# That Penny Arcade Controversy



## Morrus (Sep 5, 2013)

Without going into the fine details of the non-grandma-friendly comic strip which started this whole thing, you might be aware of the Penny Arcade controversy that's been  everywhere this week.  Without going into too many details, it involves a  several-year-old comic strip with an inappropriate joke, and the way  criticism of that was handled; and how the issue was resurrected this  week at PAX Prime due to another comment about the whole affair.  Well, here's the apology/clarification.  I've seen a number of game publishers and attendees stating that they intend to boycott PAX until this issue is resolved.


----------



## Janx (Sep 5, 2013)

I think the world is full of people who look to make greater issues out of things than the original speaker intended.

I don't read PA.  I'm sure it's funny and right up my alley. I'm sure in some light, something they say is probably crude and offensive to somebody if taken that way.

But it's just a crude comic strip and readers should expect to not agree with every thing in it and move on.

Telling a Sven and Ole joke does not mean the speaker is a racist and hates scandinavians and will discriminate against them.  it just means he's telling a crude, insensitive joke.

I think history shows that once you make the mistake of telling such a joke AND somebody else makes a federal case out of it, you're pretty much screwed with anything you try to do.  Because that person's goal is to crucify you and they don't care about your feelings either.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 5, 2013)

Janx said:


> I think the world is full of people who look to make greater issues out of things than the original speaker intended.
> 
> I don't read PA.  I'm sure it's funny and right up my alley. I'm sure in some light, something they say is probably crude and offensive to somebody if taken that way.
> 
> ...




I'm not intimately familiar with the history of this particular issue, but from what I can make out most of the issues are with the way it was handled afterwards.


----------



## Janx (Sep 5, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I'm not intimately familiar with the history of this particular issue, but from what I can make out most of the issues are with the way it was handled afterwards.




And that's how the pitchfork wielding mob operates.

They jump on a mis-step, raise a hue and cry for apologies.

Then the person tries to explain, apologize or defend themselves and NO MATTER what they do, it won't be good enough for the pitchfork mob.

Bear in mind, if a person makes a mistake, they will also likely make a mistake in how they handle that mistake.

So it is an escalating witch hunt to make a larger deal out of something that would have been insignificant had the mob left it alone.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 5, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I'm not intimately familiar with the history of this particular issue, but from what I can make out most of the issues are with the way it was handled afterwards.




An apparently fairly complete history of the issue  http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/3041940865/the-pratfall-of-penny-arcade-a-timeline

Given the percent of people who are raped or sexually assaulted in the US, I'm ok with people getting called out for thinking jokes about it are funny ... and to their being continually called out as long as their attempts at apology are to make more jokes about it.


----------



## Paraxis (Sep 5, 2013)

People overreact to others all the time, nothing new.  When a comic makes a joke you don't like either move past it so you can enjoy the ones you do like or don't and just don't watch, listen to, or read that comics stuff anymore. 

Personally I plan on buying some extra PA stuff this week to support them.


----------



## DM Howard (Sep 5, 2013)

I don't have any real problem with the joke in of itself.  The problem I'm seeing is that PA doesn't just clearly and sufficiently state that what they wrote was insensitive and they are sorry.  That would quell most of this BS, but it's like a person who can't stand the fact that they should just say they are wrong (whether they think that's true or not) to their friends and go get some food.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Sep 6, 2013)

Meh. Nothing is so bad that some humor cannot be found in it. People who get worked up over jokes made in bad taste are the ones causing this to be an issue at all. I'm sure that PAX will be much better off without those people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2013)

Hmmm...

The initial joke itself I don't have a problem with: the description of the torture is no worse than what I've read in more generally respected creative works that describe torture, such as Dante's _Inferno._  And make no mistake, some of that work's imagery was definitely understood to be "zingers" by the intended audience of the time.  However, the way they handled the some of their readers' reactions was in poor taste, and highly likely to be taken as insincere and insulting...which it was.

(I *am* amused that one commentor said that "nothing on the Internet lasts more than 2 weeks" in regards to this, and we're now on year 3.)


----------



## billd91 (Sep 6, 2013)

Welcome to the outrage generator that is the Internet. I'm a little more dismayed at the tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water over a couple of punk moves. And that's what the whole Dickwolves merchandise thing was, as I see it, a punk move. It's not like PAX doesn't have some pretty progressive policies. It does. That an organizer pulls an ill-adcised punk move or two seems like small potatoes.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 6, 2013)

Wait -- I just heard about this from Morrus' post, so I'm coming in cold -- let me see if I have this right:

- Three years ago, a webcomic made a tasteless joke, then bungled the public response to it, but it was eventually let go;
- The subject came up again recently when the comic was asked about a mistake they'd made in the past;
- They issued an apology, though perhaps not a sufficient one;
- They're still getting boycotted/pilloried.

Hardly seems fair.  If they did something stupid, and eventually admitted it an apologized ... move on, people.


----------



## the Jester (Sep 6, 2013)

Personally, I find that I prefer my humor completely transgressive. 

I understand that these things might trigger people, and I do sympathize, but if you're likely to be triggered, you are probably reading the wrong webcomic if it's PA.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 6, 2013)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> let me see if I have this right:
> - Three years ago, a webcomic made a tasteless joke, then bungled the public response to it, but it was eventually let go;
> - The subject came up again recently when the comic was asked about a mistake they'd made in the past;
> - They issued an apology, though perhaps not a sufficient one;
> ...




The original hub-bub was seemingly let go - not much direct about it for a while http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/3041940865/the-pratfall-of-penny-arcade-a-timeline

But then on Monday they brought it up in a way that seemed like they were taking back anything conciliatory they had ever said and that the audience in the room was ecstatic about them doing so.  The clarification of Monday's comment happened today.
http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/60283610877/the-pratfall-of-penny-arcade-a-timeline-part-2
http://penny-arcade.com/2013/09/04/some-clarification

So, it is still "news" in that the latest installment just happened.

Anyway, moving along.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Sep 6, 2013)

Wow, I had totally missed this.

Kinda glad I did.

I do agree a strong apology and no merchandise would have probably headed a lot of this off. SOme of the tweets are amazingly insensitive.


----------



## mythago (Sep 6, 2013)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Wait -- I just heard about this from Morrus' post, so I'm coming in cold -- let me see if I have this right:




No, you do not have this right.

- Three years ago, PA published a comic strip with a kind of dumb joke that bothered many people because it seemed to trivialize something serious and ugly (rape) by making a joke about "d---wolves".
- They issued a somewhat halfhearted apology/explanation, which most people thought at least settled the issue of whether PA was trying to say rape was funny.
- Shortly after the apology, Krahliuk decided the fire was ebbing too low, and poured gasoline on it by putting "Team D---wolves" merch on the PA store. (Regardless of whether or not you thought the original strip was funny, this is, in the context of the strip, the equivalent of a shirt that says "Team Rapist".) PA later took these down because of the uproar.
- _Three years later_, at a recent PAX, Krahliuk dragged the whole thing up again by whining that he didn't think they should have taken the "Team D---wolves" merch off the store.

The only reason this has not "moved on" is that Krahliuk won't move on. Not that this matters to the fans.


----------



## scourger (Sep 6, 2013)

They should probably just not comment further on it now.


----------



## mythago (Sep 6, 2013)

scourger, that's probably true, and if they'd stopped with the 'apology' strip in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue. That's why it's really bizarre to see people here arguing 'well everyone should just move on' or 'geez, they apologized, drop it'.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Sep 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I've seen a number of game publishers and attendees stating that they intend to boycott PAX until this issue is resolved.



Out of interest, which publishers are boycotting PAX? I hadn't heard of any, and a quick google only turned up the Fullbright Co.


----------



## Orius (Sep 6, 2013)

Well, I only really skimmed over most of the issue, but it seems that Krahliuk's rather childish responses to the matter are a bigger problem than the original joke.  Yes the joke itself could be considered rather tasteless, but it's also pretty typical for PA's humor.  Still, I'm more on PA's side here because the arguments against them on this matter smack of censorship, which is something I strongly oppose.


----------



## mythago (Sep 6, 2013)

Actually, Orius, the arguments _for_ them are the ones that smack of censorship. 

Unless you really believe 'no criticism allowed, STFU and move on' is pro-free speech.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2013)

Censorship is when speech is curtailed by government action.  I oppose this as strongly as anyone else.

But when private persons or non-governmental oranizations exercize _their_ speech- verbally or symbolically- to criticize the speech of another, it isn't censorship, it is their right.  This, I support, even if I do not agree with their position.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Sep 6, 2013)

Orius said:


> Well, I only really skimmed over most of the issue, but it seems that Krahliuk's rather childish responses to the matter are a bigger problem than the original joke.  Yes the joke itself could be considered rather tasteless, but it's also pretty typical for PA's humor.  Still, I'm more on PA's side here because the arguments against them on this matter smack of censorship, which is something I strongly oppose.



I believe the word for this sort of thing is "repression", not "censorship". And if repression is wrong, I can't see that one party is more guilty than the other.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 6, 2013)

Dndungeoneer said:


> I don't have any real problem with the joke in of itself.  The problem I'm seeing is that PA doesn't just clearly and sufficiently state that what they wrote was insensitive and they are sorry.  That would quell most of this BS, but it's like a person who can't stand the fact that they should just say they are wrong (whether they think that's true or not) to their friends and go get some food.




As the kids say, This.

Bare in mind that the Boycotting people were threatening when the merchandise was present. That led to Gabe pulling it, and everyone chilled out. 

Now, some people are saying they aren't going back, like this journalist at Wired. 

This isn't the first time that Gabe has done this. Apparently he made a joke about Transgendered people, and a TG person that the PA guys knew said that they found the comic hurtful, and he went off on another tear.

He behaves like he's in an internet flame war when in actuality it's real people expressing real concerns/issues.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 6, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Given the percent of people who are raped or sexually assaulted in the US, I'm ok with people getting called out for thinking jokes about it are funny




Except the joke wasn't about rape, it just included rape. If you look at the joke the joke is about how heroes in WoW ignore NPCs in peril because they have already completed the quest requirement, of that quest. The rape is used as an example of the horrific peril that any real hero would take action against.

Rape isn't the joke, it is shown as a horrible thing, probably chosen for the script because it is so horrible.



> and to their being continually called out as long as their attempts at apology are to make more jokes about it.




This is the real screw up.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 6, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Censorship is when speech is curtailed by government action. I oppose this as strongly as anyone else.





Censorship has many forms, government censorship is only one case (private institutions and individuals can also censor stuff). Some forms of censorship are good, some are bad, it just depends on where you draw the line.


----------



## mythago (Sep 6, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> Censorship has many forms, government censorship is only one case (private institutions and individuals can also censor stuff). Some forms of censorship are good, some are bad, it just depends on where you draw the line.




Unfortunately, it appears that many people draw the line at "criticism of someone/something I like".


----------



## Janx (Sep 6, 2013)

Dndungeoneer said:


> I don't have any real problem with the joke in of itself.  The problem I'm seeing is that PA doesn't just clearly and sufficiently state that what they wrote was insensitive and they are sorry.  That would quell most of this BS, but it's like a person who can't stand the fact that they should just say they are wrong (whether they think that's true or not) to their friends and go get some food.




