral to freedom. If you make things that people do not like, people might stop buying your product. That's the deal.

In case this isn't perfectly clear yet: You can say whatever you want.

You can say whatever you want. You can say whatever you want. You can say whatever you want.

You can say whatever you want.

That said, a comedy club is not some sacred space. It's a guy with a microphone standing on a stage that's only one foot above the ground. And the flip-side of that awesome microphone power you have—wow, you can seriously say whatever you want!—is that audiences get to react to your words however we want. The defensive refrains currently echoing around the internet are, "You just don't get it—comedians need freedom. That's how comedy gets made. If you don't want to be offended, then stay out of comedy clubs." (Search for "comedians," "freedom," "offended," and "comedy clubs" on Twitter if you don't believe me.) You're exactly right. That is how comedy gets made. So CONSIDER THIS YOUR FUCKING FEEDBACK. Ninety percent of your rape material is not working, and you can tell it's not working because your audience is telling you that they hate those jokes. This is the feedback you asked for.

If people don't want to be offended, they shouldn't go to comedy clubs? Maybe. But if you don't want people to react to your jokes, you shouldn't get on stage and tell your jokes to people.

This fetishization of not censoring yourself, of being an "equal-opportunity offender," is bizarre and bad for comedy. When did "not censoring yourself" become a good thing? We censor ourselves all the time, because we are not entitled, sociopathic fucks. Your girlfriend is censoring herself when she says she's okay with you playing Xbox all day. In a way, comedy is censoring yourself—comedy is picking the right words to say to make people laugh. A comic who doesn't censor himself is just a dude yelling. And being an "equal opportunity offender"—as in, "It's okay, because Daniel Tosh makes fun of ALL people: women, men, AIDS victims, dead babies, gay guys, blah blah blah"—falls apart when you remember (as so many of us are forced to all the time) that all people are not in equal positions of power. "Oh, don't worry—I punch everyone in the face! People, baby ducks, a lion, this Easter Island statue, the ocean…" Okay, well that baby duck is dead now. And you're a duck-murderer. It's really easy to believe that "nothing is sacred" when the sanctity of your body and your freedom are never legitimately threatened.

Instead of "defending your right" to say offensive things people don't like, perhaps you should be considering that the things you say are offensive and not going over well with your audience.

I mean sure comedy is an "art" but it's not one done purely for self-expression. It's done for the benefit of the audience and to make them laugh. So one should expect to have to make concessions to them in order to achieve that goal.

Defending your right to say things offensive to your audience against your audience is a self-defeating purpose when it comes to comedy really.

 

[Artorias]

The worst part of this "controversy" is that the comic in question wasn't even funny. I quit reading them shortly after because none of their comics were funny for a few months, and then they started acting like fucking tools.

Haven't visited their site in a few years now after all the corporate apologist stuff from the last few months.

 

[akira28]

Article glosses over the intent of the comic being game mechanics verses game writing, and actively misleads the nature of the controversy.

Not particularly impressed.

exactly. ex. fucking. zactly.

dickwolves for everyone until they get it.

(and of course there's a rape joke. there are at least 4 jokes present in the entire thing. one making fun of unrealistic fetch quests and the way games are made, one black humor joke about the brutal treatment of the slaves you aren't motivated to save, etc.)

 

[Infinite]

I think rape jokes that make fun of the victim in anyway or tribulize what the victim been through are inappropriate and probably shouldn't be made. Not sure if the comic strip in question crossed that line

 

[iammeiam]

The dickwolves thing is one of those situations where PA looks worse every time they bring it up. Initial comic? I was fine with, actually. I get why some people disliked it, didn't buy me. The creation of Dicwolves shirts (which, given that dickwolves only existed in the context of them raping people, were basically Team Funny Offscreen Rapist shirts) to protest the bad reaction is about the initial joke lost me, and it's been downhill from there. So of course they bring it back after it was forgotten.

I hope they just shut up and leave it. Just leave it and let the reborn controversy die.

