Phalluses, Wolves, and the Wheaton
February 2, 2011 6:18 AM Subscribe

August 2010: Popular gamer web comic makes ill-considered joke. People are offended. October 2010: Joke becomes shirt. More people are offended. January 2011: Shirts are pulled. Apology, at best, goes badly. Debacle results. Moral: always respect Wheaton's Law.
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty (1300 comments total) 34 users marked this as a favorite

Oh man, my first post, and I hose a link in it. Second "offended" link *should* go here. :-(
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 6:21 AM on February 2, 2011

Don't be a dickwolf.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:22 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

I apologize if I don't completely understand something here...

rape culture?
posted by grubi at 6:23 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

Both "offended" links are the same. Your HTML failure offends me.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:25 AM on February 2, 2011

Let's point and laugh at dvorak_beats_qwerty. YOU CALL THAT LINKING? PAH!
posted by grubi at 6:27 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

dvorak_beats_qwerty: Oh man, my first post, and I hose a link in it. Second "offended" link *should* go here. :-

That link has this text exactly, with the link as I've done it here: "rape culture means forcing men to become rapists."

If you [the author of that post] sincerely believe that there is a Rape Culture which strives to make all men into rapists, then I don't really know what to say to that. If a webcomic, any web comic, is the best example you have of that belief, then honestly I'm not even sure we can have a serious conversation.
posted by paisley henosis at 6:29 AM on February 2, 2011 [13 favorites]

People love to feel offended.
posted by Silentgoldfish at 6:29 AM on February 2, 2011 [25 favorites]

I think this is where we all get offended that someone else is offended.
posted by ghharr at 6:31 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Because there's nothing offensive about a shirt celebrating TEAM RAPIST?
posted by rmd1023 at 6:32 AM on February 2, 2011 [19 favorites]

The original comic was hilarious and absolutely cut to the core of a lot of weird things that happen in MMORPGs. It was a very fine effort on PA's part. In any case, I think your editorializing is a little over the top with things like "apology, at best, goes badly" given that the PA guys didn't actually apologize for the comic in any meaningful sense, don't think there was anything wrong with it, and are gonna go right on doing what they always do.

It wasn't the PA guys being dicks... or at least no more than usual.
posted by Justinian at 6:32 AM on February 2, 2011 [11 favorites]

Dick Wolf?
posted by uncleozzy at 6:32 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

Wow, for your first post, you are just jumping into the deep end.
posted by smackfu at 6:33 AM on February 2, 2011 [39 favorites]

hmmm...

"If jokes about violence,rape,aids,pedophilia,bestiality,drugs,cancer,homosexuality, and religion bother you then I recommend reading a different webcomic."

I thought they were smarter than that.
posted by oddman at 6:34 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I can see this is going to be one of those threads that makes me hate MeFites.
posted by Sternmeyer at 6:34 AM on February 2, 2011 [78 favorites]

Rape isn't a part of the game, so for the slave to explicitly state he is being raped is a "humorous" exaggeration.

Rape isn't part of the game, but slavery is. Crazy kids.
posted by three blind mice at 6:34 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Does anyone have a picture of the shirt?
posted by parmanparman at 6:35 AM on February 2, 2011

In addition, my inability to read the poster's existing aknowledgment of his HTML mistake offends myself too.

I'm going to paraphrase Richard Herring's stance on this (originally applied to his Collings & Herrin podcast), which is:
If the first thing you have ever complained about on PA is rape jokes, then you are tacitly supporting, even endorsing, all the offensive jokes that have come before that you didn't complain about. The jokes about murder. The jokes about bestiality. The jokes about pedophilia. None of that offends you enough to complain about? You sick bastard!

Yes I realise this is not a logically sound argument. It's a joke. Just like the PA strip.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:35 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

Is this where I get to see a "Metafilter doesn't do this well" post?
posted by josher71 at 6:36 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

paisley henosis, if you would care to re-read second link in the main most, you might understand that the author linked states that the statement "rape culture means forcing men to become rapists" is a "classic 'misunderstanding'" that the PA guys allegedly perpetuate. That author in no way believes that to be the case.
posted by SirNovember at 6:36 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

sorry, second "offended" link.
posted by SirNovember at 6:37 AM on February 2, 2011

Just an observation; the vast majority of rape references in online gaming are male-to-male. Could it be that this is less about misogyny and more about homophobia?
posted by jet_manifesto at 6:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [12 favorites]

Everyone is clear that the original comic was pointing out the inherent amorality of even the "good" characters in most MMORPGs, right? It wasn't using slavery to make a joke about rape, it was using slavery to shine a light on how MMORPG characters are callous assholes.
posted by Justinian at 6:38 AM on February 2, 2011 [58 favorites]

... and could I be any more obtuse? She's saying that "rape culture means forcing men to become rapists" is BS.

There, that's clear. Done now.
posted by SirNovember at 6:38 AM on February 2, 2011

I see no problem with the original comic but I can see that the T-Shirt was in bad taste... badder than usual taste, that is.

I personally have no problem laughing at jokes about some of the aforementioned taboo subjects, really I don't. But I agree that a shirt celebrating "Team Rapist" is not that great.

I actually think that Gabe's "apology", if you can call it that, was fairly well done. They are essentially agreeing-to-disagree, but acknowledge that for PAX, they don't want fans feeling umcomfortable. They are respecting Wheaton's Law by pulling the shirt and I sort of hope that PA fans leave their Dickwolves shirts at home when it comes time to go to the con.
posted by utsutsu at 6:38 AM on February 2, 2011

Wait, is teabagging in video games still ok? Was it ever?

Help Obi-Ragey Kenobi, you're my only hope.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:39 AM on February 2, 2011

Does anyone have a picture of the shirt?

This is an image of the logo on the shirt. It's essentially a sports team t-shirt.
posted by Justinian at 6:40 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

previous thread where there was some skepticism that there were t-shirts that had rape jokes on them.
posted by rmd1023 at 6:40 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

I suppose "response" might have been a better word to use than "apology", but Gabe's post on Saturday read like an apology right up until the "if you're feeling conflicted about this, don't come to PAX" line.

There's an image of the shirt here.
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 6:41 AM on February 2, 2011

You mean the post in which Gabe clearly writes, right at beginning,

First of all I would never remove the strip or even apologize for the joke. It’s funny and the fact that some people don’t get it, or are offended by it doesn’t change that. People complained about the strip and that’s fine with me, my response as always is “if you don’t like it don’t read it.”

that apology? I'm pretty sure if someone says "I would never apologize and if you don't like it, don't read it" it's not reading like an apology. It's just an explanation.
posted by Justinian at 6:43 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

rmd1023: the t-shirt isnt for the dickwolves, it celebrates their victims supporting each other to recovery.
posted by jb at 6:44 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Not apologizing for the strip and not apologizing for the shirt are two different things in my mind.
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 6:45 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

The weird thing is that that t-shirt doesn't mention rape at all. It only references a webcomic that mentions rape. So if you hadn't seen the comic you wouldn't get the "joke" (although might still be offended by "dick", obviously).
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:45 AM on February 2, 2011

I was just about to say the same thing to paisley henosis. The text on that page reads:

Option Two: You act like an asshole. You try and derail the dialog your fans are attempting to have with you via the classic “misunderstanding” that rape culture means forcing men to become rapists.

The term "rape culture" describes a world in which rape is not taken seriously as the extreme violation that it is. That includes jokes and boys-will-be-boys she-brought-it-on-herself excuse-making, but also social and legal structures that frequently seem much more concerned with the possibility that an accuser may be lying than with the actual accusation itself. It's not some frivolous idea we should just slough off; it's a serious and well-thought-out critique of the world we all inhabit. You should take it seriously, and read up on it, before you just dismiss it.

As far as Penny Arcade goes, if your response to someone saying "Hey, rape's not funny" is "No, it totally is," then honestly I'm not even sure we can have a serious conversation.
posted by gerryblog at 6:47 AM on February 2, 2011 [113 favorites]

Fair enough, dvorak_bq. Any more on that paritcular subtopic is probably just semantic quibbling.
posted by Justinian at 6:47 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm offended by that comic. But only because it's not funny.
posted by jonmc at 6:48 AM on February 2, 2011 [14 favorites]

rape culture?

As always, Wikipedia is a good first place to go looking if you don't understand a term.

The catch of this whole debacle is that the rape joke was centered on a male NPC, and the logical extension of 'look at how this is a real problem, this strip explicitly contributes to the discourse that it's okay' is couched in a lot of vagaries, like how much it really does reinforce acceptance of rape given its ironic intent. So much of it's based on 'well, I think' and 'personally, I feel' that the argument lying underneath isn't altogether that sustainable.

So this smells more like a witch hunt, the burning of a symbol that alludes to something that alludes to a problem but doesn't embody it on the whole. Penny Arcade are acting as the scapegoat for gamer culture, the 'hardcore' kind, which is inherently misogynistic given its demographic. And that's fine to a certain extent; debate is needed in this arena but it's looking like the viciousness of the reaction vastly outweighs the actual impact of the joke, and this will only serve to drive the debate, and its debaters, into their polemics and god knows that's rarely helpful at all.
posted by dubusadus at 6:48 AM on February 2, 2011 [25 favorites]

Because there's nothing offensive about a shirt celebrating TEAM RAPIST?

The shirt does no such thing. Dickwolves are a fictional fictional race to be thought of along the lines of orcs, ogres, elves, or vampires. The line in the comic is "raped to sleep by dickwolves." This does not imply that ALL dickwolves are rapists or evil, and is clear by replacing the word "dickwolves" with "orcs," "vampires," or even "bears."

The word "dickwolves" may have some baggage associated with it due to its appearance being limited to this one comic strip, but it's a word created and chosen for its hilarious sound. It can be appreciated outside of the comic, and it has a hilarious real-life namespace collision with Law and Order creator Dick Wolf. The shirt's not a celebration of rape, rape culture, or rapists. It's a celebration of the word "dickwolves" and a way to cash in on a funny word.

The real problem is that more than a few asshats decided to indelicately self-appoint themselves defenders of Penny Arcade and "dickwolves." They certainly did more harm than good, and put PA in an awkward position of being on the side of the asshats. Before said asshats chimed in, it was basically some puerile humor versus some people contorting their logic to find reason to be offended.
posted by explosion at 6:49 AM on February 2, 2011 [28 favorites]

Some people could just not comment instead of repeating the same inane garbage about how oversensitive and easily offended people are.

If you really think there's nothing really wrong with the TEAM RAPIST tee shirt, then why don't you prove how oversensitive people are by photographing yourself wearing one?
posted by hermitosis at 6:49 AM on February 2, 2011 [14 favorites]

I actually think that Gabe's "apology", if you can call it that, was fairly well done.

Bullshit. It was nothing but a self-righteous "well I'm sorry if you took offense but I don't think I did anything wrong" non-apology, intended not as an apology but to bat the responsibility away from the offender to the wronged.

You know, I like Penny Arcade. It's a funny strip and it's well-drawn, which sets it apart from about five nines of webcomics. But Mike Krahulik's behavior regarding this, and Jerry Holkins' apparent silence on the matter, leaves a really nasty taste in my mouth that discourages me from wanting to thread their comic or buy their stuff. Apparently that makes me "some people" and not a fan.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:51 AM on February 2, 2011 [13 favorites]

Rape jokes are so very boring. It's the equivalent of dropping references to cheese or jam into gags for people who believe themselves to be edgy. See also: Frankie Boyle's Tramadol Nights.
posted by mippy at 6:52 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

What explosion said.
posted by papercake at 6:52 AM on February 2, 2011

As far as Penny Arcade goes, if your response to someone saying "Hey, rape's not funny" is "No, it totally is," then honestly I'm not even sure we can have a serious conversation.

The joke wasn't about rape, it was about MMORPG protagonists doing quests like "Save 10 slaves from lifelong torment!.... but leave the rest, just stop when you get to 10. 10's fine. You can leave the rest of them.", which makes sense as a "go and kill/rescue/collect X number of Y then return for 50xp" game mechanic but seems bizarre and callous in terms of in-character, classical fantasy hero behaviour.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:52 AM on February 2, 2011 [31 favorites]

It's sad how stupid the penny arcade guys are being abou this. The original joke wasn't great, and the shirt really does look like a horrible and deliberate jab at their female fans.

But WTF female/considerate fans, how could you have enjoyed PA in the first place? It's just offense for offense sake and has never really been funny. It represents all the worst things about gaming culture even when it's being cute.

In other words, protest by ignoring them and supporting funny webcomics instead. Don't feed the trolls.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:52 AM on February 2, 2011

IAAFeminist: I actually thought the original comic was funny. Then they kept digging that hole, all the way through the Earth to Assholetown.

why don't these people go donate their time to something that will actually affect rape victims in real life?

Umm... they probably do?
posted by muddgirl at 6:53 AM on February 2, 2011 [21 favorites]

If you really think there's nothing really wrong with the TEAM RAPIST tee shirt

Er, what TEAM RAPIST t-shirt?
posted by Justinian at 6:54 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Could it be that this is less about misogyny and more about homophobia?

They are two sides of the world's thinnest coin.
posted by rtha at 6:55 AM on February 2, 2011 [76 favorites]

Some people could just not comment instead of repeating the same inane garbage about how oversensitive and easily offended people are.

Yes, but then that would be playing into the usual scenario where people who are offended about anything argue that by voicing a different opinion others are only causing further offense. It's an oft-repeated way to shut down a thread and it's a bullshit tactic whatever you think of the merits of a particular case of offense.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 6:55 AM on February 2, 2011 [11 favorites]

The term "rape culture" describes a world in which rape is not taken seriously as the extreme violation that it is.

Doesn't it follow that America has an even stronger "murder culture," in which people habitually say, "I'm gonna kill him/her" without seriously considering the meaning thereof? What about our "beatings culture," where we talk about metaphorically "kicking someone's ass?"

Don't get me wrong, it disgusts me to hear people use "rape" as a joke, or as a puerile term for "emphatically defeating someone in competition," but it does seem like "rape culture" gets singled out.
posted by explosion at 6:55 AM on February 2, 2011 [24 favorites]

Some people have way too much time on their hands. Instead of trying to make a huge issue out of a comic, why don't these people go donate their time to something that will actually affect rape victims in real life? Proselytizing online just angers people and starts flame wars.

Two things:

Number one, fuck this shit right here. Just because there are greater ills in the world does not give you the right to be a lesser ill, nor does it make people who attack those lesser ills wrong.

Number two, if you had any ability to observe the world and connect the things you see happening, to figure out how the events around you relate to one another, you'd understand that jokes which make light of rape are both the product and a perpetuator of a culture in which rape is not taken seriously and in which rape victims are routinely minimized, harassed, ignored, and condemned. Rape culture is rape culture, and every bit of it must be attacked and torn down, not just the most egregious examples of it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:56 AM on February 2, 2011 [74 favorites]

Hmm. When I read that strip, I assumed people found it offensive because the protagonist was leaving a slave to die.

In the case of the comic, "Raped by Dickwolves" seems to refer to the most unspeakable horror that Gabe could think of at the time.

Yes, when you think about it, it was probably in poor taste. Make your displeasure known, don't buy the *%&ing shirts, and move on.

_{And, no. Metafilter doesn't do this well. Resisting the urge to call out the specific dickwolves who are trolling this thread....}
posted by schmod at 6:57 AM on February 2, 2011 [15 favorites]

To cut off 99% of the straw men that are going to be torched here, virtually no one is primarily upset about the original comic. They're upset that for about four months of this, the PA guys (or more specifically Mike Krahulik) has used any criticism against them to reflexively troll and abuse people about it.

This. I thought the strip was over the line but not bad enough to stir up my outrage. But seeing how they've responded in the wake of all this? Jesus, guys, I know you make your money acting like assholes, but mocking and trolling rape victims is pretty goddamn horrible.

Been following the strip since before Gabe could draw, but I'm pulling them from my feed right after I hit the post button.

Good work, guys.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:57 AM on February 2, 2011 [11 favorites]

Justinian: "It wasn't the PA guys being dicks... or at least no more than usual."

I don't think you were doing this Justinian, but can we have a general cessation of the notion that some people get a pass for being mean because meanness is an essential element of comedy? It's not. Louis CK is sufficient proof that you can make really dark jokes (even a few rape jokes in there) and still not be a dick about it.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 6:58 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

Doesn't it follow that America has an even stronger "murder culture," in which people habitually say, "I'm gonna kill him/her" without seriously considering the meaning thereof? What about our "beatings culture," where we talk about metaphorically "kicking someone's ass?"

Most conversations about murder trials don't begin with speculation about whether or not the victim might have faked their own death.
posted by gerryblog at 6:58 AM on February 2, 2011 [98 favorites]

I know how raunchy MMORPG can get, and that's perfectly fine -- they take place within groups of consensual players who have their own levels of tolerance.

Taking those jokes outside the circle and inflicting them on random passersby via T-shirts is purely antisocial, and feigning outrage over the outrage that results is just juvenile.
posted by hermitosis at 6:59 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

If Penny Arcade put out a t-shirt that said TEAM RAPIST, I would be offended, but they put out one that says Team Dickwolves and it's a joke on a joke.

You would've known this if you had've done something like read the articles, and not just commenting on the commentary.

Bullshit. The whole point of the Team Dickwolves shirt is to mock and bait people who find rape jokes offensive. They didn't put the strip out along with the shirt, they put the strip out, people complained, and Penny Arcade's response was "Oh, you don't like rape jokes, huh? Well now we're gonna sell a rape joke T-shirt, what now?"
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:00 AM on February 2, 2011 [16 favorites]

Just an observation; the vast majority of rape references in online gaming are male-to-male. Could it be that this is less about misogyny and more about homophobia?

This. I've got a super high tolerance for what others would find offensive -- particularly when it comes to gay issues. I'm of the mindset of not just 'if you're gay you can make jokes like that' but 'if you're otherwise gay friendly, you can make jokes like that' (see also: Seth McFarland) But despite the fact that I keep wanting to give PA (and gamer culture in general) a chance, I keep feeling my self-worth stepped on by the type of humor that snickers at me and mine like a 12 year old. And I'm too fucking old for that shit.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:00 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

I know how raunchy MMORPG can get, and that's perfectly fine -- they take place within groups of consensual players who have their own levels of tolerance.

Taking those jokes outside the circle and inflicting them on random passersby via T-shirts is purely antisocial, and feigning outrage over the outrage that results is just juvenile.

There are no dickwolves in MMORPGs. It was a side joke in a strip about how the mandates of game mechanics cause game characters to do absurd things.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:01 AM on February 2, 2011

Louis CK is sufficient proof that you can make really dark jokes (even a few rape jokes in there) and still not be a dick about it.

I don't disagree with your main point, l33tpolicywonk, but I don't think you can hold out Louis CK as somebody who isn't a dick in his comedy. He is absolutely criticized, including by some folks on Metafilter, as crossing way over the line. And, apropos this thread, specifically with regard to things like rape jokes.
posted by Justinian at 7:02 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

and Penny Arcade's response was "Oh, you don't like rape jokes, huh? Well now we're gonna sell a rape joke T-shirt, what now?"

The very fact that you think they made a "rape joke" in the first place shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the comic.
posted by Justinian at 7:03 AM on February 2, 2011 [12 favorites]

Bullshit. It was nothing but a self-righteous "well I'm sorry if you took offense but I don't think I did anything wrong" non-apology, intended not as an apology but to bat the responsibility away from the offender to the wronged.

Well, I should hope that's all it was. People who manage to get themselves offended by comics on the Internet truly do not deserve any more.
posted by planet at 7:04 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

From the Wikipedia "rape culture" link:

...in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualized violence.

That cartoon did none of those things, in my view. The reaction to it was absurd, and people need to stop being so endlessly hair-trigger about this shit. They need to learn to tell the difference between deliberately absurd hyperbole used for comic effect and actual condoning, normalising, excusing or encouraging. I say this with all the restraint I can muster: the people who seem incapable of making this crucial distinction look far more like dicks than those who know how to do so, and their endless whining and perpetual readiness to take offence makes them look both weak and lacking in perspective.
posted by Decani at 7:04 AM on February 2, 2011 [48 favorites]

If Penny Arcade put out a t-shirt that said TEAM RAPIST, I would be offended, but they put out one that says Team Dickwolves and it's a joke on a joke.

But it's a joke on a joke that offended people and was made because of that. It's totally not a TEAM RAPIST shirt and anyone who says otherwise is creating a stupid straw man.

A more apt metaphor is if a Sarah Palin reporter responded to the Tucson shootings controversy with a t-shirt with cross hairs and underneath it said "Surveyor Marks, You Betcha!" On the whole, the shirt wouldn't be offensive. But given the controversy and the history of the discussion, it's tone deaf at best, tasteless at worst.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:05 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

The very fact that you think they made a "rape joke" in the first place shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the comic.

"Every night we are raped to death by dickwolves" is a rape joke. The humor comes from the absurdity of the horror. We are meant to chuckle at that line, as the little joke that comes before the full punchline, which is an established comedic structure. The thrust of the comic is not a rape joke; the comic could have completely omitted any mention of rape and been just as funny.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:06 AM on February 2, 2011 [13 favorites]

I don't think it helps the situation at all for people to ascribe murky motives. Variations of "They are just looking for a reason to be offended" is pejorative speculation.

Yes, it was a joke and the follow up tee-shirt was in reality seems like a fuck you response. The internet is a big place, people are going to be offended by this. You(generic) may not feel their offense is valid, but honestly with such a sensitive and hurtful topic I fail to see how some might not feel it is offensive, and say so forcefully... and that is valid, even if you are not offended yourself.
posted by edgeways at 7:06 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

That cartoon did none of those things, in my view.

Fine, but the creators' response almost certainly has.

It's totally not a TEAM RAPIST shirt and anyone who says otherwise is creating a stupid straw man.

It's clear that lots and lots of people disagree with you. Penny Arcade presented Dickwolves as rapists - their primary characteristic in the comic is that they rape prisoners. Then in response to some negative attention they made a t-shirt that says "Team Dickwolves". Are we now supposed to assume that Dickwolves are NOT primarily characterized by the fact that they rape prisoners?
posted by muddgirl at 7:08 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Well, I should hope that's all it was. People who manage to get themselves offended by comics on the Internet truly do not deserve any more.

Really? What is it about comics on the internet that should exempt them from consideration? If I draw a series of webcomics about how Jews should be tortured to death, should I respond to anyone who objects by saying "It's just a comic on the internet, go fuck yourself"?
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:08 AM on February 2, 2011 [15 favorites]

The whole point of the Team Dickwolves shirt is to mock and bait people who find rape jokes offensive

But haven't we established that the original strip wasn't a rape joke?
posted by schmod at 7:08 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

A more apt metaphor is if a Sarah Palin reporter responded to the Tucson shootings controversy with a t-shirt with cross hairs and underneath it said "Surveyor Marks, You Betcha!" On the whole, the shirt wouldn't be offensive. But given the controversy and the history of the discussion, it's tone deaf at best, tasteless at worst.

Such a shirt would in and of itself be a minimization of the murders and an incitement to further murders, and that you can't see that makes me wonder whether or not you understand that real people are experiencing pain in the real world outside your head.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:09 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

But haven't we established that the original strip wasn't a rape joke?

The overall thrust of the strip was not a rape joke. The strip contained a rape joke. The "dickwolves" line is a rape joke contained within the strip. I do not understand why this is such a difficult concept for people who are genuinely trying to understand the situation to grasp.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:10 AM on February 2, 2011 [14 favorites]

That's a really fine line you're drawing there. To me it only makes sense to call something a "rape joke" if it is a joke about rape. Just like a "blonde joke" or a "Polish joke" or whatever.
posted by Justinian at 7:10 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I've taken one thing away from this whole thread:

Option One: You say, pretty much verbatim and regardless of the situation’s specifics, “I am sorry. Upsetting you was not my intention. I clearly need to educate myself more about this issue. Thank you for telling me about this and raising my awareness. And again, I’m sorry.”

I think that I'll try to incorporate this into my life more. Life would be easier if you all did the same.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:11 AM on February 2, 2011 [17 favorites]

That's a really fine line you're drawing there. To me it only makes sense to call something a "rape joke" if it is a joke about rape. Just like a "blonde joke" or a "Polish joke" or whatever.

"Every night we are raped to death by dickwolves" is a rape joke. The humor comes from the absurdity of the horror. We are meant to chuckle at that line, as the little joke that comes before the full punchline, which is an established comedic structure. The thrust of the comic is not a rape joke; the comic could have completely omitted any mention of rape and been just as funny.

posted by Pope Guilty at 7:11 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Really? What is it about comics on the internet that should exempt them from consideration? If I draw a series of webcomics about how Jews should be tortured to death, should I respond to anyone who objects by saying "It's just a comic on the internet, go fuck yourself"?
Yeah, honestly, why not tell them to fuck themselves? What conceivable benefit is there in humoring someone who would bother to react that way to your stupid, trivial comic?
posted by planet at 7:13 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

My assessment of the un-apology was not put in context of the behaviour in the forum or elsewhere surrounding the issue, and that definitely changes my opinion of the whole thing.

I've read penny arcade for years, and think that in general they have done good for "gamers" as a whole. I consider myself a gamer. But I do tire of some aspects of it, rape jokes being one of the major ones... alongside racism, sexism, and homophobia.

I honestly hope that as a group, we can leave these things behind, but the problem is that gamers are far, far from being one homogenous group. The best I can do is to not do these things myself, and to not tolerate it from friends that I game with.
posted by utsutsu at 7:13 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Yeah, honestly, why not tell them to fuck themselves? What conceivable benefit is there in humoring someone who would bother to react that way to your stupid, trivial comic?

Again, what is it about the fact that an idea is expressed in a comic that makes it trivial?
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:14 AM on February 2, 2011

Point 1: I'm a rape survivor (male on male)
Point 2: I found the comic to be pretty funny

Anyone else on the internets want to speak for me?
posted by littleredspiders at 7:15 AM on February 2, 2011 [40 favorites]

jellywerker: Some people have way too much time on their hands. Instead of trying to make a huge issue out of a comic, why don't these people go donate their time to something that will actually affect rape victims in real life? Proselytizing online just angers people and starts flame wars.

Or for some people, rape culture is a very real and traumatizing thing, either due to personal experience or out of sympathy. If someone changes their mind about rape jokes and how to respond to the idea of rape because of the "proselytizing," then something positive was achieved.

But I'm with explosion on this - Gabe/Mike kept playing it off as big joke, when there were a lot of people upset for some reason. This isn't a corporation upset that you've twisted their cute characters into some S&M duo, it's people upset about the way a single comment in the comic has expanded into a running joke about rape.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:15 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Hi,

Is this the thread where I have to prove my support for "more important" issues before taking thirty seconds to comment on a web forum? Well, er...I read an article about Egypt and wrote an article about House Resolution 3, which really actually will hurt rape victims, namely those who become pregnant. I somehow seem to have managed to do this despite the arduous process of posting the below comment, which I surely expected to take up my entire day!

Anyhow, reactions on the feminist blogosphere have been somewhat mixed on the original comic (I personally agree with Geek Feminism--it was pretty effective to me and didn't really bother me.) What people are objecting to is the flip tone of the followup comments and the t-shirt, both of which were in pretty poor taste.

One of the things you have to take this with is the fact that Penny Arcade also runs PAX, one of the "only overtly non-creepy" gaming conventions. PAX has done things in the past like banning booth babes and taking on sexual harassment, so seeing them arguably express that they don't care if rape victims are bothered by people wearing shirts featuring an animal expressly designed for rape (which does kind of seem like why it was created) is a little jarring, and has caused some hesitation about the project of PAX.

This isn't The Biggest Thing Ever, and people are hardly rioting in the streets because of it--it's just one of many things that these blogs write about. I'm sure it took Penny Arcade way longer to draw their "apology" comic and make the shirt than it takes some people to write about it, so why not debate the actual issue instead of deriding people for talking about it?
posted by Tubalcain at 7:16 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

"Every night we are raped to ~~death~~sleep by dickwolves" is a rape joke. The humor comes from the absurdity of the horror. We are meant to chuckle at that line, as the little joke that comes before the full punchline, which is an established comedic structure.

And? The point is that it's over-the-top, gratuitous, and in no way reflective of reality. It's an exaggerated horrible fate that the PC is completely unsympathetic to. If there was a line about throwing "entrails parties" with "intestines for streamers and livers as party-hats," it would be as in-line with a murder culture as the PA strip is in line with rape culture, which is to say, "not really at all."

Is rape just completely off-limits to mentioning in any comedic manner? Beatings are fine, murder's fine, AIDS is fine, even Hitler and the Holocaust are fine, but rape's just not allowed?

I can understand the "gosh, that strip's puerile" reaction, but I just certainly don't understand the "those guys are making light of rape, they're monsters!" reaction.
posted by explosion at 7:16 AM on February 2, 2011 [40 favorites]

Point 1: I'm a rape survivor (male on male)
Point 2: I found the comic to be pretty funny

Anyone else on the internets want to speak for me?

Not at all... what do you think about the shirt and the response and the rape victims who did not think it was funny?
posted by edgeways at 7:17 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Let me clear something up because I think this is causing confusion: If you read the links quickly, as I did at first, you might come to the conclusion that the T-shirt in question was the Dickwolves Survivors Guild shirt in the third FPP link, which is actually a hypothetical shirt made up as a response to the comic. The actual shirt at issue is this one, and it basically declares membership in the group of hypothetical raping entities.

Even if you don't think the comic is itself offensive (and it's at least in poor taste) and contributing to rape culture, that t-shirt is reprehensible, and in part because it's so obscure and self-referential. "Hey, other gamer dudes, I'm down with the offensive rape jokes too! WHEE!" Is it really so hard to just not make jokes about rape and then defend other rape-joking-assholes? Really?
posted by norm at 7:18 AM on February 2, 2011 [19 favorites]

For what its worth, when I was playing WoW, or any other online game of that nature where people can talk to each other, I couldn't go five minutes without hearing an actual rape joke, gay joke, or the word "nigger."
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:20 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Penny Arcade is funny, and the Penny Arcade guys are good guys. The original strip was funny, but the t-shirt was classless.

Mike is not good with 'womens issues', as he has demonstrated before.
posted by empath at 7:20 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

Penny Arcade has entertained me for years, but every now and then their humor makes me grimace. Sometimes I find my own worldview in their crosshairs and it's uncomfortable. I can't begrudge anyone else their reactions when they encounter humor that strikes close to home.

The problem with arguments like the one in this thread is that it's almost impossible to de-escalate. One you throw out the proposition that liking the comic is equivalent to encouraging rape, it's not the sort of thing you can back away from. Nor is it the sort of accusation that many folks are comfortable to let stand.

In the end, this comes back to the "rape joke" topic, and it's just something that never goes well here. Hopefully, future posters will factor that point into their decision making when considering an FPP on the topic.
posted by DWRoelands at 7:20 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

XQUZYPHYR's assessment makes sense to me. I thought the original comic was funny, but yeah... that t-shirt, (which I hadn't seen before) as a reaction to a controversy and a whole bunch of people being offended by the comic, pretty obviously does say "Team Rapist".
posted by XMLicious at 7:21 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

But haven't we established that the original strip wasn't a rape joke?

I think mostly all that's been established on that front is that different people disagree on whether "a rape joke" is a sufficiently clear way to connote "a joke that contains explicit rape-related content".

The joke in question had rape as an explicit element. That's a given.

I don't have trouble with the argument that it wasn't intended specifically to be a joke targeting rape victims, etc; PA guys often play with crudity but they do not seem to be that kind of asshole, and the line in the original comic is totally in line with their style of writing even if you swap out raping dickwolves for e.g. brainlusting mindflayers or whatever. They went with a line they thought was funny, it's what they do, not a whole lot to say there.

The response was from people who had a problem with that. People are gonna disagree on this point: some people are pretty sensitive to Ha Ha Rape stuff in any context; some people aren't sensitive about it at all. By the same token, some people are kind of sensitive about That's Not Funny stuff, while other people aren't.

Most of the heat here seems to be coming from the conflict between folks bothered by the Ha Ha Rape content of the strip and the people reacting to the That's Not Funny response. And while I hear where both side are coming from on that, it is kind of hard to not notice the imbalance in weight between "rape is an awful thing that I don't like jokes about" and "but it's funny, geddit" in terms of the personal and cultural stakes involved.

I love PA to death and thought the original comic was funny. But as someone who is neither necessarily easily bothered by rape references nor particularly bothered by people speaking up when they're bothered by this or that attempt at humor, I sure as shit think they would have been better off picking up on the immediate negative feedback and letting the Dickwolves stuff drop after the initial comic as a "welp, that didn't go over great" thing. Followup comic was questionable, Dickwolves jersey was just plain stupid. It's not surprising they're seeing backlash now; their handling was terrible regardless of their initial intent.
posted by cortex at 7:21 AM on February 2, 2011 [50 favorites]

The joke wasn't about rape, it was about MMORPG protagonists doing quests like "Save 10 slaves from lifelong torment!.... but leave the rest, just stop when you get to 10. 10's fine. You can leave the rest of them.", which makes sense as a "go and kill/rescue/collect X number of Y then return for 50xp" game mechanic but seems bizarre and callous in terms of in-character, classical fantasy hero behaviour.

The joke isn't about rape per se, but rape is a part of the joke. The line about being raped to sleep contributes to the 'humor' of the strip by highlighting the absurdity of leaving the remaining slaves to their fate. It could just as easily have been about other terrible things, but rape was selected from the universe of possible 'bad things that could happen to a slave.' And in fact many slaves were and are victims of sexual violence, so that brings a racial history component into the 'joke' as well.

By its nature the joke requires some sort of exaggerated description of the terrible fate awaiting the unfreed slaves, but rape is a poor choice in this context. First, it's not actually an element of World of Warcraft or (most) other MMORPGs, so it feels strained and like a symptom of the misogyny common in gamer culture. Second, gamer culture has huge problems with real-world misogyny but doesn't have a problem with real-world violence, so a rape joke is more threatening to readers, particularly women. Third, statistically more people (particularly women) have been the victim of sexual violence than non-sexual violence, particularly among the predominantly white readership of Penny Arcade, so jokey references to non-sexual violence aren't likely to be as directly offensive as jokey references to sexual violence.
posted by jedicus at 7:21 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

If there was a line about throwing "entrails parties" with "intestines for streamers and livers as party-hats," it would be as in-line with a murder culture as the PA strip is in line with rape culture, which is to say, "not really at all."

"Murder culture"? Seriously? Are murder accusations routinely met with accusations that the dead had it coming, and shouldn't have been wearing that non-kevlar outfit? Are murder victims routinely slandered and their families harassed and silenced? Do we live in a culture in which the severity of murder is minimized and ignored? What a completely bullshit comparison.

Is rape just completely off-limits to mentioning in any comedic manner? Beatings are fine, murder's fine, AIDS is fine, even Hitler and the Holocaust are fine, but rape's just not allowed?

It's the flipness, honestly. It's the minimization. These guys are getting raped by monsters, and it's a joke, because rape is itself funny. We rightly stigmatize jokes which have as their premise that murdering Jews is funny. We rightly stigmatize jokes which have as their premise that gay men dying of AIDS is funny.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:22 AM on February 2, 2011 [17 favorites]

Again, what is it about the fact that an idea is expressed in a comic that makes it trivial?

Comics (especially web comics) are a poorly-respected entertainment medium. They have little if any cultural weight with people who matter.
posted by planet at 7:22 AM on February 2, 2011

The whole POINT of the initial joke is that rape is a terrible thing. The strip has no humor if rape is being made light of.
posted by empath at 7:22 AM on February 2, 2011 [17 favorites]

Penny Arcade are acting as the scapegoat for gamer culture, the 'hardcore' kind, which is inherently misogynistic given its demographic.

Now wait just a second - claiming that gamer culture is inherently misogynistic due to demographics? Doesn't it have more to do with what kinds of behaviors the group allows, and encourages?
posted by dubold at 7:23 AM on February 2, 2011

The original comic portrays being raped by dickwolves as an insufferable and monstrous torture, and the joke of the comic is in calling out player characters for not caring about the people being hurt beyond the quest requirements. How, exactly, is this promoting the idea that rape is anything but terrible?

Is the idea that regardless of the framing, regardless of the context, regardless of anything, the word "rape" can never make an appearance in something comedic without it automatically condoning rape? Because that's absurd.
posted by kafziel at 7:23 AM on February 2, 2011 [39 favorites]

Comics (especially web comics) are a poorly-respected entertainment medium. They have little if any cultural weight with people who matter.

Oh, get out of here with your elitist twaddle.

The whole POINT of the initial joke is that rape is a terrible thing. The strip has no humor if rape is being made light of.

The joke isn't that it's terrible, the joke is rape. That the guys are getting raped is itself the joke.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:23 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Life would be easier if you all did the same.

Yes, but then we would all be constantly capitulating to people we disagree with on the basis that they were offended first. I could write pages and pages about this, but suffice it to say I don't accept that argument from religious fundamentalists and I'm not going to accept it from anyone else. Nobody gets to win an argument by acting angriest.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 7:24 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I could just as easily post this in the thread about Bitch removing books from their reading list, but: I've never been abused in any way, or sexually assaulted, and I don't really grok the whole concept of triggers, and I could easily sit down and ponder and argue why the world should adjust to ensure the comfort of people who might be upset by things and fight for my right to joke about whatever I want...

But then, you know, I've never been abused in any way, or sexually assaulted. So maybe I could just have some compassion and sensitivity toward people who have, and trust that they know what they're feeling, and do my best not to be hurtful toward them and to recognize areas where I can improve in this respect. It's not hard to do, and it's nice, so that's the route I'm trying to take.
posted by padraigin at 7:25 AM on February 2, 2011 [24 favorites]

The argument is not "I'm offended and therefore you should change", it's "this is offensive because x and I believe that you should agree with me that x is something you don't want to contribute to. Nobody save for maybe Bill Donohue argues "I'm offended, therefore you owe me something". People who make arguments involving their offense tend to say "This is offensive for this reason", where the reason is something we can discuss.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:26 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Oh, get out of here with your elitist twaddle.

If you really do take seriously things you read in web comics, that might be the biggest joke to come out of this.
posted by planet at 7:26 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I can understand the "gosh, that strip's puerile" reaction, but I just certainly don't understand the "those guys are making light of rape, they're monsters!" reaction.

Again, the majority of the problem here is how they responded to the negative criticism of the strip, not the strip itself. Telling a maybe-borderline joke is one thing. When rape victims say, "Hey, maybe that wasn't the best idea for a joke" and your response is to mock them and troll them and sell t-shirts so that you can line your pockets with money spent to mock and troll rape victims, then that is an entirely different thing. That latter is in fact a pretty good signal that you are overdue for some personal re-evaluation.
posted by middleclasstool at 7:27 AM on February 2, 2011 [23 favorites]

don't really grok the whole concept of triggers

People who have experienced trauma often suffer from a disorder called PTSD, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. When exposed to experiences or stimuli which causes them to recall that trauma, they experience the trauma again. The most famous example is Vietnam veterans experiencing something that reminds them of the war and reliving the horrors of combat. Sexual molestation very commonly causes PTSD. Something which is "triggering" is something which has a high chance of causing PTSD sufferers to have their PTSD triggered and relive the trauma. "Trigger warnings" are used to say "Hey, if you're a PTSD sufferer, this might trigger you, you might want to skip it" to enable sufferers to avoid being triggered.

The More You Know!
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:29 AM on February 2, 2011 [10 favorites]

The comic, the shirt, the resulting discussion are a great PR tool for gamers.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:30 AM on February 2, 2011

Don't forget to put on your Insane Clown Posse make-up when you sport your TEAM RAPIST shirt.
posted by Brocktoon at 7:30 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

The joke isn't that it's terrible, the joke is rape. That the guys are getting raped is itself the joke.

This is self evidently not true. The joke is that the supposed heros of the game are completely self-centered and refused to do anything to help others beyond the specific quest requirements, no matter how terrible they are suffering and need help.

That is the joke. Rape is ancillary to it. It's a graphic description of on-going suffering.
posted by empath at 7:30 AM on February 2, 2011 [16 favorites]

The comic, the shirt, the resulting discussion are a great PR tool for gamers.

Honest question: Why do gamers need PR?
posted by planet at 7:31 AM on February 2, 2011

The joke isn't that it's terrible, the joke is rape. That the guys are getting raped is itself the joke.

That's an inaccurate and unfair reading of the strip. The fair reading of the strip, whether you think it's funny or not, is that horrible, terrible things are happening to the slaves, and the PC will only (can only, by game mechanics) save 5 of them, because that is all that the quest requires. The 6th slave is left to his cruel fate by an indifferent PC.

Within the context of the strip alone, the humor is not to be found from the rape, but the callous indifference of the PC. That you're representing otherwise makes me question whether you're willing to have an honest conversation about this at all.
posted by explosion at 7:31 AM on February 2, 2011 [23 favorites]

First, it's not actually an element of World of Warcraft or (most) other MMORPGs, so it feels strained and like a symptom of the misogyny common in gamer culture.

Yes it is, apart from people talking about it, it is physically in the game.

In PVP in WoW, people often use emote animations to "rape" and/or teabag your dead body. Many people even make them into button-clickable macros so they don't have to type them out. Totally player-driven content.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:32 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I could easily sit down and ponder and argue why the world should adjust to ensure the comfort of people who might be upset by things and fight for my right to joke about whatever I want...

There are more important things in this world than the right to make light of the pain of others.

If you really do take seriously things you read in web comics, that might be the biggest joke to come out of this.

The medium through which ideas are expressed does not make those ideas invalid or trivial, kthx.

I look to video game culture as a source of, like, enlightenment and respect.

That this is comprehensible as a joke about how profoundly toxic and disgusting gamer culture is should be a perfect example of why it needs to be changed.

This is self evidently not true. The joke is that the supposed heros of the game are completely self-centered and refused to do anything to help others beyond the specific quest requirements, no matter how terrible they are suffering and need help.

That is the joke. Rape is ancillary to it. It's a graphic description of on-going suffering.

There are two jokes in the strip. Don't be willfully dense.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:32 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Within the context of the strip alone, the humor is not to be found from the rape, but the callous indifference of the PC.

Then why do people want to wear Dickwolf T-shirts?
posted by heatvision at 7:33 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

There should be a "let me wikipedia that for you"
rape culture. come on, is it really so hard to know in this day and age if you don't know something, it's possible to google it and likely you'll find a well-sourced, informative wikipedia article about it?

As always, Wikipedia is a good first place to go looking if you don't understand a term.

Well, good to see douchenozzle culture still abounds.
posted by grubi at 7:33 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

When rape victims say, "Hey, maybe that wasn't the best idea for a joke" and your response is to mock them and troll them and sell t-shirts so that you can line your pockets with money spent to mock and troll rape victims, then that is an entirely different thing.

The disconnect is that original strip didn't focus on rape, but rather the uncaring attitude of those on the quest.

Some people focused on the fact that rape was used in comedic setting and felt the strip was another brick in the house that is rape culture. Essentially, they called the original authors rapists or supporters of rape, which of course said authors rebelled against.

The problem here is the lack of understanding on both sides. Using rape in fictional setting is tricky subject. Yet because it was used doesn't make the authors bad people.

There is no real solution to this until people recognize their own biases and those of others.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:35 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

First, it's not actually an element of World of Warcraft or (most) other MMORPGs, so it feels strained and like a symptom of the misogyny common in gamer culture.

This is completely irrelevant, as the point of the joke is that even if the character were suffering a far worse fate than any portrayed in a MMORPG, the 'heros' would still not help them.

That would be an interesting experiment for a MMORPG designer, though. Create a quest with absolutely no reward except helping a suffering NPC and see how many people actually do it.
posted by empath at 7:35 AM on February 2, 2011

The medium through which ideas are expressed does not make those ideas invalid or trivial, kthx.
I look forward to your followup screeds about a joke you read in a bubblegum wrapper.
posted by planet at 7:36 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

The joke isn't that it's terrible, the joke is rape. That the guys are getting raped is itself the joke.

That is, by far, the most uncharitable reading of the strip possible. Are you claiming that being beaten is also the joke since in the same panel the slave says that every morning they are roused by savage blows? You're really stretching.

Also, quoting a comment you made earlier in the thread back in its entirety is unlikely to change someone's mind given that they've already seen the comment earlier in the thread!
posted by Justinian at 7:36 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Then why do people want to wear Dickwolf T-shirts?

Because "Dickwolf" is a funny word.
posted by ghharr at 7:36 AM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

Then why do people want to wear Dickwolf T-shirts?

My guess is that they like trolling people who are offended by ridiculous shit.

Not personally my thing (because the people being trolled have already suffered enough from whatever trauma they went through), but I can see where the impulse comes from, and it's not from being pro-rape.
posted by empath at 7:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Oh, and by the way, I did read the itty-bitty Wikipedia article on the term "rape culture". I wasn't asking GEE WHAT'S THIS HERE; I was wondering out loud about such a term -- as in, seriously? There's a rape culture now?.

But, thankyoudoucheymuch for the link.
posted by grubi at 7:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Some people focused on the fact that rape was used in comedic setting and felt the strip was another brick in the house that is rape culture. Essentially, they called the original authors rapists or supporters of rape, which of course said authors rebelled against.

That you do a thing which contributes to rape culture does not make you a rapist any more than being born white makes you a contributor to white privilege.

The problem here is the lack of understanding on both sides. Using rape in fictional setting is tricky subject. Yet because it was used doesn't make the authors bad people.

Making a flip, the-joke-is-that-he's-being-raped throwaway side joke is not simply "using rape in fictional setting".

I look forward to your followup screeds about a joke you read in a bubblegum wrapper.

You're just a deeply unpleasant person, aren't you?
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Then why do people want to wear Dickwolf T-shirts?

I think it's a "fuck you" to those equating them with rapists and bat man like signal to show which side of this very important issue they're on.

Both sides are coming at this from very different angles, convinced they're right and refusing to budge. It's a common thin in arguments.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

Not being an asshole doesn't make you a loser.

It really kind of does if it leads you to being vocally offended about "dickwolves". Hitting that point should be a wake up call, "hey, maybe I'm not enough of an asshole."
posted by planet at 7:38 AM on February 2, 2011

(I could have phrased that better -- the t-shirt is dickish, mike was an asshole for selling it, the people wearing it on assholes, but I honestly don't think it's because they're pro-rape in any way.)

Rape culture isn't really about being "pro-rape". It's about a culture of minimization of rape, in which rape is not taken seriously and in which the victims of rape are humiliated, mocked, harassed, and themselves accused. You don't have to be "pro-rape" to be a contributor to rape culture. I know plenty of people, for example, who think rape is terrible but respond to news of somebody going to prison with "HURR LOL DON'T DROP THE SOAP LOL" jokes.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:40 AM on February 2, 2011 [34 favorites]

but I honestly don't think it's because they're pro-rape in any way.

Yeah, nobody is saying they are "pro-rape." People rightfully have a very big problem with them making fun of rape victims for telling them that their little rape joke isn't funny.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:41 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

The whole POINT of the initial joke is that rape is a terrible thing. The strip has no humor if rape is being made light of.

On this point I am fine with agreeing to disagree. I think the strip is in poor taste but whatever. I have enjoyed plenty of poor taste humor in my life and while I have certain areas that I consider out-of-bounds for hilarity I think that's defensible on some level. Where I think this discussion flies off the rails is in the selling-- and defense of-- the Team Rapist shirt. I mean, if you wanted to make a definitional clothing example of promoting rape culture, that shirt is right up there with a T-shirt that says "Ben Roethlisberger Did Nothing Wrong". It's just not ok.
posted by norm at 7:41 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

People who have experienced trauma often suffer from a disorder called PTSD, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. When exposed to experiences or stimuli which causes them to recall that trauma, they experience the trauma again. The most famous example is Vietnam veterans experiencing something that reminds them of the war and reliving the horrors of combat. Sexual molestation very commonly causes PTSD. Something which is "triggering" is something which has a high chance of causing PTSD sufferers to have their PTSD triggered and relive the trauma. "Trigger warnings" are used to say "Hey, if you're a PTSD sufferer, this might trigger you, you might want to skip it" to enable sufferers to avoid being triggered.

The More You Know!

No, I get it, intellectually, I know what the concept means. I do not grok it. I do not have a deep and personal understanding of it, because I cannot, because I have not experienced it. I have to trust that the people who are triggered by things are triggered by them, whether or not I can put myself in their shoes. So I do. I trust them. And I try to be a good person about it and to understand it as best I can. Because I don't feel like I need to have a right to, whatever, live a life where I can enjoy things at other people's expense at all times.
posted by padraigin at 7:42 AM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

I've been conflicted about the whole Dickwolves thing from day one. As Justinian noted above, the original comic seemed to be about the fact that the MMoRPG setting is a sort of 'horror machine,' where every good deed gets reset 45 minutes later so that the next player can slay a monster/rescue a princess/whatever, leaving players calloused to everything other than XP and loot.

The cartoon's character goes into a mine filled with slaves, rescues five of them to satisfy a quest, and brushes off a sixth slave's please for help because it wouldn't give any loot or XP. The fact that things are really bad is communicated by the slave's words: "Every morning we are roused with savage blows, and every night we are raped to sleep by the dickwolves."

I'm reminded of the infamous Trucker's Delight animation that spawned a MeTa thread of doom a while back. It featured rape, the defense was that it was over-the-top and funny, and after a lot of thought I came to the conclusion that the really negative response that I have is to "humor" in which a victim is made the butt of the joke, or the target of further violation etc. Humor from the perspective of the abuser. When I read the dickwolves comic, I thought it was exactly the opposite: a comic about how horribly sociopathic someone would be to not help someone being raped and abused, the way MMoRPG protagonists ignore 'background victims' every day.

When some of the initial "That's horrible!" reactions rolled in, the reaction from Penny Arcade's creators work well with this. Essentially, "Dickwolves? That's what sent you over the edge? We have a character called 'The Merch' that kills childrens' parents if they don't keep buying tie-in merchandise." Both are treated as horrifying examples of something wrong, and the PA guys appear to think that the reaction against them was a misunderstanding about intent.

I'm also reminded of yesterday's thread about the Bitch Magazine Reading List, which had some books removed for including "triggering scenes." I can see good points on both sides of this that weren't there in the Trucker's Delight thread, and it troubles me. Is there a place for dark humor around horrible things? Is saying that the dark humor could trigger PTSD in people who've suffered IRL sufficient grounds to discourage anything but reverent silence around hot button issues? Is anything okay if it makes someone laugh? I don't know. It's a shitty scene. I just hope no one thinks I'm a rape apologist for not carrying my pitchfork eagerly on this one.
posted by verb at 7:42 AM on February 2, 2011 [26 favorites]

Pope Guilty, planet: take it to email.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:42 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Then why do people want to wear Dickwolf T-shirts?

Because "Dickwolves" is a hilarious word (I hope that in a context-free environment, we can agree on that). Because if they read the strip at all, they didn't associate *every* Dickwolf with being a habitual rapist (if Murlocs were a stand-in, it might be more obvious?). Because they didn't realize the context of this shirt's creation, and figured it was made for fun, rather than as a reaction.

The shirt's just not as clearly "TEAM RAPISTS" as a lot of people would claim. I sent an email to Mike (Gabe) offering my support insofar as I think it was a funny strip and not really over-the-line, but also telling him that I believe he ought to back down and let "dickwolves" go. There's no real way to rehabilitate the cultural implications the joke has, so even if he were completely in the right, it's still not "good" for him to continue down the path.
posted by explosion at 7:43 AM on February 2, 2011

Honest question: Why do gamers need PR?

Because of things like this. This and the Open Source Boob Project.
posted by mippy at 7:43 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

It's about a culture of minimization of rape, in which rape is not taken seriously and in which the victims of rape are humiliated, mocked, harassed, and themselves accused.

You're laying a lot of stuff on this single web comic.

I think I understand the dickwolves t-shirts a bit better now. Very few people want to be hold the baggage you've just described, especially when it wasn't their intent. The t-shirt almost seems a minimal reaction in that light.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:44 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

and defense of-- the Team Rapist shirt.

I really, really wish you would stop saying this. It's no different than if I misquoted your words to make you look like a bad person. There is no "Team Rapist" shirt.
posted by Justinian at 7:44 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

The Penny Arcade guys have a history of being actively hostile when they are clearly in the wrong. Look at what they did to MeFi's own YoungAmerican, Jesse Thorn.

Last year, they were on a book tour for their 10th anniversary which they expressed numerous times they had no interest being on. Their final stop on the first leg was as guests on Jordan Jesse Go! A series of misunderstandings on the part of their publicist led to them being early for a show whose format they were unprepared for.

Instead of taking it in stride, they were either silent or actively unpleasant to the hosts.

Then they produced this comic which wouldn't be so bad (Jesse often pokes fun at the weirdness of running a public radio show out of his home) if it weren't accompanied by this newspost from Jerry which viciously attacks not only the show but Jesse personally. Mike chimes in further down that page.

Jesse responded and it was pretty clear he was blindsided by the vitriol.

Unsuprisingly, there's a lot of crossover between PA and JJGO's fanbases and PA's forums are filled with people defending JJGO and Jesse. Jesse stops by and is diplomatic about the whole thing. Mike chimes in, offers the kind of non-apology apology people are upset about in this situation, placing the blame squarely on Jesse.

At PAX East, they were asked at a Q&A if they had reconsidered their position since so many of their own fans had come out to defend Jesse. Mike reiterated the point above and offered no further apology or indication that they'd softened in their offensive stance.

Then Mike insults Jesse again (last post) in another post a month later. Jerry never speaks on the topic beyond his initial, vicious newspost.

With things like their Child's Play Charity and the community they bring together at PAX, they project a public image of two guys who have used their unexpected success as a force for good.

With their reactions to the incident with Jesse and the heartfelt concerns of their community over the ongoing Rape Wolf joke, they just seem to be the man-children they're working so hard not to be perceived as.

It makes it hard to be a fan.
posted by unsupervised at 7:46 AM on February 2, 2011 [53 favorites]

I didn't find the original comic to be overly offensive, though I can see how it could trigger others. It's really the act of making the T shirts (which I read as team pro-rape) that is offensive. It reminds me a lot of the controversy surrounding Chris Rock's controversial standup routine. It wasn't until his routine was taken out of it's original context that it became maximally offensive - it went from kind of funny in a horrible way to really hurtful once you have the Michael Scotts of the world quoting it.

Chris Rock's routine might not be the best example, but offensive jokes can be used to heal as well as hurt - for example, I've heard disabled friends make an off color joke about their disability to kind of break the ice and make it less of an elephant in the room. However, not all people with their disability would or should find those jokes funny or helpful, and it's not okay to take those jokes out of context.
posted by fermezporte at 7:46 AM on February 2, 2011

You're laying a lot of stuff on this single web comic.

You have to stop seeing it as "this web comic" as if it were a thing free of context, but instead understand the context it happens in- which is a society where rape culture holds sway- and react to it as it exists within that culture. We do not live in a cultural context where rape is taken seriously. Jokes are one of the more common manifestations of that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:46 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

There was a general sense at the time that people had hair triggers on calling out gamer culture for its misogyny. This was a great example of it being completely unwarranted but the response coming in force anyway. The dickwolves T-shirt, as a message, comes closer to "We don't let anybody boss us around" than "rape victims sure are dumb".

Anyone who's actually attacking the comic just sort of looks silly and is building a straw man to be effortlessly knocked down. The comic was obviously invoking the word "rape" as an awful torture that any normal person would do all in their power to prevent. The response comic was because people enjoy looking at straw men get knocked down.

I think gubi's confusion wasn't at the term "rape culture", which is sufficiently wide-spread that I think most people know it, but in reference to the original comic, which doesn't add to rape culture in any way. No hint of blaming or doubting the victim was in either the first comic or the response comic. No suggestion that the rape was in any way an acceptable thing to do... horrible monsters were doing it as a means of torturing slaves.
posted by EtzHadaat at 7:47 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Not being an asshole doesn't make you a loser.

I think the asshole in the general set of conditions I describe is the person who wants to "win" the argument by appealing to emotion. Again, it's exactly what religious fundamentalists do when charging non-believers with blasphemy: they treat a contested, politicizes idea as literal truth, and then go on to claim that people who don't subscribe to it are not only wrong but must be "punished" or "educated" or some similar thing. It's the whole template for that type of argument that's the problem, not any one topic. The problem was perfectly (if inadvertently) summed up in the "Here's A Thing" post, where the options for Penny Arcade's creators were explicitly limited to A) Agree with the offended party or B) Be some sort of monstrous person who deserves to be pilloried. There is a wholesale failure to consider that the non-offended party could simply disagree; it's an attempt to turn offense into an unassailable support for ideas that are often quite wrongheaded (religious fundamentalism, legislation that harms homosexuals, vaccine denial, etc.)
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 7:49 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

I really, really wish you would stop saying this. It's no different than if I misquoted your words to make you look like a bad person. There is no "Team Rapist" shirt.

I said it just once, and while it is a framing technique to be sure, it's a fair one. But for the rape joke comic, there is no such thing as a Dickwolf. "Team Those-That-Rape-Male-NPCs-To-Sleep" just doesn't roll quite as trippingly off the tongue.
posted by norm at 7:49 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Making a flip, the-joke-is-that-he's-being-raped throwaway side joke is not simply "using rape in fictional setting".

Not to make too fine a point of it, but that wasn't the joke at all. The joke was that MMoRPG players are constantly expected to behave like sociopaths, leaving people in slavery and bondage because they don't "count" towards the game's ranking system.

That doesn't mean that the response wasn't dickish. That doesn't mean that the dismissive tone wasn't a problem. That doesn't mean that the comment was "appropriate." But it wasn't a "hah hah he's being raped!" comic.
posted by verb at 7:49 AM on February 2, 2011 [10 favorites]

The dickwolves T-shirt, as a message, comes closer to "We don't let anybody boss us around" than "rape victims sure are dumb".

If you're devoted to ignoring cultural context, perhaps.

I dunno, if anything's truly offensive here, it's the minimization of people who are genuinely concerned about rape culture- including many victims of rape as being attention-seekers or "just looking to be offended" or whathaveyou. It's a very common thing when people speak out against bigotry and hostility.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:49 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

Pope Guilty: The joke isn't that it's terrible, the joke is rape. That the guys are getting raped is itself the joke.

Wow, you really missed the punchline. The rape is pretty much irrelevant. The joke is that the heroic PC, Defender of Good, doesn't care and walks away.

As others have said, that middle panel could have been anything awful. The more extreme it is, the more the absurdity of leaving the prisoner to his fate is highlighted. "Being raped to sleep by dickwolves" is an attempt to both be inherently funny (imagining 'dickwolves' is mildly amusing), and be so wildly over the top that the "hero's" utter amorality is brought into sharp focus.

But, sure enough, some people decided to climb out on a limb and insist that the rape was the focus of the comic, when it just absolutely wasn't. Any bad scenario would have sufficed.
posted by Malor at 7:50 AM on February 2, 2011 [13 favorites]

horrible monsters were doing it as a means of torturing slaves.

...and then we all go out and buy shirts expressing support for those horrible monsters, while Mike and Jerry laugh all the way to the fucking bank.

Yeah, not an example of rape culture at all.
posted by muddgirl at 7:50 AM on February 2, 2011 [14 favorites]

Not to make too fine a point of it, but that wasn't the joke at all. The joke was that MMoRPG players are constantly expected to behave like sociopaths, leaving people in slavery and bondage because they don't "count" towards the game's ranking system.

I've said it over and over in this thread: there are two jokes in that strip. The dickwolves line is a little joke intended to lead up to, and add oomph to, the final punchline.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:50 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Worse than our support - our allegience. Dickwolves are our mascot, for fuck's sake.
posted by muddgirl at 7:51 AM on February 2, 2011

No hint of blaming or doubting the victim was in either the first comic or the response comic. No suggestion that the rape was in any way an acceptable thing to do... horrible monsters were doing it as a means of torturing slaves.

Exactly. Nothing in the comic was minimizing rape whatsoever. Find it funny, find it unfunny, whatever. But just wow.

If they hadn't said "rape" but the joke otherwise remained the same, would it be funny? As someone who's quested those "only need to save 5" quests more than a few times, I gotta say yeah. They build a weird dynamic: be the savior of this world! But just hit the quota of savioring.
posted by grubi at 7:52 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I don't really understand why something so juvenile and puerile is worth defending. Couldn't they have shrugged, apologized, and gone on with life? I mean talk about your hills to die on...
posted by Stagger Lee at 7:52 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

A lot of people in this thread are purposely missing the joke and there's really no reason to explicate the strip anymore. These same people seem to want the concept of rape to be off-limits, and spoken off only in hushed and hallowed tones as it is somehow different from all the other terrible things that can and do happen to human beings. True, there is no equivalency for rape. There's also no equivalency for loosing a limb to an IED, or being deliberately set on fire in an honor killing, or being the target of a hate crime, or a million other terrible things that don't elicit this kind of reaction by their mere mention. It perhaps not surprising to see the "OMG no one may mention rape ever except in grim and serious tones" crowd resort to misinformation "Team Rapists shirts" and bullying; but it is disappointing.
posted by 2bucksplus at 7:53 AM on February 2, 2011 [13 favorites]

There is in "game" culture (*) an ugly knee-jerk, shallow, and negative reaction when it comes to criticism that's often worse than the original work. Game culture has an apparently glass jaw when it comes to criticism, resulting in extended flamewars of no you. I half suspect that some of the participants treat these flamewars as if they were a game, and that by obsessively mashing buttons on the keyboard and hitting the submit button, they'll find the hidden combo that gives a cinematic where they gloat over a rhetorical victory.

(*) Put in scare quotes because that culture is, curiously enough, dismissive of the kinds of games that are serious business in my family.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:54 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

I can see good points on both sides of this that weren't there in the Trucker's Delight thread, and it troubles me. Is there a place for dark humor around horrible things? Is saying that the dark humor could trigger PTSD in people

If there were, say, a website for people with epilepsy, and they had a post about "you shouldn't watch that one Pokemon episode," would there be a side of people arguing against them taking that off of their watching list?

Also...

Metafilter: The rape is pretty much irrelevant.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:54 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Exactly. Nothing in the comic was minimizing rape whatsoever. Find it funny, find it unfunny, whatever. But just wow.

Totally wrong. It's a joke because the Hero doesn't care about something that is completely awful.

Again: it is an additional joke which supports and adds strength to the ultimate punchline. This is something comedy writers do- you have something funny, which gets a laugh, and then you top it, which is not only another laugh, but is bigger because you're already laughing.

If they hadn't said "rape" but the joke otherwise remained the same, would it be funny? As someone who's quested those "only need to save 5" quests more than a few times, I gotta say yeah.

Exactly! So why use rape if it's not necessary to do so?
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:54 AM on February 2, 2011

I would have simply ignored Shakesville in the first place. The women there said their piece, and fine, they would have had the last word. ... but no, this is the Intarnetz! heheh

] insert rec.pets.cats reference and obligatory old-timer winkwink [

Cheerio!
posted by Ardiril at 7:56 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

If there were, say, a website for people with epilepsy, and they had a post about "you shouldn't watch that one Pokemon episode," would there be a side of people arguing against them taking that off of their watching list?

Probably not. In the case of this comic, though, the issue isn't about simply warning people, it's about accusing the creators of not caring about epileptics and suggesting that the cartoon was created to harm epileptics.

Metafilter: The rape is pretty much irrelevant.

Just for reference: If anyone reads this post or my other posts in this thread, I REQUEST THAT YOU DO NOT ASSUME I HOLD ANY OPINIONS THAT I HAVE NOT EXPLICITLY STATED.
posted by verb at 7:57 AM on February 2, 2011

If this had started with an article in an academic journal about the callous attitudes and values implied by games which say "you only save X NPCs from the horrible torment, leave the rest to suffer", and if some sort of ironic slogan or bumper sticker or whatever had been distributed at a conference for the field in which the author of the paper works, would we be having this debate?

If not, why?

If some other horrible form of inhumanity were substituted for rape, would we be having this debate?

If not, why?
posted by ubernostrum at 7:58 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Well at least we're not getting all worked up about Republicans trying to redefine rape.
posted by Max Power at 7:58 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Are murder accusations routinely met with accusations that the dead had it coming, and shouldn't have been wearing that non-kevlar outfit?

The idea that getting killed is an "occupational hazard" to dealing drugs, or burglary or various other criminal activity is a pretty common one. Check the comments section of your local paper.

Hell, this metafilter post had a whole lot of "some folks just need killing" going on in it.
posted by electroboy at 7:58 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

So why use rape if it's not necessary to do so?

What does "necessary" have to do with comedy?

(Or an attempt at comedy?)
posted by grubi at 7:59 AM on February 2, 2011

1. As has already been said, if rape is supposed to be funny by itself, then the big joke at the end isn't funny at all. The big joke is only funny if rape is awful.

It's almost like a person can both think rape is awful and do and say things which minimize rape at the same time! Gee, that could never happen!

Well at least we're not getting all worked up about Republicans trying to redefine rape.

Two things:

Number one, fuck this shit right here. Just because there are greater ills in the world does not give you the right to be a lesser ill, nor does it make people who attack those lesser ills wrong.

Number two, if you had any ability to observe the world and connect the things you see happening, to figure out how the events around you relate to one another, you'd understand that jokes which make light of rape are both the product and a perpetuator of a culture in which rape is not taken seriously and in which rape victims are routinely minimized, harassed, ignored, and condemned. Rape culture is rape culture, and every bit of it must be attacked and torn down, not just the most egregious examples of it.

posted by Pope Guilty at 8:00 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Well at least we're not getting all worked up about Republicans trying to redefine rape.

You are not paying attention.
posted by cortex at 8:00 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Yes [rape is an element of World of Warcraft], apart from people talking about it, it is physically in the game.

I'm well aware of people using player animations to simulate rape or teabagging, and I'm well aware of what goes on in chat. My point was that, in my years of playing WoW I never encountered a situation where an NPC needed to be saved from sexual violence. That's what I mean when I say it's not an element of WoW. Obviously players can take any available sitting, crouching, squatting, or 'lie prone' animation and turn it into a representation of sexual violence (just look at Halo multiplayer), and any game with a chat system can be (and usually is) filled with references to sexual violence.

[That rape is not an element of World of Warcraft] is completely irrelevant, as the point of the joke is that even if the character were suffering a far worse fate than any portrayed in a MMORPG, the 'heros' would still not help them.

No, it is very relevant. Since it's not part of the game (by which I mean no NPC-in-need-of-rescue actually complains of sexual violence) the PA authors can't say "but we're just referring to the typical plot of these games." They imported sexual violence into the context of the game, and they imported it from the misogynistic gamer culture that all too often makes light of sexual violence. They took the sexual violence cue from gamer culture, not from the game itself. In doing so they were perpetuating a culture that says "even if the game is not about sexual violence, we will make it about sexual violence." That attitude is harmful to women, to victims of sexual violence, and ultimately to gamer culture.
posted by jedicus at 8:00 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

A lot of people in this thread are purposely missing the joke and there's really no reason to explicate the strip anymore.

Speaking only for myself, I think a lot of people in this thread are putting all their attention on the comic strip because it's actually remotely defensible. I think the strip is not particularly funny but oh well. It's the t-shirt, the one they were selling for money, that gamers were buying to wear and display their membership in if not TEAM RAPIST at least TEAM WE MAKE REFERENTIAL JOKES TO RAPE BECAUSE IT'S CONTROVERSIAL SO GET FUCKED YOU FUCKING FEMINISTS.

It perhaps not surprising to see the "OMG no one may mention rape ever except in grim and serious tones" crowd resort to misinformation "Team Rapists shirts" and bullying; but it is disappointing.

I take it you are not in this "crowd". Please, enlightened sir, please tell me the contexts in which rape is an excellent topic that is not grim or serious.
posted by norm at 8:00 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

If there were, say, a website for people with epilepsy, and they had a post about "you shouldn't watch that one Pokemon episode," would there be a side of people arguing against them taking that off of their watching list?

This seems more germane to the other thread, but I would hope there would be a side of people arguing against removing Pokemon from the watch list. The appropriate response is to recommend the show (if it has merit) with an epilepsy trigger warning. I'd much prefer recommended lists to include possibly difficult material with warnings than to remove it on the basis that it may trigger someone. Kind of like, "let us choose for our own kids, rather than banning books from the library outright."
posted by explosion at 8:01 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I would argue that the joke in the strip uses rape as an example of a terrible thing. Just like you could use maiming or murder as an example of something very bad that can happen to you. There are don't drop the soap jokes that treat rape as not a serious thing but this isn't one of those.
posted by I Foody at 8:01 AM on February 2, 2011

or a million other terrible things that don't elicit this kind of reaction by their mere mention.

As has been said over and over in here, Rape is notable and different because of what has been termed Rape Culture. With most OtherTerribleThings, you don't have that culture around it, tormenting the victims.

Also, I really tire of people who say "It's just a...!" It's just silly. People spend a lot of time creating material. And whatever form it comes in, especially if it is from a 'popular' producer, it's not "just a ____", it is thought out and meaningful.

Boondocks comes to mind. Is it "just a comic"? Not at all. Ideas mean things. Words mean things. Depictions mean things.
posted by cashman at 8:02 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

"Murder culture"? Seriously? Are murder accusations routinely met with accusations that the dead had it coming, and shouldn't have been wearing that non-kevlar outfit? Are murder victims routinely slandered and their families harassed and silenced? Do we live in a culture in which the severity of murder is minimized and ignored? What a completely bullshit comparison.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. You may want to stop and think about what routinely goes on in murder trials.
posted by Amanojaku at 8:02 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

What does "necessary" have to do with comedy?

We live within a context in which rape is largely minimized and ignored, despite the lip service that is occasionally paid to it. In this context, we need to examine the things we say and ask ourselves whether our references to rape are done with sensitivity or insensitivity, whether they tend to minimize rape or treat it with the seriousness it deserves. We need to examine what we express and evaluate it. That many people think they should be able to just say whatever the fuck they feel like and nobody should be allowed to call them on it is bullshit.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:02 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Comics (especially web comics) are a poorly-respected entertainment medium. They have little if any cultural weight with people who matter.

Tell that to the artists who drew cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
posted by rtha at 8:02 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Comics (especially web comics) are a poorly-respected entertainment medium. They have little if any cultural weight with people who matter.

"Tell that to the artists who drew cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad."

Or tell it to Thomas Nast.
posted by jedicus at 8:04 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

This is my take on this -

PA's original response (the shirt) was ridiculously immature. I love PA, but this was very nearly a deal breaker. The first complaint should've registered a 'ok, sorry' and they should've just dropped it. Instead, it was as if they chased the offendees around like a 13 year old boy going 'dickwolves dickwolves dickwolves' over and over again.

When a 13yo boy does that to a 13yo girl, it is inevitable that the 13yo girl is going to get angry and slap him. PA got slapped. Whether or not you want to look at this in terms of 'it was just a joke' or whatever, that's fine - but the point of the original comic - a very funny (to me) joke, has been lost in Mike and Jerry's infantile attempts at pushing back.

They had a chance to be classy about something that was mildly offensive to many people and deeply offensive to a nontrivial minority of people and instead were, well, dicks.
posted by Fuka at 8:04 AM on February 2, 2011 [27 favorites]

"Murder culture"? Seriously? Are murder accusations routinely met with accusations that the dead had it coming, and shouldn't have been wearing that non-kevlar outfit? Are murder victims routinely slandered and their families harassed and silenced? Do we live in a culture in which the severity of murder is minimized and ignored? \

You don't watch the news much, do you ?
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:05 AM on February 2, 2011

You have to stop seeing it as "this web comic" as if it were a thing free of context

No, you have to stop seeing mountains when there are anthills.

...but instead understand the context it happens in- which is a society where rape culture holds sway- and react to it as it exists within that culture. We do not live in a cultural context where rape is taken seriously.

I honestly don't understand what you're talking about here, as it seems you're making stuff up. Rape is taken seriously, there are laws against, people are put on trial for it and they go to jail. Could these be better with all the above? Sure, but for someone to write that rape isn't take seriously is just kinda bizarre, IMO
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:05 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

If some other horrible form of inhumanity were substituted for rape, would we be having this debate?

Because, as has been suggested, there is a tendency in our culture to belittle the impact of rape. It is suggested that rape is very common, and often laughed off by those who feel they are not affected by it. It also tends to be seen as something that happens to a vulnerable segment of society more often than to the rest.

And nerds would rather die for their freedom of speech than admit that a joke was in poor taste. Which I can only hope is some odd, anti-social byproduct of deep insecurity, and not the total assholeishness it looks like.
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:05 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

They had a chance to be classy about something that was mildly offensive to many people and deeply offensive to a nontrivial minority of people and instead were, well, dicks.

This.
posted by verb at 8:06 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

No, you have to stop seeing mountains when there are anthills.

Hang on, I'll hit it back over the net. Oh yeah, well YOU need to stop pretending those mountains are anthills just because you don't want to acknowledge that there are mountains!

I honestly don't understand what you're talking about here, as it seems you're making stuff up. Rape is taken seriously, there are laws against, people are put on trial for it and they go to jail. Could these be better with all the above? Sure, but for someone to write that rape isn't take seriously is just kinda bizarre, IMO

See? You want to pretend those mountains aren't there.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:06 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

In 2002, a guy on the Penny Arcade message boards had a great idea. He had recently had to visit the pediatric wing of his local hospital, I don't remember why, and was struck by how little there was for the children to do, besides lay in bed and suffer. So he rounded up a bunch of his old video game consoles and controllers and games, picked up more at the pawn shops, and took Segas and Nintendos and Playstations to a few local hospitals. He wasn't a rich guy, so he posted on the PA forums and said "hey, you guys all love video games as much as I do, but maybe you have some old stuff stored somewhere that you won't really be using again? If you do let me know and I'll pay postage to have it shipped here."

The response was very strong. Within a few weeks the bottleneck became his ability to become an official non-profit: lots of the hospitals were unwilling to work with a single strange person with no official papers or background, and the CPA he talked to advised him that all of the "donations" from online would be personal income unless he was a non-profit on paper. But filing all the paper work cost money, but accepting cash donations before he was a non-profit was going to fuck his personal taxes all to hell. The actual giving was halted, but the good will continued and people posted frequently to check for updates and post about things they had boxed up for whenever he was ready or garage sale finds they had bought to donate once that was available.

A few months later, Mike and Jerry (a.k.a. Gabe and Tycho a.k.a. Penny Arcade) started a charity called Child's Play that gives video games to pediatric facilities and hospitals. The whole thing got off the ground quite quickly, as the founders could easily afford the incorporation money as well as being able to easily draw in sponsorships and free stuff to re-gift. Neither of them gave anything form their personal collections.

The original chap emailed Mike and Jerry. He commended them on what a great idea, and let them know that in fact he, a poster on their very own message boards, had a similar idea, and enough goodies to fill a storage area, and a network of over a dozen hospitals which he already had a person relationship with for distributing and deploying and maintaining the consoles and games. He let them know that he was, now, an official non-profit, and that he had large spread support in place on their own network. He asked what he could do to help; how he could be a part of their system. They told him he could mail them the consoles and games, or send cash, but that they had no interest in further contact. After they undermined him wholesale and stole his entire concept.

So, yeah, the Penny Arcade guys are total fucking assholes. This point can pretty much be seen as covered. The fact that they found a new group of people to be dicks to is, really, not news in and of itself, though I can see how it could be frustrating.
posted by paisley henosis at 8:06 AM on February 2, 2011 [47 favorites]

We live within a context in which rape is largely minimized and ignored, despite the lip service that is occasionally paid to it.

That statement has a lot of assumption built in.

That many people think they should be able to just say whatever the fuck they feel like and nobody should be allowed to call them on it is bullshit.

Ah. So mention rape outside of the most serious of contexts and you're minimizing it. Thanks, got it.
posted by grubi at 8:06 AM on February 2, 2011

Well at least we're not getting all worked up about Republicans trying to redefine rape.

You do know there was a big thread about that on Metafilter a couple days ago? You are implying it was ignored, and it was not.
posted by Justinian at 8:06 AM on February 2, 2011

And nerds would rather die for their freedom of speech than admit that a joke was in poor taste. Which I can only hope is some odd, anti-social byproduct of deep insecurity, and not the total assholeishness it looks like.

We live in a culture that values social norm-reinforcing "free speech" to the degree that the idea that you have free speech, and not consequence-free speech, is a controversial one.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:07 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Like I said above, I thought the original comic was funny. But I don't get how anyone is proposing that the t-shirt does not say "Team Rapist". I mean, the role of the Dickwolves in the comic was... they were the rapists. The point of making the shirt is to thumb their noses at specific people, the people who were offended over the treatment of rape in that comic... or at the very least, the point of it is to say something, at least, about a controversy that centered around the issue and depiction of rape. So coming up with some theoretical other Dickwolves who have never been mentioned anywhere who aren't rapists, to say that the shirt is about Dickwolves in general, not all of whom are rapists, is rather a stretch it seems to me. But even if they existed... "Team Dickwolves, only some of us are rapists"?

Bah... on preview, norm says it better than me.
posted by XMLicious at 8:08 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

The little joke isn't "rape", it's trying to imagine what the hell a dickwolf is.

They went on to actually draw one, linked above. It is a wolf with penises as legs. Hah, hah!
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:09 AM on February 2, 2011

paisley, are you talking about GetWellGamers?

That statement has a lot of assumption built in.

It has experience, including listening to rape victims relate their experiences, built in.

Ah. So mention rape outside of the most serious of contexts and you're minimizing it. Thanks, got it.

That isn't what I said at all and you know it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:09 AM on February 2, 2011

The shirt was way over the line. The joke is over the line to me, but then again I can just stop reading Penny Arcade. (And I did.) The shirt, otoh, was a celebration of something that most people would agree shouldn't be celebrated.

College sports.
posted by andreaazure at 8:10 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

As far as I can tell, the “joke” is usually that it wasn’t really rape at all, or it wasn’t a “real” rape, or it was a fun rape, or it was a deserved rape. Which, seeing as how rape victims get to hear that shit, completely seriously (and with completely serious consequences) from their rapist, friends, family, and cops, you might see as how it doesn’t come off as a joke so much as it comes off as same shit, different day.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:11 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

...but instead understand the context it happens in- which is a society where rape culture holds sway- and react to it as it exists within that culture. We do not live in a cultural context where rape is taken seriously.

I honestly don't understand what you're talking about here, as it seems you're making stuff up. Rape is taken seriously, there are laws against, people are put on trial for it and they go to jail. Could these be better with all the above? Sure, but for someone to write that rape isn't take seriously is just kinda bizarre, IMO

You ever get to the part in the discussion when you realize that someone else is just not even remotely conversant in the issues that you're supposed to be discussing? I'm getting that feeling right about.... here. Not going to go all 'grar' I'm just going to invite you to get educated about this large area with much scholarship and writing available for your edification prior to putting out such amazingly ignorant statements.
posted by norm at 8:12 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

That isn't what I said at all and you know it.

That's my point. Taking what someone said and extrapolating something else out of it is disingenuous and presumptive. My statement is as false as at least one you've made.
posted by grubi at 8:12 AM on February 2, 2011

Any bad scenario would have sufficed.

And I think in many people's minds, the fact that Mike felt safe using rape instead of some other bad scenario is the indication of rape culture.

I used to make deliberately offensive t-shirts, but my targets have always been political and religious in nature, not individual and personal. I've yet to meet a dittohead that didn't smile a little at a "Will Kill Rush Limbaugh For Food" shirt. I've had church groups want to repurpose the "Jesus Died For My Sins and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt" shirts, since it is theologically sound (salvation is by grace not by works). I have two versions of a shirt, one of my favorite concepts, but one of which I just won't wear anymore, in part due to the whole catholic priest scandal, because I can see someone seeing it as minimizing the victims, even though that wasn't my original intent. My intent WAS to push the priests-are-rapists joke, but you can't touch on the perp without at least alluding to the victim, and if you aren't saying anything positive about them, it leaves open the interpretation of tacit consent. Fair coverage of a touchy subject is rarely funny though, to anyone. Ignoring half the equation makes the joke easier to construct.
posted by nomisxid at 8:12 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

It's a tough topic folks, coming in here and calling everyone assholes does not help you, the site, other people or the world at large. We have MetaTalk. You can use it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:13 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

They told him he could mail them the consoles and games, or send cash, but that they had no interest in further contact. After they undermined him wholesale and stole his entire concept.

A nice tale, but just seems like proof that even starting a very successful charity will get people pissed off at you on the internet.
posted by smackfu at 8:13 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

That's my point. Taking what someone said and extrapolating something else out of it is disingenuous and presumptive. My statement is as false as at least one you've made.

Your desire to pretend that things happen in a vacuum does not have any bearing on reality.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:13 AM on February 2, 2011

Your desire to pretend that things happen in a vacuum does not have any bearing on reality.

Why are you getting personal?

I'm not pretending anything happens in a vacuum, but neither am I assuming a stance of everything-is-absolutely-connected-so-everybody-put-on-a-serious-face-for-fear-of-offense.
posted by grubi at 8:15 AM on February 2, 2011

For everyone yelling about how ridiculous the 'murder culture' comparison is to 'rape culture,' this is directly from the second link in the post, the flagship response of the offended:

"But unlike Gabe killing Tycho so he doesn't have to share a video game, a slave being raped is a real thing that happens in the world every day."

Go ahead and take a moment and let that sink in.

Slaves being raped? Something that happens in the real world every day. Unlike murder.
posted by silentpundit at 8:15 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

So coming up with some theoretical other Dickwolves who have never been mentioned anywhere who aren't rapists, to say that the shirt is about Dickwolves in general, not all of whom are rapists, is rather a stretch it seems to me. But even if they existed... "Team Dickwolves, only some of us are rapists"?

Again: the word "dickwolves" is a funny word. Outside of context, it's a great team name as a joke. You know what else is great outside of context? Teams named "Warriors," "Trojans," Wildcats," "Hurricanes," etc. The reality is that the first two kill and often enough rape, the third is known for mauling humans from time to time, and the last devastates communities. No one's calling for the Carolina Hurricanes to change their name, are they?

Ultimately, the "Dickwolves" t-shirt is no more "Team Rapists" than a "Trojans" jersey is "Team Killers and sometimes rapists."
posted by explosion at 8:15 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Because, as has been suggested, there is a tendency in our culture to belittle the impact of rape.

There is a tendency in our culture to belittle the impact of many horrific things. This is sad and terrible and needs to change, but why do we single out one of those horrific things for this particular treatment, and not all of them?

It is suggested that rape is very common, and often laughed off by those who feel they are not affected by it. It also tends to be seen as something that happens to a vulnerable segment of society more often than to the rest.

See above. Rape is not unique in these respects.

And nerds would rather die for their freedom of speech than admit that a joke was in poor taste. Which I can only hope is some odd, anti-social byproduct of deep insecurity, and not the total assholeishness it looks like.

I don't understand why you're unable to talk about this without making ad hominem attacks against specific people and, by generalization, against entire subcultures to which they belong.
posted by ubernostrum at 8:16 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I really don't see what's so hard. Some people are really offended by rape jokes. It wouldn't hurt people to not make them.

We just learned in a really horrible way about how rape can destroy lives.
posted by honeydew at 8:17 AM on February 2, 2011 [11 favorites]

I think everyone could stand to watch this.
posted by dry white toast at 8:18 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Justinian: "I don't disagree with your main point, l33tpolicywonk, but I don't think you can hold out Louis CK as somebody who isn't a dick in his comedy."

Here's the difference I think is really relevant: when you walk into a comedy club (or open up a webcomic), you should expect to get offended for the sake of comedy. That's a thing that happens in comedic performance, and I think it's on balance a net plus that there are certain artistic platforms which have that kind of carte blanche freedom. When you walk into the world and see someone wearing a t-shirt, you shouldn't have that same expectation.

Additional distinction that is probably more open for dispute: in interactions with individual people, Louis CK seems to make friends, and Gabe and Tycho seem to make enemies.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:18 AM on February 2, 2011

I've said it over and over in this thread: there are two jokes in that strip.

At this point you are shouting past each other -- yes, you've said it countless times that you see two jokes (rape as a joke plus hero acting as non-hero as a joke), and others have said that they see one joke (rape and beatings used as examples of how hero is non-hero). You can say it again and again that there are two jokes, or one joke, or five jokes -- there is no way to prove objectively one way or the other. Accusing the other side of "wilfully" ignoring the presence of the (claimed) second joke is both foolish and unfair. It's a discussion that can go nowhere because you are claiming the exclusive right to determine the substantive content of the joke.
posted by modernnomad at 8:18 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

Hang on, I'll hit it back over the net. Oh yeah, well YOU need to stop pretending those mountains are anthills just because you don't want to acknowledge that there are mountains!

Do you want to stop here or should I send another volley back where I tell you how to think and/or act?

See? You want to pretend those mountains aren't there.

Not at all. It's obvious to me and I suspect you that are huge problems with how rape is treated and handled on societal and legal levels. Where we disagree is your blanket statement that rape isn't treated seriously. In some instances, no it isn't. It others, yes it is.

The comic could have been better. Their response could have been better. I'm not sure what else is being served by rehashing this shit out, over and over. As every single brick is not equally important in a house, so is every messed up usage of rape a blazing hammer firmly held in the manly hand of the patriarchy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:19 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

padraigin: " But then, you know, I've never been abused in any way, or sexually assaulted. So maybe I could just have some compassion and sensitivity toward people who have, and trust that they know what they're feeling, and do my best not to be hurtful toward them and to recognize areas where I can improve in this respect. It's not hard to do, and it's nice, so that's the route I'm trying to take."

This was well said. Thank you.
posted by zarq at 8:19 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Ah. So mention rape outside of the most serious of contexts and you're minimizing it. Thanks, got it.

Actually, Penny Arcade itself has made comics that point out the loathsome misogyny of gamer culture, including the way it treats sexual violence. Here's one, for example, and I know there are others.

So why is that comic okay in my mind when the dickwolves comic is not? Because that one is making fun of the misogyny of gamer culture rather than reinforcing it.
posted by jedicus at 8:19 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

When you walk into the world and see someone wearing a t-shirt, you shouldn't have that same expectation.

Absolutely; there are many things which are not out of place in a comedy club which don't belong on a t-shirt. I was just quibbling with the idea that Louis CK doesn't regularly cross some serious lines in his comedy.
posted by Justinian at 8:20 AM on February 2, 2011

I'm not sure I understand how people can defend the outrage at PA's responses by pointing to failure to object to murder or killing jokes in earlier PA comics as condoning them. "You're ok with murder but you're not ok with rape? Isn't murder worse?" seems to be the point.

I think its pretty clear that rape is seen as worse than murder as a topic of discussion / portrayal in modern (and probably earlier) Western culture. As jedicius noted above, there are no quests in MMORPGs where you have to go and rape something, whereas you are relentlessly killing all manners of things just so you can get a shinier belt. I doubt that such a quest would make it into an MMO (even though torture has).

How many movies can you think of where a rape scene is portrayed? The answer is few and far between, and in those instances (Irreversible, Hounddog, Shawshank Redemption, Once Upon A Time in America are the ones I can think of off the top of my head), the rape is highly remarked upon, a source of controversy, and uniformly uncomfortable for the narrative and the audience. Meanwhile, killings, murders, and all sorts of death by mayhem are a relentless part of movies in all genres, dramatic, comic, romantic, etc. Several genres are based entirely on how gruesomely you can kill someone. Can you imagine a "Saw" franchise where, instead of murder, its rape that's going on? I would guess the outcry would be (justifiably) enormous.

It seems pretty clear that rape is indeed worse than killing, for all sorts of reasons I won't describe here, and I think it's this "worseness" that gives the joke in the original comic its effective power, and why the outrage over the ensuing responses by PA is so fierce.
posted by shen1138 at 8:20 AM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

Some people are really offended by rape jokes. It wouldn't hurt people to not make them.

Most people won't read this particular MeFi thread nor the others like it here and elsewhere.
posted by Ardiril at 8:21 AM on February 2, 2011

I really don't see what's so hard. Some people are really offended by rape jokes. It wouldn't hurt people to not make them.

People can be offended by any number of things. Does that mean everything that could possibly really offend anyone is off limits?
posted by SweetJesus at 8:22 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

So why is that comic okay in my mind when the dickwolves comic is not? Because that one is making fun of the misogyny of gamer culture rather than reinforcing it.

You think the dickwolves comic was saying it is a good thing that MMORPGs require players to be sociopaths?
posted by Justinian at 8:22 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't understand why you're unable to talk about this without making ad hominem attacks against specific people and, by generalization, against entire subcultures to which they belong.

It was a low blow, yeah.

In answer to that criticism and your other questions:

I've never bought that Free Speech should be a ticket to be a dick about things. The issue here isn't the initial joke, so much as how they handled the reaction to it. And the way they handled it seems to be pretty common in certain corners of the internet.
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:23 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

> I don't really understand why something so juvenile and puerile is worth defending.

Totally. I would just add "or attacking."
posted by jfuller at 8:24 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

I was on the fence the past while on whether I was going to go to PAX (or PAX East) this year, because of this very 'debacle'; and what has been said here has convinced me not to go.

thanks mefi. i guess.
posted by yeoz at 8:24 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

People can be offended by any number of things. Does that mean everything that could possibly really offend anyone is off limits?

No, practically it means that thinking carefully about the value vs. cost of going there (for any given value of "there") is a big part of approaching humor or any other communicative medium responsibly. No one's required to be thoughtful, but if you want to not get negative feedback from people who think you've fucked up it's definitely a smart way to go.

The belief that it's smart and good to be thoughtful ahead of time, and gracious after the fact, when going for edgy humor does not require some cartoonish binary where NO JOKES ABOUT ANYTHING OFFENSIVE EVER is the thesis.
posted by cortex at 8:24 AM on February 2, 2011 [21 favorites]

It seems pretty clear that rape is indeed worse than killing, for all sorts of reasons I won't describe here, and I think it's this "worseness" that gives the joke in the original comic its effective power

Why then did everyone laugh when he drew the dickwolf with penises as its legs?
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:25 AM on February 2, 2011

The joke is fine. The comic is fine. That could have blown over easily. I laughed and was not offended, and I think people who are, just fly off the handle at the slightest mention of rape and didn't even finish the comic. (Fine, trigger warnings and whatever, but this has always been an adult strip and can be messy at times.) We are meant to empathize with the victim and be horrified by the response of the hero - this is actually a pretty progressive comic in that it draws attention to the legitimate terror of rape and then makes us laugh when we recognize how we blow these things off so easily in an MMO (and other fictional) setting.

The t-shirt is damn offensive. It is a t-shirt which proudly announces your membership in a culture of rape. It completely erases the meaning of the original comic - now dickwolves are cool and I am one of them! (Yay rape!) It's even styled as an overtly masculine sports jersey to further emphasize the activity itself: guess what sport the dickwolves play?
posted by mek at 8:26 AM on February 2, 2011 [23 favorites]

I laughed and was not offended, and I think people who are, just fly off the handle at the slightest mention of rape and didn't even finish the comic.

Empathy is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another semi-sentient being. Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:27 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

This is sad and terrible and needs to change, but why do we single out one of those horrific things for this particular treatment, and not all of them?

For me it's about context. Gamer culture has problems with misogyny, and it manifests itself in ways that objective and demean real women. Gamer culture does not, however, have a particular problem with real-world non-sexual violence. There are many other things that gamer culture doesn't have problems with, and gaming comic strips about those are likely okay because they wouldn't be reinforcing problematic aspects of the culture.

Gamer culture does have problems with racism and homophobia, though, and a gaming comic strip that reinforced the use of racial and homophobic slurs would be particularly problematic as well. By contrast, strips that point out that such things are problems (e.g. this PA strip, somewhat indirectly) are fine and to be applauded.
posted by jedicus at 8:28 AM on February 2, 2011

We have to look at the numbers, right? How many people have been raped in the US? I can answer that one - 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men will be raped in their lifetimes. Holkins and Krauhlik think it's funny that we have to be sociopaths in games? What about the sociopaths that they almost assuredly know in real life?

(It's interesting that someone brought up honor killings - I believe 'honor culture' and 'rape culture' stem from the same impulses to treat women not as human beings, but as objects to be possessed).
posted by muddgirl at 8:28 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Ultimately, the "Dickwolves" t-shirt is no more "Team Rapists" than a "Trojans" jersey is "Team Killers and sometimes rapists."

*sigh*

I feel like this should be pointed out, just on the off chance that you're not actually playing for Team Willfully Obtuse, like I rather expect you are. "Trojans" and "Warriors" and "Hurricanes" and the like are (or were) actual things with a context that exists outside of the world of sports.* "Dickwolves" was invented in a comic-- a panel-- a sentence that is a rape joke! There is no context for "Dickwolf" that is not "rapist". None.

*And you can test this for other controversies based on bad contexts outside of sports. May I recommend googling "North Dakota Fighting Sioux" or "Washington Redskins"?
posted by norm at 8:28 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Why then did everyone laugh when he drew the dickwolf with penises as its legs?

Because it was a room full of people who don't think rape jokes are a big deal and the concept of a wolf with penises for legs is absurd and therefore funny. If you take it out of context and just see a wolf with penises for legs, sure, you'll get a chuckle, and the awkwardness of somebody drawing a wolf with penises for legs in front of a huge audience adds quite a bit to the humor (just like any random episode of The Office). It's when you combine "he's illustrating a rape joke" with "...in front of a room of people who don't think rape jokes are problematic" that one starts to go "dude, not cool".
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:29 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

I would like to disagree on one point. I think Metafilter does this well indeed.The conversation may seem to go back and forth (or round and round), but I want to hear as many sides of an issue, each well argued, as I can. This passes for entertainment for me. You all totally rock on this score. There may be no winning side, but raised awareness is not nothing. For myself, I have been growing up for decades with no end in sight. Like the elderly of the past, it looks like society gets coarser as time goes by, even though nothing changes. Rape is obviously wrong, yet a subject of humor. I dread the world my kids are inheiriting, just like all parents through out time. Whether it's webcomics, comediens, libraries or online games, just remember that what you put down in your own hand speaks of you and who you are. If this is the kind of shit the guys at PA want to be known for throughout time, may something like asshat be on their tombstone. And Dvorak_b_q, your first post snagged over 100 comments with sketchy links. My compliments!
posted by Redhush at 8:30 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Wow. In under two hours, this thread garnered over 200 comments.

Carry on.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:32 AM on February 2, 2011

Pope Guilty, this would be a better conversation all around if you didn't consistently ascribe the worst possible motives to anyone you disagree with. It's very difficult to have any sort of dialogue.
posted by Justinian at 8:33 AM on February 2, 2011 [16 favorites]

Pope Guilty, this would be a better conversation all around if you didn't consistently ascribe the worst possible motives to anyone you disagree with. It's very difficult to have any sort of dialogue.

It's fascinating that this is directed at me and not at the "PEOPLE WHO GET OFFENDED AT RAPE JOKES ARE JUST LOOKING TO BE OFFENDED BY SOMETHING" brigade.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:34 AM on February 2, 2011 [11 favorites]

Really, this could go both ways and it would be tremendous if everybody could take a couple deep breaths and try to go at this with a little more care.
posted by cortex at 8:35 AM on February 2, 2011 [15 favorites]

Again: the word "dickwolves" is a funny word. Outside of context, it's a great team name as a joke.

Which would be a great point if the objective of the shirt was that it was just a great jokey piece of fake sports paraphernalia. But it's not; the point of it is to comment on an issue about rape.

No one's calling for the Carolina Hurricanes to change their name, are they?

If they'd named the team that with the specific intention of it being a jab at people whose lives had been destroyed by a hurricane, yeah, I would call for them to change their name.

"Ha ha, it's just a funny joke, completely unrelated to any of the rape stuff! And also you should act like you're criticizing the name of an actual sports team!" seems even more bizarre to me than the "Hey, there could totally be lots of Dickwolves who aren't rapists."
posted by XMLicious at 8:36 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

You think the dickwolves comic was saying it is a good thing that MMORPGs require players to be sociopaths?

I said no such thing. The essential joke of the comic (MMORPGs encourage players to behave selfishly in contrast to their characters' supposedly heroic nature) is fine. My point was that the rape part of the joke was consciously created by the PA authors. It's not a reference to the plot of any WoW quest. And since jokes about sexual violence are common in gamer culture, using it in the comic reinforces that part of gamer culture.