That would be because they aren't sorry, and they don't need to be sorry.

Telling a joke about something horrible happening to a fictitious character is not the same as condoning horrible things happening to real people.

The human race has been telling jokes about horrible things happening to fictitious people since the invention of the joke.

Barring jokes about Christa McAuliffe having dandruff, those jokes aren't about and aren't directed at people who suffered horrible things.

Some people can't seem to separate that.  Those people are ruining things for the rest of us.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 6, 2013)

mythago said:


> Unfortunately, it appears that many people draw the line at "criticism of someone/something I like".




And for others it appears to be mentioning rape in a context they don't like.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 6, 2013)

Bagpuss said:


> Censorship has many forms, government censorship is only one case (private institutions and individuals can also censor stuff). Some forms of censorship are good, some are bad, it just depends on where you draw the line.




Regardless - saying, "I don't like what you said, and here's why..." is *NOT* censorship.


----------



## scourger (Sep 6, 2013)

There is no winning for the Penny Arcade guys - only degrees of losing now. Least said is easiest mended. I still like them on Acquisitions Incorporated.


----------



## mythago (Sep 6, 2013)

Bagpuss, now I am confused. Who is saying that the "Sixth Slave" comic or the T-shirts were "censorship"? And what exactly is the "censorship" here? Because it sure seems like that term is being used to mean "any criticism of my beloved webcomic".

Janx, I thought the issue was that the original comic was NOT joking about rape (as the later comic clarified); it was mocking the amorality of certain games' quest systems. When did the story become that they were in fact trying to joke about rape all along?


ETA: scourger, other than perhaps in a moral sense, I'm not sure that's true. PA has enough popularity and influence that they can do pretty much as they like; their fan base will make excuses for them (to the point of ignoring or actually inverting facts) and the industry will continue to bow to their influence.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> Telling a joke about something horrible happening to a fictitious character is not the same as condoning horrible things happening to real people.
> 
> The human race has been telling jokes about horrible things happening to fictitious people since the invention of the joke.
> 
> ...





Bagpuss said:


> And for others it appears to be mentioning rape in a context they don't like.




Certainly,  pretty much anything negative could set someone off -  the Pony incident in Seinfeld, an infidelity joke for someone who just found out their partner has been, dead baby jokes for people who lost an infant, "drink the kool-aid" for someone who had a relative at Jonestown, etc...  And, given the number of ways horrible things happen to people in the world it could mean the end of jokes in general if anything that might negatively touch an audience member had to be avoided.

I'm guessing people reacting badly to having personally horrible things brought up is at least as old as the joke. And so what happens when a joke you tell affects a person for whom the horrible thing is a raw personal issue?   

One approach could be to either publicly or privately say something like:  "We weren't trying to mock <insert issue>. We were simply using it as an example of something horrible, because an example of something horrible was required to make our point.   We are very sorry it touched on your personal experience, that was not our intent." 

A second approach could be to ignore the reaction.

A third approach could be to deliberately start mocking groups for whom it was an intensely horrible personal issue.  

Choosing door number three seems like asking for one's things to be ruined.


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 6, 2013)

You would be hard pressed indeed to find a joke that DIDN'T involve someone else's misfortune.

Not condoning anything...most people have a natural instinct to know where the line has been crossed (imo). 


So stop and think about the last thing you laughed at.  Unless it was a sheer laugh of joy at the smile on a baby's face, it probably was at another's expense.

Like everything else in this world, its a matter of degree.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 6, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Regardless - saying, "I don't like what you said, and here's why..." is *NOT* censorship.




Agreed. So long as that's is as far as you go. But even that might be enough for a person to self-censor in future, and that may or may not be a desirable result.


----------



## scourger (Sep 6, 2013)

mythago said:


> ETA: scourger, other than perhaps in a moral sense, I'm not sure that's true. PA has enough popularity and influence that they can do pretty much as they like; their fan base will make excuses for them (to the point of ignoring or actually inverting facts) and the industry will continue to bow to their influence.




It seems that the tempest in the teapot is now boiling over into the PAX show(s) which can't be good for that business.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 6, 2013)

[MENTION=3019]mythago[/MENTION] I don't really think censorship is really the main issue here, I was just pointing out censorship doesn't need to be by a government agency, and that factions on both sides of this issue would like to silence the opposition, rather than have the debate continue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2013)

> Censorship has many forms, government censorship is only one case (private institutions and individuals can also censor stuff).




_Censorship_- legally speaking- is only when speech is *illegally* suppressed via government power.  It is both unconstitutional and- according to many legal theorists- a violation of human rights.  When speech is suppressed via internal institutunal power or by a person, it is properly called redacting or the like. It may even be suppressive and illegal.  But it is not "censorship".

Using the term imprecisely muddies the water and robs the term of its power.


----------



## CAFRedblade (Sep 6, 2013)

Regarding the issue, here is "Gabe" post this week on it: 
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/09/04/some-clarification


Here is an article related to the topic, but not speaking directly to the PAX Prime event, but to a prior event surrounding "Gabe" and a furor that took place just before the new PAX AUS that took place about a month ago.
http://www.gamingexcellence.com/features/a-possibly-surprising-defense-of-mike-krahulik

To me this helps set a rekindled stage for the outrage regarding his comments during the interview this past Monday at PAX Prime, which I still need to watch via Twitch TV. 
http://www.twitch.tv/pax/profile/pastBroadcasts
Watch for yourself here, Day 4. 

And here is a post from MC Frontalot who is a good friend of the guys at PA and his perspective on the ordeal.
https://plus.google.com/106362895997604280818/posts/94KfgrA75JH
hopefully those without Google+ accounts can view it without issue.

I personally enjoy alot of what PA does, their humour approximates my own.  And they do alot of community good.  But like anything, people make mistakes, and things (verbiage, phrasing) can be misconstrued and taken out of context.  In this situation, a combination of events has blown things out of proportion.  I feel there is alot of screaming drowning out those making valid points on both sides.  At this point I think "Gabe"'s clarification is about all he can do without drawing more wrath.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 6, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _Censorship_- legally speaking- is only when speech is *illegally* suppressed via government power.  It is both unconstitutional and- according to many legal theorists- a violation of human rights.  When speech is suppressed via internal institutunal power or by a person, it is properly called redacting or the like. It may even be suppressive and illegal.  But it is not "censorship".
> 
> Using the term imprecisely muddies the water and robs the term of its power.




It's not just a legal term.  It's an English word, though it predates that (of course).  You'll probably recall the tale with Socrates?

It can be legal; it can be performed by corporations or individuals.  It can even be beneficial (child pornography being an obvious example).

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2013)

And 9 times out of 10, when people are talking censorship in the broadest sense, they are talking about someone curtailing their right to free expression.

But when it happens without government force behind it- say, of a reporter by a media outlet- they are probably in a situation where they are disagreeing about an editorial decision.  That body has the legal right to curtail the speech in accord with its function and its position as an employer of persons who produce journalistic input.  And the reporter can go elsewhere.

And "other controlling bodies" usually involves an arm of the state- FCC, school, prison...


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 6, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And 9 times out of 10, when people are talking censorship in the broadest sense, they are talking about someone curtailing their right to free expression.




I disagree; I think that nine times out of ten, when someone is talking about censorship, they're discussing the ethical implications of supressing someone else's freedom of expression.



> _But when it happens without government force behind it- say, of a reporter by a media outlet- they are probably in a situation where they are disagreeing about an editorial decision.  That body has the legal right to curtail the speech in accord with its function and its position as an employer of persons who produce journalistic input.  And the reporter can go elsewhere._




Again, this is a focus on the legal ability of one entity's ability to control another person's free expression; it looks at whether or not someone has the authority to do something, ignoring the question of whether or not it's right to do it.

It also presumes that the censored individual can "go elsewhere," which is oftentimes not the case (e.g. threat of civil action, non-competition clauses, etc).



> _And "other controlling bodies" usually involves an arm of the state- FCC, school, prison..._




Your supposition that this "usually" - that is, the majority of the time - involves an arm of the state is, at best, unsupported. As it stands, there are plenty of examples to the contrary.

In 2007, Rockstar Games attempted to publish their video game Manhunt 2. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (a private organization) gave the game an Adults Only (AO) rating. Because Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all had policies that they wouldn't publish AO games on their consoles - as well as Wal-Mart having a policy against selling AO-rated games - this effectively meant that the game was censored in America, as Rockstar was not in a position to sell the game themselves for PC-only consumption, either physically through the mail or over the internet. (The game was released after the more controversial elements had been bowdlerized and the game was given a Mature rating.)

In 2010, when WikiLeaks published the Collateral Murder video and the American diplomatic cables, Mastercard and Visa, along with PayPal and Amazon, severed all ties to Wikileaks, severely hindering the non-profit organization's ability to raise money. This despite no criminal charges having been filed against WikiLeaks for their activity (though, to be fair, the U.S. government did urge several of these organizations to stop working with them). Collaboration among the large private financial enterprises was therefore used to try and censor an organization.

The power of private enterprises to censor individuals and organizations - particularly by acting in concert - is a very real threat to people's ability to (meaningfully) exercise their right to free expression.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 6, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And 9 times out of 10, when people are talking censorship in the broadest sense, they are talking about someone curtailing their right to free expression.




Yes, possibly.  



> But when it happens without government force behind it- say, of a reporter by a media outlet- they are probably in a situation where they are disagreeing about an editorial decision.  That body has the legal right to curtail the speech in accord with its function




But the "legal right" doesn't come into it.  Censorship_ can_ be legal, it can be illegal, it can be performed by a state, a company, an individual, or by oneself (self-censorship).  "Illegal" is not a requirement of censorship, and neither is "performed by government".

What you're referring to as censorship, I think, is "illegal state censorship".  Which is, indeed, illegal and performed by a government.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 6, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> In 2007, Rockstar Games attempted to publish their video game Manhunt 2. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (a private organization) gave the game an Adults Only (AO) rating. Because Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all had policies that they wouldn't publish games on their consoles - as well as Wal-Mart having a policy against selling AO-rated games - this effectively meant that the game was censored in America, as Rockstar was not in a position to sell the game themselves for PC-only consumption, either physically through the mail or over the internet. (The game was released after the more controversial elements had been bowdlerized and the game was given a Mature rating.)
> 
> The power of private enterprises to censor individuals and organizations - particularly by acting in concert - is a very real threat to people's ability to (meaningfully) exercise their right to free, creative expression.




Just to clarify, so you feel the "right to meaningful creative expression" includes the right to force others to let you use their intellectual property, to not work in concert with other private organizations, and to have no say over the products they wish to distribute?


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 6, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Just to clarify, so you feel the "right to meaningful creative expression" includes the right to force others to let you use their intellectual property, to not work in concert with other private organizations, and to have no say over the products they wish to distribute?




As a note, I've removed the coloring from your post; I use the classic background, so black text is harder for me to see.