 

[schwabdizzle]

I guess people do not understand jokes these days. Plus it seems that everyone has to "White Knight" all the time.

 

[mentallyinept]

I don't think people understand that nobody was trying to take away PA's right to say things. They're just saying that they were assholes for saying them.

Free speech doesn't include the right not to be told that your views, words, or deeds make you an asshole.

Of course.

However, publicly calling someone out about such things instead of voicing your opinion to the party directly is a form character defamation. If you have a large enough voice, you can get someone censored indirectly. It happens in politics all the time.

You have a right to do this, of course, as long as you are not distorting the truth, which would amount to slander/libel.

 

[akira28]

I guess people do not understand jokes these days. Plus it seems that everyone has to "White Knight" all the time.

making the world a better place through argumentative discourse on the internet since 2001.

 

[glaurung]

I never found Dickwolves offensive or touchy, I regret not getting a t-shirt when they were still available.

 

[brian!]

wassup, even if the initial intent of the PA comic was misread, it's misreading transforms it into something else and changes it's context

not saying that the PA ppl should work under this new context, but prolly should be aware that what they originally intended isn't really that important in the conversation

 

[Amakuni]

Isn't prominent indie developer an oxymoron?

 

[BobbyRobby]

Quoted for a new page as it makes a really good point that is relevant to the current dialog in this thread:



Instead of "defending your right" to say offensive things people don't like, perhaps you should be considering that the things you say are offensive and not going over well with your audience.

I mean sure comedy is an "art" but it's not one done purely for self-expression. It's done for the benefit of the audience and to make them laugh. So one should expect to have to make concessions to them in order to achieve that goal.

Defending your right to say things offensive to your audience against your audience is a self-defeating purpose when it comes to comedy really.

i couldn't disagree more with the bolded. I lose interest in comedians who don't have the integrity to speak their mind freely. I don't want neutered comedy that is making sure that no one will get offended by it.

this is worth watching also. lindy west from jezebel debating jim norton on jokes about rape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtUb_E1qUHA

 

[faceless007]

Of course.

However, publicly calling someone out about such things instead of voicing your opinion to the party directly is a form character defamation. If you have a large enough voice, you can get someone censored indirectly. It happens in politics all the time.

You have a right to do this, of course, as long as you are not distorting the truth, which would amount to slander/libel.

How does any of this apply to this particular controversy?

 

[robotzombie]

What censorship? No one is being censored.

You can use free speech as a shield against criticism. Guess what, the terrible things you say can have consequences.

And guess what? Those consequences, i.e. people complaining and causing a fuss over being offended, can have consequences, i.e. ridiculing people for overreacting.

 

[Retro_]

I think rape jokes that make fun of the victim in anyway or tribulize what the victim been through are inappropriate and probably shouldn't be made. Not sure if the comic strip in question crossed that line

It don't think it did

but the way the author's reacted to the criticism is the real problem.

Unfortunately people are having a hard time understanding that, and instead are having the same old "censorship" debate where both sides of the argument are wrong.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

That Jessica Nigri thing seems legit.

Just because her costume is based on a videogame character does not excuse it from being tasteless or showing too much skin. A lot of cons have similar rules (like comicon) because they want to be family friends and don't want regular average joes to think that their conferences are excuses to have women or teenage girls (or guys!) with ultra sleazy costumes parading around. There's also the issue that sadly a lot of people can't handle themselves and will act like total creeps around women in revealing costumes.

My only experience with 'cons' is the Montreal Comic Con, and everytime I went there, I saw quite a few people who were acting like total creeps to the point of even considering flagging security about them.

I remember one creepy guy who kept bugging this girl who cosplayed as Scarlett from Mortal Kombat and was obviously making her feel mega uncomfortable and would keep stealth taking pics of her legs and crotch area and there was this guy who jumped over a table while running behind those two girls who were cosplaying as some characters while taking pics of the behind of their legs and behind.

thats why I think those rules about nudity/mega revealing outfits are important -- to keep away creepos like those guys.