Again, it took something that was funny enough within the context of the real game and added a completely unnecessary element of sexual violence, which is especially problematic because of the way gamer culture treats misogyny, homophobia, and sexual violence. It would have been enough to refer to the terrible fate that already awaits slaves in Warcraft. Such a strip would successfully point out the absurdity inherent in the game. The terrible fate could even be exaggerated a bit for comedic effect. But adding sexual violence is a change in kind not degree, and the added element is a particularly problematic one in this context.
posted by jedicus at 8:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Mike is not good with 'womens issues', as he has demonstrated before.

Ho. Ly. Shit. WTF.

You know, just the other day I was trying to find a videogaming podcast that wouldn't make me want to throw my phone across the room because of sexist/racist/homophobic bullshit interspersed within. It's not easy at all.

Been following the strip since before Gabe could draw, but I'm pulling them from my feed right after I hit the post button.

I generally like PA ok, and I'd hoped this whole thing was just an aberration, but I don't think I'm going to give them any more ad-revenue either. Not that they care, I'm sure.
posted by kmz at 8:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

People can be offended by any number of things. Does that mean everything that could possibly really offend anyone is off limits?

Know your audience. Would you tell a filthy joke to a couple of particularly close friends in a bar, or onstage at a comedy club where people have come to laugh? Would you tell that same joke to your boss's wife? Or put it on a tee shirt?

When you make certain kinds of jokes, you are asking people to extend you a certain benefit of the doubt. That's why certain situations (comedy club) can handle tasteless humor really well -- and even then it often backfires. Asking random people on the internet or on the sidewalk to extend you the same benefit of the doubt is very presumptuous, to the point of being delusional.
posted by hermitosis at 8:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Like the elderly of the past, it looks like society gets coarser as time goes by, even though nothing changes. Rape is obviously wrong, yet a subject of humor. I dread the world my kids are inheiriting, just like all parents through out time.

I disagree. At least we are talking about rape here, out in the open, rather than telling women that they should wish to die rather than lose their precious virginity, at which point they are too soiled to exist, or whatever our forefathers were preachin'.

Rape culture is nothing new - it's very old, actually. To me, society isn't getting worse - it's bringing ancient crimes to light. Of course this sort of attention hurts the people which benefit from darkness and secrecy. Of course they want to continue pretending that rape is something exceptionally rare.
posted by muddgirl at 8:38 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

And nerds would rather die for their freedom of speech than admit that a joke was in poor taste.

Not specific to nerds. Anyone will get defensive if accused of something, and get much more entrenched in their position than they ever planned on being.
posted by smackfu at 8:38 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Comics (especially web comics) are a poorly-respected entertainment medium. They have little if any cultural weight with people who matter.

So are weblogs. This is truely a tempest in a teapot, and personally, I'm getting a bit weary of both sides of recent "fail" controversies.

cortex: The belief that it's smart and good to be thoughtful ahead of time, and gracious after the fact, when going for edgy humor does not require some cartoonish binary where NO JOKES ABOUT ANYTHING OFFENSIVE EVER is the thesis.

Oh yes. Offensive joke is offensive. Authors and artists do more damage by petulantly attempting to get the last word of self-justification instead of taking it on the chin.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:38 AM on February 2, 2011

Some of my best friends are dickwolves, and almost all of them only ever engage in consensual sex. This blanket generalisation of dickwolves as rapists must end!
posted by EndsOfInvention at 8:39 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Jedicus: Thanks, that makes more sense to me. I don't know that I completely agree with you but I understand what you meant now.
posted by Justinian at 8:40 AM on February 2, 2011

Anyone will get defensive if accused of something, and get much more entrenched in their position than they ever planned on being.

And they'll get even more defensive and self-righteous if they feel they're being unfairly accused of something.
posted by Justinian at 8:42 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Not specific to nerds. Anyone will get defensive if accused of something, and get much more entrenched in their position than they ever planned on being.

Yeah, that's the one of the major dynamics I see going on here. Doesn't make it right, but it's a big part of the fight.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:43 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Anyone will get defensive if accused of something, and get much more entrenched in their position than they ever planned on being

I wonder why any of us ever expected better from a comic artist that finds wolves with dicks for legs funny. ;)
posted by Stagger Lee at 8:45 AM on February 2, 2011

There is no context for "Dickwolf" that is not "rapist". None.

Oh?
posted by grubi at 8:45 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

The answer is few and far between, and in those instances (Irreversible, Hounddog, Shawshank Redemption, Once Upon A Time in America are the ones I can think of off the top of my head), the rape is highly remarked upon, a source of controversy, and uniformly uncomfortable for the narrative and the audience.

I agree with this general point, but I can think of counterexamples. High Plains Drifter - what a shame, in an otherwise good movie. Observe and Report (aka Taxi Driver 2009) has a very creepy rape scene, but, just like the rest of the story, it's pitched in such a way that it's hard to tell if it's supposed to be funny at first.

I think this comic falls mostly into the "don't drop the soap" realm of Let's Go To Prison. The person complaining about the rapes is a man. Even accounting for PA's problems with "women's issues", I don't think even PA would have drawn a woman complaining about rape. Make of that what you will.

(FWIW, I think the original comic is more or less fine, but I also understand the complaints, and perhaps most importantly, PA's responses have been dickish in the extreme, proving the critics ultimately right.)
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:45 AM on February 2, 2011

So, I don't know if anyone's brought up the important thing here:

Is that slave still back there?

Someone should go back and rescue that guy.
posted by jscott at 8:46 AM on February 2, 2011 [10 favorites]

Pope Guilty: “You have to stop seeing it as "this web comic" as if it were a thing free of context, but instead understand the context it happens in- which is a society where rape culture holds sway- and react to it as it exists within that culture. We do not live in a cultural context where rape is taken seriously. Jokes are one of the more common manifestations of that.”

Brandon Blatcher: “I honestly don't understand what you're talking about here, as it seems you're making stuff up. Rape is taken seriously, there are laws against, people are put on trial for it and they go to jail. Could these be better with all the above? Sure, but for someone to write that rape isn't take seriously is just kinda bizarre, IMO”

I want to point this out, because the difference here seems to be a complete difference in perspective between the two sides. And honestly it seems to me sometimes that males, and in particular gamer males, are not completely self-aware with respect to the way they sound and the way they appear to others.

Let me be perfectly clear about this: we do live in a culture where rape is made light of. Constantly. If you don't see this, I encourage you to be conscious of it, and watch for it, even for a few days, particularly if you know a lot of guys who game. I do, and I can't count the number of times I've had to call them out on this. Seriously, this sort of thing happens constantly:

"Dude, we totally got raped last night in WoW."

or

"Man, I can't believe this costs so much – I'm totally getting ass-raped here."

The point is: these aren't things that would be funny if they'd happened to you. They're only hilarious because you're sheltered, because you're safe from all that, and by acting as though everyone else should find them hilarious you're perpetuating a society in which one group of people is supposed to live in fear of violence and your group doesn't have to.

The original webcomic was obnoxious; it was a casual obnoxiousness, but believe me, after hundreds of thousands of guys over and over and over again make jokes like this where "rape" is part of the punchline, it starts to get very, very tiresome. And this is about a societal thing, a thing that happens over and over again. The point is that the joke didn't happen in a vacuum.

At the very least, we live in a "rape culture" in the sense that jokes concerning rape are constantly being made by people who have never had to face that kind of violence. That's worrisome; it's not just. Moreover, it's worth calling out, and trying to change. The "if you don't like it, don't read it" attitude makes sense if you feel no responsibility for what goes on in the world, and if you don't really give a crap about creating a society that's more thoughtful, more nurturing, and more just.
posted by koeselitz at 8:46 AM on February 2, 2011 [62 favorites]

Anyone will get defensive if accused of something, and get much more entrenched in their position than they ever planned on being.

Brother, I have been there and a half.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:47 AM on February 2, 2011

I can see why the comic caused such a backlash. I understand the gravity of the issue and the horror of the experience. While this joke was not well crafted, do I now have to rescind my "until-now-unquestioned" admiration of the Tobias Fünke jokes?
posted by arveale at 8:47 AM on February 2, 2011

I think Metafilter does this well indeed.

On this I agree. As much as I'm tired of the back-and-forth, Metafilter does this better than 99% of the Internet that isn't specifically social justice focused (feminist/anti-racist/anti-homophobia blogs).

Most places where something like this is posted, the vast majority of the comments would be of the "people are too easily offended" or further offensive jokes variety.
posted by kmz at 8:47 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

(I didn't want to Favorite your comment grubi. But I had to. Grrr! =)
posted by andreaazure at 8:47 AM on February 2, 2011

jscott: Nah, fuck him.
posted by Ardiril at 8:47 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Comics (especially web comics) are a poorly-respected entertainment medium. They have little if any cultural weight with people who matter.

Which people are those? How can I recognize them? Do they have an official song, or a secret handshake or something? I mean, I'd hate to cut somebody off in traffic and then later on find out that he or she was a person who mattered.
posted by steambadger at 8:49 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Let me be perfectly clear about this: we do live in a culture where rape is made light of.

Again, I'm going to disagree with that blanket statement. Depending on the context, rape can be treated seriously or lightly.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:52 AM on February 2, 2011

Brandon Blatcher: “Again, I'm going to disagree with that blanket statement. Depending on the context, rape can be treated seriously or lightly.”

In the context of the video-gaming community, is it treated seriously or lightly? Can you just answer that question? Or do you think the question is incoherent or something? Seriously, it's hard for me to see how you can ignore this. kmz seems to understand.
posted by koeselitz at 8:53 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

the comic could have completely omitted any mention of rape and been just as funny.

Alright, impress me. Fill in the line 'every night we are ___________' and make me laugh more than the PA strip did.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:55 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Ah Muddgirl, I envy your optimism. I see a wheel turning, you see it going somewhere
posted by Redhush at 8:55 AM on February 2, 2011

Know your audience. Would you tell a filthy joke to a couple of particularly close friends in a bar, or onstage at a comedy club where people have come to laugh? Would you tell that same joke to your boss's wife? Or put it on a tee shirt?

I think Penny Arcade does know their audience - hence their initial attempt at humor. Was it in poor taste? Yes - like many of their other previous jokes.

What they didn't think about was that if indeed this is a triggering subject for even a handful of their readers, they posted it on the internet - not in a chat window that scrolls out of view within 30 seconds. Permanence - while they know it - they did not know it in the context of rape.

They offended a 20% of their audience (guessing here), and attracted additional outsider attention, inflating their disgruntled audience but I'd gather that on this topic, the 80% audience majority (purile humor loving) suddenly found itself as the minority on the subject.

So yeah, they know their audience - they just didn't think it through as to what that specific joke's audience would actually be... and clearly they didn't really think it all through...
posted by Nanukthedog at 8:57 AM on February 2, 2011

Wow, I read through the whole debacle and was even on PA's side until Gabe started shitting all over twitter as of 01/31, holy shit. It's a decent strategy, I guess, to dismiss someone whose viewpoints you disagree with as being not worth your time, if you're 13... but to then go and actively mock any valid concern about rape? Yes, to your friends you're speaking tongue in cheek, and oh-you-would-never-do-that, but, to the general audience? Kerosene on a match...

I thought the original dickwolves comic was hysterical as I have done many of those quests and that's exactly it -- the dichotomy of "Save me, hero!" (Quest Completed!) "Help, help!" and you can't interact with them anymore.

The T-shirt, meh.

The coverage as of 01/31? Craaaaaaap. Stupid. Really stupid.

And I hope I don't need to wave a big 'I'M TOTALLY INTO THIRD WAVE FEMINISM' sign and back up my roots when I say really couldn't stand Courtney's blog. I hope she's as terribly important in the gaming commmunity as she thinks she is -- though I guess egos run wild in creative endeavors..
posted by cavalier at 8:58 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

They offended a 20% of their audience (guessing here)

I really, really doubt that.
posted by empath at 9:00 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

kmz: “As much as I'm tired of the back-and-forth, Metafilter does this better than 99% of the Internet that isn't specifically social justice focused (feminist/anti-racist/anti-homophobia blogs). Most places where something like this is posted, the vast majority of the comments would be of the "people are too easily offended" or further offensive jokes variety.”

Most places? That's pretty much what happened here. I agree with you that usually Metafilter is better at this kind of thing. But not today.

Anyway, I'm glad Pope Guilty and muddgirl (and a few others) are around. At least there's that.
posted by koeselitz at 9:00 AM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

The darkest hour is just before dawn, arc of history bending slowly but inevitably towards justice, and all that.

I'm serious. I would rather Holkins and Krauhlik make their terrible jokes in public, where we can all see what sort of people they are, then make them in some segregated bath house or tavern or golf club.
posted by muddgirl at 9:01 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

Pope Guilty: "You don't have to be "pro-rape" to be a contributor to rape culture. I know plenty of people, for example, who think rape is terrible but respond to news of somebody going to prison with "HURR LOL DON'T DROP THE SOAP LOL" jokes."

You keep saying that same thing again and again, but you are missing the point: people joke about being raped in captivity because it is a horrendous thing. It's one of the most horrendous things that can happen to you, and that's why people joke about it, and not because they're being cavalier about it. If they thought rape was just another thing, say just a notch above getting punched in the stomach, they wouldn't make the joke because it wouldn't be funny.

The wikipedia article on Gallows Humor has a fantastic quote from Freud that really nails it:

"The ego refuses to be distressed by the provocations of reality, to let itself be compelled to suffer. It insists that it cannot be affected by the traumas of the external world; it shows, in fact, that such traumas are no more than occasions for it to gain pleasure".

We do it because we don't want to think about it, because it is so fucking horrible, because we can't contemplate our destruction, so we turn it on its head. It is actually a beautiful thing, and that's how most of us soldier on through life while carrying our baggages. That's why these jokes rub us the right way.
posted by falameufilho at 9:01 AM on February 2, 2011 [23 favorites]

In the context of the video-gaming community, is it treated seriously or lightly? Can you just answer that question? Or do you think the question is incoherent or something? Seriously, it's hard for me to see how you can ignore this. kmz seems to understand

First, allow my to apologize for not being kmz and understanding things as you would like it.

2nd, the video game community definitely treats the issue more lightly. I don't think this is inherently bad thing, dark humor isn't unknown.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:02 AM on February 2, 2011

Man, those guys are some real dickwolves. And wearing a shirt that says "Team dickwolves" or something? Might as well just wear a shirt that says "I'm a poorly socialized 13 year old and I'm trying to grow a mustache. And I smell like Axe. Love me for my mind."
posted by octobersurprise at 9:02 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

I think Penny Arcade does know their audience - hence their initial attempt at humor.

But then they invited people to take the joke out into the wider world via apparel. Which tells me that they have a poor idea about how this sort of thing travels once you have to try and explain it to outsiders. OR that they just don't really care, which I think is the more likely option.
posted by hermitosis at 9:03 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Is that slave still back there?

Someone should go back and rescue that guy.

Don't worry, it's a daily.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:03 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

You know... in general I find the more I know about someone, or project, the greater appreciation I have for them/it. In all honesty PA seems to have fallen in the other category, where the more I find out about them the less I want to have to do with it.

As to "gaming culture" ... yeah several years ago I tried playing online games, the experience sucked. I liked the graphics and thought overall the game/s where good. But I loathed the experience because of other players.
posted by edgeways at 9:03 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Er, I think the Team Dickwolves thing is ironic. They're not wearing them pretending to be frat boys at a kegger. The fault is then when the irony is lost on somebody who has, say, been viciously savaged by a dickwolf.
posted by cavalier at 9:04 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

jedicus: There are many other things that gamer culture doesn't have problems with, and gaming comic strips about those are likely okay because they wouldn't be reinforcing problematic aspects of the culture.

I don't see this as reinforcing, though. Remember that what we're talking about here is a pretty biting critique of an implied value of certain games -- that essentially-sociopathic behavior is A-OK.

muddgirl: Holkins and Krauhlik think it's funny that we have to be sociopaths in games?

Personally, I don't mind dark humor; in fact, quite the opposite. The Onion gets it pitch-perfect every so often, and those are the stories I most appreciate from them; others occasionally do it too, and I think Penny Arcade came pretty close with the original comic.

Anyway. I've made and laughed at (and, importantly, been helped through a horrific life-fucking experience by and seen others helped by) jokes so far beyond this comic or this t-shirt that personally I'd feel like a hypocrite if I called them out for it.

This was part of the reason behind my original comment, which asked whether we'd be having this debate if it had instead started with an academic paper on the implied values systems of games like the ones Penny Arcade is satirizing. And I get that while it worked and works for me, not everyone will necessarily have the same reaction. But I don't get the witch hunt here; if it doesn't work for somebody, it doesn't work, and that's OK, but it doesn't mean this type of commentary needs to be attacked or declared off-limits.
posted by ubernostrum at 9:04 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

On a related note, I once tried to make a TEAM PRIAPIST t-shirt.

But it was too hard.
posted by Pants McCracky at 9:06 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

But then they invited people to take the joke out into the wider world via apparel. Which tells me that they have a poor idea about how this sort of thing travels once you have to try and explain it to outsiders. OR that they just don't really care, which I think is the more likely option.

I think Jerry's post about why the Dickwolves shirt was taken down from the store suggests that not-getting-it plus immature obstinance probably played a big part. He explains that several PA readers privately wrote to him and explained that they weren't comfortable coming to PAX with the shirt being worn there, because of what it implied, and that PAX wouldn't feel like a welcoming community for them. And he responded to that by taking down the shirt and saying that he hadn't really thought of it like that.

You can argue that it was purely cynical -- that PAX is about selling tickets while the comic is about selling ad impressions, so the difference in behavior makes sense. But it does suggest that even in situations with entrenched, childish behavior it's possible to make progress and open someone's eyes a bit.

And then of course the shit hit the fan on Twitter the day after that, and it all started sucking again. Sigh.
posted by verb at 9:08 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Well actually, I'd rather prisoners, slaves, and refugees weren't raped at all. Then, perhaps, we could joke so casually about it.
posted by muddgirl at 9:08 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

Just an aside... ten years ago I worked at a t-shirt factory that printed gag t shirts. Our most offensive design (which I never had to print, it was just on the shelf waiting for an order) was a cartoon burglar pointing a gun at the viewer and saying "your money and a blow-job".

It was pulled out by my coworkers when the boss (and gag writer) was being a bigger than usual asshole. The rapey screen was pulled off the shelf, displayed, and eyes were rolled toward the boss with a WTF expression. It was used as a visual "eight year olds, dude".
posted by JBennett at 9:09 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Brandon Blatcher: “First, allow my to apologize for not being kmz and understanding things as you would like it.”

Lack of understanding is not a moral issue.

“2nd, the video game community definitely treats the issue more lightly. I don't think this is inherently bad thing, dark humor isn't unknown.”

Okay. So the gamer community treats this more lightly; you offer that maybe this is "dark humor." But further, do you think the gaming community has a problem with misogyny? And if yes (maybe that's presumptuous of me to assume, I don't know) then doesn't it seem possible that this "lightness" when talking of rape might be connected to the problematic misogyny in the community? Just maybe?
posted by koeselitz at 9:09 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

paisley henosis, you miss the point again. The criticism of Jerry & Mike isn't that they're assholes who've never done anything good in their lives. No one has ever said that. The criticism is that the comic and shirt are offensive, or at least in poor taste.

Mike's reaction to that criticism has been itself offensive - going far beyond the comic and shirt, in my opinion. He has really shown how little he understands the issues at hand. He betrayed the same ignorance in his initial support of the "Seduction Artist" business. I'm surprised Jerry hasn't piped up about this, as he did then.
posted by SirNovember at 9:09 AM on February 2, 2011

Redhush: "I would like to disagree on one point. I think Metafilter does this well indeed.The conversation may seem to go back and forth (or round and round), but I want to hear as many sides of an issue, each well argued, as I can."

One of the most tiresome things about Metafilter are the collateral discussions on basically every fucking post about:

1) The post's right to exist
2) Forecasting if it will be an ugly or constructive discussion
3) If it's a heated debate, someone saying "METAFILTER DOESN'T DO THIS WELL" every five minutes
posted by falameufilho at 9:10 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

re: dark humor

“I think that the closer you are to a flame and the more you see people getting burned, the funnier you get, if you’re at all human. Or you put a gun in your mouth. Either you laugh or you cry.”

—David Simon
posted by yaymukund at 9:11 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

Remember that what we're talking about here is a pretty biting critique of an implied value of certain games -- that essentially-sociopathic behavior is A-OK.

But my problem is that our culture confirms the exact same thing - essentially-sociopathic behavior is A-OK in the real world. It's not a particularly biting critique of games - it's a pedestrian and common one.
posted by muddgirl at 9:11 AM on February 2, 2011

"Here's a joke about how callous MMORGs are."
"You mentioned rape in that joke! You like rape!"
"What? You're crazy. We don't like rape!"
"Fuck you! Don't dismiss me!"
"Fuck you! Have a t-shirt!"
Take it down you rape lover!
Fine. Bitch.

Is that about right?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:12 AM on February 2, 2011 [18 favorites]

I've been sitting here for an hour and reading this thread and wow, great comments from everyone. And a great thought provoking FPP.

I don't think dickwolves are bad, they're just drawn that way.

I think that's the least snarky thing I can say.
posted by Catblack at 9:13 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

muddgirl: "Well actually, I'd rather prisoners, slaves, and refugees weren't raped at all. Then, perhaps, we could joke so casually about it."

WE JOKE EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE.
WE JOKE BECAUSE WE'RE AFRAID IT COULD HAPPEN TO US.

Why is human nature so fucking foreign to you?
posted by falameufilho at 9:14 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

I pulled out of PAX East over this. After reading the responses of both Gabe and his most ardent supporters, I decided I don't want to be part of their community anymore. What a bunch of petulant, arrogant, close-minded fuckwits.

I really wish you and others wouldn't. I'm going to go despite all this, and because PAX is so much more than just Gabe and Tycho. PAX and the gaming community at large need people who care to stick around and attempt to address issues, rather than shedding mature people who've "outgrown" or "feel ashamed" of gaming culture.

In between the folks shouting "YOU'RE PART OF A RAPE CULTURE" and the other side of "FUCK YOU IT'S A JOKE," there are a lot of people (including people in this thread) who see nuance and are being swayed and convinced even as we debate here.

Ultimately, a fan saying, "I'm here for the con, your strip's also pretty good, but this was problematic, please hear me out." is a lot more convincing than "Fuck PAX, I'm out." I imagine Gabe also would've responded better if someone went out of their way to carefully consider the nuance rather than applying the obviously loaded term "rape culture."

Anyway, I'm going to be going, and my wife will be too, because as she says, "and I'm seriously considering dressing up this year because I know someone will get punched the fuck out if he grabs at me." Despite issues with the figureheads, the con as a whole is a definite positive good, and better than a lot of other, similar cons.
posted by explosion at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Know any good Holocaust jokes?
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:18 AM on February 2, 2011

WE JOKE BECAUSE WE'RE AFRAID IT COULD HAPPEN TO US.

Yeah, no. I seriously doubt Holkins or Krauhlik (or you) have to worry that you will be imprisoned or a refugee of war. Really, if you joke about rape because you're afraid of being raped in prison or in a refugee camp, then perhaps you should see a therapist.
posted by muddgirl at 9:18 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

But I don't get the witch hunt here; if it doesn't work for somebody, it doesn't work, and that's OK, but it doesn't mean this type of commentary needs to be attacked or declared off-limits.

It's not a witch hunt. You publish something, you get critizied by people who disagree with you. It's the nature of the business. Offensive humor is offensive.

And if you insist on stirring the shit with a comic response, a t-shirt, and a series of ugly twiter messages, people are going to continue to disagree.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:19 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

ChurchHatesTucker: “Is that about right?”

No.
posted by koeselitz at 9:19 AM on February 2, 2011 [10 favorites]

Personally, I have a pretty high chance of being raped in my life (and I have had several experiences that would be described as sexual assault), and yet I do not find myself making rape jokes out of fear. I will make jokes about rape culture.
posted by muddgirl at 9:21 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

3) If it's a heated debate, someone saying "METAFILTER DOESN'T DO THIS WELL" every five minutes,

Where "does this well" usually appears to mean "agrees almost unanimously with my obviously correct position", yes.
posted by Justinian at 9:21 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Ultimately, a fan saying, "I'm here for the con, your strip's also pretty good, but this was problematic, please hear me out." is a lot more convincing than "Fuck PAX, I'm out."

I'd say nobody showing up at their get-together would be a pretty strong message.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:21 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Okay. So the gamer community treats this more lightly; you offer that maybe this is "dark humor." But further, do you think the gaming community has a problem with misogyny? And if yes (maybe that's presumptuous of me to assume, I don't know) then doesn't it seem possible that this "lightness" when talking of rape might be connected to the problematic misogyny in the community? Just maybe?

No, I don't think the gaming community has a problem with hating women. I think it has a problem with being an insular community of privileged class and can be pretty ignorant about issues that matter or matter more to women as a group.

Does the dark humor and sexist humor contribute to that ignorance? I'd say it's probably more of a ugly circle where it's symptom of ignorance which can help perpetuate itself.

Am I more like kmz now? Is that enough to make you love me?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:22 AM on February 2, 2011

...and even those sometimes make me feel uncomfortable.
posted by muddgirl at 9:22 AM on February 2, 2011

I think it's pretty telling that they went from "We've pulled the shirt because we heard from some people that it would make them uncomfortable at PAX to see people walking around and wearing them, and we don't wanna do that" to "hurr hurr I'm gonna wear my Dickwolves shirt at PAX." I mean, which is it? Do you not want to contribute to people feeling uncomfortable, or do you want to contribute directly to people feeling uncomfortable?
posted by KathrynT at 9:22 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Alright, impress me. Fill in the line 'every night we are ___________' and make me laugh more than the PA strip did.

"curbstomped by hobbits"
posted by pyramid termite at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2011 [34 favorites]

So when Benny Hill did the bit about the psychologist's office sign being misread (the letters were meant to say THERAPIST but an inconvenient space between letters rendered it... slightly different).. am I supposed to be mad at him for that?

Or at Tobias Fünke when his cluelessness keeps him from hearing his god-awful portmanteau of "analyst" and "therapist" as the word he really made?

SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO FEEL
posted by grubi at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

I'd say nobody showing up at their get-together would be a pretty strong message.

About 70,000 people went to PAX last year. PAX is huge.
posted by Justinian at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2011

Personally, I have a pretty high chance of being raped in my life (and I have had several experiences that would be described as sexual assault), and yet I do not find myself making rape jokes out of fear.

Wait, hang on, this alarms me. Why do you feel you have a pretty high chance of being raped?
posted by cavalier at 9:24 AM on February 2, 2011

I say this not to generalize an entire group of people but to reflect my personal experience. I have known and been friends with (and lived with, and dated) many, many gamers. And in my experience, the gamers I knew were as a whole the most blatantly and unapologetically misogynist and homophobic people I knew. Being called feminine or gay (often synonymous in this context) was the worst type of insult you could levy against another person.

While they would insist that they love women and "know" gay people, the truth is that they were perpetuating misogyny and homophobia on a daily basis. Anyone who didn't find this amusing was shut down, silenced, etc, for being humorless.

Rape is a horrible truth to so many millions of women, and yet hearing someone threaten to "rape" their friend in a game, or as a punitive measure, or saying that a bad taco "raped their mouth" or saying that a girl they found unattractive "raped their eyes" - completely desensitizes a word which is a horrible, unspeakable act. I have seen a rape victim in a room full of gamers who were throwing rape jokes left and right. She sat there in silence, jaw clenched, trying to be a sport and go along with it and not walk away, cry, or yell at them. Because they acted like hanging out with them was a rare privilege not afforded to many girls, she felt she had to be "cool" and take whatever they put out there.

These guys were my friends, and if someone slapped them down (calling them out on homophobia seemed the one thing people were most likely to call them out on) they would stop in the presence of that person for a time but eventually would go back to the language they shared amongst themselves and the people they played with. They would not want to hurt an individual but would also need desperately to fit in with one another. They used this humor as a way to set themselves apart, to be edgy, to be non-conformist and "non-PC".

The worst threat in their lives was not sexual violence or gender bias, but "censorship" - the idea that anyone could ever stop them from their right to speak. As young, generally-white, straight males, they have never had their privilege truly challenged. Their perception of themselves as cultural outsiders who do not have to follow the same rules. They view themselves as lacking cultural capital in the sense that they are not the richer, more powerful alpha males of the world. They saw themselves as victims of the women who were not sleeping with them, victims to the world that told them they were lesser beings than the richer, more masculine, more powerful men who stood above them. And while they would just as quickly claim that their actions/behavior had no effect on the dominant culture, I would like to point out that the entire marketing industry is driven almost wholly by their demographic. If that's not cultural clout, I don't know what is.

What they didn't understand the fact that their very freedom to speak was actively hurting and oppressing others. They didn't know about the fact that what they thought was "edgy" was actually just reinforcing the dominant culture steeped misogyny and which glamorizes rape as an act while at the same turn debasing and blaming its victims. They did not think about themselves in the global or local sense as being so close to the top of the privilege tower that they could nearly touch it. That they, too, are victims of the misogynist culture they help to reinforce. That you can joke about whatever you want to, but that you can't be surprised or angry when someone is hurt, offended, upset or unimpressed with your lack of sensitivity and callous disregard for the lives and experiences that differ from your own. And that telling someone that they aren't entitled to their feelings or experiences is a way that cultural oppression silences people - even if you "didn't really mean it" and even if "it's just a joke".

As an additional aside, I would like to address the "sense of humor" angle of this. As has been mentioned repeatedly all over MetaFilter, telling people something is "just a joke" is the classic method of shutting down someone's objections and cutting the legs out from under their opinion. It is childish and silly to do this, and is often done because people have no real defense.

Actual comedy, the good kind, comes from truth telling, from skewering the status quo, from pointing out hypocrisy, and from a place where the butt of the joke is the powerful, or the comic themselves. It does not come from throwing out the first potentially upsetting or scandalous thing that you can think of. As someone who performs comedy and does pretty damn well at it, I can tell you the people who bomb are the ones who lean on this type of humor. They are also usually either very clueless, very young, or just desperately unfunny people.

And yet still people clamor to say, "well, it was just a joke...maybe an unfunny one, but still only a joke..." - how dare you? Why defend the indefensible? Why go out on a limb for the Two and a Half Men of jokes, when there are so many razor sharp, smart, thoughtful and provocative jokes that could be made? You're reinforcing the creation of bad comedy on top of the already acknowledged SHITTY BEHAVIOR, and rewarding the horribly unfunny person with positive, or at least neutral, response. Why do you hate funny?
posted by SassHat at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2011 [176 favorites]

"Fuck you! Have a t-shirt!"
Take it down you rape lover!
Fine. Bitch.

Is that about right?

More like "Fine. Bitch. By the way, I'm wearing the shirt to PAX, so eat it."

On the one hand, yeah, he's a man-child. On the other hand, I support repeatedly trolling people who are immune to rational discourse.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Or at Tobias Fünke when his cluelessness keeps him from hearing his god-awful portmanteau of "analyst" and "therapist" as the word he really made?

It's almost like it's ajoke about cluelessness and not about rape!
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

So when Benny Hill did the bit about the psychologist's office sign being misread (the letters were meant to say THERAPIST but an inconvenient space between letters rendered it... slightly different).. am I supposed to be mad at him for that?

Did you seriously just cite The Onion?
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:26 AM on February 2, 2011

You know what really doesn't help? The shorthanding of 'rape minimization culture' to 'rape culture.' Because rape minimization -- while horrible, bad and definitely something that people should try to avoid -- is not in the same league as rape.

So here we have a grey-area joke that seems to make rape part of the humor for some people. Certainly PA didn't take out an advertisement suggesting that all women should be raped, and they didn't make the tired old prison pound him in the ass joke, and they didn't laugh at an actual real life rape victim, etc., etc. But they might have been more sensitive, and reasonable people can disagree.

But out come the Popes and others saying "you are part of rape culture. You are on team rapist." Which to any reasonable ear is drawing false equivalence between these two comic book guys making a joke (which may be careless and insensitive) and forcing themselves brutally on an unwilling victim.

Language matters; and degree matters. Given the insensitive but indirect and non celebratory way that they used rape in the strip, the PA guys deserve a wrist slap maybe, but being called team rape and part of rape culture, like they have 'yay rape' banners up all over their house and watch RapeTV and eat Rape Nuts for breakfast? You can only cry wolf so many times.
posted by felix at 9:26 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Wait, hang on, this alarms me. Why do you feel you have a pretty high chance of being raped?

One in six women are raped. We're not talking Lotto odds here.
posted by SassHat at 9:27 AM on February 2, 2011 [29 favorites]

You can only cry wolf so many times.

Or, you can cry "dickwolf" once.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:27 AM on February 2, 2011

Brandon Blatcher: “Am I more like kmz now? Is that enough to make you love me?”

I don't get these snide remarks.

Anyway, I don't say "dark humor" contributes to "ignorance." I'm not making some point about how gamers are evil. I don't think they are, else I wouldn't hang out with them, live with them, spend most of my time with them, etc.

All I'm saying is this: (a) the gaming community often makes jokey references to rape; (b) these jokes alienate people who've actually been raped.

Maybe my reasoning is flawed here. Maybe I'm being simplistic. Please tell me if I am.
posted by koeselitz at 9:27 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's a comic strip. On the internet. Fucking. Relax. People.
posted by brand-gnu at 9:28 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

But out come the Popes and others saying "you are part of rape culture. You are on team rapist." Which to any reasonable ear is drawing false equivalence between these two comic book guys making a joke (which may be careless and insensitive) and forcing themselves brutally on an unwilling victim.

Fortunately for the Popes and others, that is in fact not the argument but a dishonest characterization of that argument.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:28 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

I don't personally think the "we won't sell the shirts but I'm going to wear mine" is really that hard to grok. I don't agree with it, but it's not that difficult to understand: people are telling him they feel uncomfortable attending an event that promotes such-and-such (for reasons he disagrees with). So he's saying, okay, we won't promote it, but I'll voice my disagreement with your reasons as an individual by wearing the shirt.

I do think it's dumb, but I think poor communication is happening on both sides of the debate, and maybe the people mad at them need to think about how the way in which they deliver the message might affect the people who haven't spent much time thinking about that message.
posted by neuromodulator at 9:29 AM on February 2, 2011

I'd say nobody showing up at their get-together would be a pretty strong message.

That's not likely to happen, though. People have myriad reasons to attend, and funny enough, Penny Arcade itself is low on the list of reasons. It's a huge convention with music, board and card games, movies, video games, role-playing games, and also a couple of comic-related panels. If you've never even heard of Penny Arcade, there's still a huge amount of stuff to do, and you'll still have a blast.

Then again, I'm not great at standing up for my principles. My boycott against Disney basically crumbled in the face of Pixar being awesome. I'm quite relieved that Pixar's free from Disney again. That being said, I'm pretty sure the Penny Arcade guys are reasonable and human, and engaging in calm, thoughtful discourse is a better way to convince them than boycotts and kneejerk loaded labels like "Rape Culture."
posted by explosion at 9:30 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Wait, hang on, this alarms me. Why do you feel you have a pretty high chance of being raped?

One in six women are raped. A rape occurs every two minutes in the United States. By averages, 95 people have been raped in the United Sates since this topic was posted to Metafilter.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:31 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

But, see, it's not a dishonest characterization to them. And the way it's being framed (insisting that the joke is "a rape joke" and insisting on calling the shirt "team rapist" is going to perpetually encourage that interpretation. Talk to them like they're thinking individuals, not horrible people you're trying to tear limb from limb.
posted by neuromodulator at 9:31 AM on February 2, 2011

Rape humor is the new Eternal September of the Web. Each discussion of it is the first discussion of the subject you've ever had, repeated on an endless loop.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:31 AM on February 2, 2011 [22 favorites]

It's almost like it's a joke about cluelessness and not about rape!

Wait, didn't you spend half the thread insisting that the PA strip couldn't be a joke about MMORPGs and not rape? Why are you willing to give Arrested Development a pass? This is sort of what I was talking about earlier. You want to like AD so you're giving them the most charitable reading possible while you want to (or feel you should) dislike PA so you give them the most uncharitable reading possible.

The Arrested Development joke, while not quite exactly about rape, is vastly closer to a true "rape joke" than the original PA strip!
posted by Justinian at 9:32 AM on February 2, 2011 [14 favorites]

grubi: “So when Benny Hill did the bit about the psychologist's office sign being misread (the letters were meant to say THERAPIST but an inconvenient space between letters rendered it... slightly different).. am I supposed to be mad at him for that?”

It's Benny Hill. Of course it's misogynist. Seriously, is there any confusion about this now? I thought everybody agreed on that.
posted by koeselitz at 9:33 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

But then they invited people to take the joke out into the wider world via apparel. Which tells me that they have a poor idea about how this sort of thing travels once you have to try and explain it to outsiders.

Go to any of these places and you'll find apparel, posters and stickers which hopefully travel poorly and someone will find offensive enough to picket:

On the web:
T-shirt Hell
Unamerican.

In the mall:
Spencer Gifts
Hot Topic.

Meeups:
Bike Week in Daytona
Prison
Tea Party Rallies
posted by Nanukthedog at 9:33 AM on February 2, 2011

The rape is pretty much irrelevant. The joke is that the heroic PC, Defender of Good, doesn't care and walks away.

You see, I think this is true, the punchline "Dude, don't get weird on me" is mildly funny. But that only means that the reference to rape is either purely gratuitous or functioning as another joke. The punchline would've been just as funny (which is to say, somewhat) if the slavers were zombies or mindflayers or cattle or huge wedges of cheese. The punchline holds its own. So why even make a reference to rape at all unless the rape is a joke, too?
posted by octobersurprise at 9:34 AM on February 2, 2011

It's a comic strip. On the internet. Fucking. Relax. People.

Okay, this one's for Pope Guilty. If you think this entire topic of conversation is beneath you, feel free to show yourself the door rather than tell us it's not worth talking about. Thanks.
posted by Justinian at 9:34 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

When I saw that there was controversy over a PA strip, and clicked the link, and saw which strip it was about, I initially assumed the controversy would be about how they were treating slavery lightly.

Again, context. Slavery is an element of World of Warcraft (there are enslaved NPCs in need of rescuing), but sexual violence is not. Gamer culture does not have a noted problem with its attitude toward slavery or human trafficking (there is endemic racism, however), whereas it does have a problem with misogyny and sexual violence (e.g. all too often gamers say things like "I will make you my bitch" but rarely things like "I will make you my slave").
posted by jedicus at 9:34 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's almost like it's ajoke about cluelessness and not about rape!

I don't know if I agree with you there, Pope Guilty. I think your comment here applies equally to the Arrested Development joke.
posted by ODiV at 9:35 AM on February 2, 2011

This t-shirt does an excellent job of labeling the wearer as a PA-reading gamer who clearly does not care about taking the opinions of others into consideration.

The problem seems, to me, to be whether you take the last part of that description as a compliment or an insult. Honestly, I meant it as an insult. There is a difference between leading a life true to one's self without letting society dictate who you are and buying a t-shirt to let someone else's opinion express how little consideration you have for those around you.

Purchaser of this shirt, you may think you are saying "I don't let anyone tell me what I can't say", but what I am reading is "I am a derivative asshole who can't communicate outside of his own subculture." You are going out of your way to ally yourself with an argument for insensitivity and trolling over a throwaway joke that wasn't that hilarious in the first place. There are better stands to take, better jokes to make, and better designed t-shirts to wear. And dump that "No, I Won't Fix Your Computer" shirt too, no one planned on asking you to.
posted by maryr at 9:35 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

It's Benny Hill. Of course it's misogynist. Seriously, is there any confusion about this now? I thought everybody agreed on that.

But it wasn't Benny Hill, it was in The Onion. Even Benny Hill didn't go there.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:35 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

people joke about being raped in captivity because it is a horrendous thing.

*boggles* I'm pretty sure 99% of prison rape jokes are not some kind of "there but for the grace of God" gallows humor. They're almost always insinuations that (specific) prisoners deserve that kind of abuse. See Bernie Madoff, terror suspects, etc.

And if people could stop using my username as an adjective or something, I'd really fucking appreciate it. Kthx.
posted by kmz at 9:36 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

Upon first reading the comic strip (before following the other links that make the topic of debate clearer), I thought that the controversy was around the use of slavery as a topic of humor, especially since it was part of the main joke and appears in the comic's title. Later, as I was reading the other links, I began to wonder why the debate coalesced around rape, a secondary (although no less horrible) theme, while slavery receded onto the horizon. Has anybody seen responses to the comic that critique the use of slavery here?

As someone earlier had also mentioned, it's also striking how the reference in the comic strip was to a male slave being violated by penises, but the debate quickly became gender-polarized and focused on cross-gender rape (male-on-female). No questions about the homophobia latent in man-on-man rape jokes, at least among the main participants in the debate.

Not that cultural critique is a zero-sum game or anything, but I'm still not sure what to make of where this debate went, and where it didn't.
posted by LMGM at 9:36 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Really, if you joke about rape because you're afraid of being raped in prison or in a refugee camp, then perhaps you should see a therapist.

Did you seriously just dismiss prison rape?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:36 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm quite relieved that Pixar's free from Disney again.

Pixar became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Disney in 2006.
posted by jedicus at 9:37 AM on February 2, 2011

Any bad scenario would have sufficed.

And I think in many people's minds, the fact that Mike felt safe using rape instead of some other bad scenario is the indication of rape culture.

And yeah sure, we treat rape as a crime in this culture, unless you're a famous movie director who leaves the country to avoid doing time; then it's just an unfortunate impediment to your career. And how many prison-rape jokes do we hear in our lives? That's still rape, right? Not really funny? Then why do we treat it as such?

Why do we use "fuck you" as an expletive, actually, unless the act of fucking someone were something often regarded as hostile? Why do we call someone our "bitch" when they are made to be submissive--I mean, that's pretty much all of rape culture summed up in one insult, right there, isn't it? Someone whom we are forcing sex on, as one does to an inferior, regardless of their wishes?

Our language is filled with forcible-sex-as-weapon images and analogies, with jokes and phobias about being raped or raping (homophobics use it all the time), with the ideas of sexual dominance and violence as acts of mastery and power. That's rape culture and it does influence us, and the fact that gamers, who live in a world of faux combat and violence, have adopted it should not be surprising.

That doesn't mean we can't call them on it and try to affect change.
posted by emjaybee at 9:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

muddgirl: "Really, if you joke about rape because you're afraid of being raped in prison or in a refugee camp, then perhaps you should see a therapist."

You're not very good on nuance too, are you? Have you ever watched a horror movie and felt real fear, like shit-in-your-pants fear, even though none of that is real? The mechanism is not that different. This may be news to you but people are not equipped with the necessary software to make this kind of rationalization: "I as a law-abiding white male living in a large metropolitan area in the Northeastern U.S., I have a 0.1% chance of being arrested in my lifetime, so I shall not fear being raped in jail. It won't even cross my mind." Go tell that to people who send chain e-mails on Halloween asking their friends to stay at home because of face-slashing gang initiation attacks are scheduled to happen on that night.

Interestingly, it's the kind of people that hold your opinions that likes to lecture others on empathy. But it never ceases to amaze me how far detached you are from how people really function. But it doesn't matter right? Because the objective is exactly that - creating a "new man" through a cultural manipulation of reality. Keep banging that square peg in the round hole, sister. It's actually amusing to watch.
posted by falameufilho at 9:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

The worst part about all this is that the comic's joke doesn't even revolve around the rape aspect, and with a little empathy and foresight, could have been changed to a dozen other things and avoided the whole mess.
posted by crunchland at 9:38 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

ChurchHatesTucker: “Did you seriously just dismiss prison rape?”

No.
posted by koeselitz at 9:42 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Okay, hang on, stats dork here, waving a bullshit flag:

So I get the 1-in-6 number, and that is an absolutely horrifying number which I assume is from RAINN; which lists it here., but it seems to be based on one telephone survey of 8,000 women and 8,000 men? I'm not a statistics major at all, but extrapolating a 16% ratio by roughly using below, what, 0.00003% of the general population doesn't seem to me to be a statistically valid study?

Look. Stop. Rape sucks, cut their dicks off or kill them, misognysigostic culture bad, burn every Hooter's down, etc.

But... you know, if we're going to talk about percentage chances, I think we need a little more than the study RAINN used (Full text here).
posted by cavalier at 9:43 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

One in six women are raped.

Gonna need some attribution. A study. Something. This sounds an awful like an "But everybody KNOWS it's true!" thing.
posted by grubi at 9:43 AM on February 2, 2011

All the people arguing back and forth about if the dickwolves strip is a rape joke or not have clearly missed the fact that in response to the "is the dickwolves strip a rape joke" argument, Penny Arcade made an entire strip that is nothing but a rape joke.
posted by Jairus at 9:43 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

It's almost like it's ajoke about cluelessness and not about rape!

Kind of like how the comic strip is almost like a joke about the weird "care but don't care" dynamic in MMOs?

Huh.
posted by grubi at 9:44 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Jairus, that strip is not what you think it is. People need to really start insisting that the least charitable interpretation possible is the only interpretation possible. Then, maybe, the other side would actually start listening.
posted by neuromodulator at 9:46 AM on February 2, 2011

The worst part about all this is that the comic's joke doesn't even revolve around the rape aspect, and with a little empathy and foresight, could have been changed to a dozen other things and avoided the whole mess.

What horrible fate would you be more comfortable with. And why?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:46 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh, we are on to debating rape stats? It's all downhill from here.
posted by smackfu at 9:46 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

I am a male survivor of rape. I am also a freelance videogames journalist. I first started reading Penny Arcade in 1999. My very first profesionally published article had an interview segment with Gabe from Penny Arcade.

Gabe from Penny Arcade trolled the Shakesville comments section, first by linking (without trigger warnings in a site defined safe space) links to comic with bestiality and pedophilia as part of the joke. He then said "my bad, i din't realize it was bad form to point out hypocrisy". When a fan on twitter pointed out that rape jokes have the potential for triggering severe traumatic responses in survivors, Krahulik replied with "[T]he idea that our cartoon could cause 'significant trauma' is bat shit fucking insane. Two days afterwards they released a comic speaking directly to the viewer that only knocked down strawmen.

3 Months later, Gabe posted a news entry mocking PTSD trigger warnings. The very next news item was announcing the sale of the Dickwolf t-shirts. A little while later, they added PENNANTS.

When I wrote an editorial recapping the Dickwolves controversy and telling how I felt about the ensuing reaction as a survivor, I woke up the next morning to posts saying I was anti freedom of speech, humorless and that I should be raped, again, until I died.

Courtney Stanton is a female survivor of rape and a video games producer. When she blogged about the controvesy and announed a response T-Shirt with the provceeds going the charity, then a week later posted why she was turning down an invitation to speak at PAX and why, she became the receiving end of some awful vivious stuff. Not just the garden variety trolling, but people calling the police in her area, asking for reports of her rape. People harassing her on twitter. Accusing her of lying about her rape. There was a twitter account, Dickwolington, that harassed her directly. Gabe told that account to stop, and it disappeared. There is another account, teamrape that has been retweeting Gabe's tweets and mocking people on twitter that are "anti-dickwolf". Gabe has remained silent.

In the same day he released the "apology", when asked on Twitter whether dickwolf shirts will be allowed at PAX conventions, Gabe's answer was "I'll be wearing mine to PAX."

In fact, Gabe has gone out of his way to be as hurtful as possible. asked on Twitter by @bloodparade “How does it feel to be actively encouraging rape culture, pal?” he reponds with "It feels pretty good. Why?" When asked if he knows what rape culture is, Gabe replied "Of course I know what 'rape culture' is. Saw them live once. New songs, but mostly covers." When a fan on twitter asked Gabe if it meant being a man at PAX this year would be awkward, he replied, "I honestly don't think it will be an issue. Nothing on the Internet last for more than a few days" (ignoring how long the dickwolves have been a controversy). He even dragged his wife into it, by twittering to her in public "Don't you know honey? You're married to a rape apologist! I have a busy day of perpetuating rape culture! I'll be home late."

These reactions from him baffle me, especially when the duo have tackled issues about depression and axiety attacks before. They will not do any jokes about drug abuse because they viscerally disturb him, in what sound much like my own-- thankfully rarely triggered-- panic attacks when it comes to rape triggers.

Tycho and Gabe are more than just some web comic. They have raised nearly 9 million USD for children's hospitals over 8 years. They were listed as part of the 2010 Time Magazine 100 people that "most affect our world". They have been online as a web comic for about 13 years. The PAX convention grew so large, there are now PAX East and PAX west. PAX has a specific ant-harassment policy and no "booth babe" policy. They offer their own $10,000 scholoarhip. Yet they have offered the defense that the comic and the resultant merchandising is not supposed to be influential or taken seriously. Either they can influence their audience, or they can't.

These horrible reactions are coming from tone of the main people behind the PAX convention, torpedoing the claims of wanting it to be an inclusive space with their very actions. They have made me, a video game writer and person who tries to highlight the better parts of video game culture-- a hobby that has led to lots of personal, professional and familial connections and fulfilment-- feel uncomfortable. They have made friends I care about feel unsafe. They have made ME feel unwelcome and unsafe.

The joke may have merely been crass and insensitive, but the reactions from Penny Arcade have been heartbreaking. They may think it's all a big joke, but I'm not laughing. I'm mourning.
posted by ShawnStruck at 9:47 AM on February 2, 2011 [223 favorites]

But it wasn't Benny Hill, it was in The Onion. Even Benny Hill didn't go there.

Au contraire. It was in an episode of Benny Hill. Which is what the Onion was making fun of.

Jesus wept.
posted by grubi at 9:47 AM on February 2, 2011

felix: But out come the Popes and others saying "you are part of rape culture. You are on team rapist." Which to any reasonable ear is drawing false equivalence between these two comic book guys making a joke (which may be careless and insensitive) and forcing themselves brutally on an unwilling victim.

Ignorantly strawmanning the discussion isn't exactly reasonable.

Language matters; and degree matters.

Sure, which is why it's helpful to look up the definition of phrases as they're actually used, such as this one: Rape culture is a term used within women's studies and feminism, describing a culture in which rape and other sexual violence (usually against women) are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualized violence. (emphasis added)

Which is why feminists for much of the last 30 years have fairly consistently used rape culture to describe things like portrayals of James Bond's repeated "seduction" of unwilling women vs. actual rapists which can be called, simply, rapists. Throwing additional adjectives in front of the word culture isn't exactly necessary.

Which BTW, the phrase "team rape" as explicitly explained with a fair degree of nuance started with the marketing of dickwolves as an athletic team, and later adopted by advocates of PA on twitter. But by all means, please cherry pick a single phrase out of the context of a fairly detailed description of the potentially unintentional meaning of wearing a dickwolves athletic shirt in a community notorious for gratuitous rape jokes.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:47 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh, we are on to debating rape stats? It's all downhill from here.

Yeah, fuck me for asking for an attribution. Where do I get off? It's not like people toss bullshit statistics around all the time, so I feel a natural impulse to double-check.

No, I must be some sort of asshole for asking someone to back up their assertions.
posted by grubi at 9:50 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

cavalier: If those 16000 people were a representative cross-section of society then that 16% ratio is very well supported indeed. You really need to sample very few people from a large population to get a good idea of the incidence of whatever it is you're looking for.

Given that the figures are from a government survey, you can reasonably expect them to have been performed by a reputable polling company who would have taken reasonable steps to ensure that their population sample was representative of the population as a whole. You'd have to go read the original reports to be sure of course.
posted by pharm at 9:50 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

but it seems to be based on one telephone survey of 8,000 women and 8,000 men? I'm not a statistics major at all, but extrapolating a 16% ratio by roughly using below, what, 0.00003% of the general population doesn't seem to me to be a statistically valid study?

No, that's not correct. Actually 16,000 people would be a huge sample size and more than enough to be statistically valid if everything else was done in a statistically sound fashion. I have no idea if it was, of course. I'm gonna go out on a limb and posit that a telephone survey about rape is not going to be very scientific. But it will not be scientific for reasons other than sample size.
posted by Justinian at 9:51 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Or what pharm said, although he has more confidence than I in the methodology being proper.
posted by Justinian at 9:51 AM on February 2, 2011

I'm not a statistics major at all, but extrapolating a 16% ratio by roughly using below, what, 0.00003% of the general population doesn't seem to me to be a statistically valid study?

If the sampling's sound, then it's valid. Statistics is a fascinating thing; tends to more accurate than people think.
posted by grubi at 9:52 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

Or what Justinian and pharm said.
posted by grubi at 9:52 AM on February 2, 2011

I would think that a phone survey (as opposed to a written survey) would only under-report something as serious and difficult to discuss as rape, but what do I know.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:53 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

ShawnStruck: "When asked if he knows what rape culture is, Gabe replied "Of course I know what 'rape culture' is. Saw them live once. New songs, but mostly covers.""

(I LOL'd)
posted by falameufilho at 9:53 AM on February 2, 2011

What horrible fate would you be more comfortable with. And why? --- The joke is that in MMO's, you're instructed to save x number of whatevers. So you run in, accomplish the task X times. Because it's an MMO, the whatevers respawn so that other players can accomplish the quest. So when you run back to the quest giver, you're likely to run past plenty more whatevers that need rescuing, but you're done with the quest so you don't care. That's the joke. The gratuitous reference to rape could have been changed to "beaten," "starved," "flayed," "tortured," "made to eat rocks," or anything else.
posted by crunchland at 9:54 AM on February 2, 2011

Damn, Shawn, thank you for sharing that. I, too, hope that Gabe can dig himself out of this hole, because, fuck, he has pretty much thrown himself into it. I can see the "I would never do this! This an online facade! ISn't that funny! Ha ha!" bit flying around in his mind, but, fuck, since 01/31 he has completely validated any complaint that has been made about how tone deaf he is about this. Your drugs comment bring up a real valid point, there.
posted by cavalier at 9:54 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Is that about right?

I doubt you could be more wrong without the aid of surgery!

Thanks for trying, though!
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 9:54 AM on February 2, 2011

(I LOL'd)
Okay, dude, I feel ya, but you are totally starting down Gabe territory here. Dial it back a notch.
posted by cavalier at 9:55 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Lots of stats here.

Telling point referenced in those links is how many women in the US report being raped but never telling anyone, so therefore not showing up in the crime stats.

If you're talking worldwide, in cultures that actually force women into marriages, i.e. sexual relationships, against their will, then you would have almost all women technically being victims of rape (or sexual slavery, if you prefer; to the women in question, I doubt it matters). Many of these women of course are actually children when they're sold.

And then there's the situation in the Congo, where whole hospitals have been set up just to treat women who are victims of a systematic campaign of rape and assault, that's been going on for years now.

And then there's the comfort women of Korea, and the women imprisoned and raped during the Balkan conflict in the 90s.

Those are the ones we know about.
posted by emjaybee at 9:56 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

The gratuitous reference to rape could have been changed to "beaten," "starved," "flayed," "tortured," "made to eat rocks," or anything else.

And presumably you're OK with those.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:57 AM on February 2, 2011

Thatnks for that backgrounder ShawnStruck, I was having a hard time understanding who said what to whom here.
posted by jessamyn at 9:58 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

explosion, I hear you, and it wasn't an easy decision to make. I loved PAX East last year and I'm sure it will be awesome again. I don't think it's for me anymore, though.

In your post, you said: "PAX and the gaming community at large need people who care to stick around and attempt to address issues, rather than shedding mature people who've 'outgrown' or 'feel ashamed' of gaming culture."

I don't see this as the gaming community shedding mature people; I see this as about the gaming community shedding puerile people. PAX no longer feels like my community, and I can help make it so by not attending. The founders preach inclusiveness but would rather invalidate, ridicule, or antagonize people than follow the edict they themselves helped popularize.

I would encourage you to read some of the other recent entries on Courtney's blog (that's kirbybits, the second "offended" link in the original post), and look at the comments. If you're up for it, try going back a few days in her Twitter (also @kirbybits) and check out the "I hope you get raped to death" comments she posts and retweets. These are not people interested in a discussion, nuanced or otherwise, and they are not people who I want to share a weekend (or community, or culture) with.

Like I said, it was a hard decision to make, but I personally feel that it's better than the alternative. I would not enjoy my time as PAX feeling the way I do about it. (Besides, I'm lucky to be in a position where I can make it -- I know of others who would like to speak out or not attend, but feel like they can't for professional reasons.)

One of the many people whose thoughts resonated with me was Leigh Alexander (of Gamasutra, Kotaku, etc.):

I love Penny Arcade. But what have we got to lose by having some respect for people's feelings in our community when they speak up and ask us to hear them? I don't want to be part of a community where people say "hey, we're really hurt," and we say, "shut up, bitches."

posted by danb at 9:58 AM on February 2, 2011 [20 favorites]

If 1 out of 6 women in the US had been literally flayed, tortured, or made to eat rocks, then I think we would be less jokey about those topics.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:59 AM on February 2, 2011 [10 favorites]

I also initially thought the controversy was going to be about slavery and not rape.
I have no intention of making light of rape, but at what point does this end?

This is a parody of the arbitrary and strange fantasy mechanics of a video game. This is a joke about the reduction of heroism, saving the enslaved etc, reduced to an unfeeling abstract quota in a video game.

Furthermore, this is an ironic comic about a video game. The fantasy is already twice removed. One of the characters is a talking anthropomorphic dog. The perpetrators of this hypothetical rape are called "dickwolves". I'm guessing that there is no MMO which features a raping enemy called a dickwolf. So this means that by creating these over-the-top hypothetical monsters to further show the exaggeratedly horrible conditions of a fantasy slave, the creators of said comic are, in our world, normalizing sexual violence?

The primary action in most videogames, especially in MMORPGS, is killing. Does this perpetuate a culture of violence? A culture of thievery where we must kill and take what we want from the dead? A culture of callous people lacking any empathy who kill and steal from the world around them, in an endless reward cycle of progress into strength charted with arbitrary numbers?

Our world, and our shared history, as well as our social mores on this side of a computer screen are much more culpable for perpetuating culture which reduces, denigrates, and blames victims of violence, sexual or otherwise.

Granted, the reaction from the creators of this webcomic to the initial protests were ill-chosen and strange. But then again it is an internet comic about video games.
posted by Enigmark at 9:59 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Okay, I am totally schooled, statistically speaking. And am back to feeling horrified. So, thanks!
posted by cavalier at 9:59 AM on February 2, 2011

Kind of like how the comic strip is almost like a joke about the weird "care but don't care" dynamic in MMOs?

do I seriously have to ONCE A FUCKING GAIN post about how there's multiplejokes in the strip because goddamn people oyu have to start reading the parts of the thread that don't have shiny things in them
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:59 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

And presumably you're OK with those. --- I realize you're just being argumentative, but I would contend that had the comic strip said any of those other things, we wouldn't even be discussing the point. It's not about what I'm ok with. It's about what people would and wouldn't have reacted to.
posted by crunchland at 10:00 AM on February 2, 2011

One of the many people whose thoughts resonated with me was Leigh Alexander (of Gamasutra, Kotaku, etc.):
I love Penny Arcade. But what have we got to lose by having some respect for people's feelings in our community when they speak up and ask us to hear them? I don't want to be part of a community where people say "hey, we're really hurt," and we say, "shut up, bitches."

Yeah, I mean focusing on the original comic kind of misses the point of what is ultimately a customer service and a public relations problem.

Penny Arcade is a big enterprise at this point, with a lot to lose and a reputation to protect. They should probably be more careful about how they respond to things like this. The comic is really not the problem, their response to the criticism of the comic was stupid, juvenile and needlessly provocative.
posted by empath at 10:01 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Regardless of how you feel about the issues themselves, I think one thing is clear: Mike and Jerry have acted like immature assholes. And continue to do so.

By acting like immature assholes they have alienated a pretty big chunk of their core audience (including myself). While simultaneously playing to another chunk of their core audience, who could perhaps best be described as "other immature assholes."

Yay, it's the immature asshole brigade. AGAIN.

It's a pity, too, because Mike and Jerry are decent people on the whole. Look at all the good they have done with Child's Play. Look at their female-positive PAX policies. Look at many of their earlier comics, which have already been cited in this thread.

I certainly do not conflate them with rapists. I think they are simply unaware of how enthusiastically "into" rape culture a lot of their fans are. Which is to say, people take this shit seriously. Just look at what their fans have done to the women who have tried to speak out against this issue.

But if anyone wants my Penny Arcade books, which I bought over the years because I wanted to show my support, I don't want them anymore. Now when I look at them on my shelf, I feel sad.

grubl and cavalier and others who question the 1/6 statistic, I believe it's sourced from a US Department of Justice report titled Criminal Victimization in the United States.

To clarify, 1 in 6 women have experienced sexual assault or an attempted sexual assault. This would include date rape, as well as those people who were sexually assaulted when they were children.
posted by ErikaB at 10:01 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

I came here looking for a mountain, but all I got was this lousy molehill.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:01 AM on February 2, 2011

To accuse someone of "perpetuating rape culture" is a pretty intense charge to make. I was accused of "apologizing for racism" in a thread the other day when I certainly was NOT and let me tell you, it feels pretty fucking terrible and it's pretty difficult to not get extremely defensive. Meanwhile, a few other posters really beautifully articulated why I was wrong and you know what? They had a great point. I thought about what they said - and I was out of line.

This screamy, fighty, finger-pointing attitude that springs up when some unenlightened fool makes a joke that's out of line - because they don't understand the concept of privilege, or they haven't yet learned about the power constructs surrounding gender - it needs to stop. It's poisonous and it doesn't work. The PA guys truly think they made a shocking [if not tasteless] joke and nothing else, so if people lash out at them, they're going to lash back.

I used to be one of those douchebags before I went to college and took a handful of womens studies classes, and started reading more. I certainly didn't learn about it from people calling me a misogynist asshole, my response would have been all "fuck you, feminazi you don't even know what you're talking about! I respect women!"

I guess what I'm saying is that there must be some other way to do this.
posted by windbox at 10:03 AM on February 2, 2011 [21 favorites]

If 1 out of 6 women in the US had been literally ... made to eat rocks

Salt is a rock.
posted by Ardiril at 10:03 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Yeah, seriously: thank you, ShawnStruck, for being so open and powerfully honest. It can't be easy. And you have my respect and admiration for being willing to dive into this and speak your mind from the beginning. Thanks for your perspective.
posted by koeselitz at 10:03 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

do I seriously have to ONCE A FUCKING GAIN post about how there's multiplejokes in the strip because goddamn people oyu have to start reading the parts of the thread that don't have shiny things in them

On the one hand, there are multiple jokes in Fünke's cluelessness. I think your original critique does apply to the AD joke.

On the other hand, Fünke is not a rapist and has no intention of ever being one. The joke comes from the fact that he has cluelessly implied that he is one. In that sense, it's not "really" a rape joke, because no one is ever getting raped by Tobias.

On the other, other hand, the last episode of AD that I re-watched contained a clear cut example of rape by deception. So...something.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:05 AM on February 2, 2011

Most places? That's pretty much what happened here. I agree with you that usually Metafilter is better at this kind of thing. But not today.

Anyway, I'm glad Pope Guilty and muddgirl (and a few others) are around. At least there's that.
posted by koeselitz at 12:00 PM on February 2 [2 favorites +] [!]

WTF, dude? That's pretty passive-aggressive right there. Newsflash: MeFi "not doing something well" isn't about other people having the unmitigated gall to disagree with the One Correct Opinion -- it's about squashing discussion. Like it or not, no matter how you feel about this particular topic, a matter was/is being discussed. I'd say self-congratulatory jabs at the plebes who just don't "get it" are kinda what bring a thread down. I mean, it's not like you could have MeMailed P.G. and muddgirl thanks for the solidarity in private, right?
posted by Amanojaku at 10:05 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Salt is a rock.

You don't actually have to comment in this thread, you know. You can just go do something else. That's allowed.
posted by cortex at 10:05 AM on February 2, 2011 [33 favorites]

The gratuitous reference to rape could have been changed to "beaten," "starved," "flayed," "tortured," "made to eat rocks," or anything else.

"And presumably you're OK with those."

First, beatings, flayings, and torture are a part of World of Warcraft. Starvation is implicitly a part of it (burned-out farms crop up in various parts of the world). So references to those things are consistent with the context of the strip, and thus the joke ("WoW encourages players to do absurd things, if you think about it") still works. And it does so without importing a terrible part of gamer culture into the context of WoW.

Second, gamer culture does not have a problem with gamers beating, starving, flaying, torturing, or force-feeding people rocks in the real world. Gamer culture does have a problem with misogyny and simulated sexual violence. And the fallout from this comic strip has shown that many gamers are perfectly happy to say things like "you deserved to get raped" and "I hope you get raped again" to rape victims.
posted by jedicus at 10:06 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

how there's multiplejokes in the strip

Because you said there were?

Look, I get it: you disapprove. But you're starting to throw fits at me because I'm not buying the SUPERINTERCONENCTEDNESS OF EVERYTHING idea you have where you cannot joke about unpleasant things because a person could get upset by that. I'm not saying the joke was particularly awesome, or that the guys were right for any of their actions. I'm being strictly academic about this but you're getting... well.. a little less than that.

Ease up. Let's just fucking talk.
posted by grubi at 10:08 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

we do not do the "I am ironically hollering about this topic as if I were the sort of person I'm not" thing if we want other people to discuss things in good faith - seriously, if you need a walk, take a walk.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:09 AM on February 2, 2011

To accuse someone of "perpetuating rape culture" is a pretty intense charge to make.

I think that might be the core problem here. While it's hard not to take a charge like this personally it really shouldn't be because rape culture is so common. We all perpetuate rape culture to some degree, so to be called out for it shouldn't put someone so far on the defensive. Still, if I was singled out for "perpetuating rape culture" I would probably react defensively even though I'm sure I do.
posted by ODiV at 10:09 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Kind of like how the comic strip is almost like a joke about the weird "care but don't care" dynamic in MMOs?

do I seriously have to ONCE A FUCKING GAIN post about how there's multiplejokes in the strip because goddamn people oyu have to start reading the parts of the thread that don't have shiny things in them

They read those parts, they just disagree with you.
posted by the other side at 10:09 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

And you know what. Every methodology has flaws. Is 1/6 an exact number? Probably not. But it's likely in the same ballpark.

empath: Yeah, I mean focusing on the original comic kind of misses the point of what is ultimately a customer service and a public relations problem.

Exactly. This conflict has legs partly because the PA people apparently can't leave well enough alone.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:09 AM on February 2, 2011

Here is what my response would have been:

"We're not going to apologize for the comic. We were not making light of rape. We think rape is bad. The joke depends on a mutual understanding that rape is bad between us and our readers.

We are sorry that any readers were offended or were hurt by the joke, but being sometimes being offensive is part of what we do. If that means you don't want to read the comic any more, that's okay, we understand.

That said, a lot of our critics have interesting and important things to say about rape and misogyny in gamer culture, and we've learned a lot by reading it, and we encourage our readers to engage in dialogue with them with respect. The things they are talking about are real. They are not exaggerating. Maybe we could all learn something and be better people from this controversy."
posted by empath at 10:09 AM on February 2, 2011 [17 favorites]

So because if Kobe Bryant was successfully convicted of rape charges does that mean that I can no longer wear a LA Lakers cap?
posted by PenDevil at 10:10 AM on February 2, 2011

And the fallout from this comic strip has shown that many gamers are perfectly happy to say things like "you deserved to get raped" and "I hope you get raped again" to rape victims.

This may come as a shock to you: there are lots of assholes out there, many of them become even bigger assholes on the Internet.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:10 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Was Kobe Bryant invented by a comic artist solely as a representation of a rapist?
posted by stavrogin at 10:13 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I also want to take a second to publicly commend ShawnStruck for identifying himself as a male survivor of rape up-thread.

Rape is not solely a female issue. In fact an estimated 1 in 10 rape victims is male. But to say this is a form of assault which is grievously under-reported is to understate the case immensely.

Our society heaps shame upon rape survivors, both male and female. By doing so it silences them, which allows the crime to go unchecked.
posted by ErikaB at 10:13 AM on February 2, 2011 [12 favorites]

The comic is really not the problem, their response to the criticism of the comic was stupid, juvenile and needlessly provocative.

Well said, empath.
posted by danb at 10:14 AM on February 2, 2011

No way out at this point unless it's an over the top apology (which I personally don't think gets you anywhere) or people stop being as ungenerous as possible in their understanding and viewpoints, in both directions.
posted by iamabot at 10:16 AM on February 2, 2011

Some people have way too much time on their hands. Instead of trying to make a huge issue out of a comic, why don't these people go donate their time to something that will actually affect rape victims in real life? Proselytizing online just angers people and starts flame wars.

I have lurked here for about 5 years before joining. My response to this debate 5 years ago would have been very different then it is now. These discussions may seem old hat to some people, but there are many others being introduced to these issues for the first time.

I think talking these issues out gets to count as "doing something", because it can change the attitudes of reasonable people who just haven't been exposed to the many reasons rape really isn't funny.
posted by pickinganameismuchharderthanihadanticipated at 10:16 AM on February 2, 2011 [11 favorites]

This may come as a shock to you: there are lots of assholes out there, many of them become even bigger assholes on the Internet.

It's not a shock to me at all. My point was that this debacle has produced fairly incontrovertible evidence of gamer culture's problems with attitudes towards sexual violence and evidence that those problems manifest themselves in the real world. Thus, one can't say to critics of the strip that gamer culture doesn't have such problems. The reaction to the criticism has fairly well proven the critics' point.
posted by jedicus at 10:16 AM on February 2, 2011

ShawnStruck: yeah, that does sound like some bad assholish behavior coming from the PA guys.

To make sure this has been perfectly clear, pretty much all of my comments in this thread have been referring solely to the initial comic and, obliquely and to a much smaller extent, to the t-shirt. I only know about the other stuff like Twitter crap from this thread and the links in the OP.

It's quite possible for the initial comic to have been funny, on-point, and a biting critique of MMORPGs and for the PA guys to have been assholes on Twitter or whatever, and if what people like ShawnStruck have said is accurate that appears to have been the case. Personally, I can separate art or media I like from the person who created it. If I couldn't I sure wouldn't be able to read half of the books I do. But I recognize that some people can't do that to the same extent and there's nothing wrong with that.

I hope the PA guys back off the apparent Twitter crap but continue the comic in exactly the same way they always have. But if Gabe or Tycho continue with the Twittery badness, well, I'll probably just continue to read the comic like I do now in complete ignorance about any outside the strip behavior. If other people don't, that's cool too. I don't think any of this is reflected in the actual comic, though,
posted by Justinian at 10:16 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

"curbstomped by hobbits"

Well-done.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:17 AM on February 2, 2011

I was a regular PA reader (and side-project video watcher and general fan of the guys) at the time the original strip came out. I thought the Line Heard Round the World was a hell of a turn of phrase, and appreciated it in a morally neutral art way, but I knew they were about to get some knowledge dropped on them for it. That is to say, I was quite familiar with their style of humor and still that joke stood out to me from the others. I figured they'd get a few emails, they might reply but the rest of us would never know about them, and in two days there'd be another strip and life would go on. It was only when I saw how wrong I was that I was disturbed by any of it.

To my surprise, the next strip was a 4th wall-breaking PSA that they had received complaints and not seen merit in any of them, so the issue ought to be closed. It wasn't, of course, and their dealings with those on whom their magic didn't work turned me off of them altogether. A week or two later I thought back on it and chastised myself for writing someone off forever because they had a stormy Internet debate on their record. These things don't always go smoothly. Why dwell on it and drag it out? I clicked over to check in. The newspost was back to normal and actually about games. The comic was some light hilarity about a dude on the phone with customer service or something. His t-shirt said 'dickwolves.'

That's when I knew it wasn't just the confusion and emotion of the moment to blame. I'd been disappointed in them for hearing such personal, intense, moving testimony from the objectors and not caring, but 'not caring' didn't cover this kind of long-term aggression. They wanted to utterly drive out the critics from their fanbase, and they weren't going to rest until there were no more suggestions, anywhere, that the critics might have had a point. I shouldn't be as surprised as I am that they still haven't rested.

What it comes down to with me is the unfailing sameness of Penny Arcade's response, no matter what is said to them. It's as if there was no discussion at all, and that's what stings me. That infuriating, unyielding 'why-are-there-still-monkeys' satisfaction with the way they see things, and hey, look at how much trouble those other people have with simple things like this. They've had so much offered to them to explain what everyone's problem with them is, and all that ever comes back is "It was a joke. It's funny because I say it is." They haven't shown any signs of grasping that this perspective, though common, is simplistic and inadequate to actually understand the dynamics of what everyone else is talking about. It's the Reverse Truman Show - the failure to see that the rest of the world IS real, not a flat backdrop. You can walk into it and everything. The parts that seem fake and wrong and hard to take seriously can and should be explored and added to what you think 'counts.'

Not gonna preview because I'm too tired of poking at my phone to change anything anyway: *post comment*
posted by jinjo at 10:17 AM on February 2, 2011 [29 favorites]

cavalier: " I'm not a statistics major at all, but extrapolating a 16% ratio by roughly using below, what, 0.00003% of the general population doesn't seem to me to be a statistically valid study?"

Well, (σ/ √n) says that with a population of the US -- approx. 307 million -- with a 99% confidence level and a 2% margin of error, you'd need a sample size of 4160. You might be able to prove -- if given access to the data -- that their sample was biased in some factor, but the sample needed for a lot of statistical data is very, very small. Stats are an interesting field, and you don't even need to major in them to start seeing their patterns reinforced in daily living.

For my own thoughts on the subject: I can't really support PA on this on any level. You might (and people have) provided a defense of the topic's role in the telling of the joke. I don't agree with the defense, but I can understand the desire to defend a brand based on past experiences.

Weirder for me is the response from the company and putting out merchandising based on it. Maybe Penny Arcade is just used to "trending topic == we have to put a shirt out" but it's a bad decision, and their followup responses haven't been satisfying.

More generally still, I don't tolerate any rape/gay/ etc jokes on the game servers that I administer for MFC. You get a warning when you sign in at the login screen, you might get one for first offense depending on which moderators are on (charity), and that's it. You're gone after that.
posted by boo_radley at 10:18 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Gonna need some attribution. A study. Something.

Of course, we will then find a fault or issue with all stats, or suggest that the methodology was flawed, or suggest the definition of rape was too broad, or suggest that the people polled were lying or manipulated, or or or or or or or.

You can't deny the prevalence of rape in our culture. I personally know dozens of women who have been raped. You do, too. They aren't talking about it and quite possibly are specifically not talking about it to you because of the overall doubt, disbelief or dismissal of rape victim's experiences. Every single high-profile man who rapes someone is immediately defended, the victim immediately called a liar. When rape victims come forward they are put through HELL and back just to seek justice, being extensively questioned, prodded, blamed and treated like criminals. Men who are raped don't talk about it. Many people who are raped live in active denial about it. People who are raped as children often live in denial about it/don't remember (yes I know about the BS 'false memory' shit that went down, no, that does not invalidate this fact). Additionally, nearly no money is spent on investigating rape, prosecuting rapists, or gathering statistics and information on rape. Rape victims are often told they are "lucky they weren't hurt" - they are told this even by the police officers who are investigating their case or the doctor in the emergency room where they are being examined. Victims believe it is their fault or can't go through the trauma of reporting. Victims are told they will only make trouble for themselves by going to the authorities.

So even if you manage to find numbers that make rape seem less common than 1 out of 6, even if you feel every set of statistics is off, remember that rape is vastly UNDER-reported.

So while you can dismiss the data, or the importance of this issue, or the exact meaning/phrasing of the joke, or the intent of the dudes at PA, or the intentions of the people calling this issue out, you cannot deny that this is a real and serious issue perpetrated mostly by men, mostly to women. That we live in a culture that supports this behavior and that some people are willing to stand up against it, even if it's just a comic, even if the guys are nice, even if they didn't mean it, even if it's just a joke, even if technically it's not about rape because what they really meant was this other thing, even if. Dismissing this issue is actually dismissing rape victims. Because if you don't want to hear it, and you don't want the people who care about it to talk about it, and you don't think it matters, and you don't think anyone should talk about it? Then I'm sorry, you're part of the fucking problem.
posted by SassHat at 10:18 AM on February 2, 2011 [35 favorites]

Amanojaku: “WTF, dude? That's pretty passive-aggressive right there. Newsflash: MeFi "not doing something well" isn't about other people having the unmitigated gall to disagree with the One Correct Opinion -- it's about squashing discussion. Like it or not, no matter how you feel about this particular topic, a matter was/is being discussed. I'd say self-congratulatory jabs at the plebes who just don't "get it" are kinda what bring a thread down. I mean, it's not like you could have MeMailed P.G. and muddgirl thanks for the solidarity in private, right?”

I said in the thing you quoted that my problem was that people are doing here what kmz said they would do on other sites: kvetching about people being too easily offended. That was, in a nutshell, the first twenty comments of this thread. You can say that's relatively civil, and sure it is, but it's still not a good thing. I mean, how long have we wasted our time here having to prove all over again that rape is common, just to name an example? I thought MeFites were informed enough to know these things.

I see that it's passive-aggressive, and I'm sorry for that. I was sad when I read the first few comments here, and I made a comment right away to that effect (which was rightly deleted.) I guess I'm just giving my reaction. But this is how I feel. I've tried above to articulate that a little better. I hope that helps.
posted by koeselitz at 10:19 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

and very genuinely, this makes me think of null terminated and how it might be possible to reconcile his experience with any potential humor involving rape, however tangentially.
posted by boo_radley at 10:21 AM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

KirkJobSluder: "And you know what. Every methodology has flaws. Is 1/6 an exact number? Probably not. But it's likely in the same ballpark. "

It's likely far more common than that. Rape is an extremely unreported crime. "The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials." And that's just in the US.

There are a number of reasons for this, including diminished expectations by the victims that they will be treated favorably (as opposed to being dismissed, mocked or shamed) when they report what has happened to family, friends, police and/or medical personnel. Those who seek medical care for serious injuries and/or tests for venereal disease are also more likely to report what has been done to them.
posted by zarq at 10:23 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

The punchline would've been just as funny (which is to say, somewhat) if the slavers were zombies or mindflayers or cattle or huge wedges of cheese. The punchline holds its own. So why even make a reference to rape at all unless the rape is a joke, too?

Because not everyone thinks that a rape reference as an example of a horrible thing done to others is beyond the pale and should always be replaced with a reference to non-sexual violence?

I don't find anything done by the PA crew post-comic to be acceptable. It's been shitty from the get-go and I won't defend it.

But the comic's use of prisoner rape as an example of horrific mistreatment? I just don't see that as unreasonable, in no small part because it's not unrealistic.

The whole point of this comic was the insane moral choices presented to (or forced upon) players. The detail of "dickwolves" as a gonzo game creature of specialized torture strikes me as pretty spot-on portrayal of the kind of creation you see in games and fiction. Freddy Kruger's knife-glove, Ash's shotgun hand.

The movie SE7EN had a horrific sex-torture contraption. Was that, as a sign of depravity and horror, also unacceptable? Is it acceptable because it was without humor?

Norm comments above Speaking only for myself, I think a lot of people in this thread are putting all their attention on the comic strip because it's actually remotely defensible. Speaking only for myself, I'd say it's because it's the only area that's actually interesting. The PA crew's subsequent reaction is shitty on a multitude of levels, period, so what's to discuss? They were and are wrong. There might be some small bit of interesting to someone in how much was caused by Mike's anxiety disorder and the stunted emotional growth it played a part in, but not to me.

What I think is interesting and worthy of discussion is what to me looks like a position that there's no place for inclusion of the fact of rape in non-serious media. It certainly seems that Pope Guilty believes this, and in some ways the fact of his belief is proof and support for his position: he repeatedly insists that the rape it itself meant to be the joke - that the fact that this person is being raped is supposed to be haha-that's-funny.

To me that's an unanswerable assertion - what the joke is meant to be is only in the minds of the creators. So if we fall back on what we can know, the fact that some people found it funny, I'm not going to argue that - it's a certainty. HURF DURF DON'T DROP THE SOAP jokes about prison rape prove there are jackholes who do indeed find humor in the suffering of others.

I'm just not sure I think that's a reason to cross it off the "ever acceptable" list for inclusion in humor. That some percentage of people looked at the PA strip and thought "haha rape" doesn't trouble me on the scale of, say, what I think of as "taking it in the nuts humor." There seems to be to be a very defensible assertion that the PA strip was attempting to say RAPE=BAD but some people will interpret it as the joke itself. On the other hand we have a huge quantity of humor in our cultures that's unequivocally meant to be "this person got hurt and that's funny."

I don't point that out to say we cannot address issue X as long as issue Y exists; I mention it because it makes me question why we should be willing to jettison one particular topic within the realm of comedy when we're willing to accept other non-sexual suffering.

So to return to the quote I opened with - if the "punchline would've been just as funny" if the prisoner was instead going to be waterboarded.... why? Why is it okay that THAT is funny? Because it's not a form of torture that 1 in 6 women will experience? Because it's invasive and horrible in a non-sexual way? Because a percentage of the population doesn't make HURF DURF DON'T GET RENDITIONED the way they make their soap-dropping jokes?

Assuming you can make that assertion. I'm not sure you can. It seems like every form of physical suffering gets a laugh from certain classes of jerkbag. Or you have the gallows humor others have defended. If the problem is that "someone will think it itself is funny" I don't know that anything is fair game. The only thing you can fall back on then is things like mindflaying or other fictional suffering.

If that's your position, that these games or humor or everything in entertainment should always avoid any representations of suffering that reflect the suffering that happens in the real world, okay, you're entitled. But if that's not then I'm not sure I understand why we're comfortable with drawing a line at sexual violence for portrayal but not at other ways people are horrific to each other.
posted by phearlez at 10:23 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

I'm amazed anyone can read ShawnStruck's recap and still think that PA's behavior over the whole thing has been defensible. Whatever you think of the original strip, everything they've done since then has been pretty awful, as well as inexplicable. They want to create a safe, inclusive space except for rape victims? I don't get it.
posted by kavasa at 10:23 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Hey, remember when we used to be mad at Ctrl-Alt-Delete ? Good times, man, good times.
posted by NoraReed at 10:25 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

I would think that a phone survey (as opposed to a written survey) would only under-report something as serious and difficult to discuss as rape, but what do I know.

I'm not sure, I think you could make a pretty good argument either way. But you're correct, a telephone survey might well underreport rape rather than overreport it. I don't think there was anything in my comment to imply otherwise, only a general skepticism about phone surveys. But this is kind of orthogonal to the point which is that a whole lot of people have suffered sexual abuse and that 16,000 people is plenty big enough for a sample.

To clarify, 1 in 6 women have experienced sexual assault or an attempted sexual assault. This would include date rape, as well as those people who were sexually assaulted when they were children.

Having just now (re)read the survey, it doesn't just include those who were sexually assaulted when children, such people make up the majority of victims. A majority of victims are under 17 years old and the survey makes a point of shining a light on this fact, going so far as to say "the survey found that rape is a crime committed
primarily against youth".
posted by Justinian at 10:28 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Zarq, the 1-in-6 number does not represent sexual assaults reported - it represents private answers to a survey.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:28 AM on February 2, 2011

Sticherbeast: "Zarq, the 1-in-6 number does not represent sexual assaults reported - it represents private answers to a survey."

Ah. I read it too quickly then.
posted by zarq at 10:29 AM on February 2, 2011

thank you, ShawnStruck.
posted by qnarf at 10:30 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I realize you're just being argumentative, but I would contend that had the comic strip said any of those other things, we wouldn't even be discussing the point. It's not about what I'm ok with. It's about what people would and wouldn't have reacted to.

I am NOT being argumentative! In fact, I'm offended by the suggestion.

People react to things. It doesn't make them right.

The whole 'rape culture' thing was a douchey charge to make in the first place. The entire point of the strip is that rape is a horrible thing (up there with flaying, FWIW) and that the 'hero' isn't actually being heroic by stopping when he met his quota of people to save. But because the horrible fate he was leaving the sixth slave to was rape, they're perpetuating rape culture? No fucking way.

But now they're accused of being rape supporters, and they start to dig in their heels and say 'fuck you too' in various ways. Their fans see them as under attack from some seriously humor-impaired people and start lashing back. Ultimately leading to a t-shirt featuring the raping rapists. Not a savvy move, but probably predictable.

This is why you need to be careful about bandying about pernicious terms. Used carelessly, you'll create enemies.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:30 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

The funny thing is when I first found myself in a MMORPG with a bunch of people who seemed to be exclusively immature male louts, I was heartened when they started throwing the word rape around. When one of the player's characters was killed and plundered and his little homestead deliberately griefed and the player himself subjected to a lot of ridicule from his attackers he referred to this as being raped. It seemed to me that in the apparently all male MMORPG culture the word rape was being used in this context because it was stronger than saying "killed", "stomped", "murdered" "pwned" or "annihilated". This means to that they were more sensitive to the concept of rape rather than less. Rape was used to describe actions way more dickish than simply winning a contest. It was used to describe the most dickish behavior electronically possible, behavior that was only limited because of the electronics.

But it also seems to me that there are a number of people - almost exclusively female, but not entirely, some of whom are rape survivors but many of whom are not, who are instinctively aversive to the concept of rape so that just the word in a context far removed from immediate danger to them or to anyone near them still rings every alarm bell in their psyche.

Between these two extremes, the not-entirely clueless male who can identify with being a rape victim, and the individual who has strong aversive emotions triggered by any reference to rape, fall a great number of other reactions and interpretations to that joke in Penny Arcade. The wrong person reads that joke and they will take it to mean that "Heheh, s'funny when somebody gets raped!" or "It's funny when a GUY gets raped, but not someone female!" "Oooh, that's a hot scenario, I'm gonna picture myself being a slave in my next scenario!" or "Ick! Rape has no place in a game! That completely ruins a quest!" Or "Hmm... I could make up a table of number of attackers, sex acts forced and amount of trauma resulting, modified by a save against... should it be charisma or constitution?" or the person whose mind escapes back to that horrible experience that keeps flashing back and once again they are shaking and shaking and its hard to breathe...

Well, my take on this is that the thing to do is not to try too hard to be politically correct as it stifles the creativity, but to try extremely hard to be kind. Regrettably the sequel to the comic seems to be someone who got offensive instead. I have no doubt that they felt attacked and believed they were being counter-offensive. The gaming world seems to have more than its fair share of people who are determined to win whether or not they are in a competitive context.

I figure that some of the not-politically correct responses to the whole uproar have been from people who do NOT think rape is a good hobby, but do feel like by not gasping in anger and outrage that they have been painted as being wanna-be-rapists. Also, rape being part of our biology and giving an advantage in number of progeny, some of the people involved in the conversation are, on some level, pro-rape, whether or not they know it.

You're not going to find a common ground here. Both sides are working with emotion or culture creating biased perceptions. One thing I noted is that a lot of people in this thread were quoting the comic as talking about slaves being "raped to death". I remember the quote as being "raped to sleep every night". Is a reference in a joke about being raped to death worse than one about being raped to sleep? In the first case its a type of nasty murder as a joke. In the second it trivializes rape.... Similarly wasn't the T-shirt about rape survivors not a rape squad? Does wearing a t-shirt describing yourself as a rape survivor mean you are expressing solidarity with rape victims or denigrating them?

The topic is so loaded that the perceptions are getting altered by the emotions involved. And I don't mean that only the rape-fearful or rape-offended people are seeing through a distorted lens, I mean all of us. Who is being unrealistic and who has a position to defend? Everyone involved.
posted by Jane the Brown at 10:30 AM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

koeselitz: The thing is, in a userbase of any significant size you're always going to get some idiots saying dumb one-liners at inappropriate times. It's inevitable. You can't let that color your perception of the discussion as a whole or you'll never be anything but disappointed. You've just gotta filter it out as noise, like the people who post nothing but "This."
posted by Justinian at 10:31 AM on February 2, 2011

Hey, wait, is this discussion becoming civil and reasonable? WTF METAFILTER
posted by grubi at 10:33 AM on February 2, 2011

Rape statistics, according to the FBI, for reported cases in 2005:

The rate of forcible rapes in 2005 was estimated at 62.5 offenses per 100,000 female inhabitants, a 2.0 percent decrease when compared to the 2004 estimate of 63.8 forcible rapes per 100,000 female inhabitants.

Based on rape offenses actually reported to the UCR Program in 2005, rapes by force comprised 91.8 percent of reported rape offenses, and assaults to rape attempts accounted for 8.2 percent of reported rape offenses. This equated to 48.4 rapes by force per 100,000 female inhabitants and 4.3 assaults to rape attempts per 100,000 females in 2005. via

Not all rape cases are reported, of course.
posted by misha at 10:34 AM on February 2, 2011

So because if Kobe Bryant was successfully convicted of rape charges does that mean that I can no longer wear a LA Lakers cap?

I would seriously reconsider the wisdom of wearing his jersey.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:35 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

The entire point of the strip is that rape is a horrible thing (up there with flaying, FWIW) and that the 'hero' isn't actually being heroic by stopping when he met his quota of people to save. But because the horrible fate he was leaving the sixth slave to was rape, they're perpetuating rape culture? No fucking way.

But rape isn't actually a part of Warcraft, whereas flaying is. There are enslaved NPCs that are beaten but none that are raped. The PA authors introduced rape into the context of Warcraft. Gamer culture has a big problem with its attitude towards sexual violence, including introducing sexual violence into games where it is not present (e.g. teabagging in FPS games). That is how the strip perpetuates gamer culture's unfortunate attitude towards sexual violence.
posted by jedicus at 10:35 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

And, let's be clear, that was for one year only. It's very hard to estimate a woman's individual odds over her lifetime, or a man's either, of being a rape victim.
posted by misha at 10:35 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

FWIW, here in NY, where there's a big "well, now that the Jets are out, who do I root for?" meme, I've been hearing a number of people referring to Steelers as the rape team (go Packers).
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:36 AM on February 2, 2011

Similarly wasn't the T-shirt about rape survivors not a rape squad?

No, it was not. I suspect you're thinking of this shirt, which is a parody of what PA created. The original shirt, if I remember correctly, looked more like a sports jersey and said something like "Team Dickwolves."
posted by danb at 10:36 AM on February 2, 2011

explosion, this:

Within the context of the strip alone, the humor is not to be found from the rape, but the callous indifference of the PC. That you're representing otherwise makes me question whether you're willing to have an honest conversation about this at all.

is refuted by all the people saying stuff like this:

...Because "Dickwolves" is a hilarious word...

..."Being raped to sleep by dickwolves" is an attempt to both be inherently funny (imagining 'dickwolves' is mildly amusing)...
posted by straight at 10:37 AM on February 2, 2011

FWIW, here in NY, where there's a big "well, now that the Jets are out, who do I root for?" meme, I've been hearing a number of people referring to Steelers as the rape team (go Packers).

Unfortunately, it's not that easy.
posted by COBRA! at 10:40 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Similarly wasn't the T-shirt about rape survivors not a rape squad? Does wearing a t-shirt describing yourself as a rape survivor mean you are expressing solidarity with rape victims or denigrating them?

The survivor tshirt was made by a rape survivor and critic of Penny Arcade.

The tshirt that Penny Arcade made was of a Dickwolf that looked like it was the mascot of a sports team.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 10:41 AM on February 2, 2011

But rape isn't actually a part of Warcraft, whereas flaying is.

Seriously? That's fucked up.

But yeah, that's all the more reason to use rape instead of flaying. If it's something actually in the game, it's not as humorous as something that's hyperbolic.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:45 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

By the way, I'd encourage anyone interested in the subject to read the study being referenced above which can be found here. Despite my skepticism about using phone surveys for something as difficult as sexual assault (which I have not lost), it is probably the best analysis of its kind I've read in quite a while. At this point I'd probably accept these figures as those most likely to be reasonably accurate. The methodology seems pretty decent so long as there is nothing fundamentally problematic about a phone survey.

The most shocking to me? The figures for women as a whole are about 1/6. The figure for Native American women are above 1/3.
posted by Justinian at 10:46 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Rape was used to describe actions way more dickish than simply winning a contest. It was used to describe the most dickish behavior electronically possible, behavior that was only limited because of the electronics.

I've never heard it/seen it used that way. Has anyone else? I usually see it as synonymous with "pwn".
posted by NoraReed at 10:49 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

But yeah, that's all the more reason to use rape instead of flaying. If it's something actually in the game, it's not as humorous as something that's hyperbolic.

...what?
posted by maryr at 10:50 AM on February 2, 2011

ChurchHatesTucker: “But yeah, that's all the more reason to use rape instead of flaying. If it's something actually in the game, it's not as humorous as something that's hyperbolic.”

This is probably somewhat ancillary, as I know you meant "hyperbolic" in the context of the game. But it strikes me that one of the points of misunderstanding may be that for some people being "raped to sleep" is an absurdly hyperbolic amount of cartoon violence, and is humorous because that's just a ridiculously horrific and terrible thing, whereas for other people it's actually within the realm of possibility.
posted by koeselitz at 10:52 AM on February 2, 2011

It's amazing to me how many directions this fpp has gone. I wonder if there'd be any controversy if Oglaf had done the same strip. (And yes, I know Oglaf is written and drawn by a woman.)
posted by Catblack at 10:53 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Thank you misha for digging up that statistic:

The rate of forcible rapes in 2005 was estimated at 62.5 offenses per 100,000 female inhabitants, a 2.0 percent decrease when compared to the 2004 estimate of 63.8 forcible rapes per 100,000 female inhabitants.

With the caveat that yes, many rapes probably do go unreported, this shows conclusively that the 1-in-6 number is at the very least cast into serious doubt.

The key difference here, I think, as with most things, is in semantics. The FBI is only reporting here on the following definition of rape:

Forcible rape, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Assaults and attempts to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.

Those that are eager to be outraged about 'rape culture' generally have an extremely loose definition of rape. Upthread, for instance, I saw this:

On the other, other hand, the last episode of AD that I re-watched contained a clear cut example of rape by deception. So...something.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:05 AM on February 2 [+] [!]

"Rape by deception?"

Wikipedia has an article for it, but it only has two examples: a man pretending to be his twin brother to sleep with his girlfriend, and a Jewish woman told by a Muslim man that he was Jewish and unmarried.

To be clear, lying to a woman in order to have sex with her is not rape. If that were an accepted definition of rape, 100% of humans, male and female, are rapists.

I am concerned about this creeping boundary of what is rape and what is not. Including this concept of 'rape culture,' by which suddenly we are all walking around, being guilty of inciting rape without even realizing it. To my mind, such reasoning is immediately adjacent to 'letting the terrorists win'--using a common enemy in order to push an agenda.
posted by silentpundit at 10:55 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

To be clear, lying to a woman in order to have sex with her is not rape. If that were an accepted definition of rape, 100% of humans, male and female, are rapists.

just because you need to lie...
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:56 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

silentpundit, you probably should have gone eponysterical with that one.
posted by maryr at 10:57 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

But it strikes me that one of the points of misunderstanding may be that for some people being "raped to sleep" is an absurdly hyperbolic amount of cartoon violence, and is humorous because that's just a ridiculously horrific and terrible thing, whereas for other people it's actually within the realm of possibility.

You're likely right, but I don't think they need to be mutually exclusive. Black humor is still humor.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:57 AM on February 2, 2011

I've never heard it/seen it used that way. Has anyone else? I usually see it as synonymous with "pwn".

I can speak to this as a former guild master and general pick-up group (i.e., random people thrown together for a dungeon) player in WoW.

Male teenagers are, well, male teenagers. Stupid and full of hormones. Some adults pretend to be teenagers, too, maturity wise. Anyway, having said that, I cannot think of any time in chats where the conversaion has run

[NOT A CONVO]
Player1: Oh, ha ha, you'll rape that person for sure!
Player2: Yes, I very much enjoy this rape.

More often like this...

[Boss delivers horrible damage, completely obliterating group]
Outsider: Hey guys how did the attempt go?
Player1: ughg.... raped...
Outsider: Oh, that bad? :[

I've usually seen the rape term, albeit infrequently, implied when a player's character was -- even though it's bits and bytes -- um, violated, horribly treated, etc. I agree that it is not often used with levity and just thrown around.