That said, it's ironic that you said "just to clarify," and then completely misrepresented my post and put words in my mouth. No, I don't think that freedom of expression necessarily entails having the right to force others to let you use their stuff - questions of "force" are another focus on legal ability, rather than on ethics. 

To reiterate, I think that issues of censorship need to focus on ethics as much as on the law, and that we need to recognize that private enterprises, particularly when acting in concert, have a great deal of power to censor freedom of expression.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 6, 2013)

Morrus said:


> What you're referring to as censorship, I think, is "illegal state censorship".  Which is, indeed, illegal and performed by a government.




Well, yes.  But so are most folks when they discuss this.  The usual argument is, "You're infringing on my freedom of speech!"

When folks in the US refer to "freedom of speech", they are (implicitly or explicitly, knowingly or not) referring to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, in which "freedom of speech" is effectively defined.  The First Amendment *ONLY* concerns state censorship.  A non-governmental entity may censor you, but that it not a 1st Amendment, "freedom of speech" issue.  You, Morrus, and we mods regularly censor speech, but we are not guilty of infringing on freedom of speech.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> I disagree; I think that nine times out of ten, when someone is talking about censorship, they're discussing the ethical implications of supressing someone else's freedom of expression.




Now THAT is some fine parsing!  

Honestly, I think the legal and ethical considerations are pretty closely intertwined- almost inextricably so.





> Again, this is a focus on the legal ability of one entity's ability to control another person's free expression; it looks at whether or not someone has the authority to do something, ignoring the question of whether or not it's right to do it.






> It also presumes that the censored individual can "go elsewhere," which is oftentimes not the case (e.g. threat of civil action, non-competition clauses, etc).




In those cases, the person has freely entered a legally binding contract- that means there can be no "censorship" because the party whose speech is limited has freely agreed not to talk _and has been financially compensated not to do so._

As an attorney, my right to free speech is curtailed by client privacy issues.  It isn't censorship.  I can still talk about my clients most personal information...but I WILL be disbarred and lose my primary livelihood.  Even though I could seek a new license in another state, no other state bar would give a license to someone who intentionally violated a fundamental rule of the position.




> In 2007, Rockstar Games attempted to publish their video game Manhunt 2. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (a private organization) gave the game an Adults Only (AO) rating. Because Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all had policies that they wouldn't publish AO games on their consoles - as well as Wal-Mart having a policy against selling AO-rated games - this effectively meant that the game was censored in America, as Rockstar was not in a position to sell the game themselves for PC-only consumption, either physically through the mail or over the internet. (The game was released after the more controversial elements had been bowdlerized and the game was given a Mature rating.)



That is not censorship.  That's the same as the MPAA rating system for movies.  The MPAA has no power to stop you from putting out a movie.  You can even release one unrated.  But if you do, venues for your movie will be hard to find.

Rockstar wanted to produce a game with certain content, it got an AO rating.  The big consoles wouldn't publish AO games, but they were free to invest their own money and self-publish.  They were also free to find private backers- I guarantee you that someone like Larry Flynt (himself a staunch defender of free speech and a named respondent in many a 1st Amendment case)- would have been happy to invest in it.

And Wal-Mart is under no obligation to sell AO material.  In fact, its consistent with their general policies: they don't sell X-rated videos, for instance.  Rockstar could have sold their game in other outlets besides Wal-Mart- even directly to the public via the Internet had they planned ahead.



> In 2010, when WikiLeaks published the Collateral Murder video and the American diplomatic cables, Mastercard and Visa, along with PayPal and Amazon, severed all ties to Wikileaks, severely hindering the non-profit organization's ability to raise money. This despite no criminal charges having been filed against WikiLeaks for their activity (though, to be fair, the U.S. government did urge several of these organizations to stop working with them). Collaboration among the large private financial enterprises was therefore used to try and censor an organization.




Again, choosing not to do business with a person or entity with whom you have a disagreement is not censorship.  Neither is limiting your ability to raise funds- that's just business.



> The power of private enterprises to censor individuals and organizations - particularly by acting in concert - is a very real threat to people's ability to (meaningfully) exercise their right to free expression.




I respectively disagree.

I'm not saying that what youre asserting is impossible, but rather, I see it as 1) less likely and also 2) respect that private organizations- individually or acting in concert- are just as entitled to exrcising free speech and the power of the purse as any individual.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 6, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Well, yes.  But so are most folks when they discuss this.  The usual argument is, "You're infringing on my freedom of speech!"
> 
> When folks in the US refer to "freedom of speech", they are (implicitly or explicitly, knowingly or not) referring to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  The First Amendment *ONLY* concerns state censorship.  A non-governmental entity may censor you, but that it not a 1st Amendment, "freedom of speech" issue.  You, Morrus, and we mods regularly censor speech, but we are not guilty of infringing on freedom of speech.




I'm not talking about the laws of your country, though. I'm talking about the meaning of the word "censorship" (in response to Danny's claim that non-legal definitions were not valid).


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 6, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Now THAT is some fine parsing!
> 
> Honestly, I think the legal and ethical considerations are pretty closely intertwined- almost inextricably so.




I strongly disagree; legality and ethical considerations are very much apart from each other.

If someone within your immediate proximity is seriously injured/dying due to a set of circumstances that you were uninvolved with, and you have the ability to save/aid them with no risk of (substantial) harm to yourself or others, I believe that you're ethically obligated to do so. Legally, however, you have no such obligation, and may turn around and leave them to their fate.

Likewise, you can be held legally liable for crimes (usually minor crimes) that I feel have no moral dimension. You can be fined for jaywalking, but I believe that crossing against the line has no immorality to it unto itself.

Ethics and the law are, at best, a Venn diagram, rather than being near-synonyms.



> _In those cases, the person has freely entered a legally binding contract- that means there can be no "censorship" because the party whose speech is limited has freely agreed not to talk and has been financially compensated not to do so._




Again, this is your focus on the legality of such a contract. That doesn't unto itself show that it's ethical to require that someone who works for you will give up their right to perform their livelihood for someone else.

Likewise, it doesn't speak at all to using the threat of litigation to intimidate someone into silence.



> _That is not censorship.  That's the same as the MPAA rating system for movies.  The MPAA has no power to stop you from putting out a movie.  You can even release one unrated.  But if you do, venues for your movie will be hard to find.
> 
> Rockstar wanted to produce a game with certain content, it got an AO rating.  The big consoles wouldn't publish AO games, but they were free to invest their own money and self-publish.  They were also free to find private backers- I guarantee you that someone like Larry Flynt (himself a staunch defender of free speech and a named respondent in many a 1st Amendment case)- would have been happy to invest in it._




It is censorship. Stop focusing on the question of "are they allowed to do this?" and ask "is it (ethically/morally) _right_ for them to do this?" instead. Having the theoretical ability to find another venue for expressing yourself is purely a question of theory, not of practical reality. Yes, someone who is shut out of every major avenue of a given venue can attempt to create a new venue, but this creates a near-insurmountable burden for most individuals and organizations.



> _And Wal-Mart is under no obligation to sell AO material.  In fact, its consistent with their general policies: they don't sell X-rated videos, for instance.  Rockstar could have sold their game in other outlets besides Wal-Mart- even directly to the public via the Internet had they planned ahead._




See above.



> _Again, choosing not to do business with a person or entity with whom you have a disagreement is not censorship.  Neither is limiting your ability to raise funds- that's just business._




It is censorship when you're attempting to stop someone else from promoting an expression that you disagree with. That's as true for a corporation as it is for another person (since apparently corporations are people too).



> _I respectively disagree.
> 
> I'm not saying that what youre asserting is impossible, but rather, I see it as 1) less likely and also 2) respect that private organizations- individually or acting in concert- are just as entitled to exrcising free speech and the power of the purse as any individual._




Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I see it as 1) more likely, and 2) attempting to stifle the expressions of otherswith whom you disagree by denying them access to major venues of expression is not your own expression of free speech, as well as 2a) the power of the purse, e.g. money, is not speech.

EDIT: This is shaping up to be a great debate, but unfortunately I'm going to have to step away from it until Monday. I'm posting from work, and my home computer has died - until the new one I ordered arrives, I'm offline during the weekends. Hopefully this thread will still be here when I get back.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> I strongly disagree; legality and ethical considerations are very much apart from each other.
> 
> If someone within your immediate proximity is seriously injured/dying due to a set of circumstances that you were uninvolved with, and you have the ability to save/aid them with no risk of (substantial) harm to yourself or others, I believe that you're ethically obligated to do so. Legally, however, you have no such obligation, and may turn around and leave them to their fate.



That's not a distinction between ethics & legality, that's a distinction between _morality_ and ethics or legality.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals



> Ethics and the law are, at best, a Venn diagram, rather than being near-synonyms.



In general, yes, but in this issue, their overlap is so significant so as to be nearly congruent.




> Again, this is your focus on the legality of such a contract. That doesn't unto itself show that it's ethical to require that someone who works for you will give up their right to perform their livelihood for someone else.
> 
> Likewise, it doesn't speak at all to using the threat of litigation to intimidate someone into silence.




This is an agreement that was freely entered into, eyes wide open.  If you didn't want to abide by the agreement- with all of its potential ramifications- then you should not have entered into the agreement.

The potential for litigation is based in the contract that you signed.  If you don't want to abide by this, don't sign the contract.


> It is censorship. Stop focusing on the question of "are they allowed to do this?" and ask "is it (ethically/morally) _right_ for them to do this?" instead. Having the theoretical ability to find another venue for expressing yourself is purely a question of theory, not of practical reality. Yes, someone who is shut out of every major avenue of a given venue can attempt to create a new venue, but this creates a near-insurmountable burden for most individuals and organizations.



Absolutely nobody has a "right" to sell a commercial product in someone else's store.

The rules were in place: X, Y, and Z would not publish a product that didn't meet their standards, and retailer W wouldn't sell it.  That's the free market.  You don't like their rules, you find another outlet or produce a different product.



> It is censorship when you're attempting to stop someone else from promoting an expression that you disagree with. That's as true for a corporation as it is for another person (since apparently corporations are people too).




No, that's just a disagreement in which you are exercising _your_ free speech and economic power.



> Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I see it as 1) more likely, and 2) attempting to stifle the expressions of otherswith whom you disagree by denying them access to major venues of expression is not your own expression of free speech, as well as 2a) the power of the purse, e.g. money, is not speech.




An individual or group of private citizens are free to say that they won't do business with a person or organization, and organizations may do likewise.   There may be repercussions, of course.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 6, 2013)

Double post


----------



## Cadence (Sep 6, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> That said, it's ironic that you said "just to clarify," and then completely misrepresented my post and put words in my mouth. No, I don't think that freedom of expression necessarily entails having the right to force others to let you use their stuff - questions of "force" are another focus on legal ability, rather than on ethics.
> 
> To reiterate, I think that issues of censorship need to focus on ethics as much as on the law, and that we need to recognize that private enterprises, particularly when acting in concert, have a great deal of power to censor freedom of expression.




Thank you for the clarification and sorry.  The "just to clarify" was there because that's how I read your last line in light of the Rockstar example and wanted to see if that's what you meant.  I should have put something like "I read that as ....   Assuming I'm misreading it, help!" instead.  