The woman I went with last year is a pro photographer and she was a bit turned off about comicon because of those kind of people and kept being verbal about 'grown men pushing each other to take pictures of underages girls in costumes' the entire day.

This guy was walking around all day Friday. NSFW.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18yq1qlwelbygjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg

The problem with their enforcement at PAX (like their opinions on what is appropriate) is that everything is completely arbitrary to the staunchly personal beliefs of the guys running it.

 

[akidnamededdy]

I think rape jokes that make fun of the victim in anyway or tribulize what the victim been through are inappropriate and probably shouldn't be made. Not sure if the comic strip in question crossed that line

Well it's not War and Peace, surely you can take six seconds to read it again and decide.

But the comic isn't so much the problem anyway.

 

[Alienous]

Any joke can be funny, regardless of subject matter.

I giggled at "raped to sleep by the dickwolves". Not because "heh, heh, rape" but because of how utterly absurd that is. It's simply ridiculous.

Certainly, you can disagree, but I'm not going to categorize all of a certain type of joke as unfunny because the subject matter is uncomfortable.

I don't get why people have to judge others when they attempt humor. Just say "That wasn't funny" and move on. Their response is entirely the worst thing about this debacle.

 

[FyreWulff]

the comic was tasteless and stupid

people's reaction to and criticism of the comic was just that, and not a call for censorship

gabe going out of his way to taunt survivors of sexual assault for years afterwards is fucking despicable, and i think people and companies should stop going to pax

He probably wishes he could somehow delete the internet like he deleted PA's forums when he felt insulted that one time

 

[brandnew]

This debate is so asymmetrical. People defending the original comic are not addressing the real issue, which is Mike's reaction to the "controversy." Whether or not you think the comic was a big deal doesn't change the fact that he (seemingly purposefully) offended a whole ton of people with the way he reacted to people's concerns. The fact he is now bringing it up again makes it clear he never really learned anything and sticks by his ignorance.

 

[KojiKnight]

Free speech doesn't include the right not to be told that your views, words, or deeds make you an asshole.

I agree with this statement.

I have absolutely no problem with the dick wolves, but I also have no problem with anyone that stands up and complains about it. That said, I WILL have an issue if that has an issue goes "Let's do our best to get them to change" or "Let's take down their website" or "Let's try and get laws passed that prevent such content from appearing anywhere!"


You can make your opinions or disappointments or even your rage known... but to try and censor anyone (either protester or protestee) is the only real problem.

 

[besada]

Defending your right to say things offensive to your audience against your audience is a self-defeating purpose when it comes to comedy really.

Except the entire PA audience wasn't offended. Part of the PA audience, along with people who had never likely bothered to read PA, got offended over Dickwolves. Part of the PA audience thought it was a tempest in a teapot and ignored it. Part of the PA audience put on their Man Shields and went to war with perceived evil feminists without being asked to by anyone.

And the awful behavior involved covers all sides.

This debate is so asymmetrical. People defending the original comic are not addressing the real issue, which is Mike's reaction to the "controversy." Whether or not you think the comic was a big deal doesn't change the fact that he (seemingly purposefully) offended a whole ton of people with the way he reacted to people's concerns. The fact he is now bringing it up again makes it clear he never really learned anything and sticks by his ignorance.

What's wrong with offending people? Comedy has always involved walking a delicate line in which some people are certain to be offended. Mike felt attacked for something he hadn't done (make fun of rape) and responded by pushing back, first verbally, and then as the whole silly thing spun out of control, by releasing the shirts.

 

[aeolist]

He probably wishes he could somehow delete the internet like he deleted PA's forums when he felt insulted that one time

if only gabe and phil fish were somehow the same person

 

[Infinite]

Well it's not War and Peace, surely you can take six seconds to read it again and decide.

But the comic isn't so much the problem anyway.

I already decided lol

and you're right.