Not to declare them all crowning angels, of course, this is in stark contrast to racial epithets, homosexual epithets (by and large the HUGE amount of disciplinary actions I enforced for the guild were this), and religious epithets. 5,000 "Gayyyyyy" for every 1 "Rape". I would much more quickly submit --- only slightly kidding -- every online game player to a mandatory 16 hour sensitivity training about other racial, sexual, religious groups before I gave them a gender empowerment one -- which, you know, wouldn't be that bad of an idea, either.
posted by cavalier at 10:57 AM on February 2, 2011

One of the characters is a talking anthropomorphic dog.

I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be a tauren.

I know this is going to make me sound like I have my nose in the air and I apologize in advance for that, but this strip is a good example of why I don't read PA. Every now and then someone on MetaFilter links to one of their strips and I go read it because I want to laugh at things, and they are invariably totally unfunny.

The premise here is so obvious to anyone who's played WoW that I'm amazed it's considered a joke. Easily 9 out 10 quests work this way--you can't not notice it. There was even one in Wrath of the Lich King that required you to torture a captive. It caused notable controversy in the gaming world because it sort of dropped your beloved high-level character into the middle of the waterboarding controversy that was going on at the time.

As much as there is to get from the last panel, I get it. It's just nowhere near as notable as dickwolves or rape. So the repeated assertion here that the focus on 'raped by dickwolves' is unjustified and that the other thing is a punchline we should pay attention to is making my head explode. Not because I think the people saying that are all crazy, but because I think this is a typically crap comic from PA.
posted by heatvision at 10:58 AM on February 2, 2011

I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be a tauren.

No, it's a Worgen, who were added in the new expansion

they're werewolf people, very dapper.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:01 AM on February 2, 2011

using a common enemy in order to push an agenda

Having an "agenda" of letting people know "rape jokes aren't funny, rape and PTSD is actually something real that happens a lot" and having a common enemy of rapists is not the same thing at all as Republicans making up reasons to justify invading Iraq.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 11:02 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Please, please, please can we ignore silentpundit and his statistics fail?
posted by Justinian at 11:02 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I agree that it is not often used with levity and just thrown around.

Rape is never portrayed as a good thing, surely, but it is definitely tossed around by gamers far, far, far more than it should be. (as are things like 'bitch', 'gay', 'fag' and 'nigger', for that matter)
posted by empath at 11:02 AM on February 2, 2011

I would much more quickly submit --- only slightly kidding -- every online game player to a mandatory 16 hour sensitivity training about other racial, sexual, religious groups before I gave them a gender empowerment one -- which, you know, wouldn't be that bad of an idea, either.

Trust me, that would only expand their arsenal of offensiveness. It's sort of the point of smack-talking.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:02 AM on February 2, 2011

No, it's a Worgen, who were added in the new expansion

I'd like to meet his tailor.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 11:02 AM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

Just followed your link Justinian to the detailed analysis of the survey showing 1-in-6 women (and 1-in-33 men?!!?) and they do use the definition of 'forced vaginal, oral, or anal penetration.'

So, I absolutely retract my statement that semantics is the explanation.

Repeat:

I RETRACT.
posted by silentpundit at 11:03 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

"Rape by deception?"

Wikipedia has an article for it, but it only has two examples: a man pretending to be his twin brother to sleep with his girlfriend[.]

This is basically what happens in AD, by the by. It's not a case of pretending to be a millionaire in order to have sex. I've never heard of anyone being offended by that particular scene, but I was pointing it out because AD and rape and the specter of a potential double standard for judging PA and AD had come up.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:04 AM on February 2, 2011

The premise here is so obvious to anyone who's played WoW that I'm amazed it's considered a joke.

Everybody who played the first Mass Effect knew you seemed to spend a goddamn inordinate amount of time standing around in elevators while you're supposed to be saving the Universe, but that didn't make it less funny when they put it in the strip. Maybe their brand of humor just doesn't work for you; that's cool. But I think it can occasionally be stellar. It's the only webcomic I haven't gotten bored with after a few months.
posted by Justinian at 11:05 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Good on you for the caps, silenpundit. Have you successfully avoided the fire and pitchforks? We shall see.
posted by Justinian at 11:06 AM on February 2, 2011

Only clarification on my comment, btw: the reaction shirt was designed and posted in October of 2010.
posted by ShawnStruck at 11:06 AM on February 2, 2011

Brandon Blatcher: “Am I more like kmz now? Is that enough to make you love me?”

I don't get these snide remarks.

Doing the equivalent of "soso understands, why can't you?" will often, but always, prompt snide remarks.

All I'm saying is this: (a) the gaming community often makes jokey references to rape; (b) these jokes alienate people who've actually been raped.

I was explaining this thread to my wife over lunch. Her response was "It's WoW, why are they taking a subset of a subset of a subset seriously?"

Also, when asked what she thought of upon hearing the word "dickwolves" she replied "cougars".

Oh dear.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

So because if Kobe Bryant was successfully convicted of rape charges does that mean that I can no longer wear a LA Lakers cap?

Out of curiosity, was this meant as a genuine question, or some sort of dismissive reductio ad absurdum because you think the discussion is idiotic?

If the former, no. It's a very bad parallel. If the latter, could I ask that you try and participate in good faith, rather than bad faith?
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

What bugs me about this whole thing is that the original strip was the opposite of rape culture as I understand it. It wasn't making light of rape or implying that anyone deserved it. It was humour - but it was using the enormity of rape to make the reader seriously uncomfortable. The absolute opposite of prison rape or other casual rape jokes. If it had been treating rape casually rather than as incredibly serious, it would have undermined the whole thing. It is not excusing it, it is saying "This is something no good person would let pass".

So the accusations that it was rape culture were so far off the mark as to seriously undermine any sympathy to the very concept of rape culture in people who might otherwise be sympathetic. The core joke was supported because rape is serious. And because no good person would hear something like that and not want to help.

The intent was therefore, if I am right, the opposite of rape culture. Which makes the accusations of rape culture IMO unjust (although the triggering might have a point), and people often react badly to accusations especially if they know them to be unjust. But this in no way excuses the sheer assholery of Penny Arcade's response.
posted by Francis at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2011 [16 favorites]

This is why you need to be careful about bandying about pernicious terms. Used carelessly, you'll create enemies.

This is why you need to be careful about flameouts in the comments section on random blogs, followed by releasing and promoting extremely offensive t-shirts in association with your multi-million-dollar media company. Done carelessly, it's extremely bad for business.

PA are supposed to be the professionals here. That's the whole problem. They could have politely defended the comic, they could have ignored the original response, whatever, we all would have moved on with our lives and it would be another minor internet incident. Instead they have succumbed to their own Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, while somehow forgetting that they are far from anonymous.
posted by mek at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

But rape isn't actually a part of Warcraft, whereas flaying is. There are enslaved NPCs that are beaten but none that are raped. The PA authors introduced rape into the context of Warcraft. Gamer culture has a big problem with its attitude towards sexual violence, including introducing sexual violence into games where it is not present (e.g. teabagging in FPS games). That is how the strip perpetuates gamer culture's unfortunate attitude towards sexual violence.

I don't understand this as a basis for criticism. WoW's lack of sexual violence as a component is a way in which it is LESS reflective of the world and real life. Slaves and prisoners are raped in reality. Invading military forces do rape, both for their own gratification and as a tool of subjugation.

For PA to introduce the suggestion that a prisoner would be raped (and by an extreme fantastical creature apparently designed to do so) is to introduce a very realistic repercussion for a slave - who the player is failing to liberate from that fate. That introduction of a realistic component is a mirror of the introduction of the moral implications that this act of walking away after an arbitrary number of folks saved has in reality.

I personally don't think they're good enough writers for this to be a conscious decision, but I am willing to believe it was a subconscious paralleling. Regardless, I don't see how you can assert that it's inappropriate to introduce the concept of rape into a game where it is not reflected while making a joke about how the real moral implications of this act are not reflected in the game.
posted by phearlez at 11:11 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

edgeways, I thought the t-shirt was gratuitous but inevitable and I kind of liked the artwork and I was neither up or down on the apology/explanation. I do agree that they could do worse than shutting their yaps now because I don't want to be seen to defend people who are, clearly, dicks.

As for other rape survivors who don't find it funny and are upset by it: I'm truly sorry about that, in the same way I would be sorry to see someone hurt by any joke.

I ought to say, however, that I don't find rape jokes (as a class of joke) funny - many I have heard are all too real to me and others and I'm not slow in calling someone out on it. Actually, I think that's the crux of the matter: I don't see this as a rape joke, I really don't. I actually think it's a joke about a box-ticking, clock-watching 'hero'. The way the feedline was phrased was kind of funny and I liked the "Hey, pal. Don't make this weird." Who knew mythical creatures were so mundane?
posted by littleredspiders at 11:12 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thanks, danb and Threeway Handshake. I stand corrected about the t-shirt. And given the context the Dickwolves t-shirt was produced in it sounds like it was a counter attack not simple gaucherie.
posted by Jane the Brown at 11:14 AM on February 2, 2011

silentpundit: " To be clear, lying to a woman in order to have sex with her is not rape. If that were an accepted definition of rape, 100% of humans, male and female, are rapists."

My understanding is that this can be a legal gray area depending on the situation. Very few jurisdictions classify fraud as a way one person can commit rape against another. However, the definition of rape hinges on the question of consent. Depending on the specifics of a particular case, deception (and deception alone) may vitiate consent.
posted by zarq at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

To accuse someone of "perpetuating rape culture" is a pretty intense charge to make.

We all perpetuate injustice of some kind, knowingly or not, depending on our level of privilege. To be able to examine one's own privilege and deal with what that means (mostly, that it wasn't just your genius that got you where you are, but also the fact that your privilege benefits you, sometimes at the expense of others) is a sign of maturity. To viciously strike out at someone's calling you on it, is not.

And shall we gain some perspective here? If I am being asked who to sympathize with more, a guy who gets his feelings hurt (and then acts like a raging douchebag) about being told he was being hurtful to rape victims, or actual rape victims, not much of a decision to make there.

Sexism is deep in our culture and it isn't just about laws and rights, but about attitudes we are taught from the getgo that posit the superiority of men to women and their right to more privileges as a result. It's going to take a while to explore and change all the twisted gender role/sexual violence bullshit we are all soaking in, and while no one should be thought-policed, it's perfectly fair to point out when someone is perpetuating it.

To be clear, lying to a woman in order to have sex with her is not rape. If that were an accepted definition of rape, 100% of humans, male and female, are rapists.

First, speak for yourself. Secondly, if a particular lie means she's having sex with someone she did not consent to having sex with, then what should we call it?

Rape culture and rapists are two different things. Unless you've committed rape, you're not a rapist; that doesn't mean you aren't surrounded by a culture that perpetuates it.
posted by emjaybee at 11:16 AM on February 2, 2011 [14 favorites]

I'd been disappointed in them for hearing such personal, intense, moving testimony from the objectors and not caring

I used to think of Penny Arcade as a unfunny (to me, sorry) comic about a genre I wasn't far enough into to even get most of the jokes. After the whole Jesse Thorn freakout on their part someone noted in old threads here that the PA guys do have some actual issues that might lead to these sorts of tone deaf readings. I can't remember if one is agoraphobic and the other has aspergers or both, but the "not caring" part and the not getting it could be actual problems the guys have with understanding other people at the most basic level. I mean, I know it's a thing for teen gamers to not understand empathy for anyone else at all, but these grown 30/40-somethings might be displaying the same behaviors for mental/medical reasons.

This doesn't excuse their asshole behavior or things they said, but it could explain why it feels like yelling at a brick wall to argue with them on the PA forums or twitter.
posted by mathowie at 11:17 AM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

I'd heard about this controversy before, but I didn't think much of it. On webcomics and other sites, it's not uncommon for the uses to be somewhat clueless on these issues. I've seen similiar rape jokes, gay jokes, whatever. Reminds when a while back, The Nostalgia Critic got in trouble for for a joke about autistic children, but no one seemed to care when he made gay jokes. It's just par the course.
posted by catwash at 11:23 AM on February 2, 2011

I'll admit, I chuckled at the original strip. I'm also a sexual-assult survivor. But frankly, it's not Huck Finn and seems an absurdly mediocre joke to defend in the interest of picking a ongoing fight with feminists. People who are offended by the joke are reasonable in their interpretation.

I don't even think that PA needed to apologize for the original strip. I'm reminded of Gilbert Gottfried's legendary recovery when he bombed a few weeks after 9/11 by joking that he couldn't get a connecting flight to the Empire State Building. Rather than trying to justify the joke, he expertly changed the subject to The Aristocrats, arguably a more offensive joke.

And granted, I'm not fond of PA to begin with. They're often too wordy for the medium, it's insider humor for people who follow game "journalism," and they can't resist explaining themselves. That's what's getting them into trouble. If you feel the need to explain the joke, you probably failed and the people you're talking to won't find it funny anyway.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2011

It's a dude saying he's being raped. It's not a girl. That's part of the goddamn joke. Ergo, not a feminist issue, no matter how hard you try to make it one.

You know how to have a sense of humor? DON'T PICK THINGS APART FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL AGENDA. That's how.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's a dude saying he's being raped. It's not a girl. That's part of the goddamn joke. Ergo, not a feminist issue, no matter how hard you try to make it one.

What is "people who don't know what the fuck feminism is", Alex
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:27 AM on February 2, 2011 [46 favorites]

unsupervised: "The Penny Arcade guys have a history of being actively hostile when they are clearly in the wrong. Look at what they did to MeFi's own YoungAmerican, Jesse Thorn."

Yeah, that left such a terrible taste in my mouth that I've actively avoided Penny Arcade since then. It gave me the impression of them as a couple of sophomoric assholes, which colored my reaction to the strip. I don't really have a problem with the individual comic in question here (although I certainly understand why some do), but their response to this debacle has done nothing but cement that impression.
posted by brundlefly at 11:28 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

If that were an accepted definition of rape, 100% of human

Ah, further confirmation I am not human. Don't know weather to thank you or not.
posted by edgeways at 11:28 AM on February 2, 2011

What bothers me the most here is that both sides are being dogmatic and absolutist on a subject that is subjective and it's feminism, which has really important work to do (as in making the world a better place, not as in it needs self improvement), that's being damaged by it.

Simply feeling strongly on a matter does not make one correct. To use another example I see often here, quite a few transgendered people feel that everyone MUST accept the concept. My conservative relatives feel equally opposite. If the trans people fight for absolute acceptance with no compromise, rather than for safety and freedom from discrimination, then those relatives are unlikely to listen to ANYTHING they have to say, shutting down any dialog and chance for change.

Basically nothing that's been said about the matter (here or elsewhere) has changed more than a few minds. But it has had the effect that people who might previously been inclined to pay attention to a feminist blog talking about the redefinition of rape bill will be more likely to dismiss the writer as "that feminist who got all bent out of shape by a comic."

And that's a shame.
posted by Candleman at 11:29 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Francis: “What bugs me about this whole thing is that the original strip was the opposite of rape culture as I understand it. It wasn't making light of rape or implying that anyone deserved it. It was humour - but it was using the enormity of rape to make the reader seriously uncomfortable. The absolute opposite of prison rape or other casual rape jokes. If it had been treating rape casually rather than as incredibly serious, it would have undermined the whole thing. It is not excusing it, it is saying "This is something no good person would let pass".”

I disagree, and I'll try to say why. First of all, you must see that you're straining a bit when you claim that it was Penny Arcade's intent to "make the reader seriously uncomfortable," right? What purpose would that serve? I'm aware that when you say that, what you mean (I think) is that the point, the barb of the joke is that rape is terrifying, and that the joke isn't funny if rape isn't a bad thing. Right?

However, even though I agree with you on that, I still think the joke makes light of rape a bit, and shows a lot of insensitivity.

Why? Well, because rape in this case is a kind of cartoonish violence. It's supposed to be horrific beyond imagining. If I'm not mistaken, what actually makes it okay is the very fact that it's cartoonish and over the top; the inane hyperbole is what makes it laughable, right?

And the difficulty some are having, I think, is that being "raped to sleep" (which is a terrifying phrase that frankly I hardly even feel comfortable typing) is tragically not an inane hyperbole for many, many people. It's horrific, but it's real, and it is not beyond imagining. It's only three words, but that vivid description of a painful reality stands out, above and beyond everything else in the strip.

To go a little further into my feelings on this: because it's only three words, sometimes they slip out, and I understand that the PA guys didn't intend to hurt a lot of people or put them down or perpetuate rape culture. This is not about how they're terrible people; it certainly shouldn't be. They are not (to my knowledge) rapists. And I appreciate that it can really hurt to be called out on something like this; I've had that happen myself here. It's not fun because, unless you're a sociopath, you care about what people think of you, and you care (at least on some level) about other people and their perceptions.

However, this is serious stuff, and I think we need to set aside those feelings and see things for what they are. The words in that strip can cause pain. It wasn't Penny Arcade's intention to cause pain; but that's what comes out of the strip. And in this situation, I think it was down to them to try to make the best of that situation, and try to undo some of that pain. We seem to agree that where they went from there was quite unfortunate.
posted by koeselitz at 11:29 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

What is "people who don't know what the fuck feminism is", Alex

Yeah, I've disagreed with a number of things you've said here, Pope, but "The joke was a guy getting raped, so it can't be about women" packs more forehead-slapping not-getting-the-point into one sentence than I thought was possible.
posted by verb at 11:29 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

It's a dude saying he's being raped. It's not a girl. That's part of the goddamn joke. Ergo, not a feminist issue, no matter how hard you try to make it one.

Rape is often a crime of violence, power, and control, not just forcible sex for the sake of sexual gratification. The use of rape to oppress and humiliate one kind of powerless person (e.g. a slave) often leads to its use against other kinds of powerless people (e.g. women, in many situations).

Further, homophobia and making light of sexual violence against men often go hand in hand with misogyny and making light of sexual violence against women.

Finally, PA may have used a man as the example, but NPCs in Warcraft are often randomly generated and may just as well be women as men.
posted by jedicus at 11:31 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

...Aaand, may I add that it was not even a human doing the raping? It was something called a Dickwolf. OUTRAGE!
posted by gorgor_balabala at 11:31 AM on February 2, 2011

Finally, PA may have used a man as the example, but NPCs in Warcraft are often randomly generated and may just as well be women as men.

Wait. I thought there wasn't actually rape in WoW.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:32 AM on February 2, 2011

Ergo, not a feminist issue, no matter how hard you try to make it one.

You're right. It's a human issue, and one that feminists have addressed more comprehensively than anybody else, because women are raped with much greater frequency than others. We should all be concerned about jokes that seem to view traumatic sexual victimization as a throwaway joke, where it seems to be told by somebody for whom the event is such an abstraction that it's just something tossed off, when that same comic would probably be a lot more careful in explicitly referencing, say, racist violence, or the Holocaust, or child molestation.

And this is how it's part of rape culture. Because, regardless of who is presented as the victim in the strip, it's a joke that seems to demonstrate that the cartoonist thinks of rape as an abstract comedic device, and not something that may have happened to his readers, and therefore should be approached with caution. A large part of the discussion about rape culture is about precisely this -- that the experience of rape is repeatedly minimized, treated as something that need not be approached seriously.

And this should be something that everybody takes seriously, and discusses with sensitivity, feminist or not.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2011 [13 favorites]

I can't remember if one is agoraphobic and the other has aspergers or both, but the "not caring" part and the not getting it could be actual problems the guys have with understanding other people at the most basic level.

The part where they flaunted that "not caring" on a t-shirt people could buy & wear proudly is the ickiest part of this, and on a level far beyond a tone-deaf reading. That's willful. Lots of people appear to have been down with it. It's really ugly.
posted by mintcake! at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2011

Some of the tone in this thread improved during my walk, except for one thing-- can we agree to actually read the prior comments before going off half-cocked (as it were....)?

Some highlights:

* The t-shirt in question is not the survivors one;
* "Team Rape" was actually coined by a twitter supporter of the PA side in this controversy, and isn't just a strawfigure label (although I, for one, have defended it as pretty much a fair one for the t-shirt);
* Most posters in this thread -- by my count-- that are calling out the t-shirt and PA's subsequent defenses were either neutral towards or in favor of the original comic;
* Rape culture is an academic concept with a meaning that maybe you should look up first before ignorantly making fun of it as not existing.

If people recognized those four recurrent ideas instead of rehashing them, the rest of this thread might advance. Thanks.
posted by norm at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

Wait. I thought there wasn't actually rape in WoW.

There isn't. My point was that if there were, the fact that PA illustrated it with a male NPC does not mean that it would exclusively involve male NPCs in the game. Most 'free the prisoners' quests feature a random mixture of male and female NPCs.
posted by jedicus at 11:34 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

There isn't. My point was that if there were, the fact that PA illustrated it with a male NPC does not mean that it would exclusively involve male NPCs in the game. Most 'free the prisoners' quests feature a random mixture of male and female NPCs.

OK, that's just several layers of 'if.'
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:36 AM on February 2, 2011

gorgor_balabala: "It's a dude saying he's being raped. It's not a girl. That's part of the goddamn joke. Ergo, not a feminist issue, no matter how hard you try to make it one."

I guess maybe there's a commutative property of morality? Does that make sense to you?

gorgor_balabala: "You know how to have a sense of humor? DON'T PICK THINGS APART FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL AGENDA. That's how"

Please use your words.
posted by boo_radley at 11:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Oh boy, Penny Arcade! That's where I'm a viking!
posted by Who_Am_I at 11:37 AM on February 2, 2011

people joke about being raped in captivity because it is a horrendous thing. It's one of the most horrendous things that can happen to you, and that's why people joke about it, and not because they're being cavalier about it...We do it because we don't want to think about it, because it is so fucking horrible, because we can't contemplate our destruction, so we turn it on its head.

It's a difficult subject. But by using humor to keep it at arms length, we also keep at arms length the people in our midst who have been raped.

The defense mechanism of joking about rape may have as its source, "I can't bear to think about the possibility that I could be raped" but the effect is also, "I refuse to acknowledge the suffering of people around me who have been raped."
posted by straight at 11:37 AM on February 2, 2011 [14 favorites]

OK, that's just several layers of 'if.'

And if you were illiterate, you wouldn't have been able to read any of this. And that would have been the real tragedy.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Has anyone mentioned that WoW's quest mechanics prevent you from accomplishing more than the allotted number of goals in a given quest? You literally can't save the 11th victim, harvest the 11th root, or salvage the 11th robot. You can't even right-click on them.

It's not that the heroes are heartless, it's that the world itself forbids compassionate behavior outside of the constraints of quest structure.
posted by lumensimus at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

It's not that the heroes are heartless, it's that the world itself forbids compassionate behavior outside of the constraints of quest structure.

Yes, but the "humor" in the original would ostensibly come from the juxtaposition of those otherwise sensible game mechanics with how horrible it would be in real life.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:39 AM on February 2, 2011

* Most posters in this thread -- by my count-- that are calling out the t-shirt and PA's subsequent defenses were either neutral towards or in favor of the original comic;

Count me in that camp. I still maintain that the comic is pretty easy to defend, and that those who focus on its offensiveness are barking up the wrong tree. The ratcheted-up responses in the form of the T-shirt and the tweets is indefensibly, deliberately assholish.
posted by verb at 11:39 AM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Look, I totally agree that the subject of rape should be approached with caution. But I really think the cartoonist did that. He made the victim a male. Who is a slave. Of a "Dickwolf". In a fictional universe. Do you, or anyone you know, know anyone who was raped under those circumstances?

In other words, try to separate your own personal pain from a bit of comedy you come across. It is not about you. Comedy feeds on dark things.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 11:41 AM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Rape culture is an academic concept with a meaning that maybe you should look up first before ignorantly making fun of it as not existing.

IMO, it's a term that should stay in the academy, because all it accomplishes on message boards is to put peoples back up. Find a way to talk to people about it without implying that anybody that disagrees with you is pro-rape. I don't care if you don't think it implies that, it does, and only serves to make what could be a reasonable conversation unnecessarily advesarial.
posted by empath at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2011 [14 favorites]

...Aaand, may I add that it was not even a human doing the raping? It was something called a Dickwolf. OUTRAGE!

I do love threads like these because of how they make a certain subset's circuit's short out and sputter. I mean, I get that you are probably a very smart person in real life, but you are arguing at the level of like, a really smart parakeet right now.
posted by hermitosis at 11:43 AM on February 2, 2011 [27 favorites]

And shall we gain some perspective here? If I am being asked who to sympathize with more, a guy who gets his feelings hurt (and then acts like a raging douchebag) about being told he was being hurtful to rape victims, or actual rape victims, not much of a decision to make there.

Except no one was asking you to pick someone to "sympathize with more" - it is possible to sympathize with rape victims while at the same time trying to find a way to keep the fighty-accusatory levels down when someone has unknowingly abused their privilege. If you tell someone who has a limited understanding of gender and privilege that they are perpetuating rape culture, trust me, to them it's going to sound like you're telling them that either a) They are responsible for people being raped or b) Rape culture is their fault or c) They have no respect for rape victims, or any combination of those things.

And they are going to react to that, and it's not going to be along the lines of "You know what you're right, I am so sorry. I pledge to never let this happen again." It's going to be "Fuck you, that is completely ridiculous, fuck you haters, fuck you feminists, fuck you PC police Imma do my comic how I want." I used to be like this (minus having my own comic).

I think these guys should be called out, and I think there should be a discussion about jokes like this when they're made, because I think a lot of onlookers who were once oblivious to these things are now going to start thinking about them. But when the rhetoric gets pushed to the levels of "YOU ARE PERPETUATING [RACE/CLASS/GENDER] PROBLEMS...YES YOU" it's fighting fire with fire.
posted by windbox at 11:43 AM on February 2, 2011

Yes, but the "humor" in the original would ostensibly come from the juxtaposition of those otherwise sensible game mechanics with how horrible it would be in real life.

I don't disagree. I played on an RP server for all of two hours once as a Mage, complaining in-character that the only thing anyone ever really learned from was death. Can't get better at magic unless you zap something that could kill you, after all.

No one picked up on it, alas.
posted by lumensimus at 11:44 AM on February 2, 2011

What I mean is that it's a bad, easily misunderstood phrase outside of the academic/feminist context, and if you expect people to care about what you are saying, starting the conversation off with by saying something inflammatory that requires a visit to wikipedia to understand is probably not the best way to go about it. You should tailor your rhetoric for your audience.
posted by empath at 11:46 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Count me in that camp.

Me too. I'm not mad about the strip, but I think it got caught up in the mechanics of telling a joke, which was basically the Cathy approach of building in absurdity and then ending with some kind of deadpan last frame. It was pretty tone deaf, and, as I said, I think it minimizes rape to an abstraction, but, in the structure of the joke, rape is a terrible thing that somebody would want to be saved from, even if this is presented through a fantastic exaggeration. There's a criticism of the joke that can be made, but people can disagree about that criticism.

It was the follow up behavior that really pushed it over the line.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:46 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Unless, I guess, you don't intend to persuade, and merely intend to clearly label ideological enemies and force people to choose sides.
posted by empath at 11:48 AM on February 2, 2011

Do you, or anyone you know, know anyone who was raped under those circumstances?

Please just stop posting.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I do love threads like these because of how they make a certain subset's circuit's short out and sputter. I mean, I get that you are probably a very smart person in real life, but you are arguing at the level of like, a really smart parakeet right now.

I totally agree. The original 'offended' link displayed about that level of awareness.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2011

Or maybe we use words that describe what we're talking about because they best describe those concepts
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

you are arguing at the level of like, a really smart parakeet right now.

I'm actually ok with you thinking that. I hadn't read most of the 400-odd comments above mine before sputtering, nor have I been involved in RPGs enough to grok how real they can be for a subset of (otherwise intelligent) people, so I hold accountability for that.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 11:50 AM on February 2, 2011

Let's not call one another parakeets, unless someone actually has colorful plumage and an adorable little beak, like some sort of horrible Cronenbergian mistake.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:51 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

(Disclaimers: I'm one of the diehard PA fan people: have all the books, read all the strips, attend PAX every year, etc. I found the Jesse/PA conflict to be hilarious on both sides. I am, in short, kind of an asshole. I have met the PA staff on a couple of occasions, and I have had a few conversations with Jerry. I don't believe I've ever spoken to Mike.)

This whole thing has been tremendously disappointing. As has been noted repeatedly, the original comic didn't especially bother me, but I suspected that it would bother others and reading their thoughts was illuminating. The response comic was kind of funny, although it was fairly clear that they didn't really get why they'd offended people, but it did seem like sort of an apology to me. That's about when they should have shut the hell up.

Then they announced the T-shirt, and I thought that was idiotic. I was in the room at PAX when Mike started drawing, at fan request, the full dickwolf, and I remember turning to my ex-girlfriend and saying, "This is a really terrible idea." I later saw the dickwolf pennants and couldn't believe how stupid they were being.

There's a real "for the lulz"/"fuck you, no fuck you" thing going on here. Mike seems to believe that any kind of sincere apology would completely unman him and reduce him to a prideless, grovelling tool. I just don't get why he has to keep picking at this thing and making it worse. I see him at PAX every year on the show floor and he's a genuinely caring person who takes a lot of time out to talk to people about their experiences with anxiety disorders and therapies. He's definitely not a bad person. But he has this weird blind spot in this area that makes him seem like the worst sort of misogynist, and it's really frustrating.

I'm not going to stop reading PA, and I'm not going to stop going to PAX. But I'm not at all surprised that other people are, and I couldn't blame them for a moment.
posted by Errant at 11:52 AM on February 2, 2011 [24 favorites]

starting the conversation off with by saying something inflammatory that requires a visit to wikipedia to understand is probably not the best way to go about it. You should tailor your rhetoric for your audience.

Rape culture isn't just an academic phrase. I mean, hell, antisemitism started off as an academic phrase, as did homophobia. They enter broader conversation because they are useful in discussing behavior. And it's not like rape culture is that obscure a phrase.

Perhaps, instead of advising us to throw out a valid, useful word, you might advise people who get their backs thrown out by it to actually look it up before they freak out. It's not an indictment of an individual, any more than, say patriarchy is. It's a description of a generalized cultural norm, and one we may be participating in without knowing it. By knowing what the phrase means, we can determine whether we are supporting this culture or not.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:52 AM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

* Most posters in this thread -- by my count-- that are calling out the t-shirt and PA's subsequent defenses were either neutral towards or in favor of the original comic;

Add me to these ranks too. I'm not a gamer and didn't really get the comic, but didn't reel super strongly about it one way or the other. The t-shirt and some of the other responses were pretty shocking to me, though. If folks haven't read ShawnStruck's fantastic comment, please go back and do so - it gives a good summary of a lot of the details that you may have missed if you didn't check out every link (and then the links within those links) in detail before commenting. I also share Jairus's surprise that more is being made of this strip - I don't know if I'd describe it as a "rape joke," but I felt that it was trivializing the issue and that the underlying message was "We can't do anything about rape and it's not our problem, so there."
posted by naoko at 11:53 AM on February 2, 2011

like some sort of horrible Cronenbergian mistake.

Or some beautiful costume from the furry subculture.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:54 AM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

"Every night we are raped to death by dickwolves" is a rape joke. The humor comes from the absurdity of the horror. We are meant to chuckle at that line, as the little joke that comes before the full punchline, which is an established comedic structure. The thrust of the comic is not a rape joke; the comic could have completely omitted any mention of rape and been just as funny.

Well, yes and no. The idea being stated here is that they are "raped to sleep." As one is lulled to sleep, or sung to sleep, or read to sleep by a loving parent. Meaning the tortures they suffer are so horrific that the unrelenting rape is actually a break from the even greater horrors. Which is where the humor (?) comes in; rape is actually pretty horrific. If it weren't and the guys weren't saying that, the joke would make no sense/have no impact.
posted by Eideteker at 11:57 AM on February 2, 2011

I hadn't read most of the 400-odd comments above mine before sputtering,

See, and this is really disappointing to read, because aside from a couple of internecine tiffs here and there, this has been a great thread, with some really wonderful perspectives and insights to be had.

I know it takes a while, and it can be tedious to plow through, but whenever you encounter one of these big contentious threads, I definitely recommend investing the time to read what's been posted before you start sputtering. If nothing else, you can be sure that any subsequent sputtering is worthwhile and not just, you know, noise that's already been addressed by someone else.
posted by shiu mai baby at 11:57 AM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

Or some beautiful costume from the furry subculture.

(takes off cartoon fox mask, reveals horrible half-parakeet face underneath, grins monstrously, cue weird Howard Shore music, takes off half-parakeet face mask, reveals normal human face, cue dippy sitcom music, cue canned laughter, takes off normal human mask, reveals skull, cue ooky-spooky Halloween music, takes off skull, reveals empty space above a neck, cue silence, takes off empty space, reveals hideous void, the space between, the nothing beyond nothing)
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:59 AM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Rape culture isn't just an academic phrase. I mean, hell, antisemitism started off as an academic phrase, as did homophobia.

Yes, and all have been abused to the point where they're more cudgels than descriptive.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:00 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't know much about this topic, but I have plenty of opinions about shirts. My opinion on this shirt? Not enough wolves.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 12:01 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I would also say that most people do not respond well to being called anti-Semitic or homphobic, even if it's essentially true.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:01 PM on February 2, 2011

Yes, and all have been abused to the point where they're more cudgels than descriptive.

Or dismissed to the point that they're useless.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:01 PM on February 2, 2011

So, we're about all wrapped up here, right?
posted by cavalier at 12:02 PM on February 2, 2011

Christ, my brain just stopped functioning. Internecine is not at all the word I meant to use there. In fact, I can't think of what word I did mean to use, but, uh. That was not it. My apologies.
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:03 PM on February 2, 2011

Or dismissed to the point that they're useless.

So we're agreed that they're useless when directed at those whose minds we want to sway.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:03 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

So, we're about all wrapped up here, right?

No, I was rescued by a PC.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:03 PM on February 2, 2011

I would also say that most people do not respond well to being called anti-Semitic or homphobic, even if it's essentially true.

If somebody is being antisemitic or homophobic, we have to be able to accurately describe the behavior. There are a lot of things people don't like to hear and react badly to. Those are often the things they most badly need to hear, and head described with the greatest clarity.

If you're argument is that we shouldn't use accurate descriptive phrased because people don't like to hear the truth, I'd be curious as to what you offer as an alternative. It's been my experience that these same people also respond badly to more circumspect language. I have also found they respond badly to Jews and homosexuals.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:04 PM on February 2, 2011 [10 favorites]

This is what i get for not putting out mothballs to keep the dickwolves out of my beanplate.
posted by dr_dank at 12:05 PM on February 2, 2011

Or dismissed to the point that they're useless.

Boy who cried Dickwolf?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:05 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Sometimes people can be accurately described as "stupid" or "wrong," but it doesn't mean that you should engage them using those words and that angle.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:05 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

rape isn't actually a part of Warcraft

I would argue that this assertion is untrue. There is, for example, a quest chain where a female dragon is kidnapped by an evil male dragon and made his "unwilling mate." Minions of a different villainous dragon cackles that his master will "have his way" with the player and their allies.

Alextrasza, queen of all dragons, was held captive and forced to breed dozens of drakes for the Horde's armies in Warcraft 2.

You can make the argument that these are not human beings, but according to the games' universe they are sentient creatures, and they are shown to feel real agony for their experiences.

The only reason there is no explicit rape in WoW is because of it's Teen ESRB rating. They have, however, skirted the edges of euphemism as much as they can.
posted by The demon that lives in the air at 12:06 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

ShawnStruck nailed it. Empath too.

One gets used to seeing mule-headed behavior when it comes to disagreements on the internet, but the reaction of the Penny Arcade guys to a debatable criticism of their comic really takes the prize. A mature response on the serious subject of rape that concedes no wrongdoing could not have been easier:

"It has come to our attention that a few members of our audience became upset after reading one of our comics. We would like to reassure those people that it was not our intention to condone rape or rape culture. While we stand behind our comic, we do acknowledge that rape is a sensitive and very serious issue..."

And then maybe link to sites better equipped to address the matter. They already enjoy the reputation of being charitable, so maybe a donation to RAINN to show that they're good guys who really mean it; an appeal to their audience to follow their lead would have been even better. A simple, normal, compassionate, adult response.

Instead, we bear witness to their incredibly petulant, indignant, childish reaction. Vile, oblivious, provocative stunts that probably would have made Andy Kaufman blush. A perfect exhibit for what happens when arrogance and self-righteousness takes precedence over civility.
posted by millions at 12:06 PM on February 2, 2011 [15 favorites]

empath: "What I mean is that it's a bad, easily misunderstood phrase outside of the academic/feminist context, and if you expect people to care about what you are saying, starting the conversation off with by saying something inflammatory that requires a visit to wikipedia to understand is probably not the best way to go about it. You should tailor your rhetoric for your audience."

The phrase has been described here as a shortened version of "rape minimization culture." Which would be clearer.

If people genuinely do not understand what any phrase means or what if they are being accused of and do not understand why, it is not terribly hard to copy and paste a phrase into a google search box and do their own homework before responding.

Also, considering that we here at Metafilter have had multiple, heavily-trafficked, usually MeTa'd discussions about rape which quite specifically delved into the aspects of Western society and culture which shame or blame victims, it seems reasonable to assume that if a MeFite decides to weigh in on such a well-traveled topic that they'd do so with some knowledge about it.
posted by zarq at 12:07 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

So we're agreed that they're useless when directed at those whose minds we want to sway.

I don't know about changing minds. I am just out to discuss my point of view using as clear and precise language as possible.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:09 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

If people genuinely do not understand what any phrase means or what if they are being accused of and do not understand why, it is not terribly hard to copy and paste a phrase into a google search box and do their own homework before responding.

I'd hazard a guess that most people are just going to tune out everything you say after being accused of 'perpetuating rape culture' unless you are very careful about how you phrase it. I gather that most people throwing around that term don't really care, though, because they are just scoring ideological points.
posted by empath at 12:12 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Sometimes people can be accurately described as "stupid" or "wrong," but it doesn't mean that you should engage them using those words and that angle.

A fair point. But both are awfully imprecise. It may not be nice to tell somebody they are being stupid, but you might be doing them a world of good by pointing out precisely how they are being stupid.

I prefer to tell somebody that a specific piece of behavior is antisemitic, or homophobic, or an expression of rape culture, rather than say that person is antisemitic, or homophobic, or a rape apologist. And I explain why. This isn't insulting, or oppressive. It's a courtesy, and I would hope that others would do likewise for me.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:13 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

If people genuinely do not understand what any phrase means or what if they are being accused of and do not understand why, it is not terribly hard to copy and paste a phrase into a google search box and do their own homework before responding.

I'd argue that having to do homework before responding is bound to cause not care very much about the point being made.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:14 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

It may not be nice to tell somebody they are being stupid, but you might be doing them a world of good by pointing out precisely how they are being stupid.

No, you will probably not do a world of good. You will probably hurt their feelings and make them mad and they'll be more entrenched than ever to keep on doing what they're doing (or not what they're not). That makes the world a worse place.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:15 PM on February 2, 2011

I'd hazard a guess that most people are just going to tune out everything you say after being accused of 'perpetuating rape culture' unless you are very careful about how you phrase it.

well, yes. People should be cautious about how they use a phrase like that. But that's not the same as tossing it out altogether.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:16 PM on February 2, 2011

You will probably hurt their feelings and make them mad and they'll be more entrenched than ever to keep on doing what they're doing (or not what they're not). That makes the world a worse place.

So you've never had a friend tell you when you're making a mistake? Or, alternately, you've always responded badly, and the world is a worse place as a result?

Some of us can take criticism. Let's not assume everybody is going to lose their freaking mind because somebody thinks that they're not behaving very smartly.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:17 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Sticherbeast: "I would also say that most people do not respond well to being called anti-Semitic or homphobic, even if it's essentially true."

If true, why should anyone give a damn whether they are going to respond well? Why in the world should we tiptoe around people who are doing or saying hateful things?

Homophobia and antisemitism (and for that matter, sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination,) should not require euphemisms. Such hatreds thrive on a culture of approval. You fight them by shining a public light on them, calling them what they are and saying, "This is not okay and here's why."
posted by zarq at 12:19 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Penny Arcade presented Dickwolves as rapists - their primary characteristic in the comic is that they rape prisoners. Then in response to some negative attention they made a t-shirt that says "Team Dickwolves". Are we now supposed to assume that Dickwolves are NOT primarily characterized by the fact that they rape prisoners?

Actually, yes. That's just what makes the t-shirt's joke work. It's a figurative notion in the first pl--... ah, nevermind.
posted by herbplarfegan at 12:19 PM on February 2, 2011

So you've never had a friend tell you when you're making a mistake?

That is different from being name-called, whether that name is "stupid" or "racist" or whatever, whether it's arguably accurate or definitely not.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:20 PM on February 2, 2011

I'd hazard a guess that most people are just going to tune out everything you say after being accused of 'perpetuating rape culture' unless you are very careful about how you phrase it.

I think that's the gist of this. Supporters of the concept see it everywhere, so it's applicable pretty much everywhere. Someone on the outside gets accused of it (and we can argue about whether it's justified,) and it's a pretty damning thing to be accused of. It's literally saying, 'you support rape.' That gets a negative reaction, obviously, from people who don't actually support, y'know, rape.

From there it devolves into name-calling. Possibly t-shirts.

A less accusatory tone might be in order if you're actually interested in winning folks to your side rather than raising an enemy host to tilt against.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:20 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

If true, why should anyone give a damn whether they are going to respond well? Why in the world should we tiptoe around people who are doing or saying hateful things?

Because there are better ways to communicate with people, even though it is certainly true that many people will keep on doing whatever they're doing no matter what.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:20 PM on February 2, 2011

Malygos, the crazy blue dragon, imprisons Keristrasza and makes her his lover. At the end of the dungeon she is in, you mercy kill her.

Not only that, he kidnaps and rapes her because you initiate the conflict by murdering his lover, specifically to piss him off. This is his retaliation against you, which ends with you killing Keristraza, who is totally blameless in all of this. (I couldn't help but wonder about dragon-on-dragon sex after finishing this quest.) The whole thing is even more messed up because Malygos is actually trying to restore balance to the universe as per his usual duty as the Aspect of Magic, by exterminating a bunch of magic users who have nearly destroyed the world by abusing their powers and attracting the attention of the Burning Legion (which ended in the Sunwell incident).

So you kill him for epix.

WoW lore has gone seriously downhill.
posted by mek at 12:22 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

But Stitcherbeast, as Astro Zombie pointed out, there is a world of difference between calling someone a name or using imprecise terminology (e.g. stupid, racist, etc) and saying "Hey, this thing? That you're doing? Is perpetuating a really nasty thing that you probably don't want to be a part of."

If the subject of that statement can't distinguish between name-calling (you're a racist!) versus calling-out behavior/actions (what you're doing is a racist thing!), then there really isn't much hope for the dialogue, but that problem is the subject's, not the person who's doing the call-out.
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:23 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

That is different from being name-called, whether that name is "stupid" or "racist" or whatever, whether it's arguably accurate or definitely not.

I think you may be misunderstanding. It is possible to tell somebody that their behavior is homophobic -- "You know that joke was pretty homophobic" -- without leveling what you see as an insult at them -- "You are a homophobe."

It doesn't do, when somebody makes a joke that mocks gay people, to say, well, that joke offends me. You have to be specific. That joke is pretty thoughtless, because it belittles gay people. I'm not really a fan of homophobic jokes. I don't really like antisemitic gestures like swastikas being sprayed on my car. I'm not really crazy about cartoons that seem to support rape culture.

This isn't being insulting. It's being precise. You're probably right that there are people who would respond to this like it is an insult. Those people also probably start screaming at their mother when she suggests they might clean up their room.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:25 PM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

"A less accusatory tone might be in order if you're actually interested in winning folks to your side rather than raising an enemy host to tilt against."

That's pretty much a non starter, though. sSaying someone's gotta change their tone actually switches the topic from the points being made to how someone is now making them. Then all of a sudden everyone is then talking about how someone is supposed to speak in order for you or an assumed audience to listen, rather than talking about the points Ithat were first raised in the first place.
posted by ShawnStruck at 12:27 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

There's also a kind of sad irony here, that the people who are taking Penny Arcade to task for joking about actual traumas suffered by the PA audience are themselves being criticized for not being more understanding of people who don't understand why rape jokes are problematic. Yeesh.
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:29 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Saying someone's gotta change their tone actually switches the topic from the points being made to how someone is now making them. Then all of a sudden everyone is then talking about how someone is supposed to speak in order for you or an assumed audience to listen, rather than talking about the points Ithat were first raised in the first place.

Isn't "how someone is supposed to speak in order for you or an assumed audience to listen" rather the point?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:31 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

So you kill him for epix.

Nah, it was for achievements. Aside from that one sword which was only good for shadowfrost DKs pre-patch, he had total shit, even at launch.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:31 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

mathowie: "I can't remember if one is agoraphobic and the other has aspergers or both, but the "not caring" part and the not getting it could be actual problems the guys have with understanding other people at the most basic level. "

Gabe (Mike) had an anxiety disorder, and Tycho (Jerry) is a recovering Mormon. I don't know that this excuses the confrontational behavior, but it might make for a useful insight if you wish to change their minds.
posted by pwnguin at 12:32 PM on February 2, 2011

Saying someone's gotta change their tone actually switches the topic from the points being made to how someone is now making them. Then all of a sudden everyone is then talking about how someone is supposed to speak in order for you or an assumed audience to listen, rather than talking about the points Ithat were first raised in the first place.

Well, since you are the one that's expecting someone to change their behavior, I guess that is more your problem to deal with than theirs. They can happily go along engaging in the behaviors you disapprove of while ignoring you completely.
posted by empath at 12:33 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Acknowledging that tone needs to be considered is a necessity of communication when emotional stakes are high. It can't be ignored. See, oh, all of this discussion.
posted by neuromodulator at 12:34 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

If the subject of that statement can't distinguish between name-calling (you're a racist!) versus calling-out behavior/actions (what you're doing is a racist thing!), then there really isn't much hope for the dialogue, but that problem is the subject's, not the person who's doing the call-out.

I am put in mind of the "how to talk about racism" youtubery posted here a while back. I mildly and gently disagree with your statement. I think that those of us who want to have an honest discussion of issues like this need to be able to make that distinction carefully when we explain why certain actions are hurtful and bad. Saying that the PA guys are sexist/rape culture "supporters" is a trap; it virtually invites them to do things like post their disingenuous "rape is bad, and if we made you go rape people with our comment stop NOW!" comic (a tour de force of comedy, by the way. Ha. Ha.).

However, I really wonder about the ones who buy the Dickwolves t-shirt. What is the message you're sending when you wear that? For someone who missed the cartoon, it could be kind of funny in that "Dickwolves" is mildly amusing in a 12-year-old sort of way. A fake sports team name, ho ho! But if you KNOW the controversy, it's genuinely troubling. Either it's a) I know about this rape-joke controversy, and I'm supporting those who think rape jokes are no big deal! And I am doing that by being on the team of the rapers! Fellow supporters, I am one of YOU! or b) if you don't like that cartoon and don't like what the shirt symbolizes, I am aware of your criticism and I don't care at all! Ha! Ha!

I don't know-- and I don't care, really-- if these guys are sexist pigs or what. I do know that this particular course of action and stance that they have wedded themselves to is counterproductive at best and truly, madly, deeply assholish at worst.
posted by norm at 12:35 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Sticherbeast: " Because there are better ways to communicate with people, even though it is certainly true that many people will keep on doing whatever they're doing no matter what."

Chalk me up on the side of people who believe that honesty is the best way to communicate with people, then. When someone is perpetuating an attitude condoning sexual violence, I don't see how lying to them or sugar-coating criticism -- thereby deliberately muting one's point -- is going to somehow be more effective than telling them why what they're doing is wrong.
posted by zarq at 12:35 PM on February 2, 2011

Brandon Blatcher: " I'd argue that having to do homework before responding is bound to cause not care very much about the point being made."

If they can't be bothered to enter a discussion in good faith, that says a lot about them then.
posted by zarq at 12:36 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

The idea being stated here is that they are "raped to sleep." As one is lulled to sleep, or sung to sleep, or read to sleep by a loving parent. Meaning the tortures they suffer are so horrific that the unrelenting rape is actually a break from the even greater horrors. Which is where the humor (?) comes in; rape is actually pretty horrific.

I think part of the point of the criticism is that it takes someone who does not really understand rape or has not been raped to suggest that there could be "even greater horrors". People who have suffered sexual assault or who are engaged in therapy of same do not generally like to minimize the assault by implying that there are worse things that could have happened. I don't think the comic is saying that rape is anything other than bad, but I can surely see how people would find it insensitive that a person would place this violation along a "better/worse" continuum of bad things that happen to people.

Even if we say "rape is the worst thing that could possibly happen", that still doesn't help, because the thing is that violations don't exist relative to one another, and to say that "rape is the worst" is to inadvertently minimize other traumas. To say it's not the worst is to minimize rape. The solution is simple: there is no hierarchy of horrors. They're all bad. That sounds simplistic, and maybe it is, but you may be surprised how much of our language is designed to compare and contrast terror.
posted by Errant at 12:38 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

IIRC Keristraza begs you to kill her
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:38 PM on February 2, 2011

It doesn't do, when somebody makes a joke that mocks gay people, to say, well, that joke offends me. You have to be specific. That joke is pretty thoughtless, because it belittles gay people. I'm not really a fan of homophobic jokes.

This is becoming a derail of a derail, but I would say that many people who tell homophobic jokes are either quite proud of being "un-PC" or will come up with some sort of lame excuse as to why it's not actually homophobic. The worst thing a joke can be isn't offensive - the worst thing a joke can be is unfunny. An "oh...kay." and a change of the subject ruins the experience of telling a homophobic joke and makes it much less rewarding for the future.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:39 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

When someone is perpetuating an attitude condoning sexual violence...

Ugh. They weren't doing that. They were expressly using it as an example of a horrible thing. That was the point.

Later, after the 'rape culture' crowd accused them of being cavalier about rape, they started to do just that.

So whose responsible this?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:39 PM on February 2, 2011

ChurchHatesTucker: " A less accusatory tone might be in order if you're actually interested in winning folks to your side rather than raising an enemy host to tilt against."

The phrase is less inflammatory than others which could be used in its place, like "rape apologist."

It is not non-inflammatory. Nor should it be. It describes the perpetuation of an attitude which either deliberately or inadvertently helps condone (as the wikipedia entry describes) sexualized violence.
posted by zarq at 12:39 PM on February 2, 2011

Seriously?

I mean, I get that you are probably a very smart person in real life, but you are arguing at the level of like, a really smart parakeet right now.

and

Please just stop posting.

How is this productive? How does being rude and dismissive make sense in a thread about an incident that started with people being insensitive to the feelings and humanity of a group of other people?

I mean, I am seriously perplexed by that, and this: I don't know about changing minds. I am just out to discuss my point of view using as clear and precise language as possible.

If you truly believe that someone is engaging in hurtful, anti-human behavior - which homophobia and antisemitism certain quality as - then how are you NOT out to change minds when you call someone on engaging in them?

We engage in discussion either to increase our own understanding or make our points such that we influence others. Either the person(s) we're discussing with or the people observing.

I am completely confident, Afro Zombie, in my assumption that you are not open to being convinced that antisemitism and homophobia are okay. So if that's out and you do not care if you impact behavior that you find to be wrong - exactly what are you doing?

I'd rather take steps that move the world in the direction I'd like to see it go than just listen to myself type. Sometimes that involves expressing myself in the way that's more likely to get through than simply indulging my every whim.
posted by phearlez at 12:39 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

ChurchHatesTucker: " So whose responsible this?"

You're saying accusations by other people forced them to be assholes?
posted by zarq at 12:41 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think that those of us who want to have an honest discussion of issues like this need to be able to make that distinction carefully when we explain why certain actions are hurtful and bad.

I think we're actually on the same side of this issue; my own imprecision is entirely to blame. What I should've said was:

If the subject of that statement equates calling-out behavior/actions (what you're doing is a racist thing) with name-calling (you're a racist!), then there really isn't much hope for the dialogue, but that problem is the subject's, not the person who's doing the call-out.

I hope that makes more sense.
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:41 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

What people are objecting to is the flip tone of the followup comments and the t-shirt, both of which were in pretty poor taste.

It was my impression that the merchandise and follow-up comments and the merchandise were made because a) the controversy simply produced relevant content for new humor, and b) to emphasize their belief that the protest was unwarranted in the first place. For those reasons and with their resources, I may have responded the same way.

Arguing with these Rape Culture fanatics reminds me exactly of arguing with Christian fundamentalists. Much of their principle notions are valid-- even vital!-- but they're steering it into all kinds of completely inappropriate interpretations, and are incorrigable and relentless when that is explained to them, so... why explain it to them?
posted by herbplarfegan at 12:42 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

If you truly believe that someone is engaging in hurtful, anti-human behavior - which homophobia and antisemitism certain quality as - then how are you NOT out to change minds when you call someone on engaging in them?

I can try to influence them. But some people are just jerks, and my words will bounce off. All I can to do is attempt to be as precise as possible in explaining my position. Everything else is in their hands.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:42 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

If they can't be bothered to enter a discussion in good faith, that says a lot about them then.

Perhaps, but that sort of attitude really doesn't help the discussion or even move it forward in the productive manner. Sure, that may not be one's goal and really, a person can't be expected to educate everyone on everything.

I don't know what the answer is, truthfully. I just don't think that having to do homework before entering a casual discussion and dismissive attitude if one doesn't is helpful. YMMV.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:42 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Later, after the 'rape culture' crowd accused them of being cavalier about rape, they started to do just that.

So whose responsible this?

Any question of how the first bit played out, the answer to the second bit is "it's theirs". They fucked up.

Someone accuses you of racism and you think they're off the mark? You say "you're off the mark". You don't put on blackface and start singing minstrel tunes. This is Not Totally Fucking Up 101 right here, any question of hurt feelings and misunderstandings aside.
posted by cortex at 12:43 PM on February 2, 2011 [53 favorites]

I am completely confident, Afro Zombie...

Hee.
posted by brundlefly at 12:44 PM on February 2, 2011

empath: What I mean is that it's a bad, easily misunderstood phrase outside of the academic/feminist context, and if you expect people to care about what you are saying, starting the conversation off with by saying something inflammatory that requires a visit to wikipedia to understand is probably not the best way to go about it. You should tailor your rhetoric for your audience.

Almost all of the criticism of PA here has been published on feminist blogs which have discussed the topic of rape culture to death. The original complaint doesn't even use the term "rape culture" in the body of the post. The kirbybits discussion of the shirt links directly to wikipedia and has a helpful link to a Rape Culture 101 article on the sidebar.

And both sites started off giving PA the benefit of the doubt, and focused the criticism on the strip rather than the authors.

So your argument here is that feminists writing for feminists about a feminist concept that's part of an ongoing discussion within a feminist community need to watch their tone in very specifically criticizing specific works by artists they identify as fans of?

Brandon Blatcher: I'd argue that having to do homework before responding is bound to cause not care very much about the point being made.

Lurk moar!
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:45 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

The phrase is less inflammatory than others which could be used in its place, like "rape apologist."

It is not non-inflammatory. Nor should it be. It describes the perpetuation of an attitude which either deliberately or inadvertently helps condone (as the wikipedia entry describes) sexualized violence.

Yeah, OK. Just use non-inflammatory language. That goes for everybody.

You're saying accusations by other people forced them to be assholes?

Forced? No. Likely response if you gave it a moment's thought? Yes. Isn't that what they're being accused of in the first place?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:45 PM on February 2, 2011

And now we have reached the point in the conversation where we're instructed about the vital importance of being tactful when describing offensive remarks and behavior. We shouldn't use accurate words that might wound the vanity and self-image of the people behaving like boors. Because it is the solemn responsibility of non-boors everywhere to sweetly and tolerantly educate the boors of the world, over and over and over again, about basic issues of civility that two grown adult men in their 30s or 40s might reasonably be expected to have mastered a decade or so ago: namely, not going out of your way to act like a complete jerk to people who have done you no harm.

Whereas the people who are behaving like boors and apparently make a habit of doing so, for a living, have no responsibility whatsoever to be tactful, tolerant, or bridge-building. That seems fair.
posted by FelliniBlank at 12:46 PM on February 2, 2011 [20 favorites]

But some people are just jerks, and my words will bounce off. All I can to do is attempt to be as precise as possible in explaining my position. Everything else is in their hands.

I assert that the most precise description of your view of their failing is not inherently the most likely way to make them change their behavior.
posted by phearlez at 12:47 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

...these Rape Culture fanatics...

Excuse me - who?
posted by Karmakaze at 12:47 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Someone accuses you of racism and you think they're off the mark? You say "you're off the mark". You don't put on blackface and start singing minstrel tunes. This is Not Totally Fucking Up 101 right here, any question of hurt feelings and misunderstandings aside.

I think we're all agreed that the PA guys were total dicks about this. I thought the "rape culture as a phrase" discussion was a derail inside this thread about the general question of how to engage people in general. That was my understanding, at any rate.

Elsewhere...

I can try to influence them. But some people are just jerks, and my words will bounce off.

Sometimes, but on the other hand, "no relationship survives contempt." If you go into the argument thinking that the person is just plain wrong and there's no need on your part to engage them as an equal, then they will never really listen to you.

I'm going to take a walk and actually get some errands done. Be back later.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:47 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't really like antisemitic gestures like swastikas being sprayed on my car. I'm not really crazy about cartoons that seem to support rape culture.

But surely you recognize that the latter exists on a completely different plane as the former?

There is a difference between someone spraypainting swastikas and telling Jews they are not welcome, from say, some college kid telling an insensitive Jew joke to his buddies even though "it's cool man I have tons of Jewish friends."

It is by no means right to make those jokes, but when you tell that frat kid he is perpetuating anti-semitism or engaging in anti-semitic behavior, HE is going to think you are equating him to the swastika spray paint guy, and he's not going to take any of it seriously and maybe even react adversely.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be called on their shit, but they react this way for a reason - we should be used to it by now - and there has to be some way to prevent it.
posted by windbox at 12:47 PM on February 2, 2011

If they can't be bothered to enter a discussion in good faith, that says a lot about them then.

Why should they have a discussion if they don't think they are doing anything wrong?

Your goal is to change someone's behavior.

There goal is to continue living their life as they always have.

They don't want to have s discussion about rape culture. They want you to leave them alone. You can't enforce speech codes on people in the real world. So if you want to talk to someone about changing their behavior, you should probably find a way to do it in such a way that they actually will want to listen to you.
posted by empath at 12:47 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

gah.. THEIR
posted by empath at 12:48 PM on February 2, 2011

Before I go...

And now we have reached the point in the conversation where we're instructed about the vital importance of being tactful when describing offensive remarks and behavior.

Not tact - strategy!

Whereas the people who are behaving like boors and apparently make a habit of doing so, for a living, have no responsibility whatsoever to be tactful, tolerant, or bridge-building. That seems fair.

No, the ones we're talking about really were dicks.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:48 PM on February 2, 2011

Someone accuses you of racism and you think they're off the mark? You say "you're off the mark".

Is that not exactly what the second comic did? Presented sarcastically and as a comic, because they are in fact humorists and that's what they do? And it got them attacked even harder, for not immediately seeing some sort of light and apologizing for their sins?
posted by kafziel at 12:48 PM on February 2, 2011

I assert that the most precise description of your view of their failing is not inherently the most likely way to make them change their behavior.

From personal experience, I have never found being circumspect or sugar coating things to result in anything other than confusion. And those who aren't confused suss out what I am saying and respond exactly as they would had I been utterly forthright.

The mature ones consider what I have to say and make their decision based on their own conclusions about my comments. The immature ones respond immaturely.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:49 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Sometimes, but on the other hand, "no relationship survives contempt."

You keep defining honestly and clarity as contempt. We may never see eye to eye on this.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:51 PM on February 2, 2011

This is why I avoid comedy. I don't go to comedy movies, I rarely watch comedians, I avoid sitcoms like the plague.

The structure of mainstream US sitcoms almost always involves foolish dudes who are called out for their behavior by beautiful intelligent women. Occasionally they spice it up by having the foolish dudes be astrophysicists, or by having a gay couple fill the same roles. While that's sexist in its own way... if you can see rape culture in sitcoms, you can probably see it just about everywhere.
posted by miyabo at 12:51 PM on February 2, 2011

Brandon Blatcher: " Perhaps, but that sort of attitude really doesn't help the discussion or even move it forward in the productive manner. Sure, that may not be one's goal and really, a person can't be expected to educate everyone on everything.

Which is precisely my point. We shouldn't have to educate everyone on everything. They should be open-minded enough and enter into discussion here in good faith, to be willing to learn when someone mentions something they don't understand.

This is a huge topic with a ton of cultural and societal history behind it. Human history. Our culture has promoted the stereotype that women are inferior to men for centuries. The concept of rape culture is an outgrowth of that. Yet it can be described in just a couple of sentences.

I don't know what the answer is, truthfully. I just don't think that having to do homework before entering a casual discussion and dismissive attitude if one doesn't is helpful. YMMV."

I agree that we should be as helpful and as non-kneejerk-defensive as possible. But it doesn't seem unreasonable that people would look for more information if they don't know what's being discussed.
posted by zarq at 12:51 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

zarq: “When someone is perpetuating an attitude condoning sexual violence...”

ChurchHatesTucker: “Ugh. They weren't doing that. They were expressly using it as an example of a horrible thing. That was the point.”

You're assuming the point to be proved. A lot of us feel they were perpetuating that attitude.

Where we seem to be getting tripped up is: you seem to think we're accusing them of doing it intentionally. I don't know so much about everybody else, but I intended to do no such thing. You can unintentionally perpetuate bad shit. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like that's what happened here.

The point is to drop the debate about moral culpability because that really doesn't matter here. Nobody's calling Gabe and Tycho a pair of rape-mongers or something. We don't think they support rape. But things they said might perpetuate the acceptance of rape. There is a difference between saying someone perpetuated rape culture and saying someone is a rape supporter, in other words. The difference has to be that in the former case you're not accusing them of anything.
posted by koeselitz at 12:52 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

It describes the perpetuation of an attitude which either deliberately or inadvertently helps condone (as the wikipedia entry describes) sexualized violence.

I think the difference between deliberate and inadvertent is really important here. You can convey to people who may have stumbled into this that you think they made a mistake and this is why. Treating everyone as equally culpable in a situation like this, from the people who made the comic/t-shirt to the people who just didn't think it was such a big deal, just muddles everything up and makes one seem like a person who doesn't understand all sorts of nuance. I'm a fan of trying to be as laid back as possible up until the point where I think someone is bad-faith discussing something or actively doing something that is making the world a worse place to be.

Side mod note: we're not at the point in the thread where you can just tell people to fuck off, so don't do that.
Side note: Someone from the New York Times called to talk to me about female editors on Wikipedia and gender stuff and I told her about this thread and how my day was going.
posted by jessamyn at 12:53 PM on February 2, 2011 [25 favorites]

ChurchHatesTucker: "Just use non-inflammatory language. That goes for everybody. "

Sometimes it is impossible to do so, especially if (as in this case) the people you are speaking to have a history of being unwilling to acknowledge that they have done something wrong.

Again, sometimes you have to say, "That's not okay and here's why." And yes, sometimes you really do have to do so in a forceful manner.
posted by zarq at 12:56 PM on February 2, 2011

Gandhi and MLK had no responsibility to respond to violence and hate with non-violence measures. They did so because they believed it was the right thing to do and - more importantly from my down-the-road perspective - because it was more effective.

You can stomp your metaphorical foot about how we don't have to engage people being shitty in a more polite/measured/reserved/whatever tone or manner than is necessarily completely accurate and you're entirely right. Just like you're right when you say that you shouldn't have to be courteous to the police officer while asserting your constitutional rights in order to avoid getting tazed.

So what? In the choice between getting the better world/not being tazed and speaking my mind without care I will always choose the better world. The shitbags are refusing to change and make the world better. You're refusing to temper your reaction in order to make the world better.

They're being shitty but neither of you are helping to make things better. And you're the one who wants things to be better. Aren't you?
posted by phearlez at 12:56 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

You're assuming the point to be proved. A lot of us feel they were perpetuating that attitude.

Seriously? How? Because it was mentioned?

Jessamyn, Sorry. I thought it was obviously humorous given the context.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:58 PM on February 2, 2011

I am completely confident, Afro Zombie...

are we playing Residen EVil 5 or what here
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:59 PM on February 2, 2011

There will be an Afro Zombie sock puppet in the near future.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:00 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Is that not exactly what the second comic did? Presented sarcastically and as a comic, because they are in fact humorists and that's what they do? And it got them attacked even harder, for not immediately seeing some sort of light and apologizing for their sins?

I don't totally disagree with the idea that the comic was an attempt at a measured response, but I think a discussion of what the second comic did is a lot more complicated than that and there's some significant differences between it and an actual de-escalating acknowledgment of a disagreement.

But (and I think I said something on this up-thread) I don't think the fucking up that the PA guys did really started in earnest until after the comics. I personally thought both comics were funny though I was cringing through the second one because it seemed like the kind of funny that was maybe picking a fight that they wouldn't want to be in if they'd actually thought it through.

The shirts and the recent frankly nutso antagonism from Gabe are the meat of the mistakes they've made, and are what I'm talking about. I'm a huge long-time PA fan, love what they do, love the community-building and charity work stuff they've managed to pull off. And, yet, look: they fucked up. They're at least tacitly continuing to fuck up right here. Whether or not their feelings are hurt or they felt unfairly chastised five months ago doesn't much come into it in practical terms re: whether or not what they have done qualifies as shitty, misguided, cred-gutting behavior.
posted by cortex at 1:00 PM on February 2, 2011 [14 favorites]

Rape culture isn't just an academic phrase. I mean, hell, antisemitism started off as an academic phrase, as did homophobia.

At this stage, "rape culture" is still academic jargon that is not understood by the general public.

I think the Penny-Arcade strip they did in response to criticism demonstrates this conclusively. It's quite clear from that comic strip that Mike & Jerry fundamentally misunderstood phrases like "rape culture". They genuinely thought people were accusing them of actually condoning rape, an accusation so terrible and so ridiculous that they literally couldn't hear anything else people were saying.

I think your comparison to the world "homophobia" is apt. I think the word "homophobia" has been a huge impediment to gay rights. It's meant to describe a cultural phenomenon, a whole bundle of prejudices, religious intolerance, social structures, and sexual hang-ups.

But many people still think it literally means "fear of homosexuals" implying the sort of panic attack an arachnophobe gets when he sees a spider. And since that's obviously nothing like most people's cultural objections to homosexuality, people using the term "homophobia" have been seen as speaking in bad faith. People who might have been open to discussing the suffering that homosexuals experience in our society instead put their energy into defending themselves against--or just dismissing and ignoring as ridiculous--what they saw as accusations of mental illness.

Rape culture is a tremendous problem in our society. But unless we find better ways to talk about it, I think most people still just aren't going to see it.
posted by straight at 1:01 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

I don't totally disagree with the idea that the comic was an attempt at a measured response, but I think a discussion of what the second comic did is a lot more complicated than that and there's some significant differences between it and an actual de-escalating acknowledgment of a disagreement.

Yeah, I agree that their response could have/should have been way more measured. BUT, the attack on them was so totally off the wall that I'm not surprised that they were caught flat-footed and defensive.

That doesn't justify the response, necessarily, but I do think that on the outrage meter they win.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:03 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

empath: " They don't want to have s discussion about rape culture. They want you to leave them alone. You can't enforce speech codes on people in the real world. So if you want to talk to someone about changing their behavior, you should probably find a way to do it in such a way that they actually will want to listen to you."

OK, that makes sense to me.

I'm not entirely sure how sugrar-coating the message will accomplish that, though. I would think, as Astro Zombie says, it will only cause further confusion.
posted by zarq at 1:05 PM on February 2, 2011

I think your comparison to the world "homophobia" is apt. I think the word "homophobia" has been a huge impediment to gay rights

I agree it sometimes confuses people, but I'd be curious as to how you think it actually impedes progress. The word was introduced in 1969. The year of the Stonewall Riots, and almost all modern advances in the rights of LGBT have come after this year. I don't see any reason to think they would have happened faster without that word being out there, messing things up. If anything, I think a case can easily be made that he word gave clarity to the discussion, even if it did upset a few people whose behavior needed calling out.

The fact that it confuses people doesn't seem that big a deal to me. I knew a guy who was confused between the words specific and pacific. Once I realized he was confused, I clarified, and he stopped embarrassing himself in public.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:07 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

sugrar-coating

This is my favorite typo, ever.
posted by zarq at 1:07 PM on February 2, 2011 [11 favorites]

Actually, thinking more about it, there's another rape in wow that is part of the storyline:

Malygos, the crazy blue dragon, imprisons Keristrasza and makes her his lover. At the end of the dungeon she is in, you mercy kill her.

Ah, I never got that far in WotLK by the time I'd stopped playing, so thanks for adding those facts. In fairness that does change my analysis a bit. I'm not convinced the PA authors had that in mind when they wrote the strip (I don't think Tycho has played WoW in a long time), but it does suggest that the idea of rape was not wholly imported into the strip from outside the WoW context. Consequently the sexual violence element of the strip is closer to a fair criticism of the absurdity of WoW game mechanics.

Still, all of that is, as others have said, independent of how PA handled the fallout from the strip.
posted by jedicus at 1:11 PM on February 2, 2011

I'm not entirely sure how sugrar-coating the message will accomplish that, though.

I think Jessamyn had the right general attitude, i.e. being laid back about it, until one doesn't have to be or can't be. You can always escalate things later, but stepping down from inflammatory tone or confrontation is much harder.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:12 PM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

Brandon Blatcher: " I think Jessamyn had the right general attitude, i.e. being laid back about it, until one doesn't have to be or can't be. You can always escalate things later, but stepping down from inflammatory tone or confrontation is much harder."

This is true. As personal experience has taught me.

Well put.
posted by zarq at 1:14 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

The structure of mainstream US sitcoms almost always involves foolish dudes who are called out for their behavior by beautiful intelligent women. Occasionally they spice it up by having the foolish dudes be astrophysicists, or by having a gay couple fill the same roles. While that's sexist in its own way... if you can see rape culture in sitcoms, you can probably see it just about everywhere.

Are you saying that rape culture doesn't turn up in sitcoms? 'cause, well, it does. The most recent one I can think of (and it's why I now leave the room when #$% My Dad Says comes on) had the foolish dude blackmailed into going onto a date, where he was locked in a room and held down (after trying frantically to leave twice) before the fade to black. The next scene, he stumbles in, clearly traumatized. But, hee! It's funny 'cause the woman was the aggressor! (*retch*)
posted by Karmakaze at 1:14 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

It's quite clear from that comic strip that Mike & Jerry fundamentally misunderstood phrases like "rape culture". They genuinely thought people were accusing them of actually condoning rape, an accusation so terrible and so ridiculous that they literally couldn't hear anything else people were saying.

Yeah, that's why 'rape culture' is such a bad neologism. People not involved in rape academia have no idea that it's apparently supposed to mean something other than it means on its face. So bad.
posted by felix at 1:14 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

Man, that Dickwolves t-shirt is awesome. Hurray for new desktop wallpaper!
posted by xedrik at 1:18 PM on February 2, 2011

I find this idea that "being aware of the best way to communicate an idea to someone who might have an inclination to not listen (such as being defensive)" is the same as sugercoating to be kind of weird. Do you guys never have to do any conflict resolution with your jobs? Your families? I have to do all types of that stuff and you can phrase the same message in ways that encourage or discourage listening. It's not changing the content.

In this case, I think some groups feel free to make jokes about rape because in their minds their jokes have no intersection with reality. There are vast groups of people who believe that intent should have everything to do with determining whether something is offensive. The thing is, from within that viewpoint, the logic seems totally sound. To introduce the idea that their intent is not, actually, the crucial matter, you have to explain to to them why a broader viewpoint is better, not why their logic is broken. And starting that discussion with how awful they are is not a good road.

The message is the same. Getting people to listen to things they're disinclined to listen to is a super, super useful skill.
posted by neuromodulator at 1:22 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Clearly the original joke should have had the Dickwolves biting off ("wolfing down", if you will) the slaves' dicks instead.
posted by whuppy at 1:22 PM on February 2, 2011

People who perpetuate [X] culture typically do so not as a deliberate act, but because [X] culture informs their worldview somehow.

Worldviews are complex. They're made of zillions of assumptions about how things work, what things mean, what things are parts of what other things, and so forth. It's very, very easy to miss a key assumption that someone else has made, and because of that, offend them by accident. This happens all the time in comment threads.

I'm certain that, from Mike's perspective, making the Dickwolves shirt was just a way of taking a conversation that had gotten absurd and bringing it over the top. For comedy. He didn't recognize the implications, because his worldview didn't include the rather subtle concept of "rape minimization".

The solution is - or would have been - to teach him that concept, so that he could recognize the implications. Only then, only after he fully comprehends the concept, will it be beneficial to say, "You are supporting rape minimization culture". Otherwise he'll assume you mean something that makes sense to him.

There's no need to sugar-coat anything. What's needed is timing. The person whose mind you want to change will only be receptive in the correct context. Figure out what context that is; set it up; and then criticize, precisely, thoroughly.
posted by LogicalDash at 1:26 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

felix: " Yeah, that's why 'rape culture' is such a bad neologism. People not involved in rape academia have no idea that it's apparently supposed to mean something other than it means on its face. So bad."

I highly doubt this is the case. I'm certainly not "in rape academia" and not only know what it means but have seen the phrase used for years. As I mentioned earlier, the topic has come up repeatedly on Metafilter for at least the last couple of years. The phrase (or concept) has been raised again and again on feminist discussion websites and in numerous non-scholarly news articles and editorials about rape, violence and related stereotypes.
posted by zarq at 1:26 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I agree [the word homophobia] sometimes confuses people, but I'd be curious as to how you think it actually impedes progress.

When I look, for instance, at people in the more conservative Christian circles who are starting to change their stance on homosexuality, they are almost always moved, not by some realization that their "homophobic" attitudes are wrong, but by compassion for the ordeal of homosexual people that they have come to know.

The word "homophobia" seems to put the emphasis of the struggle on getting people to acknowledge their wrong attitudes, repent of their sins. When what seems to actually work is a more positive approach, helping people to see homosexuals as people and not as The Other. The struggle should not be "fighting homophobia" but "widening the circle of people we see as human." I don't have a pithy phrase for it, but surely one might have arisen if we hadn't settled on "homophobia" as the rallying cry.

But then it's always easier to hate your enemies and call them names than it is to make them your friends.
posted by straight at 1:28 PM on February 2, 2011

Yeah, that's why 'rape culture' is such a bad neologism. People not involved in rape academia have no idea that it's apparently supposed to mean something other than it means on its face. So bad.

Rape culture is a powerful and accurate neologism that pretty much means exactly what you would think it mean on the face of it. I hate the phrase does what it says on the tin, but yeah, rape culture does what it says on the tin. I don't agree with your criticism of the term.
posted by jsturgill at 1:29 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Postscript: Mike is being a dick and not listening to anybody, so I don't think there's anything to be done in this particular case. Perhaps if someone had gotten to him right after the original comic, it would have done, but I think the only people who could do that are his wife and his co-author.
posted by LogicalDash at 1:31 PM on February 2, 2011

Oh for fuck's sake:

straight: At this stage, "rape culture" is still academic jargon that is not understood by the general public.

That's nice. The original complaints were not addressed to the general public. Nor were they addressed to the authors of Penny Arcade. They were addressed to moderated feminist communities with a long history of discussing rape culture.

straight: I think your comparison to the world "homophobia" is apt. I think the word "homophobia" has been a huge impediment to gay rights. It's meant to describe a cultural phenomenon, a whole bundle of prejudices, religious intolerance, social structures, and sexual hang-ups.

Sure, which is why I don't use homophobia in talking to heterosexual people who don't have a history with these discussions. Although the alternative of "anti-gay prejudice" is likely to also draw criticism from tone scolds on the grounds that criticizing a joke is equivalent to accusing a person of anti-gay violence. I certainly will use the word "homophobia" on moderated feminist communities where that concept is likely to be understood.

I categorically disagree every discussion on every site in the big wild Internet must use the same language and jargon for fear of potentially being misunderstood by people unwilling to read the TOS, about page, and background links.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:31 PM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

I'm certainly not "in rape academia" and not only know what it means but have seen the phrase used for years.

Yeah, neither am I, and I have very rarely run across it.

Feel free to wield it, but be aware that most people will have no frakin' idea what you're on about.

See above.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:33 PM on February 2, 2011

straight: But then it's always easier to hate your enemies and call them names than it is to make them your friends.

Yes, let's just ignore the fact that both of the complaints expressed appreciation for PA's general body of work while explaining why a particular joke fell flat.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:36 PM on February 2, 2011

KirkJobSluder, the third comment in this thread is someone responding with confusion to the phrase "rape culture."

And whether or not it was that specific term that caused the problem, Mike and Jerry's follow-up comic shows the exact same utter misunderstanding of what exactly people were so upset about.

That's what happened. I'm not blaming feminists for using the word "rape culture" on their feminist blogs. I was talking about what caused the whole blow-up and speculating on how we can work toward a world where this kind of thing doesn't happen.
posted by straight at 1:38 PM on February 2, 2011

ChurchHatesTucker: Feel free to wield it, but be aware that most people will have no frakin' idea what you're on about.

Well, you know, if you're coming to a moderated feminist blog perhaps you should, I dunno, follow the helpful links in the sidebar and lurk for a bit before jumping to conclusions about how a person may or may not be using a particular term?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:39 PM on February 2, 2011

I just want to flatly say: I think saying someone is "perpetuating rape culture" is probably the least offensive and most depersonalized way I can think of to bring up to them the fact that something they said was hurtful. I accept that it's sometimes a bitter pill to swallow, but there's no way to sugarcoat it any further.

The point of saying that someone is "perpetuating rape culture" is that it's not necessarily intentional. Please think about the options here. You could say they're supporting rape; but that's really being inflammatory, because it's implying that (a) it was intentional and (b) that it's rape itself, and not the culture surrounding its legitimization, that's being perpetuated.

"This comic perpetuates rape culture" is specifically an impersonal, qualified statement about the impact (not the intent) of the comic, and that's why it's the best way to point it out.

I know that when you hear that kind of thing, you're apt to jump to the conclusion that you're being accused of something terrible. The word "rape" used in a serious way there tends to worry a lot of people, and when people are worried they often leap to conclusions. But I think the counter-accusations that there was some sort of "accusatory tone" in the responses to the comic are missing the point. It is true that making light of rape tends to perpetuate it. By saying that, we aren't saying that the cartoonists are rapists, or that they support or condone rape. We're just trying to say the truth, in the clearest and least inflammatory way possible.
posted by koeselitz at 1:40 PM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

And, I'm sorry, KJB, I didn't mean that as an attack on the specific people who were responding to Mike's insensitivity. I was commenting on the general human tendency to couch these struggles in negative terms ("fighting homphobia") instead of positive ones ("helping people to acknowledge the fundamental humanity of people who are homosexuals").
posted by straight at 1:41 PM on February 2, 2011

I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned what an absolute shit-heel Scott Kurtz is being in this, as well.

(For the uninitiated, Scott Kurtz is the writer and artist of the somewhat popular webcomic PvP. He is good friends with Mike and Jerry, and sometime last year he and Kris Straub (another artist, silent on this issue AFAIK) actually moved into the Penny Arcade offices. I'm not sure of the corporate relationship, but it is not a stretch to say that Kurtz is a member of the PA family.)

His twitter feed has been replete with posts that are actually worse than anything that Mike and Jerry have doing, interspersed with appeals to allies to tone down rhetoric and to opponents to treat him more nicely.

It's like a seminar in using one's position of influence to troll as hard as possible.
posted by TypographicalError at 1:42 PM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Pope Guilty, if I was faced with the frothing bad faith rage you've displayed in this thread, and I had absolute creative freedom, and I was kind of an asshole I'd probably behave just like Mike.

I mean it's grist to the fucking mill, man.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:42 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Well, you know, if you're coming to a moderated feminist blog perhaps you should, I dunno, follow the helpful links in the sidebar and lurk for a bit before jumping to conclusions about how a person may or may not be using a particular term?

And what if I was just doing a webcomic on my own blog?

I just want to flatly say: I think saying someone is "perpetuating rape culture" is probably the least offensive and most depersonalized way I can think of to bring up to them the fact that something they said was hurtful.

Yeah, do some more thinking. That's not helping anybody.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:43 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

The Penny Arcade guys are assholes. Maybe some folks out there didn't know that, and assumed the charity thing defined their character. Well, now you know. They are assholes. Always have been, just like a huge portion of the male multiplayer gaming world.

I guess I'm just surprised that so many people who seem to read PA didn't know that 1) male multiplayer gamers use the word "rape" to mean success and are completely desensitized to it, and 2) if they find they've offended you, that is also considered success and they will then move on to trolling you till the world ends.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:45 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

Yeah, do some more thinking. That's not helping anybody.

Help us out, then. What would you say? What would your magic words be?
posted by TypographicalError at 1:46 PM on February 2, 2011

Probably good that I missed the meat of this thread, but one point bothered me...

(I'll respond to Cortex as having reasonably thick skin, but several have made similar points)

Cortex : I sure as shit think they would have been better off picking up on the immediate negative feedback and letting the Dickwolves stuff drop after the initial comic as a "welp, that didn't go over great" thing. Followup comic was questionable, Dickwolves jersey was just plain stupid. It's not surprising they're seeing backlash now; their handling was terrible regardless of their initial intent.

I respectfully disagree. They responded to a minority voice criticizing their brand of humor by escalating... Not always the best tactic, but a perfectly viable one. In the realm of humor, I would go so far as to call it the default way to deal with hecklers... "Oh, look, the lady in the front row with the beehive hairdo doesn't like my Marge Simpson references, surprise surprise!"

Does it make them appear dickish? Yes and no... Yes, they antagonized their opponents, certainly not the modern Sensitive & Enlightened™ approach. But seriously, how much humor would stay funny if the comedian gave a five minute heartfelt apology after every 30 second joke? And I can answer that - Have you ever squirmed through your favorite comedian doing a telethon? Yeah. That funny.
posted by pla at 1:46 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

His twitter feed has been replete with posts that are actually worse than anything that Mike and Jerry have doing...

Eh, everyone should take a day off and calm down. There's no good that can come of this.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:48 PM on February 2, 2011

ChurchHatesTucker: “Yeah, do some more thinking. That's not helping anybody.”

So how the hell can you say it? Seriously, the purpose of the phrase "rape culture" is to talk about the inadvertent, unintentional, cultural aspects of rape. That's inherent in the phrase itself, I think. So what more can you do to say you don't mean something's intentional than to point toward "rape culture"?

I see that it's good not to have an "accusatory tone" in all this. I'm merely pointing out that, in this circumstance, it's pretty clear to me that Gabe and Tycho saw "accusations" where there were really just expressed concerns. There is a difference.
posted by koeselitz at 1:50 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

In the realm of humor, I would go so far as to call it the default way to deal with hecklers...

Firstly, criticism and heckling are worlds apart. Not even the same thing at all. In fact, I might go so far as to say that conflating the two is deliberate obtuseness in service of making a stupid point.

Secondly, In the realm of stand up, it is the default way to deal with hecklers. Stand up is 100% different from other sorts of comedy in that it is a performance art, and hecklers intrude on the performance. In written or drawn comedy, a heckler cannot interfere with others' enjoyment at all.

Seriously, you are just completely off the mark with this argument.
posted by TypographicalError at 1:51 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

His twitter feed has been replete with posts that are actually worse than anything that Mike and Jerry have doing

Wow, really regret clicking through those twitter feeds, especially the teamrape one.
Really not feeling like I am a member of the same world that these people occupy.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 1:54 PM on February 2, 2011

2007: Peer to Peer traffic is between 50-95 percent of all internet traffic.
2007: Youtube 10 percent of all internet traffic.
2010: Netflix 20 percent of all internet traffic.
2011: Dickwolf controversy 80 percent of all internet traffic.
posted by jscott at 1:56 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think "rape culture" is an unhelpful term because it's too vague. If the problem with the comic was that it tapped into gamer culture's tendency to inject sexual violence into everything, say that.

It would be great if people were level-headed enough to respond to "You are perpetuating rape culture" with "Really? How?" but it just isn't so.
posted by LogicalDash at 1:57 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I respectfully disagree. They responded to a minority voice criticizing their brand of humor by escalating... Not always the best tactic, but a perfectly viable one.

Viable as a comedy tactic if we're talking comedy qua comedy. Viable as a way to successfully interact with a large, varied fanbase and convention-going public, no. Penny Arcade is a lot bigger at this point than the comic strip Mike and Jerry upload three times a week; they're active in charity, the run what is pretty much those most respected gamer con in the United States, and they've got an army of forumgoing fans.

Which means they've got a reputation to consider and a responsibility as community leaders. Viable as a "The Aristocrats!" approach to a comedy bit may be, as an approach to either of those extra-comedic aspects of what they do it is disastrously, embarrassingly non-viable and they really need to figure that shit out going forward if they don't want to scrap a whole lot of the good will they've managed to build up over the last few years.
posted by cortex at 1:59 PM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

ChurchHatesTucker: And what if I was just doing a webcomic on my own blog?

Your blog. Your language. Your rules.

Her blog. Her language. Her rules.

Brandon Blatcher: This sounds like work.

To me, it sounds like basic courtesy when I'm considering participating in a new community.

straight: And, I'm sorry, KJB, I didn't mean that as an attack on the specific people who were responding to Mike's insensitivity. I was commenting on the general human tendency to couch these struggles in negative terms ("fighting homphobia") instead of positive ones ("helping people to acknowledge the fundamental humanity of people who are homosexuals").

My counter-question is to what degree are members of groups expected to dumb down their language and exercise self-censorship on explicitly issue-centered blogs and communities? Fundamentally that's what the tone argument presented here demands.

There's certainly a time and place to set aside pain and anger, to ditch phrases like "rape culture" in order to build a common understanding. I don't think that moderated feminist blogs and communities are the place to do so. And in fact, demanding that people who are quite understandably deeply angry about rape and rape jokes take the high road strikes me as a big problem.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:02 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Which means they've got a reputation to consider and a responsibility as community leaders. Viable as a "The Aristocrats!" approach to a comedy bit may be, as an approach to either of those extra-comedic aspects of what they do it is disastrously, embarrassingly non-viable and they really need to figure that shit out going forward if they don't want to scrap a whole lot of the good will they've managed to build up over the last few years.

See if you want a one paragraph explanation of everything Mike's done, here it is.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:04 PM on February 2, 2011

ARGH this thread is already nearly unreadable, and now I have to try to say this in only an hour before work but it has to be said now if there's going to be any chance that someone will actually read it....

1. Penny Arcade has made jokes like this many times. They just hit upon a combination of offensive images this time that hit someone's DISMAY button. I'm sure you could find worse stuff if you went through their archives looking for stuff to be offended by. The guys are ultimately a product of FPS gamer culture, which is mostly irreverent, juvenile and offensive. I don't play hardly any online FPSes, but from what little exposure to them I've had, I've heard trash talk that makes this look mild, and I have not heard an awful lot of condemnation of that from them. Remind me what exactly teabagging is supposed to represent, again?

2. Pope Guilty: Bullshit. The whole point of the Team Dickwolves shirt is to mock and bait people who find rape jokes offensive.

Not accurate, although it's understandable how one could see this after the context of disdain arose around it. Penny Arcade's shirts (and in fact, the shirts of most popular web comics) tend to just vaguely refer to something in the strip so people who see it can feel included and important. The strip was somewhat popular; that's why the shirt was made. It's not particularly brilliant, but I don't think they're reason to assume they were trying to antagonize with it.

3. The personal angle:
When you engage in improvisation, you don't have a lot of time to edit. Once in a while in class I've been known to make an improvised joke or two. There was a time in a class a few years ago where I made a joke that wasn't even about rape, just mentioned it, and brought the room to DEAD TEN SECOND SILENCE. Not exactly a high point in my own comedy or my life, I have to say, and I'll certainly never make a joke that mentions rape again. PLEASE save your condemnations, I've already thought about this one far too much.

I bring it up because the situation seems very similar to Gabe's situation with the dickwolves strip. I visit a lot of gamer websites and forums, and jokes like that proliferate there, really neither my unfortunate remark nor the PA strip in question come close to some of the jokes out there. Gamer culture is full of this kind of thing, and Penny Arcade is possibly the side of it that looks closest towards the mainstream. This was bound to happen before long, and Gabe seems defensive not just because he's defending himself, but because in his mind he's defending gamer culture too, and all the fun times he's had with his friends in which these jokes have flown back and forth. (It should be noted that the rape jokes in gamer culture are mostly male-on-male. Although if you bring 4chan into this all bets are off.)

What am I trying to say here? Nothing except what I've said. I am just trying to provide insight into motive and response. I've been writing this comment for an hour and that's my self-imposed time limit to writing a single Metafilter comment, especially when it's already up to nearly 600 comments since the last time I refreshed the front page this morning.
posted by JHarris at 2:06 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

koeselitz, I think your perspective on this is skewed by not seeing the other definitions of "rape culture" that can be easily interpreted from the phrase.
Yes, the academic term and the "common" usage in feminist discussions is clear to anyone who bothers to look it up. Most people would not. In fact, if I were to use the term "consumerist culture", there would be just as much confusion, since the phrase is seen by different parties as either good or bad, depending on your particular world view. If you look up "consumerist culture" you can end up with 2 very opposite definitions. One is a culture of consumerist, meaning a culture made up of consumerists. The other is a culture where consumerism is prominent. Do you see the difference? One is the culture made up of a pronoun. Consumerist. One is a culture where an idea, consumerism, is prominent. See the symantic difference? Now apply that to the phrase "rape culture". A culture of rap(e)ists? Or a culture where rape is prominent? Yes, the second definition is the "correct" and academically proper, and for that matter, the only "real" definition there is. However, the confusion is very basic and very simple. This is where every thing hinges. It is like 2 groups speaking 2 different languages that have similar sounding words, almost.

But that's just what I'm seeing from reading this whole thread. I think Logical Dash said it best about making sure you are both talking about the same thing first, i.e. timing.

On a complete aside: what would make this "better"? I think everyone is just going to have to accept that, well, they aren't going to like each other and that sucks but that's life. As it stands now, both parties are just going to escalate.

Also, man, I thought I was bad about talking in jargon. Feminist blogs make me feel like I use penny words when they are spending $5 a sentence.
posted by daq at 2:06 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

cortex: I introduced The Aristocrats as an example of something different. When called on his gaffe, Gottfried didn't apologize, explain, or go into a monologue about how New Yorkers lack a sense of humor about terrorism jokes. He just changed the subject and made a brilliant recovery.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:08 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I see that it's good not to have an "accusatory tone" in all this. I'm merely pointing out that, in this circumstance, it's pretty clear to me that Gabe and Tycho saw "accusations" where there were really just expressed concerns. There is a difference.

I think the initial 'concerns' were plenty accusatory.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:08 PM on February 2, 2011

Also, man, I thought I was bad about talking in jargon. Feminist blogs make me feel like I use penny words when they are spending $5 a sentence.

I know. So uppity.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 2:12 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

His twitter feed has been replete with posts that are actually worse than anything that Mike and Jerry have doing, interspersed with appeals to allies to tone down rhetoric and to opponents to treat him more nicely.

Not even. And bethysphere's irrationality and personal attacks deserves much harsher treatment than Kurtz has thrown back. I have to respect Kurtz' game attempts to have a rational discussion with her, futile as they may be.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 2:12 PM on February 2, 2011

My counter-question is to what degree are members of groups expected to dumb down their language and exercise self-censorship on explicitly issue-centered blogs and communities? Fundamentally that's what the tone argument presented here demands.

Yes, and that's why I think Mike got so -

Oh, you weren't talking about Penny Arcade?
posted by Sebmojo at 2:13 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Threeway Handshake,
Thanks for the condemnation, but I meant that I had to look up a lot of background to even understand several references to subjects I was not familiar with. "Rape culture" being the least of them. Sadly, most of my feminist reading is at least 10 years out of date.

However, your comment did illicit a nice spike in anger. I know you didn't mean any offense (I hope), however I am going to CALL YOU OUT on a seriously bad attempt at humor.
posted by daq at 2:16 PM on February 2, 2011

cortex : Which means they've got a reputation to consider and a responsibility as community leaders. Viable as a "The Aristocrats!" approach to a comedy bit may be, as an approach to either of those extra-comedic aspects of what they do it is disastrously, embarrassingly non-viable

Fair point, but I suppose that gets us to the question of whether they consider themselves comic writers that do good, or social workers that write comic strips.

Personally, I used to like Tom Hanks, Robin Williams, Bill Murray, etc.

Comrade_robot : At that point, you can either think 'Well, that needs work', or you can go off on your audience about how hilarious that is and how they suck.

What do you do when most of the audience laughs, but you just happen to have the Pope attending and have a lineup consisting mostly of Catholic jokes?
posted by pla at 2:16 PM on February 2, 2011

LogicalDash: “I think "rape culture" is an unhelpful term because it's too vague. If the problem with the comic was that it tapped into gamer culture's tendency to inject sexual violence into everything, say that.”

"You're tapping into gamer culture's tendency to inject sexual violence into everything." I can see that that's a good way to say it. But I am skeptical that it would have gotten around this debacle.

“It would be great if people were level-headed enough to respond to "You are perpetuating rape culture" with "Really? How?" but it just isn't so.”

The trouble is that it isn't an easy thing to hear. It isn't nice to hear that you might be perpetuating something ugly. And people are going to be put off if you tell them that, even if it's true. At a certain point, there's really nothing more we can do to push people to be level-headed in their response to our confronting this kind of thing. There is unfortunately no way to force someone else to be level-headed.

Again, I don't think you can sugarcoat this in a way that makes it pleasant. It's just always going to make people uncomfortable to hear that they're part of the problem. Always.

I remember a while ago in a metafilter argument, when I started talking a lot about the evolution and usage of the n-word, and how it became as offensive as it is, and how the power isn't in the word itself but the racism it represents. And I kept using that word. And after a while, someone asked me, as nicely as they could, to please stop using that word, as it was really hurting them to have to read it over and over again, and it seemed manipulative to them that I'd cause them pain like that. And it really pissed me off to hear that. It pissed me off that they'd accuse me of racism, that they'd imply that I was casually using the word without knowing where it came from, etc. Except – when I stopped to think, I realized they were doing no such thing. They weren't accusing me of racism. They weren't saying I used the word casually without thinking. All they said was that it hurt, and that they'd rather I stopped and thought before using it.

So I know how this feels. It's not fun to be told that something you've said was hurtful. It feels like you're being accused. It feels like you're being called out. But I also think that experience – the experience of stopping and thinking about the impact of the things you say – is a necessary one. No amount of careful kindness can make that initial jolt of discomfort with being called out any easier. The only thing that helps these situations is self-reflection and thoughtful dialogue.
posted by koeselitz at 2:17 PM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

cortex: I introduced The Aristocrats as an example of something different.

Yeah, I wasn't meaning it as a comment on your comment, just reaching for a ready example of over-the-top schtick, to be clear.
posted by cortex at 2:18 PM on February 2, 2011

Remind me what exactly teabagging is supposed to represent, again?

You're a newb and your sorry ass has been pawned (Probably Safe for Work).
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:21 PM on February 2, 2011

Oh, you weren't talking about Penny Arcade?

Sure, I'll argue that Mike is bound by the same rules of engagement. He can publish what he wants and take his critical lumps. And people should be familiar with the body of work before criticizing PA as a whole.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:22 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

pla: What do you do when most of the audience laughs, but you just happen to have the Pope attending and have a lineup consisting mostly of Catholic jokes?

Tell them anyway. If the Pope doesn't like it, well, good for him, he's entitled to his opinion.

Offensive humor is offensive, guys. People taking offense should be an expected consequence.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:28 PM on February 2, 2011

Heheheheheh. Dickwolves.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 2:35 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Not accurate, although it's understandable how one could see this after the context of disdain arose around it. Penny Arcade's shirts (and in fact, the shirts of most popular web comics) tend to just vaguely refer to something in the strip so people who see it can feel included and important. The strip was somewhat popular; that's why the shirt was made. It's not particularly brilliant, but I don't think they're reason to assume they were trying to antagonize with it.

Usually okay, right, but this time it was done afteret the issue in quesstion became an issesue and This t0shirt in particular ywas released as a fuck-you to those who took iusssue.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:37 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

2. Pope Guilty: Bullshit. The whole point of the Team Dickwolves shirt is to mock and bait people who find rape jokes offensive.