I agree with the desirability of focusing on ethics as well as the law (the example of non-compete clauses in some contexts, etc...) and that private enterprises certainly do have a great deal of power over the distribution of creative products (and thus over what products are attempted).

In the case of the Rockstar example, is there a particular way you feel the ethical failure occurred?  (Systematically in the sense that a few huge companies function as gate keepers - kind of like a few large states in the case of school textbooks; that the distributors opted not to distribute things they disagreed with; that they outsourced the decision making on what was disagreeable; or...?) 

Also sorry about the colors - cut and pasted something back in that I had accidentally snipped out.


----------



## Janx (Sep 6, 2013)

mythago said:


> Janx, I thought the issue was that the original comic was NOT joking about rape (as the later comic clarified); it was mocking the amorality of certain games' quest systems. When did the story become that they were in fact trying to joke about rape all along?




My response here should cover a rebuttal to Cadence as well.

I haven't read the comic.  I've read Gabes new apology.  I can reasonably guess that because the joke involved rape ( a word that I've been trying to avoid using in this thread), somebody who was raped or worse, somebody who thinks they need to stand up for people who were raped when they are quite capable of speaking for themselves in America) has taken offense at the comic despite the fact that the comic was not aimed at, nor making fun of them specifically.

This would be the 4th option to Cadence's list.  The reader could assume that the tasteless joke has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM and move on to something more pleasant.

Just because I make a joke about getting "raped in Halo" does not mean I think it is OK to rape actual people, nor do I think its OK for police to ignore victims, nor do I think it is OK for society/families to shame the victim of actual rape.

I am quite capable of differentiating the context of "raped in Halo" being completely unrelated to the actual crime and impact of a violent act.

I may in fact be insensitive to others listening in, when I say "raped in Halo", but that does not diminish my right to say it in the context that people playing Halo or on a Halo forum are expected to know exactly what I am talking about.

Furthermore, it is arrogant and wrong to presume that a person's situation as a victim of actual rape entitles you to special communication restrictions on my part when participating in a public forum that is not about that person's situation.

Now EN World has a policy about not discussing the R word, and I apologize for crossing that line to make my point.

As such, whether I apologize or not, EN World has the right to punish me per their rules.  Outside of violating that rule, say in the context of being in a Halo match or on a Halo forum that may not have an R word restriction, I have every right to use the phrase with the expectation that its common usage in the game is known what is meant and that a sensitive person does NOT have any right to expectation of special treatment due to their situation or verbal-restraint on my part.


----------



## Janx (Sep 6, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> It is censorship. Stop focusing on the question of "are they allowed to do this?" and ask "is it (ethically/morally) _right_ for them to do this?" instead. Having the theoretical ability to find another venue for expressing yourself is purely a question of theory, not of practical reality. Yes, someone who is shut out of every major avenue of a given venue can attempt to create a new venue, but this creates a near-insurmountable burden for most individuals and organizations.




I think this is the danger zone of where some supreme court suits have mis-stepped (thus politics, for which I will try to not cross the line, and speak vaguely and neutrally).

As a company is larger and more powerful, it's ability to manipulate politics (Corporations are People!), impact your health care choices (Hobby Lobby can violate HIPAA and restrict you from certain medical treatments that they shouldn't even know you're getting!), and fire you for speaking contrarily to what the company leadership prefers (don't have a case for that), we cross the line from government violating your defined rights to Companies being able to do it because "Corporations are Governments!"

If I'm the CEO and I decide to contribute to the candidate who favors things that benefit the company but screw the employee, I am exerting an unfair advantage over my employees.  In a democracy, my vote is getting more power.

If I can enforce my religious restrictions on my employees health care options, I am using undue influence from my superior position on the employees.  It is a fallacy that employees can "go work somewhere is if the don't like it"

If I can fire you for posting political beliefs on your Facebook feed, if it isn't censorship, I'm using my power over you to get my way.

That's wrong.  We can quibble over the term censorship, but us laymen ain't got a better term for it than that.  Given that the circumstances are the same.  A powerful entity is exerting pressure on an individual that they should not be able to do so.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> ... somebody who was raped or worse, somebody who thinks they need to stand up for people who were raped when they are quite capable of speaking for themselves in America)




You too-lightly dismiss the psychological impact and social stigma that still applies to rape victims, that tends to make them hold their tongues.  

You also seem to say that only victims have the right (or duty) to speak out about things, which is *completely bogus*.  Men should act to make it clear that some things are not acceptable behavior for men.


----------



## Janx (Sep 6, 2013)

Umbran said:


> You too-lightly dismiss the psychological impact and social stigma that still applies to rape victims, that tends to make them hold their tongues.
> 
> You also seem to say that only victims have the right (or duty) to speak out about things, which is *completely bogus*.  Men should act to make it clear that some things are not acceptable behavior for men.




You're not wrong, but without my lawyer to make my posts for me, there is no brief way to make my point and cover these exclusionary factors.  And lawyerese is never brief.

In the right venue, you're absolutely right.  Men all over the planet should stand against rape.

But in the context of some web comic making a joke that references rape, it is not that venue.  Nobody's actually being shamed or condoning rape, in such a forum, and thus raising a pitchfork mob is not acceptable reaction.

There is a type of person who feels the need to rally a mob over the slightest insult.  The Simpson's stereotypical woman who cries "Will somebody think of the Children?!" or the very thesis of the South Park movie.

Those people suck.

Instead of tearing down Paula Dean's career and overuse of butter, how about actually working to stop the real racists, the KKK.

Instead of jumping on PA's arse, how about working to solve India's treatment of women.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> This would be the 4th option to Cadence's list.  The reader could assume that the tasteless joke has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM and move on to something more pleasant.





Based on the .tumblr recap, most of the issue seems to be how they chose to respond to criticism of the comic in question, and not about the comic itself (where rape was seemingly used as an example of something horrible to make a different point).

My list wasn't meant to be how the victim of something horrible should react when they run into something related to the horrible event. It was meant to be possible options for the joke teller when someone who had a horrible life experience related to their joke did react to it and pointed out why they thought it was in bad taste.  

In the case of Penny Arcade, they opted for #3: making jokes about anyone who thought the original comic was inappropriate, the idea of rape culture, and triggering events, and making and marketing a "Team Dickwolves" shirt (the creature from the original comic that apparently lives only to rape).


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 6, 2013)

Janx said:


> Instead of tearing down Paula Dean's career and overuse of butter, how about actually working to stop the real racists, the KKK.
> 
> Instead of jumping on PA's arse, how about working to solve India's treatment of women.




Not that I think these particular examples (Paula Dean and PA) are fair jumping points, but the reason the larger problems aren't tackled head on is that it is the small things that need to change first to get the ball rolling.

A good example, IMO, is standing up to people who use the phrase "that's gay." It becomes ingrained that "gay" means "lesser" and perpetuates an unhealthy attitude. It seems innocuous at quick glance but feeds into a bigger problem. Starting here is much easier than storming Westboro and will have more long-term impact, IMO.


----------



## Janx (Sep 6, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Not that I think these particular examples (Paula Dean and PA) are fair jumping points, but the reason the larger problems aren't tackled head on is that it is the small things that need to change first to get the ball rolling.
> 
> A good example, IMO, is standing up to people who use the phrase "that's gay." It becomes ingrained that "gay" means "lesser" and perpetuates an unhealthy attitude. It seems innocuous at quick glance but feeds into a bigger problem. Starting here is much easier than storming Westboro and will have more long-term impact, IMO.




While you raise a valid point that SOME people can't differentiate between me saying "that's gay" and my beliefs on how homosexuals should be treated equally under the law, I choose to live in a world where most of us can and do recognize the contextual difference.

Just as we know what is meant when you say "Their, there or they're"

There certainly is a possibility that some words or phrases can condition us negatively.  There's a reason why the N word isn't acceptable, and nobody should use it anymore.

However, in equal turn, there is the concern that people who want to restrict my vocabulary because of their inability to interpret my meaning are bringing us closer to 1984's New Speak, where only carefully selected words are allowed in the vocabulary in order to limit and restrict our thoughts.

Society is learning to not use "That's gay" anymore by virtue of knowing our friend standing next to us is homosexual and that the context of using it right then and there might hurt his feelings.

Just like we all learned to stop telling jokes about a black guy, a white guy and a polish man at the water cooler when a chunk of our co-workers were black.

We didn't learn this by restricting our language.  We learned it by being integrated with them and seeing them portrayed as real people just like us on TV.  The Cosby Show did more to improve racial perception than just about any other show.  Heck, Hollywood is doing more to improve and advance acceptability of homosexuals than any other approach from what i can tell and I think it is working.

Just like America is farther along the curve for how to treat victims of rape (not perfect, just better than some other cultures).  If your sister gets raped, you are culturally indoctrinated to get a sword and hunt down and kill the football team that did it.  Maybe a bit extreme, but more of us are wired to hate the crime and hate the criminal than blame the victim.


----------



## mythago (Sep 7, 2013)

Janx, speaking of _1984_, do you realize that your post contains a truly startling amount of doublethink? Or perhaps I'm thinking of _Animal Farm_; some free speech is freer than others. Unfortunately, in the real world - which you actually don't have a choice about living in - you can't really expect to have an absolute right to say whatever you like, however you like, yet insist that others have no similar right to respond in kind. Other people have an obligation not to be too "sensitive" to what you say, yet it is perfectly all right for you to be "sensitive" about whether others speech 'limits' or 'restricts' what you might say next - and unlike you, they must consider the sensitivity of their audience. For that matter, you believe that other people have an affirmative obligation not only to listen to you, but to interpret what you say exactly as you wish them to. You also argue that it's a fine and appropriate use of one's time to _defend_ PA instead of helping the much-worse off, but a complete waste of time and energy to _criticize_ PA ditto.

By the way, it's actually not true that we did just fine getting rid of racism and sexism - which, you know, _still exist a lot_ - by shrugging and grinning when people used vile language like the N-word. Those terms became socially unacceptable because people used their free speech to say they didn't approve of such talk, not because they rushed up to introduce the trash-talker to their black best friend.

As to the situation at hand, setting aside the fact that you opened your post by essentially declaring you don't know what's going on and don't really care to, given that people have talked about the situation in detail, the problem is that you are not the only one who buys into the idea that free speech only belongs to us and people we agree with. That's why all the shrieking about how Gabe has a _right_ to say what he wants, but a curious lack of symmetry in noting that Gabe's critics (many of whom are sexual assault survivors, BTW) also have a _right_ to criticize him for being a jackwagon.


----------



## Janx (Sep 7, 2013)

mythago said:


> As to the situation at hand, setting aside the fact that you opened your post by essentially declaring you don't know what's going on and don't really care to, given that people have talked about the situation in detail, the problem is that you are not the only one who buys into the idea that free speech only belongs to us and people we agree with. That's why all the shrieking about how Gabe has a _right_ to say what he wants, but a curious lack of symmetry in noting that Gabe's critics (many of whom are sexual assault survivors, BTW) also have a _right_ to criticize him for being a jackwagon.