 

[Schnozberry]

Don't do this. I can understand the inclination to point out a perceived hypocrisy, but it needs to be understood that there isn't one all-encompassing voice for these criticisms. The fact that a rape joke can attract a certain amount of outrage is not really an indication that the populace at large hypocritically thinks that violence is a-okay.

Look at what happened to Daniel Tosh. Rape jokes draw horror from people. Depictions of violence do not. It's just what it is. Rape of real people in real situations is horrifying, but jokes in such a fantastical and surreal context shouldn't be treated as an endorsement of rape. How much comedic violence happens in Penny Arcade strips, and not one person gives a shit?

It's important to draw the comparison because both are equally terrible in real life situations, but one is far more acceptable comedically.

 

[aeolist]

I agree with this statement.

I have absolutely no problem with the dick wolves, but I also have no problem with anyone that stands up and complains about it. That said, I WILL have an issue if that has an issue goes "Let's do our best to get them to change" or "Let's take down their website" or "Let's try and get laws passed that prevent such content from appearing anywhere!"


You can make your opinions or disappointments or even your rage known... but to try and censor anyone (either protester or protestee) is the only real problem.

it's a good thing nobody has said these things then

what people wanted from mike was to get him to understand their point of view, and in return they got a ton of aggressive mockery from both pa and their fans

 

[dollartaco]

Where's the rape joke? Sounds like a joke about MMO gameplay being separated from narrative. This was a bullshit controversy from Day 1.

 

[Retro_]

i couldn't disagree more with the bolded. I lose interest in comedians who don't have the integrity to speak their mind freely. I don't want neutered comedy that is making sure that no one will get offended by it.

but is comedy made for the purpose of being laughed at by no one really comedy?

I don't see how being open to criticism and the idea that "hey, maybe I have some things wrong here" clashes with freely speaking your mind but I don't really want to get pulled into this censorship debate.

For what it's worth, Louis C.K, another comedian notorious for saying offensive things had this to say about this never ending debate

It's also a fight between comedian and feminists, which are natural enemies, because stereotypically speaking, feminists can't take a joke…And on the other side, comedians can't take criticism because they're big pussies. To one side, you said, if you don't like the jokes, stay out of the comedy clubs. To the other side, you said, if you don't like the criticism, stop googling yourself every 10 minutes... If somebody has the opposite feeling from me, I want to hear it so I can add to mine. I don't want to obliterate their point... for me, any joke about anything bad is great. Any joke about rape, the Holocaust, the Mets... But I've read some blogs during this whole thing that have made me enlightened to things I didn't know. This woman said how rape is something that polices women's lives. They have a narrow corridor. They can't go out late, they can't go to certain neighborhoods, they can't get a certain way, because they might get-That's part of me now that wasn't before.

 

[Wynnebeck]

Personally, I'd offer a slightly different take. I think one of the biggest issues is that with divisive issues, people are generally way too eager to get into position and sound off on the conflict at large based on what they perceive the broader issue to be, rather than listening to what people are actually saying about the current discussion. Now, I'm not saying that there won't be hyperbole on one or both sides, or people there looking to put fuel on the fire. But by and large, I think a lot of the problem is that people simply talk past each other instead of trying to empathize with the actual criticism being levied.

I can't count how many times there'll be a large thread here, and someone will strut into the topic on page 30 (as an example), and offer some meaningless observation like "I can't believe this innocuous event has caused 30 pages of outrage. Don't people have better things to get worked up about!" And for the people actively participating earnestly in the conversation, it's the type of post that is beyond useless, because their reaction will be "you know, there's maybe been a small handful of people legitimately upset. The rest of the observations are mainly comprised of people calmly weighing in with what they think."

I can understand that. There does need to be a better way to come to terms with people and their differences instead of blasting past the issues at hand to try and slay some dragon when in reality it's a windmill.

 

[schwabdizzle]

making the world a better place through argumentative discourse on the internet since 2001.