Not accurate, although it's understandable how one could see this after the context of disdain arose around it.

No, Pope Guilty is right. Like I said, I was in the room when Mike drew the full dickwolf during the make-a-strip panel at this last PAX, and when they announced the dickwolf T-shirt. It was entirely as reaction to the raised objections, and it was entirely to bait the objectors. The request to draw it was couched as "we support you, not them, can we see the whole thing?" The announcement of the shirt was to wild applause and was couched as "fuck you, oversensitive pricks, have a T-shirt". I'm as big a PA fan as anyone, so I'm not coming at this from some place of offense or rancor: they were absolutely mocking the objectors and objections, and it was super fucked up.

It doesn't take an education in rape academia to understand that the topic of rape is incredibly sensitive and serious. Does that mean you can't ever make a rape joke? I don't personally think so, although others disagree. This is a Louis CK bit that qualifies as a rape joke, at least to me. I think it is funny and I don't think it perpetuates rape culture.

So it doesn't take a genius to understand that rape is sensitive, although it might take a genius to make a good joke about it. I think one of the hangups here is that a person doesn't have to be wrong to be hurtful, nor does a person have to admit wrongdoing to admit hurting someone. It's a big complex world, and I might say something that makes sense but that injures someone. I don't have to think that I was wrong to say what I said to understand that what I said was hurtful, and the proof that it was hurtful is that someone got hurt.

Apologizing for hurting someone is not the same thing as admitting that you shouldn't have said something, nor is it an admission of guilt or moral failing. We're people in the world; we're going to hurt other people. You can take that to the bank. While it's nice to avoid it as much as possible, the really important bit is how you act once you learn you've hurt someone. You can apologize for the injury, inadvertent though it is, and try not to next time, or you can just keep stabbing.
posted by Errant at 2:37 PM on February 2, 2011 [14 favorites]

Well! As a female victim of a sexual assault (many, many years ago) who attends PAX and self-identifies as a feminist and a gamer, I feel uniquely qualified to respond to a post on MeFi for pretty much the first time ever.

I actually defended the original dickwolves comic to people who were upset by it. The core of the joke as I saw it -- that MMO players have a callous disregard for anything not listed in their quest -- was funny and true, even if I'm kind of leery of jokes about rape. The follow-up comic, the blog posts, and the t-shirt, though, have really put it over the line for me.

I'm not a huge fan of the current 'rape culture' and 'trigger' feminist school of thought, but I think that's not really the point here. The point is that gamer culture has been INCREDIBLY homogeneous for many years, and the guys behind Penny Arcade in particular have been quite vociferous about helping to invite others to the gamer table. Regardless of what they think they're doing, this reaction and particularly those shirts are just going to alienate more women from a community that they really have only just started to participate in fully.

The welcoming of women, non-whites, and non-straights to the gaming scene is still pretty fragile and should be handled with care, and the PA guys should have the sense to put that over defending their own egos. Basically they've sided with the Internet dickwads on this one, which is kind of confusing and really disappointing.
posted by jess at 2:37 PM on February 2, 2011 [32 favorites]

Which Pope are we talking about? Because if it's Stephen VI, pretty much anything goes.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:38 PM on February 2, 2011

"Rape culture"? Was never used in the Shakespeare's Sister post that prompted the second, sneering strip.

In fact, it was very, very much a "how I feel" sort of response. So all this conversation about how the obscure and damning language ("rape culture") and $5 dollar words or whatever elicited such a freaked out response from PA which is btw perfectly understandable using those big mean words? — That never happened.
posted by taz at 2:44 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

However, your comment did illicit a nice spike in anger. I know you didn't mean any offense (I hope), however I am going to CALL YOU OUT on a seriously bad attempt at humor.

Perhaps it would go over better in T-Shirt form?
posted by Threeway Handshake at 2:45 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

FWIW, my response to the original complaints about the article might have been exactly the same as those of the PA guys. I would have done it not out of spite, but rather to show that a) the original joke wasn't worth complaining about, and b) that no matter how hard you try, you're going to come in contact with things that offend you, and the onus is on you, not others to deal with that.

Finally, I would have pointed them at this Robert Heinlein quote from Stranger in a Strange Land:

“I've found out why people laugh. They laugh because it hurts... because it's the only thing that'll make it stop hurting.”

Good comedy is, and always will be, offensive.
posted by mrPalomar72 at 2:46 PM on February 2, 2011

Pope Guilty: "This t0shirt in particular ywas released as a fuck-you to those who took iusssue."

kinda early to be drinking that heavily, homeboy.
posted by boo_radley at 2:46 PM on February 2, 2011

There will be an Afro Zombie sock puppet in the near future.

I do hope that its first official act will be a George Clinton / Parliament / Funkadelic post, because we could do with one of those. It's impossible to listen to that stuff and not be happy.
posted by Grangousier at 2:47 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

ChurchHatesTucker: “I think the initial 'concerns' were plenty accusatory.”

Maybe I'm missing it. I've read over the initial responses, and none of them seemed that way. Could you give me a few examples of accusatory language in those responses?
posted by koeselitz at 2:47 PM on February 2, 2011

No amount of careful kindness can make that initial jolt of discomfort with being called out any easier. The only thing that helps these situations is self-reflection and thoughtful dialogue.

You're right (to an extent) that the initial jolt is always there. But see, "sugercoating", as people seem to insist on using, is part of the "thoughtful dialogue", and that is on both parties. Maybe you can't soothe the initial jolt, but you can help set the tone for the discussion that follows - and you can control how defensively people react to something (again, to some extent).

It's like saying "you're part of the problem". That's very rarely going to get people to listen; it's mostly going to get their backs up. I could tell you why "you're part of the problem" without ever using those words. I could talk about how it affects people to hear such-and-such, and how I understand that there's the context you meant something in, and I can appreciate that it seems like that should matter, but that the problem is that you can't control other peoples' contexts, and for some people those contexts involve really, really horrible things. Same message, right? "This is horrible and I'd like it to stop."

I guess for me sugercoating has a connotation of deception or omission. Like, "sugercoating" a break-up would involve the ole', "It's not you, it's me," thing. A connotation of deception to make things easier. I'm not talking, in the above example, about leaving anything out, or misdirection. I'm talking about recognizing when that initial jolt is going to put people in a defensive state, and ways you can actually help people through that and back to communication. Do other people not share that idea of what "sugercoating" is? Is this my own misinterpretation?
posted by neuromodulator at 2:49 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

Kind of late but...
Wouldn't saying that 'normalisation of rape' (which is bullshit, jokes discussing it as a bad thing are hardly normalising it) is what causes rape sort of indicate that you can't make jokes about race or racism, 'cause we're past racism now and discussing it is what causes it?!

I mean, for fuck's sake I wish people would grow up and realise that they might take offense at something but that's that. Move on, realise the person isn't being malicious and pick your fucking battles.

Good on Mike and Jerry for not taking this response seriously!
posted by opsin at 2:49 PM on February 2, 2011

Aside from my previous contention that "rape culture" is a perfectly fine and clear term, there is another aspect that might be worth bringing up. Any confusion that the term might have caused initially in no way explains the months of crazy that followed. That kind of confusion gets cleared up in a matter of minutes, not days and weeks.

Somewhere in these links (forget where) I found a blog post that I think makes some good points about how these sorts of discussions tend to go wrong. "Well, That’s Really Interesting, But Have You Perhaps Considered The Status Quo? Just My Two Cents." Interesting read. One of the best thoughts in there is about the way (defensive, usually male) outsiders question feminists' assumptions:

Here is the thing, okay? Coming into a feminist conversation with, “Have you considered that sometimes [terms like "rape culture" are not immediately understood by the layperson]?” is like walking into graduate school during Philosophy finals and saying, “Have you considered that the color blue that I see may not be the color blue that you see?”

In case it's not quite clear, I replaced the original point with one related to this thread (in brackets).
posted by jsturgill at 2:50 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

mrPalomar72: “... no matter how hard you try, you're going to come in contact with things that offend you, and the onus is on you, not others to deal with that.”

I dispute that you actually agree with what you're claiming here, which seems to be that we don't have responsibility for the things we say, and that words don't have power.

If your sister or your mother or your daughter had experienced sexual assault – would you make jokes about rape, saying it was on them to deal with their feelings about your jokes? Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a strong feeling that you wouldn't. My sense is that you'd actually take some responsibility for their feelings, making an effort not to be insensitive to them.
posted by koeselitz at 2:53 PM on February 2, 2011

ten pounds of inedita: "And bethysphere's irrationality and personal attacks deserves much harsher treatment than Kurtz has thrown back."

@bethysphere writes "@pvponline You can speak out against these things. That's not silencing - that's empowering."

In the duration between that tweet and "Good-bye, Penny Arcade. Until you issue an actual apology and treat rape survivors like human beings, I won't be reading your strip.", I don't see much that qualifies as irrational and personal attacks outside of calling Kurtz a dickhole, which is kinda middling, I guess? What kind of things did she say and what kind of harsher treatment would you recommend?
posted by boo_radley at 2:55 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I mean, for fuck's sake I wish people would grow up and realise that they might take offense at something but that's that. Move on, realise the person isn't being malicious and pick your fucking battles.

Yes, damn those rape victims for feeling poorly about a joke! Who do they think they are?!

As I posted earlier, I found the original comic to be amusing but it's possible to do that AND respect the opinions of others. Perhaps part of "growing up" is learning that what is a non-issue to you is a worthy battle to someone else. If you disagree, engage them.. don't tell them to just get over themselves.
posted by jess at 2:57 PM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

I think the original comic was not very funny, but also wasn't promoting rape culture or anything like that. As someone upthread said, they were using it for its absolutely abhorrent qualities, which hardly promotes it, and it wasn't suggesting that it was funny that the slave was getting raped; quite the opposite. It was basically everything they did after the comic, in response to criticism that was full of teh wrong. And yes, even though the comic was not part of the problem, the folks responsible for the responses definitely are.

I'm not entirely sure how sugrar-coating the message will accomplish that, though. I would think, as Astro Zombie says, it will only cause further confusion.

I don't think it's sugar-coating that's being suggested, just not approaching the discussion like you hold the keys to truth and you're going to enlighten the heathens. Doesn't work so well in religion or tolerance training. It's possible, just possible, that you on one side or the other of the discussion might be wrong.
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:59 PM on February 2, 2011

Major props to the moderators for their efforts on this thread, both seen and unseen.
posted by whuppy at 2:59 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

I'm not a huge fan of the current 'rape culture' and 'trigger' feminist school of thought

yah, fuck people with PTSD!
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:02 PM on February 2, 2011

the homophobia latent in man-on-man rape jokes

I laughed at Garfield this morning-- he pushed Odie off the shelf again! Halfway through this thread, I was thinking that this made Jim Davis and me "furtherers of 'animal abuse culture'"-- but now I understand that it makes us "canine-phobic."
posted by herbplarfegan at 3:04 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't see much that qualifies as irrational and personal attacks outside of calling Kurtz a dickhole, which is kinda middling, I guess? What kind of things did she say and what kind of harsher treatment would you recommend?

I don't think I can edit it down any further than "pretty much everything she wrote" and by harsher, I mean much less than the very polite treatment she received from Kurtz.

If you "don't see much", then I think we are sufficiently tone-deaf to each others' triggers (so to speak) to make proceeding further down this tangent kind of pointless.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 3:04 PM on February 2, 2011

This thread would be better if ShawnStruck's comment was repeated every fourth or fifth comment.
posted by hermitosis at 3:04 PM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

"If your sister or your mother or your daughter had experienced sexual assault – would you make jokes about rape, saying it was on them to deal with their feelings about your jokes?"

1. One can't live their life based on how parents might feel.

2. Relatives are a tad different from other people, so of course one may respond to them different manner.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:06 PM on February 2, 2011

One can't live their life based on how parents might feel.

True, but maybe somebody could think about what it would be like to have a close relative involved in something like that when one trolls rape victims with Dickwolf tshirts.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 3:09 PM on February 2, 2011

I laughed at Garfield this morning

Wow, then you have no real position from which to discuss "edgy" humor -- or comedy at all for that matter.

But I get it, you were actually making a point about how every possible scenario could be potentially offensive to somebody, thereby relieving your pasty male ego of ever having to care what anybody thinks about anything. Which tells me that you have not done a lot of reading in this thread, and/or have missed the more salient points people have brought up on either side. Why don't you read the other half of this thread and see if something sticks?
posted by hermitosis at 3:11 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

"If your sister or your mother or your daughter had experienced sexual assault – would you make jokes about rape, saying it was on them to deal with their feelings about your jokes?"

I might not, but that would be my failing. In the end, learning to laugh about their past, no matter how hard it may be, is what would be necessary.
posted by mrPalomar72 at 3:12 PM on February 2, 2011

I'm not a huge fan of the current 'rape culture' and 'trigger' feminist school of thought

yah, fuck people with PTSD!

Jesus jumped-up christ, Pope Guilty, if that's all you got out of jess's quite thoughtful comment (which included jess's own history with the issue, in case you missed it), it really is time for you to take a break.
posted by Errant at 3:14 PM on February 2, 2011 [12 favorites]

mrPalomar72: " I might not, but that would be my failing. In the end, learning to laugh about their past, no matter how hard it may be, is what would be necessary."

I may be misreading you here but in other words, they should get over it?
posted by zarq at 3:17 PM on February 2, 2011

"If your sister or your mother or your daughter had experienced sexual assault – would you make jokes about rape, saying it was on them to deal with their feelings about your jokes?"

Honestly, I might just do that. Not out of disrespect for them, but in a way that turns the power exchange around, and own the situation. I am a large-girthed man. I make jokes about me being fat, and the same holds true. A friend of mine (a stand-up comic) had relatives die in Buchenwald. He actually makes Nazi jokes.

Everything is situational, and comedy even moreso. I, for one, am very disappointed that no one in my reading here has cited George Carlin. Not that PA is the same as George Carlin, by any stretch. But he fairly solidly proved that *anything*, including rape, can be made funny. That does not mean no one will be offended by it, but that's not what jokes are about now, is it.
posted by Leth at 3:17 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

(Yeah, I've been cheering on Pope Guilty through most of this, but honestly PG, jess wasn't saying what I think you think she was saying, and she certainly doesn't deserve that.)
posted by koeselitz at 3:17 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I might not, but that would be my failing. In the end, learning to laugh about their past, no matter how hard it may be, is what would be necessary.

In what fucking world would it be your place to tell them that?
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:19 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

In an imaginary world where dickwolves, satyrs, Pan, and other mythical rapists are real and worthy targets of your outrage. Obviously.
posted by kid ichorous at 3:25 PM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

I am a large-girthed man. I make jokes about me being fat, and the same holds true. A friend of mine (a stand-up comic) had relatives die in Buchenwald. He actually makes Nazi jokes.

That is certainly one way of dealing with painful subjects. Forcing people to deal with their own painful subjects in the way that makes you most comfortable is not very compassionate.
posted by hermitosis at 3:27 PM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Leth: "Honestly, I might just do that. Not out of disrespect for them, but in a way that turns the power exchange around, and own the situation."

Gallows humor is a coping mechanism, yes. However, forcing it on victims regardless of whether they are capable of processing it as such is an incredibly shitty thing to do.
posted by zarq at 3:27 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

if you think that's what this is about you don't undserstand at all.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:27 PM on February 2, 2011

I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned what an absolute shit-heel Scott Kurtz is being in this, as well.

Because it's like commenting that the sun rose today. Kurtz has a long-established history of being unable to resist dishing it out accompanied by being completely unable to take it. I had to ditch his twitter feed months ago because it was so tiresome how often it was about whatever conflict he'd gotten into on some web forum where he'd walked in to throw around some shit about newspaper/print comics. Which would be ~~fine~~ at least consistent if he didn't then follow it up with extended pout-fests where he was torn up that people were treating him almost as badly as he was treating them, or calling him out on his shitty behavior.

I hadn't really considered the matter till you mention his behavior on this incident but it does make me think a little differently about the PA folks - knowing people by the company they keep, etc. If they want to share an office with someone who regularly treats people so poorly when they disagree with him then I don't think it's a stretch to think they've got a similar mindset. Which their reaction here certainly seems to support.
posted by phearlez at 3:29 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Pope Guilty: "yah, fuck people with PTSD!"

To which extent do you propose we manicure reality to mitigate to the risk that someone with PTSD will see something that will make them uncomfortable?

Should we ban war movies because it might distress a war veteran? Or maybe ban crime reporting because it might distress a crime victim?

It's an honest question.
posted by falameufilho at 3:32 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm not a huge fan of the current 'rape culture' and 'trigger' feminist school of thought

yah, fuck people with PTSD!

Seriously dude, are you going to come back to this in a day and feel good about how you're treating people? This is just abusive strawman stuff at this point. I'm sorry you're so angry that this is what you're down to but it's just not okay.
posted by phearlez at 3:32 PM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

Honestly, I might just do that. Not out of disrespect for them,

And if they took it that way, and told you that, you'd respond by...continuing to make jokes? Insisting that they handle it the way you would, as that's clearly the correct way to do so?

That's a fast road to divorce or child estrangement. But then I guess it'd be their fault, for not being able to take a joke.
posted by rtha at 3:34 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Seriously dude, are you going to come back to this in a day and feel good about how you're treating people? This is just abusive strawman stuff at this point. I'm sorry you're so angry that this is what you're down to but it's just not okay.

I'm pretty sure that a day isn't going to make the difference between being angry at people who think being thoughtless is a positive trait and not being angry at them, since it hasn't yet.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:35 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

You can't go through life without being offensive to somebody!

So the question is who do you want to be offensive to? For example, you can say, "There is no evidence for meaningful difference between races! Race itself is a fuzzy concept filled with internal contradictions and is a poorer predicter of X than this non-racial thing Y, or even random chance!" And that would like, totally piss off people who really identify with the skinheads, you know?

If you don't mind offending skinheads, though, go ahead and say it.

On the other hand, you could make a comment totally affirming racism and meaningful differences between races. You could even chart out a hierarchy of race, using science! (of a certain kind) to prove your point. That would probably be objectionable to educated, thoughtful, and/or kind human beings with knowledge and philosophies that make them conclude that sort of thinking is both factually and morally wrong.

It's not that race is off limits for discussion. It's a matter of what you bring to the table.

So you're absolutely right. Almost anything will potentially be offensive to someone, somewhere. The question is, who might it offend?

If the answer is skinheads, I'd personally say go for it. Offend away. If the answer is "almost everyone" maybe it's time to think twice about not marketing a dickwolf team rape t-shirt and encouraging people to wear it at your popular event that you hope to entice large members of the public into attending.
posted by jsturgill at 3:36 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

@Pope Guilty: "In what fucking world would it be your place to tell them that?"

The same one in which it is your place to tell me what I can and can't make jokes about.
posted by mrPalomar72 at 3:39 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

The way Tycho and Gabe are dealing with this is a lot like the way they dealt with Scott McCloud. First make a comic about something; observe an offended reaction among the readership; wait a bit, until an opportunity for comedy presents itself, and then start trolling. When I saw them at a convention they called this "fishing" and it's a source of some of their gags.

This works just fine when the objects of your trolling can't be genuinely hurt by it--Scott McCloud already had an established fanbase, trolling wasn't going to make that any smaller. They're probably thinking in that frame of mind, assuming that the only damage they might do is to offend people. Or viscerally disturb them, but they seem to be okay with that as well.

It may not have occurred to them that by making a joke out of this they are closing people's minds, not just to the possibility that there's something wrong with the comic, but to feminist issues in general.
posted by LogicalDash at 3:40 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

The same one in which it is your place to tell me what I can and can't make jokes about.

So to your mind "Dude, not cool" and "dude, your'e reinforcing unfortunate parts of our culture" are the same as "hey you should totes get over being raped, lol".
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:41 PM on February 2, 2011

Actually Pope, I think it's the Shakesville side of this argument which is reinforcing unfortunate parts of our culture, and I'm offended by their arguments. I probably won't be sending them any hate mail to that effect though.
posted by mrPalomar72 at 3:43 PM on February 2, 2011

I think it's the Shakesville side of this argument which is reinforcing unfortunate parts of our culture

are you fucking kidding me
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:46 PM on February 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

Errant: "This is a Louis CK bit that qualifies as a rape joke, at least to me. I think it is funny and I don't think it perpetuates rape culture."

I knew this bit. I find it hilarious. But let me put my rape cultue hat (*) for a second so I can analyze it.

Hm.

NO! This bit does perpetuate rape culture! It validates the myth that a woman never means what she says and that NO may not mean NO! GRAR!

You see? You can't win.

(*) Not really a hat - just a mayonnaise jar full of tears shed while listening to Tori Amos.
posted by falameufilho at 3:47 PM on February 2, 2011

The intersection of art and the personal politics of the artist came up just yesterday in the Ratfist thread. Most people over there seemed to think that people should be allowed to appreciate the art without considering the artist's politics.

To me, the situation is only slightly different here, in that the controversy crept into the art itself. You know what? 99.5% of PA comic strips don't have rape jokes in them. I can be pretty confident every MWF that, if I check out PA, no rape joke.

Furthermore, even though they were giant jackasses in the handling of this issue and I think they deserve the public outcry they're getting, I don't think they're in favor of rape in any meaningful sense, and I don't think their future actions are likely to do anything to make rape more acceptable.

So, although this has been an interesting discussion and I've learned a lot from it, come Friday morning, I'll keep on reading.
posted by gurple at 3:53 PM on February 2, 2011

Culture - we are in it and of it. That's why a term like "rape culture" doesn't imply an intention to rape, it's just that we are creatures of our environment and it's damn hard to see the forest for the trees unless something happens to you that ruptures the continuum. Like the bubble of outrage around this particular offhand use of rape by some high profile gamers - it's a great opportunity to take a step outside ourselves and imagine a different culture -- one that pretty well everybody would probably like to live in -- where people don't rape other people so much. Joking about rape might be a step on the path towards forging that culture, because a joke is a kind of rupture. But pointing out that there are a lot of people who have already experienced that rupture through actual rape, and that the joke means something very different & painful in that context, is another big step. Discussing it from as many angles as possible, like what's happening on this thread, is pretty good too. Trying to imagine someone else's point of view is always, always useful.
posted by aunt_winnifred at 3:55 PM on February 2, 2011

(*) Not really a hat - just a mayonnaise jar full of tears shed while listening to Tori Amos.

Oh, I get it. Its funny because she was raped too.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 3:55 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

NO! This bit does perpetuate rape culture! It validates the myth that a woman never means what she says and that NO may not mean NO! GRAR!

I'd argue that he makes the clear point that no does mean no, even when not vocalized, and that it would be insane to think that a woman doesn't mean what she says, a point backed up by him saying, "Are you fucking crazy?"

I'd also argue that trying to "win" is really missing the point of the discussion entirely.

I'd also argue that your rape culture hat is really a misunderstanding rape culture hat, but that's to be expected; it's made of mayonnaise, tears, and ridiculous cliches about Tori Amos.
posted by Errant at 3:56 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

XQUZYPHYR: "To actually entertain your straw man, no."

Not a strawman - it was an actual honest question. The whole concept is so new to me that I'm trying to educate myself.

XQUZYPHYR: "Krahulik went to a feminist blog and posted links to rape jokes"

Yes, that's out of line, but that's not the issue. The issue is the original "being raped to sleep" joke. Your opinion on the tastefulness of it aside, should that joke not be made because of "triggers"?
posted by falameufilho at 3:56 PM on February 2, 2011

"Krahulik went to a feminist blog and posted links to rape jokes"

Yes, that's out of line, but that's not the issue. The issue is the original "being raped to sleep" joke.

Hundreds of comments so far beg to differ.
posted by hermitosis at 3:59 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

@Pope: are you fucking kidding me

No, absolutely not. We're turning into a nanny state where we legislate morality, we legislate safety, we legislate the fuck out of everything we can, and it's because of a**holes who can't take care of themselves and practically beg the government to do it for them. This "you can't say things that I don't like" attitude is just one piece of that, and frankly I'm sick of it.

Maybe I should petition mefi to force you to change your username. After all, it is an offense to all that is holy, is it not?
posted by mrPalomar72 at 4:00 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

hermitosis: "Hundreds of comments so far beg to differ."

Aw fuck this shit then - I'm not reading *that* again.
posted by falameufilho at 4:01 PM on February 2, 2011

are you fucking kidding me
Pope Guilty, you should take care - for when you gaze into the asshole, the asshole also gazes into you.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:03 PM on February 2, 2011

No, absolutely not. We're turning into a nanny state where we legislate morality, we legislate safety, we legislate the fuck out of everything

Who, exactly, do you think is trying to legislate anything? How is a feminist blog saying "this perpetuates rape culture" meaningfully different, in terms of free speech, from your saying "feminist blogs shouldn't say that things perpetuate rape culture"?
posted by craichead at 4:03 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

We're turning into a nanny state where we legislate morality, we legislate safety, we legislate the fuck out of everything we can, and it's because of a**holes who can't take care of themselves and practically beg the government to do it for them.

Um, what? Is anyone calling for legislation here? Is anyone accusing anyone of having committed a crime? What are you on about?
posted by Errant at 4:03 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

You know what I'm sick of? The idea that it should be completely cool to act a fuckwad but totally out of line to call someone out for acting like a fuckwad.
posted by Karmakaze at 4:04 PM on February 2, 2011 [33 favorites]

Maybe I should petition mefi to force you to change your username. After all, it is an offense to all that is holy, is it not?

If I may?

LURK MOAR
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:05 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

(*) Not really a hat - just a mayonnaise jar full of tears shed while listening to Tori Amos.

Oh, I get it. Its funny because she was raped too.

Yes. That is why it is funny.
posted by Sebmojo at 4:05 PM on February 2, 2011

Sebmojo: "Yes. That is why it is funny."

AMIRITE GUISE?
posted by falameufilho at 4:07 PM on February 2, 2011

" I'll take 'the rapists' for 200 Alex"

"Thats 'THER-apists' Sean" - Darrell Hammond and Will Ferrell contributing to rape culture on SNL.

This thread has been fascinating but it IS much ado about nothing, we have an asslode of rights here in the ole U.S. of A. but the right to not be offended isn't one of them.

I'd also argue that no one is actually trying to intentionally perpetuate a "rape culture" here in the U.S. Unlike say our very vociferous "gun culture" and "southern culture" proponents.

The term, as I understand it, seems to be shorthand for belittling the experience of rape victims as as the subject percolates through our media. Leading to the devaluing or subjugation of half of our population.

Being the victim of violence does not give a person the right to descry the depiction of violence for entertainment purposes but it also does not deny that right. But if we jump at every perceived slight, we lose sight of ultimate goals and or progress.

Looking at all the gratuitous depictions of rape in the media ( the god awful remake of the god awful I Spit on Your Grave anyone?) makes this particular internet flame war look downright misguided.

Given that the PA goofs reacted poorly, I would say so did the objectors, this is not YOUR world or THEIR world but OUR world. The comments about comity do well in this post. The intolerant indignation that someone dare make a comic with rape as a lead to the joke about the piss poor game mechanics in a particular online game is whistling past the graveyard of our actual real life problems.

I'm glad we are so privileged to do so.
posted by Max Power at 4:08 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

(Yeah, I've been cheering on Pope Guilty through most of this, but honestly PG, jess wasn't saying what I think you think she was saying, and she certainly doesn't deserve that.)

Let me just go on the record as saying I am a huge proponent of bringing civility and empathy back into modern discourse, and I absolutely did not mean at all that people who have experienced previous traumatic events should suck it up, buttercup. I apologize if anyone read it that way. I do take issue with some of the current popular schools of feminist thought... but that's a subject for a different thread!
posted by jess at 4:08 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

No, absolutely not. We're turning into a nanny state where we legislate morality, we legislate safety, we legislate the fuck out of everything we can, and it's because of a**holes who can't take care of themselves and practically beg the government to do it for them. This "you can't say things that I don't like" attitude is just one piece of that, and frankly I'm sick of it.

Whatever your grievances are on those fronts, this thread is not really an ideal place to air them and it might be better to table them for now. This is a big and complicated thread as it is, and that's a significant departure from even the collection of topics folks have been discussing so far.
posted by cortex at 4:10 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Cortex is right. This will turn into a massive derail and it won't be pretty nor interesting nor what we're talking about.

Secondly, Pope G, we are on the same page but please calm down a little with one sentence jabs at people saying things in good faith.
posted by josher71 at 4:19 PM on February 2, 2011

Maybe I'm missing it. I've read over the initial responses, and none of them seemed that way. Could you give me a few examples of accusatory language in those responses?

Well, comments like: Because rape survivors exist among us, and after being victimized by rapists, they are revictimized by a society that treats even real rape like a joke.

Again, rape wasn't the joke. I've heard plenty of rape jokes (usually involving men in prison) and I don't find them humorous in the slightest. This, however, wasn't one. It referenced rape as an example of a terrible thing. In fact, given the context, possibly the most terrible thing imaginable.

To then say that they're essentially re-raping rape victims is just trolling. The pity is that they fell for it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:31 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Given that the PA goofs reacted poorly, I would say so did the objectors, this is not YOUR world or THEIR world but OUR world. The comments about comity do well in this post. The intolerant indignation that someone dare make a comic with rape as a lead to the joke about the piss poor game mechanics in a particular online game is whistling past the graveyard of our actual real life problems.

Yes, of course, nobody's contesting the PA guys' right to be assholes and douchebags and say all sorts of terrible, offensive things. Maybe they can get jobs in talk radio?
posted by mek at 4:32 PM on February 2, 2011

[Oops, warning re: the above - I quite like assholes, and have nothing against douching.]
posted by mek at 4:34 PM on February 2, 2011

Full circle:
[Oops, warning re: the above - I quite like assholes, and have nothing against douching.]
posted by gurple at 4:41 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

[("I laughed at Garfield this morning"]

Wow, then you have no real position from which to discuss "edgy" humor -- or comedy at all for that matter.

A would-be touché! (except, indeed:)

...But I get it, you were actually making a point about how every possible scenario could be potentially offensive to somebody, thereby relieving your pasty male ego of ever having to care what anybody thinks about anything.

Ah, yes: white-straight-male guilt, and an utter revocation of freedom of speech (or as you like to call it, being careful not to be "tone-deaf," "careless," and.. what is it?-- oh: "sensitive"). Not a chance. Sorry. The first amendment really is the issue when you cry "sensitivity," because you're undermining an individual's right to interpret their own motives and express them appropriately. First A. Fuckin'. Mendmen. Tuhhh. That's my opinion on the matter. And you disagree. See? It's happening right this second! It's terribly exciting--realsies.

...Which tells me that you have not done a lot of reading in this thread, and/or have missed the more salient points people have brought up on either side. Why don't you read the other half of this thread and see if something sticks?

No no, I've been reading, and you're certainly right that many relevant, and truthfully edifying points have been made from each angle.

You might often be wrong if you always assume that someone is ill-informed merely because they disagree with you.
posted by herbplarfegan at 4:47 PM on February 2, 2011

Offensive humor is offensive. If you use offensive humor, someone is going to be offended. That's the cost. The payoff if executed well is a ton of laughs. It's up to you if the cost is worth it.

The cost of being a "big name" is that someone, somewhere, is going to express not-nice things about your work, and possibly you as well. And in this day and age of ubiquitous internet publishing, that's likely going to show up on a blog, twitter, facebook, etc. etc.. You can either:

A: Accept that someone doesn't like your work or yourself much, or,
B: Be a dick and charge into the fray in order to get the last word defending your honor.

And something I've observed over the last few years of -fail flamewars is that B never seems to go well for the "big name" in question. Fandom is much more tolerant of the less-than-enlightened gaffe than it is of big names going bugfuck crazy over negative criticism, and it's all a tempest in a teapot anyway which flies under the radar of most fans. (And what is up with that anyway? Have artists really gotten so twitchy and thin-skinned?)

It seems weird to me that we can say that Hooper and Seidler delivered a political whitewash of nazi sympathies in the British royal family but we can't say that Krahulik and Holkins pushed their edgy humor a bit too far for some people on a single day out of hundreds of strips.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:49 PM on February 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

The first amendment only applies to government prior restraint of speech. It does not apply to spoken or unspoken disagreement or editorial privilege. Saying, "that's not funny to me," doesn't violate any law, right, or principle.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:58 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

First A. Fuckin'. Mendmen. Tuhhh.

Congress. Shall. Make. No. Law.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 5:00 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

First A. Fuckin'. Mendmen. Tuhhh.

Protects your fundamental right not to have your speech repressed by the government. It's a good and important thing in the definition of a citizen's rights in the face of the governing body representing it.

It makes, however, no guarantees about freedom from criticism; it has nothing to say about any right to be thought well of for what one says. People saying shit that offends other people are exercising their right to free speech; people talking about why they're offended, likewise.

Exercising some amount of thoughtfulness and context-sensitivity in what you choose to say is a big part of how civil society manages to function. Reflexively hiking up the banner of FREE SPEECH in response to discussions about that sort of thing gets no one anywhere.
posted by cortex at 5:00 PM on February 2, 2011 [32 favorites]

In this case, the question is: Are people responsible for the reactions that others have to the things they say?

Yes, unless you think the "free" in speech means "consequence-free". It doesn't. People are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Responsibility does not confer a sense of duty or obligation to rectify damages caused, but it does mean that if I say something that hurt someone, I hurt someone. I'm not thereby required to feel bad about it or to do anything about it if I don't want to, but look, you want people to stop relying on the "nanny state" and take personal responsibility. That's what personal responsibility looks like.
posted by Errant at 5:17 PM on February 2, 2011 [20 favorites]

The first amendment really is the issue when you cry "sensitivity," because you're undermining an individual's right to interpret their own motives and express them appropriately.

No, the first amendment is the issue when the government passes a law abridging the freedom of speech. What happened here was that the PA guys exercised their free speech rights by publishing a comic that some people found offensive, and then those people exercised their free speech rights by criticizing said comic. Shortly afterward, everybody went batshit and commenced to exercising their free speech rights all over the damn place. We've been exercising our free speech rights here on mefi all day; to the tune of over seven hundred posts, if you haven't been counting. Whatever you think about this episode, it doesn't involve any threat to the first amendment.
posted by steambadger at 5:19 PM on February 2, 2011 [11 favorites]

I read this whole thing. Seriously.

You know what I'd really like, right about now (other than a hug, because man, this is kind of depressing)? That the PA guys will do the same.

Because the discussion here ranges far and wide, and maybe they'd get a little perspective. Maybe even a lot.

I get that they're digging in their heels and going "nuh-uh"! over and over and over again. I just don't know why anymore. I thought there was a little spark of hope when the t-shirt got taken down from the store (allegedly because people - who were seen as REAL PEOPLE and not raving lunatics or reactionaries or trolls or whatever - had managed to get across that it made them really uncomfortable) but everything since then has just been a monsoon on that little spark of hope.
posted by lriG rorriM at 5:21 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Responsibility does not confer a sense of duty or obligation to rectify damages caused, but it does mean that if I say something that hurt someone, I hurt someone. I'm not thereby required to feel bad about it or to do anything about it if I don't want to, but look, you want people to stop relying on the "nanny state" and take personal responsibility. That's what personal responsibility looks like.

I agree with you 100%, it's when the 'harmed' starts feeling entitled to recompense that it gets to me, and it seems pretty obvious to me that the anti-PA crowd feels entitled to something here (be it fair treatment, an apology, etc.)
posted by mrPalomar72 at 5:22 PM on February 2, 2011

ten pounds of inedita: "If you "don't see much", then I think we are sufficiently tone-deaf to each others' triggers (so to speak) to make proceeding further down this tangent kind of pointless."

I would geniunely like to better understand the point of view. Maybe you could link me to one tweet? No explanations, no nothing, just the understanding that "this was the tweet that was too much."
posted by boo_radley at 5:23 PM on February 2, 2011

I agree with you 100%, it's when the 'harmed' starts feeling entitled to recompense that it gets to me, and it seems pretty obvious to me that the anti-PA crowd feels entitled to something here (be it fair treatment, an apology, etc.)

You know, I don't think the anti-PA crowd, as you put it, really would have felt entitled to an apology or anything if they weren't a) so horribly misrepresented in that "go forth and rape no more" strip and then b) basically directly antagonized with the dickwolves t-shirt and all that followed. That follow-up wasn't the equivalent of ~shrug~ "you win some, you lose some. Whatever." Nor was it even "my give a damn is busted." It was full-on "yeah, well, this makes you uncomfortable? GOOD! HAVE SOME MORE!" And after that kind of thing, is it any wonder that there were calls for apologies or (~gasp~) "fair treatment"?
posted by lriG rorriM at 5:28 PM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

There's nothing "nanny state" about wanting an apology. Nobody sued PA or charged them with a crime, in the expectation that they would have to do anything to anyone in particular. It's just a bunch of people talking, not always politely, about things that are important to them.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:31 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

You know what I'm sick of? The idea that it should be completely cool to act a fuckwad but totally out of line to call someone out for acting like a fuckwad.

Assuming no tangible harm, it should be legally "cool" as close to everyone agrees.

However, the big point here is that if you feel that you have the high ground, then yes--it is your responsibility to at least attempt to make the high ground amenable to whoever happens to be acting out.

You know what I'm sick of? People who really do know better about any given thing--but pollute the message with condescension, accusatory language, and self-righteous obnoxious behaviors. Because that leads right to situations like the current one, and the people who need to hear it the most--the ones who are wrong--inevitably shut it out or take it as an attack.

I think this thread went well, and I'm certainly not accusing anyone in particular here, but I think that the tone in situations such as these is almost never ideal for actually resolving the problem. Outrage is good for revolutions, not changing the mind of someone who's being insensitive or a jerk.
posted by Phyltre at 5:31 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

I agree with you 100%, it's when the 'harmed' starts feeling entitled to recompense that it gets to me, and it seems pretty obvious to me that the anti-PA crowd feels entitled to something here (be it fair treatment, an apology, etc.)

The "anti-PA crowd" (not a term I buy, really, but let's go with it) feels hurt. That means they are hurt, unless one wishes to accuse them of lying. Typically, when people are hurt, they would like recompense in the form of an apology or at least an acknowledgment that someone did something to hurt them. From their perspective, Mike is not taking responsibility for the fact that he did something to hurt them, by virtue of denying any real offense caused and mocking those claiming injury. It's sort of like if I accidentally elbowed you on the train and then, when you said, "Ow, hey, I'm right here, watch it," I said, "Fuck you, you couldn't possibly have been hurt by that, oh, and here's my shirt commemorating Team Razor Elbow, get bent."

You'd probably have liked an apology. You can probably make it through the rest of your day not having gotten one. But you'd probably think I was seven kinds of asshole, and you'd probably tell your friends about the jerk you ran into on the train. The internet makes those interactions public, with magnifying effect on both scope and hyperbole, but no one's asking for punitive damages or calling the police. They're saying, hey, you're being kind of a jerk right now, maybe you'd like to not be a jerk? And he's saying, fuck you, I don't have to apologize to anyone for my inadvertent elbow smashes, I'm free to elbow whomever I want without consequence or apology.

He is. But it doesn't mean he's not an asshole for doing so.
posted by Errant at 5:35 PM on February 2, 2011 [12 favorites]

I'm sorry, but bringing up the similarities between the legislate-everything crowd and the anti-PA crowd is completely topical. There is a similar undertone to the actions that have been undertaken by both groups, and it is an attitude which moves the responsibility for one's well being off of the individual and onto others. In this case, the question is: Are people responsible for the reactions that others have to the things they say?

I've seen your argument before. It sucks in so many ways it's hard to be succinct when replying. But I'm going to try by rephrasing the opposition's position in terms you might be more friendly towards: actions have consequences. Speech is an action. Selling team rape merchandise is an action. Inaction, such as not speaking out when you are a public figure and your followers harass your critics, is an action.

So if you want one group of people to take responsibility for their own emotions, at least be consistent enough to recognize that the other group of people should also take responsibility for their own actions.

That's what's happening here, in case you didn't notice. PA is reaping the consequences for their actions. Being surprised at this development is like being shocked that water is wet and rocks fall down when you throw them in the air. True fact: people are often outraged by outrageous situations, and then they talk about their outrage online.

If your statements are a true reflection of your values, suck it up and walk the walk. Instead of making strange, paranoid leaps towards hypothetical legislation that no one else has proposed, you should speak up and tell it like it is: "Fuck yeah, feminists! I don't agree with you, but you should absolutely feel free as hell to criticize things and boycott events you don't like."
posted by jsturgill at 5:39 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

It's sort of like if I accidentally elbowed you on the train and then, when you said, "Ow, hey, I'm right here, watch it," I said, "Fuck you, you couldn't possibly have been hurt by that, oh, and here's my shirt commemorating Team Razor Elbow, get bent."

Taking that analogy a bit further, if you were on a Hong Kong subway and that happened, you wouldn't expect an apology, and anyone who you tried to get one from might look at you a bit strangely and eventually start to get annoyed if you kept asking for one. Point is, PA is often controversial, and any expectation that they respond to each and every criticism with kindness and/or an apology is probably unreasonable.

Also, if my friend spent months complaining to me about that one time somebody elbowed him and then wouldn't apologize, i'd tell him to stop whining and move on with his life.
posted by mrPalomar72 at 5:43 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

The "anti-PA crowd" (not a term I buy, really, but let's go with it) feels hurt. That means they are hurt, unless one wishes to accuse them of lying.

Nobody is doubting that they feel hurt. The question is whether that's at all justified, and if so, at what point in the process.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:45 PM on February 2, 2011

The question is once you've hurt someone, why would you continue to purposefully and publicly antagonize them?
posted by maryr at 5:48 PM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

boo-radly: I would geniunely like to better understand the point of view. Maybe you could link me to one tweet? No explanations, no nothing, just the understanding that "this was the tweet that was too much."

I can't link to one, but I'm betting that this one explains why.

I didn't see the original discussion between her and Scott. I removed pvponline from my twitter feed months ago, pretty much for the reasons phearlez mentioned. After today I will probably be doing the same with Gabriel. I didn't mind the original strip, and thought that the issue had died down, but his behavior the last few days has been shockingly horrible.
posted by Roommate at 5:49 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

So if you want one group of people to take responsibility for their own emotions, at least be consistent enough to recognize that the other group of people should also take responsibility for their own actions.

wow, i seriously don't understand what you did there...

PA is reaping the consequences for their actions. Being surprised at this development is like being shocked that water is wet and rocks fall down when you throw them in the air.

It's not at all surprising, just a bit disheartening.

If your statements are a true reflection of your values, suck it up and walk the walk. Instead of making strange, paranoid leaps towards hypothetical legislation that no one else has proposed, you should speak up and tell it like it is: "Fuck yeah, feminists! I don't agree with you, but you should absolutely feel free as hell to criticize things and boycott events you don't like."

FWIW, I have nothing against feminism, or criticism, or even boycotts. I just happen to believe that in this case, all parties concerned would have been much better off if they'd just moved on a long time ago.
posted by mrPalomar72 at 5:50 PM on February 2, 2011

Roommate: "I can't link to one, but I'm betting that this one explains why."

Ah, ok -- I had considered (but did not mention in thread) that some tweets had been deleted. That definitely throws a wrench in things.
posted by boo_radley at 5:51 PM on February 2, 2011

The question is once you've hurt someone, why would you continue to purposefully and publicly antagonize them?

Who knows, maybe the PA guys have a misguided belief that eventually the absurdity of it all will click and the other side will have an "a-ha, maybe I should just chill the f- out" moment? There are plenty of people who believe that conflict and chaos are actually beneficial.
posted by mrPalomar72 at 5:52 PM on February 2, 2011

The question is once you've hurt someone, why would you continue to purposefully and publicly antagonize them?

I think both sides could ask themselves that.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:54 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

This is where the analogy starts to break down, because elbowing people and the subject of rape are not really the same, but I'll give it a go.

If the elbowing is symptomatic of a general culture of thoughtlessness and aggressive marginalization towards bodily harm on subways, you might well have reason to point this out as an example of same. And that's the point: people are complaining about this one thing, yes, but it's not the first time or the single time they have been elbowed. They're using this one example as a highlight of a fairly mainstream and constant culture of marginalization. People are complaining about the culture, and because the internet allows for direct communication with authoritative and signature figures, they are complaining to that person directly.

The other place this analogy breaks down is if your friend spent months talking about the various ways their sexual trauma is exacerbated by public figures marginalizing it and laughing at you for not being over it, I do not think you would tell them to stop whining. I could be wrong about that, though, maybe you would.
posted by Errant at 5:55 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

I have nothing useful to add, but as everyone is choosing to comment on this post I figured it would be logical if I did too.
posted by efbrazil at 5:57 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

The question is once you've hurt someone, why would you continue to purposefully and publicly antagonize them?

That's a pretty easy one: because you're an asshole; because you can't stand to not "win"; because your ego is overly developed; because you are entitled enough to believe that you can say or do whatever the fuck you want without consequence.

Pick one or more.
posted by rtha at 5:58 PM on February 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

FWIW, I have nothing against feminism, or criticism, or even boycotts. I just happen to believe that in this case, all parties concerned would have been much better off if they'd just moved on a long time ago.

No, that's not "just" what you happen to believe. You believe that the critics of PA in this case represent a class of people who are acting as though they are "entitled to recompense" and think they deserve to go through life without ever being offended by anything. Strange way to characterize people who are embracing the cornerstone of your ideology and engaging in a free and open dialog about their beliefs. In fact, it sounds like you're grinding an axe and coming into the discussion with all sorts of preconceived notions that may or may not fit the circumstances. And by may or may not I mean don't.
posted by jsturgill at 5:59 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Nobody is doubting that they feel hurt. The question is whether that's at all justified, and if so, at what point in the process.

This really, really isn't the question. People do not have to justify their injuries, they do not have to prove that someone else meant to hurt them in order to be hurt, they do not have to be hurt by the same things you would be hurt by and go untouched by the things that don't touch you. Nobody has to justify their feelings. You don't have to take people seriously if you don't want to, you can think that people are oversensitive and weak and crybabies if you want to, that's entirely up to you. But no one gets to say that another person's pain is somehow invalid, and there aren't any flags on the play.
posted by Errant at 6:09 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

CHT - A group of fans felt insulted, ranted on their blogs about it, and Penny Arcade's response was to sell t-shirts, like it's the frakkin' circus. I mean, this is the level of dialogue one sees at sporting events. "Jeter Blows The Ump!" style shi[r]t. I'll even cede you the point that they don't need to apologize (even after the 2nd sarcastic, condescending strip). But they elevated this to Us vs Them and sold pennants.
posted by maryr at 6:12 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

KirkSluder writes:

Sure, which is why it's helpful to look up the definition of phrases as they're actually used, such as this one: Rape culture is a term used within women's studies and feminism, describing a culture in which rape and other sexual violence (usually against women) are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualized violence. (emphasis added)

This is why the neologism fails. Few rational people will go 'huh. Rape culture. I really don't understand what that means when that person called me part of that. So I guess I will go look it up on a women's studies or feminist website; or perhaps wikipedia it.'

No, instead they will consult their own cultural norms and experiences to understand the terminology, and as the words are extremely well known, the definition is plain on its face: if you support 'rape culture', then you are objectively pro-rape; and you are on the side of rapists, and perhaps even are the sort of person to commit rape yourself as part of this 'culture' that you are branded as belonging to.

I understand that being misunderstood makes you angry, and that you would much rather have people communicate only in the language which you've chosen under the rules you've written, and that if they can't seem to do that, not only is that 'straw manning' the argument (??), but that person needs to be talked down to and merely shown the way.

Unfortunately that is not how communication works, and that is part of the problem here.
posted by felix at 6:22 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Ok, my first response was a throwaway joke, but as a white male who makes t-shirts, I can note that it's a jarring thing when you come face to face with your privilege.

One or two of my designs uses the picture of Andrew Jackson from the $20. There wasn't a lot of thought behind it, beyond I find Andrew Jackson to be an interesting historical figure (largely because he was batshit crazy), and sort of a joke on how rap shirts and the like use Benjamin Franklin from the $100 in their imagery, like "medium pimpin'" or something.

A friend of mine, who is part Native American told me that she liked my shirts, but wouldn't buy one with AJ on it. She explained how horrible Jackson's treatment and rampant violence towards Native Americans was a wound that still resonates with many peoples today. She told me how on some reservations people won't even use $20 bills because Jackson is "a bit like Hitler to us". She knows I don't advocate genocide, nor that I meant any harm by it, largely she just kinda gives me shit for it.

I admit I still like my Andrew Jackson logo shirt, and I still find him to be an interesting figure, but because I'm a white guy, I never really had to consider his actions in any context other than in a detached, historical perspective.

To me it was eye opening, and a call to be aware of what I might be communicating using such imagery, even if it's completely benign to me. To the PA guys, it was cause to be insensitive jerks.

Make of that what you will.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 6:24 PM on February 2, 2011 [21 favorites]

People do not have to justify their injuries...

Yeah, they do. At least if they want me to take them seriously. How was mentioning rape, specifically in the context of something horrible that you should be rescued from, injuring them? Unless you think rape shouldn't be mentioned ever, which I would argue is counter-productive.

But they elevated this to Us vs Them and sold pennants.

I'd argue that they weren't the first to elevate it to Us vs. Them. Selling pennants et al. wasn't the classiest move, as I said above, but at that point it was all about circling the wagons. It's predictable behavior.

If you're trying to find enemies rather than win minds, that's a textbook example.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:26 PM on February 2, 2011

...at that point it was all about circling the wagons. It's predictable behavior.

If you're trying to find enemies rather than win minds, that's a textbook example.

Am I misunderstanding you? I'm not trying to take your words out of context, but yes, that is exactly what I believe Penny Arcade did and I see no reason that they needed to.
posted by maryr at 6:29 PM on February 2, 2011

Errant, that's an awful lot of words to say, "this and all other arguments by analogy are bankrupt and let's now talk about something relevant."
posted by TypographicalError at 6:31 PM on February 2, 2011

Am I misunderstanding you? I'm not trying to take your words out of context, but yes, that is exactly what I believe Penny Arcade did and I see no reason that they needed to.

Well, we apparently agree on the 'what they did' part. As to 'why they needed to,' they were accused of supporting rape (to some degree or other.) That is the sort of thing that tends to get a reaction.

The flip side is, why did Shakes feel the need to accuse them of that in the first place?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:35 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I've changed my mind. Rape jokes are not cool.

Bad:

Me: [rape joke]
Somebody: Hey, that's kinda hurtful.
Me: Have a t-shirt - it's my right to tell rape jokes.

OK:

Me: [rape joke]
Somebody: Hey, that's kinda hurtful.
Me: Sorry - that wasn't my intention, and I won't tell those sorts of jokes around you again.

Best:

Me: Rape is a heinous crime and I can probably find better things to be funny about. Life's too short trying to be clever enough to make something like that into yuks. I was wrong. I'm not saying you have a right to go through life without being upset or offended. I'm saying I've decided I would rather not upset people who might have been raped, or known or loved somebody who was raped, just so I can maybe get a laugh, and that I'm a better person if I stop thinking of rape as joke material.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 6:36 PM on February 2, 2011 [12 favorites]

jsturgill : You believe that the critics of PA in this case represent a class of people who are acting as though they are "entitled to recompense" and think they deserve to go through life without ever being offended by anything.

Serious question - If PA briefly apologized (nothing flowery, just "sorry for our insensitivity guys"), and agreed to drop the whole matter - But refused to make any form of reparation or pull the original strip or anything like that...

Do you believe their critics would just nod contentedly and go away?

obiwanwasabi : Sorry - that wasn't my intention, and I won't tell those sorts of jokes around you again.

Now replace "those sorts of jokes" with every single special interest group you can imagine, and "around you again" with "on a website you voluntarily visited in the first place".
posted by pla at 6:39 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

they were accused of supporting rape

Where?

Here's the original Shakesville post. I don't see where it says anyone was accused of supporting rape.
posted by KathrynT at 6:40 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I admit I still like my Andrew Jackson logo shirt, and I still find him to be an interesting figure, but because I'm a white guy, I never really had to consider his actions in any context other than in a detached, historical perspective.

Unless your friend is two hundred years old, neither did she.

Someone upthread talked about how our legal system says that if someone's harmed, they're entitled to recompense. That's not how it works. Compensation requires that you draw a reasonable link between the harm you claim to have suffered and the action you claimed caused it. So, yes, people do have to "justify" their claims. If you look at the initial Penny Arcade strip and say that caused you harm, bully for you. That's not reasonable, any more than it would be to call me out for using the word "bully" because you were bullied fifteen years ago. And when you start attacking the Penny Arcade guys for doing that strip, on the basis of nothing but that strip - in the Shakesville post alone, look at the "Label: Today in Rape Culture", the "Rape is Hilarious, Part 5" title, the babble about "revictimization" claiming this strip re-rapes rape victims, the repeated comments about how this is trivializing rape and making light of rape and how dare people say "rape" as a term describing an extreme and unpleasant violation that wasn't actually a person being physically raped - you don't have credibility in that claim.
posted by kafziel at 6:42 PM on February 2, 2011

You know what - i've thought about it - and here's another addition

screw apologies, fix the behavior instead

I tell my students (12 and 13 year olds) to not apologise to me. That apologies in that situation basically mean 'shut up, stop lecturing me.'

I don't want an apology - i want a dedication to them NOT being dicks when confronted for offensive behavior. I want a change in behavior.
posted by Fuka at 6:44 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Here's the original Shakesville post. I don't see where it says anyone was accused of supporting rape.

See above.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:47 PM on February 2, 2011

they were accused of supporting rape

Where?

And make no mistake: Someone who defends rape jokes, which are the the primary means by which rape is normalized and its gravity diminished to make rape acceptable ... is indeed a rape apologist.
posted by Sebmojo at 6:48 PM on February 2, 2011

TypographicalError: I apologize, that wasn't my intention and I certainly don't think arguments by analogy are bankrupt; after all, I made one. Arguments by analogy can summarize and illuminate, but they can't stand in for the whole at all points, and it seemed to me that we'd reached a point where talking about that specific analogy did not translate to the actuality. I did not mean to shut off avenues of conversation and I apologize for doing so.

ChurchHatesTucker: I take people seriously to start with, so they don't have anything to prove to me. I understand that your value system is different.
posted by Errant at 6:51 PM on February 2, 2011

'The Silencing Tropes of Rape Apologia' had a couple of good singles back in the '90s but their later stuff was way too commercial.
posted by Sebmojo at 6:53 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Serious question - If PA briefly apologized (nothing flowery, just "sorry for our insensitivity guys"), and agreed to drop the whole matter - But refused to make any form of reparation or pull the original strip or anything like that...

Do you believe their critics would just nod contentedly and go away?

It's several months too late for that course of action. But if we want to engage in counterfactual thinking, then yes, I believe there is an extremely high probability that is what would have happened had they made a sincere and thoughtful statement about the reaction from the beginning. It wouldn't even be old news by now. No one (or very few) would remember it or care much at all.
posted by jsturgill at 6:55 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Here's the original Shakesville post. I don't see where it says anyone was accused of supporting rape.

"Rape is Hilarious, Part 53 in an Ongoing Series"
"The problem is, I just don't find rape funny."
suggesting that Gabe and Tycho find the concept of rape, in and of itself, to be funny.

"Because rape survivors exist among us, and after being victimized by rapists, they are revictimized by a society that treats even real rape like a joke, forced to live in a culture that actually has a lot of rape jokes, including those about rape victims being actively denied justice for no other reason than because people don't take rape seriously."
saying that this is what Gabe and Tycho are doing.

"Labels: Today in Rape Culture"
We've been over what "rape culture" might or might not mean to the layperson, but even the academic meaning is accusing the strip of "condon[ing], normaliz[ing], excus[ing], or encourag[ing] sexualized violence."

"This is why I'm a humorless feminist. Because rape jokes killed my sense of humor."
Part of the repeated insistence throughout the post that this was a rape joke, a joke about how rape is funny.

And then there's the comments. Most pointedly:
"It's a cheap, easy shot to make for someone in the gamer community to make, but I had hoped that Tycho and Gabe were better than that. I really don't think they even thought about it in this context, which is why I sent them an e-mail; unlike many sources of rape apologia I find, in this case I have high hopes that the source may respond favorably to communication."
Emphasis mine. Calling the strip rape apologia, and the creators rape apologists? If that's not accusing them of supporting rape, what is?
posted by kafziel at 6:58 PM on February 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Someone upthread talked about how our legal system says that if someone's harmed, they're entitled to recompense. That's not how it works. Compensation requires that you draw a reasonable link between the harm you claim to have suffered and the action you claimed caused it. So, yes, people do have to "justify" their claims.

No, they don't. Criticism is not law. You do not need to pass a test to set up a blog and share your opinions. People trying to use a legal framework in this discussion are off base. People trying to make a boogie man out of the PA critics by claiming they are a cabal trying to write legislation to control people's thoughts aren't even off base. They're playing a different sport entirely, in a galaxy far, far away.
posted by jsturgill at 7:03 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Still more good points made here, all the way through. I spent like 5 hours on this damn thread today.

The reason I brought up the First Amendment was to say that Freedom of speech includes a responsibility to be offended. I have it. You have it. When I'm offended, I try to remember to be psyched about the freedom, not just when I'm the one with something to say. There's a sort of transcendent unity.

Doing that makes this discourse unnecessary.
(and no, a-hole, I'm not saying you should be censored for your response to what offends you-- fuckin' christ.. read it again. those offended by your response need to keep the same thing in mind, etc.)

'night
posted by herbplarfegan at 7:18 PM on February 2, 2011

Someone upthread talked about how our legal system says that if someone's harmed, they're entitled to recompense. That's not how it works.

That's largely true.

No, they don't. Criticism is not law. You do not need to pass a test to set up a blog and share your opinions.

That's also largely true.

Discuss.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:23 PM on February 2, 2011

herbplarfegan: "The reason I brought up the First Amendment was to say that Freedom of speech includes a responsibility to be offended. I have it. You have it. When I'm offended, I try to remember to be psyched about the freedom, not just when I'm the one with something to say. There's a sort of transcendent unity.

Doing that makes this discourse unnecessary."

But there is also the terrible fact that freedom of speech isn't free of consequences, right? Offended or not, people can and will disagree. That's a facet of that particular freedom that I think needs to be reinforced -- not by you as an individual, but in by everyone in general.
posted by boo_radley at 7:41 PM on February 2, 2011

Discuss.

Well it's interesting, right? If you believe in free speech then you have to sort of believe in both people's right to say offensive bullshit and also people's right to say "I am offended." If you just cut it off at people's right to say offensive shit and try to shame and badger people into not talking about the things they want to talk about in response, well, that's not real free-speecherly of you.

We deal with this in libraries all the time, public libraries where free speech is actually a guiding principle and not just a good idea. We're anti-censorship as a value [most of us, I know there are exceptions] and this means letting totally reprehensible people say whatever, sometime. But, letting people talk doesn't mean not also saying that you think they're reprehensible, or whatever. It just means people get the same rights to talk as other people, and equal access to space to say their stuff that isn't based on what they're saying.

And people often talk about how, in the US, there's a "freer speech" opportunity afforded to the people who own the means of production, the media, the private spaces that so many people inhabit, the airwaves. That, even though both Rupert Murdoch and I can stand on the town common [I really have one of these in my town] and howl about the government, only he can then put his howlings in hundreds of newspapers across the nation [and yeah technically that's freedom of the press, but it's all bundled in the delightful bill of rights]. So, you have to ask yourself whether you believe in equality as the underpinning of all this, or rights to expression, or just access to platforms or what have you and then think on how that affects what you think people should be able to say or not say, do or not do.

So, Penny Arcade had a platform, they made some jokes and made some t-shirts, some people didn't like them, and a weird rage campaign started. I'm one of those "with great power comes great responsibility" people and I guess I was hoping for better. Disappointed but not surprised at the larger internet freakout. Disappointed at the rape jokes I had to delete from this thread. Didn't think "Oh I wish I ruled the world so I could make people not say that sort of thing" because here at MeFi, I do. We take proactive steps to manage the community here in different ways than the Penny Arcade folks do, we're a different community. But I hope people can see that both of these sites are communities who prioritize different things and make different choices. I know that's sort of namby pamby of me but honestly, I like it here. Other people can like it there and it doesn't mean I'll think they're in bed with rape apologists because I just don't think that way. Neither of us is the government telling you what to say.

The PA guys and everyone else wrapped up in this, for the most part, are people who made choices and I don't have to buy their t-shirts or even like them. That doesn't mean it's not germane or interesting to talk about why you might like or not like them or even how this sort of thing ties in with the sort of things you studied in school.

Now replace "those sorts of jokes" with every single special interest group you can imagine, and "around you again" with "on a website you voluntarily visited in the first place".

I do not find this sort of thing difficult in my personal life at all. I really like people and I like to try to get along with them. If you don't care what people think about you, you can usually get by saying a lot more like whatever you want. It's just wanting to say whatever you want AND not having people be pissed off about it that's not necessarily something you get if you want to interact in society. Choices, it's all choices.
posted by jessamyn at 7:42 PM on February 2, 2011 [39 favorites]

I will preface this by saying I do not regularly read this comic strip. It's less that I'm not a fan than it is that it's about a subculture that is without interest for me. I know a number of people who read it, and all of them are gamers. I know many more people who don't read it, and most of them are not gamers. I have read it and not laughed, but I accept that it might be really funny if I were all about some games, which I am not, so I just don't know. So this isn't about the quality of Penny Arcade; I don't speak its language, so I can't judge.

These guys are acting like jerks about this, but that's not so bad, really; people act like jerks about stuff all the time. What is bad is that they're very influential within their subculture, and it's a subculture around which circle all sorts of unlovely stereotypes -- lack of social skills, lack of empathy, sexist proclivities -- all of which they are unintentionally reinforcing by acting like jerks. They're not getting that when you piss a person off intentionally, like because that person's a jerk, you've succeeded...but when you piss a person off accidentally, a person cool enough to visit your site and read your comic strip because they enjoy your work, you have not succeeded. If the only reason you're giving that person shit is because they failed to enjoy your comic strip, the asshole here is you. A better thing to do (with apologies to empath) might be to say something like:

"Wow, I am so sorry that when you innocently visited our comic strip about video games yesterday morning in hopes of a small smile before work or during your lunch break, our comic decided it would be awesome to shit in your hair and kick you in the chest. You have to understand -- we're coming at this from the perspective of guys whose lives are generally pretty awesome, and who have pretty much zero chance of getting raped. It's more of an abstract notion w/r/t something that's kinda grievous for us than it is a thing, like, in the real world, and we kinda didn't think about how people to whom this is a little more of a real deal might not think rape jokes were funny. More to the point, we would never have thought that even a person who had been raped would take this so much to heart, because ultimately, we're talking about goofing on World of Warcraft here. To be honest, I'm still kind of stunned that anyone would find a line about a 'dickwolf' a trigger for PTSD, because it's...well, it's a dickwolf, c'mon. To me, that's ridiculous. But I have to take a step back and see that, for someone else, maybe it's not. I don't know how it's not. I seriously can't see it at all. But you know what? I guess that makes me kind of lucky, because part of why it seems ridiculous to me is I don't have a context for it. And that's a good thing. For me, I mean. Part of me is frustrated by the whole thing, because I don't want to have to walk on egg shells or sit down to write and have to worry about people will take it. I'm not fucking Oprah Winfrey over here. We can't work like that, and I hope you don't expect that. I can't promise you our strip will never piss you off again. I can't promise it'll never hurt your feelings again. But I can say that it's not our intent to shit on people who read the strip, and I'm sorry it did that to you."
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:44 PM on February 2, 2011 [12 favorites]

I already linked to Leigh Alexander upthread, but I think the longer piece from her personal blog is worth a read as well. It's a calm, measured, and largely empathetic response.
posted by danb at 8:00 PM on February 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

These guys are acting like jerks about this, but that's not so bad, really; people act like jerks about stuff all the time. What is bad is that they're very influential within their subculture, and it's a subculture around which circle all sorts of unlovely stereotypes...

I know. What was Shakes thinking?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:18 PM on February 2, 2011

Now replace "those sorts of jokes" with every single special interest group you can imagine, and "around you again" with "on a website you voluntarily visited in the first place".

Why does there need to be a slippery slope? Why can't I consider issues on a case by case basis and make a personal decision about whether I'm going to make jokes about them from now on? The Pope? Fair game. Priests sexually abusing children? No.

People might not agree with some of my decisions, but we can discuss those differences, and having explained why I think it's OK to make a joke about something (or not) and hearing a contrary view, I might even change my mind, as I did today. "I hadn't thought about it that way," I might say, or "No, I'm actually quite sure I can make jokes about stereotypical cannibals and still be a good person." Surely it has to be better to act according to considered, defended, nuanced maxims rather than 'nuh uh, I can say whatever I want whenever, so there.'
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:21 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

danb: "I already linked to Leigh Alexander upthread, but I think the longer piece from her personal blog is worth a read as well. It's a calm, measured, and largely empathetic response"

be sure to read some of the stuff she wrote in formspring too.
posted by boo_radley at 8:24 PM on February 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I know. What was Shakes thinking?

I actually have no idea how this pertains to what I was saying, probably because it doesn't.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:25 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Though it's actually directly related to the other rape-related discussion (the taxpayer-funded abortion issue), Kristen Schaal's bit on the Daily Show tonight seems at least somewhat relevant to the issues being discussed here.
posted by nickgb at 8:28 PM on February 2, 2011

Leigh Alexander is one of the best games writers out there, and that piece is dead on. I'm now curious of Rock Paper Shotgun is going to weigh in.
posted by empath at 8:43 PM on February 2, 2011

[This crowd] feels hurt. That means they are hurt, unless one wishes to accuse them of lying. [...] It’s sort of like if I accidentally elbowed you on the train

The anguish is very real, you keen-armed clod, but (and what a happy coincidence) it is palliated somewhat by my professional interest in "Elbow Culture.” “But what is an Elbow Culture, kid ichorous?” you ask as your eyes go dead.
posted by kid ichorous at 9:21 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you believe that study of trauma palliates your personal trauma, I envy you beyond description.
posted by Errant at 9:29 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I actually have no idea how this pertains to what I was saying, probably because it doesn't.

That's the crux of he problem.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:37 PM on February 2, 2011

Look, I don't like rape jokes, but Greek vases offer far more fanciful treatments of rape than that comic. To put it more directly, what I believe is that proselytizers will proselytize, and that claims of individual hurt feelings induced by this rather limp imagery are somewhat thrown into question by an outrage machine that guns for the front page of Jezebel at all cost.
posted by kid ichorous at 9:39 PM on February 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

And yet after 782 comments, there's not a single Jezebel link in this entire thread and you're the first person who mentioned that site.
posted by jessamyn at 9:45 PM on February 2, 2011 [19 favorites]

I missed the Leigh Alexander stuff. Thanks to all who kept calling it out, because it's a wonderful, measured response. Especially this bit:

The joke doesn't offend me, but the idea that what people wear or don't wear at PAX is going to create some sinister delineation between people who were hurt and people who weren't creeps me out.

Pretty well sums up the poison pill that Gabe and Tycho unwittingly created for their own video game con. You done good on the booth babe issue, but then you went and created and profited from a blazing TEAM LEARN EMPATHY versus TEAM GET OVER YOURSELF controversy that is going to shroud a gathering that should be about enjoying games and bringing people of varying backgrounds together under one umbrella.

Given that that community does damn near zippo to address earnestly the racism and sexism and homophobia that pervade its culture, other than to go all BOYS WILL BE BOYS about the Xbox Live douchebags and what have you, that makes this missed opportunity pretty goddamn tragic.

So now victims of rape who are familiar with the controversy might attend, wanting nothing more than to play some games and see some awesome things, hoping that this will not be a THING, and they will probably be regularly confronted with a visual FUCK YOU, YOU ARE OVERSENSITIVE, WHAT ARE YOU, SOME KIND OF FAG t-shirt everywhere they go. And they will not try to engage the people wearing those shirts, because why should they? You're wearing a shirt that tells me to fuck off if I don't agree with your position.

So let's take the issues of morality and empathy and being a human being and throw that shit on the fire, and let's discuss this: you run a high-profile charity and a convention that's grown so big you had to split it in two. And you're going to put the reputation of all that at risk so you can...troll rape victims? Defend your "first amendment rights" to make rape jokes? Do you not get the concept of branding?
posted by middleclasstool at 9:48 PM on February 2, 2011 [11 favorites]

Forget Jezebel, I can't believe we seven hundred and eighty some comments about rape without a metatalk thread. Is that a first?
posted by neuromodulator at 9:59 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

did i just jinx it?
posted by neuromodulator at 10:00 PM on February 2, 2011

Forget Jezebel, I can't believe we seven hundred and eighty some comments about rape without a metatalk thread. Is that a first?

To be fair, I think all three mods have been nursing this thread through its most dangerous hours. It turned out much better than I would have thought, in terms of exchange of ideas and differing perspectives without any total flameouts. But man. I want to hug all three of them for the stress that it must have brought.
posted by verb at 10:07 PM on February 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

I do want to add one thing (one more thing?): Penny Arcade as an entity, and Jerry and Mike specifically, have taken great pains to divorce Child's Play from the webcomic, precisely because they don't want Child's Play to be associated with dick jokes and controversy. Regardless of how anyone feels about the comic, I think it's worthwhile to honor that separation.
posted by Errant at 10:10 PM on February 2, 2011

Considering the context, the gratuitous overuse of the words 'fuck' and 'asshole' in this thread, and the emphatic or contemptible connotations they are apparently meant to convey, are a far more depressing example of rape normalization than the original comic strip.

From where I'm sitting both Penny Arcade and Shakesville are engaged in a mixture of trolling and internet turf warz, and almost everyone seems to be far more interested in aggressively defending their well-established positions than showing sensitivity towards rape victims. The discussion resembles one of those trading card games: 'I'm using Feigned Outrage for +10 points. 'Hmm...well I neutralize it with Oh No you Didn't.' 'Not so fast - I also have Begging the Question which doubles the effect of any derail.'

The thread is so long and so bitter because most of the posts are coming from the same people on both sides who all know this game really well and enjoy themselves a good anger rush. It's probably a foolish suggestion, but I propose that the next time the subject of rape arises in a Metafilter thread, regular passionate commenters abstain from restating their strongly held feelings about the subject for the nth time. Alternatively, not taking the bait is usually a safe bet.
posted by anigbrowl at 10:13 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

So, I'm in the (small?) group that found the original comic funny but finds the subsequent behavior and the t-shirt absolutely reprehensible and unconscionable, and I thought of another way to explain it:

The people who are wearing the t-shirts and gleefully seeking out the opportunity to mention "Dickwolves" or some other facet of the controversy as frequently as possible as a way of needling others who are of the opposing opinion are behaving and taking the issue exactly as lightly as a Yankees fan who lives in Red Sox Nation prominently wearing Yankees gear and taking the opportunity to mention and hint at and joke about Yankees victories and Red Sox losses all the time.

But they aren't making constant, omnipresent jabs and digs at someone who has suffered so pedestrian a humiliation as their favorite sports team losing - they are digging and jabbing and needling some people, at least, whose lives were destroyed by rape.

And so when you wear a Dickwolves T and cheer at Gabe making snarky dismissals of the issue, you aren't simply conveying that you take the issue of rape as lightly as you would a Yankees-Red Sox sports fandom tussle, (at the very least some aspect of the issue of rape, let's not pretend that this is confined to a rarefied intellectual point solely concerning webcomics or MMORPGs) you are also encouraging others to take it that lightly. (Probably including a bunch of adolescent males, who may in this environment be looking up to people they see as having established some of the legitimacy that video gaming has today versus a decade or two ago.) The latter thing is what is meant by "perpetuating rape culture."

Let me be the first to agree that the very concept of a "Dickwolf" is hilarious. But funny does not mean harmless.

And it's not even an ironclad rule to "do no harm with your humor", there are definitely occasions when potential harm from a joke is abstract, remote, and theoretical enough that it can be disregarded - but in this case the harm is by no means theoretical and is not abstract or remote.

I am not actually a baseball or sports fan at all so if any of the above does not make sense my apologies.
posted by XMLicious at 10:30 PM on February 2, 2011 [16 favorites]

jsturgill: Someone upthread talked about how our legal system says that if someone's harmed, they're entitled to recompense. That's not how it works. Compensation requires that you draw a reasonable link between the harm you claim to have suffered and the action you claimed caused it.

Cool story, bro. Has nothing to do with my post, but shine on, you crazy diamond.

kafziel: Unless your friend is two hundred years old, neither did she.

You're either drunk or trolling, because this makes no sense.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:31 PM on February 2, 2011

Considering the context, the gratuitous overuse of the words 'fuck' and 'asshole' in this thread, and the emphatic or contemptible connotations they are apparently meant to convey, are a far more depressing example of rape normalization than the original comic strip.

"Fuck" does not always denote coitus (and certainly it does not always denote forcible coitus) any more than "shit" always denotes feces or "damn" always denotes perdition. Part of the whole concept of profanity is that words are used for their emotional connotation rather than for their literal denotation.

It's probably a foolish suggestion, but I propose that the next time the subject of rape arises in a Metafilter thread, regular passionate commenters abstain from restating their strongly held feelings about the subject for the nth time.

Hahahahhhaha, oh man, I don't even know where to begin.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:31 PM on February 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Whoops, I quoted a quote for the first one, sorry jsturgill
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:32 PM on February 2, 2011

I resolve to try harder not to take the bait. I feel like I am perpetually making this resolution, but bait by its very definition is tempting.

It's just really hard for me to watch so many of you pour your hearts and minds into considering these issues and sharing personal experiences and really shining a light down into the well here -- and have that be met with loud, lazy responses that seem to come straight from the brainstem. And it seems like there are people I rarely see on the site who are drawn to threads like these, compelled to speak up and reinforce their dim vision of the status quo.

And it's not fair of me to get involved in threads like these because I can't say for sure I am participating in good faith. When I think of all my loved ones who have been, for example, raped or sexually assaulted, or who have been deliberately harmed because of their conspicuous difference from the rest of the pack, and I think about how brave and generous they are in spite of it all, I feel I owe it to them (and to myself) to attack the delusions of ignorance, privilege, or hatefulness whenever I see them. I get blinded by this and I lash out.

Like earlier, when women's comparably greater risk of being raped was pointed out, and a few people responded to that with suspicion and/or disbelief. I'm so glad other people were able to come back reasonably with statistics and clarify the matter, because frankly I had to take a walk at that point. The very real risks and hardships that so many everyday people face are invisible to a shocking amount of people. And when people come out in support of the PA crew, all I hear is "I AM NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS." That's what privilege really gets you -- the choice to have most of your interactions work only one way. People who are used to that really aren't equipped to communicate in a setting like this, but too often it's their input that winds up setting the parameters of a discussion.

In real life I am not a whiner. I am not an especially angry person, people often comment on my calmness. But over the past few years, something has changed and I just can't suffer fools the way I used to. After three decades of compulsively lowering my eyes in the face of confrontation and just meekly scuttling off, I just stopped. It's scary! But for now I am done "letting it go," online and in real life, and that's why I'll probably eventually have to stop commenting on MetaFilter.

At least there's AskMe.
posted by hermitosis at 10:52 PM on February 2, 2011 [36 favorites]

I apologize for not reading the whole thread (so there's a chance this may have been addressed) but, where do we stand on Lakers gear?
posted by DaddyNewt at 11:20 PM on February 2, 2011

But for now I am done "letting it go," online and in real life, and that's why I'll probably eventually have to stop commenting on MetaFilter.

Whether or not we agree, now, in the past, or in the future, I hope you will not stop commenting. That goes for everyone else here too.
posted by Errant at 12:08 AM on February 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

The original comic didn't bother me at all; it was pretty clearly not poking fun at rape itself, like others have pointed out, and the blogs that took offense at it totally missed the point of the strip.

I have some sympathy for the PA guys, at least at first. The accusations against them were unfair and they could be forgiven for being a little defensive about it. But they should have dropped it then and there. By pressing the issue and trolling the offended and being unnecessarily dickish about the whole thing, they decisively crossed the line into Assholetown.

In a way, it's sadly inevitable. Mike and Jerry occupy an influential yet precarious perch in a niche culture that is all too often absolutely rotten on issues like this. I can imagine they felt under tremendous pressure to maintain their reputation for edgy irreverence in front of their fans, especially when under perceived attack from outsiders. Combine with the very cutting, toxic nature of the attacks on the comic, and you've got a recipe for hotheaded, ill-advised behavior. This whole thing would have gone a lot smoother if they had the presence of mind to shut up and let the issue subside, as they claimed to know it would, rather than egg everyone on. It also would have been nice if the unfair charges of sexism and misogyny hadn't been leveled in the first place.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:59 AM on February 3, 2011 [5 favorites]

I, for one, welcome our new Dickwolf overlords.

too soon ?
posted by Pendragon at 4:35 AM on February 3, 2011

Pendragon, it's not even that that's too soon, at this point basically the entire problem is casual jokeyness about the subject, repeated and unrelenting lulz and insistence that it's no serious thang.

After having thought about it a bunch in the furor after the original comic went up, and thought about it and read this thread and various linked items, late yesterday I came up with at least one interpretation of the comic that I could see being offensive, though it's an interpretation that is somewhat alien to my mindset and not what I think the PA guys meant. There are probably other possible interpretations I haven't thought of, too. So Rhaomi, possibly some of the outraged initial charges of sexism and misogyny were the result of honestly misunderstanding the comic.

If I was to engage in arguing about the comic itself, I'd probably be on the side arguing that interpreting the comic alone as condoning or participating in rape culture is unreasonable.

But I'm not talking about that in this thread because as many have said, the damning thing has been their response and subsequent conduct. The next comic, although it still earned a chuckle from me at that point, was pretty obviously spitting in the eye of the people who objected to the first comic; these are smart guys and they knew that "you're telling people to commit rape!" was not the only possible criticism, but that was what they responded to - a direct and flip dismissal of the people who were actually making that charge, a straw man for the people with more sophisticated objections.

I didn't think much more about it after that, figuring I'd seen them deal with complicated issues intelligently in the past and after that snarky jab at their harshest critics they'd eventually work it out. But it all went down hill from there apparently.
posted by XMLicious at 5:20 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

The thread is so long and so bitter because most of the posts are coming from the same people on both sides who all know this game really well and enjoy themselves a good anger rush.

You think that people who've been raped, and people who've had to comfort and support and defend their loved ones who've been raped, are enjoying these conversations? Getting their jollies from fighting on the internet to ask for basic decency for people who've been violated? You've got a pretty crappy idea of what makes a good time. Not everyone on the internet is a troll.

Like most people, I didn't find the orginal comic all that offensive. But the t-shirts and hateful attitude afterwards is something the PA guys should be ashamed of. And all the people who cry "get over it" or "quit talking about it" every time someone says that things need to change, they need to quit claiming that they're defending free speech.
posted by harriet vane at 5:22 AM on February 3, 2011 [6 favorites]

And slowly, it has dawned on me how seemingly useless and unproductive these discussions are on the internet.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:31 AM on February 3, 2011

Yeah, sorry for my comment. I wasn't thinking.
posted by Pendragon at 5:41 AM on February 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

too soon ?

No, too public. It's not even a matter of it being too casually jokey, but being too casually jokey is an open forum filled with a number of people who will be irritated, offended or hurt by the joke, which is absolutely their right. If someone wants to do that sort of joke in there circle of five friends that will all laugh, that's fine. But you have to know your audience and be willing to accept the consequences of your statements or jokes.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:47 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

felix: This is why the neologism fails. Few rational people will go 'huh. Rape culture. I really don't understand what that means when that person called me part of that. So I guess I will go look it up on a women's studies or feminist website; or perhaps wikipedia it.'

Really? I check wikipedia and the dictionary about a dozen times a day to check or confirm my understanding of how people might use a word. Granted, my job demands it, but what you're advocating here is not only stupidity, it's intentional and willful ignorance.

And again, you're ignoring the fact that all of these criticisms happened on feminist Web sites and communities as part of an ongoing discussion of rape culture with plenty of helpful links explaining exactly what it means. Here is a hint for you, not all books, periodicals, Web sites, and discussions are going to cater to your standard of intentional and willful ignorance.

No, instead they will consult their own cultural norms and experiences to understand the terminology,...

Certainly. And what were the cultural norms and experiences of a feminist community on a feminist Web site that had previously devoted over 50 posts over the last few years years to the discussion of rape culture?

I understand that being misunderstood makes you angry, and that you would much rather have people communicate only in the language which you've chosen under the rules you've written, and that if they can't seem to do that, not only is that 'straw manning' the argument (??), but that person needs to be talked down to and merely shown the way.

Straw man.

If you're going to read Penny Arcade, you need to become familiar with how they use language.
If you're going to read Chaucer, Melville, and Austen, you need to become familiar with how they use language.
If you're going to read personal ads on Craigslist, you need to become familiar with how they use language.
If you're going to read research journals in biology, you need to become familiar with how they use language.
If you're going to read metafilter, you need to become familiar with how we use language.
If you're going to read feminist Web sites, you need to become familiar with how they use language.

Communities that have already discussed the definition of rape culture in dozens of threads have no obligation to cater to your intentional and willful ignorance.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:00 AM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

Really? I check wikipedia and the dictionary about a dozen times a day to check or confirm my understanding of how people might use a word. Granted, my job demands it, but what you're advocating here is not only stupidity, it's intentional and willful ignorance.

Really. It's great that you do this, but not everyone will. In fact the majority probably won't. You can call it intentional and willful ignorance if you like, but that's still not going to convince people to do their homework. I suspect it's just a facet of being human.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:04 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

No worries Pendragon. In most conversations and threads that type of joke would be totally appropriate even on a touchy topic, it's just that in this particular one jokey dismissiveness (jokey public dismissiveness, as Brandon rightly points out) happens to be a major mechanism of the rape culture problems that are at issue.
posted by XMLicious at 6:04 AM on February 3, 2011

OK here goes. First Metafilter comment ever.

It seems to me that there are two ways to express the feeling that someone has breached common expectations with something they did or said. The first is to say “ You did or said (something bad ) which I find unacceptable for the following reasons” and the second is to say “You did or said (something bad) so you are a (bad thing).” It also seems just as important to make sure that when someone tells you that you did or said (something bad) you don’t hear it as you are a (bad thing).
It seems like the folks at PA heard that they were a (bad thing) rather than they did (something bad) which led to their response which was something like “Oh yeah, watch this”. Which was a failure to listen I think.

As a side note I think this is the sort of thing where Metafilter can be helpful in understanding the issues and opinions on both sides of a story. The level of discussion here is light years above what I have found anywhere else and is the reason I gladly parted with 5 bucks.
posted by The Violet Cypher at 6:23 AM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

And slowly, it has dawned on me how seemingly useless and unproductive these discussions are on the internet.

Then perhaps you should go someplace where these discussions are not had and let those of us who disagree that these discussions are useless have them.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:24 AM on February 3, 2011

mrPalomar72: Point is, PA is often controversial, and any expectation that they respond to each and every criticism with kindness and/or an apology is probably unreasonable.

The only reason this issue keeps running is that the folks at PA keep stirring the shit. Had they simply not responded to the criticism, it would have blown over in 48 hours.

ChurchHatesTucker: Well, we apparently agree on the 'what they did' part. As to 'why they needed to,' they were accused of supporting rape (to some degree or other.) That is the sort of thing that tends to get a reaction.

Ok, let me try to explain this using an analogy.

I'm bisexual and out to varying degrees. In my experience, I'm the target of anti-gay jokes and invective that are directed at me. I've been the target of anti-gay discrimination. I've been targeted for (thankfully rare) violent and non-violent crime.

All of these, in my view, are connected. At least in part because the crimes and discrimination usually include double helpings of the jokes and invective. So I don't find the casual anti-gay remarks that are endemic in online games to be funny. On particularly angry days, I can't deal with them at all. Even if the people making these jokes would be horrified if it actually came to violence, their sheer abundance contributes to an environment where discrimination and violence are more likely to occur.

And this is the argument made elsewhere on metafilter regarding violent eliminationist rhetoric in American politics. There's probably no magical causal string between Palin, Beck, and the multiple cases of politically-motivated violence we've seen over the last few years. But it's not helping things either.

That is the criticism made here of the original PA strip. The criticism is not that the people at PA personally condone rape, or intentionally encouraged rape, it's that this particular strip read like the dozens of jokey rape references that's endemic in MMORPG culture. (It actually was the only explicitly stated rule of our guild.) And the cumulative effect of all of that makes many women reasonably uncomfortable.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:27 AM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

Brandon Blatcher: Really. It's great that you do this, but not everyone will. In fact the majority probably won't. You can call it intentional and willful ignorance if you like, but that's still not going to convince people to do their homework. I suspect it's just a facet of being human.

People who don't do their homework don't get the benefit of the doubt, and quickly get the banhammer if they insist on arguing with the basics.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:32 AM on February 3, 2011

People who don't do their homework don't get the benefit of the doubt, and quickly get the banhammer if they insist on arguing with the basics.

Yay, problem solved!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:50 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yay, problem solved!

You convinced me, to honor your navel-gazing idealization of ignorance, I propose the following changes to metafilter.

1: All comments should use only words from Dr. Seuss primers.
2: We should all post under the influence of drugs that inhibit the formation of long-term memory and lacking a site history of longer than 12 hours.

I look forward to saying things about Lady Gaga and the Oobleck, again, and again, and again.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:18 AM on February 3, 2011

And slowly, it has dawned on me how seemingly useless and unproductive these discussions are on the internet.

Mr. Blatcher, I don't tend to keep track of people's contributions in thread, frankly. But based on your previous statement that you think that society takes rape plenty seriously already I can't help but notice yours. Especially paired with this:

Really. It's great that you do this, but not everyone will. In fact the majority probably won't. You can call it intentional and willful ignorance if you like, but that's still not going to convince people to do their homework.

Based on what you've said in this thread, I think that's exactly what I'm going to call it.

It's just really hard for me to watch so many of you pour your hearts and minds into considering these issues and sharing personal experiences and really shining a light down into the well here -- and have that be met with loud, lazy responses that seem to come straight from the brainstem.

There's something to that. If there's anything that getting a little older and mellower has taught me, it's that there is nothing more juvenile than the insistence on whacking a hornet's nest when people that are irritated and hurt by that care a lot more than the pleasure that you get from smacking it. Listen to people. What does it hurt you to be a bit more sensitive with your word choice? To avoid saying things that open wounds? And when you've been put on notice that your words are doing so, to not just do it again, but to escalate the situation far beyond the initial somewhat innocuous triggers?

It's so easy to attempt to come up with an analogous situation to make people understand, but that is a trap in such discussions: people can then focus on "but that's not analogous!" instead of paying attention to what you're saying. So I won't do that. Instead, I will invite the reader to come up with their own analogue. Imagine that you're in a particular group of people. And someone near you at a party that's tossing out jokes that are if not dismissive of your particular group of people, actually disparaging them.

So you approach this person and say "you know, I am a bit offended by that and would prefer you not disparage my group!" Instead of stopping, this person at the party starts telling even worse jokes about your group, while his/her friends are now pointing at you, laughing, and jeering you.

Now go back to what the imaginary group is. Does it matter what the group is? Isn't this person a jerk?
posted by norm at 7:27 AM on February 3, 2011 [6 favorites]

Just out of curiosity, was anyone's mind changed or opinion reversed on this topic after reading the 800 or so comments here?
posted by notmydesk at 7:42 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

I like to believe that people are inherently good and that situations like this arise out of ignorance and not evil. I also assume that most people would rather not be ignorant, so providing them with more information is generally a good thing.

Trick is, even if you are dealing with someone who made a comment in well-meaning ignorance, there is a huge risk of things going south. Nobody like to be told they are ignorant, and well-meaning people really do not like to be confused with the evil. So there's this very fine line that needs to be walked in order to being someone happily to edification without hackles getting up.

The Internet, as a faceless whole, really can't walk that line well. There is a nuance to expression and physical conversation that just can't be copied online, bonds of relationships that cement trust that are hard to form in an anonymous environment. Even if someone is wrong, it's hard to directly tell them they are wrong without setting off a huge production where people end up entrenched in their positions and the resulting mess causes more sturm and drang than the initial ill-thought out comment.

I know that this places an unfair burden on the educator, but such is life. The ignorant person doesn't know that they're ignorant, maybe even doesn't know that they did something wrong in the first place, and suddenly someone is asking them to change their ways. Their natural tendency is going to be defensive. It sucks for the educator, but if they really do want to help create a better world and feel that the ignorant person can be educated, then it falls to them to think about the best way to do it.

Care shown in approach should, I'd like to believe, lead to care shown in consideration.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:44 AM on February 3, 2011 [5 favorites]

zarq: Gallows humor is a coping mechanism, yes. However, forcing it on victims regardless of whether they are capable of processing it as such is an incredibly shitty thing to do.

First, I should have clarified more. Using my particular family is probably a poor example because that is how we generally operate. We have dark senses of humor, and when my cousin was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor, a couple days before she went in for an operation she and her family held a party called "I'm losing my mind this week!"

As for forcing the humor upon someone, are you saying that a subject that is admittedly painful for a segment of the population should never be made light of in any way, shape or form? Of course if I knew a subject was too painful for someone I would not say these kinds of things to their faces. My nephew died a few hours after he was born several years ago. Of course I don't make dead baby jokes in front of my sister-in-law (nevermind that they are rarely funny to begin with) but at the same time, I am not going to insist that people should never make those kinds of jokes in public forums.

Was PA's response shitty? Probably. Unexpected? Hell no. Is this concept that because someone could be offended or hurt by some things one can never make any sort of humor or comedy based them a good thing? Good lord no.

Ues I completely expected people to say that exact kind of response, and frankly, there are ALWAYS going to be trigger situations in life, and one of the ways that victims and PTSD sufferers recover is learning to find ways to deal with these triggers. I am never in favor of any sort of implied censorship, no matter whether I disagree or not. You don't like it? Say so, and jsut stop watching/reading/listening.
posted by Leth at 7:49 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

notmydesk: This thread specifically, no. Other threads like this on MeFi and MeTa over the years, yeah.
posted by ODiV at 7:57 AM on February 3, 2011

Mr. Blatcher, I don't tend to keep track of people's contributions in thread, frankly. But based on your previous statement that you think that society takes rape plenty seriously already I can't help but notice yours.

It was more than one statement and it was more fleshed out than you're presenting.

You convinced me, to honor your navel-gazing idealization of ignorance...

I don't see any point in having a discussion with you. You insist that things have to be like this and if someone says things are like that, then they're being willfully ignorant. From the starting gate, the conversation has already degraded, IMO, into a contest of wills against a human brick wall. There's not much point in further communication, you know.

So, "Yay, problem solved!"
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:57 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

You don't like it? Say so, and jsut stop watching/reading/listening.

That's exactly what lots of PA critics have been doing, and it's earned some of them additional harassment.

Also, "say your piece and then just tune out any and all response to it" seems to be reflect a divide in the way different people communicate. Because that's EXACTLY the tactic employed by a lot of the PA supporters in this thread, if you hadn't noticed. As if wanting to explore the issue through actual dialogue, to hear AND be heard, to thoroughly pick apart the problem, the is only the provenance of weak, oversensitive killjoys.

Sorry, but that's just not how everyone communicates their hurt/anger/dismay.
posted by hermitosis at 8:03 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

Just out of curiosity, was anyone's mind changed or opinion reversed on this topic after reading the 800 or so comments here?

Mine was sort of changed near the beginning of the thread. Although appreciative of the need for sensitivity in rape issues, (due in great part, like ODiV, to other MeFi and MeTa threads over the years) I was hesitantly inclined to try arguing that the original comic was, although tasteless, not conducive of rape or rape culture. I still might make that argument on some other occasion but XQUZYPHYR's comment lined up the overall issue for me: that debate over the original comic is immaterial because it's PA's response to the whole thing that effectively condones rape culture, and that they pretty much passed ne plus ultra when they made and started selling a "Team Dickwolves" t-shirt.
posted by XMLicious at 8:07 AM on February 3, 2011

hermitosis: "It's just really hard for me to watch so many of you pour your hearts and minds into considering these issues and sharing personal experiences and really shining a light down into the well here -- and have that be met with loud, lazy responses that seem to come straight from the brainstem. And it seems like there are people I rarely see on the site who are drawn to threads like these, compelled to speak up and reinforce their dim vision of the status quo.

And it's not fair of me to get involved in threads like these because I can't say for sure I am participating in good faith. When I think of all my loved ones who have been, for example, raped or sexually assaulted, or who have been deliberately harmed because of their conspicuous difference from the rest of the pack, and I think about how brave and generous they are in spite of it all, I feel I owe it to them (and to myself) to attack the delusions of ignorance, privilege, or hatefulness whenever I see them. I get blinded by this and I lash out.

Like earlier, when women's comparably greater risk of being raped was pointed out, and a few people responded to that with suspicion and/or disbelief. I'm so glad other people were able to come back reasonably with statistics and clarify the matter, because frankly I had to take a walk at that point. The very real risks and hardships that so many everyday people face are invisible to a shocking amount of people. And when people come out in support of the PA crew, all I hear is "I AM NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS." That's what privilege really gets you -- the choice to have most of your interactions work only one way. People who are used to that really aren't equipped to communicate in a setting like this, but too often it's their input that winds up setting the parameters of a discussion."

In her day, Andrea Dworkin wrote extensively about male privilege and the ways women were traditionally silenced by society and circumstance when they had been victims of assault, battery, rape or molestation. She pointed out that the culture of the 60's and 70's forced women, as second-class citizens on those issues both economically and legally, into maintaining a "respectful" silence. White and black rape victims in those years were often accused of racism, despite the fact that most rapes being committed had been shown in studies to be intraracial. They were also commonly accused of lying for monetary gain.

Back then, shame featured prominently in the way rape victims were treated. It still does. And to expand Dworkin's points so they apply to both sexes, by outing themselves, male rape victims may believe that they are declaring to the world that they weren't man enough to prevent being sexually assaulted. Male and female rape victims have historically been told that being raped was their fault, for the way they dressed or acted. Since no one asks to be raped because by definition that wouldn't be rape, if the alleged victim could be shown to have asked for it, that would render their accusation baseless.

A lot has changed since then. And yet it hasn't. We say that the Metafilter community does threads on this topic well, and by and large I think we do. Yet you're right: threads about rape regularly feature a variety of dismissive, silencing tactics, which may inadvertently play into normal psychological "aftermath" responses by the victim to their rape. They range from disdainful comments like the 'oh, people love to be offended. they should just let it go already' tone voiced by some throughout this thread. Or this specific comment made in a thread on MeFi back in 2009: "Now on the tails side of the coin, there are ladies that dress like (to put in bluntly) sluts. Low cut shirt with plenty of cleavage, shorts showing off legs, and makeup... whole 9 yards. It's almost like looking for trouble." No, I'm not linking to it. The subtext (and it's not so underlying,) is that rape victims should shut up.

In real life I am not a whiner. I am not an especially angry person, people often comment on my calmness. But over the past few years, something has changed and I just can't suffer fools the way I used to. After three decades of compulsively lowering my eyes in the face of confrontation and just meekly scuttling off, I just stopped. It's scary! But for now I am done "letting it go," online and in real life, and that's why I'll probably eventually have to stop commenting on MetaFilter.

hermitosis, I do think you participate in good faith. You speak from the heart. A lot of us do.

You're right. Some folks do want to reinforce a particularly damaging status quo. But one of the things I personally appreciate about this place is that people are willing to speak their minds and can do so eloquently -- especially on this topic. I'm happy you're not meekly scuttling off and letting it go. No one should be allowed to silence anyone else through shame -- especially on this topic.

And speaking of shame, in recent months, someone in Meta suggested that to be taken seriously, rape victims should have to announce they were raped to the group in a sort of public testimonial litmus test, or else not be taken seriously. BUT the ensuing conversation (and apology) was interesting and kinda gratifying. It's not all negative, you see. And sometimes, speaking out against silencing/dismissive/shaming tactics -- even inadvertent ones -- does work.

I hope you'll continue to speak up.
posted by zarq at 8:08 AM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

But they aren't making constant, omnipresent jabs and digs at someone who has suffered so pedestrian a humiliation as their favorite sports team losing - they are digging and jabbing and needling some people, at least, whose lives were destroyed by rape.