The problem is that while both the speaker and the listener have a right to free speech, certain actors in the listening side take it upon themselves to make the situation worse by riding Gabe's ass on it.  Gabe's writing portrays him as the kind of guy who will respond badly.  So it's kind of predictable on how to make the situation escalate.

It's artificial drama.


I can't win this debate.  Folks reading my words may not get that I totally abhor sexual violence and mistreatement of women.

But I also hate it when people focus their energy and rally an angry mob to take somebody down who really isn't the source of the problem in society.  It's transforming a positive goal into hate, in order to take somebody out.

If somebody's message are so much better that PA and Gabe's, they should exercise their right to free speech to produce content about that, and spend less time villifying Gabe.

Then, if the society prefers their message over Gabe's, they will have proven their point that Gabe was wrong.  Without spending an ounce of negativity on Gabe.


----------



## Henry (Sep 7, 2013)

My opinion is meaningless, but I do want to say that i'm absolutely FLOORED that i've missed this teacup tempest for THREE YEARS.


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 8, 2013)

Same here [MENTION=158]Henry[/MENTION].


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 8, 2013)

Most of the rhetoric is extremely slanted.  I've read a lot about this story in the past couple of days since I hadn't heard about it until recently.

I'd like to provide a bit more context from the other point of view.

They wrote a comic that had nothing to do with rape.  It was about how it was funny in MMOs that you only save 5 people when there's a 6th right there waiting to be saved simply because a quest tells you to only save 5 of them.  All sorts of horrible things could be happening to the slave that you failed to save.  Rape was mentioned as one of those horrible things you COULD be preventing by saving the slave...but you don't because...your screen says to only save 5.

A number of people got VERY angry about using rape as a joke, about mocking rape survivors and about triggering them.  Mike tried to explain this wasn't the joke they were making at all and they thought rape was serious.  For this, they were called Rape Apologists, that they were "encouraging a rape culture", that they were horrible human beings, people threatened them with boycotts and various articles were written on blogs saying people should stop reading their comic and stop giving them money.

Mike got angry and frustrated.  I can understand why.  He was tired of reading a barrage of angry tweets when he logged into twitter and being directed to look at blog entry after blog entry on Rape Survivor and Feminist blogs talking about how horrible they were.  Especially because they couldn't understand what they had done wrong.  They didn't make any jokes about rape.  They didn't encourage or make rape sound good in any way.  People explained to them that even if they weren't using rape as a joke, just mentioning it in a comic was "creating a rape culture" where it was considered acceptable.  They thought this idea was kind of stupid, so they wrote a comic that apologized for insulting anyone and reiterated that they hate rape and rapists.  But, in their frustration, they made fun of the fact that their comic somehow encouraged anyone to rape anyone else by saying "if you are raping someone right now because of our comic, stop."

Which only caused more anger, more blog posts yelling at them and even someone threatening to kill their families as a joke to see how they'd like that.  Mike got super defensive.  When someone asked him how it felt to encourage a rape culture on twitter, he sarcastically answered "Pretty good, actually".  A lot of people with no sense of humor took him literally and posted even more posts about how he just didn't get it.

It mostly blew over until Mike's comments that "women have vaginas".  Which is a statement likely to be said by a LARGE portion of the population, probably even a majority of people.  I might have even been prone to say it before I read how much it pisses some people off.  The idea that someone without the sex organs of a woman would call themselves a woman is....rather foreign outside of the transgender community.

So, he once again got a huge helping of insults and hatred thrown at him.  He tried to explain that he had never heard the term cis before and hadn't ever thought of the idea that a woman might not have female sexual organs.  But now that he had been told, he understood.

Still, a lot of people said it was impossible for anyone to be that willfully ignorant and that he was being even more insulting by saying the idea had never occurred to him.  It was suggested by many people that it was actually IMPOSSIBLE to not understand gender identification.

After that, they became real jerks.  I'll admit it.  They drew a d*ckwolf during a panel at PAX mostly because they were angry at being called names so many times that it became a point of pride to fight back.  Which they shouldn't have.  But the drawing of the d*ckwolf just caused more people to get angry which caused Mike to become more angry.  So he decided to make a shirt out of it.  Which was the worst idea EVER.

The thing is, people ascribe malice to the creating of the shirt that wasn't there.  People say that they created the shirt to personally insult Rape Survivors.  This just isn't true.  Nothing I've EVER read about Mike or anyone at Penny Arcade says they hate Women, Rape Survivors, or Transgender people.  The shirt wasn't created to insult Rape Survivors.  It was created as a statement that they were tired of being harassed and told what to do.  So, they were going to do the exact thing they were being told not to out of defiance.  To them, it was a symbol of freedom from oppression.  They were extremely blinded by their frustration.

But a couple of people reasonably explained to them that the shirt DID insult people.  That although they believe the dickwolf was simply a creature they made up for a small mention in a comic and held no ill will towards anyone...that other people didn't see it that way and that other people's perception is what matters, not theirs.  So, they pulled the shirt and apologized.

Which many people took as a sign of "victory" over the evil villains who had been mocking them for years.  Some of them felt that they were finally being listened to and mostly let it go.  Others cried that it was a ploy to make them forget about the insults they were throwing around, that they created the shirt just so they could get rid of it and trick everyone into letting the issue drop.  Though, over time the whole controversy did start to die out.

Then they went and opened their mouth about regretting having discontinued the shirt.  Which caused this new wave of complaints.  As they explain in their new apology, they only said this because they regret doing anything to engage with people.  They made one joke that people took the wrong way and it was their choice to engage that caused it to escalate out of control.  The discontinuing of the shirt was simply their most recent attempt to "engage" the people who were offended, so it was the one most recent in their memory.

I think the problem is there is too much hyperbole being thrown around.  Motives are being ascribed to people that simply aren't there.  People are overreacting.  On both sides.

I think "Let's never go to PAX again because it is run by horrible human beings" is an extreme overreaction.  But so is "These people disagree with our comic so let's make a t-shirt out of the thing they hate".


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Most of the rhetoric is extremely slanted.  I've read a lot about this story in the past couple of days since I hadn't heard about it until recently.
> 
> I'd like to provide a bit more context from the other point of view.
> ...snip..




That sounds like exactly what I thought happened.  Which assuming your version is reasonably correct means that I was able to piece together the same story by reading the apology from PA and that's it.

This is what is wrong with the people who escalated this mob against PA.  They have an inability to observe, comprehend and come to a reasonable conclusion.  they assumed the worse.

They have the audacity to assume that everything is about them, and then they went on the attack.

Against people who have a demonstrable version of Oppositional Defiance.  Aka as people who will push back to ridiculous levels. It's like trying to bully bruce banner in the chow line and wondering why he turned green.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 9, 2013)

Janx said:


> This is what is wrong with the people who escalated this mob against PA.  They have an inability to observe, comprehend and come to a reasonable conclusion.  they assumed the worse.
> 
> They have the audacity to assume that everything is about them, and then they went on the attack.




In their defense, everybody does this. Seriously. *Everybody* brings their own perspectives to everything they experience. If being the target of rapists, fanboy gatekeepers, sexual harassers, and whatever chauvinist crawled out of the woodwork is part of their experience it will color their perspective of many things they see - including web comics and comic authors whose instinct is to react kind of like a punk when faced with criticism. So of course they talk about it in those terms. Those are the terms that form the lens through which they see the issue - just as a lot of guys will see the issue through the lens of being privileged to rarely have to worry about rape at all, much less rape by dickwolves.

I do think there are corners of the internet that try to sensitize people to issues like these and the effect they have is often to over-sensitize, particularly when the internet also tends to act like an echo chamber that amplifies the message (for good and bad). For example, a lot of the fanboy gatekeeper issues started cropping up quite suddenly over the last year or so on the internet. Of course, it had always been there, but the posting, reposting, sharing, and re-sharing of blog after blog over social media caused the appearance of the issue to snowball to the point that my wife was genuinely concerned that my 15 year-old daughter would be at serious risk at Gen Con. As it turned out, she had no troubles at all from fanboys trying to ferret out fake geek girls. But the huge buzz the issue was getting made it look like women couldn't turn around at a convention without facing the issue.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

To distill my point as much as possible: up until the Team Dickwolves shirts were made*, I simply saw it as dueling free speech, and had no problem with either side.  The apology was lame and potentially inflammatory, but the shirts- to me- violated Wheaton's Law.

It would still be free speech, yes, but incredibly vile and insensitive, and truly worthy of backlash.


* and I mean, made as real, physical objects and put on sale- had they existed only in the comic strip as attire for some evil character, I'd have been fine with that.


----------



## Orius (Sep 9, 2013)

Mike's biggest problem in this controversy is that he came down with a big case of Artist Ego -- some creative types seem to have a tendancy to act high handed and arrogant at times and this is a pretty good example of it.  He seems to have acted reasonable at first, but as the controversy kept getting dragged on he lost his patience and went for the stupid Dickwolves blunder which only made matters worse.  That was a stupid move on his part, and saying he regretted pulling the mechandise was also pretty damn stupid.

The other side seems to be acting with the usual narrow vision of activists who either are unable to understand context at all, or deliberately ignore context to try to make a point.  And by getting worked up over this, they're wasting efforts that could be put to better use elsewhere by say helping people who have actually suffered from some form of sexual abuse.  Getting their collective danders up over a webcomic does little or nothing useful for rape victims.  And what good will boycotting PAX do?  PA runs some sort of charity event right?  What good does it do to potentially hurt that charity because Mike repeatedly put his foot in his mouth?

I'm also with Henry.  I'm not sure how I managed to miss this.  Then again, I don't regularly read PA.  That or maybe it's not the big controversy everyone's making it out to be.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

Oh yes- and count me as another for whom this kerfuffle was news!


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Orius said:


> Mike's biggest problem in this controversy is that he came down with a big case of Artist Ego -- some creative types seem to have a tendancy to act high handed and arrogant at times and this is a pretty good example of it.  He seems to have acted reasonable at first, but as the controversy kept getting dragged on he lost his patience and went for the stupid Dickwolves blunder which only made matters worse.  That was a stupid move on his part, and saying he regretted pulling the mechandise was also pretty damn stupid.
> 
> The other side seems to be acting with the usual narrow vision of activists who either are unable to understand context at all, or deliberately ignore context to try to make a point.  And by getting worked up over this, they're wasting efforts that could be put to better use elsewhere by say helping people who have actually suffered from some form of sexual abuse.  Getting their collective danders up over a webcomic does little or nothing useful for rape victims.  And what good will boycotting PAX do?  PA runs some sort of charity event right?  What good does it do to potentially hurt that charity because Mike repeatedly put his foot in his mouth?
> 
> I'm also with Henry.  I'm not sure how I managed to miss this.  Then again, I don't regularly read PA.  That or maybe it's not the big controversy everyone's making it out to be.




Yup.

I would say, to be fair, if the PA guys get a pass for being over-reactive spazztwits, then technically so do the Uncomprehendatards who started it.  they just happen to suffer from a different mental malfunction.