I don't know. I am not offended by it, but I have pretty thick skin. Others do not and that's ok. I know rape is not right but if someone jokes about it its on them how public reacts to them. I will not judge them on it though. Actions speak louder than words in my opinion.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

I would think the average person, upon witnessing someone wearing a 'team dickwolves' shirt, would not immediately think about censorship.

And your average person would not see the term "Team Dickwolves" and immediately think rape either no more than Dickerdoodles or any one of a thousand other dick references out there.

As others have pointed out multiple times that comedians make rape jokes all the time, South Park has made rape jokes, Family Guy has made rape jokes, hell Jerry Seinfeld, king of clean comedy, made a rape joke a few years ago. The only difference is that when social media gets all up-in-arms about it and the angry blog posts start popping up those guys are big enough that they can just ignore it and let it all blow over. Yeah, Mike should probably use a little more tact in his response to criticism but I don't think they have the luxury of just waitint for the controvery to blow over. Nor do I think they should ever compromise their comedy because of people getting upset. No matter how much you bow in your attempt to not offend someone, there will always be more people behind them in line waiting to be offended by something else.

 

[Infinite]

It don't think it did

but the way the author's reacted to the criticism is the real problem.

Unfortunately people are having a hard time understanding that, and instead are having the same old "censorship" debate where both sides of the argument are wrong.

Yeah. Even bring censorship into the discussion is a fundamentally flawed argument in the first place.

 

[mentallyinept]

How does any of this apply to this particular controversy?

By using a platform with a large audience to imply or directly brand someone as a rape-apologist and/or someone who perpetuates rape-culture you can and will cause a rather large backlash via people who are actively listening to your opinions as advice.

This backlash (justified or not) can cause people to back down or self-censor their own material to appease the protests. Or maybe their ISP or hosting company doesn't like the backlash and takes down the site for sake of their own public image. This has the same effect as actual censorship via the government.

It's pretty easy to see where this can apply to PA and the Dickwolves comic.

That doesn't mean it actually happened, but the progression isn't uncommon in other forums/venues.

Again, everyone involved has the right to do what they did (PA and the people who were offended by the comic)

My contention is that it isn't necessary to get the government to take down your material for it to be considered censorship, as both approaches have the same effect.

 

[aeolist]

Look at what happened to Daniel Tosh. Rape jokes draw horror from people. Depictions of violence do not. It's just what it is. Rape of real people in real situations is horrifying, but jokes in such a fantastical and surreal context shouldn't be treated as an endorsement of rape. How much comedic violence happens in Penny Arcade strips, and not one person gives a shit?

It's important to draw the comparison because both are equally terrible in real life situations, but one is far more acceptable comedically.

it's not an endorsement of rape, and i don't think anyone sane would make that accusation

the problem is that when gaming culture makes rape jokes so casual and pervasive it can trivialize the issue in people's minds, and when we as a society still have such a problem with sexual violence and misogyny that just adds a little bit more shit into the sandwich

gabe didn't create rape culture and he isn't the biggest problem, but he is a privileged, rich, and influential guy who hasn't had to personally deal with the consequences of sexual violence telling rape survivors that he has the right to mock their fears and insecurities for years without consequence

 

[Retro_]

Except the entire PA audience wasn't offended. Part of the PA audience, along with people who had never likely bothered to read PA, got offended over Dickwolves. Part of the PA audience thought it was a tempest in a teapot and ignored it. Part of the PA audience put on their Man Shields and went to war with perceived evil feminists without being asked to by anyone.

And the awful behavior involved covers all sides.

Part of your audience is still your audience, and if you don't want to alienate part of your audience you'd do best to at least try and understand where they're coming from while explain where you're coming from.

Not double down on the offensive statement and dismiss all criticism as THOUGHT POLICING. Especially when the entire reason your "art" exists is to receive approval from these people that make up your audience

That's all. In the argument where both sides have things completely wrong the answer lies in meeting each other halfway.