I really dislike this trope, "destroyed by rape." Destruction is a terminal event, the actual definition of destroy being "to put an end to; extinguish." We shouldn't understate what a life-changing horrible thing it is, but "destroyed" writes someone off and plays into the "damaged goods" mentality that heaps on the harm already perpetrated on a rape victim. Someone's life didn't get raped, a person did, and the result of that violence will have differing results.

I don't think it's up to the rest of us to make a judgement about whether a life was "destroyed." I'm not comfortable using that description even for someone like Bill who was victimized and hurt by his assault so much that it eventually drove him to take his own life.

Despite his wounds and the weight of his sorrows he contributed greatly to the world in dozens of ways. He touched people even in his last writings. He crumble into nothing after his assault, and how he processed it and communicated to us in the years that followed is having a lasting positive effect. Not the fact of his assault, but him. He wasn't extinguished, he was changed. Changed in a way that robbed him of so much, but still - not destroyed.
posted by phearlez at 8:12 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

Just out of curiosity, was anyone's mind changed or opinion reversed on this topic after reading the 800 or so comments here?

I don't know that any of my conclusions would be any different but I feel like my understanding of certain perspectives has been somewhat expanded. I guess everyone can make their own minds up about whether that a good enough justification for the effort.
posted by phearlez at 8:20 AM on February 3, 2011

The criticism is not that the people at PA personally condone rape, or intentionally encouraged rape, it's that this particular strip read like the dozens of jokey rape references that's endemic in MMORPG culture.

I don't think that's true, though. As I said above, the whole point of the joke is that it's a terrible fate. If it had been, say, a joke about 'unlocking the rape achievement' then the criticism might be justified.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:26 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

I don't think it's up to the rest of us to make a judgement about whether a life was 'destroyed.'

I didn't mean to convey that all victims of rape automatically have their lives destroyed, I was just trying to say that it is statistically probable that some of the people being relentlessly needled are individuals who would qualify as having had their lives destroyed by rape, i.e. who experienced severe disruption and breakdowns across many facets of their life due to a rape. (Possibly some vocal critics, possibly some members of the PA community who have been silent through this whole thing.)

Certainly, you present persuasive reasoning for not using that phrase all the time or as the default description of someone who has been raped.
posted by XMLicious at 8:28 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Brandon Blatcher, you've continued to insist that rape culture is an unreasonably specialized and opaque term. I don't know why you continue to insist that as though it is a self-evident fact. It appears as though every single person in this conversation, including yourself, is well aware of what that term means. If they didn't know at the beginning, they knew... oh, what? Three comments later? There is not a single example of that term impeding this conversation, but you keep throwing up hypothetical objections to it. In every thread on every site that I've read regarding this particular chain of events, rape culture has either not appeared as a term or has been clearly understood by all involved.

So I continue to fail to see how the term is a problem. In a more general, abstract thread about "How to talk about feminism to laypersons?" then you might very well have a good point. Within the context of this conversation, and all other conversations on the same topic linked to in the OP's timeline, those concerns are demonstrably unfounded.

You said previously that it is slowly dawning on you that conversations like this are meaningless and accomplish nothing. Someone else asked, in a similar vein:

Just out of curiosity, was anyone's mind changed or opinion reversed on this topic after reading the 800 or so comments here?

Of course minds and opinions were changed. Of course these conversations accomplish a lot. I read every post on the timeline linked by the OP, including most of the comment threads on every post, and every single comment made here on MetaFilter. I've learned a ton about how different people communicate and react to offensive ideas and perceived attacks from outsiders. I've heard amazing personal anecdotes that provide real human faces to what are, as a white male, generally abstract concerns in my life. And I've developed sharper, more precise understandings of what I personally find offensive and why.

This conversation has, if nothing else, given me lots of tools that will help me in real life if I ever feel like a joke or statement is off color enough to warrant a comment or--alternately--if an attack on a joke or comment is off base enough to warrant my defense of the joke or comment. The thread has gone stunningly well, and almost all late-game shallow commentary comes from people who--if I can presume to make a presumption--appear not to have read the entire thread, much less the entirety of the debacle that sparked the thread, and thus have learned nothing from it. I'm assuming that I am not alone, and there are at least a handful of other people here who have come away from the thread with more than they brought to it.
posted by jsturgill at 8:32 AM on February 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

(On the "lives were destroyed by rape" thing again, maybe to be clearer, I realized that what I was really trying to say was, "Imagine the worst story of a rape survivor you possibly can. A person like that may potentially be watching you wave your Dickwolves pennant and listening to you mention Dickwolves at every chance you get.")
posted by XMLicious at 8:35 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

"I don't think it's up to the rest of us to make a judgement about whether a life was 'destroyed.'"

How about when people say that they were severely affected by a traumatic event other than 9/11 we listen to them, that'd be a nice change.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:36 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

Brandon Blatcher, you've continued to insist that rape culture is an unreasonably specialized and opaque term.

What are you talking about?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:38 AM on February 3, 2011

How about when people say that they were severely affected by a traumatic event other than 9/11 we listen to them, that'd be a nice change.

Okay. When they insist that instead of them trying to treat and move past that trauma, they prefer to define themselves primarily as a victim, so the entire world needs to walk on eggshells around them forever lest someone set them off ... can we stop listening to them?
posted by kafziel at 8:46 AM on February 3, 2011

It wasn't my intention to pick on you XMLicious - I think it's pretty clear in your usage what you meant to convey. I just have a bee in my bonnet about the use of "destroyed" when we talk about things that impact people. I share the drive to make sure we accurately convey just how deep this wound is, I just don't want to throw on other implications and insinuations.
posted by phearlez at 8:48 AM on February 3, 2011

Okay. When they insist that instead of them trying to treat and move past that trauma, they prefer to define themselves primarily as a victim, so the entire world needs to walk on eggshells around them forever lest someone set them off ... can we stop listening to them?

Sure, if you want to see things that way and do that, go right ahead. And there is a WORLD of difference between "stop listening to them" and "sell merchandise branded with what they objected to" and "engage them over months in heckling behavior." Seriously.
posted by lriG rorriM at 8:57 AM on February 3, 2011 [9 favorites]

Also, kafziel, there's a pretty clear assumption in your comment, that I'd like to address.

Someone can be treated and "move past that trauma" as you put it, AND maybe they still define themselves as a victim. I personally prefer to avoid "victim" language in talking about myself. That's part of how I cope, and it's the way that seems best and most natural for me. Other people do not have the same preferences. That doesn't mean that they haven't been working on their own stuff, or that the bad things that happened to them should be trivialized. They just have a different way of approaching it than you would, or than I do. If you don't want to engage with those folks, that's fine. But listening with compassion and trying to understand why and how these people are unhappy isn't the same thing as "walking on eggshells" either.
posted by lriG rorriM at 9:03 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

I just have a bee in my bonnet about the use of "destroyed" when we talk about things that impact people. I share the drive to make sure we accurately convey just how deep this wound is, I just don't want to throw on other implications and insinuations.

I have the same objection to the term "rape survivor", in contrast to terms like "cancer survivor". You "survive" cancer, because cancer can be a fatal illness. You don't "survive" rape.
posted by kafziel at 9:09 AM on February 3, 2011

ChurchHatesTucker, no one is arguing that the original strip intentionally had those effects. Personally, I wish they'd chosen something along the lines of "at night, the dickwolves come". I explicitly support their right to use whatever words they want, with the understanding that I have an equal right to do the same in response.

Unfortunately, they chose to include a word that causes a percentage of their audience to recall a terrible fate that happened to them personally. I don't judge the PA guys for that. I really don't. I accidentally stick my foot in my mouth fairly regularly in my life.

When that happens, I regard it as a mistake on my part. I believe it's my duty as a good person to take that "you hurt my feelings" statement at face value, assume good intentions on the part of the other party, and do what I can to make amends. I don't think the strip, once created, should have been pulled. But an actual apology should have been made. As it was said up-thread, being a nice person doesn't make me a loser.

What I would not do was mock the folks I'd hurt in various ways, dis-invite them from an event I was planning, and then announce that I'd attend that event wearing one of the shirts I made to commemorate the episode.
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 9:09 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

Unfortunately, they chose to include a word that causes a percentage of their audience to recall a terrible fate that happened to them personally.

So we shouldn't mention 'rape' at all? That seems oddly regressive to me.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:14 AM on February 3, 2011

(Emphasis is mine)

sur·vive (sr-vv)
v. sur·vived, sur·viv·ing, sur·vives
v.intr.
1. To remain alive or in existence.
2. To carry on despite hardships or trauma; persevere: families that were surviving in tents after the flood.
3. To remain functional or usable: I dropped the radio, but it survived.
v.tr.
1. To live longer than; outlive: She survived her husband by five years.
2. To live, persist, or remain usable through: plants that can survive frosts; a clock that survived a fall.
3. To cope with (a trauma or setback); persevere after: survived child abuse.
[Middle English surviven, from Old French sourvivre, from Latin supervvere : super-, super- + vvere, to live; see gwei- in Indo-European roots.]
sur·vivor n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

survive [səˈvaɪv]
vb
1. (tr) to live after the death of (another) he survived his wife by 12 years
2. to continue in existence or use after (a passage of time, an adversity, etc.)
3. Informal to endure (something) I don't know how I survive such an awful job
[from Old French sourvivre, from Latin supervīvere, from super- + vīvere to live]
survivable adj
survivability n

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

survivor [səˈvaɪvə]
n
1. a person or thing that survives
2. (Law) Property law one of two or more specified persons having joint interests in property who lives longer than the other or others and thereby becomes entitled to the whole property
survivorship n

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
posted by zarq at 9:20 AM on February 3, 2011

For gut to mention: yeah, my opinions have been changed by this thread. I've learned some fairly easy things I can do to make the world a better place for some number of folks around me, and I've learned that this episode with PA was a lot less of an aberration than I initially thought. Som good, some bad, in other words.

Still, amazed by the high quality of the discussion here. FWIW, I wouldn't have posted it anywhere else. Apologies if I made the moderator's lives more difficult by doing so.
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 9:26 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

So, um, let me get this straight. "Victim" is out, because that's defining themselves in terms of the rape. "Survivor" is out because it does the same (I presume this is another facet of the objection to the term) AND because no rapes are life threatening and if someone's life WAS threatened during a rape, well, surely we should more accurately call it "near murder" or something?

I'm trying hard to stay articulate, because I really don't get this sudden focus on terminology.

Please, just stop. I get that you don't understand or like how a lot of people label themselves with regard to rape. It bugs you. Maybe you think it trivializes people who survive cancer to share the "survivor" term with people who went through something... I can't say less, because hell, mine wasn't less. Who went through something different. It's comparing apples and wombats, anyway, for crying out loud. This isn't a contest of who suffers more, who hurts more. You don't get on well with people who are vocal about this kind of traumatic event? That's fine. But don't heckle them. The PA guys heckled. That's lousy.
posted by lriG rorriM at 9:26 AM on February 3, 2011 [7 favorites]

ChurchHatesTucker, I'm not arguing that it should never be mentioned. I'm arguing that it should not be mentioned carelessly.
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 9:28 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

So we shouldn't mention 'rape' at all? That seems oddly regressive to me.

I don't think that's it. When we do mention it and someone says, "Could you not mention that around me? It makes me uncomfortable." you either say, "Alright, that's reasonable." or "I'm sorry you found it uncomfortable, but in this medium I will mention rape in this way again."

You don't say, "What's your problem? You're so fragile that words hurt you? I can't believe you think I support rape! Look everyone, I'm supporting rape culture!"

You can, of course say these things, but people will probably think less of you and berate you for it. And then you'll feel like you have to defend yourself further. And then we'll start talking about the first amendment for some reason even though I'm Canadian. And then we'll get into whether being an asshole is something that can be helped or not. Then we'll start talking about free will vs. determinism. And then we'll hopefully get drunk and forget the whole thing.

Okay, so I got a little off topic there at the end, but you get the drift. That how I see things anyway.
posted by ODiV at 9:28 AM on February 3, 2011 [8 favorites]

robocop is bleeding: I know that this places an unfair burden on the educator, but such is life.

In education we have this little thing called (warning for Brandon and Felix) the Zone of Proximal Development. You teach and discuss at at the level that's challenging. For a practical examples, you don't teach long division in a calculus class, and you don't talk about the differences between animals and plants in a quantitative genetics class.

The complaints about the initial strip didn't appear on an educational site for people unfamiliar with feminism. They appeared on feminist Web sites and communities with an extended history of discussion about rape culture. Demanding that a discussion that's taken place in more than 50 threads over several years return to square one every time isn't remotely reasonable.

Brandon Blatcher: You insist that things have to be like this and if someone says things are like that, then they're being willfully ignorant.

No. What I'm saying is that RTFM and RTFF (read the fucking faq) are perfectly valid responses when someone comes into an advanced discussion with 50+ pages of history and gets pissy over the use of terms with decades of theory behind them. If you refuse to RTFF or skim the history (both of which are helpfully provided for you on the page) you're willfully ignorant. If you then proceed to lecture a community about the "real" definition of a term you just encountered yesterday, you're both a fool and a dick. If you insist that the people in question really mean X when the FAQ and history clearly say Y, it's a strawman argument.

Furthermore, RTFF and lurk before posting has been an expected norm for participation in online culture going back to wild and wooly days of MUDs and usenet. We're not talking about anything new here.

Jumping into discussions in ignorance to defend your knee-jerk ideas about definition isn't a virtue. Granted it's a staple of certain forms of argumentation. Creationists will insist on arguing the big bang and abiogenesis as a challenge to evolutionary biologists, and it's positively a cliche in religious debate to say that atheists are not atheist or Christians are not Christian according to this or that definition. But again, this form of definitional wankery isn't a virtue and doesn't get you very far.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:36 AM on February 3, 2011 [10 favorites]

When we do mention it and someone says, "Could you not mention that around me? It makes me uncomfortable."

When you initially mention it, and someone responds with, "Mentioning that is rape apologism and re-victimizes the victims of rape", right off the bat, then defensive outrage is entirely justified.
posted by kafziel at 9:43 AM on February 3, 2011

ChurchHatesTucker: “As I said above, the whole point of the joke is that it's a terrible fate. If it had been, say, a joke about 'unlocking the rape achievement' then the criticism might be justified.”

I've talked a lot above about why it seems to me this joke is rape-minimizing; because it's intended as a kind of cartoon violence, something so extreme it's unimaginable. Of course rape in this context is supposed to be something bad; but again, that's beside the point. A Tom and Jerry cartoon isn't supposed to imply that being blown sky-high by a stick of dynamite is good. But the comic effect also relies on the whole set-up being silly, right? If a Tom and Jerry cartoon showed an actual cat being actually eviscerated by the effects of explosives, it would cease to be funny and just be morbid.

I have to say that I understand the comic intentionality here. The point is that "dickwolves" are the ridiculous, cartoonish part of the equation here, right? And that's supposed to create the comic distance that allows us to laugh at it. "Dickwolves" are silly, utterly improbable mythical beasts. It's funny, right?

But they're not where the trouble comes. The trouble is with, as I've said, those three words: "raped to sleep." And as I've pointed out, some people have been "raped to sleep." It isn't an inane, improbable, cartoonishly hideous thing. It's tragically, horrifically real for some people. And the sheer vividness of that phrase, as inadvertent or unintentional as it may be, is not a fun thing for a lot of people to meet with if they've had those experiences.

ChurchHatesTucker: “So we shouldn't mention 'rape' at all? That seems oddly regressive to me.”

No. The suggestion is that we shouldn't mention 'rape' in a joke on the internet. There's a vast difference there. There may be shades of meaning between a joke being "about" rape and a joke "mentioning" rape, but the mention in a joking context is probably across the line. Is that really demanding so much – that people give it the sensitivity and respect it deserves?
posted by koeselitz at 9:54 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

kafziel:
If you produce a work that is widely circulated like Penny Arcade then you'd better get ready to be outraged all the time then, because people are going to say things you don't agree with about it constantly. They will say things that are both true and false about your work in both the most tactful and the most accusatory ways possible and everything in between.

As I've said before, I'd likely be defensive if someone said I was perpetuating rape culture too. It's tough to admit shit like this so I can definitely sympathize with that reaction. But I'm sure I do perpetuate it in many ways, just like pretty much all of us do sometimes.

Hell, I'm sure if you go back and read my post history I've been overly defensive about stuff like this many times. (I've been on here almost a decade now!)
posted by ODiV at 9:56 AM on February 3, 2011

Demanding that a discussion that's taken place in more than 50 threads over several years return to square one every time isn't remotely reasonable.

I don't think I'm demanding that and agree that such a demand would be unreasonable. I guess it comes down to the goals of the group doing the discussion over those 50 threads. If they want to discuss the matter as an example of the current state of things and perhaps use it as a citation for some future endeavor, that's one thing. If they want to affect a change on people who are (again, I hope) well-meaning but ultimately ignorant of the impact of their expression on others, then making their stance as approachable as possible is probably a good idea.

Of course, this only really applies if that group reached out in the first place. If they were having a private discussion, then yes, common decency states that one should read the rules/faqs/manual before diving in. But again, we're talking about people getting defensive and all hackled-up. I'm not sure what the best approach here is, I just feel that if I found out that some corner of the Internet was having a long discussion about me where from my cursory first impression it seemed to imply that I was supporting something horrible when that was not my initial intent, the urge to go in guns a'blazing would be pretty strong.

I guess what I'm wondering is, if in the calculus class, someone only familiar with long division wandered in, and for whatever reason the calculus folks decided that the newcomer needed to learn their message of advanced math, what would be the best way to bring it up? How do you keep the newcomer in the class without feeling stupid for not knowing the terms, ganged up on, and still hopefully open to the class's viewpoint?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:57 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

ODiV: "I don't think that's it. When we do mention it and someone says, "Could you not mention that around me? It makes me uncomfortable." you either say, "Alright, that's reasonable." or "I'm sorry you found it uncomfortable, but in this medium I will mention rape in this way again.""

That works fine on a personal basis, but when you have a widely read comic on the internet? It effectively means that they can't make rape jokes. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but its something they have to choose to do.
posted by charred husk at 9:57 AM on February 3, 2011

kafziel: “When you initially mention it, and someone responds with, "Mentioning that is rape apologism and re-victimizes the victims of rape", right off the bat, then defensive outrage is entirely justified.”

Nobody said that was "rape apologism." And the whole point is that it does re-victimize the victims of rape. If it didn't, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

At some point, people who are being called on something need to cool off and accept that society demands that people take responsibility for their actions and try to make things right.

I know that takes a lot. It's not fun to be called on a mistake you've made, especially if that mistake was not intentional. It takes some bigness of soul. But it's necessary for us to move society forward to a better place.
posted by koeselitz at 9:59 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Leth : You don't like it? Say so, and jsut stop watching/reading/listening.
hermitosis : That's exactly what lots of PA critics have been doing, and it's earned some of them additional harassment.

The ones that "just" stopped watching/reading/listening have nothing to do with this.
The ones who loudly proclaimed their intention to stop watching/reading/listening, but carried on arguing, have endured some extra harassment.

jsturgill : You believe [...they are...] acting as though they are "entitled to recompense"
pla : Do you believe their critics would just nod contentedly and go away?
jsturgill : It's several months too late for that course of action.

So, um... How does that differ from the original accusation? Or does this count as one of those "clouds in my coffee" scenarios that always bother me - "Well, yes, this song is about you, but you'd probably think that anyway"?
posted by pla at 9:59 AM on February 3, 2011

Are you fat, ugly or slutty?

Yay, gamers.
posted by empath at 10:00 AM on February 3, 2011 [6 favorites]

I don't think that's it. When we do mention it and someone says, "Could you not mention that around me? It makes me uncomfortable." you either say, "Alright, that's reasonable." or "I'm sorry you found it uncomfortable, but in this medium I will mention rape in this way again."

Hrm. The first is an inherently unreasonable request on the internet (I'm talking here about what you type on your own or a 'neutral' site) unless it's something that's beyond the pale to even mention. I don't believe the original strip falls into that category. Rape is presented as a bad thing. I think we can all agree on that (that it's a bad thing, that is. Whether the strip communicated that seems to be a matter of interpretation.)

The second strip is sort of saying the second. Oddly, they got a lot of criticism for that one in particular, because they were 'missing the point' or 'knocking down a straw man.' They were kind of in a no-win scenario there, because the original criticisms don't even make sense if you (and I assume Gabe and Tycho fall into this group) think that the original was presenting rape as a horrible thing.

After that it seems to have become a pissing contest. Sadly predictable.

A Tom and Jerry cartoon isn't supposed to imply that being blown sky-high by a stick of dynamite is good. But the comic effect also relies on the whole set-up being silly, right? If a Tom and Jerry cartoon showed an actual cat being actually eviscerated by the effects of explosives, it would cease to be funny and just be morbid.

Well, yeah. Are you against showing Tom & Jerry cartoons?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:00 AM on February 3, 2011

charred husk: I think you misread what I wrote there.
posted by ODiV at 10:01 AM on February 3, 2011

defensive outrage is entirely justified.

Ok. I guess this is where we just have to agree to disagree. Because while it may or may not be "justified" as a reaction, it's neither productive nor mature. It's certainly natural as a reaction - but you have to step past that first reaction if you actually want any good to come of it. And just leaving it the hell alone is surely better than going "nyah nyah nyah dickwolves dickwolves dickwolves!!!!" as loudly as possible.

The stuff that Leigh Alexander said here really rang true to me. Just in case you didn't (or don't intent to) read it, here's the bit that seems most relevant to me right this second:

"I do understand it sucks a lot to be at the center of an echo chamber that seems to be saying you're a bad person because you made a joke you didn't intend as offensive. But the willful refusal to even consider "hey, we may have been wrong here, and we feel bad that some of our fans are hurt" just seems weird, and inconsistent with the smart, fun tone I've always enjoyed about PA.

People are going on Twitter to try to publicly harass and insult rape survivors over this. They're leaving harassing comments for one of the most vocal objectors in this conversation claiming she must be fat, ugly and bitter to be insulted by rape jokes. You guys. This is fucking sick."
posted by lriG rorriM at 10:02 AM on February 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

When you initially mention it, and someone responds with, "Mentioning that is rape apologism and re-victimizes the victims of rape", right off the bat, then defensive outrage is entirely justified.

Right... but... subsequently definitely re-victimizing the victims of rape, by doing stuff like making t-shirts and pennants for "Team Dickwolves"... that's not justified, right? Even if it can be categorized as "just part of the defensive outrage"?

And in fact doesn't doing so either demonstrate that they didn't even understand the initial criticism, or actually really don't give a shit whether in this sort of way they hurt people who have been raped, which is basically what the original accusation was?
posted by XMLicious at 10:08 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

ChurchHatesTucker: “Well, yeah. Are you against showing Tom & Jerry cartoons?”

Did you read my comment? I explained in exactly what way this was different from Tom & Jerry cartoons: because of its (again, unintentional) vivid depiction of the horrors of trauma that many people have actually suffered.
posted by koeselitz at 10:10 AM on February 3, 2011

Did you read my comment? I explained in exactly what way this was different from Tom & Jerry cartoons: because of its (again, unintentional) vivid depiction of the horrors of trauma that many people have actually suffered.

Did you read your comment?

Oklahoma. 9/11. Iraq. Afganistan. Plenty of people have suffered from explosions. By that logic, we should ban pretty much every cartoon ever.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:16 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

The Violet Cypher: "It seems to me that there are two ways to express the feeling that someone has breached common expectations with something they did or said. "

Hi, hello and welcome to Metafilter.

Your comment reminds me of Jay Smooth's How To Tell People They Sound Racist: "When somebody picks my pocket I'm not going to be chasing him down to find out if he feels like he's a thief deep down in his heart, I'm going to be chasing him down so I can get my wallet back. I don't care what he is, but I need to hold him accountable for what he did. (...) Holding each person accountable for the impact of their words and actions."
posted by boo_radley at 10:18 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

I don't mean to come across on the not-sensitive-to-peoples'-traumas side of this, but I do think calling that comic a "vivid depiction" of anything is the kind of exaggeration that is allowing the Penny Arcade side of the argument to continually misinterpret what they're being accused of. I don't doubt that it triggers unpleasant things...but how that's a vivid depiction of anything real is beyond me.
posted by neuromodulator at 10:18 AM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

I mean, it couldn't be less vivid, right? The problem is that for people with triggers it doesn't need to be vivid at all. But that's not the same as being a "vivid depiction of rape."
posted by neuromodulator at 10:22 AM on February 3, 2011

ChrisHatesTucker: I don't think that's true, though. As I said above, the whole point of the joke is that it's a terrible fate. If it had been, say, a joke about 'unlocking the rape achievement' then the criticism might be justified.

Well, here we get into a wonderful little tool in how to interpret things: the death of the author. Most texts and statements are open to ambiguity and multiple readings. Taking one single reading of a text and insisting that it's the only possible or reasonable one doesn't work that well. This works on both sides of the equation. Supporters of PA seem to be insistent on giving benefit of the doubt to PA authors while reading complaints about the strip in the worst possible light.

And as I keep pointing out. Offensive humor is offensive. If you use it, people are going to be reasonably offended. It's the cost of using that form of humor. But if you use offensive humor and proceed to attack (repeatedly to the point of trolling) the people who don't find it funny, the problem's gone beyond just a single strip.

ChrisHatesTucker: So we shouldn't mention 'rape' at all? That seems oddly regressive to me.

No one is arguing this. But how to talk about rape, portray it, and joke about it is a prickly and controversial subject. And if you choose to go there you should have a thick enough skin to graciously accept the fact that people will disagree with you.

kafziel: When you initially mention it, and someone responds with, "Mentioning that is rape apologism and re-victimizes the victims of rape", right off the bat, then defensive outrage is entirely justified.

Yeah, but that's not what happened here. Let's recap:
1: "big name" webcomic creators publish dickwolves rape joke on their own Web site
2: woman uses dickwolves rape joke as an example of why she personally hates rape humor in general on a moderated feminist Web site with several years of history discussing rape humor and sexism in games and game culture.

The tone argument here seems to be that moderated feminist Web sites should be seen as equivalent to a face-to-face dialog with the artists being critiqued. (Note that critique doesn't necessarily mean, "you're a bad person.") Should I be more cautious here in my statement that The King's Speech whitewashed the Nazi sympathies of its characters, on the grounds that the writer and director might see that criticism? Should the tone of political posts here on metafilter be pitched to the metafilter community, or the politicians being criticized?

There's a ton of hand-wringing over the fact that some not-nice things were said about a single PA strip on a completely unrelated Web site. And that's just the cost of being a "big name" in a given area.

If PA has a legitimate point that you shouldn't read them if you don't like their flavor of humor. Shakesville has a legitimate point that you should read them if you don't like angry criticism of how rape is portrayed in media.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:24 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

robocop is bleeding: I guess what I'm wondering is, if in the calculus class, someone only familiar with long division wandered in, and for whatever reason the calculus folks decided that the newcomer needed to learn their message of advanced math, what would be the best way to bring it up? How do you keep the newcomer in the class without feeling stupid for not knowing the terms, ganged up on, and still hopefully open to the class's viewpoint?

On both of the sites in question, FAQs and 101 discussions are helpfully linked off the front page and sidebar.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:27 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

I wanted to point out what I believe to be an excellent use of humor to call serious attention to the severity of rape. From last night's daily show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-2-2011/rape-victim-abortion-funding

I can totally understand certain members of this site not being able to remotely laugh at this video. I think the greater good is achieved by informing people who would have no idea otherwise what the republicans are trying to do.
posted by andruwjones26 at 10:27 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

The complaints about the initial strip didn't appear on an educational site for people unfamiliar with feminism. They appeared on feminist Web sites and communities with an extended history of discussion about rape culture.

Sites which allow themselves to be indexed by Google. Which means if they start discussing an individual person by name, they might as well just be e-mailing their comments to his inbox.
posted by straight at 10:32 AM on February 3, 2011

So we should all consider our comments here to have the same gravity as if they'd been emailed straight to the people in question?
posted by hermitosis at 10:35 AM on February 3, 2011

Except one requires their own desire to participate to a much greater extent, straight.
posted by neuromodulator at 10:36 AM on February 3, 2011

So we should all consider our comments here to have the same gravity as if they'd been emailed straight to the people in question?

If you're criticizing a person by name? Yes.
posted by straight at 10:39 AM on February 3, 2011

Well, yeah. Are you against showing Tom & Jerry cartoons?

I talked to my mom yesterday and she mentioned that my aunt's neighbor just blew himself up with dynamite. Apparently he had an old crate in his house and finally decided to get rid of it, but as I'm sure most of you know from teevee, old dynamite is really unstable after the nitro has seeped out of the binder. Destroyed his house and completely vaporized himself. We had a good laugh about it, but I imagine his family might not find it funny.

I guess the moral of the story is to know your audience.
posted by electroboy at 10:40 AM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

Oklahoma. 9/11. Iraq. Afganistan. Plenty of people have suffered from explosions. By that logic, we should ban pretty much every cartoon ever.

There's a thing I'm trying to grasp at here, and I'm having a tough time really putting it into the right words, so I apologize in advance for it not being as well-formed as I usually aim for my MeFi comments to be.

I personally bristle at the equivocation of all types of violence with rape. I'm trying really hard not to get into a victim olympics here, but rape is different from the victims who suffered or perished in Oklahoma, 9/11, Iraq, etc. Why? Because rape is highly, incredibly personal. It's about power. It's about dominating and destroying (yeah, I'm ok with that terminology) someone on the most intimate level imaginable. It's an aggression that one person takes out against one single person, violating them and using as a tool something (sex) that's supposed to be special and reserved for someone you love and care deeply about, or at least like enough to hook up for one night.

Rape's closest cousin, I suppose, in the family of human-on-human violence is probably murder, but even then, rape is still sort of in its own class because the sexual aspect, because that sexual contact is something that's usually wonderful but has been perverted and used as a weapon, doesn't have an analogous scenario in murder.

Again, I'm not minimizing the PTSD or suffering that anyone who has survived any of those large-scale disasters listed above, or the pain that people who've lost loved ones to bombings, murders, etc. feel.

I just feel that, in this specific conversation about rape and why it is such a trigger event for some people, it's a fine but vital distinction that must be made.
posted by shiu mai baby at 10:42 AM on February 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

Offensive humor is offensive. If you use it, people are going to be reasonably offended.

The entire point of this seems to be whether or not the initial outrage was 'reasonable.'

But how to talk about rape, portray it, and joke about it is a prickly and controversial subject. And if you choose to go there you should have a thick enough skin to graciously accept the fact that people will disagree with you.

Yup. With you there.

1: "big name" webcomic creators publish dickwolves rape joke on their own Web site

And there we part. I think 'rape joke' should be reserved for times where a joke minimizes rape. Acknowledging that it exists within the context of a joke about something else (especially when exaggerated for comedic effect) is a very different thing.

The tone argument here seems to be that moderated feminist Web sites should be seen as equivalent to a face-to-face dialog with the artists being critiqued.

Yeah. That's sort of an odd thing about the internet. I think it's usually a good thing, but it does get messy.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:43 AM on February 3, 2011

What I mostly hear underneath the arguments of the PA defenders is something like, "I don't want to participate in a world where other people's thoughts and feelings are considered as valid as my own."

Look, you don't have to be a good, friendly, caring, responsible citizen of any community, whether online, local, or national. No one can make you. Is that what you need to hear?

Pretty anti-social though, at least toward people who aren't exactly like you.
posted by hermitosis at 10:48 AM on February 3, 2011 [7 favorites]

I'm trying really hard not to get into a victim olympics here, but rape is different from the victims who suffered or perished in Oklahoma, 9/11, Iraq, etc. Why? Because rape is highly, incredibly personal. It's about power. It's about dominating and destroying (yeah, I'm ok with that terminology) someone on the most intimate level imaginable.

Actually, blowing somebody up is destroying them on a much more fundamental level.

What I mostly hear underneath the arguments of the PA defenders is something like, "I don't want to participate in a world where other people's thoughts and feelings are considered as valid as my own."

Oddly, I think my thoughts and feelings are valid as well. The conflicting zones are what is at issue here.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:55 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

Shakesville has a legitimate point that you should read them if you don't like angry criticism of how rape is portrayed in media.

...shouldn't read them if you don't like...

straight: Sites which allow themselves to be indexed by Google. Which means if they start discussing an individual person by name, they might as well just be e-mailing their comments to his inbox.

Let's set aside the problem that the original complaint did not do this, and only named PA fictional dopplegangers.

If this is the case, then we should shut down metafilter as responsible for hate mail delivered to the inbox of such notables as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Sara Palin, George Bush, and Roman Polanski.

It's an insanely stupid line of argument. The contents of major periodicals were indexed long before the dominance of Google, and there's never been an argument that critics and editorialists must shelter the personal feelings of their subjects as if they were writing a personal letter.

ChrisHatesTucker: The entire point of this seems to be whether or not the initial outrage was 'reasonable.'

But then you contradict yourself in the next statement, rendering most of your discussion, moot.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:55 AM on February 3, 2011

But then you contradict yourself in the next statement, rendering most of your discussion, moot.

Um, no. But my discussion is moot, so...
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:01 AM on February 3, 2011

Actually, blowing somebody up is destroying them on a much more fundamental level.

And I'm comfortable with the belief that there are a number of ways to destroy a person, not all of which requires them to end up in a body bag. It's clear we differ on this point.
posted by shiu mai baby at 11:01 AM on February 3, 2011

ChurchHatesTucker: "Oddly, I think my thoughts and feelings are valid as well."

And this is to your credit -- you're defending your point and interacting others in a non-hostile way. In some ways, you're really carrying the defense of the PA strip farther and more gracefully than PA has itself.
posted by boo_radley at 11:02 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

In some ways, you're really carrying the defense of the PA strip farther and more gracefully than PA has itself.

Yeah, I realize that. It's a disappointment for me, because I otherwise like those guys.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:04 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think they haven't been listening, and I bet we get a redeeming apology from them soon.

at least I'm hoping
posted by neuromodulator at 11:08 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Check this out then.
posted by hermitosis at 11:11 AM on February 3, 2011

The current newspost has been updated by both Gabe and Tycho this morning. Typically, Gabe is brief, and Tycho is not.
posted by Errant at 11:12 AM on February 3, 2011

neuromodulator: “I don't mean to come across on the not-sensitive-to-peoples'-traumas side of this, but I do think calling that comic a "vivid depiction" of anything is the kind of exaggeration that is allowing the Penny Arcade side of the argument to continually misinterpret what they're being accused of. I don't doubt that it triggers unpleasant things...but how that's a vivid depiction of anything real is beyond me... I mean, it couldn't be less vivid, right? The problem is that for people with triggers it doesn't need to be vivid at all. But that's not the same as being a "vivid depiction of rape."”

You're right; I misspoke. I meant to say that it is a vivid description of rape. And those three words remain one of the most painfully vivid descriptions of rape I've read in a long time. I wish somebody would acknowledge this, but I guess I shouldn't venture to hope.

Seriously, can you read those three words (I'd rather not type them again) a few dozen more times and think a little about the impact they have?
posted by koeselitz at 11:13 AM on February 3, 2011

"I'm sorry if I was a jerk to you earlier. That was unnecessary and had nothing to do with defending the comic. I was just being snarky." -cwgabriel

posted by pyrex at 11:13 AM on February 3, 2011

You know, regarding the whole why can't we joke about rape if we can joke about blowing someone up with dynamite, or murder in general, etc., I think the big difference comes when a segment of the population is the specific target of violent threats and acts.

I do think that most people will agree that it's not funny or edgy to joke about lynching and racial violence, and rape is a similar situation in that the people who are under threat are actually terrorized by these sorts of actions; it's not random, it's not impersonal, and it's not even unlikely. If you are a woman, or not white, or queer, or a certain religion ... there are people who do want to hurt for that reason only, and will if given the chance. If you are any of these things, it's not unlikely that you will be harassed and threatened, and you never know when somebody is going to decide to take it to the next level. It's not unreasonable to say "let's not contribute to an atmosphere that makes light of or normalizes these kinds of threats or actions."
posted by taz at 11:14 AM on February 3, 2011 [5 favorites]

You "survive" cancer, because cancer can be a fatal illness. You don't "survive" rape.

For the sake of someone I knew, I should point out: sometimes, you don't survive rape.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 11:23 AM on February 3, 2011 [20 favorites]

I never should have engaged them at all much less the way I did.

I'm not out to deconstruct people's apologies*, but this comes pretty close to as good as I suspect one is going to see. And you know what? He's totally right. They could have entirely blown off Shakesville and Pandagon and all the early complaints, not even discussing the issue, and this would have been a non-issue overall. I fully believe this.

*I lie. "I'm sorry if I was a jerk to you earlier. That was unnecessary and had nothing to do with defending the comic. I was just being snarky." As a recognized expert in apologies**, that "if" turns it from "I acknowledge my bad behavior" to "I conditionally acknowledge my possibly bad behavior". Words matter!

**Married for ten years.
posted by norm at 11:24 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

There is another point about PA's stance and the apparent opinion that they shouldn't be subjected to outrage because of their 'freedom of speech.'

The vocal outrage of others to any objectionable or offensive content they produce is a cost of doing business. Period. If you are making money being offensive, then the offense of others and the damage and drag upon your business is, in fact, a cost.

Costs are bills and all bills must be paid. You can act 'outraged at their outrage,' but you are only increasing your cost of doing business. Addressing the offended in a respectful fashion is always the cheapest route. You keep customers/viewers and let everyone know that despite the fact that you're being offensive for a laugh, you still respect your viewers.

Mike/Gabe's response was not respectful by any measure i know of.
posted by Fuka at 11:29 AM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

Either you accept that someone might have a different interpretation of a text based on their personal experiences, beliefs, etc., etc., or you can continue the foolish and sisyphean task of continuing a 5-month-long argument that you have the only proper and correct interpretation of the strip. You can't really have it both ways here.

And in some ways, it doesn't matter that much because these associations and reactions are not logical. I find myself crying at movies I find politically risible and emotionally improbable. On a related topic, one of the things that's starting to bug me is the way in which rape has become the new Kick the Dog in adult dramatic media. (Not porn, but media that can use the word "fuck.") My logical reaction is that it's a bit of lazy writing. My emotional reaction is to be disturbed to the point of closing the browser and moving on to something else.

And if it's especially gratuitous and bad writing, I might rant about it in a location that might be searchable by Google. While I may be a tiny bit of an egoist, I really doubt that Anne Rice, or Stephen King (to name two "big names" I've criticized) give a shit about my opinion.

On preview: That's about as good of a way to handle it as I expect. The PA guys deserve credit for rising to the occasion.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:30 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

I think the perception that rape is somehow worse than murder stems from a few things.

1. There aren't survivors of murder (although I suppose you can argue that any victim of a life threatening assault is a survivor).
2. Murder is relatively rare when compared with rape, regardless of whose statistics you believe.
3. The victims of murder are likely to be involved in some sort of criminal activity, making them much less sympathetic.
4. Because it's relatively rare and the victims aren't of the metafilter demographic (predominantly poor, young, black and male), most people here don't have a personal experience with murder.

My experience with it is pretty tangential. A friend of a friend that I hung out with occasionally was murdered while trying to score. And a few casual acquaintances (a neighbor, the cleaning woman from work) have told me about sons or nephews that have been murdered and it's absolutely heartbreaking. So I don't really have much time for the Shakesville piece that thinks murder jokes are just "a dark sense of humor", but rape jokes are beyond the pale.

My general take is that you may or may not recover from rape, but you'll never recover from murder.
posted by electroboy at 11:31 AM on February 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

From the recent post by PA:

Kara was certainly upset to see someone mention on Twitter last night that it would be funny to come to my house and murder my wife and children. I know there are people who see themselves as being on our side that have made equally disgusting comments in the other direction. I want to make it very clear that I do not approve of this kind of bullshit.

Their tone changed completely as soon as it felt real to them--when someone they loved was made to feel threatened. I hope they understand, or come to understand, that there are vast, vast legions of people to whom rape constantly feels very real. That the emotions they are feeling right now is what they were generating in others throughout the later stages of this whole thing.
posted by jsturgill at 11:36 AM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

Their tone changed completely as soon as it felt real to them--when someone they loved was made to feel threatened. I hope they understand, or come to understand, that there are vast, vast legions of people to whom rape constantly feels very real. That the emotions they are feeling right now is what they were generating in others throughout the later stages of this whole thing.

This almost reads like an endorsement of death threats to me.
posted by empath at 11:40 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

My general take is that you may or may not recover from rape, but you'll never recover from murder.

Oh yeah. I was mugged at one point, and a seriously possible outcome of that situation was murder (We're pretty sure the same group shot a friend of mine--non-fatally thank the gods. (Also, I managed to conceal the fact that I was carrying thousands of dollars worth of electronics at the time)) So I get the whole victim thing.

What I don't get is anyone saying that you can't make jokes about mugging. Or murder. Or electronic theft. Or whatever.

Their tone changed completely as soon as it felt real to them--when someone they loved was made to feel threatened. I hope they understand, or come to understand, that there are vast, vast legions of people to whom rape constantly feels very real.

OK, that's just fucked up on several levels.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:40 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

I’ve received an incredible education during the ordeal, and been exposed to an amazing range of thought, from so-called “radical feminism” to a wholly opposed, Lewis Carroll, through-the-looking-glass mode of thinking called Men’s Rights Activism. Tycho

This seems to indicate what was suspected, that neither of them had any idea of what "rape culture" was and just made assumptions based on the English words involved. But it looks like at least Tycho learned a lot from this. I'm hoping that at the least they've learned what kind of influence they have over their fans.
posted by charred husk at 11:41 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

I'm incredibly sad that it took threats of violence against their families to get the PA guys to respond in a more constructive manner than twitter baiting, but I'm glad to see that they stepped up and owned at least some of the multiple levels of clusterfuck.
posted by BZArcher at 11:49 AM on February 3, 2011

The fact of the matter is that the strip that started all this is about how empty, amoral, and borderline vile electronic heroism actually is. When I look at it now, it’s hard to imagine the chaos this comic stands at the center of.

I still don't think this is true. I think it was the response(s) to the one post that criticized the first strip that stand at the center of the chaos. The second strip was really sarcastic, and turned me more against them, and then the Dickwolves "team" merchandise sealed it. I was relatively neutral about the initial comic; I could understand what Shakesville was saying, but I didn't feel outraged. The follow-up actions from PA made me feel disgusted.
posted by taz at 11:52 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

OK, that's just fucked up on several levels.

I completely agree with those words, but probably not exactly the way you meant them.

This almost reads like an endorsement of death threats to me.

I didn't intend it that way, but I see how that reading of my words is valid. I should have written with greater clarity, and I will try to be better at that in the future. I hope no one takes what I've written and acts irresponsibly because of it, thinking that threats are a valid method of communication. It saddens me that someone threatened his family.
posted by jsturgill at 11:53 AM on February 3, 2011

Glad to see those posts. Overdue, obviously, but I get the feeling that Jerry at least explicitly understands that.

This almost reads like an endorsement of death threats to me.

Oh bullshit. jsturgill didn't say, "...and I think that's totally awesome, let's go threaten some more people for social good!" Noting that personal context may have led to Tycho having a revelation about how others in this whole mess experienced what he had been treating as a non-issue isn't an endorsement or celebration of bad acts creating that personal context.
posted by cortex at 11:55 AM on February 3, 2011 [9 favorites]

I completely agree with those words, but probably not exactly the way you meant them.

Really? How would you intend them?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:55 AM on February 3, 2011

This almost reads like an endorsement of death threats to me.

Actually I had the same thought as jsturgill. It's not an endorsement of death threats, just a bit of circumstantial irony. Violence and threats are funny and/or acceptable and/or easily ignored as long as it is happening to someone else, especially someone you don't know, at the hands of someone you don't know, right?

I'm sad that it had to literally get turned back around onto him before he realized how other people must have been feeling about these issues.
posted by hermitosis at 11:55 AM on February 3, 2011 [9 favorites]

Really? How would you intend them?

The words were, "OK, that's just fucked up on several levels."

"That," to you, is my statement. My statement is just fucked up on several levels.

"That," to me, is how and why any of this became real to him. That it happened now, because of a threat of violence, and not previously, as part of an ongoing dialog about the way his actions were affecting other people, is just fucked up on several levels.
posted by jsturgill at 12:00 PM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

Violence and threats are funny and/or acceptable and/or easily ignored as long as it is happening to someone else, especially someone you don't know, at the hands of someone you don't know, right?

How is a fictional cartoon character printed on a t-shirt - which never mentioned rape or any other threatening act - in any way comparable to an actual threat of violence against an actual woman and her actual child?
posted by PenDevil at 12:03 PM on February 3, 2011 [6 favorites]

What I don't get is anyone saying that you can't make jokes about mugging. Or murder. Or electronic theft. Or whatever.

Yeah, I'm not really interested in debating what people can and can't joke about. Everyone draws their own line and has to live with the consequences. I was just adding my thoughts to the "rape is worse than murder" derail. You can't preach empathy about one horrific crime while passing off jokes about another as black humor, just because you're not personally affected by it.

I find it just as strange that people stage murder mystery parties as I do that there's a Law and Order show that's almost exclusively about rape.
posted by electroboy at 12:03 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm sad that it had to literally get turned back around onto him before he realized how other people must have been feeling about these issues.

Totally expected.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:07 PM on February 3, 2011 [5 favorites]

in any way comparable to an actual threat of violence against an actual woman and her actual child?

Why don't you ask Courtney Stanton?

(my point being that that there were quite a few threats of violence - both rape and death - being levied at the "anti-PA" crowd before they got turned in the other direction)

(additionally, I'm not condoning threats in either direction, but the strong implication I got was that the threats against Mike/Jerry and their families somehow appeared from a vacuum, which is manifestly NOT the case. It didn't just go from "dickwolf shirt" to "death threats", there's been a steady escalation)
posted by Tknophobia at 12:11 PM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

"That," to me, is how and why any of this became real to him. That it happened now, because of a threat of violence, and not previously, as part of an ongoing dialog about the way his actions were affecting other people, is just fucked up on several levels.

Yes. My point exactly.

When it gets to the point of threats, it's off the chain. Regardless of which side you're on.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:12 PM on February 3, 2011

Sounds like Gabe has sort of apologized for being snarky. I'm glad this whole thing seems to be wrapping up well--they really just seemed to not know what they were getting into, and reacted poorly. Guess this also goes to show that there's no shortage of trolls ready to threaten physical harm to people based on an internet tempest.
posted by Tubalcain at 12:12 PM on February 3, 2011

4. Because it's relatively rare and the victims aren't of the metafilter demographic (predominantly poor, young, black and male), most people here don't have a personal experience with murder.
posted by electroboy

You'd be surprised at how wrong you are.
posted by Ann Onymous at 12:13 PM on February 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

I think Gabe and Tycho's responses were probably about as much and as good as could be expected. I particularly applaud Tycho for pointing out that many of their critics were coming from a well-established intellectual tradition, albeit one largely foreign to Gabe, Tycho, and their readership.

For me, the most problematic part was this: "The only people who are pro-rape are rapists." That statement demonstrates that more than not merely "seeing eye to eye" with his critics, Tycho roundly rejects a fundamental premise of the criticism. So while he may "understand their intent" and have "received an incredible education during the ordeal and been exposed to an amazing range of thought," I don't think his personal position or thinking has been substantially altered. I find that unfortunate but not surprising.
posted by jedicus at 12:14 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

You'd be surprised at how wrong you are.

It's true, I would be surprised if most people on Metafilter had a personal experience with murder.
posted by electroboy at 12:18 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

How is a fictional cartoon character printed on a t-shirt - which never mentioned rape or any other threatening act - in any way comparable to an actual threat of violence against an actual woman and her actual child?

It isn't. But the actual threatening acts made toward people who protested the comic are pretty comparable!

Which he seemed to condone, albeit abstractly, by encouraging his fans to mock dissenters who claimed that his words/actions were harmful. Many of these dissenters, of course, being people who have had personal experiences dealing with rape and sexual violence.
posted by hermitosis at 12:20 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

Hrm. That's interesting. I'm not disputing it, electroboy, but I wonder – what is the "metafilter demographic"? I'd be intrigued to know.
posted by koeselitz at 12:21 PM on February 3, 2011

I was just adding my thoughts to the "rape is worse than murder" derail.

Just a point of clarification: I wasn't trying to say that rape is "worse" than murder; I was trying to say that it's a different beast, and it's not surprising that, given the incredibly intimate and dehumanizing nature of rape, that people might react to it more vehemently than murder.

I don't think a X is worse than Y really can be made there, and trying to do so is just icky and weird for a million different reasons.
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:24 PM on February 3, 2011

While I'm glad that Tycho finally spoke, and he finally spoke out to encourage troll to knock shit off, and that Mike finally said the same thing... he really seemed to miss the point. A lot. Some of what he said came off as pretty bizarre, like "Look! I have a daughter! I can't be a bad person!" and they didn't seem to really own thier shirt w/r/t what they kicked off, got started, or made worse.

It's horrible to get death threats just for speaking about an issue. I know cause I've gotten several a week since my article went up. And kirbybits has been harassed with death threats for much longer, every day since she spoke out.

This didn't appear in a vaccuum.
posted by ShawnStruck at 12:29 PM on February 3, 2011 [10 favorites]

...they didn't seem to really own thier shirt w/r/t what they kicked off, got started, or made worse.

Yeah. The thing there is that it wasn't really about rapists. It was about "Fuck You you criticizers!"

I honestly don't think that anyone (OK, most people) were thinking "Team Rape!" They were more likely thinking "Team Fuck Those People Who Criticised Our Fave Web Comic!"

The fact that the latter was essentially in the camp of the former is a exercise for the reader.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:36 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Thanks for the repost, XQUZYPHYR. I'm tempted to read an unspoken refusal to stand behind Mike's antagonism into his exclusive focus on the original comic, but other comments about their mastery of interpersonal communication suggest that no, a face-value reading is probably sufficient. Still not interested in what they have to say, since, to no one's shock, there's still nothing new here.
posted by jinjo at 12:44 PM on February 3, 2011

When it gets to the point of threats, it's off the chain. Regardless of which side you're on.

Agree 100%, ChurchHatesTucker.
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 12:46 PM on February 3, 2011

Yes. My point exactly.

When it gets to the point of threats, it's off the chain. Regardless of which side you're on.

Your first line ("my point exactly") sounds as though you're agreeing with me. Then you go on to say something that isn't what I'm saying.

In the eyes of many other people, or at least in my own eyes, things were "off the chain" the moment dickwolf paraphernalia was put up for sale, then got further off the chain when PA encouraged readers to wear them at PAX. Threats and real life intrusions had been made towards the critics of PA long before this particular incident. I really like the way Hermitosis put it:

I'm sad that it had to literally get turned back around onto him before he realized how other people must have been feeling about these issues.

I just wanted to make sure I was clear, as I'd hate for you to inadvertently endorse a perspective you didn't actually share.
posted by jsturgill at 12:47 PM on February 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

Your first line ("my point exactly") sounds as though you're agreeing with me. Then you go on to say something that isn't what I'm saying.

OK. What is that?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:51 PM on February 3, 2011

For me, the most problematic part was this: "The only people who are pro-rape are rapists." That statement demonstrates that more than not merely "seeing eye to eye" with his critics, Tycho roundly rejects a fundamental premise of the criticism.

As mentioned previously, this likely has very little to do with the concept of rape in particular and is more tied to their moral code. Many people believe that actions should be judged on intent, not outcome. That is no more an objective failing than any other prevalent set of morals.

Some people hold that taking offense to something not meant to be offensive is a failing on the part of the recipient, while others believe that the recipient has overriding perspective. And since both of those poles harbor both positive outcomes and indefensible extremes, the only "right" answer is that there is no single arbiter of offense and its implications.

This argument has been so long and muddled, likely, precisely because two discussions were being had at once without any great deal of distinction.
posted by Phyltre at 12:53 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

The other side (that’s me, but not just me) believes that when it comes to expression nothing is off the table. It is the creator’s prerogative to create something - even something grotesque - out of anything they can find.

The thing is that I agree with Tycho about the creator's prerogative but I disagree that this is "the other side". It is possible to manifest expression without limitation while simultaneously maintaining a level of respect for the "grotesqueries" with which one works. Put another way, while the original Shakesville post decries rape jokes fairly universally, it doesn't at any point say people can't or even shouldn't make those jokes, just that the author doesn't like it when people do make those jokes.

So I don't think rape or murder or other horrors are off-limits to humorists and creators. But it behooves creators to be mindful of the power and resonance of the elements with which they work. Gabe and Tycho use things like rape and murder in their art precisely because they are potent and loaded images; if you're going to work with explosives but without sufficient respect for their danger, you should be not astonished when they go off in your face.
posted by Errant at 12:54 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

I would be surprised if most people on Metafilter had a personal experience with murder

I don't understand the argument. Do people on Metafilter joke about murder? Or tell the people they disagree with that they are going to come to their house and murder them? Or say, "oh, wah, wah get over it" if someone talks about the murder of someone they knew or loved? Do people on Metafilter get testy and/or defensive when other people say that murder isn't funny? Do people on Metafilter view murder as something that only fringe radical activists get worked up about?

In terms of personal experience, I'm not sure if you're trying to make a joke or what. You haven't been murdered so you don't have a personal experience with it? That kind of joke? Otherwise, people may very well have more experience than you realize. Me: family member murdered? Yes. (not immediate family); known people who were murdered? Yes. Known a murderer? Yes. Someone murdered on your doorstep*? Yes.; Been murdered? Not so far.

I consider myself having a very distant but still personal experience with murder.

* Twice, actually; different doorsteps. Also, all these incidents are unrelated to each other. So the family member murdered, knowing people who have been murdered, and knowing a murderer, and someone murdered in front of my house, etc. — none of them connected. The murderer I knew didn't kill the family member or the other people I knew who had been murdered, and didn't kill the people killed in front of my house, though he did live on the same street. Weird, I know, but true.
posted by taz at 12:55 PM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

Yeah, wow, I was going to say -- last night I was reading twitter searches related to the whole debacle, and that ghostpain person needs to be charged with something. Not liking someone is one thing, but that ghostpostin person is pretty fuckin' deranged. the tweet-death threat towards his wife and child.

I'd like to hope they would have responded without that unhinged person, but take what you can get.

I don't know what to say about the fact that he contained his apology with "I'm sorry if I was a jerk[...]" I'm sure I could be reading too much into it -- but -- if? Really? If?
posted by cavalier at 12:57 PM on February 3, 2011

Oh, weird. That ghostpostin person takes mefi-centric shits on twitter now and then as well.
posted by cortex at 1:00 PM on February 3, 2011

From Tycho's response: The other side (that’s me, but not just me) believes that when it comes to expression nothing is off the table. It is the creator’s prerogative to create something - even something grotesque - out of anything they can find.

Overall a thoughtful and measured piece, but I do wish he had explicitly acknowledged what comes with that creator's prerogative: they are not immune from critique, criticism, or flat-out "your art sucks" from their audience. They are happy to reap the rewards of an engaged audience (the attention, the respect, the money, the community), but to pretend that they should not have to deal with the downside is naive and unrealistic.
posted by rtha at 1:02 PM on February 3, 2011 [5 favorites]

It's about dominating and destroying (yeah, I'm ok with that terminology) someone on the most intimate level imaginable.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the analysis that an urge and willingness to destroy is in a rapist's heart. There's obviously a desire to hurt, and hurt deeply, another person. I take issue with destroyed, the past-tense description of another human being's life.

Rape's closest cousin, I suppose, in the family of human-on-human violence is probably murder

I find this statement exceptionally surprising. It's closest cousin is torture. The only reason I wouldn't call them cousins is that I think rape is really a sub-category of torture, not a tangential relation.

The PA guys deserve credit for rising to the occasion.

I think it's more a matter of ceasing to dig than any sort of rise.
posted by phearlez at 1:02 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

I consider myself having a very distant but still personal experience with murder.

Given that you are not most of metafilter, your personal experience doesn't disprove my statement. I was responding specifically to this comment.
posted by electroboy at 1:03 PM on February 3, 2011

r/ghostpain/ghostpostin . I'm sure it thinks it is gleefully ironic, but that tweet history... phew.
posted by cavalier at 1:03 PM on February 3, 2011

ChurchHatesTucker, I'd love to hash out what I meant and I thought you thought I meant. I sent you a message to that respect, so check your memail.
posted by jsturgill at 1:06 PM on February 3, 2011

Sure woulda been nice if, as part of the "let's drop it" effort, either PA dude had made an overt request or demand that people not bring dickwolf materials to PAX-E.
posted by phearlez at 1:15 PM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

Ghostpostin is the alter ego of former MeFite Optimus Chyme
posted by orville sash at 1:18 PM on February 3, 2011

What.
posted by boo_radley at 1:20 PM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

jedicus: "For me, the most problematic part was this: "The only people who are pro-rape are rapists." That statement demonstrates that more than not merely "seeing eye to eye" with his critics, Tycho roundly rejects a fundamental premise of the criticism. So while he may "understand their intent" and have "received an incredible education during the ordeal and been exposed to an amazing range of thought," I don't think his personal position or thinking has been substantially altered. I find that unfortunate but not surprising."

I find that stance to be quite wrongheaded. Your expectation of his "learning" how to understand the world from the subjective view of a die-hard feminist who espouses the world view of "rape culture" as the defacto and sole way to view the world is utterly wrong and shows why so many people who are anti-PA in this thread just don't get it. I think Jerry said one thing quite clearly in his statement.
"one side believes that not according the issue of rape the proper respect fuels a kind of perverse, perpetual engine called rape culture. There is a vast, specific lexicon and hundreds of tacit assumptions that gird it."

This right here is the crux of the whole fight. One side has this stance, and they are fighting from this is the ONLY stance to have regarding rape. Everyone else, whether explicitly pro-PA or just not on the side of the anti-PA crowd disagree and do not want to think of their world as being part of a "rape culture" or anything else to do with rape. By forcing them to acknowledge it or to explicitly view everything through this lens of reality, you are fundamentally disregarding the other persons right to view the world through their own subjective filters. YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT. You also should not have any expectation for anyone to ever fold up their beliefs and worldview simply because yours is different.

I believe that many rape victims need more effective and progressive therapy and treatment and that many "rape survivor" and "rape victim" groups do nothing more than to insulate and alienate someone who is in pain and feeds upon the negative emotions they feel in a non-constructive way that does nothing to further the goal of healing a fractured psyche. But I feel that way about a lot of things. This does not mean I swallow the bitter pill of "rape culture" as a valid world view that accurately describes reality. Sadly, my description of reality goes much, much darker, but that's a whole different plate of beans to never be discussed.

This whole episode is an illustration of "internet train wreck". Yes, I know there is a special place in hell for me because I think these things are "good" to have happen, because you can't resolve anything without conflict.
posted by daq at 1:21 PM on February 3, 2011 [5 favorites]

I was actually wondering if that were possible.
posted by Errant at 1:21 PM on February 3, 2011

Your expectation of his "learning" how to understand the world from the subjective view of a die-hard feminist who espouses the world view of "rape culture" as the defacto and sole way to view the world is utterly wrong

I expected no such thing. You'll note that I specifically said that I found Tycho's reaction unsurprising. If I had expected him to change his mind then the fact that he didn't would have been surprising.

By forcing them to acknowledge it or to explicitly view everything through this lens of reality, you are fundamentally disregarding the other persons right to view the world through their own subjective filters.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I haven't contacted the PA authors about this issue, and I have not condemned any particular people in this thread for their views. I have, however, given my own viewpoint and explained why I believe the views of the PA authors are harmful.

You also should not have any expectation for anyone to ever fold up their beliefs and worldview simply because yours is different.

I don't expect anyone to change their beliefs simply because they are not the same as mine. I do, however, hope (NB: not expect) that people will change their beliefs when they see that their beliefs are harmful to others.
posted by jedicus at 1:33 PM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

Thank you daq. I think you're absolutely right.

Rage is fun. Rage in the service of something or someone you passionately believe in is super-fun.

And sorry, to the person who said they get no satisfaction from raging at behaviour they loathe, either in the company of like-minded folks or against the other kind - I don't believe you.
posted by Sebmojo at 1:35 PM on February 3, 2011

I guessed right - the "death threat" on the Krahuliks actually isn't one. It's a reminder that jokes don't seem funny if you are, or are close to, their subject. It is in no way credible as a threat of real violence and I shake my head to imagine the thought process behind treating it as one. I wouldn't put anything past those lunatics at this point! Why, when I think of the statistics on radical feminist-motivated murder, it chills my very blood...
posted by jinjo at 1:37 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

Sebmojo, I think some of the people saying this isn't fun for them are people who were raped, so maybe you could back off from that a bit? Even if they weren't...could you pretend they were?
posted by neuromodulator at 1:37 PM on February 3, 2011

jinjo, I am eager to read how you feel that ghostpostin tweet was not, even indirectly a threat on his wife and child. Was it where it started with" This is a funny joke" ? If so, maybe we've got one of those looking glass situations...
posted by cavalier at 1:39 PM on February 3, 2011

jedicus, sorry, I'm not very clearheaded today (haven't been for a while, sadly). The you was I guess the anti-PA crowd, not you personally. Your comment was simply the triggering response. I guess my reading of your comment was that you expected Jerry to not change his mind _because_ he didn't learn anything like he says he did, because if he had learned something, he would automatically capitulate since he was wrong. Does that make sense?

I do have to commend Threeway Handshake on the like about "tact filters". That does also exacerbate a lot of this argument. Though the one thing I think that is missing is when nerds have to interact with "normal" people for prolonged periods, they can get a glitch where they insert extra meaning into peoples words, though that might be a sign of a system failure on an individual level, though a strangely common one.
posted by daq at 1:40 PM on February 3, 2011

orville sash: “Ghostpostin is the alter ego of former MeFite Optimus Chyme”

Cite? I guess it's not really fair to ask for linked backup of this statement, and I figure you're probably correct. I just was hoping to have some confirmation before I go and be sad. Ugh.
posted by koeselitz at 1:45 PM on February 3, 2011

"statistics on radical feminist-motivated murder"

Not a statistic, but more a high-profile murder attempt:
Valeria Solanas, aka I Shot Andy Warhol and the SCUM Manifesto.

Probably one of the most detrimental figures in the feminist movement, primarily for her radical stance on male genocide. Sadly, this is the stereotypical "evil feminist" that is embedded in our culture, so anytime an "angry feminist" says ANYTHING, they are clumped in with his kind of crazy.

At least, that's what I have seen in any argument between people familiar with feminism and people afraid of feminism.
posted by daq at 1:46 PM on February 3, 2011

I guess my reading of your comment was that you expected Jerry to not change his mind _because_ he didn't learn anything like he says he did, because if he had learned something, he would automatically capitulate since he was wrong. Does that make sense?

No, I think he learned a great deal, and I take him at face value for that. I've read the strip since 1999, gave money to them every month when they relied on reader donations, bought the signed collector's edition of their first book, and I've met Gabe and Tycho in person, where they signed my book for a second time. Based on my accumulated (albeit distant) experience with the PA authors, I have no reason to think Tycho was anything less than honest and frank in his post. And as I said I think the result was as good as could be expected (in the sense of being likely or foreseeable, not in the "rightfully due or requisite in the circumstances" sense).

My point was only to observe that I don't think his personal position has changed much if at all. I think it's understandable why I would regard that as unfortunate, whether one agrees with me or not.
posted by jedicus at 1:53 PM on February 3, 2011

koeselitz: " Cite? I guess it's not really fair to ask for linked backup of this statement, and I figure you're probably correct. I just was hoping to have some confirmation before I go and be sad. Ugh."

Unless I'm very mistaken, it's OC. His latest tweet is "hi metafilter".
posted by zarq at 1:53 PM on February 3, 2011

> I meant to say that it is a vivid description of rape. And those three words remain one of the most painfully vivid descriptions of rape I've read in a long time. I wish somebody would acknowledge this, but I guess I shouldn't venture to hope.

It's plain (and also from your other measured contributions yesterday) that it bothers you a good deal. It's commendable that you've remarked on how and why you felt offended by it rather than using your hurt feelings as a springboard for sweeping dogmatic pronouncements. Of course, what's painfully vivid varies wildly for different people, and much of the tension here is rooted in people's unwillingness to acknowledge and/or tolerate the existence of those variations.

I do think you are overlooking a genuine issue as regards vividness and cartoons. This particular (verbal) imagery is painfully vivid to you even in the context of a silly cartoon - OK. But you wave away other examples of things in cartoons that could be painfully vivid for others, saying that if cartoons actually reflected the dark aspects of reality on a regular basis they would just be morbid rather than funny. It strikes me that this is the entire premise of the Itchy and Scratchy cartoons on the Simpsons; they show standard devices of cartoon violence but simply acknowledge that the cat would get pulped or otherwise injured rather than being flattened into a pancake or compressed into the shape of a bowling pin.

A more serious example, though: cartoon characters getting electrocuted. This happens all the time, not least because it's easy to draw: you replace your cartoon character with a silly skeleton surrounded by a jagged outline and strobe between a black and white background several times, everybody laughs. It's such a simple visual gag, and one that communicates a warning about basic electrical safety, that it shows up even in cartoons aimed at very small children, whereas relatively few cartoon characters drown or burn in fires. Yet the sad fact is that quite a lot of people die from electrocution - hundreds every year - and it's an awful way to go for both the victim and any onlookers. For anyone who has seen such a thing I imagine all of children's TV is a potential bad memory trigger. If technology pans out and we have wireless power transmission as the norm in a decade or two, future generations will look back and wonder how society tolerated and even laughed at something so horrible and yet easily avoidable, just as we are amazed that the Victorians tolerated industrial accidents.

> Rape's closest cousin, I suppose, in the family of human-on-human violence is probably murder, but even then, rape is still sort of in its own class because the sexual aspect, because that sexual contact is something that's usually wonderful but has been perverted and used as a weapon, doesn't have an analogous scenario in murder.

I strongly disagree, but only about the lack of parallel rather than downplaying the severity of the crime; things can't be reduced to some objective measure of awfulness, but on a social level we end up making such approximations out of necessity.

The example of people being blown up is pretty abstract and impersonal by nature, but the sad fact is that many murders are committed by acquaintances or family members, just like acts of abuse. Physical violations are no less intimate than an unwelcome sexual intrusion, just in a different way. On a psychic level, an invasion of one's dwelling place is often more traumatic than a more objectively dangerous experience outside, and an assault by an intimate or family member is traumatic not just as a physical event but because one's judgment of character and/or normal social expectations are severely undermined - for all crimes, but especially violent ones. The same things which make rape and sexual assault awful and heinous are exponentially worse when someone is actually trying to kill you, at least as far as my own experience goes.
posted by anigbrowl at 1:59 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Probably one of the most detrimental figures in the feminist movement, primarily for her radical stance on male genocide.

Valerie Solanas was pretty clearly mentally ill. I think it does everyone a disservice to refer to her as anything but.
posted by electroboy at 2:06 PM on February 3, 2011

XQUZYPHYR: "Jerry Holkins (Tycho) has finally broken silence as well:
[...]
The only people who are pro-rape are rapists. The idea that you would have to specifically enunciate an idea like that is almost overwhelming. It’s self-evident."
While I'm glad he wasn't really involved with this brouhaha (I was under the impression it was both of them doing the trolling), I'm surprised someone as articulate and well-read as he is doesn't understand that they were being accused of trivializing rape, not promoting or defending it. The latter criticism applied more to the shirts than the comic, but he never addressed that issue.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:09 PM on February 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

anigbrowl: “I do think you are overlooking a genuine issue as regards vividness and cartoons. This particular (verbal) imagery is painfully vivid to you even in the context of a silly cartoon - OK. But you wave away other examples of things in cartoons that could be painfully vivid for others, saying that if cartoons actually reflected the dark aspects of reality on a regular basis they would just be morbid rather than funny. It strikes me that this is the entire premise of the Itchy and Scratchy cartoons on the Simpsons; they show standard devices of cartoon violence but simply acknowledge that the cat would get pulped or otherwise injured rather than being flattened into a pancake or compressed into the shape of a bowling pin.”

I'm not really overlooking it; I've actually written a few comments about this, but deleted or edited all of them.

I actually feel as though you're right; this might point to problems in larger society. I still stand by my point. And I know it's deeply unpopular to argue that maybe society at large should tone down the violence a bit; but that may be a good idea. I'm willing to countenance that possibility.
posted by koeselitz at 2:18 PM on February 3, 2011

For me, the most problematic part was this: 'The only people who are pro-rape are rapists.'

I was completely shocked when I came to that statement. Not because of what it says, but because based on that and the other things he said, it appears to me that he actually doesn't understand the concept of rape culture. jedicus, you said that this shows he "rejects a fundamental premise of the criticism" - but it appears to me that it's that he doesn't understand it. It's preceded by:

...when mail started to come in to the effect that we were perpetuating a fundamental social conspiracy to rape, we couldn’t believe what we were reading. That is the entire point of the second strip...

"fundamental social conspiracy to rape" - that is his term for rape culture, right? And he's talking about this second strip, right? And saying that it is a response to a criticism that the original strip is an example of rape culture.

If he actually thinks that the second strip would be a response to such a criticism, his understanding of what rape culture is, is at odds with my own. The second strip talks about someone who "read our cartoon, and became a rapist as a direct result."

In my understanding, someone who was influenced by rape culture would not necessarily become a rapist, nor even necessarily have a greater disposition towards becoming a rapist.

...okay, I started writing out what I think rape culture is but it got too complicated. Basically, it appears to me that Tycho thinks that rape culture is a set of consciously-held ideas and maybe a sort of old boy network, where in my understanding it's a meme or set of related memes - memes in the original Dawkins sense as opposed to in the "internet meme" sense. The Wikipedia definition linked to at the beginning of the thread surprised me when I looked at it yesterday because it actually appeared to me to be incorrect or incomplete, in fact I thought it was a bad idea to link to it because it seemed to me that someone reading it would never understand why anyone would say that the original comic was part of rape culture.

However, I've never actually read any feminist writings defining rape culture (or much feminist writing at all, really), rather I have picked up the meaning entirely by seeing people use the term on MeFi and extrapolating the context. So maybe it's actually me who has the wrong definition, I guess, so I'm off to find some feminist writings where it's defined. (It's occurring to me, though, could some of the problems in this whole mess have been caused by a crappy Wikipedia article?)
posted by XMLicious at 2:18 PM on February 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

electroboy: I completely agree that she was mental, but the association between her, the SCUM Manifesto, feminism, and anything related to the topic are something to consider, especially when you start getting into the territory of the Men's Rights Acticism being involved (which I can guarantee you, many of the people who were attacking the rape survivors and doing any kind of harassment were most likely associated with this vile troll cave of doom).
posted by daq at 2:21 PM on February 3, 2011

Just out of curiosity, was anyone's mind changed or opinion reversed on this topic after reading the 800 or so comments here?

Mine was, and profoundly so. I made two comments about it after making a 'lol dickwolves' comment. Read more slowly.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 2:22 PM on February 3, 2011 [6 favorites]

I'm surprised someone as articulate and well-read as he is doesn't understand that they were being accused of trivializing rape, not promoting or defending it. The latter criticism applied more to the shirts than the comic, but he never addressed that issue.

Yes, weird. First there was the trivializing (if one sees it that way), then smirking and scoffing, then becoming hostile and aggressive and then marketing that aggression via T-shirts identifying as one of a team of us-against-them fictional/impossible rapists in a sporting sense. So, kind of a buffet of items that aren't necessarily pro-rape in the sense of "go out and rape."
posted by taz at 2:28 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Just out of curiosity, was anyone's mind changed or opinion reversed on this topic after reading the 800 or so comments here?

An important part of my criticism of the original strip was that it imported sexual violence into a game that sexual violence was not an inherent part of. As it turns out, that's not accurate. As a result, my criticism of the original strip was somewhat diminished.

But there are other criticisms of the original strip, and there is still criticism of the follow-up strip and the way the PA authors handled the fallout. So it depends on what you mean by 'mind changed or opinion reversed,' I guess.
posted by jedicus at 2:28 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I just think including her as an example of any sort of feminist is a mistake. It creates a strawman for anti-feminists, and isn't representative of actual feminist thought. Reminds me of the rush to figure out whether Loughner was a left winger or a right winger after the Gabriel Giffords shooting. They're neither. They're severely disturbed individuals that have latched on to a political philosophy as part of their illness.
posted by electroboy at 2:30 PM on February 3, 2011

XMLicious: Actually, the wikipedia article is pretty spot on as far as the accepted neutral definition of "rape culture." I think the problem is that a lot of references to it here and on many feminist discussions online tend to include many more loaded assuptions when using the term. Most people who feel comfortable using the established, feminist definition of "rape culture" also hold mane more things to be true. It's also a dog whistle. For some people, when they read that phrase, it triggers a cascading definition that encompasses an enormous worldview. For every one else it means "culture of rapists". Hence my initial argument against everyone deciding that "rape culture" was a well understood phrase. Anyway.
posted by daq at 2:30 PM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

"Someone who defends rape jokes, which are the the primary means by which rape is normalized and its gravity diminished to make rape acceptable ... is indeed a rape apologist."

Incidentally, Shakesville was the blog with the bit about murder and a dark sense of humor:

When I have a sense of humor, it is a little offbeat. I have liked, for example, Penny Arcade's comics about the numerous times they've killed each other. I have a dark sense of humor, and I'll admit it.

posted by electroboy at 2:33 PM on February 3, 2011

Sebmojo, I think some of the people saying this isn't fun for them are people who were raped, so maybe you could back off from that a bit? Even if they weren't...could you pretend they were?

Ok, how about addictive, then?
posted by Sebmojo at 2:35 PM on February 3, 2011

cavalier, fair enough. Obviously it's subjective, but while it did seem deliberately disturbing, the tidy parallelism of over-the-top violence and 'murderwolves' made it read to me like a 'gotcha' on the on the original comic by a classic Internet-graduate-with-honors. For further guidance on how worried to be about such things, all you can do is look at the context. The snark in my comment was on this point, since there simply isn't, to my knowledge, any real-world trend or incident or evidence of any kind that would support the fear that someone was actually going to go and murder two unrelated known innocents over someone else not being feminist enough on the internet. Lord knows there have been plenty of opportunities for that, if anyone was going to do it, but it doesn't seem like a thing that happens.

So yeah, Mike spends quite a bit of time and energy laughing at the foolish pigs who build their house of bricks, only to turn around later crying to be let in because the First Amendment-hating barbarians are at the gates. I have I confess I am basically overcome with eyerolling at this, so it's probably a good thing I'm not on whatever police force would have been responsible for handling it, if it had been taken seriously enough to be reported, and there is no suggestion that anyone did that.
posted by jinjo at 2:35 PM on February 3, 2011

I was completely shocked when I came to that statement. Not because of what it says, but because based on that and the other things he said, it appears to me that he actually doesn't understand the concept of rape culture.

Why are you shocked? Most people don't know what it means.
posted by empath at 2:38 PM on February 3, 2011

empath: Why are you shocked? Most people don't know what it means.

Which is why the first criticism didn't use the phrase, and then both the concept and the criticism was explained, at length:

No, one rape joke does not "cause" someone to go out and commit a rape. But a single rape joke does not exist in a void. It exists in a culture rife with jokes that treat as a punchline a heinous, terrifying crime that leaves most of its survivors forever changed in some material way....

That is the environment into which a rape joke is unleashed—and one cannot argue "it isn't my rape joke that facilitates rape" any more than a single raindrop in an ocean could claim never to have drowned anyone.

If Tycho and Gabe want to make rape jokes, that's their prerogative. I'm not calling for a repeal of the First Amendment or asking their strip to be censored; to be perfectly frank, I would love nothing more than for them to continue their comic with a newfound appreciation for why rape jokes fucking suck, and thus not use (or defend) them anymore by their own choice.

But, failing that, I'd like to see them at least be honest enough to admit that their critics are not accusing them of "creating" rapists or "causing" rape—and have the courage not to hide behind mendacious misrepresentations of why people object to their continued use of rape jokes, and the honesty to admit they just don't give a fuck about survivors.

posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:54 PM on February 3, 2011 [11 favorites]

daq: “It's also a dog whistle. For some people, when they read that phrase, it triggers a cascading definition that encompasses an enormous worldview. For every one else it means ‘culture of rapists’.”

This is very true. But please note further that the latter meaning – 'culture of rapists' – and the immediate implication that people who perpetuates rape culture are themselves rapists – do not flow immediately from the semantic nature of the phrase. "Rape culture" doesn't in and of itself say "a culture of people who are all rapists" any more than it in and of itself says "a culture of people who legitimize rape."

I say this because I want to focus on the reason people tend to jump to the conclusion that "rape culture" means "a culture of rapists." The reason is: people tend to personalize, and to feel attacked, when serious terms like "rape" are thrown around. Rape is a scary thing, and we're all aware that it's a serious moral issue. Ironically, people take the charge of 'perpetuating rape culture' out of context and freak out a bit for the very same reason that the charge is made in the first place: because rape is a big, scary, serious thing, and we all know it on some level.

What's needed is: people need to stop in their tracks and examine carefully the objections that have been made. When someone says to me: "hey, you're perpetuating rape culture!" my first reaction is probably going to be one of annoyance, and I'll probably be a little put out: "are they saying I'm some kind of rape-lover? How dare they! That's ridiculous." But the point is that I have to get over that initial annoyance and actually take a look at the things I've done and said. That kind of detachment isn't easy, but it's necessary to move forward.
posted by koeselitz at 2:54 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

It's an astonishing disconnect that a population that's quick on the trigger to indict Beck, Palin, and McCain for fostering political violence can't understand the notion that many people feel the same way about rape jokes.

I agree. But I think you're applying a voice to the "population" which is the loudest in each thread. And defining the Metafilter population that way would be erroneous, I think.

(This is coming from someone who last commented about 1000 comments ago in this thread and had the meaning of my comment completely misconstrued, if the responses to it were any indication)

I really can't believe how hard it is for some people who seem like really good guys to think "Gee, I might have offended some people. I should just apologize and shut the fuck up." There are some hills worth dying on, and not-pro-rape-but-going-to-joke-about-rape-no-matter-what-you-say doesn't really seem like a worthy one. But yet here we are.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:08 PM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

I really can't believe how hard it is for some people who seem like really good guys to think "Gee, I might have offended some people. I should just apologize and shut the fuck up." There are some hills worth dying on, and not-pro-rape-but-going-to-joke-about-rape-no-matter-what-you-say doesn't really seem like a worthy one. But yet here we are.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious: they think they're right. Agree or disagree with them, they believe that they ought to unapologetically depict horrible, offensive things in the interest of making a joke, as long as they are not consciously promoting those things. Since they think they're right - just as you think you're right - they're not going to straight-up apologize for doing what they think is an A-OK thing. You might as well wonder aloud, "I don't get it, why don't they just agree with me?"

Part of why this is an over 9000-comment thread is because this kerfuffle is a snakepit of several intractable issues.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:16 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

While I'm glad he wasn't really involved with this brouhaha (I was under the impression it was both of them doing the trolling), I'm surprised someone as articulate and well-read as he is doesn't understand that they were being accused of trivializing rape, not promoting or defending it.

I think that goes to their confusion over the term "rape culture" and their subsequent reactions to it, as well as to the sort-of-apology followup comic. It's been fairly clear from the beginning that they don't understand the criticism levied at them and are reading it as "you said rape, you support rape", which is so obviously ridiculous that one can understand their confusion that anyone would take such an accusation seriously. Except, as you rightly point out, that's not the accusation, and so their critics are saying one thing and they're responding to something else. Add in a propensity for snark and vitriol on both sides and you have the recipe for an internet explosion.
posted by Errant at 3:28 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Since they think they're right - just as you think you're right - they're not going to straight-up apologize for doing what they think is an A-OK thing. You might as well wonder aloud, "I don't get it, why don't they just agree with me?"

Yes, but that presents this as a dichotomy that doesn't exist. There's a lot of ground between a complete and sincere apology and going on the attack. Which I don't know that you'd disagree, but when MCMikeNamara uses the term "hill to die on" that implies, to me, doing more than simply stating that you're going to agree to disagree. It connotes really pushing your case, much less the ramping up the abuse and shitty behavior we saw here.
posted by phearlez at 3:30 PM on February 3, 2011

daq: Oh. Huh. I wish I'd seen your comment before. If the real meaning of it is really either something like "culture of rapists" or a "culture where rape is prominent", then I actually think that applying it to this situation is kind of bad even, because neither of those things appear to me to describe very well the existing or potential problems here.

empath: I was shocked because I thought Tycho did not understand what he was being criticized for and has been responding to something completely different. But I'm feeling now like maybe I don't even understand what the original criticisms were and perhaps I've been using the term "rape culture" incorrectly myself.

So, if hypothetically you had a group of people who did not take rape very seriously, but neither talked about it or mentioned it very much, and weren't rapists themselves... that group's failure to take rape seriously wouldn't be related to, or wouldn't be an aspect of, rape culture at all? Because they are neither part of a culture of rapists, nor of a culture where rape is prominent, and they aren't displaying any of the behaviors described in the Wikipedia article?

I'm confused... I had taken the "culture" part of "rape culture" to almost be a misnomer, and was thinking that it meant something along the lines of "the set of all cultural artifacts and behaviors that might be directly or indirectly conducive of rape", not really even what you'd normally think of as a culture or subculture.

Ugh, I feel like I'm just hitting dead ends here, I'm just going to post this and go find some stuff to read.
posted by XMLicious at 3:31 PM on February 3, 2011

Errant: Plus, further adding to the confusion and drama is that once a conversation reaches this size you actually do have people saying, "You support rape" and "You deserve to be raped," which doesn't help matters.

XMLicious: No group is an island is the thing.
posted by ODiV at 3:34 PM on February 3, 2011

Which I don't know that you'd disagree, but when MCMikeNamara uses the term "hill to die on" that implies, to me, doing more than simply stating that you're going to agree to disagree. It connotes really pushing your case, much less the ramping up the abuse and shitty behavior we saw here.

I don't disagree. But: if you put yourself in the PA brigade's shoes, and you then therefore perceived the comments as implying that they were "pro-rape," then I can see how that would go beyond an "agree to disagree" stance. I'm not saying that PA were right to misunderstand the criticism, and I'm not saying they didn't turn out to be a bunch of dicks about it, but it's not mysterious to me why they were so piqued in the first place.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:35 PM on February 3, 2011

Interesting article from Joystick Division that talks with some of the industry panelists that decided ot withdraw from PAX due to the Dickwolves controversy, even post-withdrawal of the Dickwolves merchandise from the store.

An excerpt:

"When Mike tweeted that he planned on wearing his Dickwolves t-shirt to PAX, I was done," Corvus said. "I was now officially angry. Members of the gaming industry had reached out quietly and respectfully to the PA crew. But instead of trying to understand the issue so many people were having with their actions, they continue to mock the very notion that the concept of rape should be taken seriously."

Unfortunately, the "Dickwolf Debacle" has cost PAX several potentially interesting panels and sessions. Corvus himself was intending to present a panel with the International Game Developers Association at PAX East entitled "One of Us," featuring "members of the gaming community who are underrepresented and often subject to verbal abuse because of it. The panelists will share the coping strategies they've developed and tactics they've used to deal with the effects of being part of a larger gaming community that can be hostile."

Other people who have decided not to attend PAX includes developers Deirdra Kai and Courtney "Kirbybits" Stanton. Writer Arthur Gies of Rebel FM has also decided to abstain from the convention.

posted by ShawnStruck at 3:36 PM on February 3, 2011 [12 favorites]

So, if hypothetically you had a group of people who did not take rape very seriously, but neither talked about it or mentioned it very much, and weren't rapists themselves... that group's failure to take rape seriously wouldn't be related to, or wouldn't be an aspect of, rape culture at all?

Their lack of seriousness regarding rape would, I think, be construed as both a product of rape culture and a contributor, if passive, to it. The product of rape culture is a culture in which the act of rape is treated as not relevant or immediately threatening or abstract and fairly harmless, viz: calling things rape that aren't rape, such as "I thought that guy was a noob, but he raped me up and down the server." It is also a culture in which victims of rape are marginalized, belittled, harassed, and made to feel like they are the ones at fault for bringing charges or oversensitive and weak for being serious about the issue.

Most proponents of the idea would say that rape jokes are therefore contributors to rape culture, not because the person making the joke thinks rape is ok, but because the joke itself contributes to an overall schema whereby real rape is not treated with the seriousness it deserves. Shakesville's first post lays that argument out pretty concisely, I think.

Errant: Plus, further adding to the confusion and drama is that once a conversation reaches this size you actually do have people saying, "You support rape" and "You deserve to be raped," which doesn't help matters.

Yes, as the internet magnifies the intensity, the caricatures of the arguments morph into the actual arguments once some grar threshold has been reached, and that's about when the dialogue breaks down completely. Hopefully it can be rebuilt, because this is still worth talking about, even if Gabe and Tycho don't think so.
posted by Errant at 3:44 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

Thanks for the link, ShawnStruck. I'll bet that some end up taking these withdrawals as an attack on Penny Arcade, when it's really what they've asked for (that those who find their sense of humour offensive not subject themselves to it).
posted by ODiV at 3:47 PM on February 3, 2011

ShawnStruck: “Interesting article from Joystick Division...”

It's odd to note, in the context of the discussion here, that the author of that article talks about the Dickwolf being "a symbol for mocking rape culture." That is, he appears to construe "rape culture" as "the culture of people who have been raped."
posted by koeselitz at 3:56 PM on February 3, 2011

Perhaps the biggest disadvantage I see to more artists on the internet is that a surprising number of them appear to have remarkably thin skins in response to criticism.

The disadvantage of being a "big name" is that someone, somewhere, is writing bad things about you.

The advantage is that you have the privilege of not answering. In fact, if you think a particular critic is a unfair crank, trying to justify yourself is perhaps the worst thing you can do. Vincent Gallo certainly didn't come out on top in his flameout with Ebert, and not just because Ebert is the sharper wit. Defensive attacks on critics reek of petty justification and rationalization.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:57 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

The withdrawls from PAX are completely understandable, but unfortunate. But after the some of the behavior of late, I can see why someone interested in talking about hostility in the gaming community would not want to bother.

Another consequence of this self-immolation on the part of the PA folks is reversing a lot of their own good work.
posted by Verdant at 3:59 PM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

The very concerned people asking "just what kind of genius do you need to be to understand this 'rape culture' thing anyway?" must really feel for the Insane Clown Posse's valiant struggle to understand how magnets work. I mean, after a certain point the average person just has to throw up his or her hands and admit that their tiny cranium can't wrap around such a complicated concept in any meaningful way. The only thing to do after that is stop trying, and announce your plans to wear your team rape t-shirt to the expo.
posted by jsturgill at 4:04 PM on February 3, 2011 [5 favorites]

Perhaps the biggest disadvantage I see to more artists on the internet is that a surprising number of them appear to have remarkably thin skins in response to criticism.

It is interesting. When someone writes something bad about your work, is that going to be perceived as some stranger sending things out into the ether, or is it more like someone IMing you and telling you that you're being an ass? I think the instantaneousness of internet communication - it's as easy for me to email someone next door as it is to email someone in Shanghai - changes this dynamic quite a bit.

It's also interesting how a highly nuanced term like "rape culture," by dint of being thrown around on blogs where everyone else is more or less in agreement as to what it generally means, winds up getting read by people without that background. Any caution you make to try to specifically address criticisms to the PA people by not using your own jargon sort of goes out the window, to a certain extent, because they'll automatically see what others are writing about them in other corners of the internet and then be prone to misunderstand what is being said.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:06 PM on February 3, 2011

I'm sure that the reversal of the PA guys today has a lot more to do with the pulling out of respected presenters at PAX than it does about the general culture of GRAR that the whole thing started. What strikes me is that Tycho is very intelligent and obviously quite conversant with these issues now, and I caught a definite whiff of reproach towards Gabe in his response; the part about how he abdicated his voice in the response and what-not seems like a 'your response sucked, dude'.

So here's where giant threads like this and massive controversy over a comic strip and t-shirts do good. If, like several people have pointed out here, you get across to otherwise well-meaning but ultimately clueless and bravado-filled youngsters that certain words in certain combinations actually do make people hurt (or at the least REALLY PISS THEM OFF) and that there can be consequences to not just owning up to that and backing down when you inadvertently traipse over invisible lines in the sand-- it's a good thing. Really. It's not censorship or silencing voices or whatever, it's just not intentionally being a jerk.
posted by norm at 4:07 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yes, but that presents this as a dichotomy that doesn't exist. There's a lot of ground between a complete and sincere apology and going on the attack. Which I don't know that you'd disagree, but when MCMikeNamara uses the term "hill to die on" that implies, to me, doing more than simply stating that you're going to agree to disagree. It connotes really pushing your case, much less the ramping up the abuse and shitty behavior we saw here.

Exactly. Not realizing the whole depth of the thing, when I originally read the comic, I began this whole debacle completely on the side of the the PA dudes -- joke about what you want. But when people come to you and say "hey, this thing -- not okay" -- the non-dick thing to do is not to create a t-shirt about said issue (which was the point I tried to make with the parallel I made about 1000 comments ago -- where I wrote "reporter" instead of "supporter")

When I say I can't believe that people who seem like really good guys would do this, you should focus on the "who seem liked good guys" part. I realize that they think they are right. But there is some shit that I think comes before "being right" in the "what I believe good guys should do" -- and sensitivity to rape victims is one of them. For me, it isn't about me or them being right. It isn't about rape culture or how certain things are entirely too prevalent in the gaming community. For me, it's about people who seemed like good guys (who I would give the benefit of the doubt for the occasional misogynistic or homophobic comment) reacting in an entirely "not good guy" way.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 4:16 PM on February 3, 2011

jsturgill: I get your snark, but I think you also have to understand that there seems to be a whole lot of the Dunning-Kruger effect happening on several levels, within all camps.

Also, it's not an A or B equation. You could also do what many people have done and re-evaluate your own view and hopefully continue to grow as human being, instead of pigeonholing yourself into either "enlightened" or "stupid". Most people who feel they are enlightened, are, in fact, too stupid to realize they might be just as wrong as whatever they are railing against. At least that would be my probably wrong opinion, but I think more study is needed to be definitive on this.

Really, the best that can come from this is for more people to observe the human psychological motivations behind all the behaviors displayed in this. I really don't think enough is known about why someone would go so far as to make death threats. What is the (I guess, illogical) reasoning behind going that far? I find that interesting in and of itself, rather than dismissing the behavior as "oh, they are just dicks."

And yes, I do enjoy several 'For the LULZ" meme's on the internet, mostly because I don't think people understand enough behind their own motivations and having someone pick it apart can be helpful to highlight "bad" things in society. Like ignorance and righteousness.
posted by daq at 4:19 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's been fairly clear from the beginning that they don't understand the criticism levied at them and are reading it as "you said rape, you support rape", which is so obviously ridiculous that one can understand their confusion that anyone would take such an accusation seriously.

*blinks*

OK, what does it mean then? Because that's pretty much the definition I've gotten out of this discussion.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:30 PM on February 3, 2011

I'm not saying that PA were right to misunderstand the criticism, and I'm not saying they didn't turn out to be a bunch of dicks about it, but it's not mysterious to me why they were so piqued in the first place.

Nor to me. I sat in a room once about twenty years ago, the only man who'd come out to a seminar on sexual violence on campus. The speaker, while talking about the conditions women face and keeping themselves safe, said "every man is a potential rapist." Then looked at me and said "no offense."

In the moment I was really pissed. I didn't want a cookie because I'd showed up and no other dude had, but I thought it at least indicated I was someone who was concerned about the issue. But, okay, maybe she wonders if I'm a jackass who thinks this is where the chicks will be.

But to acknowledge me enough to speak directly to me but not to choose your words more carefully? It hurt and it made me angry. I thought "Would you think it was okay if I said every women is a potential prostitute?"

But even in the moment I knew there was enough else going on here in this subject that making a fuss was inappropriate. I can't know what's in PA's mind (to reduce them to a collective here) or when they saw what criticism - I'm prepared to cut them slack for the second comic; they might have seen some ill-chosen words and been hurt.

For me the bridge too far is when Mike showed up over at Shakesville and either read that thoughtful post or completely ignored it and then started filling poop. And then kept beating the dickwolf drum at a panel. And. And. And.

I get being worked up in the moment. But what that timeline shows is someone(s) going back to kick over the anthill multiple times over months.

I don't even begrudge their beliefs about the term rape culture or trigger warnings or whatever. You don't have to accept all lines of thought. You don't even have to make the effort to understand them - world's a big place, go where you want.

For me it's all about their continuing to pick the fight. Being offended, rightly or wrongly, is one thing. Having a hard time putting down the angry stick once it's in your hand, we've all been there. Repeatedly, deliberately, going out of your way to swing it? That's not about one belief, that's about a way of dealing with the world and the person you're choosing to be.
posted by phearlez at 4:32 PM on February 3, 2011 [6 favorites]

Daq, I take seriously the question of how people can communicate well about emotionally charged issues. I actually have great sympathy towards the idea that progressives can be their own worst enemies, and that it's worthwhile to spend time thinking about how to productively engage with people who don't share your jargon or life experiences or expectations or culture or politics or whatever, in a way that is respectful and allows for growth and change from every participant.

I just happen to think that any impact ignorance about that specific term has had in this particular situation is minimal. It's not just a derail: it's an attempt to control the flow of the narrative and make it about how PA just didn't get what was going on because their hardcore feminist attackers didn't bother to think better about how to communicate their message to normal people. Which is typical of those ivory tower types, or the bra burner brigade, or whatever.

Like they said at the end of Clue, "[Rape Culture] was just a red herring." It's not the story here, and it's already been covered in depth inside this thread and out of it. I may have been overzealous in my posts about rape culture, but my heart is in the right place. I think.
posted by jsturgill at 4:37 PM on February 3, 2011

The original criticism was that by including a rape joke in the first comic under discussion, PA were unwittingly contributing to a culture in which rape is not taken seriously and is treated like a joke, and in which the victims of rape are marginalized, ignored, and left to suffer.

The criticism of the following comic is that by defining themselves as not "pro-rape" and by thinking that the original criticism was that by saying "rape" they were going to induce people to rape, they fundamentally misunderstood both the original criticism and were misrepresenting the theory of rape culture under which they were criticized; see above. Since no one had accused them of being "pro-rape" or of inducing rape, this attempt at an apology didn't feel like one and they had not addressed the actual criticism that others had made.

The criticism of the shirt and pennant is that they were mocking the notion of rape culture, a notion they had already demonstrated they didn't understand, and rape survivors by producing a sports team analogue in which one may side with either fictional rapists over their fictional victims or with snarky dismissals of a serious topic.

The criticism of everything that followed is that Gabe was being a real dick and Tycho/Khoo/et al were nowhere to be seen while Gabe was being a real dick, leading people to the impression that PA as a whole had no problem sticking the knife into rape victims, and that there's a real difference between satirizing power and incompetence and jokes that have as their butt sufferers of trauma.

I think that's a fair summation; I invite correction if I've misrepresented or misunderstood anything.
posted by Errant at 4:40 PM on February 3, 2011 [7 favorites]

OK, what does it [rape culture] mean then? Because that's pretty much the definition I've gotten out of this discussion.

I've always read it as being meant as enabling, not supporting, with the same nuance as one can be an enabler of an alcoholic or drug addict in widely different ways.
posted by phearlez at 4:43 PM on February 3, 2011

Nope, I think you pretty much got it!
posted by cavalier at 4:44 PM on February 3, 2011

So, a mention of rape within a joke is out of bounds, regardless whether the joke minimizes rape or not?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:45 PM on February 3, 2011

I think I'm closer to your position than, say, Pope Guilty's on this, ChurchHatesTucker, but really - that question has been pretty well beaten to death and well covered in the previous 900 comments. I don't think there's new understanding or agreement to map.
posted by phearlez at 4:48 PM on February 3, 2011

So, a mention of rape within a joke is out of bounds, regardless whether the joke minimizes rape or not?

The argument is that it is impossible for a rape joke to not minimize rape, given the current culture and climate of general marginalization. Even rape jokes that are not actively hostile towards rape victims are still harmful, because the action of that joke makes it possible for other, more overtly harmful rape jokes to exist without condemnation. I am not saying I agree with that argument, but that is the argument.
posted by Errant at 4:49 PM on February 3, 2011

So... yes?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:49 PM on February 3, 2011

It's been fairly clear from the beginning that they don't understand the criticism levied at them and are reading it as "you said rape, you support rape", which is so obviously ridiculous that one can understand their confusion that anyone would take such an accusation seriously.