But I really dislike Uncomprehendatards because they ruin communication for the rest of us.  And they started it.

And this is the first I'd heard of the PA issue as well.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 9, 2013)

...and back!



			
				dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> That's not a distinction between ethics & legality, that's a distinction between morality and ethics or legality.
> 
> http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals
> 
> In general, yes, but in this issue, their overlap is so significant so as to be nearly congruent.




Now *that* is some fine parsing. 

Slightly more seriously, the reason I was using them interchangeably is because ethics and morals largely exist in a continuum; that being that (as I see it) a lot of people take an ethical code of conduct and (unconsciously) adopt it as their own moral code, often with some personal tweaks to it. For example, somehow who takes legal ethics and starts treating them as what's morally right and wrong. 

That said, I'll differentiate between the two more clearly from now on.



> _This is an agreement that was freely entered into, eyes wide open.  If you didn't want to abide by the agreement- with all of its potential ramifications- then you should not have entered into the agreement.
> 
> The potential for litigation is based in the contract that you signed. If you don't want to abide by this, don't sign the contract._




Again, this speaks not at all to the moral aspect of the question involved. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's morally sound. This also doesn't speak to litigation brought for non-contractual reasons.



> _Absolutely nobody has a "right" to sell a commercial product in someone else's store.
> 
> The rules were in place: X, Y, and Z would not publish a product that didn't meet their standards, and retailer W wouldn't sell it. That's the free market. You don't like their rules, you find another outlet or produce a different product._




See above. You're ignoring the moral aspect of this, which is what the original question is about. Look at the question of "what _is_ right?" instead of "what are your legal rights?".



> _No, that's just a disagreement in which you are exercising your free speech and economic power._




Again, utilizing your "economic power" to squelch the ability of someone else to express themselves in a given venue is an act of censorship. The fact that it's legally protected is meaningless in this context.



> _An individual or group of private citizens are free to say that they won't do business with a person or organization, and organizations may do likewise. There may be repercussions, of course._




Yes, but what's the moral dimension of that? You don't seem to want to engage with this aspect of the discussion, despite that being what the topic is about.



			
				cadence said:
			
		

> Thank you for the clarification and sorry. The "just to clarify" was there because that's how I read your last line in light of the Rockstar example and wanted to see if that's what you meant. I should have put something like "I read that as .... Assuming I'm misreading it, help!" instead.




No worries.  



> _I agree with the desirability of focusing on ethics as well as the law (the example of non-compete clauses in some contexts, etc...) and that private enterprises certainly do have a great deal of power over the distribution of creative products (and thus over what products are attempted)._




Precisely, and I don't see this being addressed very often. Corporations have the ability to exercise power over the public, and when that power extends to things that we've come to rely on and view as ubiquitous - if not essential, to some degree - then that power approaches that wielded by the government. The difference is that we're used to checks and balances in the government, whereas we champion the lack of such restraints on private enterprises, based around the idea that multiple entities will keep each other in check...something I consider dubious.



> _In the case of the Rockstar example, is there a particular way you feel the ethical failure occurred? (Systematically in the sense that a few huge companies function as gate keepers - kind of like a few large states in the case of school textbooks; that the distributors opted not to distribute things they disagreed with; that they outsourced the decision making on what was disagreeable; or...?) _




For a question like this, I find it helpful to clarify the nature of the particular moral failing we're discussing, and then examine the actions that went into making that happen.

In this case, we're talking about a violation of the moral duty (according to my personal moral framework) of "do not suppress someone else's freedom of creative expression." From a nonconsequentialist standpoint, this is one of the negative duties - the highest tier. It means that this is one of the things that is bad if you do it.

As such, we need to examine just who performed this action. I'm tempted to cite the ESRB here, as they likely knew what the results of their issuing an AO rating would be. However, the point of nonconsequentialism is that it's not concerned with consequences - it's the nature of the action itself that matters. Ergo, the ESRB can't be held accountable for what happened; their action was simply to rate the game as they saw it.

That leaves the companies themselves, and it's here we find the moral fault. Each of them had a policy saying that they were going to suppress a particular instance of free expression, conditional to the rating it was given, because they didn't like it and didn't want to be associated with it. Now, that's entirely legal, but as listed above, it violates the stated moral principle. Ergo, I find that the moral fault is with the big three video game companies.



> _Also sorry about the colors - cut and pasted something back in that I had accidentally snipped out._




Don't worry about it. I suspect that fewer people are using the classic background these days.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> I think this is the danger zone of where some supreme court suits have mis-stepped (thus politics, for which I will try to not cross the line, and speak vaguely and neutrally).
> 
> [...]




I could not agree more. Well said.


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 9, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Don't worry about it. I suspect that fewer people are using the classic background these days.




They can have my classic background when they pry it out of my cold dead hands......hehe.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> ...and back!
> 
> 
> 
> Now *that* is some fine parsing.




Not really fine parsing at all: ethics are externally imposed, but may be internalized.  Morals are internal guides that may be externalized.

To illustrate, let's look at bribery and the business ethics systems of the USA, Russia and Finland.

Most people would take the moral stance that bribery is wrong.  However, the business ethics of those 3 countries differ on it.  In the USA, the position is congruent, and a company caught engaging in bribery at the personal, institutional or governmental level can get fined and will face a backlash, possibly even fines or other criminal penalties.  Any bribery will be secret,

In Russia, bribery has been normalized.  It is a cost of doing business.  It isn't publicly discussed, even though it may be openly practiced.  Backlash over bribery is infrequent and minimal.

Finland, however, walks a pragmatic line.  It is considered wrong, and is punishable.  But if a Finnish company must do business in a country where bribery is the norm, they can and will.  They just have to report it to the government and to their shareholders on their annual reports.

A person who believes bribery to be morally wrong and who would never bribe or accept a bribe working for an American company may do just fine...but the same person working for a Russian company could plateau quickly, and in a Finnish company may not get to do certain jobs in certain countries,





> Again, this speaks not at all to the moral aspect of the question involved. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's morally sound. This also doesn't speak to litigation brought for non-contractual reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As to all of that...I think you're missing my point if you can't see the moral element of my assertions.

Free speech- verbally, literarily, symbolically or economically- is a fundamental human right, whether it is exercised individually or in the aggregate.  The last- voting with your feet/ the power of the purse- is every bit as valid as the others.

A person or group of persons is acting morally when they exercise that right to express displeasure & disagreement over the speech or actions of another.*  IOW, a person, group of persons or companies/institutes are well within their moral rights to:

1) say they dislike your speech

2) write that they dislike your speech

3) demonstrate that they dislike your speech via something like a sit in protest or boycott

4) cause you economic harm by refusing to do business and/or pursuade others to do likewise via any of the above.

(And, of course, It is usually NOT moral to use violence to express that same disagreement.)

When you ask whether _a particular form_ of exercising that fundamental right should be used or not is a different question.  That *isn't* a question of morality, it is a question of whether or not the response is proportionate to the initiating event.

To which I say, proportionality is a non-issue.

If today the KKK demonstrated on the streetcorner by my Dad's new office (like they did by his old one in '82), and only got 20 ralliiers to show up, am I limited to having only about that number of counter-protesters?  Am I forbidden from choosing not to patronize the businesses of those Klansmen who demonstrated unmasked?  Or from publicizing that they are Klansmen?  (By doing so, I'm clearly expecting to cause them to lose business.)

Of course not.

In fact, the more conter-protesters who show and the more economic harm the Klansmen suffer for publically espousing their view, the more it demonstrates the breadth and depth of society's displeasure and intolerance of their divisive rhetoric.  In fact, that's part of the story how Edwin Edwards beat David Duke in Lousiana's governor's race in the late 1980s.

All that said, how the PA guys exercised their fundamental right to free speech CLEARLY wasn't to the level of KKK rhetoric.

But that does not change the moral right of those who strongly disagreed with them and what they said & did as the situation evolved to use _their same fundamental rights_ to the fullest.

It may not seem _civil_, and it may even escalate the issue, but it is _not_ immoral.

They told a joke, some thought it insensitive.  Think what you may about it, their reaction to that critique was initially awkward then followed with something deliberately provocative.  Well, they got an overwhelming response.

(If you want, you can PM me about the similarietes & differences between this and the cartoons that riled radical Islamists a while back, but that would be too political for the boards themselves.)




* that applies to speech we like and don't like.  That is why ACLU Lawyers will defend the KKK in court, even if they are Jeeish or black or what have you.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 9, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> For a question like this, I find it helpful to clarify the nature of the particular moral failing we're discussing, and then examine the actions that went into making that happen.
> 
> In this case, we're talking about a violation of the moral duty (according to my personal moral framework) of "do not suppress someone else's freedom of creative expression." From a nonconsequentialist standpoint, this is one of the negative duties - the highest tier. It means that this is one of the things that is bad if you do it.
> 
> ...




Thanks!  Now I'm trying to zoom in on the your framework some...

If the companies had agreed to allow it on their platform would Walmart have been morally at fault for not distributing it?  If so, I have three follow-ups: Is a company morally at fault if they don't distribute something that comes to them that they find morally objectionable?  (e.g. any store with magazines should carry porn, any store with videos should carry it too, a religious store should carry religious books going against their views, etc...)  What if the creative thing wouldn't sell in the quantity to make them a profit?  What if the store was designed for a special purpose (say children, victims of sexual assault)?   

Say the companies let them sell the game, would it be immoral for them to deny them the right to say it is compatible with their system?   If so, the follow-up is, would it be immoral for WotC and Paizo to enforce their licensing schemes since it would be limiting other people's creative expression?   (Say the case of making a full system that's designed to be like 3.5, advertised as being such, and uses the protected IP creations like Illithids and what not that could cause them financial harm?  Or what about making a bondage/torture supplement and wanting it advertised as D&D compliant that they think is morally objectionable?  Or what if they were just opposed because they think it would hurt the value of their brand?)

Tangenting off those, is enforcement of intellectual property law immoral, or just some types of it?  (Trademark protection?  Copyright protection of derivative works?)

A step further, is enforcement of laws against distributing things like child pornography (say using existing material so no new material is gathered) or laws against selling products made of endangered species (again assuming no new animals were hurt) immoral too?  Or is that taken care of by balancing the relative wrongness?

What restrictions on graffiti of public property are morally defensible?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 9, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Thanks!  Now I'm trying to zoom in on the your framework some...
> 
> If the companies had agreed to allow it on their platform would Walmart have been morally at fault for not distributing it?  If so, I have three follow-ups: Is a company morally at fault if they don't distribute something that comes to them that they find morally objectionable?  (e.g. any store with magazines should carry porn, any store with videos should carry it too, a religious store should carry religious books going against their views, etc...)  What if the creative thing wouldn't sell in the quantity to make them a profit?  What if the store was designed for a special purpose (say children, victims of sexual assault)?




We could go further.  Is it immoral of Alzrius to not post a statement I want him to post on his Facebook page?  Is he suppressing my free expression by refusing to do it? (Assuming he has one, of course).