*blinks*

OK, what does it mean then? Because that's pretty much the definition I've gotten out of this discussion.

Here's the Shakesville Rape Culture 101 article. Some people originally criticized the original strip as perpetuating rape culture [which is not the same thing as being pro-rape], because the use of rape as a hyperbolic terrible thing minimizes that it's actually a very common terrible thing.

Most of the criticism they're getting is about how they've responded to the original criticism, with a snarky second strip and a t-shirt that indicates they aren't taking the original criticism seriously. They easily could have dropped it at any point and it wouldn't have escalated this far.

There are no thought police. And in the United States [and many other parts of the world] there are no real speech police, either. People are allowed to say a lot of terrible things to whomever they like about whatever they like. But other people are free to criticize them and think of them as assholes for doing so.
posted by girih knot at 4:50 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

jsturgill: Yes, your heart is in the right place. However, controlling the flow of the narrative is actually one of the important pieces in this whole discussion, I think. The relevance of the initial "attacks" is important, since there needs to be a clear articulation of "what happened here." It frames the argument, and since there are subjectively right and wrong on both sides of the argument, the context of 'who shot first' starts to make more sense.

From Jerry's recent blog post, he states "We make disgusting, immoral comics on occasion to be sure; we’re used to correspondence in that vein. But when mail started to come in to the effect that we were perpetuating a fundamental social conspiracy to rape, we couldn’t believe what we were reading." (emphasis mine)
It might help if there was some clarification as to when those mails came in; before or after the second comic. From my reading of his statement, the mails and criticisms came in directly to them via e-mail or something _before_ Mike went on the site and made those rather bad decisions, but either way, the initial misunderstanding does not seem to have any linkable direct evidence. But, from that supposition, it seems that their reaction was much more understandable, in the "what are these people talking about? we don't support rape" response and everything from there is just escalation due to miscommunication. And that's really, really early in this whole thing.

Yes. once things escalated, it went completely nutso and it became a trainwreck very quickly. But it gained more and more steam the more people jumped in on BOTH sides, turning it very quickly into an INTERNET SHITSTORM. Can we at least agree on that and maybe learn from it?
posted by daq at 4:50 PM on February 3, 2011

phearlez: "For me it's all about their continuing to pick the fight. Being offended, rightly or wrongly, is one thing. Having a hard time putting down the angry stick once it's in your hand, we've all been there. Repeatedly, deliberately, going out of your way to swing it? That's not about one belief, that's about a way of dealing with the world and the person you're choosing to be"

Exactly.
Earlier in the year, they posted a comic that compared piracy and used game sales some people got offended.

The reaction was pretty big from fans and game developersso they solicited feedback and reposted it that same day..

Rape survivors saying they feel unsafe going to your convention when there are sales of dickwolves shirts were worth attacking, strawmanning, and mocking them for months, up to and including expanding the dickwolves merch to ladies' tees and pennants. So it's not like them responding to things in a careful, thoughtful manner the same day wasn't done before.

to quote @thefremen, "But when a dude bro says 'oh hey I buy used games all the time but my hat isn’t backwards like that guy in the comic!' then it’s worth sitting down and having a rational conversation instead of sticking to your guns and being a huge jerk?"

They don't seem like they've really absorbed much of the lesson. Wearing the shirts at PAX are still okay. And there has been no word as to wethereveryone who felt "conflicted" is still officially dis-invited from PAX.
posted by ShawnStruck at 4:52 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

By the way, while I don't especially mind doing it, I'm basically just restating the original post from Shakesville, the first "offended" link in the FPP. It might be worthwhile to reread it.
posted by Errant at 4:54 PM on February 3, 2011

Even rape jokes that are not actively hostile towards rape victims are still harmful, because the action of that joke makes it possible for other, more overtly harmful rape jokes to exist without condemnation.

By that logic The Great Dictator is a fascist movie.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:11 PM on February 3, 2011

Well, no, because situations and logic are not transitive. There was not a culture of marginalizing the fascist threat and demanding that the victims of fascism prove that they didn't have it coming despite wearing that liberal outfit. And The Great Dictator ends with an unironic, fourth-wall-smashing monologue in which Chaplin unambiguously decries fascism and urges political and military action against it. The latter is what rape culture demands as antidote, that the issue of rape is treated seriously and directly, without irony and without marginalization as something less than it is.
posted by Errant at 5:17 PM on February 3, 2011 [3 favorites]

By that logic The Great Dictator is a fascist movie.

No, but if every third TV show or action movie cynically used fascism as a cheap plot point and Jerry Brucker produced a jaw-droppingly exploitative "anti-fascist" CSI: Holocaust franchise wherein the camera lingered lovingly each week on the suffering and screams of the victim characters, then it wouldn't be shocking for people to think we have a culture that trivializes fascism and has an unhealthy fixation on images of it.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:24 PM on February 3, 2011 [7 favorites]

er, Bruckheimer
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:25 PM on February 3, 2011

ChurchHatesTucker: I think what you are seeing here is where a lot of the "WTF" many people have with the anti-PA crowds argument that "all reference to rape must be taken seriously". It is not consistent or logical, and several of them will even admit this is almost entirely an emotional issue (or they should).

Errant: I don't think what you propose is a solution. Humans, sadly, are not as simplistic as that ideal solution and trying to force them into that mold will cause even more of these conflicts and misunderstandings. But that's my opinion based upon the evidence of how complicated the human ego is. I'm sure there are people who can and will go to great lengths to affect this type of change, but until we can all be made aware of just how stupid we all really are, it's going to be very, very difficult and will be a constant struggle. Sometimes you have to enjoy your ice cream and ignore the shit on your shoe, to paraphrase someone much smarter than me.
posted by daq at 5:30 PM on February 3, 2011

Yes. once things escalated, it went completely nutso and it became a trainwreck very quickly. But it gained more and more steam the more people jumped in on BOTH sides, turning it very quickly into an INTERNET SHITSTORM. Can we at least agree on that and maybe learn from it?

But as the saying goes, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

At some point either one of the Hatfields or one of the McCoys has to put down the pitchfork and not stab back. We are all sympathetic to the fact that in the heat of the moment it is SO DAMNED HARD to do that. There's even a point where it's reasonable to react to someone swinging that pitchfork at you with your own.

But it's also reasonable to say that we want to live in a world where every conflict doesn't escalate to blows because nobody will back down. Or even that every conflict doesn't always stay at the same level, never declining in fervor because someone won't just walk away.

In specific in this case, I think it's also reasonable to say that when you are the person with an audience of millions who purports to want to make the world better that maybe, when you find yourself with upset people saying they feel hurt that maybe you might want to use your giant-ass platform and bully pulpit to settle everything the fuck down.

I just cannot reconcile someone who, on one hand, exhorts people to open their wallet and make a personal financial sacrifice to make better the lives of ill children with, on the other hand, making a deliberate effort to tweak people over rape. You can think they're over-sensitive or humorless or whatever and still STOP THROWING ROCKS AT THEM.

When you use your position of 1000x as much reach and influence to be petty at someone you're just being a bully.
posted by phearlez at 5:33 PM on February 3, 2011 [5 favorites]

jsturgill: I don't think I said that it washes cleanly or evenly. I'm of the opinion that making any judgement on this is not my place. I'm simply trying to understand the circumstances and catalogue them in a way that illustrates my view that this is an identifiable learning experience that other people can learn from, not something that people should decide that they hate one group or another from. Trying to gain understanding = good thing everyone can get from a bad situation.

Also, while yes, every blogger weighed in, when you try and look at the macro scale, the nuances become less clear, and it can be dragged down at this point to "pro-PA" and "anti-PA". Well, there's the third party, maybe, the observer who doesn't judge, but I don't think anyone actually objectively fits in that. Even as I try to be dispassionate (and fail miserably) about the discussion, I tend to end up making judgements about the people involved, in one way or another. I just don't see either side as evil. I see both sides as complex humans with multifaceted motivations and distinct subjective viewpoints butting heads in a rather fascinating public conflict. At least that's what I tell myself, and I'm probably wrong.

Sorry, I'm slow today and probably not exactly clear.
posted by daq at 5:42 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Well, no, because situations and logic are not transitive.

They don't take an object?

No, but if every third TV show or action movie cynically used fascism as a cheap plot point...

Well, some do, but I get your point. I don't know if that's required though. It's an interesting thought. Does humor require an accretion of target?

But it's also reasonable to say that we want to live in a world where every conflict doesn't escalate to blows because nobody will back down.

Yeah, there's an upside and a downside to the fact that you don't really have to back up your words on the internets.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:42 PM on February 3, 2011

The transitive property.

daq: To be clear, it's not my solution. I'm still figuring out where I stand on the rape culture theory. I don't find it difficult to declare a moratorium on rape jokes while I'm thinking about it, though.
posted by Errant at 5:51 PM on February 3, 2011

phearlez: "I think it's also reasonable to say that when you are the person with an audience of millions..."
This bugs me for some reason. They are humans. They are not perfect, omniscient beings who will always be exactly one thing forever and ever. I believe it is wrong to treat any human in this way (this is an opinion, please do not attack me over this belief). People are fallible. Do deny such is to be willfully ignorant of reality, and again to quote smarter people "arguing with reality, you'll only be wrong 100% of the time." (I've been wanting to use that since I heard it a few days ago, sorry). Yes, people expect you to be perfect if you are a public figure. They will be disappointed. Not might be. Will be. The only people who never disappoint, never do anything. The mob that came after them for them defending themselves was pretty large and vocal and said some pretty crazy things based upon a supposition that they meant something they did not, or even understood what they were initially being criticized for.
This might also be why I'm slow to condemn Mike for his responses as well. If someone calls you a vile thing because of something you did and you feel that they are harming you, sometimes you can't take that and you say something back. Probably not the right thing, probably not something smart or sensitive. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not condoning the snark and vitriol that came with it and after it. It's just what happens and there were probably better ways to handle it that wouldn't have escalated things, but it's kind of like the space program. I was watching "When We Left The Earth" last night, and they covered the accident that killed Gus Grissham where they had an electrical short in the capsule that set the pure O2 sealed environment and exposed aluminum in the capsule, killing them in 30 seconds. This happened because in the rush to get the Apollo program up, they hadn't realized that aluminum burns when you have it in a pure O2 environment. NASA had to learn from this deadly mistake and went on to send men to the moon. To my mind, this episode of web drama and this clash between rape victims and "PA fans" (though that really doesn't cover the whole of it. I'm pretty sure many of the griefers in this debacle were just online trolls who love to throw poo at any and everyone online. see /b-tards).

Or something. I guess. Maybe. I really don't know for sure. I'm still learning.
posted by daq at 5:59 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

If someone calls you a vile thing because of something you did and you feel that they are harming you, sometimes you can't take that and you say something back.

Yeah, I kind of think that's how this played out. Group A thought that Group B said something vile and called them out on it.

Group B thought that Group A was off their rocker, and fired back.

Internet ensues.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:12 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

C'mon we're sooooo close to 1000 :(
posted by hermitosis at 8:20 PM on February 3, 2011

I'll help, buddy.
posted by Errant at 8:39 PM on February 3, 2011

Wow, crazy long thread. My view is that the original comic wasn't really that offensive of encouraging 'rape culture' but the shirt pretty much "team rapist" due to the transitive property.

I realize the idea behind the shirt was "Team I didn't find that comic offensive" or "Team stop being so sensitive". But just because one person creates something with one meaning doesn't mean it can't have other meanings.
posted by delmoi at 8:49 PM on February 3, 2011 [5 favorites]

I think that one of the things people found offensive is that the meaning "team stop being so sensitive" is a direct contributor to rape culture in a way that the original sentiments might not have been. For their detractors, the shirt confirmed their suspicions.
posted by Errant at 9:19 PM on February 3, 2011 [4 favorites]

Someone needs to bake a very large, delicious cake for the mods.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:48 PM on February 3, 2011 [7 favorites]

Like grains of sand in an hour glass, so are the opinions of peoples with internet access
posted by Redhush at 9:50 PM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]

Redhush: "Like grains of sand in an hour glass, so are the opinions of peoples with internet access"

Seriously? You're going for "It's only the Internet"... on a site... on the internet?
posted by ShawnStruck at 9:56 PM on February 3, 2011

I disagree with the notion there are just two sides... Reducing it to a story about two sides is unnecessary and inaccurate.
...
But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the scales balance.

jsturgill: It's hard to put stuff on a scale without first splitting it in two. I agree with your first paragraph. There are many (so many!) different people with many distinct opinions.
posted by ODiV at 11:02 PM on February 3, 2011

[Achievement Unlocked: Post an FPP]
posted by Artw at 11:16 PM on February 3, 2011

[Achievement Unlocked: Gte 1000 comments on an FPP]
posted by Artw at 11:17 PM on February 3, 2011 [5 favorites]

Oh, and just because I saw the episode recently, did MetaFilter talk about the rape during sleep joke in 30 Rock? I'd like to read that conversation, but I can't find a mention of it. I personally found that joke way more offensive and graphic than the Penny Arcade one.

I'm off to look for some of the responses on the Internet, but would love some pointers to some if anyone was reading relevant blogs/forums when it happened.
posted by ODiV at 11:22 PM on February 3, 2011

I also disagree with the idea that equivalent wrongs have been done by all. PA, and PA fans, engaged in an escalating series of actions over a long period of time that are inexcusable and were unwarranted. They are not unforgivable actions. I forgive them, and I have no desire to punish them, humiliate them, or exact recompense from them. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the scales balance.

I guess you missed the bit where "anti-rape people" are phoning the home of the cartoonist and threatening to murder his wife and child.
posted by rodgerd at 11:34 PM on February 3, 2011

The problem with saying "anti-rape people" is that it implies the other side is saying "pro-rape", and no one thinks that.
posted by Errant at 11:48 PM on February 3, 2011

The rape culture things seems easy to understand, but since some people still seem totally confused by it, I'll offer one or two disgusting analogies, that may help make it clearer.

Imagine a world in which instead of people saying they were "raped" when they paid too much for something, or when their game character loses a battle, they said instead that they were lynched. Imagine that there were thousands upon thousands of popular books, films and TV shows that used lynching black people as a fascinating plot point. Imagine that there was tons and tons of porn about it. Imagine that edgy advertising used lynching references, and that it completely common for people on the internet and in real life to throw around the term in both casual and specific, threatening ways. Imagine that when real cases of it happened there was a ton of controversy about whether the victim had asked for it, by perhaps being in a white neighborhood, or saying something white people didn't like, or by wearing something that might have angered a mob enough to lynch them, or by looking at somebody's wife, or by having once done something completely unrelated that people could point to as evidence that they deserved this attack.

Imagine that the police and justice establishment were largely unbelieving, unfriendly to the victims, often unmotivated to prosecute, and even further victimized survivors — to the degree that they would often feel that the legal and judicial process was not only not "on their side" but a significant cog in the pro-lynch (or "lynching: we just don't really care that much") machine. Imagine that a huge number of people, upon hearing that someone was lynched, wondered what the victim did wrong to get in that situation, or just didn't believe that it happened that way at all — that they actually did it to themselves and made it look like other people did it, or that maybe they agreed to play with ropes and trees at first, but then changed their mind.

Imagine that black people who fought against all this were considered crazy radical, uptight, humorless, and overly sensitive. Imagine that people told them constantly to just "get therapy and deal with it yourself," or "stop embracing the victim role," or "I'm sorry this happened, but I'm not going to stop making jokes about it, because of free speech," and that every time they complained about it, they were sent death threats and comments comments that they are lazy and stupid and darkskinned, and "hope u r lynched to death."

Now, this doesn't actually take much imagination, because much of that description was true not long ago, and large swathes of it remain true today, so maybe it won't seem like such an impossible concept to understand.

For people whom even this does not seem realistic for some reason, or still too far away from their personal experience: for guys, try to imagine that one in six men (or some number somewhat higher or lower) were violently castrated against their will, that this was a real, true everyday threat to you as an individual, and that you lived in a culture that didn't take it all that seriously, was even actually titillated by it, and didn't appreciate your uptight complaints about that. Imagine people saying "I just don't get this "Castration Culture" thing; are you saying that by making jokes about castration that I'm a castrator? Because I'm totally not, and how dare you imply otherwise." Then imagine them wearing a T-shirt that makes fun of you for expressing this unpopular point of view: something like Team Ballslashers, with a funny figure of a wolf with razor blades for legs.
posted by taz at 11:59 PM on February 3, 2011 [23 favorites]

The term "rape culture" describes a world in which rape is not taken seriously as the extreme violation that it is.

Here's the Shakesville Rape Culture 101 article. Some people originally criticized the original strip as perpetuating rape culture [which is not the same thing as being pro-rape] [...]

A rape culture is a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.

We don’t ask our leaders to make indelible marks on the victims of rape, to affix on them a puritanical “A” that cannot be erased. We don’t bracelet them at the ankle and track them like rare birds or runaway slaves. We don’t castrate them like dogs. We don’t mandate that victims of rape should be handled not like living things but like something radioactive, penned away in waste places, shunted from the human landfills of our prisons to half-lives in psychiatric wards. We don’t zone them clean out of our cities and cut them out of our economies, reduce them to a pollutant factor dispersed safely across a map. We don’t categorically demote the victims of rape into animal -predator or hazard -path.

We do these things to those we convict of rape. The above aren’t to be found in the patterns of our speech or in the spurs of our jokes. They aren’t a matter of making solid a tacit belief or a theoretical apparatus. On the contrary, these are matters of material fact triumphant over theory, of what we do over what we say we do. They are facts for which our beliefs must be suspended, and our ethics must gain way, and our humanisms and our gospels and civilization et al.

We are not soft on rape. We are barbaric on it. We are frigging medieval. But what is interesting to me is the (gerryblog’s among others) repeated use of the word "serious." I’m open to the idea that we can be barbaric about something and yet be completely unserious about it.

My difficulty with any subject involving crime is not in the possibility that we can all grow more serious about it (we could), but of the probability of us (not us here, but us, all) remaining what we otherwise are. If we’re at war with Shakesville's "terrorism against women," it would be a shame for it to go as well as the other one.
posted by kid ichorous at 12:32 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

For people whom even this does not seem realistic for some reason, or still too far away from their personal experience: for guys, try to imagine that one in six men (or some number somewhat higher or lower) were violently castrated against their will, that this was a real, true everyday threat to you as an individual,

FYI, in the US we still practice castration as a form of punishment. We do this exclusively to people convicted of rape. Nobody else is deemed quite so low.
posted by kid ichorous at 1:10 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

We do these things to those we convict of rape.

While I am entirely in agreement with you on the barbarism of the US prison system, the point that Shakesville and many other are trying to make is that your outrage is confined to the treatment of those who are convicted. Meaning, their victims have gone public despite opprobrium, have subjected themselves to the second rape and to the hostile gaze of the public, and have somehow managed to prove via impartial evidence that what actually happened did happen. Think about all of the ways for that scheme to falter, at any point, and you'll start to get why they're (and I'm) so mad: there are so many ways for the victim of this crime to be derailed, and there are so many ways for their victimizer to go unpunished, just because the culture favors the victimizer in this instance, when it should side with the victim of the crime.

Once the culture and the system is equitable in its treatment of this violation, I can have a serious conversation about how the perpetrators are treated. I should be able to do that now, and I sincerely apologize that I don't have the energy for it. But the gross violation and its accomodation happens so much earlier than any trial that I have a hard time finding the strength left to protest on behalf of those who committed such an egregious crime that they managed to get convicted despite the entire deck being stacked in their favor.
posted by Errant at 2:27 AM on February 4, 2011 [5 favorites]

I have a hard time finding the strength left to protest on behalf of those who committed such an egregious crime that they managed to get convicted despite the entire deck being stacked in their favor.

What's interesting about this is that if our punishments are truly inordinate like SDP status or castration, or even unusual, like disenfranchisement and permanent blackballing, you could say that we've only equipped ourselves for punishing the most exceptional crimes, if those. If the Bull of Phalaris were our only mode of deterrence, we couldn't really justify putting anyone inside it except its creator. It becomes nearly as useless as having no law at all, and only exists to be a kind of shrine to our obscenity, a human pyramid. I would say that Guantanamo has achieved exactly this.
posted by kid ichorous at 3:37 AM on February 4, 2011

have subjected themselves to the second rape and to the hostile gaze of the public

"The product of rape culture is a culture in which the act of rape is treated as not relevant or immediately threatening or abstract and fairly harmless, viz: calling things rape that aren't rape, such as "I thought that guy was a noob, but he raped me up and down the server.""
posted by kafziel at 5:57 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

"While I am entirely in agreement with you on the barbarism of the US prison system, the point that Shakesville and many other are trying to make is that your outrage is confined to the treatment of those who are convicted"

I understand what you're trying to get at here -- that we know of many cases where guilty parties have escaped justice by exploiting callous juries. And I am willing to guess that you mean we should be less willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to accused rapists in he-said-she-said situations. But please realize that without giving you the benefit of the doubt and bending over backwards to offer a favorable reading of your statement, it sounds like you would approve of a world where people are castrated, branded, and ostracized even if there is no proof that they did anything wrong, because simply the accusation of rape is so serious.

I do not believe that you think that, or that you intend to say that, and there is no need to defend your intent, I just wanted to point out that the words you're using would easily communicate that message to someone who isn't already six or seven steps down the same train of thought that you are.

And that, IMO, is where a lot of the 'YOU PEOPLE' arguments against those trying to fight rape culture come from. Taking the extra time and energy to explain the complexity of the problem, and to avoid skipping over the important conceptual linchpins like absurdly low conviction rates and high burden of proof, is not sugar-coating. It's communicating.
posted by verb at 6:51 AM on February 4, 2011

Here's the Shakesville Rape Culture 101 article.

There's a lot of holes in that article, IMO, where it's trying too hard to encompass seemingly everything and leaving itself open to dismissal. It would be easy for someone for read and then mentally cross off all the things they don't that are the article and thereby say "I'm not part of the problem, you're talking about someone else." Rewriting it to be a more targeted and concise might be more useful in terms of conveying the width and breadth of the problem.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:54 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

kafziel, you didn't just catch someone in a hypocritical abstract rape normalization moment and win the internets. Or at least, not just that.

My understanding is that during the lengthy reporting to police + trial process, people who have been raped are asked to go over every detail of what happened to them several times, to the police, in depositions, on the stand, in public and in private. Their feelings are treated as invalid or sham, and they are told they were not raped at all. They are liars. They are whores. They deserved it. They are harassed by strangers with an ax to grind and they read about what happened to them in newspapers. This process can make them feel as though they are experiencing their rape, literally experiencing it, several times over, through the magic of PTSD. On top of that, there is of course the metaphor of rape as you are familiar with it: the process is invasive, humiliating, dehumanizing, and all stacked in the favor of the agressor.

Calling that experience a "second rape" is, from what I understand, not usually considered a problematic statement with respect to furthering rape culture. In fact, I've often heard the phrase used as a way to try to explain to people who are clueless exactly why it is that rape is underreported and under prosecuted. In other words, they use it as a courtesy to help people learn who just. Don't. Get it., and as a literal description of what often happens to survivors due to PTSD.

Instead of trying to "gotcha!" other people, why not try listening and thinking and reading, and then, if you have a legitimate question, ask it, or a legitimate comment, make it? I promise you that the feminists and critics of PA's actions are acting in good faith and would enjoy responding to good faith questions and comments.

There are subtleties to every worldview or philosophy that are not easily understood by outsiders. Apparent inconsistencies that exist for historical or practical reasons. True contradictions, which followers learn to compartmentalize because they allow for something positive to exist that would not otherwise exist, and they as of yet have found no way to synthesize those particular aspects of their belief. Feminists are not alone in this. Everyone's world is fragmented, incomplete, and contradictory.
posted by jsturgill at 7:00 AM on February 4, 2011 [3 favorites]

There's a lot of holes in that article, IMO

From that link, FYI:
"That's hardly everything. It's merely the tip of an unfathomable iceberg."
posted by Threeway Handshake at 7:35 AM on February 4, 2011

I understand what you're trying to get at here -- that we know of many cases where guilty parties have escaped justice by exploiting callous juries. And I am willing to guess that you mean we should be less willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to accused rapists in he-said-she-said situations. But please realize that without giving you the benefit of the doubt and bending over backwards to offer a favorable reading of your statement, it sounds like you would approve of a world where people are castrated, branded, and ostracized even if there is no proof that they did anything wrong, because simply the accusation of rape is so serious.

That's what you're getting out of:

While I am entirely in agreement with you on the barbarism of the US prison system, the point that Shakesville and many other are trying to make is that your outrage is confined to the treatment of those who are convicted?

What I got out of that was that Errant had just read somebody talking at great length and with some really flowery metaphors about how badly convicted rapists were treated, without apparently taking into account that they were being treated that way - a way which Errant saw as a problematic outcropping of the greater problem of the treatment of inmates in the US prison system - because they had been convicted (rather than accused) of rape, and that, in a sense, are probably the authors of their own misfortune in a way that the victims of rape are not. It may just be me, here, but I think that's a less wildly eccentric reading than "Errant thinks people should be castrated without due process if they are accused of rape", unless you are working really hard on that interpretation.

(The next objection, I think, may be that people can be wrongfully convicted of crimes. Which is, of course, true, but generally tariffs for crimes are not set with consideration for the possibility that the person being sentenced may have been wrongfully convicted.)

tl;dr Hester Prynne? Escaped slaves? Really? Those are our metaphorical reference points here?
posted by DNye at 7:39 AM on February 4, 2011

"What I got out of that was that Errant had just read somebody talking at great length and with some really flowery metaphors about how badly convicted rapists were treated, without apparently taking into account that they were being treated that way... because they had been convicted (rather than accused) of rape ."

I was basing my reading on the following portion of Errant's post, as well:

"Think about all of the ways for that scheme to falter, at any point, and you'll start to get why they're (and I'm) so mad: there are so many ways for the victim of this crime to be derailed, and there are so many ways for their victimizer to go unpunished, just because the culture favors the victimizer in this instance, when it should side with the victim of the crime."

If it hadn't been for that portion, I would probably agree with your reading. But from the whole post it seemed obvious that Errant was talking about the 'tons of guilty rapists go free' problem, rather than the 'boo hoo, poor rapists' angle.

I want to reiterate that I do not believe Errant is actually advocating that we discard "legal innocence until guilt is proven," or anything like that. I'm just saying that statements like the ones above are very easy for readers to misinterpret if they are not already on the same path and thinking about the same issues of PTSD difficulties in getting testimony, low conviction rates, and so on.

It is a very complex and difficult problem: how can we make this process simpler, easier, and less traumatic without also compromising concepts like the presumption of innocence? There are certainly ways, but it is not as simple as just saying, "We should side with the victim." it's hard and even without "rape apologists" poisoning the well, it's a very difficult challenge.
posted by verb at 7:52 AM on February 4, 2011

But from the whole post it seemed obvious that Errant was talking about the 'tons of guilty rapists go free' problem, rather than the 'boo hoo, poor rapists' angle.

I think it's possible to talk about both. Like I say, Hester Prynne and escaped slaves are really odd metaphors. I'm slightly concerned that Rosa Parks might be next.
posted by DNye at 8:13 AM on February 4, 2011

I do not think it is at all difficult to identify how our culture can be "barbaric about" prosecuting rape while still failing to serve the interests of rape victims, kid ichorous.

Prosecuting rape in a way that is less-harmful to the victim presents a lot of problems in our adversarial justice system. I don't think there's simple answers to this and I'm not sufficiently educated on the arguments to discuss possible reforms. But as others said above, it is often an endless repeat of trauma for the victim just by virtue of that system, no matter how gently handled. Poorly handled it is a living nightmare.

So, for this discussion, call that too difficult to reconcile with an adversarial system we can't just upend and put aside. There's plenty of ways within that system that I'd say we are demonstrably simultaneously unserious about harm reduction.

Rape kits is an easy one. The number of unprocessed kits in the country is phenomenal. There's been some improvement here, as with this story from LA about their catching up on a 6,000+ backlog.

6,000 potential leads on crimes is just phenomenal. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at that and question what sort of mindset allows that number to happen. Sure, funds can be tight and areas have setbacks... but it's not a one-place kind of thing. It's a common issue. This story quotes an official from Wayne County, Michigan saying they'd built up a 10,000 kit backlog over a ten-year period.

Wikipedia identifies Wayne County as having 2,000,000 people. They have 1 unprocessed rape kit for every 200 citizens. 15 for every square mile of their county.

I don't think it's stretching to question whether we'd tolerate that sort of thing for other sorts of crimes. When we had two nutters driving around our area shooting at people there was a massive manhunt to capture them. By the time it was over they'd killed or injured 17 people in a 3 week period. Capturing them had become a no-costs-limited priority on day 3, after 6 shots had been fired.

Compare that to Wayne County's numbers. 10,000 in 10 years means 1,000 a year. That's 19 kits a week. 2.7 a day. About the same quantity of victimization over the same physical area over the same time. Yes, there's a differing mentality here about perception of risk. There's not a single suspect to chase. But set all that stuff aside and don't you wonder - why isn't finding the money to process this evidence which rolls in every day as important as finding the money to go after the beltway snipers?

But put that aside - maybe the addition of money and staffing makes it too complicated to talk about. How about something 'free' to fix? Say, sidewalk harassment.

Let's put it in the bluntest possible way: if a construction site had workers who were calling "hey nigger, hey nigger!" at every person of color who walked by you can be sure something would be done. The dudes pulling that shit would be fired straight-up. And they wouldn't be doing it sometimes kinda, and keeping an eye out for their foreman, because it would happen enough times that they'd pull that shit on someone with clout and it would bite them in the ass. Because that person would turn around and make noise about it and there's be repercussions not only for the bad actor but for their boss and the company etc.

Wasn't always the way. Sometimes I'm giddily thrilled with the progress we've made in society over the last fifty years. But now that shit, on average, will not fly.

But catcalling women? Still happens plenty. I know people who walk the streets of DC, folks who get to make decisions and recommendations about billions of dollars, but they cross the street to avoid situations where they know it's likely - not just possible, but likely - that they're going to get hollered at. Might be obscenity, might be "harmless compliments." And that's the kind of reaction they'd get if they made a stink - just let it go. He's just kinda crass, but he's saying something nice. It's no big deal.

Nobody would say that to Mayor Gray if some white guy yelled "hey shadow, c'mere" at him when he walked by a site. But if someone yelled "hey legs, c'mere" at Councilmember Chey and she made an issue of it? She'd be mocked, called names. If she got the asshole fired we'd get a profile of the jerk in the media, maybe some story about how those ill-chosen words are going to make life so hard for his wife and 2.5 kids.

And how many of you read this and wondered what Councilmember Chey looks like?

I think the discussion of the subject of 'rape culture' over-reaches in some things, either because it's a too-tenuous connection or because it's a sufficiently general issue as to be un-addressable in our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes. But yes, we can and do treat the end symptom - violence against women - without addressing possible contributing causes or obvious disease - tacit allowing of denigration and objectification of unwilling women.
posted by phearlez at 8:20 AM on February 4, 2011 [18 favorites]

"Rape culture" is not a perfect model and not every single invocation of it is a diamond-hard gem of unassailable rhetorical perfection, but it's still a useful lens through which to examine serious, real life problems that are not usually addressed well.
posted by Sticherbeast at 8:34 AM on February 4, 2011 [3 favorites]

And how many of you read this and wondered what Councilmember Chey looks like?

I don't think this part is really significant.
posted by neuromodulator at 9:24 AM on February 4, 2011

Another post from Melissa McEwan on the subject.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 9:38 AM on February 4, 2011

That latest post makes me sigh. She's absolutely correct in that people who jump into a blog and cry censorship when they're banned for violating the blog's participation rules. Those people suck.

But when she says:

When I ask a person not to engage in rape apologia in this space, because it is my space and I have not only not consented to host rape apologia here, but have also explicitly and repeatedly deemed it off-limits, and that person continues to engage in rape apologia nonetheless, without regard for my boundaries or personal autonomy, that's not exactly someone who's demonstrating a commitment to the notions of consent, autonomy, and respect.

That's someone who's leveraging the values of a rape culture to violate my boundaries.

That's someone who's acting like a fucking rapist.

How is that not minimizing rape? I totally get that willingness to dismiss rape, or use it as a jokey punch line, or a any number of other things about a culture of rape are bad. But when someone compares violating a blog's commenting policies to rape, I don't see how it's any different than someone who uses it to describe their WoW account being hacked.
posted by verb at 9:43 AM on February 4, 2011 [8 favorites]

I don't think this part is really significant.

I do! A bunch times I have told a group of friends about street harassment directed toward me, and they asked what I had been wearing to elicit the harassment. The thought behind it is that I must have done something to bring it upon myself, such as wearing tight pants or sashaying provocatively or maybe having on a shirt that didn't totally conceal the fact that I have breasts. (These aren't people I tell anything to anymore.)

I don't think phearlez's point was to make you feel bad about yourself. But please don't think that people asking women what they looked like when they were raped or harassed is a fantasy-world straw man.
posted by bewilderbeast at 9:43 AM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

But when someone compares violating a blog's commenting policies to rape, I don't see how it's any different than someone who uses it to describe their WoW account being hacked.

The point I believe she is making is that both are on a spectrum that starts at ignoring someone's boundaries, dismissing their feelings, and deliberately trying to provoke a reaction, and ends at acts like rape and murder. Not equivalent, but she's drawing a line here.

Instinctively I want to say that it's not a line I would draw, but then I think of those statistics about how many men are rapists, and look at the extraordinary vitriol she's had directed at her, and I wonder if she doesn't have a fucking point.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 10:00 AM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

And how many of you read this and wondered what Councilmember Chey looks like?

I don't think this part is really significant.

FWIW, when I read "hey legs," I immediately thought of this (SFW).
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:06 AM on February 4, 2011

Point taken, bewilderbeast, but I do think there's a difference between "hearing a story in which someone's appearance is commented on and me subsequently having thoughts related to their appearance being somehow incriminating towards me" and what you're describing (shades of victim-blaming, insensitivity, missing the point, etc.). Though I recognize the distinction is pretty subtle with lots of grey. (And I don't want to be confused for someone who would ask that or think it relevant.)
posted by neuromodulator at 10:21 AM on February 4, 2011

The point I believe she is making is that both are on a spectrum that starts at ignoring someone's boundaries, dismissing their feelings, and deliberately trying to provoke a reaction, and ends at acts like rape and murder. Not equivalent, but she's drawing a line here.

Yeah, but that's the same slippery slope argument that ends with people saying that she is acting "like" a government censor. We've gone through this shitty cycle with terrorism, too. I think Mike/Gabriel was an unrepentant ass, that the crowd of LULZ jackoffs that turned it into a campaign of harassment are reprehensible, and all of the above.

But this sort of totalizing language is very problematic: she said, very explicitly, that people who violate her site's commenting policy are acting like rapists.

The point I believe she is making is that both are on a spectrum that starts at ignoring someone's boundaries, dismissing their feelings, and deliberately trying to provoke a reaction, and ends at acts like rape and murder. Not equivalent, but she's drawing a line here.

It's quite possible that I'm bringing my own baggage to this discussion. I grew up in the Evangelical/Pentacostal hybrid world, where it was common practice to announce that something was "The Worst Sin," and engage in rhetorical contortions to argue that everything bad is really some permutation of that deeper sin. Did you say something cruel to someone? You're acting like a murderer. Did you want something that wasn't yours? You're acting like a thief.

The same logic -- that simple acts are at the beginning of a spectrum, and horrible ones are at the end -- applies to all of those things. (Of course, we went through this same argument about violent speech after the Arizona shootings.)

I want to support her vigorous efforts to fight rape culture, but I can't support the things that she says. I believe they are untrue, and damaging, and minimize rape in the same way that calling someone a terrorist for frightening someone minimizes terrorism. Perhaps opposing rape culture is so important that logical rigor is unacceptable, but I would say that it is so important that making sound, defensible arguments is even more critical.
posted by verb at 10:27 AM on February 4, 2011

She made a bum point rhetorically, but what does that really mean? Even if we were to agree for the sake of argument that she's a hypocrite, her hypocrisy as a individual on this point does not change the fundamental validity of her beliefs.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:29 AM on February 4, 2011

I want to support her vigorous efforts to fight rape culture, but I can't support the things that she says

I think that's ok. You don't have to agree with every single thing a particular person says, but the overall goal is certainly a laudable one.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:39 AM on February 4, 2011

I think that's ok. You don't have to agree with every single thing a particular person says, but the overall goal is certainly a laudable one.

Yeah, if you dig through someone's words for long enough, you'll eventually find something less-than-completely-awesome or less-than-completely-consistent. If we demanded perfection from everyone before we sided with them, then nothing would ever get done.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:42 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

It might be helpful to remember that she's not just talking about "oh noes someone broke my guidelines when commenting on my site," but instead is referencing what I understand to be numerous, persistent threats of rape and violence from deliberately hostile and provoking strangers over an extended period of time.
posted by jsturgill at 10:43 AM on February 4, 2011 [4 favorites]

Huh, I didn't think what I said was that controversial. Let me try again, and I apologize for communicating things I didn't mean.

I italicized "convicted" to emphasize that kid ichorous was talking about people who have been found guilty through due process. His concerns for prisoner treatment are valid and I share them, but I have a hard time finding the energy to worry about that and also about this. I think I was fairly clear that I perceive that to be a failing on my part and not that I think convicted rapists ought to be castrated in dark cells. I certainly don't think rapists should be castrated without due process and I'm not sure where one can read that into what I wrote, but anyway: I don't think rapists should be castrated without due process. I also don't think they should be castrated with due process. Let me come out strongly on the side of anti-castration in general.

But the ways in which rape is prosecuted differ visibly and dramatically from other crimes in their rhetorical emphasis on the accuser rather than the accused. I don't think this is a controversial notion. We don't ask the victims of gun crimes to describe their entire history of weapons or being shot at, we don't tell them that because they too own a gun they shouldn't have been surprised when someone shot them, we don't suggest that their being shot is evidence of a moral failing on their part.

So when I said "egregious", I wasn't talking about every case of rape (although I could have been, and they are), I was saying that it's really hard to get convicted of rape in a system that attacks and diminishes the accuser at every turn. I have a hard time mustering sympathy for people who have so clearly violated someone that even in this favorable system they are found guilty. Again, I should be able to have sympathy for them and to take up the mantle of their prisoner rights, and it is to my discredit that I don't have the extra energy left for that.

I don't think people accused of rape should be treated as guilty until proven innocent and I don't think they should not be afforded the benefit of the doubt. I do think that our system puts the victim of rape on trial as well, not for any criminal purpose but just so that if it can rhetorically demonstrate that the victim had it coming, the benefit of the doubt for the accused increases. I think that is some fucked up shit. I think it is possible to think that that is fucked up without discarding due process to fix it.

kafziel: When I use a term you don't understand, I invite you to Google it. Here, I'll help: the second rape.
posted by Errant at 10:45 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

We don't ask the victims of gun crimes to describe their entire history of weapons or being shot at

Not that going through the court process of having your rapist convicted isn't horrifying, and not that this line of question doesn't happen all the time outside of court, but rape shield laws prevent this prong of the analogy from working in the court process. (I'm not sure which jurisdictions lack rape shield laws, but those jurisdictions should be ashamed of themselves, if jurisdictions could be made to feel shame.)
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:51 AM on February 4, 2011

Sticherbeast: "She made a bum point rhetorically, but what does that really mean? Even if we were to agree for the sake of argument that she's a hypocrite, her hypocrisy as a individual on this point does not change the fundamental validity of her beliefs."

If her point was that rape culture is bad, and that the pile-on of harassment, antagonism, threats, and so on is emblematic of "rape culture," then yeah. She's correct in her point and I absolutely agree with her. A sizable, vocal crowd of people was actively using rape references to antagonize people who were rape survivors, demanding proof of rape over the Internet, and making rape pennants to show how proud they were of their ability to antagonize. And a lot of other people dismissed that as, oh, you know. Just people havin' a row on the Internet.

jsturgill: "It might be helpful to remember that she's not just talking about "oh noes someone broke my guidelines when commenting on my site," but instead is referencing what I understand to be numerous, persistent threats of rape and violence from deliberately hostile and provoking strangers over an extended period of time."

Those things are part of 'rape culture' because they treat victims of rape, and accusations of rape, or the psychological aftermath of rape, as something to dismiss or poke at. That would be true even if they had done it in their own private forum instead of on her blog's comment section. That would be true if they had done it on their blogs and she had come to them and attacked them personally in their blogs' comment sections.

She is perfectly entitled to her views, but she explicitly defines 'Rape Culture' in such a broad way that it essentially means 'people doing bad things.' Compare these two versions:

"Rape culture is a term used within women's studies and feminism, describing a culture in which rape and other sexual violence (usually against women) are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualized violence."
"[Rape Culture is] a culture in which there is endemic hostility to the notions of consent, autonomy, and respect of individual boundaries, privacy, and dignity."

The former is useful, the latter is not. I'm not saying that she must change her blog post to suit my whims, but she's certainly not going to convince anyone who isn't already in her cheering section with the argument she's using.
posted by verb at 10:57 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

"I don't think people accused of rape should be treated as guilty until proven innocent and I don't think they should not be afforded the benefit of the doubt."

Just to be clear, Empath, I don't think you're saying that either. I was just trying to point out that arguments like the ones that were being used are very easy to misunderstand unless one is already quite a few steps through the "this issue is complex and difficult" thought process.

I don't think I'm really accomplishing anything useful here, or helping matters, just getting frustrated and angry. But thanks for the thoughts and the perspectives. There has been a lot of good meat in the thread.
posted by verb at 11:00 AM on February 4, 2011

did you mean Errant?
posted by empath at 11:03 AM on February 4, 2011

Yes. Yes I did.
posted by verb at 11:03 AM on February 4, 2011

Not that going through the court process of having your rapist convicted isn't horrifying, and not that this line of question doesn't happen all the time outside of court, but rape shield laws prevent this prong of the analogy from working in the court process.

A good point well made, as they say. Rape shield laws don't prevent the defense team from dredging through an accuser's sexual and psychological history in public and in the media, as in the Kobe Bryant case, but you're correct about the formal court process. Please consider my comments amended to that effect.
posted by Errant at 11:22 AM on February 4, 2011

Those things are part of 'rape culture' because they treat victims of rape, and accusations of rape, or the psychological aftermath of rape, as something to dismiss or poke at. That would be true even if they had done it in their own private forum instead of on her blog's comment section. That would be true if they had done it on their blogs and she had come to them and attacked them personally in their blogs' comment sections.

That would also be true if they... happened exactly the way they did happen? So she's writing about a particular series of events that happened to her personally, not hypothetical events you just made up. How dare she write within the context of her experiences? I'm not seeing what the outrage is.

I also don't agree with your characterization of how her writings define rape culture. You are deliberately magnifying a single statement in a way that does her a disservice. There are valid points to be made about her decision to say that people who have threatened her with rape online are acting like rapsists by violating her autonomy, boundaries, consent, privacy, and dignity.

In fact, you made some interesting, worthwhile comments about how that statement affected you earlier on in the thread. I am glad you contributed those comments. But I think you do everyone a disservice by trying to claim that one sentiment contains her entire canonical definition of rape culture.
posted by jsturgill at 11:42 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

In the specific context of this issue, though, I think I've got a rough behavioural paradigm.

1) Is anyone tweeting under the name "@teamrape"?

2) Don't be on the side of that person about anything.

Does that sound broadly correct?
posted by DNye at 12:00 PM on February 4, 2011 [4 favorites]

And how many of you read this and wondered what Councilmember Chey looks like?

I don't think this part is really significant.

I don't think phearlez's point was to make you feel bad about yourself..

I'm sorry, it didn't even occur to me as I wrote it that it might be perceived that way. What I meant to communicate is another of what people talking about rape culture count as part of the problem - that we often have an instinctive mental reaction when we hear about these incidents, whether they be street harassment or assault. A reaction we wouldn't have to similar stories about racial incidents.

Whether you think that's a sign of something bad may depend on your point of view. Personally I believe we have a certain hard-wired nature regarding physical appearance and I'm a lot more interested in how we behave than how we think, presuming those thoughts stay purely within our brains.

But I suspect a lot of folks who are interested in the concept of 'rape culture' might not agree, and I have some sympathy for that perspective. I can't argue with the fact that there's a time when a majority of us would have had more nuanced thoughts about hearing about someone yelling racially charged words at Person X. "Well, which side of the railroad tracks were you on?" might have been a 1950s version of "well, what were you wearing?"

I may be wrong about those mental moments being a forgivable bit of hard-wiring. Perhaps these less-than-proud-making moments in my skull are entirely a societal construct and it's part of rape culture's impact on me. That's getting into the weeds where I'm not qualified to talk about the concepts and, quite frankly, I find far enough off the path that it's not the barricade I want to climb on - I want to deal with more concrete issues.

But I firmly think we don't have to go into what another side might call thoughtcrime to see how this impacts and informs sexual violence against women in the culture. I think most of us would have no problem allowing for the idea that verbal racial abuse can be a precursor to radial assault and help people rationalize it or ease their way into it. Yet we tolerate this treatment of women in a way we do not tolerate racial hatred.

I'm sure someone read that and raised their hackles a bit. "Well -I- certainly don't tolerate it," they'll say. But "the royal we" absolutely do. We don't have the visceral reaction to "nice tits!" that we do to "nigger!" and we don't bring the same societal and financial pressure against that behavior.

I get the hackle-raising, and to be on topic I get why that sort of reaction to that sort of nuance may have set off Gabe&Tycho. But if you can't get past that instinctive reaction to consider the underlying situation and respond with reason rather than defensiveness... well then I think you haven't spent some time wondering why a woman walking down the street in 2011 gets treated in a manner reminiscent of a black man walking down the street in 1950s Alabama.
posted by phearlez at 12:23 PM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

1) Is anyone tweeting under the name "@teamrape"?
2) Don't be on the side of that person about anything.

So if I choose a sufficiently offensive name for my sockpuppet, I can get you to repudiate any position you hold just by agreeing with it?
posted by straight at 12:42 PM on February 4, 2011

2. "[Rape Culture is] a culture in which there is endemic hostility to the notions of consent, autonomy, and respect of individual boundaries, privacy, and dignity."

The former is useful, the latter is not. I'm not saying that she must change her blog post to suit my whims, but she's certainly not going to convince anyone who isn't already in her cheering section with the argument she's using.

I don't get this. The whole idea of rape from a feminist perspective is that it's a violation of autonomy and consent. Sexual harassment and stalking likewise are objectionable because they violate the same principle.

And as someone who had one hand on the policy banhammer, that's exactly how we treated it. If the recipient says stop, you stop. If you continue to do it anyway, we lock down the account. If you sockpuppet to get around the lockdown, then we treat you as a harasser and stalker.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:44 PM on February 4, 2011

The basic idea here is that "no means no" applies to more than just sexual intercourse:

No, I don't want to...

* have sex with you.
* be in a relationship with you.
* listen to your sexually explicit comments about me on the street or at work.
* see your naked penis on the subway.
* receive your sexually explicit hate mail.
* host your sexually explicit attacks on my Web site.

All of these are reasonable statements to make.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:16 PM on February 4, 2011 [5 favorites]

In support of the "implicit reproach to Gabe by Tycho" theory I suggested yesterday, I noticed this tweet from the @TychoBrahe account from Wednesday:

Whenever I hear Gabriel typing a lot, I get... nervous.
12:06 PM Feb 2nd via Twitter for iPhone

Some of the new posts on the Debacle timeline (in the FPP) have focused on the inadequate nature of the apologies. I alluded to that right after they posted them, and have mixed feelings, especially for Tycho's. I think he genuinely gets the controversy, and regrets that he didn't try to de-escalate it before it got hugely out of hand and began to threaten the public image of his big event, but for whatever reason thinks that a full and sincere apology would look like an admission of weakness and abdication of his artistic freedom. I can sort of get that.

Gabe's actions have been almost all id throughout, and his apology looks much more like a "my mom made me say I'm sorry and do a better job than the one I botched last week when I stopped selling the t-shirts, which was a big goddamn concession and I can't believe that didn't shut you fuckers up".

Is that going to end this? For people other than the presenters that pulled out of PAX and the Shakesville-type community, probably. But it's a big teachable moment, and I think that there has been a lot of education that has come out of it, even if some of it has been "close, but not quite the point" variety. Even here-- some of the most ill-tempered posters have really dialed it back as everyone's real points have become more clear and less caricatured.

So yeah, I think some actual good has come from it.
posted by norm at 1:17 PM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't get this. The whole idea of rape from a feminist perspective is that it's a violation of autonomy and consent. Sexual harassment and stalking likewise are objectionable because they violate the same principle.

I think the objection is that internet harassment is quite a different thing that rape, and you may demean the latter by the association. That's not an endorsement of the former, FWIW.

I understand the whole "sliding slope" argument, but as verb (I think) pointed out above, it's possible to do that with a huge list of transgressions. Want a new iPad? Eighth commandment!

Whenever I hear Gabriel typing a lot, I get... nervous.

I feel for Tycho.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:20 PM on February 4, 2011

I just wanted to pop in and mention something about jokes/comedy. It seems that people often like to make exclamations to the effect that "comedy is ... " but these are usually wrong in some form or another. A book I've read and is fantastic that talks about this is The Comic Toolbox by John Vorhaus. Chapter 3 is The Comic Premise and it starts off by explaining:
The comic premise is the gap between comic reality and the real reality.
Any time you have a comic voice or character or world or attitude that looks at things from a skewed point of view, you have a gap between realities. Comedy lives in this gap.

He goes on to give many examples from Catch 22, Back to the Future, Peanuts and other types of comedy like puns, etc.. After reading through that and thinking about it, I've found that is probably the truest explanation of comedy.
It's quite easy sometimes for the audience to "see" the perceptual gap and perhaps sometimes the gap is too slim or maybe doesn't exist for some people thus making the joke unfunny or rather even disturbing. The common idiom "to soon!" is one way people try to make (or ruin) comedy of a possibly failed joke when it doesn't quite find the gap for them.
posted by P.o.B. at 2:23 PM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

That sounds like a version of Schopenhauer's identification of humor as existing in the sudden apprehension of the incongruity between a concept and the real object thought about through it - what is often represented as the incongruity between concept and percept. It's from The World as Will and Representation. Concept - believing oneself to be a cow is a psychological disorder with no physical consequences. Percept - we need the milk.

It's a nice definition, and one which covers a lot of ground, but I'm not sure what the relevance is here - I think whether or not the original cartoon was funny is a relatively minor point of argument.
posted by DNye at 3:33 PM on February 4, 2011

Speaking of media, I forgot to mention this yesterday when Arrested Development was being mentioned several times.

The use of false identity to get sex isn't exactly new with AD or Revenge of the Nerds (which Robot Chicken brilliantly skewered for implying it wasn't rape). It's actually a major plot point in Shakespeare's All’s Well That Ends Well.

Helena pretends to be another woman in order to get Bertram to sleep with her, which he'd sworn never to do. In fact she does not simply feign another woman's identity, she gets the other woman to arrange the encounter with no intention of anyone other than Helena being the woman in the bed waiting for him.
posted by phearlez at 4:44 PM on February 4, 2011

It's a nice definition, and one which covers a lot of ground, but I'm not sure what the relevance is here - I think whether or not the original cartoon was funny is a relatively minor point of argument.

I'm not sure how it doesn't have relevance here. If that framework for comedy holds, and explains the difference between why some people are so upset by it and others find it funny; than you should be able to see how someone's initial idea that they feel is so divorced from reality as to be comedic, would then also impact their successive decisions about taking later conversations seriously. I'm not trying to justify any position here, just trying to shine a little light on it.

Thank you for the Schopenhauer reference.
posted by P.o.B. at 7:02 PM on February 4, 2011

I wanted to come back to this:

I was just trying to point out that arguments like the ones that were being used are very easy to misunderstand unless one is already quite a few steps through the "this issue is complex and difficult" thought process.

We're over a thousand comments into this thread, the latest in a series of rape threads on the blue and corresponding ones on the grey. Basic educational resources were handed out a long time ago, and the second link in the FPP has a clearly-denoted section on 101-level theory. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that readers and writers at this point are "quite a few steps" down the road, and I don't think it's reasonable to request that every argument or thought I make be footnoted extensively for the people just joining us.

While I think I'm capable of a great deal of patience regarding the belated self-education of new participants (and in fact believe that that is the role of allies in a social justice conversation), I don't think I'll allow myself to be constrained to elementary, slowed-down arguments by the possibility that a willful or ignorant misinterpreter (not you, verb) will misinterpret me. The hypothetical misunderstander in this example will just have to catch up.
posted by Errant at 7:42 PM on February 4, 2011

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that readers and writers at this point are "quite a few steps" down the road, and I don't think it's reasonable to request that every argument or thought I make be footnoted extensively for the people just joining us.

While I think I'm capable of a great deal of patience regarding the belated self-education of new participants (and in fact believe that that is the role of allies in a social justice conversation), I don't think I'll allow myself to be constrained to elementary, slowed-down arguments by the possibility that a willful or ignorant misinterpreter (not you, verb) will misinterpret me. The hypothetical misunderstander in this example will just have to catch up.

This is unreasonable, at least part of what is driving miscommunications such as the one that this thread concerns, and very much a rookie mistake. If you believe that we live in a "rape culture"--and by most definitions I'd agree that we do--then you believe that most people won't already know the arguments, and if they are reading your post/conversation, will be "just joining." And further, if your goal is to minimalize and dismantle our rape culture, it behooves you to not make statistically unlikely assumptions about your readership.

Yes, I think that each and every person talking about important issues such as this be willing to have "the first conversation" when it is necessary. That might mean every time. But expecting people to scent the issue out of the ether and invest themselves in research--while certainly having its good points--is nonsensical given that our culture really is one in which rape is more often mishandled than not.

People really do get turned off from the concepts fundamental in feminism by others who aren't willing to hold their hand. Decide which is more important--having an exclusive conversation with like-minded others, or interacting with and potentially influencing someone who is encountering these ideas for the first time. Hint: it's the second one.
posted by Phyltre at 7:56 PM on February 4, 2011

In case anyone is interested and still reading this thread, Tycho posted an entry about this whole debacle, titled On the Matter of Dickwolves
posted by mrPalomar72 at 8:13 PM on February 4, 2011

This is unreasonable, at least part of what is driving miscommunications such as the one that this thread concerns, and very much a rookie mistake.

Well, calling me a rookie is certainly a fine start.

If you believe that we live in a "rape culture"--and by most definitions I'd agree that we do--then you believe that most people won't already know the arguments, and if they are reading your post/conversation, will be "just joining."

I believe that 1000+ comments into a thread, most people reading the 994th comment will be familiar with the arguments, or they should be. If they're not familiar with the arguments by that point, I'm not sure I'm a good enough instructor to penetrate the thick layer of bone shielding the brain from sense.

And further, if your goal is to minimalize and dismantle our rape culture, it behooves you to not make statistically unlikely assumptions about your readership.

Being chastised by you about what behooves me is a fine followup.

Yes, I think that each and every person talking about important issues such as this be willing to have "the first conversation" when it is necessary.

I agree about the first conversation, and said as much. I disagree about when necessary. I'm perfectly willing to hold people's hand for a certain amount of time, but my role in this discussion is not solely to be an adjunct professor. I have thoughts and explorations of my own that require a certain base level of education on the topic, and I'm not going to hold my own second- or third-degree opinions back just in case some unnamed, unannounced neophyte might come across it first, somehow first despite it being 20 or 30 printable pages into a topic.

But expecting people to scent the issue out of the ether and invest themselves in research--while certainly having its good points--is nonsensical given that our culture really is one in which rape is more often mishandled than not.

There are certainly people who have never studied the topic before or have never given a moment's thought to the issue of rape. To which I ask: where the hell have they been? The issue of rape hardly requires divination or a learnedness in esoteric mystery; no ether is required to be confronted by it. I'm sympathetic to the notion that people are just learning, belatedly, to get over their blinders, but, again, I'm not going to hold back my own development just because some people couldn't be bothered to take an interest in the world around them until now. I'll happily answer their questions when they ask them, but until then I think I have a right to go through my own thought process at my speed.

People really do get turned off from the concepts fundamental in feminism by others who aren't willing to hold their hand.

Yes, they do. The entitlement of those people is not my problem, but I'll talk to them anyway. Better they bother me than a feminist who's had to do it a thousand times more often than me.

Decide which is more important--having an exclusive conversation with like-minded others, or interacting with and potentially influencing someone who is encountering these ideas for the first time. Hint: it's the second one.

Thanks for the hint. Have you read this thread? The second one seems like the better descriptor for it, don't you think?

But anyway, I will decide for myself what's important to me, thanks ever so much. I might not come to the same conclusion as you, and then maybe we can have a conversation about that. But I can promise you one thing: when we do disagree, such as now, I will not patronize you the way you've patronized me here. Take your pats on the head and clucking tongue elsewhere; I don't need or want them.
posted by Errant at 8:38 PM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

Phyltre's point is the one that I was trying to get at, Errant. I wasn't suggesting that there was a huge majority of people in this thread, still participating at this point in the discussion, that wouldn't get what you're saying. Rather I was thinking about the bigger issues of how flameouts like this spiral so badly, and what can be done.

For better or worse, when trying to change the fundamental narrative we believe society operates under, simply announcing that other people have to catch up is unlikely to do much good. I'm not suggesting that you don't take the time to walk through the steps when it's required. But, again, if the assumption is that the entire cultural deck is stacked in favor of rape, it takes a fuckton of frustrating, tiring, exhausting work to make a dent. It's easy for idle "shortcut" comments, if not carefully considered, to escape closed discussions between like-minded people and be read or heard or seen by those who will either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent them to others who are on the fence.

It is unfair, and it is exhausting. But it is true. I was reflecting on that, and noting that this is a situation where that dynamic played out in big, bold letters all over the Internet. I am not victim-blaming, and I am not saying that people who see and fight against "rape culture" must be superhuman examples of patience. I'm just saying that unfortunately, unless they work hard towards that goal, the misunderstandings keep occurring.

That's the challenge faced by people who want to convince all of society that they are complicit in something terrible.
posted by verb at 8:41 PM on February 4, 2011

In case anyone is interested and still reading this thread, Tycho posted an entry about this whole debacle, titled On the Matter of Dickwolves

Dude, we've been talking about that for the last few hundred posts.
posted by norm at 8:59 PM on February 4, 2011

Redhush: "Like grains of sand in an hour glass, so are the opinions of peoples with internet access"

Seriously? You're going for "It's only the Internet"... on a site... on the internet?

Not so much that, Shawnstruck. I've been reading this whole post since the beginning with great interest. Without the internet, this would be a debate between how many at once, maybe a dozen or two? It's bones seem to boil down to "freedom of speech should have no limits" and "joking about rape is pretty shitty and unnecessary". Now, between Metafilter, all the blogs, and various other war of words sites, these concepts are fattened up a bit, and lots of facets and details are added. I don't know if anyones opinion has changed, but I would venture to hope maybe some empathy for the other side may've been fostered. Maybe more chance of it than with a face to face debate in a casual setting, where it would most likely devolve into a shouting match with no moderators at the party. I prefer a shower of sand to a rock throwing fight, but it has become a sand storm. For me, the internet is a massive potential blessing, in that it can foster a superior method on communication, because you have to think about your position more to type it out, rather than shouting out the first thing that comes to mind. Possibly an offended mind. I would think you'd have to admit that, aside from me and maybe a few others, Mefi is rich with well thought out, well stated opinions, but it seems like everyone is more buttressing their entrenched concepts. So, yeah, unchanging sand. Metafilter is a priceless diamond island in that sand, but the contrast makes me feel the rest of humanity has a lot of growing up to do before the potential good of instant worldwide communication can be realized
posted by Redhush at 9:05 PM on February 4, 2011

I've been doing some more reading and still haven't come up with a strict definition of rape culture that is completely coherent to me internally, (i.e. internally within me, one that totally jives with all possible related concepts in my own head; basically, some of the arguments against being able to strictly categorize the initial comic as part of rape culture appear to hold merit to me, without being able to quite put my finger on why, even though as I've said from the beginning all of the stuff that happened afterwards is clearly and obviously part of rape culture) but it has occurred to me that people approaching someone like Gabe or Tycho (or anyone really) should say to them something like "the evidence for why your art or statement could cause problems is found under the heading rape culture" rather than directly saying to them that they're participating in, promoting, or perpetuating rape culture.

(Obviously, the initial criticism linked in the OP did this by not even using the term "rape culture" anyways, I'm talking about some of the subsequent critics.)

While it may well be true that they are participating in, promoting, or perpetuating rape culture, it's just that if you receive a criticism like that which literally grammatically makes it about you, it's too easy to look up a definition of rape culture, compare every behavior or cultural attitude described within to yourself and your own attitudes, and say "no, nothing in me or my culture appears to match that, nor would I ever participate in or promote any of those things."

Of course, in Gabe and Tycho's particular situation, people probably did make these less-directly-about-you kind of statements and they haven't bothered to listen or distinguish from everything else; in any case as I said yesterday I find it shocking (shocking as in genuinely, wildly unexpected on my part) that Tycho seems to still misunderstand the criticisms against them to the point that he even now considers the second comic they did an adequate response, which at several months into the discussion is an inexcusable failure to try to comprehend the claims of his interlocutors. Even given any issues I might personally have with formally comprehensively defining rape culture it's easy to see that the second comic not only is an inadequate response but is pretty much inadequate enough to appear insulting to the people making the criticisms.

As for it being genuinely, wildly unexpected on my part, that comes from having read PA for years and seeing them as smart guys sensitive to many important issues. But during all the years I've read PA I've also been reading and spending much more time at MeFi. So this gives me a weird feeling of being sheltered in my intellectual life from spending so much time at MeFi, when in reality by being aware of a wider variety of peoples' concerns it's the exact opposite of being sheltered.
posted by XMLicious at 10:27 PM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

the rest of humanity has a lot of growing up to do before the potential good of instant worldwide communication can be realized

Well, yes, there is the problem that trending discussions devolve into twitter-sized arguments in which most participants spend 30 seconds apprising themselves of the issue before weighing in (usually angrily). Nevertheless, as you say, there are corners of the web that are going to insist on picking apart the whole conflict and examining every facet of every detail of every argument, and that's where we're a Viking. If discussions are allowed to stay on topic, we usually do a very good job indeed of addressing complex issues, and it could not be done this way pre-internet except in very small pools of academia.

Otherwise, is was just opinion-makers in print, or occasionally on TV, and people responding to their formulations and conclusions on controversial subjects. The internet is much more of a meritocracy with regard to ideas, because anyone's examination, concept or opinion can be incredibly influential if it is truly well made. Even if one doesn't have a significant group of followers, all it takes is a single reader to introduce your thoughts/works to a larger forum, and then across the net, and around the globe — which, for all the light and heat this medium necessarily entails, is its most revolutionary aspect. We always had a lot of low-quality sensory input (noise/signal), but alternative thought and analysis was much harder to ferret out, and almost entirely directed (and also confined/defined/inhibited) by a small, mostly homogeneous, group of influential thinkers with powerful platforms. Goodbye to all that, no matter how much people want to be all "Dude WTF, Y U care? This. Is. The. Internet. Ur arguing w imaginary peeps LOL." (not you, Redhush)

In other news, this just in: the FBI apparently (officially) thinks men can't be raped. I'm speechless.
posted by taz at 11:10 PM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

But, again, if the assumption is that the entire cultural deck is stacked in favor of rape, it takes a fuckton of frustrating, tiring, exhausting work to make a dent. It's easy for idle "shortcut" comments, if not carefully considered, to escape closed discussions between like-minded people and be read or heard or seen by those who will either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent them to others who are on the fence.

Oddly, I'm neither tired nor frustrated. I'm invigorated by the opportunity to expose a vein of progressive thought to people who might not have otherwise encountered it, and I don't shirk my duty to explicate. But I disagree with your characterization of "closed discussions by like-minded people", at least not if that is meant to apply to this thread. There has been a lively discussion with many different viewpoints across a range of opinion. I think I'm right in my opinions, of course, but I don't think I'm so right that I can't stand to learn from other perspectives; I don't think I'm so right that there's no way I could be wrong; I don't think I'm so righteous that my way is the only way. I'm eager to rhapsodize and to learn; all I ask of other participants is that they share the same willingness, whatever their starting point.

As to the last bit, no one here is unapproachable. If there is confusion, ask someone: that's what you paid your 5 bucks for. As for deliberate misrepresentation, I refuse to be held hostage by the willful malice of others.

Having said all of that, there are too many I's in the last two paragraphs for my liking. This conversation isn't about me or my discursive philosophy, it's about the men and women who suffer in a silence enforced by vandals and malefactors, a silence and an oppression propped up by people who ought to know better. I've MeMailed with a couple of you already, but if you want to talk about my specific stuff, let's go there, and meanwhile let's turn this back to the important bit, which is virtually everything else.
posted by Errant at 3:58 AM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

"If you sell Dickwolves t-shirts"

*points at @teamrape monsters*

"Those guys will wear them"
posted by LogicalDash at 6:35 AM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

So after thinking about the meaning of the term rape culture for way, way longer than this should have taken, it seems to me that stating that the original comic is part of rape culture could mean two completely different things:

That the joke is itself inherently part of rape culture and reflects the fact that its authors do not take rape seriously at some level.
That the joke might not inherently be part of rape culture and it's only the act of publishing it / telling it to lots of people that definitely made it part of rape culture. In this case when it was sitting on their drawing board / monitor it wouldn't have been part of rape culture at that point; but it's of such a nature (as most any joke mentioning rape may be) that if published and put before others, it will inevitably influence some people to take rape less seriously, or confirm / reinforce their attitude that rape is not so serious, as well as become part of an overall cultural message that some rape survivors will see as meaning that their rape is not taken seriously.

If I'm right about this (and I might not be) then it seems to me that, early on at least, it would've been a little bit sloppy to tell them that the comic was part of rape culture without specifying which of the above two things was meant. But better that someone should be a little sloppy that way than not speak out against rape culture at all, and this distinction is a moot point now anyways because they proved through their actions that it's the first case.

(In case anyone's curious about what was going on in my head, I had developed this sort of context-free definition of rape culture in which there would be no distinction between whether the joke itself was inherently part of rape culture or not. It made sense to me but if I'd tried to put the whole thing in words it would have come out like a 100-page-long engineering specification, so it wasn't matching up with the definitions I was reading elsewhere and simply served to confuse me for a while.)
posted by XMLicious at 7:01 AM on February 5, 2011

P.o.B
I'm not sure how it doesn't have relevance here. If that framework for comedy holds, and explains the difference between why some people are so upset by it and others find it funny; than you should be able to see how someone's initial idea that they feel is so divorced from reality as to be comedic, would then also impact their successive decisions about taking later conversations seriously. I'm not trying to justify any position here, just trying to shine a little light on it.

Thanks - that helps me to understand how that's relevant.

I think that what you're saying here is that it's important to understand that for some people the idea of rape is, if not intrinsically funny, at least something which it is reasonable to use in the context of humour, and for some people it isn't. I think that's certainly true. Whether that's related to the incongruity of concept and percept is another question, but the initial strip can certainly be broken down in those terms:

Concept: The game setting of World of Warcraft encourages players to perform good actions.
Percept: The game mechanic of World of Warcraft encourages players to abandon good actions when they have done enough to complete the quest and get the reward.

That's a pretty simple concept/percept. The initial objections were not about whether or not it had the capacity to be funny, but rather that the casual use or rape as a force multiplier of the funny was unmerited. This was seen by critics as contributing to a culture in which rape is not taken seriously, and the significance of rape is consistently underplayed.

The follow-up strip also breaks down into a similar incongruity.

Concept: People have complained about the treatment of rape in this strip.
Percept: Penny Arcade comics have the power to turn people into rapists, or stop them from beng rapists.

And you can keep running through these concept/percept pairs:

Concept: Trigger warnings exist to warn victims of traumatic experiences that the following text may contain descriptions or discussions of events which might trigger post-traumatic episodes.
Percept: Trigger warnings should be placed before everything, no matter how absurd, in case someone is upset by it.

Concept: Rape culture is a term used to describe a culture which consistently underplays the severity and frequency of rape or overstates the culpability of those who are raped, to serve a general atmosphere of fear among (primarily) women.
Percept: Rape culture sounds like the name of a band.

And so on.

However, at this point I don't really see comedy as the issue, and whether or not a particular concept/percept pair worked at a particular point for a particular audience isn't really an issue, either. This isn't an it, as in some people are so upset by it and others find it funny - it's a series of discrete actions from a number of different people at different points in time.
posted by DNye at 7:06 AM on February 5, 2011 [2 favorites]

Logicaldash: Even if you don't, as it turns out. Those guys/that guy in particular has responded to the withdrawal of the T-shirts with a sense of disappointment, and further to the request from PA to stop with the tweeting, and has put up an .ai file so that people can print their own dickwolves T-shirts to wear to PAX. So, in effect, in defence of Penny Arcade he is now advocating that fans produce counterfeit Penny Arcade merch and wear it to PAX.

I guess this is kind of like the people who think they know what a radio host or celebrity really wants them to do, even if they can't say it in public.
posted by DNye at 7:13 AM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

I hate metafilter so much right now. Nothing in this thread is necessary to say. Nothing.
posted by tehloki at 7:23 AM on February 5, 2011

Thank you for letting us know, tehloki.
posted by rtha at 8:14 AM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

I hate metafilter so much right now. Nothing in this thread is necessary to say. Nothing.

You know, we just aren't reaching that guy.
posted by norm at 8:51 AM on February 5, 2011 [5 favorites]

I hate metafilter so much right now. Nothing in this thread is necessary to say. Nothing.

Door's to your left.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:38 AM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you're trying to convince someone to help you fight rape culture, or at least decline to support it, I think it's a bad idea to tell them they are responsible for their contributions to it.

The concept of responsibility is a social construct. We as a society decide that adults are responsible for their actions and their consequences thereof, only there are a bunch of exceptions and cases where we might "look the other way" and so forth. Children are not held so responsible. Young adults are held responsible but expected to fail in that responsibility and regularly forgiven for that. And so forth.

So when you're trying to convince someone they're responsible for something, you're trying to get them to accept an arbitrary concept that doesn't correspond to anything in the physical world. This might be a good idea! Responsibility, like property, is a necessary construct for anyone who wants to be civilized. (Civilization is a big damn construct and I think we're all the better for it.)

But, since it is not an assertion about physical reality, it's trivial--and not even, necessarily, intellectually dishonest--to decide that responsibility works the way you want it to, because you want it to. We believe in responsibility because we want to be able to make decisions about who needs to deal with problems. Often we assign responsibility to the person who caused the problem, but probably not if that person is unable to deal with the problem, or if they're a child, or if I could solve the problem better than they could, or... all sorts of ways, none of them "right" or "wrong," but some of them more effective in some situations than others.

If Gabe thinks he is solely responsible for being funny, and not for the offense he gives in so doing--in my opinion, that makes him a douchebag. But he's not incorrect. He's just using a narrower concept of responsibility than I want him to. It's perfectly consistent of him to take no responsibility for offending people and then turn right around and run Child's Play. He takes responsibility for giving toys to kids and improving the public image of the gamer... because he wants to. He has that responsibility because he says he has that responsibility.

You may be able to build a good argument for why it would be a good idea for him to take some responsibility for people's reactions to his work apart from their lulz. Such an argument will be contingent on the idea that, eg., it's a good thing to discourage rape minimization culture. Even if he agrees, he may not care. It certainly looks that way. And, you know what? It's silly to expect people to care about every single social problem. It is less silly to expect them to have the decency not to troll people, but... some people are just like that, and don't care what you think of them.

However, you may be able to convince them to help you without taking responsibility for anything. This is more likely to work, because responsibility is inconvenient, and people are generally hesitant to take it.

If you are dealing with someone who cares about being nice, as opposed to Gabe, you might get them to stop just by asking nicely. It's probably better to avoid going into your reasons for this, at least not until after the immediate problem has been addressed, because they will cause confusion (social problems generally are rather confusing) and that will cause reactions like when Tycho and Gabe read the accusations against them and couldn't believe what they were reading.

If they don't care about being nice... find out what they do care about, and use that. Gabe cares about his convention, and maybe if someone had pointed out the @teamrape assholes before he gave them a shirt, he wouldn't have.

Feminist theories work very well for understanding some kinds of social problems, but understanding is not always useful or helpful.
posted by LogicalDash at 10:00 AM on February 5, 2011 [3 favorites]

Tone argument.
posted by DNye at 10:10 AM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

Bone argument.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:12 AM on February 5, 2011

The fact of talking about communication tactics (and therefore "tone") doesn't mean I'm making a tone argument. For that, I'd have to be arguing against, or rather, derailing an argument with someone.

As I hope I've made clear, I consider everything Gabe did about the Dickwolves comic after the comic itself to be indefensible trolling. I even made that clear before I made the big long post about tone, above.

From the page DNye linked: If you tread on someone's toes, and they tell you to get off, then get off their toes. Don't tell them to "ask nicely". On whose toes have I tread?
posted by LogicalDash at 10:23 AM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

Pope Guilty, you're consistently snide and sarcastic. Don't you think that the other people are doing a much better job representing your viewpoint and contributing to the discussion than you are?
posted by Several Unnamed Sources at 10:44 AM on February 5, 2011

Lone argument.

I think that explanations of what you (for whatever value of "you" - I'm not sure who you're talking to) need to do to make Gabe (I assume Mike Krahulik) take certain actions is not only talking about tone, but also advancing the argument that feminists need to find the right tone to be convincing - a tone which shields the person they are seeking to convince from being made to feel pressured to take responsibility. I think that's a pretty clear connection to the tone argument, intentionally or not. From the same page, the tone argument occurs when it is suggested that feminists would be more successful if only they expressed themselves in a more pleasant tone.

At this point, though, I don't think the metaphysics of responsibility are really a huge issue on anyone's docket. In the same situation, I'd probably be more concerned about the implications if, say, a major speaker were to drop out, or if more mainstream media picked up on stuff like @teamrape as a sign of what's bad about gaming culture, as Prospect has, and pinned it on my organisation, whether or not that seemed fair.
posted by DNye at 10:59 AM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you're trying to convince someone to help you fight rape culture, or at least decline to support it, I think it's a bad idea to tell them they are responsible for their contributions to it.

I do not ever think it is a bad idea to remind adults that they are responsible for the consequences of their actions. So we're going to have this disconnect right away, because adults aren't children. But you make the point:

Young adults are held responsible but expected to fail in that responsibility and regularly forgiven for that.

Let's go with this for a second. Young adults are held responsible because they're adults, and one of the ways you hold young adults responsible is to tell them. While they're expected to fail and are frequently forgiven, that forgiveness is conditional on their understanding of what went wrong. We don't look at a young adult who fucks up and, when told about it, says, "No, I didn't, fuck you too!" and then say "Oh, well, you scamp, all is forgiven, one day you'll be the mythical adult."

No, we treat everyone like that young adult. When someone fucks up, you tell them. You don't tell them to teach them, although you hope you will, or to change their minds, although you hope to do so. You tell them because they're fucking up, and they don't have to be. The forgiveness and sunshine can happen later, but the very first thing you want to happen is for the fuckup to stop.

I honestly have zero interest in a social justice metaphor that shirks responsibility, because part of the point is a personal responsibility to tell the truth. I'm genuinely uninterested in a tactic that essentially requires me to believe that other people are idiots and I need to con them into good faith the way I might play airplane with a child's food. I'm not anyone's dad or pastor or moralist-in-chief, and my goals aren't the kind of empty right action that your strategy would produce.
posted by Errant at 11:08 AM on February 5, 2011 [9 favorites]

No, we treat everyone like that young adult. When someone fucks up, you tell them. You don't tell them to teach them, although you hope you will, or to change their minds, although you hope to do so. You tell them because they're fucking up, and they don't have to be. The forgiveness and sunshine can happen later, but the very first thing you want to happen is for the fuckup to stop.

Right, well, that's what I suggested. Tell them to stop. You don't need to go into much detail about what's wrong with what they're doing in order to tell them to stop.

I'm not anyone's dad or pastor or moralist-in-chief, and my goals aren't the kind of empty right action that your strategy would produce.

You wouldn't be acting as anyone's dad by declining to bring responsibility into the discussion. My dad took every opportunity to make me understand responsibility, and ended up doing a great deal more work than if he'd just told me what to do. I'm probably better for it.

Really, telling people what their responsibilities are is much more parent-like than just asking them for favors.
posted by LogicalDash at 11:22 AM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

(Although, actually, that single-link thing I just did was really douchey, and sorry about that, LogicalDash. Distracted. Should not, in fact, be taking about this.)
posted by DNye at 11:22 AM on February 5, 2011

I'd like to emphasize that I don't think it's a good idea to universally avoid talking about responsibility, only that I think it's a bad way to open a conversation.
posted by LogicalDash at 11:23 AM on February 5, 2011

You don't need to go into much detail about what's wrong with what they're doing in order to tell them to stop.

Of course you do, because if you don't, you get the whole "you're just being hypersensitive, making mountains out of molehills, not explaining to me what I did wrong, not educating me enough" etc., etc., etc. rigamarole. If we don't explain, then it's not their fault that they don't change, because we haven't explained why they should change. If we do explain, then we're threatening their sense of themselves as righteous people and making them feel bad and making them think about hard concepts, and so they won't change. And, conveniently, either way it's our fault that they don't change.
posted by craichead at 11:27 AM on February 5, 2011 [5 favorites]

Of course you do, because if you don't, you get the whole "you're just being hypersensitive, making mountains out of molehills, not explaining to me what I did wrong, not educating me enough" etc., etc., etc. rigamarole.

I find the best response to that is something along the lines of, "Cut this shit out, or I will [not attend your convention|no longer patronize this establishment|quit this job|etc.]"

Giving detailed criticism to a person who's being unreasonable is not a very good tactic.
posted by LogicalDash at 11:30 AM on February 5, 2011

I find the best response to that is something along the lines of, "Cut this shit out, or I will [not attend your convention|no longer patronize this establishment|quit this job|etc.]"

And then you will conveniently be dismissed as a hysterical feminist reaching for her smelling salts for no reason at all, demonstrating once again that feminists are weak, pathetic people who engage in recreational outrage because they enjoy it. Your boycott won't be effective, because you can't organize or explain it without discussing why you're boycotting, so it's just going to be you. This is a recipe for not accomplishing anything and in fact for discrediting your objections.
posted by craichead at 11:36 AM on February 5, 2011 [3 favorites]

You wouldn't be acting as anyone's dad by declining to bring responsibility into the discussion. My dad took every opportunity to make me understand responsibility, and ended up doing a great deal more work than if he'd just told me what to do. I'm probably better for it.

Let's assume for a moment that when I said "dad", I didn't mean your dad, and let's assume that your dad was not everyone's dad.

Telling people what their responsibilities are is one thing. Telling people that they have responsibility is so basic and axiomatic that I'm surprised this is controversial. People are responsible for their actions. What they do with that responsibility is up to them.

This is why people get pissed about "if" statement apologies. "I'm sorry if I offended you." No, you did offend, and the way you can tell is that people are offended, that's a pretty simple equation. You have to own the fact that you offended, because you did. You don't have to apologize, if you don't feel bad about hurting people, and you don't have to commit your life to rice and penance. But you do have to take responsibility for your actions. That is the basic transaction of any conversation occurring outside your head.
posted by Errant at 11:36 AM on February 5, 2011 [2 favorites]

If we can't agree on the arbitrary nature of responsibility, we can't have this discussion.

So... bye, I guess.
posted by LogicalDash at 11:39 AM on February 5, 2011

This isn't an it, as in some people are so upset by it and others find it funny - it's a series of discrete actions from a number of different people at different points in time.

DNye, I understand that.
posted by P.o.B. at 11:45 AM on February 5, 2011

LogicalDash, I sort of get what you're saying, but I can't help but notice that if PA's critics had been milder, we might not have seen so unequivocally and prominently that no, really - PA's audience is definitely chock-full of misogynistic bastards, the exact ones that the critics said were there... (interrupted by new post notification)

Oh, I see that you left. Gee, I wonder if anyone will take your advice on how to persuade people of the truth of one's convictions.
posted by XMLicious at 11:48 AM on February 5, 2011

TRIGGER WARNING: evangelicalism

I'm genuinely uninterested in a tactic that essentially requires me to believe that other people are idiots and I need to con them into good faith the way I might play airplane with a child's food.

I'm sometimes startled at how similar these discussions are to the internal conversations in Evangelical circles around preaching, evangelism, and outreach. There are basically two schools of thought: the "Call it like it is, tell people they're sinners and they're going to hell unless they change" school and the "Tell them how much God loves them, and show them how to get there" approach.

The former is about TRUTH. It's about Responsibility with a capital R. Adherents hold that "sugar-coating" the truth of mankind's evil, fundamentally sinful nature is irresponsible and the only reason someone could have is a wishy-washy desire to fit in with sinners. If people can't handle the truth, it's because they are choosing to be part of an evil system, and coddling that choice -- pretending that it's something that one can 'ease' them out of -- is delusional. Even damaging, because it could send the message to others that half-measures are okay.

And eventually you get Kirk Cameron peeling a banana, announcing that anyone who doesn't recognize the self-evident truth of his theological framework is surely deliberately ignoring the truth, because it is unpleasant.

It is worth stating that "Rape Culture" is not a fundamental truth. It is not observable in the sense that gravity is. It is a descriptive framework for talking about a thorny, tangled, often subtle problem that is very pervasive in our society. It's easy to make the case that a hoard of maladjusted fucktards shouting, "Team Rape!" on the Internet are adding to a climate of normalizing and condoning sexual violence. But if you want to tackle the subtler stuff -- like convincing someone who just uses "rape" as a stand-in for horrible things when they describe events that they are just as much of a problem as the guy who screams, 'TEAM RAPE!' to an abuse survivor -- then making the case requires work.

Now, a lot of people are not interested in making that case. They are interested in understanding the problem better. Returning to the Evangelical metaphor, those people are essentially theologians. If you are interested, and want to learn more about the descriptive framework they have built, they can tell you. But by and large their approach is not going to convince anyone who's not already searching for detailed information.

But when you get to the people who feel that they're supposed to be out there being agents of change in a damaged world, you come back to the divide between the "Tell 'em they're going to hell" folks and the "Tell 'em God loves 'em" folks. Everything else aside, from a pragmatic standpoint, the latter is more effective. Period. End of story. There is no question about it, no ifs ands or buts. You get people to want something, and you show them what stands in the way, and then along the way you note that, "You know, pretty much everyone does that sometimes. That's life, but it is damaging. The good news is that we can change."

It's not for everyone, but as I said... I'm startled sometimes at how similar these kinds of framework-shift issues really are.
posted by verb at 11:54 AM on February 5, 2011 [6 favorites]

LolgicalDash, s/he's not just being unreasonable. S/he's contesting your premise. This is important because accepting the premise(s) is the same as accepting the conclusion, in any well constructed argument.

If s/he doesn't accept your conclusion, his/her only opportunity to dispute it lies in questioning the assumptions that make it inevitable. So if you want to convince him/her you're correct, you have to start by supporting the foundation of the argument. You can't expect the conversation to start with the decorative trim around the mantelpiece. That comes later, once shared (or divergent but potentially valid or hypothetical or whatever) assumptions have been agreed upon.
posted by jsturgill at 11:56 AM on February 5, 2011

"Bye" was just to Errant, really. I'm not interested in debating the question of whether responsibility is a construct, which seemed to be what s/he was trying to do. If s/he'd done that by going deeper into the definition of responsibility then maybe I'd be willing to entertain that but what I got was... not quite a dismissal, but close. You can say that all people are responsible for all their actions and the effects thereof, if you want. It's a reasonable approach to responsibility. But if you won't admit the existence of other approaches and express bafflement that I should try to talk about those, well, no conversation to be had.

If we just want to talk about whether it's good to call people out about the responsibilities we feel they should take?

I guess it depends on what your objective is. Maybe your main objective is to make people more responsible. For that, talking about responsibility is really your only option.

But if your main objective is to get people to, for instance, avoid feeding the @teamrape trolls? Probably better to take a behavioral approach. Say what'll convince your target.
posted by LogicalDash at 12:15 PM on February 5, 2011

One of the interesting things that occurred to me, about two thirds of the way through that post, is that Mike, Gabe's alter ego, has mentioned in a number of subtle ways that he had a lot of really fundamentally horrible experiences with an extremely religious (and arguably abusive) family. It's stuff that resonates with me quite a bit, and to be honest probably led to my built-in "default sympathy" with his asshole schtick before the dickwolves debacle ever came up.

I know that one of the results of my own religious past is that I have a very deep, very instinctive reaction to a style of discourse that boils down to: "Pretty much everyone around you is corrupt and bad. If you don't realize it, that's because you're corrupt too, and are part of the problem. You need to believe me, and you need to follow my advice to get rid of that bad corruption that you carry around with you." Growing up in a fundamentalist household, that is the nature of dialogue on almost every. Single. Subject.

The presupposition that you have to take it and nod and follow instructions, and if you question it you're just demonstrating that you're still dirty and blinded by your own taintedness... In that kind of a setting, it underlies the psychology of everything from radical abstinence to whether you should watch Lord of The Rings (because it's got demons in it) to whether it's okay to disagree with your parents about curfew. You deviate, and it's proof that you're tainted.

Leaning to say, 'Oh yeah? Fuck YOU!' when someone pulls that shit on you is a learned defense mechanism. It's a way to survive, psychologically and emotionally, when everyone you've been taught to respect and obey is trying to grind the you out of you, bit by bit, hour by hour, day by day. It's very easy to become a knee-jerk iconoclast at that point: to turn that bold, I-Don't-Give-A-Fuck into a way of life.

I don't know if that's what's going on with Mike. But as I look over the timeline, and I look at his past work, and I look at what details of his family life he's let slip in interviews and posts over the years... It does make sense to me. And it makes me really, really depressed. Because if it's true, it's a demonstration of how survival skills can go terribly, terribly wrong. They can end up doing a lot of damage to innocent bystanders because their requests to us sound just a little too much like the shit that those people in our past used to destroy us so long ago.
posted by verb at 12:21 PM on February 5, 2011 [10 favorites]

And, yeah, just to clarify? I'm not saying that his behavior was okay or acceptable. I'm not saying that Team Dickwolves was "just a sad misunderstanding."

I'm just thinking about how the process of communicating and basic empathy can go so terribly off the rails.
posted by verb at 12:24 PM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

LogicalDash: I am sorry that I seemed to dismiss you, it wasn't my intent. I'm also sorry that my disagreement did not take the form you were hoping for. Next time I'll try to divine what you want me to say instead of responding to what you actually said, although I can't promise a great deal of success.

verb: The essential difference is that I don't believe people are sinners who need to be saved. I think people are generally smart and good and responsible, except when they're not. It is the act of a friend to remind people of their better natures and leave them to choose for themselves; it is the act of a paternalist to try to save people despite themselves. While I see the relationship you're describing, rather than a parallel comparison, I see an inversion of principles.
posted by Errant at 12:47 PM on February 5, 2011

But if your main objective is to get people to, for instance, avoid feeding the @teamrape trolls? Probably better to take a behavioral approach. Say what'll convince your target.

I would have hoped that the @teamrape trolls would be more likely to convince people that there's actually a problem than anything that anyone might say. That's what I was starting to say above, that if the feminists were simply meek and mild, the rest of us at least wouldn't be getting such an undeniable demonstration of how totally right they've been from the very beginning: getting to see what a little assholish dismissiveness and denial on the part of two otherwise upstanding guys is actually covering up.

It really kinda seems to me like they know what they're doing, these feminists.
posted by XMLicious at 12:52 PM on February 5, 2011

Pope Guilty, you're consistently snide and sarcastic. Don't you think that the other people are doing a much better job representing your viewpoint and contributing to the discussion than you are?

You don't really understand my viewpoint and opinion on the matter if you think the people trying to be reasonable with rape apologists represent it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:59 PM on February 5, 2011

It really kinda seems to me like they know what they're doing, these feminists.

You're suggesting their plan was to troll the Penny Arcade authors and readership into showing their secret misogyny? As an object lesson?
posted by LogicalDash at 1:09 PM on February 5, 2011

Troll: to tell someone that something they said bothered you. Got it.
posted by Errant at 1:15 PM on February 5, 2011

You're suggesting their plan was to troll the Penny Arcade authors and readership into showing their secret misogyny? As an object lesson?

No, I think that he's suggesting that if someone like, say, Shakes had privately contacted Mike and Jerry and managed to grab their ears and gently lead through the idea of "rape culture" without calling it "rape culture" and not blaming them for anything, just easing into the subject and so on... It's quite possible that Mike and Jerry might never have used rape in a comic again.

On the other hand, it would be easy for everyone to point to the Penny Arcade fan base and say, "Hey! Those people aren't the problem, they're progressive, cool gamers who do Childs' Play and stuff like that!" and never acknowledge that there's still a percentage of them happy to swarm a rape victim's blog and say, "I'll bet you didn't get raped -- you're too ugly to fuck."

The fact that it did play out that way -- that you had "Team Rape" and pennants and T-shirts and people literally going to rape victims' blogs and heckling them and so on -- demonstrated that yes, there are lots of people out there happy to minimize, dismiss, and roll their eyes at the problem of rape. They may not be raping but that kind of engagement is precisely what rape culture produces and is fed by.

So, what's better? Convincing Mike and Jerry not to use the word 'rape' in a comic? Or demonstrating in a highly visible way just how deep and ugly the culture can be?
posted by verb at 1:23 PM on February 5, 2011 [2 favorites]

I can see how it might be better that it played out this way; but if you speak to someone with the intent of getting them angry, and not to communicate, that is trolling. So, if "these feminists" really intended to provoke Mike and Jerry with the intent of exposing their misogynist sides, then it was a deliberate troll.

I'm not really sure what I think of that.
posted by LogicalDash at 1:36 PM on February 5, 2011

"The essential difference is that I don't believe people are sinners who need to be saved. I think people are generally smart and good and responsible, except when they're not. It is the act of a friend to remind people of their better natures and leave them to choose for themselves; it is the act of a paternalist to try to save people despite themselves."

It's worth noting that the "A true friend tells people the truth and lets them choose for themselves" framing is precisely how evangelism is described in the church culture I was talking about. They don't believe they can make someone else convert, but they believe it is their responsibility to share the truth because that's what any caring person would do.

While I see the relationship you're describing, rather than a parallel comparison, I see an inversion of principles.

I don't think principles really have anything to do with it. Both, at least to my mind, boil down to beliefs about fundamental problems plaguing humanity. I think it's dangerous to assume that smart and good people will automatically arrive at the same conclusions about these nuanced cultural and societal problems -- that's where the "Kirk Cameron and his banana" comparison comes in.

Also, please note that I'm not suggesting that the mode by which and argument is made determines its validity.
posted by verb at 1:38 PM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

I was unclear, for which I apologize. By "principles", I meant the precepts of argumentation, not moral principles.

But there is, I think, a key difference in the location of a threat or ultimatum in the evangelical argument, namely the threat of hell. There is no commensurate ultimatum in the feminist argument to underpin the language. Feminists aren't trying to save your souls or theirs; they're trying to make the world they actually live in better. The evangelical argument focuses entirely on the world to come. As I said, I understand the comparison you're drawing and I can see the similarity, but the difference in thrust shades each one away from the other.
posted by Errant at 2:22 PM on February 5, 2011

So, if "these feminists" really intended to provoke Mike and Jerry with the intent of exposing their misogynist sides, then it was a deliberate troll.

And what if "these feminists" were robots? From the future?

(Slightly more seriously - this kind of deep-probing analysis of people's darker purposes based on blog posts is unlikely to get beyond pretty airy speculation.)
posted by DNye at 2:30 PM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

As a gamer & a feminist, this whole thing makes me so tired of the internet. Everyone involved is trying their hardest to not give anyone else the benefit of the doubt. At this point the only people benefiting are the trolls.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:40 PM on February 5, 2011 [2 favorites]

Yeah, I basically meant what verb said, except that where he calls it "quite possible" that they would understand and never mention rape in the comic again I was going to point out that it still might have not even worked. I'm not convinced that Gabe and Tycho would have been any less dismissive of the message in some other, kinder, gentler form.

I haven't gone through much more than the links in the OP but I don't think it's a deliberate troll, I think it's probably hard-earned experience that it's usually not worth fucking around pretending that maybe, just maybe, Gabe and Tycho had made honest mistakes and on the inside took the issue of rape seriously enough so that, say, they wouldn't do something to any silent members of the PA community who had been raped like make Team Dickwolves shirts and pennants.

If I'd become involved after that original webcomic came out, I would have pretended that - heck, I honestly believed that they were better than this, I basically trusted that they'd sort the whole thing out. But it looks to me like the people who stuck on the issue and didn't relent knew what they were talking about and knew not to believe the "Oh, we take rape very seriously!" line that was handed out. (So, Solon, for my part I did give the benefit of the doubt and I feel like I got burned.)

Also, from the various links, I thought I recalled reading that people like Shakesville started getting rape threats and death threats immediately, right, like back in August? But similar things didn't happen to the PA guys until just now? Who was getting trolled again?
posted by XMLicious at 2:54 PM on February 5, 2011

XMLicious, it seems I misunderstood you. Sorry.
posted by LogicalDash at 3:08 PM on February 5, 2011

I'm here at the 11th hour to say I've really appreciated this conversation. ShawnStruck, Sasshat, Errant, verb, norm, jsturgill, and XQUZYPHYR (among many others), your smarts and awareness make me glad to be here. This is a difficult comment to write but all your words have helped.

What's really resonated for me about all this (warning, severe sugarcoat lack ahoy): the cost to women gamers attending PAX-East. I've written here about rape, even specifically how casual use of rape terminology in gaming can be such a frightening, disheartening thing. But I haven't ever got very personal about it and that's been a conscious choice. What I want to say is that it's worth remembering that rape victims are mostly young -- 80% are under 30 years old. Most victims know their attacker: 28% are raped by their partner or spouse, and 38% are raped by an acquaintance or friend.

A partner, acquaintance, or friend -- committing a crime against you that at a very primal level reduces one from person to thing. That's why it's so much easier to use statistics and theoretical concepts than to describe the actual experience of rape, especially by someone you know. What it does to you to see someone's eyes go cold and dead, to see in another's face that you no longer exist to them as a person. You may react unmistakably as a human in pain -- cry, thrash, vomit, bleed, go rock-frozen -- but it doesn't matter. It's a weather report from another planet. That's what the word "destroy" means in this context. It's fundamental negation.

So yes, none of this story mattered much to me before the vow to wear those shirts at PAX-East. Because I remember what it was like, as a very young woman, to try to live in the world again after that negation. I knew I wouldn't be believed, so there was no reporting and no justice. I knew I would suffer if I told anyone and word got out -- no longer seen as me, but a liar, a slut, a sordid punchline -- so there was no warning to other women. (Later, I learned there was at least one other victim, and I've no doubt there have been others. I've kept tabs and have never seen evidence of a sexual assault charge, much less a conviction. It's been hard to live with that. ) I knew what happened to me wasn't as important as my short skirt and what I'd been drinking and all the sex I'd previously chosen freely to have, and that those things counted as clearer signals than words I'd said like no and please and I want to go home. I didn't know the concept of "rape culture" then, but it was obvious to me that it was those negations that made the first one possible.

The only men I trusted for years after that were nerds. Nerds I debated and traded weird music with and yes, who gamed -- and who occasionally said dumb things but always treated me like someone good to talk to, hang out with, and battle alongside. Nerds who didn't treat me like a thing but like a friend. They hated alpha male bullshit like I did and made me feel valued and safe. That's why the shirts are a punch in the gut. Because goddamn it, those guys did not indulge in cheap swagger at women's expense; they despised the big dumb lunks who did, saw them as the punchline, as part of a raging asshole culture that they were eager to flee as I was.

So when I see all these guys -- so like my friends in many ways -- eager to wear a shirt that puts them squarely in Camp Raging Asshole, my god does it make me sorry. Sorry that unlike so many good men I've known that they value cheap punchlines over empathy, sorry they've learned so little and sunk so low. But I'm far sorrier for all the women -- especially the young ones -- who are looking for a safe place in the world where they can just be a fucking person for once, rather than a quest objective or something yet worse. The ones who have so many stories to tell, stories that have been missed for so long, stories that if understood could actually change those tired, tired tropes of heartless heroes who only rescue a handful of lucky slaves while the rest go on suffering in their chains.

This is not the culture so many of us -- women and men alike -- want to live in. Imagine how things could change if those who most powerfully influence the gaming industry made it a mission to truly listen and stop this shit once and for all. It seems impossible, but then the best quests always do. For all those men who stick their necks out as allies or are even just willing to engage with a painful issue, you have my sincerest thanks. For all those young women who want a place at the table -- who've earned it, by being tougher and more resilient than anyone mocking them could ever believe -- I hope you keep fighting. I hope you win. Although I haven't been using it much lately, you have my sword.
posted by melissa may at 5:34 PM on February 5, 2011 [49 favorites]

I was thinking about the Dungeons and Dragons episode of Community that just aired. It's a good contrast on a lot of the issues here. It portrayed a gaming session that was sensitive and understanding and hilarious. It was also about suicide and people being raging assholes. I encourage everyone to watch it, it's a great show in general.

Of course, it wouldn't have worked without Pierce being a complete asshole about it and setting himself up as a villain. Maybe we just need assholes to be around sometimes before we can really start thinking. So yeah, it's humor about a seriously important issue but it treats it with care and adresses the issue instead of just referencing it.

Now, I think the original comic was funny. I don't think it's offensive. However, it certainly didn't rise to the level of quality that really justifies the creators getting so fucking fighty about it. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that some people might find it offensive even though I don't.

So don't be a jackass about it, okay?

If someone told me the Community episode was offensive because of the suicide thing, I would point out there is a message there and you can't tell it without talking about it. Same with Kristen Schaal on The Daily Show. Even the Louis C.K. rant is about how insane it is for a guy to listen to vague "signals" instead of what they are being told directly.

So yeah, for the most part if you are really funny and are doing it for the right reasons, mentioning rape in humor is okay.

However, sometimes the message of the joke isn't good. We've all heard the clearly bad rape jokes. The distinction between good and bad comes in the message.

The PA strip is on a line. They just thought it was a good punchline. Maybe it was, but it's the fast food of jokes, empty and ultimately unsatisfying. Give me something original. Give me something with commentary. Give me something that makes me look at the world in a different way, even if it's just on the level of a Seinfeld quip about everyday annoyances.

If the breadth of your commentary is "This necessary point of game design would be weird in real life," That's fine, but you have to ask yourself if it's worth offending people over. It's not, it's really not.

Maybe say, "Okay, that's funny but maybe I'll skip using the cheap probably offensive gag and come up with something better."

At the same time, I love Family Guy and it lives on cheap offensiveness at times. The human sense of humor appears to be complex and confusing.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:17 PM on February 5, 2011 [2 favorites]

melissa may, thank you.

that is all.
posted by verb at 6:38 PM on February 5, 2011

If someone told me the Community episode was offensive because of the suicide thing, I would point out there is a message there and you can't tell it without talking about it. Same with Kristen Schaal on The Daily Show. Even the Louis C.K. rant is about how insane it is for a guy to listen to vague "signals" instead of what they are being told directly.

The closer analogy here would be someone telling you the Community episode was offensive because of Chang's blackface. And calling you a racist for liking it.
posted by kafziel at 6:52 PM on February 5, 2011

It would astonish me that you could have read so far and so much and still have missed the point so completely, if there wasn't so much evidence of ignorance from wiser people.
posted by Errant at 7:57 PM on February 5, 2011

It was clearly Drowface, but they hung a lampshade on it being wrong pretty hard. You are right that is a good comparison though.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 8:25 PM on February 5, 2011

Melissa May that's a very powerful comment. And I wanted to thank you to a link to that non-"sugarcoated" blog, which has a lot of harsh but compelling things to say, including this:

No, Mr. Krahulik, you are guilty...of behavior that encouraged your fans to lash out against your critics with violent misogyny. You are guilty of being so defensive about your precious Dickwolves joke that you decided to make the convention you sponsor a deeply uncomfortable place for women and rape victims...

And you are a coward for not acknowledging any of these things.
posted by straight at 11:17 PM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

Now, I think the original comic was funny. I don't think it's offensive. ❮snip❯

So don't be a jackass about it, okay?

furiousxgeorge, I just wanted to mention that I've really been trying to come up with a good defense of the PA guys - throughout the thread, I've basically been publicly agreeing with the things that unambiguously seemed wrong to me, but privately still tried to think of something that I would consider a valid defense of them.

The best I've really come up with is this, essentially that at the beginning, someone who simply pointed at the comic and said, "that's rape culture," was rude in that without qualifying such a statement any further it could imply an assumption that the reason the comic is part rape culture is because of the motivations of its authors; because the authors themselves are part of a rape culture and at some level do not take rape seriously and this attitude is expressing itself in their artwork.

But with 20/20 hindsight, someone who was rude in this way - even someone who was intentionally rude and meant to explicitly convey the above meaning - was actually making an assumption that is 100% correct.

So it's looking to me like at least that specific case of being a jackass was justified, or at least that any amount of blame which might be assigned to it is vanishingly small.

Now some people have made harsher criticism than simply talking about rape culture: they've been accused of rape apologia or even of being pro-rape. In any other discussion I would be inclined to denounce this sort of stuff as manifestly provocative and as statements made in bad faith. But in this case I'm basically a little bit spooked and hesitant because the people coming from that end of the viewpoint spectrum appear to have been able to accurately predict what was going to happen right from the beginning, and some of the things that defenders of PA have been denouncing as senselessly provocative have turned out to not be so senseless — provocative or otherwise... so I would want to feel certain I understood any viewpoint or aspect of these harsher statements that might be even partially valid, before I really dug in trying to dismantle them.

If you've got any good reasoning as to why I should disregard this hesitancy I would genuinely welcome hearing it; I really would prefer to believe that the way things are looking to me right now isn't actually the case.

(Also, one other note: if you refer to my previous statements, I also found the joke funny, but from my point of view the situation has passed beyond the point where it would matter whether or not you could prove that the content of the joke is inherently conducive of or dismissive of rape. Even if someone came up with an airtight proof that the content of the joke does not do either of those things I don't think that it would change anything. So from a purely selfish perspective I no longer have to worry about whether or not I am a bad person for laughing at the joke.)
posted by XMLicious at 11:18 PM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you've got any good reasoning as to why I should disregard this hesitancy I would genuinely welcome hearing it; I really would prefer to believe that the way things are looking to me right now isn't actually the case.

I honestly have no idea what you are asking me or what any of it has to do with my comment, I think we are on different wavelengths here.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 12:05 AM on February 6, 2011

As one of the more vocal critics of PA in this thread, I think it's important for me to disclose that I'll be appearing in an episode of PATV next week. The episode in question was filmed in mid-October of last year, after the original comic and followup but well before the events of the past couple weeks. I find the release timing ironic, but whatever. Anyway, I just wanted to get that out there.
posted by Errant at 12:18 AM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

furiousxgeorge - My comment is asking about potentially justifiable reasons for being a jackass. If there are any justifiable reasons for being a jackass on topics like this, it seems very important to me and relevant to the portion of your comment I quoted.

I agree with the other part of that comment where you said that under certain conditions, mentioning rape in humor is okay. I am making an argument with some degree of parallel, that under certain conditions being a jackass is okay.

I'm not trying to be fighty with you; I apologize if it's really true that none of what I said makes sense on your wavelength, I did not expect that to be the case.
posted by XMLicious at 12:24 AM on February 6, 2011

(To amend that after re-reading a bit - there is a great deal going on here beyond whether or not the joke is offensive or not, or whether or not people offended by it are justified in taking offense; this could be why we're on different wavelengths.)
posted by XMLicious at 12:32 AM on February 6, 2011

I think it's just that I'm sleepy. I agree that in certain cases being a jackass is okay. I'm a jackass all the time. I don't think this is one of those cases. You make a joke about rape, people are likely going to be offended and pissed off, you have to take that in to account when you write the joke and decide to use it.

I consider the joke okay and some of the criticism was wrong, but the comic is so close to the border of being what the critics think it is that I can't blame them much for how they reacted to it.

The poker scene from Lucky Louie, has anyone mentioned that?

"Rick, does it offend you when I say that word?"

What follows is a dissertation, a lengthy one in the context of television, on the word's etymology and what it might mean to gay men. Crom tells us that, in times when witches were regularly burned at the stake, gay men were considered too low to merit even a vertical pole and were thrown directly onto the blaze. (In the late 13th century, a "faggot" was a bundle of wood.) He goes on to say that nearly every gay man in America has probably been called the word as he was physically attacked, and so its use brings up painful memories. "By all means, use it. Get your laughs," Crom says. "But now you know what it means."

So look, they can make rape jokes, but they ARE gonna hurt someone no matter how good the joke is and what the context is so keep that in mind when you are deciding if it's worthwhile.

Maybe the grand artistic vision of your comic strip can be compromised for the sake of being polite and it isn't the end of the world, even if the reasons it will piss people off aren't quite fair. Politeness and manners are rituals and generalized rules, not always applicable and often ignored, but following them is usually a good idea if you are trying to cultivate a positive image of yourself on a public audience.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:02 AM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

"I think if you're using nitroglycerin, you've got to read the label, and you've got to be responsible and know what the dangers are," he said.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:10 AM on February 6, 2011

I'm glad that we have come to understand what each other is saying, furiousxgeorge - this has opened my eyes to some details I hadn't noticed before.

Even though the OP uses the word "offended" again and again and the initial Shakesville post (the first "offended" link) talks about her (him?) having a bad sense of humor, the question of whether or not the content of the joke is offensive is a very small part of this issue - it's even a very small part of the criticisms made back at the beginning.

Some might disagree with me saying this, but it appears to me that the joke could actually be demonstrably funny, funny with broad appeal - like something that would actually make the majority of rape survivors laugh - and most of the criticisms that have been made would still stand, even most of the criticisms that were made at the very beginning would still stand.

People are offended, to be sure, but their complaints are not that the joke is offensive - I don't want to paraphrase all the actual complaints here but I'm not just playing semantic games or splitting hairs or something, if you wrote out many of the complaints concisely and formally and without using any jargon the words "offend" and "offensive" would not appear in them.

I would say that someone who thinks that this is about whether or not there is something intrinsic to the joke that makes it offensive are misunderstanding the criticisms to an even worse degree than Tycho and Gabe do in thinking that people are saying that reading their comic will directly create rapists.

(I am on the way to bed too and won't be around to respond any more tonight.)
posted by XMLicious at 1:43 AM on February 6, 2011

[warning: rape threats, sexism, general assholery]

In poking through some related links I came across this site. If anyone is curious what women gamers cope with, literally every day, or if you're wondering how gamer culture can be possibly related to rape culture: Fat, Ugly, or Slutty.
posted by Errant at 2:53 AM on February 6, 2011 [2 favorites]

If you want people to take responsibility for their effects on other people, it would be good of you to do the same, even if you do have stronger and more justifiable reasons for being an asshole.

It would be great if everyone accepted basic feminist principles and lived by them. The only way I can conceive of this happening is with vast educational reform and the passing of generations. Until then, the best to be hoped for is that those people whose minds are open will change them for the better, and those whose minds are closed will do no harm.

Lots of people, minds closed or open, will refuse to listen to you because you're unpleasant to listen to. It doesn't make you wrong. Your tone doesn't invalidate your arguments. But it prevents you from being heard. You can argue that's a bad thing and it's other people's responsibility anyhow, but that's a subset of the argument that the universe isn't fair and ought to be different. On this we are agreed.

Now, what do you want to do about it? Change minds? Then don't be a dick. Wheaton's Law.
posted by LogicalDash at 3:15 AM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you want people to take responsibility for their effects on other people

This is the crux of our disagreement. People are responsible for their effects on other people, whether they take that responsibility or not. Sure, I'd like it if people openly accepted that responsibility all the time, but I'm not going to stop holding people accountable for their actions, or holding myself accountable for mine, just because they've chosen to deny their responsibility. They still have it. It's not arbitrary.

Whether or not one is unpleasant to listen to is, frankly, a judgment call. I'm sorry that people find me unpleasant to listen to, I would like it if they didn't. But I'm not going to silence or diminish myself on the off chance that my diminishment persuades a closed mind in a way that my openness wouldn't. History tells me that that doesn't work, ever. So I'm not writing off the closed mind, there's always room for change, but I'm not going to be beholden to it.

"you're a dick", "you're abrasive," "you're unpleasant to listen to", "you'd be heard if you just said it nicely": these are silencing techniques born of the oppressive culture that wants you to fall in line with its kyriarchy. I don't speak for anyone else, but I have no desire to offend other people. I do, however, recognize that changing an entrenched culture of sexism, racism, rape apologia, et al occasionally causes offense. I accept that I am sometimes offensive in this way. I think that what you are being offensive about matters, and I don't think that being offensive is the worst thing a person can be.

The other day, my friend was driving me around, and some other car made a weird turn in front of him, and he said, "Back off, bitch." And I said, hey, please don't say that, it's not cool and it bothers me. And he said, oh, was that a woman driver? I said, it doesn't matter, it's not cool in any case, please don't do that. And he got offended, and there was the awkward silence, and then he let me out at my stop and drove away instead of continuing on to get a drink like we were going to. I offended him. I'm sorry I offended him. But I'm not sorry for why I offended him, and I'm not sorry if any of my arguments in this thread have caused that kind of offense. There are worse things in the world than offending sexists and silencers with requests to not be that way, and because this is an imperfect world, I frequently have to choose one of those imperfections. I'll take the misdemeanor over the felony every time.
posted by Errant at 3:53 AM on February 6, 2011 [7 favorites]

I don't speak for anyone else, but I have no desire to offend other people.

It's good that you don't desire to offend, but I judge you by your actions. You've been consistently dismissive and insulting. You have to take responsibility for that.
posted by LogicalDash at 4:31 AM on February 6, 2011

I have to ask, LogicalDash - are you still of a mind that you aren't advancing the tone argument? I mean, separately from whether or not the tone argument is unhelpful in advancing the cause of feminism?

Lots of people, minds closed or open, will refuse to listen to you because you're unpleasant to listen to. It doesn't make you wrong. Your tone doesn't invalidate your arguments. But it prevents you from being heard.

And the tone argument description:

A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by Concern trolls and sometimes as a Derailment, in which it is suggested that feminists would be more successful if only they expressed themselves in a more pleasant tone.

This is sometimes described as catching more flies with honey than with vinegar -- a particular variant of the tone argument.

Unless I'm missing something, I genuinely don't understand how the second statement does not accurately describe the first.

Change of subject: there's a subtext here and elsewhere, I think, about how before raising their voices about this the people protesting should have thought hard about their tone, and (sc.) sought the advice of someone better able to tell them how to communicate. This is sort of hardwired into the discourse of certainly the geeky parts of the Internet, to an extent - the most rational, or rational-sounding, viewpoint wins. It's at the heart of all the Internet argumentation gambits based around "I have made you cry" or "why are you so upset about this?" or, of course, "cry moar n00b". An emotional argument, made forcefully, is considered intrinsically suspect.

You can see this in the commentary. Even while he's asking people to stop sending Courtney Stanton rape threats, "Gabe" is still saying:

Obviously Courtney Stanton has been very vocal about her dislike of us and our behavior.

Which, given that Courtney Stanton's post about not attending PAX ended:

Even if Mike and Jerry don’t want to acknowledge it (the shirt appears to have been removed without comment), it deserves to be acknowledged. Thank you, guys. Thank you for listening to whoever you listened to, and thank you to whoever that was who spoke up and managed to convey what I, and a lot of others, have been trying to convey for months. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Seems to be pushing it somewhat in terms of personal emnity. In the same post, "Tycho" talks about his decision not to engage having been based on a fully rational assessment of the situation.

It's a trope that turns up a lot, and I think one problem is that it's actually not a trope that fits with the existing (since before the Internet) feminist discourse, in which feelings are often considered to be an important part of the process of argumentation, whereas the specific mechanisms of the Internet have promoted the idea that the first one who blinks, emotionally, loses. It's why people describe themselves as being "amused" or "interested" or "genuinely curious" about things when they are actually feeling furious anger.

Here on MetaFilter, in these kinds of discussions, people - often women, but not always - come forwards with tales fron their personal experience, and explain how that personal experience makes them feel in this context. And the strong community ethic of MetaFilter and a considerable degree of self-selection means that these people are often - although not always - praised for their courage. But in the wider web, those emotionally honest reports would often be taken as a sign of a weak argument - that their personal experiences left them unable to approach the issues rationally.

(Another problem, of course, is that very few people who believe that they are arguing rationally or logically have anything more than a sketchy understanding of logic, or indeed often of their own emotions and how they affect their position, but that's a slightly different matter.)
posted by DNye at 4:59 AM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't disagree, DNye. Tone arguments, raised in response to objections to one's behavior, are just weak excuses to dismiss the objection.

I don't think it's actually the responsibility of the party offended to modulate their tone. I just think it's a good idea, an important element of public relations, and ought to be discussed at some point. Preferably after the discussion surrounding a particular offense has already taken place. For example, past the thousand-comment mark of a comment thread about that offense.
posted by LogicalDash at 5:05 AM on February 6, 2011

I don't think points about the value of tone are concern trolling or derailment in a discussion about a flamewar that included rapeshirts and death threats.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:12 AM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

What's confusing me is, my first comment in this thread--the one about the importance of establishing context before criticizing someone--that was a tone argument, and yet it was pretty well received, didn't get any offended reactions, and got a few favorites

I certainly can't explain the psephology of MetaFilter, or why people favorite things - for me, it's a mixture of liking a good turn of phrase, agreeing with a position and marking something for future reference.

furiousxgeorge If you look at the description again, you'll see that concern trolling and derailment are both identified as sometimes being the aim of a tone argument. They are possible, but not necessary. Saying, for example, that the emails to Penny Arcade (which we have not seen) that kicked off the escalation might have been more effective if they had been more politely or considerately phrased is not necessarily concern trolling or derailment, but it is a hypothesis based on the tone argument.

You might feel that in this case the tone argument is right, but that's another question. What confused me was that LogicalDash was making a tone argument, but had previously said that he wasn't making a tone argument. It was a request for clarification separate from the discussion.
posted by DNye at 5:34 AM on February 6, 2011

Right, I agree, my point is the tone we ended up with from both sides became so out of line it is clearly impossible not to discuss tone, tone is the central point here. Tone argument as a fallacy is not the type of tone argument this is, which is what may lead to the tone argument but not tone argument response.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:39 AM on February 6, 2011

It's like the difference between a Libertarian argument and a libertarian argument. One is made on behalf of a political party, the other is about an ideal.
posted by LogicalDash at 5:41 AM on February 6, 2011

I think that explanatory metaphor is more confusing than illuminating, LogicalDash - not enough comparators.

FuriousxgeorgeRight, I agree, my point is the tone we ended up with from both sides became so out of line it is clearly impossible not to discuss tone, tone is the central point here.

I think that's a reading open to question on a number of counts. Shakesville and other feminist bloggers have reported getting threats and abuse for months, so it's not really about the tone we ended up with from both sides as much as the continuum of events and responses. Also, I don't think there is a "both sides", exactly. Penny Arcade wouldn't want the people demanding that people prove that they are in fact rape survivors identified as on their "side", any more than Courtney Stanton or the Borderhouse Blog people would support that reported tweet threatening Mike Krahulik's family - although some of them might want to put it in the context of their own experiences of harassment.

However, we're really arguing about the terminology of argumentation, here, and the difference between an argument about tone and the tone argument. The tone argument is, as expresssed by LogicalDash above:

It would be great if everyone accepted basic feminist principles and lived by them. The only way I can conceive of this happening is with vast educational reform and the passing of generations. Until then, the best to be hoped for is that those people whose minds are open will change them for the better, and those whose minds are closed will do no harm.

Lots of people, minds closed or open, will refuse to listen to you because you're unpleasant to listen to. It doesn't make you wrong. Your tone doesn't invalidate your arguments. But it prevents you from being heard. You can argue that's a bad thing and it's other people's responsibility anyhow, but that's a subset of the argument that the universe isn't fair and ought to be different. On this we are agreed.

Now, what do you want to do about it? Change minds? Then don't be a dick. Wheaton's Law.

That's the according-to-Hoyle tone argument, not an argument about tone. It's the argument that the only way to change minds for what we feel to be the better about issues, and specifically issues relating to feminism, is to be pleasant - to adopt the right tone. It's honey and vinegar. One might agree with that proposition, and one might be right, but the fact remains that this is exactly what is defined as the tone argument.

Personally, I find this argument problematic on a number of levels. One of those is that it is generally expressed post factum ("if you had been more pleasant, I would have listened to you"). Another is that it very often comes down to men telling women how they would like to be communicated with, and making it clear that unless the conversation takes place on those terms it will not be listened to - in effect, defining the terms of the engagement and reserving the right to withdraw from the conversation whenever the line they have drawn has, in their opinion, been crossed.

However, I wasn't intending to critique the tone argument, merely to reconcile the statement "I am not advancing the tone argument", previously, with the very clear advancing of the tone argument here. What I intended as a request for clarification before an ontopic point has become the subject of the discussion, which is not, I think, a useful avenue, especially on a subject which touches so many people for very real and visceral reasons. If LogicalDash is employing the (not a) tone argument, in the sincere belief that tone is the thing currently preventing the broad acceptance of feminist positions in this and other areas, then that's the clarification I was asking for.
posted by DNye at 7:05 AM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Overthinking a plate of beans. Gamer cartoon boyz make (bad) comic using teh rape word. Feminists assume bad faith, excoriate & lecture them for using word. Gamer boyz feel unfairly attacked & retaliate with undue escalation. Feminists escalate their response. Gamer boyz go postal. From meh to bad to worse to worser to disgustingly evil. Pretty simple progression. Explosive mix of gamer boyz entitlement, feminist lensing, and inability of either side to actually see the other until each has fulfilled the other expectations.
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:44 AM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

"...others expectations..."
posted by Mental Wimp at 8:45 AM on February 6, 2011

Even though the OP uses the word "offended" again and again and the initial Shakesville post (the first "offended" link) talks about her (him?) having a bad sense of humor, the question of whether or not the content of the joke is offensive is a very small part of this issue - it's even a very small part of the criticisms made back at the beginning.

Yeah, that wasn't the best word to use there, in retrospect. After reading this I've started saying "people found it personally upsetting" instead. Seems to help avoid derailing onto first amendment politics, at least somewhat.
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 8:50 AM on February 6, 2011 [3 favorites]

Yeah, okay. I did make the tone argument. I didn't mean to imply that tone was the main thing preventing feminist principles from getting out; I don't feel qualified to speak on that. I just wanted to emphasize the importance of what I was talking about.

This was in response to a line of argument that seemed to regard tone as utterly irrelevant.
posted by LogicalDash at 10:00 AM on February 6, 2011

It's good that you don't desire to offend, but I judge you by your actions. You've been consistently dismissive and insulting. You have to take responsibility for that.

I disagree that I've been consistently dismissive and insulting in this thread, but I certainly accept that I've communicated dismissal and insult to you. I've apologized for it a couple times, and then I wrote a four paragraph essay in response to one of your points. That doesn't seem like dismissing you, to me; in any case it doesn't seem like not taking responsibility. As I said above, I'm sorry I insulted you and I wish I hadn't, but I'm not sorry for why I insulted you.

And, with that, I'm done making this thread about you and me. We can use MeMail for that.
posted by Errant at 10:43 AM on February 6, 2011

I read this thread start to finish last night. I'm still awake. I am exhausted. Elsewhere, I'd already written my piece(s), as a female and gamer, and it resembles a lot of the stuff stated upstream. Moderate, reasonable, rational stuff, I think, mostly about tone and civility, erring just on the side of cool-headed feminist outrage, OK, great.

I started reading this thread as a woman who reads Penny Arcade, who loves PAX, and who has, in fact, made a lot of jokes with rape or sexual violence as the punchline. And although I have been assaulted three times, by men unprovoked, in broad public view, I have somehow never been capital-R Raped. I was really shaken up after I was attacked and mugged, but it's par for city life! Happens to men, too! I'm alive!

I also did not understand what the hell a trigger warning is, and so I had rolled my eyes every time I saw the term being used on other blogs and websites. Really.

But then came this exchange, wherein even the term "rape survivor" is inexplicably called into question:

- You "survive" cancer, because cancer can be a fatal illness. You don't "survive" rape.

- For the sake of someone I knew, I should point out: sometimes, you don't survive rape.

And I had blithely skimmed this and I was already on the next post downthread when suddenly that last sentence, and that sentence only, synaptically connected, and I did not know why. It's like, somehow I had forgotten that people can get raped to death, and after a split second of thought, I realized how lucky I am, too, to not be dead yet. That's my privilege. And I gagged. I put my hands over my mouth and tried to not throw up. And then I cried for a long time. I don't know, maybe the long slow burn of reading the whole goddamn thread, and the sleeplessness, but also the realization that I have never really understood rape, at all, or the anger, even though I have had plenty of opportunities to add up all my assaults and multiply by my urban fearfulness and really try to 'get' it.

Because earlier in the thread, we wanted to know whether rape culture is a real thing, whether there is really an invisible and perpetual threat, whether women shrugging off the catcalls and believing that daily demoralization is normal is a real cultural thing, whether women who are too visible online ought to just make themselves invisible if they want to avoid being called fat-ugly-slutty-dyke, whether one in six women being sexually assaulted is a real statistic, and could you also tell me how that survey was conducted and all about the sample size because I'm skeptical, and can we really trust that a woman who is a victim of rape can legitimately be called a survivor, of all things, and let's not make this a women's issue you guys, and the feminists who espouse all this stuff are paranoid and whiny, and ladies let's keep it cool, don't make this weird, be polite, don't rock the boat.

And all these layers upon layers of skepticism are levied at those people--those women and men and outliers--who are raped literally every day, or stalked, or somehow threatened, and maybe we can't be convinced that they aren't exaggerating until they finally manage to prove it by turning up dead.

And for the first time in my life I am really looking at that faction that I think of as militant feminism, and I suddenly completely understand their shit-fit, and I am so utterly ashamed of myself.

I'm sorry if I sound heated. I don't mean to. I'm just really, really sad.

Good thread.
posted by jennanemone at 11:29 AM on February 6, 2011 [41 favorites]

Again if it was irrelevant to the conversation I would agree, but on a topic that starts about tone, tone from all sides should be considered fair game. As I said before, I agree this is all on PA, but the idea of taking a look at the tone from the other side cannot be dismissed by simply calling it a fallacy.

When you get a clusterfuck this huge it's not a bad idea to look at each step along the way. They were clearly being called apologists long before death threats and stuff, is that appropriate? I don't blame them for it, but it is a valid point of view to suggest the response from PA would have been better without that stuff just like PA could have handled all of their responses all along the way a lot better. People are pointing that out on both sides, it's not just a strategy being used to dismiss feminists.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:18 PM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

^ @DNye
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:19 PM on February 6, 2011

Dude, where did I say "fallacy"? I didn't. I have no idea what you think I have failed to do here.

What I will cop to is trying to work out what LogicalDash was doing, because he/she was making the tone argument, dismissing the tone argument as weak and then making it again.

Here's what I actually said:

However, I wasn't intending to critique the tone argument, merely to reconcile the statement "I am not advancing the tone argument", previously, with the very clear advancing of the tone argument here.

So, I don't think I can reasonably concede that the idea of taking a look at the tone from the other side cannot be dismissed by simply calling it a fallacy, because it's a proposition I haven't advanced. I can point out the basic problem with the tone argument, again, which is that it depends on one or more hypotheticals. If something had been different then, things might be different now, but they weren't, so they aren't.
posted by DNye at 3:27 PM on February 6, 2011

Ahh, my bad. I just didn't understand what the point of arguing if it was tone argument or not was if not to suggest there is something wrong with it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:05 PM on February 6, 2011 [1 favorite]

Well, I think there are a lot of things wrong with it - but I think I've already covered that. In fact, I think I'm probably not contributing much of value at this point. I'd say "and that this has burned out", but I'd only be talking about this thread - the situation is probably going to result in ongoing unpleasantness for some time.
posted by DNye at 5:53 PM on February 6, 2011

Eh, my last comment was typed on iPhone and got confused. My point was: I agree with you you are right, okay?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:03 PM on February 6, 2011

So, I don't think I can reasonably concede that the idea of taking a look at the tone from the other side cannot be dismissed by simply calling it a fallacy, because it's a proposition I haven't advanced. I can point out the basic problem with the tone argument, again, which is that it depends on one or more hypotheticals. If something had been different then, things might be different now, but they weren't, so they aren't.

I just wanted to poke my head in again -- I believe that I was the only person who explicitly said anything close to "it would have gone differently if they'd been polite instead of angry" in my earlier post. I want to make clear that I was not suggesting that, rather I was contrasting it as a best-case hypothetical against what has been learned in the aftermath of what's happened. I was trying to explain what another poster had said earlier -- that "playing nice" would only have served to keep the deep ugliness hidden.

I'm still torn on that question in particular, because my personal experiences in this regard have taught me that communicating is hard but worthwhile work, and that simply expecting the strength of one's moral rightness to change a shitty world rarely works. This weekend I've had long conversations with several friends, male and female, two of which have themselves been raped or sexually assaulted, none of whom "buy" the concept of rape culture. Some were offended at the very idea. After long conversations about the origins of the concept, and the academic meaning of it, and talking through some of the really tangled and shitty cultural constructs that are considered to be a part of it... all of those people walked away saying that they were not only forced to consider the concept, but the impact of their own actions towards others in its light.

So, yeah. It's pure anecdote, and not data. But here and now in my own life I've seen people who do precisely what everyone in this thread has called "contributing to rape culture" think hard about it and change their minds, and determine to change their own behavior. Not because someone told them they were part of rape culture, but because they were part of a dialogue about the problem and -- after thinking through the complications, realized on their own that their actions were part of that larger problem.

It doesn't always work out that way. Quite often it doesn't. And the idea that outrage is not allowed, or that people who are being abused and marginalized must suck it up and smile -- yeah, those things are ugly tools used to silence victims.

But for those of us who do have the luxury of choosing our responses, those of us who are having the conversations because we believe they're important and because we care, not because it's simply a matter of pure survival... I guess I hope that we can remember that these ideas aren't self-evident. Simply writing off people because their jokes or their dismissive responses make them a part of rape culture doesn't change them. It's not anyone's job to change anything, it just labels them so they can be avoided. Sometimes that's the best way, and it's not anyone's responsibility to gently guide them to different perspectives. But some people do have the conversations and sometimes it works. Please don't call us rape apologists because we have those conversations.
posted by verb at 9:20 PM on February 6, 2011 [7 favorites]

I haven't looked in here since Saturday, but thought I'd chime in a little bit on the Tone Argument and the like. One thing that really struck me as I was reading the Shakesville comments early on was the "THESE ARGUMENTS ARE AGAINST THE RULES AND WILL GET YOU BANNED" post: namely, tone arguments, concern trolls, and other things against the Feminism 101 manifesto which, no joke, is required reading before posting there.

Now, anyone who has read my contributions here knows which "side" I'm on, if such terminology really works; I'm on record as saying I thought the comic picked some over-the-line stuff to joke about and then PA veered fully into condemnable Rape Culture territory when it came to the T-shirts and the subsequent behavior. But. The idea that a discussion about ANYTHING can have banned arguments is utter anathema to me. If they're bad arguments you should be able to defeat them. And even if your response is just to say "yeah, yeah, yeah" and then point to a FAQ that's better than whipping out a hellban. And sure, it's not my community and they can do what they want there. But here? Hell, this is my community, and while I am A-OK with calling out tried and true tropes of patriarchy and shaming those that propagate that system, I'd sure hate to see an ethic or rule take hold that automatically renders any argument short of rude and uncivil behavior out of bounds.

Please note, I'm speaking largely in the abstract here. I'm not saying that every discussion has to re-invent the wheel when a particularly stupid statement is popping up. I'm just saying that in general the concept of "you shall not make these types of statements" is uncool. I don't want a creed, don't like rules, and I hope that broad politeness guidelines work instead.
posted by norm at 9:19 AM on February 7, 2011

One thing that really struck me as I was reading the Shakesville comments early on was the "THESE ARGUMENTS ARE AGAINST THE RULES AND WILL GET YOU BANNED" post: namely, tone arguments, concern trolls, and other things against the Feminism 101 manifesto which, no joke, is required reading before posting there.

HOW CAN THAT NOT BE A JOKE I CAN'T EVEN

Slightly more seriously, I think you're probably OK. I mean, you've been registered for 10 years, and I'm a n00b, but I don't think anyone's going to get banned for advancing or identifying a tone argument. That does raise an interesting question, though...
posted by DNye at 9:30 AM on February 7, 2011

Norm, the reason those "rebuttals" are brought up is because addressing the same kind of derail is pretty much reinventing the wheel each time they come up.
posted by ShawnStruck at 9:35 AM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

The reason that feminist blogs point people towards "101" posts is that otherwise they constantly have to interrupt conversations to define and defend basic concepts for the benefit of people who barge in and demand to be educated. It became clear, after a lot of irritating experience, that there was no way to provide that information in-thread and still have the higher-level discussion between feminists that the blogs were meant to facilitate. It meant that all feminist blogs ever got to do was reexplain, over and over again, really basic concepts. And that's not the only thing that's supposed to go on in the comments of feminist blogs. For that reason, blogs created spaces to redirect "101-level" questions, so that feminists still have a space to discuss stuff between people who already understand and agree with certain fundamental concepts. It has nothing to do with free speech. You still have places to ask your questions. It just means that you don't get to demand that feminists interrupt every conversation that they're having to attend to your demands to be soothed and stroked and educated.
posted by craichead at 9:40 AM on February 7, 2011 [4 favorites]

Just as an anecdote, a similar ban I've seen is on physicsforums.org which bans any discussions of things like Cold Fusion because they got tired of re-debunking and re-debunking crackpots. I can't remember for sure if it's disallowed to even mention Cold Fusion elsewhere in other threads though my guess would be yes, otherwise that would be a pretty simple way to get around the ban.

But I haven't looked at the situation on Shakesville to compare.
posted by XMLicious at 9:48 AM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm not saying that Shakesville or physics discussion boards can't set their own rules; I'm just saying that I have a natural aversion to orthodoxy that struck me when I read the moderator comments. It's not a free speech issue, it's an argument theory and community ethic concern* I had.

*There is a very persuasive argument to be made that my previous post could be classified as an unintentional concern troll. Carry on!
posted by norm at 11:23 AM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

The idea that a discussion about ANYTHING can have banned arguments is utter anathema to me. If they're bad arguments you should be able to defeat them.

I'd say I've found that concept to be more and more agreeable as I get older. After you spend a certain amount of time having certain discussions you realize not only that you've heard it before but that you recognize certain fundamentally irreconcilable positions. You also learn to recognize that when a person comes from a certain perspective that there's no value in debating certain finer points with them - for either of you.

Case in point: progressive taxation. If you don't believe that it is just to ask people earning over a certain amount of money to shoulder a higher tax burden... then why should I discuss with you exactly WHERE the taxation percentages are set? Let's make the top percentage 35% I say. No no, Progressive Taxation Opponent dude says, the current 31% is superior and your plan will harm job creation.

I can discuss the relative trade-offs of theoretical benefits to the economy, whether such money is typically saved, spent or re-invested, rates in other countries, tax shelters, etc etc etc....

Or I can just recognize that this person has a fundamental opposition to the overall concept and no matter how detailed I get or how many of their objections I address they will never have their perspective changed. Which would be fine, except as blanket opponents to the whole philosophy they are uninterested in putting forth positions that might help illuminate my understanding.

Now, if the discussion is pro/con for progressive taxation, period, then yes, there might be some value in that. We're discussing things in good faith from positions we actually support. The only problem is that, at age 40, some of these more general and basic concepts I'm just not interested in examining anymore. I believe in progressive taxation and the inherent equality of genders and races. If you don't... whatever. Someone else can have that discussion with you. My mind is set and unless I have some emotional involvement in that specific person's growth I'm not going to get distracted from my own priorities to see if their position is well-reasoned.

And even if your response is just to say "yeah, yeah, yeah" and then point to a FAQ that's better than whipping out a hellban.

Except that you're making a presumption about the purpose of that space. Shakesville (or any other site) may be uninterested in forwarding the cause of understanding at the 101 level. If your purpose is to have a discussion about the finer points of XYZ as it applies to PDQ then discussion of PDQ - either on its own merits or just to give people the grounding in language necessary to discuss XYZ - actively harms the progress and enjoyment of the people who are up to speed.

Because you can see it here on Metafilter in almost any post on the blue - someone brings up a side point and wazoom, we're off in that direction. Which is, to me, part of the joy of Metafilter. But it's an accepted and approved part of the charter here - letting the community direct the discussion in the direction the community wants to go.

That has its place, but rejecting the "orthodoxy" of setting aside places for more precise discussion prioritizes simple low-level education over more advanced work. You wouldn't demand that every college class address every question or concern regardless of how basic it is - why would you not allow for that sort of tiered learning in other spaces in the world?
posted by phearlez at 11:29 AM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't listen to any of Jesse Thorn's shows but I have read Penny Arcade for years. After the way they treated him online, it left such a unfavorable opinion, I guess I had mentally put PA on probation, thinking it unlikely they'd have another such misstep.

Now this happens, and I'm saddened to acknowledge maybe I was wrong about these guys. The No-Booth Babe policy and Child's Play are both worthy products to emerge from their brand, but it turns out their insensitivity, tone-deafness, and simple lack of respect of other people make them come across as assholes. How hard is it? I know I've inadvertently said stupid things over the years, and maybe it's because I have a thin skin, but when I do I honestly feel bad.
posted by yeti at 11:40 AM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

That has its place, but rejecting the "orthodoxy" of setting aside places for more precise discussion prioritizes simple low-level education over more advanced work. You wouldn't demand that every college class address every question or concern regardless of how basic it is - why would you not allow for that sort of tiered learning in other spaces in the world?

I don't think I was suggesting anything of the kind and I don't think I even sort of have enough authority to allow or not allow for other people to do anything. I'm not making any demands of anyone. I said I was uncomfortable with the rule but pointed out explicitly that I'm not a member of their community and they can do what they want. My sole point was that it represented a moderation style that I don't particularly care for, and I will say no more because it's a derail and ought to go into MeTa, and I sure as hell am not putting anything from this thread there considering it's ducked that bullet so far.

And also because I promised Jessamyn that I wouldn't call anyone an asshole until/unless it went to a MeTa thread, but if it went there I would feel obligated.
posted by norm at 11:58 AM on February 7, 2011

One thing I've noticed in this larger discussion (not just here on MetaFilter) is that many of PA's critics state that they're not objecting to the original comic but to PA's later responses. (I myself think the Dickwolves T-Shirts are wrong, so I see where they're coming from.)

However, few of the "not objecting to the original" critics seem to acknowledge that the original criticism (of the first comic) was actually wrong. That is, they seem to brush that aside and proceed as if PA's responses were to valid criticism. If you don't agree with the original critics, however, don't you have to look at the whole thing bearing in mind that the PA guys were reacting to invalid criticisms?

Those invalid criticisms claimed that the original piece supported rape culture, which is to say in a roundabout way that it on some level encouraged rape. Isn't it reasonable for the PA guys to be (dare I say it) offended by that misreading (and it was a misreading) of their work? Isn't it important to a) see their later responses through that lens (which is not to excuse the Dickwolves T-shirts) and b) also nudge those original critics towards admitting that they were wrong?

I wrote a long piece going through my reactions to this whole thing, in case anyone's interested: The “Dickwolves Thing”.
posted by tadhg at 12:50 PM on February 7, 2011

However, few of the "not objecting to the original" critics seem to acknowledge that the original criticism (of the first comic) was actually wrong.

Opinions seem to be pretty mixed on that front, actually. I'm not sure where a flat assertion that criticism regarding rape culture is just plain wrong comes into it; I certainly feel less strongly about the original strips than some of the folks who discussed it critically on their blogs at the time, but I also feel more strongly about it than folks who have declared that there's nothing at all to consider in those two strips. My opinion is my opinion, and I feel like I understand at least to some extent where the folks with other opinions are coming from, but I'm not granting myself the privilege of declaring right or wrong the opinions of my choosing.

There is no question that Mike and Jerry felt the initial criticism was invalid; they've made that pretty clear, even as Jerry at least has acknowledged months after the fact that maybe there was more going on there, more potentially worth discussing, than he had thought at the time. But not thinking that critical responses are valid isn't the same thing as critical responses being inherently invalid.

It's not hard to understand how the situation escalated from the premise of mutual misunderstanding. There's nothing mysterious there. It's just a goddam shame that it did, and as far as relative levels of responsibility for directing a community response most of the blame for the escalation is firmly on PA's shoulders as the party of the dispute with a small internet army running off-leash.
posted by cortex at 1:10 PM on February 7, 2011 [2 favorites]

However, few of the "not objecting to the original" critics seem to acknowledge that the original criticism (of the first comic) was actually wrong.

Let me go back to that Louis C.K. quote about offensive humor:

"I think if you're using nitroglycerin, you've got to read the label, and you've got to be responsible and know what the dangers are."

They didn't encourage rape, but they carelessly used a dangerous subject. They played catch with a vial of nitroglycerin. It didn't blow up, but an observer freaking the fuck out after would be quite expected and I would no blame them for ANY part of their reaction.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:21 PM on February 7, 2011

tadhg: However, few of the "not objecting to the original" critics seem to acknowledge that the original criticism (of the first comic) was actually wrong. That is, they seem to brush that aside and proceed as if PA's responses were to valid criticism. If you don't agree with the original critics, however, don't you have to look at the whole thing bearing in mind that the PA guys were reacting to invalid criticisms?

Literary and cultural criticism doesn't work that way. You can certainly favor an interpretation grounded in Lenny Bruce as opposed to one grounded in Feminist anti-rape activism. It's quite another to say that a given reading is objectively wrong in the same manner as Young Earth Creationism or Pi = 3.000.

Not that a lot of people in this discussion haven't tried to defend the comic on the stupid and foolish premise of the one true interpretation. But I'll restate my caveat as described by furiousxgeorge:

Offensive humor is offensive. If you choose to deploy it, people will get reasonably angry. And you can choose to take that on the chin, or you can show yourself to be amateurs as PA just did. If you find yourself explaining or justifying the joke, you're doing it wrong.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:30 PM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

However, few of the "not objecting to the original" critics seem to acknowledge that the original criticism (of the first comic) was actually wrong.

That's because most of those people don't think the original criticism was wrong, and they don't think they were invalid criticisms. It's difficult to see how "I don't like it when people make rape jokes and PA made a rape joke" could be incorrect or invalid, considering that PA made a rape joke. It wasn't "actually wrong", although you're about to be.

Those invalid criticisms claimed that the original piece supported rape culture, which is to say in a roundabout way that it on some level encouraged rape.

Nope. Contributing to rape culture does not equal encouraging rape and it does not equal supporting rape (although obviously encouraging and supporting rape do contribute to rape culture). Contributing to rape culture in this context means propping up an atmosphere in which rape is trivialized, in which rape is treated like some abstract horror or extreme evil instead of the depressingly common and all too real violation that it is. The comic does do that; by making rape a punchline, by casting rape as the ultimate and most extreme of horrors, it manufactures a conceptual distance between its portrayal of rape and the reality of rape.

Saying that something contributes to rape culture is not to slyly imply pro-rape sympathies. You may disagree with the criticism, but it wasn't a misreading. Unless you wish to argue that the original critic actually does like it when people make rape jokes, I don't see how you're going to nudge them into admitting they were wrong, but who knows, it's a weird world out there.
posted by Errant at 1:30 PM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

in this context means propping up an atmosphere in which rape is trivialized, in which rape is treated like some abstract horror or extreme evil instead of the depressingly common and all too real violation that it is.

See, I just don't buy that part of the argument Errant. It seems a bit like that message is in the eye of the beholder. There is nothing inherent in using rape as an example of a horror that suggests it isn't a common one. Just my opinion though.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:42 PM on February 7, 2011

There is nothing inherent in using rape as an example of a horror that suggests it isn't a common one.

Fair enough. Like cortex said and I think I implied, it's possible to disagree with the criticism, but that doesn't render the criticism invalid prima facie.

So there's two ways to think about it, then, at least as far as I can see. If rape is being treated as an abstract horror, that's probably wrong, because rape isn't abstract. If being "raped to sleep" is instead treating the issue of rape with the gravity and immediacy required, why has it been made a punchline? I think by virtue of making the joke, the comic demonstrates either an attitude of distance towards rape or it demonstrates an inappropriate flippancy towards it. That's how a rape joke contributes to rape culture, either implicitly through lack of introspection or explicitly through dismissal and marginalization.
posted by Errant at 1:52 PM on February 7, 2011

furiousxgeorge, forget Errant's particular wording there and just think of it as "an atmosphere where on some level rape is not taken seriously" - i.e. an atmosphere where all the stuff that actually occurred subsequently can occur. Wasn't saying that a valid and truthful criticism of the original comic - that it was both the product of such an environment in its author's minds (who proved this later on by doing various things showing that they don't take rape entirely seriously, like making Dickwolves t-shirts and pennants that they could be pretty sure were going to be waved in the faces of people who had actually been raped) and that it engendered, or propped up, or reinforced an attitude of not taking rape seriously amongst their fans, including some outliers who did considerably worse things than the authors did? And isn't all of the preceding true even if the joke is actually funny and some rape survivors laugh at it?
posted by XMLicious at 1:59 PM on February 7, 2011

If being "raped to sleep" is instead treating the issue of rape with the gravity and immediacy required, why has it been made a punchline?

Appropriate gravity and immediacy is subjective, and we clearly don't agree there but I can see where you are coming from. Can't really argue it.

In my mind using something as a punchline doesn't mean you don't think it is a grave and important thing. I'll laugh about dead babies. I can damn well understand why someone wouldn't though.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:02 PM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

Yeah, there is a school of though that suggests joking about something means you don't take it seriously. That is not a universal school of thought. That is the disconnect here.

I will concede that among the population that does not share my view on that type of humor, more jokes no matter the context will embolden rape culture.

I'm gonna have to treat that as a necessary evil though in certain cases, but for PA it probably falls back to what I said before. Don't be a jackass about it, the joke isn't worth it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:09 PM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

Errant: I was taking them at their word--if someone says "I don't have a problem with the original strip but with their later response" that rather strongly suggests that they don't think the original strip was supporting rape culture. That, clearly, is a disagreement with the original criticisms of that strip.

Sure it's possible for that to be wrong--because it's highly questionable that the original strip was a "rape joke". A "rape joke" is a joke that trivializes or dismisses rape, not any joke that touches upon the subject. If rather than rape PA had used torture, the strip wouldn't have been a "torture joke". I also think that attempting to make rape a taboo subject in humor (i.e. policing it so that jokes that don't trivialize it are just as verboten as those that do) is more likely to make people view it as the ultimate and most extreme of horrors, with the consequences you mention, than its use in this strip.

Also, the punchline of the strip was not "rape". The punchline of the strip was "I'm not helping you because my quota for people to save has been filled and now I don't care".

"Contributing to rape culture" means helping to prop up the various structures that make rape possible in our culture; the rape-enabling structures. If any work does that, it clearly helps perpetuate that culture, in the long run making rape more likely to occur--which is exactly why such works are problematic. How is it that making rape more likely to occur in the long run isn't "on some level encouraging rape"?

In any case, whether we use my construction or the longer one from your post, the original strip did not do this. Including in a strip that being raped regularly would constitute part of a horrible existence is not supporting rape culture.

Not even if it's in a humorous context. Humor is a hugely important way to look at the world. This is not "it's just a joke"--if the joke had trivialized rape I would certainly criticize it--but rather a rejection of the concept that some things are "too serious" to be touched on in humorous contexts.
posted by tadhg at 2:13 PM on February 7, 2011

In my mind using something as a punchline doesn't mean you don't think it is a grave and important thing. I'll laugh about dead babies. I can damn well understand why someone wouldn't though.

Sure, but the original criticism was never that PA didn't think rape was grave or serious, the original criticism was that PA didn't act like it was grave or serious. I think we can surely agree that joking about something is not taking it seriously, right? At least for the moment of that joke?

I think there's a decent discussion to be had over whether jokes can ever mention rape without invoking rape culture, or whether all rape jokes are culture-contributory, or whether opposing rape culture means that you can never be flippant about it, or any number of other things. That's the conversation that should have happened, if Gabe and Tycho hadn't suddenly turned into drooling idiots and decided to prove Shakesville's point.
posted by Errant at 2:15 PM on February 7, 2011

I think, too, that part of the argument about rape culture is that rape culture already exists, and therefore certain things reinforce it. So you can't necessarily make analogies to other bad things, like dead babies or torture. You could argue that we also live in a dead baby culture or a torture culture, and I'm sure some people would argue that. But it's possible to argue that we live in a culture that systematically trivializes rape but does not systematically trivialize torture. And if that were true, then rape jokes would function differently than torture jokes. Torture jokes could only reinforce torture culture if torture culture already existed.
posted by craichead at 2:19 PM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

craichead (fantastic nick, by the way): Unfortunately, we do live in a culture that systematically trivializes torture; consider the far-too-prevalent mainstream dismissals of "waterboarding" over the last couple of years. A lot of the jokes about that did, indeed, reinforce the culture that made the torture possible in the first place, and were reprehensible for that reason.

Even so, that doesn't make any joke that references torture reprehensible just because it does so.
posted by tadhg at 2:28 PM on February 7, 2011

Yeah, there is a school of though that suggests joking about something means you don't take it seriously.

No - I did not say that. I said that what happened afterwards is what unquestionably means that they don't take rape seriously on some level.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that the exact same joke could have been written and presented by someone who takes rape completely seriously; there is nothing inherent in the joke itself such that it could be taken in isolation and proven to be a product of rape culture. But we know now for certain that it was a product of rape culture and that the people making that statement at the beginning were just making 100% correct educated guesses, probably due to experience; and the people who were talking about perpetuating rape culture, the effect that it had on the ones reading it, who we now know for 100% certain are capable of the kinds of things they did.

The reason to be a jackass (i.e. the thing that really righteously pissed people off) is not the joke itself, it's the stuff that led up to the joke and the influences the joke had afterwards - influences that still would have occurred even if the critics had been nice and meek and not rocked the boat.
posted by XMLicious at 2:30 PM on February 7, 2011

No - I did not say that. I said that what happened afterwards is what unquestionably means that they don't take rape seriously on some level.

I agree.

Sure, but the original criticism was never that PA didn't think rape was grave or serious, the original criticism was that PA didn't act like it was grave or serious. I think we can surely agree that joking about something is not taking it seriously, right? At least for the moment of that joke?

I don't agree, that is the disconnect here. As XM says, the context of the further behavior establishes they don't, but by my way of thinking the strip does not do that on its own.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:36 PM on February 7, 2011

tadhg: Have you considered explaining it to them? Be the change you want to see in the world, and all that. Nip over to Shakesville, set them straight, home for tea, sort of thing?
posted by DNye at 3:02 PM on February 7, 2011

...but by my way of thinking the strip does not do that on its own.

I would totally agree with you there, for my own part. I do not personally think that a semantic analysis of the content of the original comic results in anything that a reasonable person would construe as signifying that rape is not a serious thing and I genuinely believe the PA guys when they say that no part of the message they were intending to express said anything about rape not being a serious thing. I even think that most if not all of the original critics probably believed them in this regard too, it's just that it's no more of a response to the criticisms than "we're really sorry if someone read the comic and immediately went out and committed rape, don't do that" is.
posted by XMLicious at 3:04 PM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

tadhg: Penny Arcade frequently puts the punchline of their jokes in the second panel of their strips. They have said so openly and repeatedly. They like the effect of the third panel as viewing the aftermath of the joke, "the camera lingering a little too long" as they have said. "Raped to sleep by dickwolves" is a punchline. If they had said "tortured to sleep by dickwolves", it would have been a punchline featuring torture; it would have been a torture joke.

I think your argument is a) "it wasn't a rape joke, and b) "even if it was, that would be ok". It's fairly clearly demonstrable that it was a rape joke. Whether or not that's ok, or ever ok, is a discussion worth having. None of that means the original criticism was invalid or that the original critic needs to admit their error.

There is no taboo; there are no police; no one is threatening to send PA to jail for saying "rape" in a comic. You will notice a comparative lack of outcry over the Daily Show's recent bit over the Republican redefining-rape bill. That is because no one, or almost no one, thinks you shouldn't say "rape" in the context of humor. What these critics do think is that jokes about rape aren't cool, but jokes attacking rape culture are pretty good. No one is telling people what they can or cannot say; they are holding people accountable for what they do say. Humorists, especially, should be held accountable for what they say, because they traffic professionally in saying things.

The reason why I object to the casting of the criticism as "you made a rape joke, so on some level you're supporting rape" is that it is a too-simple reduction of a complex structure that should not be reduced in this way. The steps in between are important and critical and shouldn't be glossed over. This phrasing is designed for maximum outrage impact, while ignoring the main thrust of the rape culture argument: just as institutionalized sexism means that we all act in sexist ways from time to time, just as institutionalized racism means that we all act in racist ways, the institution of rape culture means that we all support the trivialization of rape to some degree at some time, and we will continue to, because the institution is powerful and its tendrils are subtle and omnipresent. The purpose of warring against rape culture is to reduce and ultimately eliminate this oppressive structure which constrains us despite ourselves to inequality and hardship.

But it's not just, "hey, you did a thing which supported rape culture and so you're a rape-lover"; the reduction of the argument has as its implication that no right-thinking person would ever support rape culture or trivialize rape, when the reality is that everyone has and will again. It promotes an incorrect and extreme reading of a complex, nuanced issue, and it is calibrated precisely to provoke maximal automatic dismissal of an extremely important concept. So that's why it bugs me.
posted by Errant at 3:09 PM on February 7, 2011 [5 favorites]

DNye: LOL! Nice comment! I have no rejoinder.

Errant: They may frequently put the punchline in the second panel, but absolutely not always, and I just don't see it in this case. For the third panel to be an afterthought here would require that the message of the strip (the critique of the moral vacuity of many MMORPG quests) be contained within the first two panels. That is clearly not the case. The point that the "hero" doesn't care because he's hit his quota is the key point of the whole strip; I genuinely have trouble seeing a coherent alternative reading. It's the key point, and it's the punchline. The second panel is part of the setup, and so is its use of rape.

Given your disagreement on this point, I'm not sure whether you mean that it's a rape joke because of your claim that it's the punchline, or because it's a rape joke because it's a joke that involves rape in its setup. If the former, we disagree and I have trouble accepting that your interpretation is anything but wildly off the mark. If it's the latter, it's a finer nuance, because the semantics clearly support going either way, but my interpretation is that it's not a joke that trivializes rape either as its point or as a part of its setup, and I stand by that interpretation (and by that characterization of "rape joke").

I'm entirely aware that nobody is trying to send PA to jail for rape here. The assertion that "there is no taboo" is rather dubious, however--much of the original criticism reads precisely as if the point is to make taboo any mention of rape in a humorous context. (Obviously there is no currently-extant social taboo here.)

Jokes attacking rape culture are still jokes about rape. There is of course an important distinction between them and jokes trivializing rape, and that distinction comes down to what the meaning of the work is. I don't think a credible reading of that PA strip as trivializing rape can be made without relying on the precept that rape simply shouldn't be addressed at all in 'non-serious' contexts.

Regardless of the nuance of the argument in your fourth paragraph, it still comes down to the critics of the original strip making a claim that that strip is, at the least, significantly supportive of rape culture. I believe that's not a sustainable claim. Many of the people I referenced as "not objecting to the original strip" presumably believe the same thing. My original point was that if that's what they think, they should at least consider holding the original critics accountable for their erroneous interpretation.

Sure, that might not be as important as criticizing PA for their later actions, but it's not something that should be swept under the carpet, either, especially since those later actions are entwined with the original criticisms that the later critics, by their own statements, disagree with.

No, it's not as simple as "you're a rape lover", but it's not far from "there's something seriously wrong with this strip of yours". That's a big charge to level regardless of specifics, and when someone makes that charge and is wrong, they should be willing to be held accountable for this.

I don't mean "held accountable" as "subject to vicious attacks from assholes", which I know has happened to a lot of people around this subject. I mean that friends and people close in viewpoints should nudge them in the right direction until they get it, and that they should be receptive to such nudges. Which is quite like what a lot of people on the "anti-PA side" in this particular dispute would want to happen to their opponents in this case and others.

Put another way, the critics are inevitably going to be wrong sometimes; when they are, they should be willing to own up to it in a manner similar to what they expect of others in the cases where they're right; friends and "allies" should encourage them to see where they're wrong when they are. And in this case they were wrong (although this has now been complicated by the fact that later PA actions mean they're wrong about the original strip but not necessarily the whole situation).
posted by tadhg at 3:50 PM on February 7, 2011

Jokes can have more than one punchline. I'll leave it at that, because I don't think the rest of that discussion is going anywhere.

No, it's not as simple as "you're a rape lover", but it's not far from "there's something seriously wrong with this strip of yours". That's a big charge to level regardless of specifics, and when someone makes that charge and is wrong, they should be willing to be held accountable for this.

In the current massive open thread part 2 over on Shakesville, there is a comment by a poster called smaych detailing her real triggering experience over the line in question. It's worth reading. What you should take away from it is that if you need specifics, if you don't believe that Milli A. was capable of extrapolating from the all-too-common truth to the conclusions drawn, well, now you have a specific. If the stories in this thread weren't enough, if ShawnStruck's comment and others didn't convince you that people viewed it as a rape joke in poor taste and were affected by it, read that comment. You keep saying that the original criticism was wrong: read that comment, read the criticism, then come back here and tell me that a comic strip that provokes that kind of reaction cannot be accused of having something wrong with it. Come back here and tell me that Milli A. is wrong and ought to find rape jokes funny. Because it seems like you've forgotten what that criticism was:

The problem is, I just don't find rape funny. Because rape survivors exist among us, and after being victimized by rapists, they are revictimized by a society that treats even real rape like a joke, forced to live in a culture that actually has a lot of rape jokes, including those about rape victims being actively denied justice for no other reason than because people don't take rape seriously. I don't find rape funny because rape victims are often doubted, mocked, and insulted openly.

To call the original criticism "wrong" is to say that, no, actually, Milli A. does find rape funny. The other people you reference do not have as strong a feeling in this regard, and I'm on record as being one of them, although I've changed my mind somewhat since my original comment. But I don't think Milli A. finds rape funny or acceptable to use in a comic strip, and since that's what they said, and that's all that they said, I don't have a problem personally disagreeing without assigning fault. So whatever your obsession is with getting people like me to make that blogger say they were wrong, I think it's likely to go unfulfilled.
posted by Errant at 4:20 PM on February 7, 2011 [2 favorites]

tadhg: I'm deadly serious, old stick. Why are you trying to convince a community which started talking about this on 2 February 2011 that Penny Arcade were the injured party between August 12 and August 13? What do you seek to gain from convincing MetaFilter of this fact, assuming you do? Are you imagining a sort of viral spread out of this understanding, ultimately reaching and converting Milli A and whoever else you have in mind and leading them to acknowledge in public that, although none of the fallout from the last six months was very much fun, and from August 13 onwards they pretty much get to be the injured party, they have to admit that they did rather overreact to that first comic?

What do you think will happen then?

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm asking what you think you're going to get out of being right?
posted by DNye at 4:24 PM on February 7, 2011

I was taking them at their word--if someone says "I don't have a problem with the original strip but with their later response" that rather strongly suggests that they don't think the original strip was supporting rape culture. That, clearly, is a disagreement with the original criticisms of that strip.

Things aren't that binary. When I first read the original strip when it was published, I half-glossed over it: the rape joke made me cringe, and my thought was that it was just a dumb and lazy joke, and I rolled my eyes.

When they posted the follow-up strip, I'd forgotten about the reference to rape and had to go back a few to see what they were talking about. The tone of the second strip was very dismissive and even though the original joke hadn't upset me or offended me, that they would act that way to people it had upset and offended was just incredibly dickish. Throw the t-shirt on top of that and I've become convinced that both Mike and Jerry are just man children that have managed to find a lot of success in an environment that has allowed them to remain dickish man children.

It would be very easy if we could draw a firm line in the sand that determined what things were always correct and always incorrect to say. We can't. Our words live in a cultural context that is far larger than any of us and everyone has different boundaries of what will offend and upset them. The most we can do is be sensitive to the fact that other people exist and their experiences aren't invalid just because they aren't our experiences.

And it's pretty easy to be aware that rape is something that a lot of people are going to be sensitive to.
posted by girih knot at 4:55 PM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

To call the original criticism "wrong" is to say that, no, actually, Milli A. does find rape funny.

So, people who, say, set off fireworks are responsible for those who have PTSD reactions? And what they're really saying that they actually enjoy it?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:50 PM on February 7, 2011

Listen. It's PA's decision to make those kinds of jokes and to let those kinds of jokes stand when they're criticized. Penny Arcade isn't a safe space and no one pretends it is or should be, and it's up to their discretion what kind of content they want to put in their comic.

But they don't need to antagonize their critics or go into safe spaces and violate the rules of those places. To do so demonstrates a total lack of respect and empathy. To use your firework equivocation, it's more like a few war vets suffering PTSD complained to someone about their firework show, and the people who organized the show responded by:

publicly mocking the vets
lighting some fireworks outside of a veteran's hospital to demonstrate how those particular fireworks weren't that bad compared to these other fireworks they'd fired in the past
selling merchandise which did nothing but callback to the entire exchange.

This is all pretty much reiterating things that have been said repeatedly throughout this thread. The argument really, really isn't as simple as "Penny Arcade is bad because they used the word 'rape'!"
posted by girih knot at 7:21 PM on February 7, 2011 [7 favorites]

Errant: When I wrote “regardless of specifics”, I was trying to get at the point that the criticisms levelled at the strip by the original critics that stated the strip supported rape culture were equivalent to saying that there was something very wrong with the strip, even if the critics were not saying “you support rape”. I was not suggesting that the critics had not supplied specifics, or that they needed to. I was pointing out that the criticisms were quite serious, and hence the issue of those criticisms being wrong was not one to be simply set aside even given PA's later actions.

So far, my concerns about that criticism, and the exchange between us on the topic, has been entirely about the notion that the strip supported rape culture, and I don't need any convincing that people viewed it as a rape joke in poor taste and were affected by it. The criticism that “I was really upset by the comic” is irrefutable, obviously. The criticism that it supported rape culture is not.

I have not forgotten that original paragraph. The fact that Milli A. doesn't find rape funny is not something I've somehow missed. To say the criticism is wrong is not to say “Milli A. finds rape funny”; it is to say that the strip is not predicated upon finding rape funny, that in fact the strip depends on the fact that rape is a horrible thing. Which is my reading; I accept that you and I disagree on this quite fundamentally, but please do not tell me that my strong disagreement with the original critics' interpretation of the strip means that I think they should find rape amusing.

There is also another disagreement, which you add but hang in there as a throwaway clause—the claim that rape is not acceptable to be used in a comic strip. I think this is simply wrong, as I have made clear in my previous comments, and I just don't think that such a blanket declaration on acceptability is anything but a terrible idea.

I'm not obsessed with making you make them say they were wrong; that's both exaggeration and oversimplification. You're right that it's likely to go unfulfilled though.

DNye: My apologies for mistaking your intent; I thought you were making a humorous comment that my posts had a tone of “I've got all the answers” and/or that engaging in debate at Shakesville would be obviously a rather difficult and drawn out experience.

I'm surprised that you're serious, in truth. My sense is that my comments would be profoundly unwelcome at Shakesville. I would feel like I'd be wading into a community explicitly set up as a safe space and upsetting a lot of people whose sense of what's appropriate is quite different from mine, and that either I would have to pull the teeth from my own arguments or risk violating their community standards. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but that's the sense I have and that's why I have no intention of doing so.

I don't seek to gain anything from convincing MetaFilter of my position. I just found the discussion here intelligent, interesting, and relatively balanced, and thought that both other people might find my take on it interesting and that I would find interesting the reactions of others to my position.

I appreciate your point about the timeline, but I do feel it's a little disingenuous to minimize the import of the original criticisms in that way. The original comic and the criticisms of it are rather more important than “stuff that just happened on the first day of the discussion”. I also think that “get to be the injured party” is overly simplistic, and that while it's not an equivalence, there is some “injury” on the PA side that's not merely trivial and that deserves some acknowledgement. (And no, I don't think that “justifies” the Dickwolves T-shirts.)

To your larger point, I don't really think I'm going to gain anything from being “right”. I've gained some understanding by thinking this through and by writing out my arguments and by taking part in this discussion, and I hope that my doing so has contributed in a positive way. Why do any of us comment on anything? I commented here for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph, and when people responded I responded in turn; I'm not sitting here thinking “I'm going to convince all those MeFites that mine is the one true way”.

girih knot: Your reaction to the strip is not the reaction I had in mind. I've seen plenty of criticisms from people who found the original strip funny and found nothing reprehensible in its rape reference. I'm not talking about people whose reaction to it was to cringe. (Which is not to belittle your reaction; I just didn't have people who had that reaction in mind when I referred to non-critics of the original strip.)

Where I really start to disagree with you is about the second strip, and this is because I read it rather differently from you, and think that characterizing it as a strip that supports rape culture or trivializes rape is wrong. I think it's wrong and a serious accusation to level. I don't think that second strip is out of line as a response to criticisms that are vociferous, serious, and wrong. I do find it problematic that the second strip uses arguments that could just as well have been used to defend a work that did actually support rape culture, but I don't think it's right to simply remove from the context the fact that those criticisms were based on a bad misinterpretation (even if that misinterpretation was in good faith). Yes, I know that this argument is predicated on my interpretation being the “correct” one, and that I'm unlikely to change anyone's mind on this point, but this is why I was curious about how those people who agreed with my interpretation of the strip and also disagreed with PA's later actions were not, that I could see, occasionally pointing out to their own “side” that those initial criticisms were still wrong, and that this fact warranted some consideration.

The fact that all of us have different cultural contexts and different boundaries for offense and upset is a strong argument for why it's almost impossible to do any kind of creative work while guaranteeing that it won't offend somebody. PA's response to this is basically that they don't care about offending anyone, and I think that's actually the only rational response.

Otherwise, what about all the other people they manage to offend, which happens all the time? Are all of those offended reactions equally valid? If your answer is “no, because rape is obviously a more serious matter”, what happens when some of the other offended parties says “but I had experience X which means that subject Y is awful to bear”? Will you dismiss their experience, or will you add subject Y to the list of unacceptable topics? The only way around doing either of those things (and I hope it's clear that they're both bad paths to go down) is to focus on the meaning of the work. If the meaning of the work is itself objectionable, then that is the basis for criticism. And that isn't about upset or offense, but about whether the upset is caused by something reprehensible. If the original strip had indeed supported rape culture, then it would have met that standard. Obviously these things are all still subjective, but very significantly less subjective and arbitrary than the standard of offending or upsetting someone.
posted by tadhg at 7:52 PM on February 7, 2011 [1 favorite]

So, people who, say, set off fireworks are responsible for those who have PTSD reactions? And what they're really saying that they actually enjoy it?

I have no idea what this pertains to or what you believe you have "gotcha'd" me about. Could you state it more clearly, please?
posted by Errant at 7:52 PM on February 7, 2011

tadhg: You're conflating "supporting rape culture" with "perpetuating rape culture." The former carries an implication of willful intent; the latter is a result of complicated social framework. I re-read the original Shakesville criticism of the comic and to me it doesn't even seem like a direct call-out to Penny Arcade, but more of a "Goddamn rape culture I can't even read Penny Arcade without coming across this shit."

You think that the original strip didn't perpetuate rape culture, and other people disagree with you. There aren't objective guidelines, and there's no justification to invalidate the way other people feel. Again, Mike and Jerry are free to make the kind of comics and merchandise they want, but some people are going to think they're assholes for this, and I'm one of them.

The fact that all of us have different cultural contexts and different boundaries for offense and upset is a strong argument for why it's almost impossible to do any kind of creative work while guaranteeing that it won't offend somebody. PA's response to this is basically that they don't care about offending anyone, and I think that's actually the only rational response.

There's a big difference between someone being offended that you used a certain shade of blue or that your take on Latest Video Game disagrees with their opinion of the game, and someone who feels belittled and marginalized because you referenced rape in a way which minimized the reality of it, all for a cheap joke. If they don't care about offending anyone, they aren't much different from that guy who makes racist jokes or that guy who catcalls women on the street. It makes them assholes.
posted by girih knot at 9:06 PM on February 7, 2011

To say the criticism is wrong is not to say “Milli A. finds rape funny”; it is to say that the strip is not predicated upon finding rape funny, that in fact the strip depends on the fact that rape is a horrible thing. Which is my reading; I accept that you and I disagree on this quite fundamentally, but please do not tell me that my strong disagreement with the original critics' interpretation of the strip means that I think they should find rape amusing.

Milli A.'s criticism is that they can no longer enjoy comedy, because the probability of a rape joke approaches 1 and that ruins the critic's comedic experience. Your argument seems to be, essentially, "but this wasn't a rape joke, so your experience shouldn't have been ruined, and you should apologize for saying that it could have been ruined and that they'd make a rape joke that would hurt you, because that is a serious and untrue charge and they wouldn't do that." You can perhaps understand why I consider this a strange hill to defend; they did do that, then they did it again, then they did it again and again and again.

You'll note, then, that "rape culture" never appears in the original criticism, nor any specific accusation that this strip has contributed to it; that criticism came later, after the second comic, and it came from a different person who now was responding to the interaction of the first and second strip. So while I am currently advancing the argument that the first strip alone represents a contribution to rape culture, that was neither the first nor the second criticism at Shakesville.

I don't think you think they should find rape amusing. I think to call the original criticism wrong and invalid is to argue that they're incorrect in their opinion of rape jokes, and because I don't think that's what you want or mean to say, I am saying that this isn't the right way to phrase your objection.

Anyway, the disconnect here is that you seem to believe that people who agree with you that the original comic wasn't a problem axiomatically must agree that the original criticism was wrong. Since I don't, and since I do not think the original criticism rests on a misintepretation, I do not grant your premise and therefore I don't grant the conclusions that follow.

Offending people is not the same as hurting them. Penny Arcade clearly saw the distinction, which is why they, extremely unusually, drafted a second comic to respond to criticisms of the first and the pain that it caused. They don't do that when someone complains about them not liking a Tony Hawk game. They were clearly aware that this situation is not like another, which makes their failure to address it with anything approaching care all the more disappointing.

You're concerned that care for offense will stifle creativity. History demonstrates that it does not; there are many, many creative artists who create with care for their subject matter and with some idea of what the larger landmines are. That doesn't, by itself, prevent offense, but being offended is not the worst thing in the entire world and no one except concern trolls think that it is. When someone tells you that you offended them, you listen, apologize if you like for unintentional offense, then you decide if you've done anything wrong. It's possible that you haven't and that you've offended someone anway. If that's so, ok, as you say, that happens all the time. But fear of offense has never paralyzed anyone who was inclined towards "edgy" or "dangerous" material; there is a huge difference between the potential for offense prior to creation and the actuality of offense post-creation, and therefore there is also a huge difference in appropriate concern and care for the two of them.
posted by Errant at 9:29 PM on February 7, 2011 [2 favorites]

I don't think a credible reading of that PA strip as trivializing rape can be made without relying on the precept that rape simply shouldn't be addressed at all in 'non-serious' contexts.

I don't think it can be said any more clearly than it is here:

To defend a rape joke that serves the rape culture, at which a rapist is more likely to laugh than a survivor, at which a rapist can laugh at all, is to defend what that joke exists in service to, intentionally or not.

To me, the penny arcade strip fails this test: regardless of whether it's the "main" punchline, the victim is being lampooned.

By contrast, the recent Daily Show sketch about the republican effort to rewrite the rape exception for abortions, does not fail this test. The joke *defends* the victims. That's the essential difference.
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 10:06 PM on February 7, 2011

girih knot: First, I don't agree that the strip "referenced rape in a way which minimized the reality of it". I suspect we're not going to reach agreement on that question.

Second, and I apologize for this possible breach of MetaFilter etiquette, but we disagree on the importance/centrality of offendedness, and I've already written about my thoughts on offendedness, so rather than rehash that here I provide that link in case you're interested in how/why I disagree.
posted by tadhg at 10:41 PM on February 7, 2011

tadhg: The original comic and the criticisms of it are rather more important than “stuff that just happened on the first day of the discussion”.

Dude, please don't put in quotation marks things I haven't said. Quotation marks indicated quotation, not paraphrase. Making an incorrect paraphrase look like direct quotation is not good form.

Otherwise, I don't get it. You are aware that if you went to Shakesville and delivered a giant what-I-think-the-kids-call-mansplain to the effect that:

The idea, stated in the first objection post at Shakesville, that Penny Arcade shouldn’t have used rape in the comic because rape “is a real thing that happens in the world every day” (in contrast to the other, purely video-game elements they’re dealing with), is ludicrous.

you would get very short shrift. However, you also think that Milli A (and presumably others - you talk about "detractors", plural) were wrong, and that they should apologise, presumably to Penny Arcade and to the people whom they have forced to spend time blogging about this, threatening Melissa McEwan, finding Courtney Stanton's home address and so on, for being wrong. That's a proposed social good.

Tell you what. I know some guys who know some guys. Tell us who should apologise and specifically for what, and I'll see what I can do.

Weirdly, though, looking at Milli A's post, she doesn't actually say at any point that Penny Arcade shouldn't have used rape in the comic. She says that she doesn't find rape funny, and that she doesn't think that strip was funny because it used rape as a comic device, but nowhere can I see any suggestion that she thinks Penny Arcade should not have done it, and certainly no suggestion that any attempt should be made to prevent them from doing it again beyond, I guess, blogging about how it wasn't (subjectively) funny, contacting them to give them feedback about why it wasn't (subjectively) funny, generally exercising free expression. Huh.
posted by DNye at 2:24 AM on February 8, 2011 [4 favorites]

tadhg: I was pointing out that the criticisms were quite serious, and hence the issue of those criticisms being wrong was not one to be simply set aside even given PA's later actions.

Except that the bulk of the issue is with PA's response. Your analysis of the initial criticisms and the demand for a singular interpretation are wrong. However, because I'm generally not a dick, I'm not about to parody you in in followup strip, mock your concerns with a t-shirt, snark your views on twitter, come to your personal web site and post pedophile jokes, or sit with my thumbs up my ass while my supporters engage in threats of physical harm against you.

I also think that “get to be the injured party” is overly simplistic, and that while it's not an equivalence, there is some “injury” on the PA side that's not merely trivial and that deserves some acknowledgement.

Yes, claims to "injury" on the PA side are trivial. The cost of being a "big name" in any given field is that some people are going to think you're wrong, and engage in criticisms that you don't agree with. If you're prone to take personal offense to criticism of your edgy humor, you should probably take up a different line of work. To paraphrase Truman, if you want a friend in the business, get a dog.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:37 AM on February 8, 2011 [3 favorites]

tadhg, it seems to me like you are splitting hairs and getting down into the semantics of particular words and phrases that people are using here in their remarks at the end of a 1000+ comment thread half a year after the debut of the original comic, with the effect of shifting the argument to some issue about whether it's possible to strictly find fault in the intrinsic content of the joke in that original comic, while ignoring any concerns about the environment in the minds of the authors in which the joke and the decision to present it a certain way arose or of the real-world consequences it did have and would have inevitably had even if it's inherently funny or any of the other concerns that were included even in the initial criticisms.

When you say things like we disagree on the importance/centrality of offendedness it kinda sounds like you're proposing that you think that the people here don't understand something about the criticisms of the original comic or are mistaken in thinking that the other stuff is extremely and vitally important (much more important than the joke content issue, in fact), or that you are saying that what you want to talk about is more important than whatever those criticisms really are about, especially when you link to something you wrote a year before the original comic came out that appears to be arguing against a kind of science fiction book that promotes ideas that are untrue on their face containing bolded phrases about "what truly matters in the public sphere" and about how "people can be offended by anything."

(That last one especially is a bit much... I mean, seriously, how many people do you think don't understand that people can be offended by anything at all, particularly by the end of a thread like this one even if they didn't already understand it before the whole situation started?)

I appreciate that it's more convenient for you to shift the conversation to something you've already argued through thoroughly before, or to something which is an argument more easily won. And if what you're looking for is an acknowledgement that anyone who is simply and exclusively asserting that the content of the original comic can be strictly and indisputably categorized as offensive based upon its content alone is wrong, you've got that from me - yes, anyone saying that is totally wrong and all of your counter-arguments are very effective and indeed are well-thought-out and well-presented against some hypothetical person making such a point. I just don't think anyone is saying that.

(To be strictly literal, yes, you can probably find some people who are saying that, like for example people who were raped and so care about this issue very much and very viscerally but also aren't very good with reading comprehension or with forming arguments. Just to let you know, you aren't going to look very good cherry-picking those sorts of people as the ones you're engaging on this issue.)

―

On preview, I note that you're actually also proposing that PA can lay claim to having incurred some non-trivial injury from this situation. On that you're totally wrong. These are the guys who came up with the GIFT - maybe back before they were such big shots but they really had no excuse for not realizing that the criticisms made of them might be 100% true and that if they acted stupidly enough they would conclusively prove those criticisms to be 100% true, i.e. no excuse for not realizing that they might be the ones who were being fuckwads on the internet here.

And yes, they were being fuckwads in the way they posted the original comic. Someone who understands what trigger warnings are and why they're used and posts the original comic without one? Fuckwad. Someone who isn't familiar with the somewhat specialized and technical concept "trigger warning" but whose content regularly reaches millions and hasn't thought things through enough to come up with an equivalent concept for a trigger warning? Fuckwad. Not an absolutely and irredeemably bad person, just a fuckwad. (Note also, please, that this preceding paragraph is confirming that they were being fuckwads based only upon one small part of what the original criticisms were talking about, the direct effect of the comic upon some survivors of rape reading it.)

And if the PA guys got their feelings super-extra-hurt because they didn't take the time to understand what was being said before they reacted and again fulfilled the GIFT while somehow managing to forget that they aren't by any means just some anonymous guys writing a comic somehwhere at this point, that's their own damn fault and nothing that their critics need apologize for.

ChurchHatesTucker: after World War I in places like the U.K. so many young men were "shell shocked" - people with PTSD made up such a high percentage of the population - that the phrase entered the English lexicon. Someone in that kind of environment who set off fireworks in public or in the presence of any unfamiliar young man who might well have shell shock were fuckwads, yes, and it would be entirely appropriate to rudely say so in 1920s-speak or 1930s-speak or whatever.

Here in the U.S., during the 90's I worked a temp job laying ethernet and phone and fiber optic cabling on a college campus. You know what empty college dorms are like - big, blocky, echoing concrete-and-cinder-block buildings with lots of corridors and small rooms. There was this older guy on the crew who had been in Vietnam and who mentioned that. One of the other guys, who had been in the military more recently, found that he could annoy the Vietnam vet and eventually completely freak him out by holding his power drill like a pistol and moving ahead of the crew like he was taking shelter from possible snipers and clearing the rooms as we moved forward. The Vietnam vet at one point got pale and started hyperventilating and had to stop and go lie down for a moment and I'm pretty sure that he wasn't faking. The guy doing it thought this was hilarious and was being a fuckwad. (Well, even more than a fuckwad in this case, since he was doing it intentionally instead of out of obtuse carelessness.)
posted by XMLicious at 9:03 AM on February 8, 2011 [3 favorites]

I have no idea what this pertains to or what you believe you have "gotcha'd" me about. Could you state it more clearly, please?

Someone in that kind of environment who set off fireworks in public or in the presence of any unfamiliar young man who might well have shell shock were fuckwads...

My point was that if you have to worry about triggers for every subject in every situation, it quickly becomes unmanageable. There are a lot of subjects that some people post trigger warnings for: suicide, eating disorders, etc.

If someone makes a commercial that has explosions, it may affect someone out there. Calling the ad director a fuckwad is really stretching the GIFT, which is more about intentional behavior.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:07 PM on February 8, 2011

The reality is that in a difficult world that sets out to inflict massive damage upon each of its inhabitants, there is no realistic way to know what will trigger someone and what won't. Everyone has things that set them off, provoke that unmanaged and instinctive reaction.

So there are a few ways to deal with that. One is to say, well, everyone's damaged, no one's damage is special, it's your thing to deal with, it's your problem, don't blame me for your pain, don't tell me about it, shut up and live with it. That is a common method of coping, and one you'll see represented everywhere.

Another is to say, well, everyone's damaged, no one's damage is special, especially not mine, your pain is as difficult as mine is, because I would like mine to be less I will try to make yours less also, your pain is my problem because we're all in this together. For those people, they post trigger warnings and advance notice that they will be dealing with difficult subjects. Those trigger warnings are almost never completely sufficient, because everyone's damage is different, and so people will get triggered by things that no one warned for. That is unfortunate and unavoidable, despite all of one's best efforts.

So then you can say, fuck it, nothing helps, everything is fucked, or you can say, let me learn and hear about this, because I had not considered it before, and hearing your story expands my worldview.

There are situations, like suicide, like eating disorders, like rape, that are so common and have affected so many people that trigger warnings for those subjects are routine, because it is extremely likely that someone in your audience will have been affected by those things. Not being aware that many people are affected by those things smacks of willful ignorance, but let's pretend for a moment that one has somehow managed to go through life without realizing that suicide or rape are real things that negatively affect many people; let's pretend that two guys who have written many, many comics about how stupid the racist and sexist insults of the gaming community are have somehow not realized that rape is a difficult subject. Their reaction to learning that information is to make T-shirts, mock the very idea of trigger warnings, and deny any ill effect of their actions.

It becomes impossible to give them even that slim benefit of the doubt. Trigger warnings exist because people are trying to be kind to and aware of people in pain. Even if you are willing to grant PA the benefit of the doubt in not being aware of that, their reaction to learning it was to attack those people in pain.

Trigger warnings exist not because people want you to stop talking about difficult subjects, but because they do want you to talk about difficult subjects; they're just aware that those difficult subjects are extremely and unavoidably difficult for some people. What seems to you like oversensitivity seems to them like regular sensitivity.

Besides, how would you know how manageable or unmanageable it would be? You've never tried doing it. People who do regularly append trigger warnings don't seem to have a problem managing this remarkable feat. If you don't want to use them, primarily because you don't want to think about all the ways in which people can be injured, that's your call and that's legitimate. But arguing that they're stupid, pointless, or unwieldly, when so many people like them, are aided by them, and utilize them without difficulty, is really kind of dumb.
posted by Errant at 12:40 PM on February 8, 2011 [9 favorites]

ChurchHatesTucker: I do not agree with you that the GIFT is about intentional behavior. I think that it's about the kind of behavior that can result when the anonymity of the internet separates people talking to each other, both from seeing each others' faces and genuine reactions and feelings when they exchange comments and separating them from any social consequences of their statements and actions, whether that behavior is intentional or not. And it's also about how having an audience can egg on extremity of behavior, of course.

I think that you're calling things "unmanageable" that are not actually anywhere remotely near unmanageable. It's not unmanageable to put "Spoilers!" at the top of a thread or a comment that's going to talk about a movie that's in the theatres right now, is it? Or to put a little javascript / CSS snippet in that gives expand / collapse functionality so that an image which might reveal a spoiler, or even just screw up the layout of the page in someone's browser, is hidden by default until another reader wants to see it. This kind of stuff is not unmanageable, I see normal average people doing it all over the intertubes.

Gabe and Tycho aren't average people, they're raking in tons of cash from PA. They probably even have the web skillz to personally implement an expandey-collapsey thing like I mention above even if they didn't have the cash to pay someone else to do it. So yeah, they're fuckwads for not even taking those kinds of entirely manageable precautions. The fact that it didn't even occur to them and they didn't think it was important enough to make the effort, or maybe they thought it would cramp the style of their comic or something, is likely one way that some of their critics were able to successfully guess right at the beginning that the comic was a product of rape culture rather than being purely an accident.

Gabe is a double fuckwad at least for making fun of the entire idea of trigger warnings. I don't read their blog much but I'll bet that they refrain from dropping spoilers de rigeur and almost reflexively do things like make sure that their web site will show up properly for all web browsers and on iPhones, et cetera. Someone who will do that but make fun of the idea of going so far as to take similar precautions to avoid causing PTSD responses in rape survivors has gone beyond fuckwadditude and is basically just a shameful asshole at that point.

As far as explosions in TV ads, if an explosion on TV or something like mentioning explosions while writing or speaking can commonly trigger a PTSD reaction in someone who was caught by an IED in Afghanistan, for example, then yes I'd actually say that an ad director doing that is a fuckwad; but I would wager that it usually takes something like fireworks, like an actual explosion happening in their vicinity. One thing that I do understand that they check for when making television ads is whether it contains blinking or other effects that might commonly trigger an epileptic reaction. (Got no cite for that offhand, though.)

So, see? It's not that hard. And when it's something you haven't been acculturated to not take seriously, like movie spoilers, it's actually pretty common.
posted by XMLicious at 1:07 PM on February 8, 2011 [1 favorite]

Would the PA comic be okay if it was behind a click-through trigger warning?
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:40 PM on February 8, 2011

Would the PA comic be okay if it was behind a click-through trigger warning?

I'll bite: sure. Only because having a click through trigger warning--unless you are being a serious jerk and just making Yet Another Joke at the expense of people with PTSD--would make it very very clear that the people who made the comic understood that the subject matter was likely to be touchy and then only people who had said "okay I'm okay with that" would be the ones who saw it. Part of the problem here is that the comic is ambiguous to many people and as a result it's less clear what the people who made it thought about the subjeect and their follow-up didn't really clear that up. To some people, understanding the motivations of people's jokes is important. To others, less so.

But really, the comic was already "okay" A lot of people liked it, some people didn't. I don't think you can really get to a place with humor where everyone thinks something is funny. I don't even think such a state is desireable.

Where things break down, to my read, is that people view criticism of a thing as implicitly saying "it's not okay to do suchandsuch a thing." instead of "Gee it bums me out that you decided to do suchandsuch a thing" and then the follow-up "And I'm especially bummed out that me saying that I was bummed out means I have to endure a bunch of people hollering at me about my own opinions as if they are de facto wrong"

So, furiousxgeorge, there's one reading of your comment where you're being a serious jerk and one where you're asing an honest question. And I have to pick, based on my knowledge of you and this community which one I think is the more likely interpretation. And that, in a nutshell, is where problems like this start.
posted by jessamyn at 2:59 PM on February 8, 2011 [5 favorites]

Would the PA comic be okay if it was behind a click-through trigger warning?

I don't know if it would be but I think that if it had been that would have lead people to be less suspicious that it was the product of rape culture, so that, plus presumably the fact that if they'd had the presence of mind to put in a trigger warning they'd already have thought through some of these issues they wouldn't have been such idiots in the way that they responded to the critics, makes me think that in an alternate universe where they'd put a trigger warning up this issue would not have exploded the way it did.

If some automated mechanism in their web platform just detected the word "rape" and inserted an interstitial trigger warning automatically, but they reacted to all of the critics the same way, it still would have blown up. (And all of the critics would still have been just as right that they didn't / don't take rape seriously on some level, of course.)
posted by XMLicious at 3:04 PM on February 8, 2011 [1 favorite]

Would the PA comic be okay if it was behind a click-through trigger warning?

Another interesting question there is "would this ever happen?" or "could this ever happen?" If Penny Arcade started putting in click-through trigger warnings, especially now but also in a hypothetical previous also, they would have been mocked by their fans, briefed against by other gaming communities for selling out... Destructoid would still be mocking them when the Earth cooled.

There's an interesting question about to what extent one is riding a tiger rather than simply sitting on its back when it comes to fan communities. There's a focus on the people at one end who have given up on Penny Arcade, or the PAX project, but at the other end there seem to be plenty of people who are dissatisfied with the concessions that have been made so far (if concessions is the word we're looking for).
posted by DNye at 4:02 PM on February 8, 2011

So, furiousxgeorge, there's one reading of your comment where you're being a serious jerk and one where you're asing an honest question. And I have to pick, based on my knowledge of you and this community which one I think is the more likely interpretation. And that, in a nutshell, is where problems like this start.

When it comes to furiousxgeorge, the asshole who likes to yell a lot and drunk post...always assume you are talking to the non-drunk-asshole one who is just a shy dude who wishes we could all get along.

In other words, and paraphrasing what I have posted in this thread before, don't be an asshole. Someone tells you that you have hurt them, fucking believe them.

My point with that question was, this whole clusterfuck could have been avoided if the PA folks thought about what they were doing. I repeat the Louis CK quote:

"I think if you're using nitroglycerin, you've got to read the label, and you've got to be responsible and know what the dangers are,"

So yeah.

Best position: This is a joke about rape, maybe we should think up something better cause even if this is funny...it blows.

Sub-optimal: Okay, let's go with the rape joke. But for fuck's sake people get hurt by this shit, let's put a warning up first so people have to click through to get to the offensive part.

Sub-optimal there lets them be free of EVIL CENSORSHIP but still use the joke, while at the same time showing some respect for their fans who can't deal with the rape stuff. If politeness is that easy...you have no excuse to ignore it.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 4:22 PM on February 8, 2011 [1 favorite]

... mock the very idea of trigger warnings...

Anyone have a link to that? I seem to have missed it in all of this, oddly.

It's not unmanageable to put "Spoilers!" at the top of a thread or a comment that's going to talk about a movie that's in the theatres right now, is it?

Spoiler warnings are actively debated right now, with the rise of DVRs and such. How long after a TV program airs is one appropriate? Similarly, trigger warnings are debated even in feminist circles.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:33 PM on February 8, 2011

Anyone have a link to that? I seem to have missed it in all of this, oddly.

Oct 6th, 2010 Penny Arcade newspost

It's one of those things that can seem innocuous, but joined up with the fact that it's the same day that they announce the Dickwolves T-shirt, some time after Gabe got chastised for linking without warnings in comments at Shakesville, and as part of the overall pattern of hostility, yeah, I'd call it mocking.
posted by Errant at 4:40 PM on February 8, 2011 [1 favorite]

Right, ChurchHatesTucker, debated but not unmanageable. You just pulled a bait-and-switch there, by first objecting to trigger warnings as unmanageable, and then linking to some inspecific debate about trigger warnings that has nothing to do with any practical problems in applying them. Have a little respect for us, please.
posted by XMLicious at 4:42 PM on February 8, 2011

furiousxgeorge, I just wanted to point out to you that what you're saying there is going to sound to some people like simply covering up the problems that PA's critics are talking about, in case you don't realize that. I would agree with them, but I do believe you that you've got good intentions. You are right that those are steps to take to avoid problems, but it's the kind of advice a PR firm would give: how to avoid issues that cause a negative public reaction and say the right thing to make the problem go away, as opposed to really addressing it.
posted by XMLicious at 6:10 PM on February 8, 2011

Yeah, it doesn't address the rape culture stuff. Just the trigger stufff. I consider it the minimum you should do as basic manners, and I don't think there is a decent argument against it as a miniumum standard.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 11:19 PM on February 8, 2011 [2 favorites]

It's one of those things that can seem innocuous, but joined up with the fact that it's the same day that they announce the Dickwolves T-shirt, some time after Gabe got chastised for linking without warnings in comments at Shakesville, and as part of the overall pattern of hostility, yeah, I'd call it mocking.

Yeah, context does make a difference.

Right, ChurchHatesTucker, debated but not unmanageable. You just pulled a bait-and-switch there, by first objecting to trigger warnings as unmanageable, and then linking to some inspecific debate about trigger warnings that has nothing to do with any practical problems in applying them. Have a little respect for us, please.

I do, and hope you would return the favor. I was responding specifically to the comparison with spoiler warnings, which are hardly universal themselves.

What I was thinking was that even if feminist blogs don't all agree on the need to use trigger warnings, then why should we expect that of, e.g., a web comic? (This might have been a better link than the one I used—It's the conclusion to the one I posted.)

One might say that a sex-positive feminist blog is inevitably going to talk about such things, and the trigger warning should be assumed. I'd say that a web comic like PA is going to do the same.

As for how unmanageable it would be, is there a comprehensive list of trigger warnings? What kind of burden are we actually talking about?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:11 AM on February 9, 2011

A lot of jokes and comedy depend upon sudden surprise changes of subject. To proceed each comic with a WARNING: CONTAINS REFERENCES TO X, Y, and Z would ruin a pretty big percentage of the jokes at Penny Arcade.
posted by straight at 10:20 AM on February 9, 2011

Trigger warnings of any kind on a comedy website would absolutely ruin it. If you don't like jokes about touchy subjects, then you shouldn't read it.
posted by empath at 10:30 AM on February 9, 2011

What I was thinking was that even if feminist blogs don't all agree on the need to use trigger warnings, then why should we expect that of, e.g., a web comic?

I don't know if we should, all I said is that it's obviously complete unadulterated bullshit to claim that the reason why anyone would not use trigger warnings is that it's unmanageable to do so as it clearly is not. The only reason I mentioned spoiler warnings is to demonstrate this, not to make any claim about them being universal which I think is fairly obvious, so your reaction still does not make sense to me as anything other than a rhetorical gambit especially since you appear to be unwilling to concede that debated or not, trigger warnings are entirely manageable.

You now appear to be preparing to make a fallacious argument proposing that if one used a trigger warning for a particular common condition, one would be automatically compelled to use trigger warnings for every possible condition they could apply to, and that this nonexistent compulsion is what makes trigger warnings about rape unmanageable even for a lucrative web site that - yes, now that I've checked it, uses spoiler warnings itself on some occasions and takes the issue of spoilers seriously.

But really, go ahead and continue pretending that you're treating your interlocutors with respect. Seriously, think about this. I'm new to arguing about this and the non-validity of the bullshit arguments coming up are obvious to me. Think about the people who already knew you'd be trying to pull this stuff twelve hundred comments ago or knew it six months ago even.
posted by XMLicious at 11:12 AM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

Arguing that trigger warnings are not by definition a ridiculous idea is not the same as arguing that PA should have them. Defending your site's use of trigger warnings after someone has mocked them as ridiculous is not the same as arguing that PA should have them on their site. Trying to create a "safe place" is not an argument that all spaces should be safe in that same way.

Talking about whether or not PA should put up trigger warnings is an odd turn for the conversation to take, and I think it's probably worthwhile to emphasize that I don't recall any of the critical blog posts calling for PA to post trigger warnings. If that's a conversation that's taking place here, it's our conversation. Though to be fair, I may have missed something.

Odd turn or not, I was happy to see the comparison made to the now omnipresent spoiler warnings about movies/books. Another example of how personal experience (feeling disappointed at having a plot point revealed to you before you've experienced it from within the narrative) can give insight into why it might suck to do some particular thing (talk about a narrative without taking into consideration the fact that some of your audience might not have experienced the narrative themselves).

Everyone "gets" spoiler warnings because they've had shit spoiled for them in the past. Trigger warnings don't get the same respect from groups that haven't any experiential knowledge of intense reactions to relatively innocuous stimuli. A little empathy would go a long way in bridging that gap in experience and understanding.
posted by jsturgill at 11:17 AM on February 9, 2011 [4 favorites]

Talking about whether or not PA should put up trigger warnings is an odd turn for the conversation to take, and I think it's probably worthwhile to emphasize that I don't recall any of the critical blog posts calling for PA to post trigger warnings. If that's a conversation that's taking place here, it's our conversation. Though to be fair, I may have missed something.

To my recollection, and it's a big old conversation so I may be misrepresenting or missing something, to the extent that trigger warnings have been discussed specifically with regard to PA, the argument goes something like this: it is not necessarily incumbent on PA to provide trigger warnings. It is unfair and insensitive of PA to treat commonly-triggering subjects with flippancy and to surprise potentially-sensitive readers with those subjects, given that they do not and probably will not post trigger warnings.