(I'm not saying I totally disagree with everything he's saying, but I think there's a strong subject for debate there).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

> In this case, we're talking about a violation of the moral duty (according to my personal moral framework) of "do not suppress someone else's freedom of creative expression." From a nonconsequentialist standpoint, this is one of the negative duties - the highest tier. It means that this is one of the things that is bad if you do it.




No right is absolute, and all rights have associated duties.

Your right to free expression stops when it supercedes my right to disagree or to be free of repercussion.

The PA guys were free to do what they did.  That right is not an aegis against speech or action opposed to them that impacts them negatively.

Rockstar games was within their rights to put out any game they wanted, but there was no corresponding duty on _anyone's_ part to distribute or sell it.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If today the KKK demonstrated on the streetcorner by my Dad's new office (like they did by his old one in '82), and only got 20 ralliiers to show up, am I limited to having only about that number of counter-protesters?  Am I forbidden from choosing not to patronize the businesses of those Klansmen who demonstrated unmasked?  Or from publicizing that they are Klansmen?  (By doing so, I'm clearly expecting to cause them to lose business.)




The problem I see is that the KKK are clearly evil.  PA's initiating "offense" wasn't.

Somebody spotting a KluelessKockKnocker with a placard on the corner and rousing up a counter-protest is all nice a good.


Somebody with the reading comprehension of my dog read a PA strip and decided that because it featured the R word, it must have been a personal attack against his personal cause and started a riot on that faulty assumption.

Speech based on a falsehood is on dubious moral ground.  If we had perfect detection of falsehood, I would rule it unprotected and illegal.

We don't have such technology to validate everything anybody says.  But that doesn't mean that we as a society have to roll over when Readtards can't get their facts correct and they lobby for their way on the basis of incorrect information.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Sep 9, 2013)

Nevermind.  Old news.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 9, 2013)

Janx said:


> Somebody with the reading comprehension of my dog read a PA strip and decided that because it featured the R word, it must have been a personal attack against his personal cause and started a riot on that faulty assumption.




Based on the half-or-so of the posts in the .tumblr feed I skimmed or read, I thought the riot didn't start over the "initiating offense", but rather over PA's response to those who were offended (the part where PA mocked people were concerned about our culture fostering an attitude where rape happens a lot and people are afraid to report it, where they mocked the idea that trigger warnings ever had a use, and where they made a shirt glorifying the incarnation of rape to make a point about people who attacked his personal cause, and where they seemed to plug into the misogynistic gamer/tech stereotype... ).  A lot of the bloggers offended by the later started their posts by defending the intent of the original strip. 

Is it not ok to be offended by what people say when they're mad about being falsely accused of something (even if they keep saying it for a while)?

If someone intentionally peppers their posts with things they know will be offensive to some people, just to make the point that they have the right to be offensive, isn't it ok for people to be offended (at the poor form, if nothing else)?


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 9, 2013)

dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Not really fine parsing at all: ethics are externally imposed, but may be internalized. Morals are internal guides that may be externalized.




That strikes me as being rather fine parsing, since you're going to have a hard time telling if someone's moral code is something they developed themselves or simply internalized an external code. If you can count up from 1 to the number 5, or count down from 10 to the number 5, if all you see is the number 5 itself, you're not going to know if it was reached by counting up from 1 or down from 10.



> _Most people would take the moral stance that bribery is wrong. However, the business ethics of those 3 countries differ on it. In the USA, the position is congruent, and a company caught engaging in bribery at the personal, institutional or governmental level can get fined and will face a backlash, possibly even fines or other criminal penalties. Any bribery will be secret,
> 
> In Russia, bribery has been normalized. It is a cost of doing business. It isn't publicly discussed, even though it may be openly practiced. Backlash over bribery is infrequent and minimal.
> 
> ...




I'll be honest when I say that I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate here. If it's that there are different frameworks that people need to navigate, often simultaneously, throughout the course of normal life, then that's obvious to the point of going without saying. What I'm trying to do is isolate the discussion to where something falls only within the framework of morality. You seem intent on showing that something that is found to have moral fault can be found legitimate in some other spectra, which is likely the case, but it's not what I'm speaking to.

Yes, a person who believes bribery is morally wrong (and, consequently, does not do it) will reach a plateau if they work for a company in Russia...so?



> _As to all of that...I think you're missing my point if you can't see the moral element of my assertions._




I disagree, since as I'm reading it you're saying that there's a legitimacy to an immoral action if it's found to be the appropriate response in some other criteria of judgment. That may be so, but it doesn't satisfy the moral argument.



> _Free speech- verbally, literarily, symbolically or economically- is a fundamental human right, whether it is exercised individually or in the aggregate. The last- voting with your feet/ the power of the purse- is every bit as valid as the others.
> 
> A person or group of persons is acting morally when they exercise that right to express displeasure & disagreement over the speech or actions of another.*
> 
> * that applies to speech we like and don't like. That is why ACLU Lawyers will defend the KKK in court, even if they are Jewish or black or what have you._




I think that it's important to denote the difference here between human rights and (the framework of) morality. Human rights are considered to be inalienable freedoms and/entitlements - they hold that you are guaranteed certain things, or are not subject to certain things, in this life. What I'm talking about is a system by which an action can be judged for how good/not good/bad it is.

Now, one can certainly use "whether or not an action violates human rights" as a criteria for passing judgment on a given action, but that's not the framework I'm using (though, again, there is some overlap).

Since I haven't explained the framework I'm using so far in this thread, I think it would be helpful to do so here. I use a moral framework called deontology, or nonconsequentialism (I'm aware that the actual discipline of philosophy that uses these names is far more nuanced than what I'm outlining here - philosophy majors, please forgive me - but the basic framework is the same).

To be brief, the intent of a person performing an action doesn't matter, from a moral dimension - you can't ever know what their intent is (people usually don't say that, and even if they do, how do you know they're being honest?), and so it can't be a criteria for judgment. Likewise, consequences don't matter for the purposes of moral judgment - judging an action by its consequences is saying that the ends are more important than the means, which is self-evidently problematic (e.g. it doesn't matter what you do so long as it turns out "good"), and makes all such actions moral question marks until the results are "determined" (meaning that their morality can change over time as new consequences are evaluated as time goes by).

(The one caveat here is that it does matter if intent is present or not - if something is done completely without intent, e.g. you trip and fall and in doing so accidentally stab someone with that scissors you're holding - then it's the same as an act of nature; that is, it doesn't rise to the level of being an "action" for purposes of moral evaluation.)

Ergo, the only thing left to judge is the nature of the action itself. How do we do that? In this case, by ranking the action on one of three tiers:

The highest tier is *negative duties*. These are the things that have moral fault (e.g. are "bad") if you do them. They're usually phrased as actions to refrain from. "Do not murder someone" is a good example.

The second tier is the *positive duties*. These are the things you _must_ do; that is, the things that have moral virtue (e.g. are "good") if you do them, and have moral fault if you do not. "Provide aid, if possible, to someone in your immediate proximity who is severely injured and requires assistance, if doing so does not endanger others," is a good example.

The third tier is *supererogatory* actions, the actions that are above and beyond the call of duty. These are the things that have moral virtue _if you do them_, but do not have moral fault if you do not. "Donate to charity" is a good example here - you're doing good if you spend a weekend working at a homeless shelter, but if you decide to spend the weekend relaxing instead, you are not a bad person because of that.

(It should also be noted that there are actions that lack a moral dimension altogether, and so do not appear on this framework. Asking "what's the moral dimension of painting a sailboat versus a bowl of fruit" has no moral aspect to it.)

The reason for the tiered ranking is that, in the event of a conflict between the two tiers, the higher tier is the one that should be satisfied. If two people are dying, and you can save them by murdering an innocent bystander and harvesting their organs, do you do so? According to the above framework (see the examples for tiers one and two), no. Murder is a tier one offense, whereas not rendering aid to people around you who need it is a tier two offense...if you're in a position where you have to choose between them, you choose to prioritize tier one over tier two.

One thing that must be noted here is that _specificity of action is paramount_ when using this framework. Notice how extremely specific the example for the second tier is? That's necessary, because ambiguity of what sort of action a given action is renders this system less useful. Saying that "do not kill" is part of your first tier is great, except that "kill" includes murder, killing in self-defense, and a surgeon whose patient didn't survive. The more specific each action is, the more useful this system is.

Finally, I want to stress that this framework is not moral absolutism because _everyone determines for themselves what actions rank where_ (presuming that they're using this system). In fact, that's largely what the controversy with Penny Arcade boils down to - the pro-dickwolf people are essentially arguing that showing sensitivity towards issues of social justice in artwork is a supererogatory action; it's good if an artist does it, but it's not immoral if they don't. The anti-dickwolf crowd disagrees, saying that sensitivity to social justice in media is a tier two issue: it's good if an artist does it, but it's immoral if they fail to do so.

In that context, I personally find the pro-dickwolf crowd's argument to be the more compelling one, simply because I'm not comfortable with the idea of acknowledging that there's any sort of artwork (that is, any kind of free speech/creative expression) that could be labelled "immoral."

I say that because, to me, there's a shade of difference between "dislike" for something and calling it "immoral." The former is purely an expression of finding something to lack personal appeal, while still acknowledging that others may find it to have worth and that the thing has a right to exist. The latter (immorality) is to say that something not only lacks virtue, but that (you believe) it also introduces a detriment to society as a whole; that it's actually making life _worse_ for (all) people, and so you do not respect its right to exist, and as such that immoral thing deserves to be suppressed/destroyed/removed from society as a whole.



> _IOW, a person, group of persons or companies/institutes are well within their moral rights to:
> 
> 1) say they dislike your speech
> 
> ...




I completely agree with the first three points. Having and expressing an opinion is fine; saying, doing, or showing what you think or feel about something is just that, a personal expression. That's also true for choosing not to patronize something - you're under no moral obligation to actively engage with some market enterprise.

It's when you start taking action to try and prevent anyone else from engaging with it that I become uncomfortable, because that starts to toe the line of censoring the thing. If I don't like a book being made available in the library, that's one thing - I don't have to check it out. It's something else again if I keep checking it out over and over so that no one will ever be able to read it (in that venue, at least).



> _When you ask whether a particular form of exercising that fundamental right should be used or not is a different question. That isn't a question of morality, it is a question of whether or not the response is proportionate to the initiating event.
> 
> To which I say, proportionality is a non-issue._




Proportionality is a non-issue; that's why I didn't bring it up before. I'm talking about judging the morality of specific actions, which has nothing to do with any actions that they're taken in response to.



> _If today the KKK demonstrated on the streetcorner by my Dad's new office (like they did by his old one in '82), and only got 20 ralliiers to show up, am I limited to having only about that number of counter-protesters? Am I forbidden from choosing not to patronize the businesses of those Klansmen who demonstrated unmasked? Or from publicizing that they are Klansmen? (By doing so, I'm clearly expecting to cause them to lose business.)
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> ...




Again, I don't find anything immoral with holding a boycott; you and anyone else who feels so moved can choose not to engage with any private enterprise you feel like. That's different from actively trying to drive someone else out of business, or make them lose their job because they've done something you don't like.