Basically, trigger warnings operate like those signs at the amusement park: hey, if you have a heart condition, maybe don't go on this ride. If you go on the ride anyway, you're forewarned and forearmed. Not having a sign like that and then doing things known to aggravate heart conditions is socially irresponsible, given that heart conditions are quite common. Could you have known with certainty that the person on the ride had a heart condition? No, probably not. Could you have assumed with high probability that one or more of the many people who utilize the ride will have a heart condition? Absolutely. Should you have done so? Yeah, probably you should have.
posted by Errant at 11:47 AM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

Gabe and Tycho were kinda like my heroes in high school. Right now I kinda feel like I would if Batman flew down from a building and choked a kitten to death. This isn't fun times :(.
posted by The Devil Tesla at 11:51 AM on February 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

It is unfair and insensitive of PA to treat commonly-triggering subjects with flippancy and to surprise potentially-sensitive readers with those subjects, given that they do not and probably will not post trigger warnings.

Penny Arcade has been doing really dark jokes for as long as they've been around. No one should be surprised by it at this point.
posted by empath at 11:54 AM on February 9, 2011

Penny Arcade has been doing really dark jokes for as long as they've been around. No one should be surprised by it at this point.

Your personal evaluation and criteria for surprise aren't terribly relevant and do not translate to the wider community. Is it not blatantly obvious that this situation is different from many others? Even the original critic spoke of enjoying PA's dark humor up to this point. This isn't simply a case of "PA made a dark joke that someone didn't like", and to reduce the conversation to that is to erase all the complication of a complex issue.
posted by Errant at 11:59 AM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

To my recollection, and it's a big old conversation so I may be misrepresenting or missing something, to the extent that trigger warnings have been discussed specifically with regard to PA, the argument goes something like this: it is not necessarily incumbent on PA to provide trigger warnings. It is unfair and insensitive of PA to treat commonly-triggering subjects with flippancy and to surprise potentially-sensitive readers with those subjects, given that they do not and probably will not post trigger warnings.

Sure, I understand the position. My point was to point out that if anyone is asking PA to put up trigger warnings, it's MetaFilter, not Shakes or any of the other blogs that have been talking about this thing for months. It's our trigger warning conversation, proposition, argument, whatever--not a position that already existed as part of the larger dialog that's been going on for months.

I sometimes get the feeling that a few posters have been left with the impression that people are upset because PA does not have trigger warnings, which is like, whoa. So not the case.
posted by jsturgill at 12:02 PM on February 9, 2011

You now appear to be preparing to make a fallacious argument proposing that if one used a trigger warning for a particular common condition, one would be automatically compelled to use trigger warnings for every possible condition they could apply to...

I'm don't see how that's fallacious. If you cater to one group and not the other aren't you saying much more than one that doesn't cater to either? ("Cater to" is a poor term, but I'm blanking on a better one at the moment. I hope you get my meaning.)

Also, you didn't answer my last question.

I get the sense that you're saying that there should be a cut off at some level of 'common' but I'm not going to put words in your mouth (or fingers.)

But really, go ahead and continue pretending that you're treating your interlocutors with respect.

I'd be happy if you'd just pretend.

Talking about whether or not PA should put up trigger warnings is an odd turn for the conversation to take, and I think it's probably worthwhile to emphasize that I don't recall any of the critical blog posts calling for PA to post trigger warnings.

Yeah, I seem to have inadvertently brought that up. There was some stuff in the comments of the PA-critical sites and the above post by Gabe that didn't register (at least consciously) to me at the time, but it does seem to be pertinent. A lot of people think the original comic would have been fine behind a trigger warning.

Everyone "gets" spoiler warnings because they've had shit spoiled for them in the past. Trigger warnings don't get the same respect from groups that haven't any experiential knowledge of intense reactions to relatively innocuous stimuli.

This is largely true.

Basically, trigger warnings operate like those signs at the amusement park: hey, if you have a heart condition, maybe don't go on this ride. If you go on the ride anyway, you're forewarned and forearmed. Not having a sign like that and then doing things known to aggravate heart conditions is socially irresponsible, given that heart conditions are quite common.

The flip side of that is the proliferation of warning labels on stepladders in the last forty years. They become something that's ignored because of the quantity.

Your personal evaluation and criteria for surprise aren't terribly relevant and do not translate to the wider community. Is it not blatantly obvious that this situation is different from many others? Even the original critic spoke of enjoying PA's dark humor up to this point. This isn't simply a case of "PA made a dark joke that someone didn't like", and to reduce the conversation to that is to erase all the complication of a complex issue.

They've made many, many, jokes about murder. Are those merely 'a dark joke?'
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:05 PM on February 9, 2011

They've had jokes about pedophilia before, too...
posted by empath at 12:08 PM on February 9, 2011

The flip side of that is the proliferation of warning labels on stepladders in the last forty years. They become something that's ignored because of the quantity.

I would argue that I ignore heart condition warnings at the amusement park too, and that is because I do not have a heart condition. I do not subsequently take offense at the presence of that warning nor do I believe that the warning ruins the experience for me. If I did have a heart condition, I would probably pay more attention to the presence of that warning. (As it happens, I am terrible at operating stepladders, and so I read those warnings carefully every time I have occasion to use one, which is not often, because I am terrible at managing them.)

They've made many, many, jokes about murder. Are those merely 'a dark joke?'

I wouldn't say so, and in fact they do get criticized for their reliance on violent imagery, albeit not to this extent and not by their own fans. But let's not go down the road of "well, why didn't you criticize any of these other things, don't you care about them?" That has zero bearing on criticism of this issue, and any absence of commentary on other things that you believe to be equivalent (but which are not actually equivalent) is not proof of hypocrisy.

I mean, let's be clear about what's happening here. This is not criticism from people outside the community or the fanbase. This is a large section of the fanbase itself, objecting loudly and feeling personally betrayed. Let's assume good faith on the part of that fanbase and assume that they are generally in tune with PA's sense of humor, otherwise they would not be fans. If we assume that good faith, it should be crystal clear that this situation represents something quite different from PA's ordinary vulgarity.
posted by Errant at 12:16 PM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you cater to one group and not the other aren't you saying much more than one that doesn't cater to either?

Still nothing to do with trigger warnings being unmanageable and not applicable to this situation because PA is already catering to people who want warnings about spoilers. Further catering to people who would experience PTSD responses about rape would create no additional contradiction or hypocrisy, it simply would demonstrate that they care about people who have been raped as much as they care about someone whose experience of a movie, game, or book might be spoiled.

I have not proposed "a cut off at some level of 'common'"; I have not proposed any specific use of trigger warnings, just stated that their use is not inherently unmanageable.

If you refer to my comments above, I personally think that the comic was funny and that its content doesn't inherently convey rape culture, I just think that the specific issue of the joke's content is a very small portion of the issue. A trigger warning or other measures could certainly help avoid any susceptible rape survivors being triggered and could help to avoid bad press for PA but these are again only part of the issues that PA's critics bring up.
posted by XMLicious at 12:17 PM on February 9, 2011

This is not criticism from people outside the community or the fanbase. This is a large section of the fanbase itself, objecting loudly and feeling personally betrayed.

They are definitely objecting loudly.
posted by empath at 12:18 PM on February 9, 2011

Counterpoint to "you can't joke about rape". And another one.
posted by norm at 12:27 PM on February 9, 2011

They are definitely objecting loudly.

Now we are, sure; but it seems to me that we're objecting less loudly and at a much later date that the portion of the fanbase who started going to the critical feminist web sites and raising hell six months ago, which includes Gabe. I, for one, did not say anything at all at that point because I never would have believed that the PA guys would behave this way. They probably got quite alot of benefit of the doubt and credit for past good deeds from much of the currently-agitated objecting segment of their fan base and they have managed to blow every single cent of it.
posted by XMLicious at 12:43 PM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

norm, if you're going to come back into a thread this long with the intention of perpetuating conflict/discussion around a small part of what is clearly a complex, nuanced emotional debate then it might have been a good idea to have read the thing in full beforehand.

That Daily Show spot has been mentioned and countered already in this thread, six times according to my Finder. Take a read. If you have any specific criticisms after that then by all means respond to them, but tossing in a one-liner of "Here's some videos of recent rape jokes that I like" isn't terribly constructive.
posted by hugsnkisses at 12:52 PM on February 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

That is not why norm posted those links. He is responding to the notion that it's impossible to do humor mentioning rape if the audience is aware beforehand that it's going to be the subject of the joke. (Which isn't exactly the same point that empath, for example, was making, I should point out.)
posted by XMLicious at 12:57 PM on February 9, 2011

A lot of people think the original comic would have been fine behind a trigger warning.

That is not the same as seriously arguing for PA to put up trigger warnings. If anything, it's a reaction to your persistent hammering away at an imagined proposition that PA should put up such warnings.

Yes, it probably would, on the whole, be more female-friendly and responsible for the comic to have a trigger warning. But that doesn't mean I want them to start putting up trigger warnings. It's just a counterfactual, hypothetical supposition. I'd rather sleep with Bea Arthur than watch my father have sex with Bea Arthur. That doesn't mean I actually want either of those things to come to pass! It just means I'm playing a game of "would you rather."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're not trying to troll, but it does appear to me as though you are very eager to react to your idea of what PA critics and people in this thread are saying rather than what they actually are saying. That's bad enough, but it personally grates me even more than it otherwise would since your baseline misinterpretation of those people and their position seems to be strongly influenced by Heinlein/right wing talk radio/Ayn Rand/Terry Goodkind/whatever. Not all concessions towards politeness or other peoples' feelings are the first step of a slippery slope of ridiculous results. Critiques of why certain actions taken by PA are lame, hurtful, and thoughtless are not equivalent to calls for thought police to stamp on the face of individual expression and creativity for forever.
posted by jsturgill at 12:59 PM on February 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

norm, if you're going to come back into a thread this long with the intention of perpetuating conflict/discussion around a small part of what is clearly a complex, nuanced emotional debate then it might have been a good idea to have read the thing in full beforehand.

Either you've got a profound sense of irony or you didn't read the thread. Heck, *I* posted a summary about six hundred posts back. And yes, good point on the Daily Show link being mentioned before. I remembered that as I was posting the Onion one, and thought I'd toss it in there for good measure. My point was solely this: the issue is not that you can't joke about rape.
posted by norm at 1:00 PM on February 9, 2011

I think we need to be careful with this facile talk about "triggers" and "trigger warnings". Although triggers can be as simple as "I got raped. Every time I hear the word 'rape' I relive the trauma," but this isn't the only, or even most common form of PTSD trigger. The nature of triggers is such that without knowing the person, it is difficult to predict what their triggers are. Sometimes sufferers themselves have a hard time identifying triggers and are encouraged to make notes to identify them. It could be a sound, a smell, the way a person looks or looks at you, or even random inanimate objects associated with the original even by chance. Assuming that the word rape, or sex, or phallus, or any other single word is or isn't a trigger to X number of rape victims is just plain guesswork.
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:00 PM on February 9, 2011 [3 favorites]

"...event by chance..."
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:01 PM on February 9, 2011

Incidentally, reading the "Metafilter 101" document, and all of its linked articles, is required prior to posting in a thread here. As well as the entire thread in question. You've only been here for 9.2 years, hugsnkisses, so I'm surprised you didn't know that. N00b.

(in all seriousness, it wouldn't have killed me to state why I was posting those links, so I apologize for being obscure. I generally get irritated when people post links to videos without saying what they actually are, too, so that would have been courteous of me as well.)
posted by norm at 1:09 PM on February 9, 2011

ChurchHatesTucker: " As for how unmanageable it would be, is there a comprehensive list of trigger warnings? What kind of burden are we actually talking about?"

Trigger Warning

Note that they are generally only used on feminist, trauma survivor or support group websites, not by mainstream sites. Even then, most of the above use them for graphic, psychologically-realistic descriptions of violence, abuse and/or other traumatic acts.

Penny Arcade does not fit any of those site categories and should not reasonably be expected to post them.
posted by zarq at 1:12 PM on February 9, 2011

I realized that I should amend a statement I made above, for the valid reason that many people have made that being careless can imply a harsher criticism of the PA guys than is really meant.

...it simply would demonstrate that they care about people who have been raped as much as they care about someone whose experience of a movie, game, or book might be spoiled.

When I say this, I do literally mean that a trigger warning is an example of one thing (one thing that I do not necessarily think that they have to do) that would demonstrate or convey that they care about rape survivors.

But I do not think that the fact that they didn't include a trigger warning or make similar demonstrations is evidence that they really consciously do not care about rape survivors. (Though others might interpret it that way, uncharitably in my opinion.) I think that in reality what it is, is an unconscious signal and circumstantial evidence (circumstantial evidence that was later corroborated by complete and undeniable evidence) that they have been acculturated to not think about or consider rape survivors to the same degree or with the same respect that they would accord to someone who does not want their experience of a movie spoiled. I also think that they are passing on and reinforcing this acculturation to a large segment of their audience, which I think is really the core of the criticisms against them. (Although the preceding characterization by no means completely encompasses all of the variety and nuance of the criticisms made against them.)
posted by XMLicious at 1:22 PM on February 9, 2011

hades: " Do TV networks count as "mainstream"? Because how many times have you seen or heard a network's "viewer discretion is advised" trigger warning preceding a show? I don't watch that much TV, and it's something I'm aware of."

That is not exactly a trigger warning. In context, what is being said is that the material that is about to be shown is not appropriate for all viewers. That may mean (for example,) a parent might not want their kids to watch. It may be showing acts that some viewers (whether they have endured trauma in their lives or not) could find disturbing.

By definition, a trigger warning refers to something that when viewed may spark a strong, damaging emotional response in the viewer, typically based on trauma they have previously experienced.
posted by zarq at 1:34 PM on February 9, 2011

hades: "Do TV networks count as "mainstream"?"

Also, you left out a qualifier I had deliberately included in my sentence: "generally."

As in: "Note that they are generally only used on feminist, trauma survivor or support group websites, not by mainstream sites"

I included it on purpose. I'm not trying to make a sweeping statement. There are obviously exceptions, online and off.
posted by zarq at 1:36 PM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think that at least part of the backlash against any "disclaimers" on comics is that comics spent much of their formative history shrugging the CCA off their covers.

The Comics Code Authority began as a form of voluntary self-regulation, underwritten by the best pop-social-science of its day, and militated by concerns for both cultural integrity and for the eggshell-thin psyche of the reader. It was a disclaimer. A comic that bore the CCA insignia was one that assured, at least in aim, that the Metropolis between its covers would be drawn up according to civic guidelines:

- Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.
- Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.
- Violent love scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.
- If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.

This, naturally, sounds familiar, like intentions beaten into paving stones, like the aphorisms wrought into the iron gates of hell. There is a certain way that censorship tends to begin, and a certain way that it then tends to blossom, and bite, and drive creativity deep underground, and turn ugliness and sexism per-se into an avant garde. Some artists are (with reasons) averse to ever taking that first perceived misstep to a tame mythology and a theatre of only one mask. Been there, done that.
posted by kid ichorous at 1:58 PM on February 9, 2011

I also want to say, to ChurchHatesTucker, that I do not necessarily believe that you are intentionally playing rhetorical games here. It kind of boggles my mind that you thought you were going to get anywhere by proposing or implying that some aspect of trigger warnings which would be applicable to this discussion is unmanageable, but it's possible that was an honest polemical misstep.

What I do believe, however, is that it is discourteous and not very respectful of one's interlocutors to be past the 1200 comment mark in a thread in which one party to the conversation has repeatedly said "the same invalid arguments get made again and again every time this subject has been discussed going way back in history"¹ and to not think a few steps ahead with an argument you've come up with and say to yourself, "Is this easily falsifiable?" or, "Does there appear to be an obvious and immediate valid response to this, that might lead off to a longer chain of argument?"; and if either of the answers to those questions is "yes", to at least check to see whether the argument you're thinking of is one of the oft-repeated arguments regarded as invalid. And independent of courtesy, doing something like that is of benefit to you because at least if you do that research you'll have a good idea what the counter-arguments you face will be and you can prepare for them.

1. Search for the word "repeat" this thread to pull up a few examples of this, (I like Astro Zombie's characteristically witty and poetic phrasing of it, myself) not to mention in the Feminism 101 FAQs, etc. that have been described as essential to understanding the debate.
posted by XMLicious at 2:28 PM on February 9, 2011

Because in the medium of fan fiction, which is created largely by women and has no shortage of content which would fall afoul of the CCA guidelines, trigger warnings are the norm.

No, they aren't. They are the norm in some* livejournal Western Media Fandom fanfiction circles. They aren't the norm in fanfic everwhere - see fanfiction.net for an example and various other fandom/fanfiction forums that are not tied to livejournal. Let's not even mention fanfiction for stuff like wrestling and anime/manga.

*For arguments sake, we will ignore all of lj flamewars about trigger warnings.
posted by nooneyouknow at 2:42 PM on February 9, 2011

kid ichorous, at first I favorited your comment because you had worked in the term "paving stones" which I've been trying to figure out how to do myself, but on re-reading it doesn't look to me like what you're saying entirely makes sense. The thing you quote there really is not a disclaimer or even a warning, it's actually a policy that controls the content of the comic, which no one has proposed, unless you're saying that something such as including trigger warnings would be the top of an inevitable slippery slope leading to a content-restricting policy like that. (Reconsidering, I guess that your "paving stones" reference was an indirect way of making a slippery slope argument.) And few people have even argued that PA needs to include trigger warnings, I certainly have not. (Has anyone amongst those critical of PA actually argued that they need trigger warnings?)

I think that the thing you quote there is evidence of some group in the comics industry being the clients of a PR firm and taking advice like I described above regarding ways of avoiding negative public reaction as opposed to actually acknowledging or addressing any problems. Anyone who is interested in PA not going down this sort of route should be dedicated to the PA guys genuinely understanding, acknowledging, and addressing these problems as opposed to trying to formulate some ironclad way of avoiding future controversy and bad press - because the ironclad way of doing that is for them to hire a PR firm who will get their tentacles into the comics themselves and will be telling Gabe and Tycho what to say and what to tweet when trouble starts showing on the horizon.
posted by XMLicious at 2:47 PM on February 9, 2011

hades:And yet, it achieves the same function as a "real" trigger warning, and is a pretty good example of the mainstreaming of warnings before content that some viewers/readers may find objectionable or harmful. All I'm saying is that this sort of thing isn't limited to fringe support group web sites. That they have a different name for a specific sub-category of warnings is largely, in my mind, irrelevant.

I guess I disagree then. As far as I'm concerned, the name and categorization of the warnings do matter, because the audiences they are being directed to differ. In one case, we're talking about generalized warnings which may or may not apply to anyone viewing. The others are more specific warnings directed towards a group of people who are very likely to have endured and survived some sort of trauma.

It's sort of like the difference between simply slapping an "R" rating on a movie intended for a wide audience or warning people in a sexual abuse support group that said movie depicts say, a graphically violent rape. And yeah, I agree that's more of a fringe thing.

And I left your "generally" out because I can't think of much that's more general than network TV. That's a pretty big exception. But, ok, warning people generically about potentially offensive, disturbing, or spoiler-y content: mainstream. Warning people specifically about potentially disturbing content that could trigger their PTSD: kind of fringe. Penny Arcade: not required or expected to do either (except for spoiler warnings on their forums)."

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it.
posted by zarq at 3:01 PM on February 9, 2011

hades: "Funny thing about film ratings: many of them contain more detailed information than just the letter rating. For example, the rating for "Trust" says: "Rated R for disturbing material involving the rape of a teen, language, sexual content and some violence." Sure, they aren't calling it a trigger warning, but I'm not really seeing the difference."

Now they do. They didn't used to. The expanded ratings are intended to help parents make informed choices regarding whether a movie is appropriate for their children to see. Which has been the intent of having ratings all along.

They've never been intended to prevent people from reliving traumatic experiences.

So yes, the audience matters. And yes, the type of warning differs.
posted by zarq at 3:18 PM on February 9, 2011

hades, i didn't mean to state that no one ever used them, but depending on where you hang out in fandom they are the unquestioned norm, norm but contested, nobody cares either way, or "what's a trigger warning?"

If you want to look up the lj trigger warning discussions you can start here: http://www.delicious.com/metafandom/warnings
Have you heard of the lj community metafandom? If you haven't, they post links to interesting fandom related posts. The link is to the warning tag on their delicious account.

Re: MPAA warnings - those are incredibly capricous and more about the biases of the raters than the objective content of the movie. In the documentary,"This Film is Not Yet Rated" they talk about how movies that show female masterbation (not graphically) get like rated X, while those to reference male do not have the same issues.
posted by nooneyouknow at 3:21 PM on February 9, 2011

hades: "... right. Good thing we're having this conversation now, and not in 1989, when there were no reasons on MPAA ratings."

There were reasons on the ratings back then, too. They were parent-centric, protective of minors.

From 1930 to 1970:
* G: General audiences - all ages admitted
* M: Mature audiences - parental discretion advised, but all ages admitted.
* R: Restricted - children under 16 not admitted without an accompanying parent or adult guardian.
* X: Children under 17 will not be admitted

From 1970 to 1972:
* Rated G: All ages admitted. General audiences.
* Rated GP: All ages admitted. Parental guidance suggested.
* Rated R: Restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
* Rated X: No one under 17 admitted.

From 1972 to 1984:
* Rated G: General Audiences—All ages admitted.
* Rated PG: Parental Guidance Suggested—Some material may not be suitable for pre-teenagers.
* Rated R: Restricted—Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
* Rated X: No one under 17 admitted.

From '84-'86:
* Rated G: General Audiences — All ages admitted
* Rated PG: Parental Guidance Suggested — Some material may not be suitable for children
* Rated PG-13: Parents are strongly cautioned to give special guidance for attendance of children under 13 - Some material may be inappropriate for young children
* Rated R: Restricted — Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian
* Rated X: No one under 17 admitted

Through the 1990's:
* Rated G: General Audiences — All ages admitted
* Rated PG: Parental Guidance Suggested — Some material may not be suitable for children
* Rated PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned — Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13
* Rated R: Restricted — Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian
* Rated NC-17: No children under 17 admitted

It wasn't until this last decade that they started listing specific content.
posted by zarq at 3:25 PM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

My point was solely this: the issue is not that you can't joke about rape.

One of the many bloggers sharing their feelings about this has been arguing that Shakesville is being inconsistent by not criticising that Daily Show section, but actually it seems to me to be entirely consistent. Kristen Schaal is not actually making a rape joke - she's making a rape culture joke. The punchline is that there is a movement to discriminate between what is and is not officially rape, and that movement is seeking to limit the definition of rape to a smaller group than the group of women who feel they have been raped, or should be entitled to feel so. That's a joke about rape culture, almost straight down the line. The Onion routine, likewise, is about the readiness of the culture to forgive famous sportsmen who have raped, or to treat them like heroes and think of their pain as more important than the pain of the victim.

Both of these things come up, specifically, in Melissa McEwan's account of rape culture:

Rape culture is the insistence on trying to distinguish between different kinds of rape via the use of terms like "gray rape" or "date rape."

and

Rape culture is a convicted rapist getting a standing ovation at Cannes, a cameo in a hit movie, and a career resurgence in which he can joke about how he hates seeing people get hurt. (talking about Mike Tyson)

Link here.

The message is not that one can never mention rape, or that there is no way to be funny that involves it. Nor is it that everywhere should have trigger warnings - that isn't an expectation, and I think it came up because Jessamyn asked a hypothetical. But these might be useful tools for working out why thing x is causing problems and thing y isn't.
posted by DNye at 3:39 PM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

I do not subsequently take offense at the presence of that warning nor do I believe that the warning ruins the experience for me.

Nor do I. To be clear, I'm not proposing banning or requiring trigger warnings, nor am I implying that everyone thinks they're a good idea, nor do I think they're a bad idea. I just see some problems with implementing them consistently.

I have not proposed "a cut off at some level of 'common'";

You said, "after World War I in places like the U.K. so many young men were "shell shocked" - people with PTSD made up such a high percentage of the population - that the phrase entered the English lexicon. Someone in that kind of environment who set off fireworks in public or in the presence of any unfamiliar young man who might well have shell shock were fuckwads..."

I assumed the 'high percentage' was important. I actually thought that was an interesting point. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

I also want to say, to ChurchHatesTucker, that I do not necessarily believe that you are intentionally playing rhetorical games here.

That's almost very big of you.

It kind of boggles my mind that you thought you were going to get anywhere by proposing or implying that some aspect of trigger warnings which would be applicable to this discussion is unmanageable, but it's possible that was an honest polemical misstep.

At this point I'll refer to Mental Whip's caution above. That's kind of what I was going for, but he obviously has a better understanding of PTSD triggers than I do.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:08 PM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

ChurchHatesTucker: after World War I in places like the U.K. so many young men were "shell shocked" - people with PTSD made up such a high percentage of the population - that the phrase entered the English lexicon. Someone in that kind of environment who set off fireworks in public or in the presence of any unfamiliar young man who might well have shell shock were fuckwads, yes, and it would be entirely appropriate to rudely say so in 1920s-speak or 1930s-speak or whatever.

Would it have been bad to write a comic about fireworks or explosions? Because that's what we're talking about, not running up behind a rape victim and yelling "Boo!"
posted by empath at 4:24 PM on February 9, 2011

Would it have been bad to write a comic about fireworks or explosions? Because that's what we're talking about, not running up behind a rape victim and yelling "Boo!"

I've been thinking about that. The better analogy might be a vet reading an account of, say, a Viet Nam era 'tunnel rat' and freaking out. I'm not sure if that happens, to be honest. The accounts I've heard all seem to involve experiential triggers (loud noises, driving, etc.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 4:33 PM on February 9, 2011

The reason the intent on de facto trigger warnings matters is because it allows you to predict, going forward, whether the expanded ratings will help you avoid triggering issues. Generally speaking they won't and they're not designed to.

So, sidestepping the general discussion about trigger warnings, let me talk about a related issue on MetaFilter. We will try to mark things that are not safe for work, that might be blinky seizure-inducing, that start huge downloads, and sometimes trigger-y stuff. However, things go up on MeFi without us seeing them, and while we try to mark stuff appropriately, we dont consider this a space where people can read free from triggering stuff and are fairly clear about that. We do tend to remove rape jokes, at a rate of about one per day.

If we said "we indicate trigger warnings and expect every poster to do that" people who were triggered by certain things could be assured that this place was a mostly trigger-free space for them. Since we don't, there's some responsibility of caution on the part of the casual reader that we expect. People like to put graphch descriptions of rape, torture, animal abuse and cop abuse on the front page and that's a dicey grey area for us. The people that do this are often, usually, almost always, not people who have suffered these things themselves.

As far as TV ratings, they're predicated around the ideas that certain things are or are not okay for children [again sidestepping the larger issue of whether this is even true] and are created with that in mind. So things that might, in fact, be triggering [discussions but not graphic depictions of rape? I don't know] but not problematic from a parent/child standpoint wouldn't be marked as such. So, certain things are likely to be marked and certain things aren't. If you view those ratings are "trigger warnings" you're likely to assume that the content has cleared certain trigger checks before it was made available and this is unlikely to be true. In fact, some parents who have very strict ideas of what isn't okay for their children will also find that these ratings fall short of what they'd prefer. Personally, I'm surprised how much violence is okay at some rating levels and how much sexy-type content isn't okay.

So if you're only triggered by, say, graphic depictions of rape this might be okay for you, but if you're triggered by say, a man grabbing a woman and putting his hand over her mouth, you're out of luck. It's really not a mainstream sort of thing and TV is very mainstream, you can't even get them to give "blinky" warnings which is much more of a straightforward physical health issue and less a complicated mental health one.
posted by jessamyn at 4:36 PM on February 9, 2011 [3 favorites]

Would it have been bad to write a comic about fireworks or explosions? Because that's what we're talking about, not running up behind a rape victim and yelling "Boo!"

I have said this before in this conversation: there comes a point when the analogy fails to accomplish its intended purpose of illuminating by comparison, because while one thing may be similar to another thing in certain respects, one thing is not actually another thing. Neither example you provide is "what we're talking about"; fireworks aren't rape, not even in allegory.

Your insistence on manufacturing an analogy that you find easy to dismiss, and using that dismissal as a reason to dismiss the original and completely different issue, is unedifying. Your willful refusal to comprehend the most basic aspects of the argument before you is ridiculous. Disagree with "the other side" or whatever at your leisure, but this tactic is dishonest and cheap.
posted by Errant at 4:47 PM on February 9, 2011

Would it have been bad to write a comic about fireworks or explosions? Because that's what we're talking about, not running up behind a rape victim and yelling "Boo!"

Actually, what we're talking about is a blog post by a war vet wherein he says he didn't have fun at a party last weekend because they set off some fireworks, and the fireworks set off his PTSD, and that's why he stays in most Fourth of Julys ever since he came back form the war missing an arm.

Then the person who hosted the party heard about the blog post and got all pissy and e-mailed a sarcastic message to everyone about the vet's blog post. The host said he was sorry some overly sensitive douchebag thought he was setting off a roadside bomb when really he was just setting off a bottle rocket, Jesus people don't be stupid! What kind of idiot thinks a guy at a party is dangerous? And so on, because the veteran had NO RIGHT to react to a party he didn't host himself or something.

And then the veteran wrote another post on his blog explaining what PTSD is and how seeing violence or hearing certain things makes him have flashbacks. And then the person who hosted the party misinterpreted that veteran's second blog post on purpose, or just because he was an idiot, and pretended it meant the big meanie veteran was trying to outlaw fireworks factories and kill Christmas or whatever, AND THAT MUST NOT STAND.

So the person who hosted the original party made plans to set off more fireworks at a big cookout he has every year that a lot of veterans like to attend because it's more inviting than all the other cookouts. And that person wants all his friends to set off fireworks there too, just to make a point to those stupid traumatized soldiers that setting off fireworks is your RIGHT as an AMERICAN and he's not a part of the Taliban, so what's the big deal, anyway? Stupid veterans and their ability to comment on art and society and stuff. Why do we even have this first amendment, anyway?

So then some of the veterans cancel their RSVPs for the cookout because they don't want to have to deal with that shit, and somehow there are people that exist that think the veterans really went way too far with all their "having an opinion" and "expressing themselves" and whatever, and somehow those people are on the Internet fighting the good fight for poor fireworks loving party throwers everywhere.
posted by jsturgill at 5:01 PM on February 9, 2011 [8 favorites]

Your personal evaluation and criteria for surprise aren't terribly relevant and do not translate to the wider community. Is it not blatantly obvious that this situation is different from many others? Even the original critic spoke of enjoying PA's dark humor up to this point. This isn't simply a case of "PA made a dark joke that someone didn't like", and to reduce the conversation to that is to erase all the complication of a complex issue.

Yeah, actually, it's not blatantly obvious that this situation is different from others. Particularly the many other strips touching on rape. There's more than a few. Rape is not a special thing, more worthy than any other to be the basis for offense and uniquely impossible to mention in a context that isn't utterly serious.

I have said this before in this conversation: there comes a point when the analogy fails to accomplish its intended purpose of illuminating by comparison, because while one thing may be similar to another thing in certain respects, one thing is not actually another thing. Neither example you provide is "what we're talking about"; fireworks aren't rape, not even in allegory.

Your insistence on manufacturing an analogy that you find easy to dismiss, and using that dismissal as a reason to dismiss the original and completely different issue, is unedifying. Your willful refusal to comprehend the most basic aspects of the argument before you is ridiculous. Disagree with "the other side" or whatever at your leisure, but this tactic is dishonest and cheap.

You keep insisting that everybody who disagrees with you must be misunderstanding you. That they haven't read the thread and don't know the terminology and just refuse to even understand your perfect arguments. People think you're wrong, despite knowing what you're saying! Engage on that. This insistence on insulting your detractors instead of meeting their points is what's dishonest and cheap here.

Likewise, just because the analogy leads to a conclusion you don't like doesn't mean the analogy is prima facie invalid. The context of this is people claiming that reading a comic a mention of a character having been raped, in a strip about the apathy engendered by out-of-character game mechanics contrasted with the scenarios presented by in-character game lore, is something that can reasonably be expected to set off their untreated PTSD. Reading a comic containing explosions and fireworks - things that have been shown, for decades, to trigger debilitating PTSD in veterans - is a perfectly apt analogy. If you disagree, give some explanation of why, and quit telling people that they're wrong or stupid or assholes because they disagree with you.
posted by kafziel at 5:03 PM on February 9, 2011

Then the person who hosted the party heard about the blog post and got all pissy and e-mailed a sarcastic message to everyone about the vet's blog post. The host said he was sorry some overly sensitive douchebag thought he was setting off a roadside bomb when really he was just setting off a bottle rocket, Jesus people don't be stupid! What kind of idiot thinks a guy at a party is dangerous? And so on, because the veteran had NO RIGHT to react to a party he didn't host himself or something.

This is a gross mischaracterization of the actual events. Gabe didn't hear about the blog and start spamming people, Gabe responded to specific emails sent to him by the blog's commenters, specifically accusing him of being a rape apologist. Stop pretending the Shakesville people were perfectly blameless.
posted by kafziel at 5:06 PM on February 9, 2011

empath, as far as writing comics about fireworks or explosions - note that this sub-thread began with ChurchHatesTucker asking whether or not someone setting off fireworks is responsible for any PTSD responses that triggers. (This seemed to imply to me that such a person would not be responsible, possibly; in case, whether or not something of that sort was implied, I think that they are responsible in many circumstances.) Refer to my previous response on simply depicting an explosion, which ChurchHatesTucker already brought up as well:

As far as explosions in TV ads, if an explosion on TV or something like mentioning explosions while writing or speaking can commonly trigger a PTSD reaction in someone who was caught by an IED in Afghanistan, for example, then yes I'd actually say that an ad director doing that is a fuckwad; but I would wager that it usually takes something like fireworks, like an actual explosion happening in their vicinity. One thing that I do understand that they check for when making television ads is whether it contains blinking or other effects that might commonly trigger an epileptic reaction. (Got no cite for that offhand, though.)

ChurchHatesTucker, in my original response to your question about whether someone setting off fireworks is responsible for PTSD reactions they trigger I didn't mean to propose a standard for when to normally or formally expected to use trigger warnings in that paragraph about shell shock, I was illustrating that in my opinion it would be appropriate to rudely call someone a fuckwad for doing something like that. I've been using the term "fuckwad" in these instances because in the GIFT it's referring to someone who isn't normally or inherently an asshole but behaves assholishly in certain circumstances and because per its use in the GIFT, in my personal version of internal-PA-community-speak it's an insult that is "sanctioned" for use in some circumstances... I think that if the PA guys understood what these criticisms were really saying, they would be entirely willing to point out and denounce the same things, even in a rude fashion, using words like fuckwad.
posted by XMLicious at 5:09 PM on February 9, 2011

The context of this is people claiming that reading a comic a mention of a character having been raped, in a strip about the apathy engendered by out-of-character game mechanics contrasted with the scenarios presented by in-character game lore, is something that can reasonably be expected to set off their untreated PTSD. Reading a comic containing explosions and fireworks - things that have been shown, for decades, to trigger debilitating PTSD in veterans - is a perfectly apt analogy.

Wait, so, kafziel - you're saying there that *reading a comic containing explosions and fireworks* has been shown for decades to trigger debilitating PTSD in veterans? Because unless that's true - unless it's true that reading about explosions triggers PTSD - it does not seem to me like such an apt analogy. (But if it does, then sure, as I said above, someone exposing them to that can be called a fuckwad and it's an apt analogy.)

However I still don't even get why we're talking about this stuff if, looking back up the thread, it appears to me that the people proposing that PA should use trigger warnings are all on the "supporting PA" side of the overall argument or whatever you want to call it rather than those agreeing wholeheartedly with PA's critics.
posted by XMLicious at 5:26 PM on February 9, 2011

Rape is not a special thing, more worthy than any other to be the basis for offense and uniquely impossible to mention in a context that isn't utterly serious.

I realise that the mouthy women are really annoying you right now, but that is hardly a fair representation of their position. In fact, it's that rara avis, a straw rape survivor argument.
posted by DNye at 5:28 PM on February 9, 2011

I would agree with kafziel that some of the specific details in jsturgill's analogy don't accurately parallel or accurately represent the PA situation. (jsturgill, it was a good effort, but I think you kinda got carried away a little bit on that particular comment, unlike most of the stuff you've said in this thread.)
posted by XMLicious at 5:33 PM on February 9, 2011

(Unlike most of the stuff you've said in this thread which has been rock-solid, whereas that analogy wasn't as tight, is what I mean.)
posted by XMLicious at 5:35 PM on February 9, 2011

Yeah, actually, it's not blatantly obvious that this situation is different from others.

The simple fact of the variety, breadth, and depth of the objections, and that they're coming from within the fanbase, is what makes this obviously different from other times when PA has "offended". That seems obvious to me. Why it doesn't to you, I don't know.

You keep insisting that everybody who disagrees with you must be misunderstanding you.

No, I don't. Go back through my comments and you'll find plenty of times when I say, "that's legitimate", "fair enough", "there's a genuine discussion to be had there", etc. I haven't said any of those things to you yet, because you haven't made any point worth accepting yet; that doesn't mean I'm not saying them.

The context of this is people claiming that reading a comic a mention of a character having been raped, in a strip about the apathy engendered by out-of-character game mechanics contrasted with the scenarios presented by in-character game lore, is something that can reasonably be expected to set off their untreated PTSD. Reading a comic containing explosions and fireworks - things that have been shown, for decades, to trigger debilitating PTSD in veterans - is a perfectly apt analogy.

Because 1 in 6 women are harmed by fireworks every year. Because 1 in 33 men are harmed by fireworks every year. Because 12% of men admit anonymously that they have harmed people with fireworks. Because only 6% of all reported fireworks assaults are prosecuted. Because there are police stations with a backlog of thousands of unprocessed fireworks assault evidence cases. Because victims of fireworks assaults are dehumanized, marginalized, subjected to media persecution and intense pressure from their society to shut up, take it, stay down, don't make a fuss, don't rock the boat. Because fireworks assaults are borne out of a society that treats its members as the property of people with fireworks, to be assaulted at will and with tacit acceptance that those harmed by fireworks had it coming.

Yeah, you're right, it's exactly the same, that fireworks culture.

If you disagree, give some explanation of why, and quit telling people that they're wrong or stupid or assholes because they disagree with you.

I haven't called anyone stupid or an asshole. I have told people I think they're wrong, and I have told them why. You, for instance, are wrong; see above.

You also think I'm wrong; that's fine. But no one "ran up to a rape victim and said 'Boo!'", and to characterize this as that is dishonest and incredibly insensitive to what sufferers of rape-related PTSD go through and what triggers them. I couldn't give two shits whether you agree with me or not, but I'm not going to let him or anyone else take shots at the pain of trauma sufferers in silence.
posted by Errant at 5:43 PM on February 9, 2011

I said "every year" there twice, and that's obviously incorrect. Please strike those, and my apologies for that.
posted by Errant at 5:50 PM on February 9, 2011

Because 1 in 6 women are harmed by fireworks every year. Because 1 in 33 men are harmed by fireworks every year. Because 12% of men admit anonymously that they have harmed people with fireworks. Because only 6% of all reported fireworks assaults are prosecuted. Because there are police stations with a backlog of thousands of unprocessed fireworks assault evidence cases. Because victims of fireworks assaults are dehumanized, marginalized, subjected to media persecution and intense pressure from their society to shut up, take it, stay down, don't make a fuss, don't rock the boat. Because fireworks assaults are borne out of a society that treats its members as the property of people with fireworks, to be assaulted at will and with tacit acceptance that those harmed by fireworks had it coming.

Yeah, you're right, it's exactly the same, that fireworks culture.

I realise that the mouthy women are really annoying you right now, but that is hardly a fair representation of their position. In fact, it's that rara avis, a straw rape survivor argument.

Or the exact stance being taken as a given by half the thread.
posted by kafziel at 6:03 PM on February 9, 2011

Quite possibly - if there's a shortage of straw on the Internet, news has yet to reach these shores.
posted by DNye at 6:21 PM on February 9, 2011

Or the exact stance being taken as a given by half the thread.

Yes, that's right, saying that there is a rape culture = "Rape is a special thing, more worthy than any other to be the basis for offense and uniquely impossible to mention in a context that isn't utterly serious." You clearly understand my argument as well as you claim and you clearly grasp entirely what it is I've been saying.
posted by Errant at 6:30 PM on February 9, 2011

What I don't understand is, in the context of talking about trigger warnings and whether they're some fringe and unprecedented thing that couldn't possibly work because the list of triggers is infinitely long and you couldn't possibly warn everyone about everything, why the intent behind the MPAA ratings or network "viewer discretion" warnings matters for the purpose of establishing a precedent for that sort of thing.

Well, there's two things in my understanding. First one I'll broadly call efficacy. Jessamyn covered that pretty well.

The second one is that the reason the MPAA ratings, the (late) Comics Code, etc. worked is because of a market penalty for non-compliance. (Note that the implementation of the Hays Code was delayed for years because the Depression had already incurred a market penalty.) I don't think that's going to be a factor here.

I think that if the PA guys understood what these criticisms were really saying, they would be entirely willing to point out and denounce the same things, even in a rude fashion, using words like fuckwad.

Tycho stopped just short of using that particular word, but he essentially did do just that to the 'teamrape' guys. Too late in the game, as even he appeared to realize.

... looking back up the thread, it appears to me that the people proposing that PA should use trigger warnings are all on the "supporting PA" side of the overall argument or whatever you want to call it rather than those agreeing wholeheartedly with PA's critics.

I had to look it over again, but it was invoked as early as the comments on the original Shakes post.

I really didn't mean to bring up trigger warnings per se (although I find the subject itself interesting.) I was trying to address the issue of one's responsibility for the reactions of others, and that seemed like an obvious thing to invoke.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:31 PM on February 9, 2011

This is a gross mischaracterization of the actual events. Gabe didn't hear about the blog and start spamming people, Gabe responded to specific emails sent to him by the blog's commenters, specifically accusing him of being a rape apologist. Stop pretending the Shakesville people were perfectly blameless.

Um. Bullshit? As far as I can tell. Unless you have access to special Penny Arcade e-mail recaps we don't have access to. [NOTE: This has gone on a long time, and I may have missed something, in which case I do apologize and hope you post a link.]

This is the only direct statement from PA I could find about the e-mails they received:

"In each case the emails I got started with something like “I’ve been a long time fan” or “Been reading the comic for years...” and then they go into how this particular comic really bothered them."

That was from their comments when they posted the second rape comic strip.

I don't pretend to be the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. I'm sure there were mistakes made by Shakes. Maybe a dangling modifier? Spelling error? Poor SEO practices?

But from the publicly available records (comics, blog posts, comments, twitter), I don't recall any post made by Shakes that would make them deserve the reaction they received, or that would give them a portion of the "blame" for what happened over the months following the comic. If you have any insight to offer as to what they did that was blameworthy, I would probably not like to hear it, because it's probably a crock of shit, but I'll listen and give you what feels to me like a gigantic benefit of the doubt.

XMLicious, you're correct that my analogy isn't airtight. I hope it doesn't tarnish the rest of my contributions in this thread. I wrote it from a strong desire to take an existing, strange, extended veteran/PTSD fireworks comic analogy and put it in a more context-appropriate light. And I had a lot of fun with it. It's nice to have fun in this thread, because mainly I've just been staring at the screen slack-jawed and depressed at the display of missing the pointness, ax grinding, and bad faith that haven't overwhelmed the discussion, but have certainly been present throughout every part of it.

Hasn't helped that the sole known threat of violence directed toward PA was apparently from Optimus Chyme, a former Mefite. Lame.
posted by jsturgill at 7:10 PM on February 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

Tycho stopped just short of using that particular word, but he essentially did do just that to the 'teamrape' guys. Too late in the game, as even he appeared to realize.

That's probably a good thing on the whole, depending upon what all the particular circumstances are. But I specifically mean that I think they'd have called someone unconsciously and unintentionally perpetuating rape culture because that person hadn't thought it all through yet a fuckwad and done so earnestly and without stopping just short of the word, if they'd been introduced to and come to understand the concept of rape culture under different circumstances.
posted by XMLicious at 7:13 PM on February 9, 2011

jsturgill, nope not tarnishing, and I'm glad you came back with all of those details. My comment was probably more influenced than anything by the fact that it was a bit obvious that you were having fun. :^)
posted by XMLicious at 7:17 PM on February 9, 2011

Quick addendum to my last post...

Jerry also mentioned receiving mail about the first comic. The entirety of his description was:

But when mail started to come in to the effect that we were perpetuating a fundamental social conspiracy to rape, we couldn’t believe what we were reading.
posted by jsturgill at 7:25 PM on February 9, 2011

I don't pretend to be the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. I'm sure there were mistakes made by Shakes. Maybe a dangling modifier? Spelling error? Poor SEO practices?

Jargon? See above for umpteen arguments about what constitutes a 'rape joke.' I think the 'perpetuating rape culture' line implies a level of intention on a plain reading level that the feminist definition doesn't. I don't know what would be a more appropriate phrase, though.

XMLicious, you're correct that my analogy isn't airtight. I hope it doesn't tarnish the rest of my contributions in this thread.

All analogies fall apart when pushed far enough.

But I specifically mean that I think they'd have called someone unconsciously and unintentionally perpetuating rape culture because that person hadn't thought it all through yet a fuckwad and done so earnestly and without stopping just short of the word, if they'd been introduced to and come to understand the concept of rape culture under different circumstances.

Well, you seem to be saying is that if they bought into the 'rape culture' concept as it's understood by Shakes et al., then they'd be ruder than Shakes.

The latter seems to be likely. The former seems unlikely, in my estimation.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:57 PM on February 9, 2011

Also, ChurchHatesTucker, as long as we're kinda revisiting some of this stuff and I don't think that this was answered,

I really didn't mean to bring up trigger warnings per se (although I find the subject itself interesting.) I was trying to address the issue of one's responsibility for the reactions of others, and that seemed like an obvious thing to invoke.

Someone who unexpectedly set off fireworks around strangers, or hell, even around acquaintances whose backgrounds they hadn't inquired closely enough about - and not on the Fourth of July or Guy Fawkes Night or something, that's part of the "unexpected" - such a person would be responsible for any PTSD reactions that they triggered in war vets or others, right? I mean, we aren't talking about absolving anyone under that particular situation of responsibility, right?

I'm still having a bit of trouble swallowing what you're saying, because you earlier talked about trigger warnings being unmanageable, which I think we've clearly establish that they're not - not in any variation of meaning of "manageable" that would have any bearing on this discussion.

Then you said that you were sort of going for something like Mental Wimp's comment, which doesn't say anything about the manageability or practicality of trigger warnings or provide any reason why they wouldn't be used, rather he says that triggers aren't simple and so a warning one might come up with might not be effective in helping all victims of PTSD avoid their actual triggers. (My own paraphrasing, of course.) That seemed to me like an odd match for your comments, but in the interest of the discussion proceeding I figured whatever, and decided not to say anything.

But now you're saying that the reason you brought up trigger warnings was to say something about responsibility... Mental Wimp's comment definitely was not saying anything about responsibility in my reading of it. I'll be damned if it doesn't sound like you're trying to say that someone who tosses out a rape reference before his audience without any kind of warning or lead-in can't be held responsible if he triggers a PTSD reaction in a rape survivor.

Y'know, one of the oft-repeated arguments on these sorts of issues over which you recently seemed to be mocking me for thinking you would have so little respect as to advance here. But I will again extend the benefit of the doubt and wait to hear about what Mental Wimp's comment has to do with responsibility. But lemme tell ya, this better be good.
posted by XMLicious at 8:01 PM on February 9, 2011

Okay, now - you think it's unlikely that the PA guys, particularly someone like Gabe, would be especially rude? I mean Gabe actually frequently portrays himself as rude in the comics.

What do you think one of the Shakesville authors said (you'll have to be specific who you're talking about, I guess) that was especially rude? They didn't use any words like "fuckwad", for example. Unless you're talking about one of the commenters on the site or something? I can certainly imagine someone who has been raped and was reacting to some of these events being rude but I'd expect someone like that to definitely be more rude.

Also, what do you mean by "if they bought into" (my emphasis) the concept of rape culture? Do you actually not agree that all of the stuff that has happened proves that there is a culture that does not take rape seriously at some level? Or are you just saying that there are no negative consequences from that? (Like... the consequences we have actually seen?)
posted by XMLicious at 8:14 PM on February 9, 2011

Jargon? See above for umpteen arguments about what constitutes a 'rape joke.' I think the 'perpetuating rape culture' line implies a level of intention on a plain reading level that the feminist definition doesn't. I don't know what would be a more appropriate phrase, though.

I looked at Shake's first post and didn't see 'perpetuating rape culture' anywhere. So I went on to Shake's second post, which came up after the rapey rape response comic was posted, and this is what I found:

Quite honestly, my objection to rape jokes is not even because I particularly find the jokes personally triggering anymore; I generally just find them pathetic and inexplicable. And while I'm bothered by the fact that the jokes normalize and effectively minimize the severity of rape and thus perpetuate the rape culture, I'm more bothered by the thought of a woman who's recently been raped, who's just experienced what may be the worst thing that will ever happen to her, and goes to the site of her favorite webcomic, or turns on the telly, or goes to the cinema, or a comedy club, to have a much-needed laugh—only to see that horrible, life-changing thing used as the butt of a joke."

Truly, that is a blameworthy position to take. No human being in their right mind could read that and not feel outraged at their position. I retract all previous objections! Those women totally had it coming. Where's my teamrape hoodie?

(Protip: The bit after the quote should be read in a sarcastic voice.)

Oh, you know what else Shakes directly stated in that second post?

If Tycho and Gabe want to make rape jokes, that's their prerogative. I'm not calling for a repeal of the First Amendment or asking their strip to be censored; to be perfectly frank, I would love nothing more than for them to continue their comic with a newfound appreciation for why rape jokes fucking suck, and thus not use (or defend) them anymore by their own choice.

But, failing that, I'd like to see them at least be honest enough to admit that their critics are not accusing them of "creating" rapists or "causing" rape—and have the courage not to hide behind mendacious misrepresentations of why people object to their continued use of rape jokes, and the honesty to admit they just don't give a fuck about survivors.
posted by jsturgill at 8:17 PM on February 9, 2011 [4 favorites]

jsturgill, I understand the sentiment, but I have to point out that saying things like I retract all previous objections! Those women totally had it coming. and hence attributing to ChurchHatesTucker the attitude that raped women had it coming is sort of a different magnitude of rudeness above even most kinds of name-calling IMO, yet the thing you're replying to only seems to be a claim that it was a mistake to use jargon, a mistake somewhere on the level of spelling mistakes or bad SEO practices. I haven't been following what kafziel's been saying the whole way along but this seems disproportionate to anything that ChurchHatesTucker has said recently.
posted by XMLicious at 8:58 PM on February 9, 2011

XMLicious, the "had it coming" that appears in my post does not reference rape in any way. The thing that they have coming is the ongoing months of fallout and griefing that the critical blogs have experienced and which is covered in great detail in the timeline in the OP. Not rape. My apologies for not being clearer, but context should have done a lot to clue you in. Not to mention that your reading is like, damn. Pretty uncharitable.

Why did I put that into my comment? Simple. Because ChurchHatesTucker has explicitly stated multiple times that Shakes bears most of the blame for the events we have been discussing, and in fact caused the whole ordeal:

Ugh. They [PA] weren't doing that. They [PA] were expressly using it [rape] as an example of a horrible thing. That was the point.

Later, after the 'rape culture' crowd ["those women" in my sarcastic comment] accused them of being cavalier about rape, they [PA] started to do just that [be cavalier about rape].

So whose responsible this? [sic]

In case you can't think of the answer to this rhetorical question, here it is: those women. Another example, where he claims PA should, by rights, be more outraged than Shakes et al:

"Yeah, I agree that their [PA's] response could have/should have been way more measured. BUT, the attack on them [PA] was so totally off the wall that I'm not surprised that they [PA] were caught flat-footed and defensive.

That doesn't justify the response [made by PA], necessarily, but I do think that on the outrage meter they [PA] win.

Brackets added for clarity. His own words added for crazy.

Here he claims Shakes was trolling PA:

To then say that they're [PA] essentially re-raping rape victims is just trolling. The pity is that they [PA] fell for it.

Here he denies the validity of the personal reaction of rape victims to the two comics:

Nobody is doubting that they feel hurt. The question is whether that's at all justified, and if so, at what point in the process.

This continues for hundreds and hundres of comments. One more late-thread example of him describing Shakes as the instigator, and PA as the injured party simply reacting to an attack:

Yeah, I kind of think that's how this played out. Group A thought that Group B said something vile and called them out on it.

Group B thought that Group A was off their rocker, and fired back.

Internet ensues."

I can understand how it is possible to have interpreted my post incorrectly. I hope this clarifies my intent. It would truly be a terrible thing to accuse ChurchHatesTucker, even in an oblique way, of approving of rape. I'm certain that he does not.
posted by jsturgill at 9:20 PM on February 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

Yep, sorry, I totally misread your comment there.
posted by XMLicious at 9:29 PM on February 9, 2011

Also realizing that probably I misread ChurchHatesTucker's comment on rudeness; I'm thinking maybe he was agreeing with me and that the people at Shakesville were less rude than the PA guys would be themselves saying the same thing. I'd still like to hear if he's saying that there isn't a culture going on here that doesn't take rape seriously at some level, or if it's that there are no consequences from it, and what this bit about responsibility is.
posted by XMLicious at 9:39 PM on February 9, 2011

Kafziel, the "no one can joke about rape" line is a straw man. See my post here for a link to the relevant post from Shakes.
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 11:17 PM on February 9, 2011

A counterpoint to most of this thread.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 9:50 AM on February 10, 2011

A counterpoint to most of this thread.

Only if you believe in slippery-slope logic that says that any time someone objects to something it's the beginning of the creeping tendrils of fascism. Free speech means the freedom to say "The choices you made of what to say are sort of lame and I think I won't be spending any more money to go to your events or purchase your merch." as well as the freedom to make Dickwolves t-shirts.

College campuses are more like the public library in that if you proscibe speech or expression there, you are interfering with people's rights to be citizens of the US in some basic way. If you say "Hey I think the PA guys fucked this one up" you're just taking your dollars and attention and eyeballs and going elsewhere.
posted by jessamyn at 9:55 AM on February 10, 2011 [8 favorites]

Brendan O'Neill is the author of the piece and editor of the webmag you link, which is ostensibly devoted to " raising the horizons of humanity by waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism in all their ancient and modern forms." The very first piece I read by him was about how "Andy Gray is the victim of Sky's thought police, cheered on by liberal hacks and the Twitterati."

Thought police? Liberal hacks? Twitterati, for fuck's sake? This is our champion against prejudice, illiberalism, and luddism? As near as I can tell, spiked is either a false-flag operation or a reeking mass of incoherence.

Oh, by the way, on the front page of that magazine right now? Rape-law reforms are poisoning relationships. "A recent case in England highlighted the dangers of turning bad teenage sex into a criminal matter." Hey, wouldn't you know it, it's about how one case of false accusation indicates that feminists everywhere are liars trying to undermine men with their expansion of rape laws to, y'know, include things that are rape.

But what women’s rights advocates have failed to acknowledge is that the increasing number of prosecutions for false allegations of rape is the inevitable outcome of their own campaigns.

Victim-blaming, fear of feminism, a subtle change of terminology that now aligns "women's rights advocates" in concordance to "men's rights advocacy": yep, this is the jackpot.

The girl’s account was that she didn’t want to have sex: she froze and whispered for the boy to stop, but was too scared to call out to her friends for help. This is just the sort of encounter which rape reformers would like to include within the law. Indeed, it is more than possible that the girl had been encouraged to believe that any sexual experience that she didn’t truly want was rape – maybe she had seen the many rape awareness posters conveying such a message. On another day in front of another judge, this story could just as easily have ended up with the boy convicted of rape.

Still, this was an unarmed 14-year-old boy who could easily have been overpowered by the girl and her friends, and there were no desperate circumstances overbearing the girl’s will in any other way, such as her having been drugged, or worn down by earlier threats. On any account, this sexual encounter was far from ideal, not least because it was illegal - the age of sexual consent in the UK is 16. But in a humane society, the girl’s story would have been greeted with a cup of tea and a sympathetic shoulder to cry on.

Hear that? Because the girl asked him to stop but did not ask her friends to help, she wasn't raped. Because this unarmed 14-year-old boy was able to have sex with her without being beat up, this wasn't rape. Because she'd been "encouraged to believe" that her wants and her consent were important, she brought a charge of rape, and when the rape culture didn't find him guilty, they turned around and slapped her with a false accusation conviction. What she should have done is appeal to the "humane society", in which she would have told her story tearfully, and been greeted with a warm cup of tea and an admonition to just lie back and think of England.

With enemies like these, etc..
posted by Errant at 10:59 AM on February 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

Then you said that you were sort of going for something like Mental Wimp's comment, which doesn't say anything about the manageability or practicality of trigger warnings or provide any reason why they wouldn't be used, rather he says that triggers aren't simple and so a warning one might come up with might not be effective in helping all victims of PTSD avoid their actual triggers.

Right. It's far from simple; in fact it's impossible to cover all situations. I'm saying that it's unmanageable to do the impossible.

Now, it may be manageable to just do the relatively common ones, but that's a compromise position and not one that even all feminist blogs seem to think is worth the effort. I'm not saying it's a bad thing—I'm not offended by trigger warnings—but neither do I think that someone who doesn't use them is being irresponsible.

Because ChurchHatesTucker has explicitly stated multiple times that Shakes bears most of the blame for the events we have been discussing, and in fact caused the whole ordeal.

Actually, my take on Shakes et al. has been bouncing around a bit during this, so I understand that confusion.

I 'get' the PA guys' (even Gabe's) language pretty easily, so I can understand why they do the things they do, even when I think they're really bad ideas. At this point I realize that not everyone does.

I could not understand how the original comic could be interpreted as anything other than anti-rape. I can understand a couple angles on it now.

I've got a much better take on the language that Shakes et al. use now, so I can see that their original comment was relatively mild criticism. Let me tell you, it doesn't come across that way if you're not versed in it. I think they have to take some responsibility for that, especially since that's what they're essentially accusing the PA guys of. Yes, it's a tone argument, but they both are.

(See? Long winded internet discussions can change minds.)

I still don't buy their 'rape culture' thing in the entirety, although there's certainly a large measure of truth in it. One particular disagreement is what constitutes 'perpetuating rape culture' (which, yes, wasn't invoked by name until later, but was certainly the basis of the original complaint.)

I've tried to confine my comments to the early part of this controversy, because once the snowball started rolling it was almost too late. Yes, PA undeniably behaved badly at some point later on. We can argue about when, exactly, but that's not as interesting to me.

Also realizing that probably I misread ChurchHatesTucker's comment on rudeness...

Yup. I do occasionally agree with you. I understand if it catches you off-guard.

I should add for the record that I'm not really a PA fan. I'm not much of a gamer. I do know a lot of nerds who are, so I tend to pick up stuff by osmosis.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:08 AM on February 10, 2011

Whoops! I forgot one more post from ChurchHatesTucker that emphasizes how Shakes brought this on themselves:

I've got a much better take on the language that Shakes et al. use now, so I can see that their original comment was relatively mild criticism. Let me tell you, it doesn't come across that way if you're not versed in it. I think they have to take some responsibility for that, especially since that's what they're essentially accusing the PA guys of. Yes, it's a tone argument, but they both are.

Can't believe I missed that one.
posted by jsturgill at 11:18 AM on February 10, 2011

*golf clap*
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:22 AM on February 10, 2011

Can't believe I missed that one.

Good faith discussion can be assisted by the lack of biting sarcasm at the end of a 1300+ comment thread. Saying that you believe that people share some responsibility for outcomes is not at all the same as "they brought this on themselves."
posted by jessamyn at 11:22 AM on February 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

A counterpoint to most of this thread.

Only if you don't, you know, actually read the thread.

(and because this is long and Twitter is re-training my summarization skills, if I was forced to summarize the thread it would be along the lines of "if you inadvertently offend people with poorly chosen remarks, it's not cool to keep antagonizing them, even if the offense wasn't meant." Every single word of that summary could be and are debated here, but that's my 140-character summary of nearly 1300 posts.)
posted by norm at 11:25 AM on February 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

Heck, let me make explicit what my previous post was saying implicitly. The supposed counterpoint article makes the argument that claiming offense for politically incorrect published speech is a pretext for banning such speech. No one has to my knowledge claimed that PA should be banned, or that the distribution of their comic should be restricted. Shakesville didn't say that. Pandagon didn't say that. No one has said that. This argument has really been about basic decency and-- in my opinion-- about how basic human defensiveness can exhibit itself in fallbacks to some pretty ugly norms of societal action that we've been making some slow progress towards eroding.

Rape culture is a defense mechanism in many ways. It's a defense of patriarchal ideals and conduct in serving the entrenchment of power and keeping traditionally oppressed persons in check. One of the reasons that many people have felt so betrayed by PA in this is that they've had several high-profile actions that suggested that they were against those patriarchal (think: jock culture, if that helps) societal norms. Yet when they got called out on a lazy joke the way they acted called forth the power of jock culture to belittle the concerns of those doing the call out.

There are many possible places to quibble with my framing of this issue, I recognize. But one of the reasons I frame it that way is that it makes it obvious that the idea of "the original criticism was wrong and therefore the controversy is Shakesville's fault" moot. The original criticism is irrelevant. The point is the response. If you think this is a censorship discussion, or that an article on censorship is a counterpoint to this discussion, I think you've entirely missed the point.
posted by norm at 11:36 AM on February 10, 2011

But one of the reasons I frame it that way is that it makes it obvious that the idea of "the original criticism was wrong and therefore the controversy is Shakesville's fault" moot. The original criticism is irrelevant. The point is the response.

Wait. So the original comic gets a pass, the original criticism gets a pass, and we start keeping score at the reaction to the reaction?

Upon reflection, I'm not necessarily objecting.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:48 AM on February 10, 2011

Actually, my take on Shakes et al. has been bouncing around a bit during this, so I understand that confusion.

For the first two thirds of the thread, your position didn't bounce around at all in any manner visible to people outside your head.

In your next to last post, hedge words take away any kind of strength from your "new" position and to my ears, it seems as though you continue to emphasize the culpability of Shakes in creating an unmanageable situation and equality in culpability between Shakes and PA:

I think they have to take some responsibility for that, especially since that's what they're essentially accusing the PA guys of. Yes, it's a tone argument, but they both are.

It's disenginuous to pretend that I am confused about your position when it appears to be essentially stable and quite clear. I'm very happy that you can now empathize a little more with Shakes and use more hedge words when sharing your opinion, but that's not really changing your mind. It's just acknowledging that other people's opinions aren't completely bonkers.

Yes, PA undeniably behaved badly at some point later on. We can argue about when, exactly, but that's not as interesting to me.

For the last third of the thread, you've been arguing that no one can possibly expect PA to post trigger warnings on all their comics. Which no one has proposed. Even so, some have reacted to the bait and engaged with you on that topic. For what it's worth, that's not exactly interesting for me, and that line of discussion doesn't seem like one that someone would attempt to initiate in this context in good faith.

Jessamyn, and whoever else, I apologize if my last post poisoned the well. I certainly hope good faith discussion continues, and I’m sure that I could have done a much better job of being the change I want to see in the thread rather than that guy who lashes out at others for the lulz.
posted by jsturgill at 11:54 AM on February 10, 2011

For the last third of the thread, you've been arguing that no one can possibly expect PA to post trigger warnings on all their comics. Which no one has proposed. Even so, some have reacted to the bait and engaged with you on that topic. For what it's worth, that's not exactly interesting for me, and that line of discussion doesn't seem like one that someone would attempt to initiate in this context in good faith.

For what it's worth on my end, because a main part of the timeline is Gabe getting called out for not using trigger warnings on Shakesville and then subsequently mocking same on PA, I don't think that trigger warnings are off-topic or a derail and I don't think there was bait or taking of it, although I'll agree that various people's positions, including mine, have slid around some while talking about it. It's a big conversation with a lot of stuff in it.

The specifics of "PA must post trigger warnings or else" as a premise, I'll grant that's not terribly relevant, but trigger warnings are one way that people try to avoid or minimize this kind of community damage, and they're in line with the general topic of social responsibility towards marginalized members, so I don't think that I can agree with your implication.

I also don't agree with this:

The original criticism is irrelevant.

I'm entirely in agreement with norm that this is not a discussion about censorship and trying to make it one is disingenuous. I disagree that the original criticism is irrelevant, because the original criticism contains the basic premise: rape jokes aren't funny. There's a lot that people want to unpack there -- was it a rape joke, are they really not funny, whatever -- but it's actually pretty simple. Rape jokes aren't funny. Not all jokes that use the word "rape" are rape jokes, but most of them are, and those ones aren't funny.

But it's from the original criticism that we get the astonishingly ill-conceived second strip, which manages to both corrupt the first criticism into a strawman argument and make a three-panel rape joke. A three-panel rape joke about how they don't manufacture rapists, in response to the criticism that rape jokes aren't funny. That's PA's response, and that's endemic of their whole response throughout this whole lousy affair. I recognize that their reaction is really the outrageous thing here, but I don't think we should let their overwhelmingly bad judgment erase the voice of the original critic, who was making a salient and relevant point, so I'm not comfortable calling it irrelevant.

Also, because saying that gives people the opportunity to say "So the original comic gets a pass?" No, it doesn't get a pass, it was criticized. That criticism doesn't get a pass either, but PA chose not to address that criticism, instead mocking it and misconstruing it entirely. If they had engaged that criticism, the way that that criticism had engaged their work, then it would have been a discussion, and it wouldn't be this.
posted by Errant at 12:18 PM on February 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

ChurchHatesTucker: Yes, it's unmanageable to do the impossible. That is a tautology.

It's unquestionably manageable to give trigger warnings about rape, just like it's manageable to give warnings about spoilers. It's unquestionably manageable to make every usage of trigger warnings that has ever been made, anywhere. How do I know? Because those usages have been possible.

You are engaging in revisionism. Why would anyone just out of the blue make the statement that impossible applications of trigger warnings are unmanageable? You were clearly trying to get away with stating that there are some (or really, I'm sure you were hoping, all) possible applications of trigger warnings which are unmanageable - which clearly is not true, certainly not for an organization like PA.

Just like you're now trying to get away with tossing out a tautology and then in a complete non sequitur implying that this means that only some fictional category of "compromise position" warnings are the ones that are manageable.

Trying to get away with shit like this is disrespectful of the intellects of everyone here.

There is no conceivably relevant sense of the concept of trigger warnings that would be unmanageable for Penny Arcade. Period.

Do you understand that you haven't even come up with an argument that would demonstrate what you're trying to say, at all? You have simply asserted it to be true, repeatedly, while persistently ignoring any contradictions or obviously untrue aspects of such a statement.

All of this is completely obvious without any discussion of whether or not PA should use trigger warnings in addition to the instances of spoiler warnings that you can see by Googling their blog. (Admittedly just a handful of instances, but they would only need a handful of trigger warnings about rape at the most, too.)

Back to an actual discussion of responsibility - I noticed that you had nothing to say on the issue of fireworks. So, are you absolving both the guy setting off fireworks and the guy broadcasting rape references with no warning to thousands of people of personal responsibility, or just letting someone broadcasting rape references off the hook?

I've got a much better take on the language that Shakes et al. use now, so I can see that their original comment was relatively mild criticism. Let me tell you, it doesn't come across that way if you're not versed in it. I think they have to take some responsibility for that, especially since that's what they're essentially accusing the PA guys of.

In what conceivable sense are any of the criticisms of PA essentially saying that the comic was making a relatively mild criticism that doesn't come across that way? Are you basically ignoring the entire discussion that has occurred and trying to claim that PA was being criticized for "being too harsh-sounding"? Do you know what a straw man is, and do you think that the rest of us do not?

Yup. I do occasionally agree with you.

That's almost very big of you.

See? I'm as good at treating people with respect as you are! Maybe I should mention something about golf claps. (I don't object to some snarkiness once in a while but I'm not the one insisting on being regarded as behaving respectfully while trying to pull all of the above crap.)
posted by XMLicious at 12:25 PM on February 10, 2011

because a main part of the timeline is Gabe getting called out for not using trigger warnings on Shakesville and then subsequently mocking same on PA

Shakes uses trigger warnings. A blogger there talked about her response to the initial comic and shared some thoughts on how triggers have had an impact on her sense of humor. She also talked about her view of rape jokes in general and criticized PA's comic. She never stated that she wanted PA to start using trigger warnings.

In the follow-up post, Shakes states an explicit desire for a certain action from PA, which boils down to: I hope you learn something from all this and are more thoughtful when it comes to rape in the future. Shakes does not call for trigger warnings on PA at this time.

I'm not caught up with all the latest threads on the timeline, which has expanded greatly while we've been talking, but again, I can't recall a single primary post in which someone has suggested PA initiate trigger warnings. Nor have I seen any criticism that centered around the lack of trigger warnings. The criticism I have read centers around the actual content of PA's comics and blog entries (along later the merchandise, several twitter accounts, etc.), not the lack of a warning. Your assertion that Gabe gets "called out for not using trigger warnings on Shakesville" is not one that I understand.

But! I fear I may be turning into a crank in this thread, and I don't want to limit a conversation just 'cuz it isn't one I want to hear. So I'll withdraw and watch from afar now, dispensing favorites instead of snark as the thread marches on.
posted by jsturgill at 1:02 PM on February 10, 2011

I'm not caught up with all the latest threads on the timeline, which has expanded greatly while we've been talking, but again, I can't recall a single primary post in which someone has suggested PA initiate trigger warnings. Nor have I seen any criticism that centered around the lack of trigger warnings.

No, let me clarify my point, because you're right about the specific events but I don't think you understood what I meant. As I said, the specific premise "PA must use trigger warnings" is a mischaracterization of the many arguments, as you also point out adeptly. My point was that while that premise is not on the table and so reactions to it are reactions to an argument no one has made, speaking somewhat more broadly, trigger warnings are one way in which communities that try to deal responsibly with the trauma-related PTSD of their members. While the specific points of "no one could possibly use trigger warnings for everything" and "trigger warnings are censorship" are self-evidently ridiculous, as we progress in the conversation towards responsible community strategies and implementations, it doesn't especially bother me that we'd start talking about things like trigger warnings. So long as we are not folding "trigger warnings are a useful mechanism" into the incorrect "PA must use trigger warnings", that doesn't seem to me to be off-topic when talking about how communities in the future might avoid or mitigate this kind of misstep.

You're right in that trigger warnings are off-topic as related specifically and directly to PA, but since they are used, even instantiated fundamentally, at the main site of the primary criticisms, it's not unreasonable to discuss the methods by which Shakesville attempts to avoid the insensitivity they criticize PA for displaying, all the while understanding that that comparison is in no way a call for PA to be more like Shakesville.

Your assertion that Gabe gets "called out for not using trigger warnings on Shakesville" is not one that I understand.

I included this simply to say that as the main topic is the situation and PA's handling of it, and as one part of that handling was Gabe's ignorance of Shakesville's normative trigger warning system and his subsequent mocking of the same, the subject of trigger warnings appears to me to be a primary component of the main topic.

But there's every chance that I'm wrong about that, and that it is indeed well off-track. If that's so, I apologize for my own part in a lengthy derail.
posted by Errant at 1:24 PM on February 10, 2011

From the "let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater" department: if someone's engaged in a thread for over a week and their position changes over time, I think that's actually progress. I'll take that over some of the drive-by disagreement we've gotten in the last day or two anytime.

Have the snark levels been higher than I'd prefer? Yeah, at times. And I'd be lying if I said I'd never taken the "fight snark with snark" approach in a situation like that. I try not to, though; in my experience it makes things worse rather than better. Can we all try to hold it down to a minimum?
posted by dvorak_beats_qwerty at 1:27 PM on February 10, 2011

dbq, a good point, but some people have also repeatedly proven themselves eager to paper over opinions that actually haven't changed - like, not at all - and take advantage of being given the benefit of the doubt because it's useful in getting others to stop pointing out glaring ridiculous inconsistencies or hypocrisies. Giving credit where credit is not due can just as much be throwing out the baby with the bathwater after everyone has put this much effort into a discussion.

―

Here's my extended analogy of the fireworks situation.

Person A at a summertime recreational area sets off some fireworks one random day, unannounced and around a bunch of people he doesn't know very well. One of those individuals is an Afghanistan vet who was caught in an IED blast and his PTSD symptoms are triggered by the fireworks.

Person B says to Person A, "Jesus Christ, dude! Haven't you ever heard of post traumatic stress disorder?"

Person A has not heard of PTSD and sneeringly replies, "Trauma? Fireworks that go off ten feet away from you do not cause trauma. It's my damn right to set off fireworks! It's legal! Fuck you!"

Person A then spends the entire rest of the summer setting off surprise batches of fireworks unexpectedly all over the region, catching a bunch of other people with PTSD that is triggered this way. A bunch of kids see an adult doing this, think it's hilarious, and start doing it too, and in fact keep doing it from time to time for the rest of their lives. One kid who is extra-stupid, who maybe saw what Person A was doing personally or just later on hung out with the kids who Person A had influenced, accidentally kills someone with fireworks a few years later.

Someone getting killed by a stupid person is the analog of someone, somewhere possibly removed at a great distance from the PA community, actually committing rape, maybe when they're drunk or stoned or otherwise impaired. (Or one of the gazillion other horrifying and reprehensible things that are documented and unquestionably happen due to rape culture, most of them the fault of people acting quite soberly and consciously.)

Even though you can't draw a direct line between Person A and the death due to fireworks, Person A is unquestionably a fuckwad, right? Even though if you look at the content of his original action he does not in any way convey to anyone that fireworks are never dangerous, much less is it that he is pro-killing-people-with-fireworks. Nor did Person B say anything remotely like that.

And even if Person B only ever used the technical term "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" and related technical terminology, instead of finding some nice, non-threatening way to express a complicated clinical concept and the possible indirect consequences of a culture that doesn't take it or related things seriously, Person B is not in any way responsible for anything that Person A did and in fact should be nothing but commended for at least trying to point out to the fuckwad what the consequences of his actions were. Not claiming that Person A didn't have a right to do what he did or anything like that - just explaining the shitty consequences.

This may seem less realistic today since PTSD is a much more mainstream concept than it was in the past but on my earlier analogy imagine that it's 1923 and we're talking about Person A being someone who for some reason has little or no knowledge of or reference to WWI or war in general and who really has never heard of the idea of PTSD or anything like it and simply refuses to believe that any harm might ever come from what they're doing. No matter what misunderstandings occur, Person B is not at fault for trying to do something about it or for the fuckwad being and acting like a fuckwad when they don't understand what's being said to them and don't stop and try to think it through.

As mentioned before, no analogy is perfect and I can spot several flaws in the one I've just laid out. But I think it's pretty good when it comes to examining the dimension of personal responsibility on this issue.
posted by XMLicious at 1:39 PM on February 10, 2011

Errant, I find myself having to disagree with you on one point. I agree with you that the original criticisms were entirely relevant, but taking a look at what the original anonymous Shakesville blogger wrote or even, I think, in most of the stuff that Melissa McEwan wrote they're careful to say that the joke isn't funny to them rather than make a general and absolute statement like what you wrote, "Rape jokes aren't funny."

This is an important distinction I think because making the latter statement necessarily gets into the question "What is humor?" and what aspects of it are subjective and what aspects of it are objective. There is enough leeway there that I think you could at least theoretically posit a joke that has rape as an integral element, rather than merely mentioning it, which is also funny. Prima facie, I think I'd be inclined to agree with a line of reasoning like that.

But it would end up being a derail because even the use of a rape joke that is actually funny in an objective fashion to some degree, especially depending on its presentation and context, could promote, reinforce, or perpetuate rape culture, in the same way that WoW gamers simply saying the word "rape" all the time with different or tangentially-related meanings, or someone wearing a t-shirt with a logo that indirectly references the topic of rape in a certain way, can promote, reinforce, and perpetuate rape culture. This is why IMO the original criticisms emphasized describing rape culture, discussing the evidence for the existence of rape culture, and discussing the consequences of rape culture (all without using the phrase "rape culture" in the original anonymous blog post at least) which are all things that would relate even to a rape joke that was actually funny.

Sorry if this has been discussed before, I didn't find it when I searched but it would be easy to miss.
posted by XMLicious at 2:46 PM on February 10, 2011

So, we're now in the usual end phase of a feminism thread on metafilter when all the actual women have left and it's just men arguing for the sake of arguing. I think we can wrap this one up.
posted by empath at 2:48 PM on February 10, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm an actual woman, but I take your general point.
posted by jessamyn at 2:54 PM on February 10, 2011 [3 favorites]

Don't forget the men who gave up on arguing long ago but are still trying to simply dismiss everything because they have nothing of substance to say.
posted by XMLicious at 2:54 PM on February 10, 2011

So, we're now in the usual end phase of a feminism thread on metafilter when all the actual women have left and it's just men arguing for the sake of arguing. I think we can wrap this one up.

Two things:

1. There are actual women participating in this conversation, whether or not they are doing so publicly.

2. Just like Gabe and Tycho, you don't get to say when the conversation ends. Maybe it does end now, or shortly, or later, but it won't be because you think it should.

I agree with you that the original criticisms were entirely relevant, but taking a look at what the original anonymous Shakesville blogger wrote or even, I think, in most of the stuff that Melissa McEwan wrote they're careful to say that the joke isn't funny to them rather than make a general and absolute statement like what you wrote, "Rape jokes aren't funny."

Sure, that's fair enough. I think, and I think they'd probably agree, that they don't think rape jokes are funny in a general sense, but you're right in that they qualified their statements as their opinions and I didn't fully express it that way.
posted by Errant at 3:46 PM on February 10, 2011 [4 favorites]

Courtney Stanton has put together some interesting slides on the responses she was getting.
posted by DNye at 5:06 PM on February 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

Errant writes: Brendan O'Neill is the author of the piece and editor of the webmag you link, [...] with enemies [sic] like these, etc..

I happened onto the piece randomly (via a link from another site) and had never heard of Brendan O'Neill before, and I certainly don't endorse or recommend everything else the man has ever written (never having read any of it). But I see that you've mastered two of MetaFilter's favorite rhetorical techniques (ad hominem and guilt by association). Congratulations.

Jessamyn writes: Only if you believe in slippery-slope logic that says that any time someone objects to something it's the beginning of the creeping tendrils of fascism. Free speech means the freedom to say "The choices you made of what to say are sort of lame and I think I won't be spending any more money to go to your events or purchase your merch." as well as the freedom to make Dickwolves t-shirts.

Freedom of speech is an ideal. The First Amendment was inspired by that ideal, but it applies specifically to acts of Congress. However, I think people who gleefully point this out are not as interested in precision or accuracy as they are in pissing on the ideal. I don't think that saying "the choices you made of what to say are sort of lame" is inconsistent with that ideal, although I'd prefer it with the qualifier "in my opinion". Saying "I think I won't be spending any more money to go to your events or purchase your merch" merely as a point of information is OK.

What is not consistent with the ideal of freedom of speech is engaging in actions intended to shut somebody up because you don't like what they're saying. (So if uttering the latter quotation is intended as a speech act to incite a boycott in an attempt to shut them up, it certainly violates the ideal of freedom of speech, although you still have the right to say it.)

So if you make cogent, valid arguments against the things that were said that you find objectionable, then that's certainly free speech. If you try to shut down the speech of person whose speech you find objectionable, then you are violating the ideal of free speech. Depending on how you are trying to shut them up, you might have the right to do it (e.g., engaging in ad hominem attacks), it might be legal for you to do it. Or it might not be legal for you to do it (e.g., killing their family). In either case, you'd be pissing on the ideal of freedom of speech.

College campuses are more like the public library in that if you proscibe speech or expression there, you are interfering with people's rights to be citizens of the US in some basic way.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If what you're thinking of is that attacks on freedom of speech are attacks on the freedom of inquiry, on reason, and on scholarship—ideals to which the University is (ideally) dedicated, then I would agree with you. But I don't think it's desirable to restrict the influence of these ideals to the University only.

If you say "Hey I think the PA guys fucked this one up" you're just taking your dollars and attention and eyeballs and going elsewhere.

You're certainly free to take your dollars and attention and eyeballs and go elsewhere. And I don't see that that, in itself, is inconsistent with freedom of speech.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 10:38 PM on February 10, 2011

Brendan O'Neill is the chief editor of the magazine you linked, a title he claims on every piece he writes for his magazine or any other. It is hardly guilt by association to hold him responsible for the articles he curates; if anything, it's guilt by leadership. As for ad hominem, I contrasted his stated political positions with a reading of his actual writings and found discrepancy, but I said nothing about his character, unless you consider distaste for a political opponent to be out of bounds. So, while I'd prefer an apology, I'm content to let your unprovoked and untrue attack on me stand in opposition to your self-righteous faux-iconoclasm.
posted by Errant at 11:21 PM on February 10, 2011

Alternately, in re-reading, it's possible you're unaware that Brendan O' Neill wrote the piece you linked and that I responded to. Is that possible? Do you in fact not actually know what you're linking when you link things?
posted by Errant at 11:30 PM on February 10, 2011

What is not consistent with the ideal of freedom of speech is engaging in actions intended to shut somebody up because you don't like what they're saying.

Yes, indeed. The flood of harassment, stalking, obscenities, and death and rape threats endured for months by people who have expressed their opinion that Penny Arcade's actions were not cool definitely represents a chilling effect.

For whatever reason, PA is apparently a boss with thousands of goons who are thrilled to get as vile and sadistic as necessary with anyone who doesn't toe the line.
posted by taz at 12:12 AM on February 11, 2011 [3 favorites]

Or it might not be legal for you to do it (e.g., killing their family).

Is it me, or did this slope just get a lot slipperier?
posted by DNye at 2:30 AM on February 11, 2011

Crabby: What is not consistent with the ideal of freedom of speech is engaging in actions intended to shut somebody up because you don't like what they're saying. (So if uttering the latter quotation is intended as a speech act to incite a boycott in an attempt to shut them up, it certainly violates the ideal of freedom of speech, although you still have the right to say it.)

This is self-contradictory nonsense. Boycotts of goods and services were one of the first forms of protest that led to the First Amendment. In fact, the prior art for the establishment clause in state laws make the concern quite clear: people should not be compelled to support in any manner causes they find to be morally objectionable. Just as it's just and proper to advocate buying a product, it's just an proper to advocate not buying a product.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:51 AM on February 11, 2011

KJS, you're talking about the First Amendment, i.e., the law. I'm talking about the (prior) ideal of freedom of speech. Please re-read what I wrote. I don't know about "just and proper", but if you're advocating a boycott to shut somebody up, it's certainly not consistent with the ideal of freedom of speech.

Errant, come off it. You saw the linked article and instead of addressing it directly, you ran off to find some kind of dirt on the author, in an attempt to discredit him (and, by association, me). It doesn't matter to me (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) whether he publishes articles you don't like, or that you think he might be a hypocrite, or whatever about him. It does say a lot about you that you think that ad hominem is a great way to argue. (But don't interpret this as an attempt to shut you up about it—it's not.)

DNye, I was thinking of the threat to kill Gabe's wife and children, which was mentioned up-thread. But wait, how could I know that, I didn't actually read the thread! Mysterious, huh?

I'm leaving town for a weekend trip; I probably won't get back to this until Tuesday at the earliest.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 6:52 AM on February 11, 2011

KJS, since you know the history, could you tell us whether the boycotts of goods and services you mentioned were against someone for what he said, or for what he did? It would be interesting to know. Thanks.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 6:55 AM on February 11, 2011

Crabby Appleton: KJS, you're talking about the First Amendment, i.e., the law. I'm talking about the (prior) ideal of freedom of speech.

So am I. Let me spell it out for you. The prior art to the First Amendment such as the Virginia religious freedom act, made it explicitly clear that forcing a person to support a moral cause with which he disagreed was a bad thing. The right to political and religious conscience explicitly includes the right to boycott institutions. (Thus the co-requisite of freedom of association.)

Please re-read what I wrote.

Yes, and your meaning and thoughts on this matter don't become less contradictory and nonsensical with additional readings or clarifications.

I don't know about "just and proper", but if you're advocating a boycott to shut somebody up, it's certainly not consistent with the ideal of freedom of speech.

Of course it is. Freedom of speech doesn't mean empty-headed acceptance of every absurdity that one should happen to express, nor does it mean that people have a right to make an income on stupid ideas. Freedom of speech includes the freedom of debate and ridicule, including the freedom to say that people should not ride city buses, emigrate away from racist Memphis, or buy from businesses that support the stamp tax.

KJS, since you know the history, could you tell us whether the boycotts of goods and services you mentioned were against someone for what he said, or for what he did? It would be interesting to know. Thanks.

It's something of a false distinction since freedom of speech (and its co-requisite freedom of association) protects both and previous laws criminalizing speech treated it as something someone did.

Freedom of criticism includes the freedom to say, implicitly or explicitly, that a given work isn't worth the price on the cover or ticket.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:01 AM on February 11, 2011 [1 favorite]

DNye: "Courtney Stanton has put together some interesting slides on the responses she was getting."

That's very interesting stuff. Thanks for linking to it.

Also, this from the end:
BONUS!

I was planning on doing a name-and-shame of the idiots who harassed me on Facebook using their real accounts. However, it just makes me too sad. If you’ve messaged me with gross images or the word “RAPE” repeated over and over in the body of the message or whatever, please consider revisiting your Facebook privacy settings. For several of you, I can see where you live and work. And one of you in particular is who I’d like to talk to right now:

Kid, due to your disregard for the overlap between your online trolling and real life, I now know what your high school colors are. I know your hometown, your entire employment history and what community college you attended. I can also see your girlfriend’s profile and the fact that you two now live in her hometown, not yours. I can see the names and profiles of your parents, your brother, and your three sisters. I can see your phone number.

I get that when you’re recently 22, you might feel like nothing you do could ever have consequences. I suppose if I really wanted to demonstrate how wrong that feeling is I could get in touch with your family or girlfriend to let them see how you treat women you disagree with. However, you’re a stranger, you’re several states away, and even though we’re both apparently fans of How I Met Your Mother, I don’t really worry about you having an impact on my day-to-day life.

But kid, let me promise you right now: if you ever try and use the computer programming skills you got in community college to work in the video game industry, I will be expecting an apology from you about the harassing tweets and disgusting images. I can have a long memory when I choose to, and since you made such a compelling case for me to do so, I’m choosing to now. I hope you eventually grow up, but in the meantime your behavior shows you to be exactly what this industry doesn’t need. I’m not afraid of making that fact known should you attempt to enter it. You wanted my attention; you got it. Enjoy the consequences.
Good for her. Maybe next time the kid will realize that internet anonymity should not as an excuse to act like a complete asshole to people.
posted by zarq at 8:29 AM on February 11, 2011 [4 favorites]

You saw the linked article and instead of addressing it directly, you ran off to find some kind of dirt on the author, in an attempt to discredit him (and, by association, me).

First, I didn't "run off" to find some dirt on him; I came across him nearly the same way you did, except that when I ran across him, it was researching articles that were actually relevant to my topic.

Second, "and, by association, me"? Why the fuck would you think I was saying anything about you? This is the height of paranoia. But, ok, let's be clear: by "enemies", I was referring to the author of the article you wrote and the editor of the magazine you linked, which has a far more relevant article than the one you linked right there on the front page of the magazine you linked, and I was referring to the author of that article, who is not the same person. Hence, plural, "enemies".

So, I'll reiterate: I did not address the article you linked directly, no, because I thought jessamyn had already done so effectively. Instead I addressed the political history of the author, which is not ad hominem as it is his public legacy and published opinion and provides context for his general view, and I addressed his current editorial policy, which includes publishing articles in his magazine about how rape laws are draconian oppression and those feminists, they know not what they have done. That policy is way more relevant to the topic of rape culture and media than your book-burning thing or your extrapolation of silencing death-squads from feminists telling two guys not to be mean to rape survivors.

I did not, at any point, say anything about you. In fact I had no opinion of you whatsoever, although that's obviously not true anymore. But, seriously, you come in here at the tail end of a 1300+ comment thread with a cryptic "here is why most of you are wrong" and a book-burning link, then when I try to provide context for that link you accuse me of bad faith argumentation. You want to refer to a single identified threat against Gabe's wife and kids as "against the spirit of free speech", yet you have absolutely nothing to say about the literally thousands of identified rape and death threats made against PA's critics, made because they spoke publicly and said things that people didn't like. Is that not "against the spirit of free speech"? Is that not a clear and overwhelming demonstration of who is attempting to silence dissent through intimidation and force? If you're looking anxiously for the death of free speech, look over there, cause it's right there in front of you.

I hope you have a pleasant weekend trip.
posted by Errant at 8:30 AM on February 11, 2011

Generally, your argument strikes me as a little un-American, Crabby. Freedom - of expression, of association but also of markets - is at the heart of the American project, and people should have the right to buy or not buy whatever they want to, for whatever reason, and to broadcast their decisions about buying or not buying same. Some restrictions are placed on this by federal or state government, such as undocumented ivory, candy made with toxic chemicals, certain chemicals and firearms to unlicensed buyers. You may or may not feel that this is a justifiable exertion of state power on individual freedoms. However, no such restriction has been applied to Penny Arcade's webcomics.

Certainly, it's a viable exercise of free expression to say that one does not like a product, and why, and to say that one is not going to buy it. It's also a viable exercise of freedom of speech to say that you don't think other people should buy a product, and to say why - or for that matter to say why other people should buy a product - because it's awesome, because 10% of profits go to charity, because the maker is a great guy. Both of these speech acts are totally acceptable, in terms of the Constitution and the ideals underpinning it.

It is an exercise of freedom of association to meet with other likeminded people and associate with them, in strong (public gatherings, protests) or weak (social networking, web forums) ways.

Nobody on either side of this debate, so far as I can see, has attempted to prosecute Penny Arcade, or attempted to do the digital equivalent of stealing its print run (a DDoS, I'd guess). Nobody, student or otherwise, has attempted to "steal or destroy or burn written materials that in some way hurt their feelings" - the closest we come is probably the "stealing" (copyright infringement, more precisely) of the T-shirt logo by people advocating the production of replica versions to be worn to PAX in protest both at the outcry against the T-shirt and the withdrawal of the T-shirt from sale.

So, although an entertaining read ("Torquemada's dustbin of history" is a phrase that's certainly entering my lexicon), it's not wholly unreasonable to assume that someone advancing the idea that the Spiked.com article was a counterpoint to the arguments in this thread has either not read the thread or not read the article.
posted by DNye at 8:59 AM on February 11, 2011

Nobody, student or otherwise, has attempted to "steal or destroy or burn written materials that in some way hurt their feelings"

In fact, we know of at least one objector who put his collection of PA merchandise up for sale on eBay, with the proceeds going to rape activism charity. So someone who still wants the materials has them, in exchange for an auction-value donation to a charity as offset for the disaffection of the seller. This is certainly a far cry from material suppression and destruction.
posted by Errant at 10:34 AM on February 11, 2011

Yeah, uh, I'm not so sure about boycotts being inconsistent with the idea of freedom of speech. Maybe the original 19th-century definition of boycotts, which were more like a non-violent peasant revolt or a pan-union strike and selective work slowdown than simply not buying stuff and refusing to patronize a company, person, or organization; but the modern use of the term is simply "putting your money where your mouth is" and encouraging others to do the same, quite a conventional American conception of a form of speech that is protected by our laws governing freedom of speech.

I would note that if putting your money where your mouth is were actually a violation of freedom of speech it's pretty significant that large corporations doing this have a much more severe effect than an individual person doing it, and so this would be a pretty good argument for some laws restricting large and powerful companies from breaking off business contacts in some situations.

One minor positive point about that article is that it does appear to highlight some examples of college kids forgetting really important grounding principles like freedom and liberty, a behavior which is neither a particularly liberal nor conservative behavior (*cough cough Egypt cough cough*.) Okay I have to admit that I think that it happens more frequently and is more mainstream on the conservative side of politics than on the liberal side, but it's good to point out that it happens on the liberal side too with a fair bit of frequency. I'm not sure I'd agree with what jessamyn seemed to be saying, that such things occurring on a college campus instead of elsewhere maybe made them more okay? But I'm probably not fully understanding what she was saying or I'm missing some details about those incidents with the college kids that may be relevant.

But in any case the argument that the existence of the sorts of criticisms that have been leveled at PA present some sort of free speech issues is a total fallacy, one that has already been addressed several times in this thread, and even if it were true, as Errant says the actions of a large segment of the PA community are much more threatening to free speech. So yeah, Crabby, just positioning that article as a counterpoint to "most of this thread" was kind of a major fail and on top of that there seem to be multiple and overlapping complete refutations of the one point it was trying to make. But have a good trip.

P.S. Another one I just thought of is, how would even a successful boycott shut the PA guys up? They were doing this comic and blog long before they were making any serious money off of it and I don't think that they'd stop just because they stopped making money.
posted by XMLicious at 11:01 AM on February 11, 2011

You know what I just realized from considering what I wrote in the second paragraph above? The problem with AMEX and Paypal and all cutting off Wikileaks donations definitely is not that it's a free speech issue, it's actually a variant of the "too big to fail" issue. An honest thank-you to Crabby for unintentionally and indirectly helping me to realize that.
posted by XMLicious at 11:17 AM on February 11, 2011

More generally still, I don't tolerate any rape/gay/ etc jokes on the game servers that I administer for MFC. You get a warning when you sign in at the login screen, you might get one for first offense depending on which moderators are on (charity), and that's it. You're gone after that.

Just to be clear, this is stated policy from Day 1 on all Mefight Club game servers, public and private.

Now I am about to make a joke here, which is not a joke about rape, nor intended in any way to belittle or offend. I hope it doesn't. These are serious issues, not just in the sewer that is much of the gaming world, but society at large. For what it's worth, my personal feeling is that the comic was amusing if problematic given the male-gamer demographic where as others have suggested 'rape' as an everyday metaphor is depressingly common, the t-shirt was stupid and tone-deaf, and the ensuing response of the PA guys (whose comic I haven't seen more than a few times ever) was utterly disastrous and childish.

Here is my joke:

Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus famously described the relationship between Roman Emperor and army as 'holding a wolf by the ears'. In the case of the PA guys and their outraged fanbase, it's more a matter of holding a wolf by the dick.

Thank you and good day.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:33 PM on February 15, 2011 [2 favorites]

Actually, it's more a matter of holding a wolf by the dick[s]. That's why it took two of them, and all four hands.

Tigger Warning!
posted by taz at 10:37 PM on February 15, 2011 [1 favorite]

You forgot the priapic tail.
posted by Errant at 12:54 AM on February 16, 2011

Rape jokes and rape culture evident in the reactions to Lara Logan's sexual assault in Egypt.
posted by norm at 11:38 AM on February 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

Rape jokes and rape culture evident in the reactions to Lara Logan's sexual assault in Egypt.

That is some truly vile shit there. Holy crap.
posted by Errant at 3:47 PM on February 16, 2011

Anybody want to take on comparing and contrasting that with Penny Arcade?
posted by empath at 3:57 PM on February 16, 2011

The remarks are way the fuck worse with the reporter case. Truly disgusting, actively mean-spirited stuff.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:13 PM on February 16, 2011

On the other hand, Rosen resigned from his fellowship 24 hours after making the comments, and there's been quite a bit of outcry over them. So I guess that's good?
posted by verb at 4:16 PM on February 16, 2011

It's good that consequences ensued, although on the other hand, Debbie Schlussel still walks among us without being constantly booed at by every living creature whom she passes.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:13 PM on February 16, 2011 [1 favorite]

I reevaluated liking PA after the whole JJGo! debacle. In the end, I chose to stop reading them.

Maybe it's sour grapes on my part, but why is it that almost every strip seems to need a multi-paragraph explanation before you enjoy the "funny"?

Their original joke was tone deaf and their response has shown them to be total dicks all over again. Yuck.
posted by inturnaround at 5:52 PM on February 17, 2011

It requires explanation because it's a gaming comic and there are frequently esoteric references. The joke was tasteless, yes. Most webcomic jokes are tasteless. If this is the thing that makes you stop liking penny arcade, you have weird priorities.
posted by tehloki at 7:44 PM on February 17, 2011

« Older Why Mubarak is Out | Reduce reuse recycle Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

Phalluses, Wolves, and the Wheaton
February 2, 2011 6:18 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Phalluses, Wolves, and the Wheaton February 2, 2011 6:18 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Phalluses, Wolves, and the Wheaton
February 2, 2011 6:18 AM Subscribe