> _But that does not change the moral right of those who strongly disagreed with them and what they said & did as the situation evolved to use their same fundamental rights to the fullest.
> 
> It may not seem civil, and it may even escalate the issue, but it is not immoral._




That's not the issue - the issue is what actions they undertake, not what they right they say they're undertaking them in the name of.



> _They told a joke, some thought it insensitive. Think what you may about it, their reaction to that critique was initially awkward then followed with something deliberately provocative. Well, they got an overwhelming response._




Yes, which is a third tier issue, I believe, and not a second tier one.



> _(If you want, you can PM me about the similarietes & differences between this and the cartoons that riled radical Islamists a while back, but that would be too political for the boards themselves.)_




I don't think that's necessary - at this point, you and I don't seem to be on the same page.



			
				cadence said:
			
		

> Thanks! Now I'm trying to zoom in on the your framework some...




Sure! I love debating the issues like this.



> _If the companies had agreed to allow it on their platform would Walmart have been morally at fault for not distributing it? If so, I have three follow-ups: Is a company morally at fault if they don't distribute something that comes to them that they find morally objectionable? (e.g. any store with magazines should carry porn, any store with videos should carry it too, a religious store should carry religious books going against their views, etc...) What if the creative thing wouldn't sell in the quantity to make them a profit? What if the store was designed for a special purpose (say children, victims of sexual assault)?_




Presuming that it's acknowledged that "do not suppress someone else's creative expression" is a negative duty (e.g. is tier one), then this gets back into the question of specificity in regards to what an action is.

If the sole reason for not distributing something is that they find it to be morally objectionable, then I believe that does violate that particular moral duty. However, in this case we've acknowledged that the action in question is a highly specific one, in that it's an act specifically done to suppress their creative expression - that's not necessarily the case with the follow-up questions you posted, in which case there can be other actions taken that would result in not being able to distribute something without it being an act of suppressing the creative expression therein.

To summarize, it's the difference between Kinko's not copying something for you because they think it's objectionable, and because the item in question is of large enough dimensions that they can't provide the service. In either case, the consequence is the same (they didn't print your thing), but the action in each case is different.

I recognize that this may sound like something of a very thin way of slicing the question, but that's the reason I called for specificity of action, above. The more information you have, the more easily you can judge an action for its moral dimension. (Of course, such information is often not present, leaving us in the uncomfortable position of having to evaluate for ourselves what the precise nature of an action is - did the guy at the restaurant give us bad service because he was tired from working a fourteen-hour shift? Or because he's prejudiced against you in some way? We're much more offended by the latter than the former, even though the results are the same - we can't know for sure what his motivations are, so we need to evaluate what his actions were - poor service or an act of prejudice - with insufficient information.)



> _Say the companies let them sell the game, would it be immoral for them to deny them the right to say it is compatible with their system? If so, the follow-up is, would it be immoral for WotC and Paizo to enforce their licensing schemes since it would be limiting other people's creative expression? (Say the case of making a full system that's designed to be like 3.5, advertised as being such, and uses the protected IP creations like Illithids and what not that could cause them financial harm? Or what about making a bondage/torture supplement and wanting it advertised as D&D compliant that they think is morally objectionable? Or what if they were just opposed because they think it would hurt the value of their brand?)_




The answers here depends on precisely what you think the violation of the negative duty would be (e.g. the aforementioned "do not suppress someone else's creative expression") and if you think that their prohibition is that action, or a different action that merely has the same consequences.



> _Tangenting off those, is enforcement of intellectual property law immoral, or just some types of it? (Trademark protection? Copyright protection of derivative works?)_




I want to reiterate that this framework is useful for judging the moral dimension of _specific actions_ that are done. It doesn't work for analyzing something like a body of law.



> _A step further, is enforcement of laws against distributing things like child pornography (say using existing material so no new material is gathered) or laws against selling products made of endangered species (again assuming no new animals were hurt) immoral too? Or is that taken care of by balancing the relative wrongness?_




The above system isn't, unto itself, concerned with the relative scale of "how" right or wrong something is. It's useful for finding something to be moral, immoral, or amoral, and doesn't ask how much.

That said, all instances of child-pornography are immoral, since they violate the negative duty of "do not hurt/exploit children," then I wouldn't call an action to report those to law enforcement immoral. I don't believe that "creative expression" includes directly harming others. The issue of selling products made from endangered species is less clear-cut in its moral dimension, since we don't hold that animals are fully-fledged members of the moral community the way other humans are - we do still acknowledge a moral dimension to their treatment, but not to the same degree (e.g. instance of animal ownership are not slavery, but animal abuse is still inflicting harm).



> _What restrictions on graffiti of public property are morally defensible?_




That depends on what negative duty (since this presumably involves doing something you think should not be done) you see this in violation of.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 9, 2013)

Apologies for the new post (I prefer to aggregate my replies to various posts into one, for easier reading) but EN World is being screwy at the moment.



			
				dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No right is absolute, and all rights have associated duties.
> 
> Your right to free expression stops when it supercedes my right to disagree or to be free of repercussion.
> 
> ...




Again, talking about rights is the wrong conversation to have (in my opinion). It's about the analysis of a particular action for its moral dimension, not the analysis of when a particular right does or does not apply. Whether or not you have the right to do something says nothing, unto itself, about whether or not that's the morally right thing to do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

> The problem I see is that the KKK are clearly evil. PA's initiating "offense" wasn't.




But the underlying right to espouse a position is the same.  In addition, I specifically acknowledged that nothing PA did sank to the KKK's level.

Besides, as I _also_ said, it wasn't the initial event that was the true problem _for me_, it was PA's subsequent actions that were truly provocative.  The meme of "Team ________" is well known to be supportive of whomever's name is in the blank.  Even though they're fictional, the Team Dickwolves shirts is deliberately insensitive, especially in the context of already being aware of people complaining they found the joke objectionable, _and why._

Were the initial objections from people who might be a bit oversensitive?  Did they misunderstand the original comic strip and its context?  Arguably yes.*

But to then upping the ante by expanding the joke in the face of those complaints is a violation of Wheaton's Law...well, all I can say is instant karma is a bitch.







* And I'd mostly agree with that assertion, but with the caveat that we're talking about humor that involves a traumatic event, and mental/physical trauma affects different people differently.  When you do humor involving trauma, it's essentially a given that you WILL hurt someone's feelings.  Its just a question of how you go forward from there.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Having only read about half of the blog posts about the issue on the .tumblr collection, I could be wrong... but I thought the riot didn't start over the "initiating offense", but rather over PA's response to those who were offended (the part where PA mocked people were concerned about our culture fostering an attitude where rape happens a lot and people are afraid to report it, where they mocked the idea that trigger warnings ever had a use, and where they made a shirt glorifying the incarnation of rape to make a point about people who attacked his personal cause, and where they seemed to plug into the misogynistic gamer/tech stereotype... ).  A lot of the bloggers offended by the later started their posts by defending the intent of the original strip.




The trick is, everybody's looking at the middle.  I'm looking at the beginning "over PA's response to those who were offended" in this case.

PA never would have reacted terribly had somebody actually passed the reading comprehension part of the test in school.

As some chunk of the male population learned, "Never start a fight.  Always finish it."

Somebody threw the first punch because their neural network couldn't fathom a valid point about crappy MMO quest design was not an insult to their sacred cause, and in fact, was effectively in support of it.



Cadence said:


> Is it not OL to be offended by what people say when they're mad about being falsely accused of something (even if they keep saying it for a while)?




I don't know.  

Since somebody was falsely accused, all bets are off the table on how they'll react.  It's kind of like being upset by my reaction when you say I'm crazy and try to get me certified.  Ever notice how that trope always leads to the accused acting in ways that might be seen by others as "crazy"

To me, the story hits my pet peeves:
false accusers
misinterpreted message
rallying a mob over a silly comic strip while real injustice remains undealt with
turning an ally into an enemy over an imagined slight

From what I can tell PA was making a valid point that MMOs were guilty of dismissing of Rape Avenging/Prevention as not needed for quest completion, thereby setting the tone that the MMO didn't think it was a big deal.

PAX apparently went out of its way to be less of a sexist booth babe cleavage fest.

But instead, because a few people can't read, the PA guys are Rapeaholics.

i think I'd take a few cheap shots at those people as well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Again, talking about rights is the wrong conversation to have (in my opinion). It's about the analysis of a particular action for its moral dimension, not the analysis of when a particular right does or does not apply. Whether or not you have the right to do something says nothing, unto itself, about whether or not that's the morally right thing to do.



All you're talking about is the morality of the _proportionality_ of the response.

My position is clear: I don't think proportionality of the response has an _objective_ moral standard that can be applied.

To put it differently, while you may feel that it would be immoral to boycott PA over the shirts, I do not.  I see _nothing_ legally, ethically, or morally wrong in the exercise of free speech or boycotts to protest the Team Dickwolves shirts, etc.

Let me ask you directly: Why shouldn't they speak out?  Why shouldn't they boycott?  What are the objective moral grounds you see for saying they shouldn't exercise their abilities to speak and act to the fullest?

*What are the objective moral grounds for advocating proportionality of response?*


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

> As some chunk of the male population learned, "Never start a fight. Always finish it."




As others have learned, sometimes the best way to finish a fight is through de-escalation.  I've saved myself quite a few broken teeth & scars living that way.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Were the initial objections from people who might be a bit oversensitive?  Did they misunderstand the original comic strip and its context?  Arguably yes.*
> 
> But to then upping the ante by expanding the joke in the face of those complaints is a violation of Wheaton's Law...well, all I can say is instant karma is a bitch.




I think everybody on the planet agrees that PA should/could have handled it better.

I might be the only person on the planet who sees that PA might not have been capable of handling it better (just as the initiating mistaken offendee may not have been able to read the comic differently).

I can totally see a frame of mind where what PA did as response made sense.  From what works I've read from the PA guys, if you irritate them, they will unload more than F-Bomb at you.

And I also suspect, from what I know of the personality types who bristle at imagined slights, is that even if PA had a savvy, professional PR agent who really posted any responses to thus eliminate the communication mistakes, that PA still could not win.

These crazy people, once they latch onto a target, will harry it until they destroy it.  They are looking for trouble, and they are yet another problem with society.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

> I might be the only person on the planet who sees that PA might not have been capable of handling it better (just as the initiating mistaken offendee may not have been able to read the comic differently).




I agree with you insofar as their personalities might have almost _demanded_ the lame apology.  I can't agree with you if we apply that excuse to the shirts.  That's not being insensitive, that's being provocative.

I'll confess something here: I know myself to be flawed in that I can hold a grudge for _decades_.  I _still_ get worked up over stuff that happened to me in the early 1980s.

However, I have learned how to fight that flaw insofar as I consciously elect to combat the urge to exact revenge or escalate grievances based on my ancient grudges.  It takes effort.

So I'm not exactly inclined to excuse people who DO escalate.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> All you're talking about is the morality of the _proportionality_ of the response.




No, I'm not. That's not at all what I'm talking about.



> _My position is clear: I don't think proportionality of the response has an objective moral standard that can be applied._




This has nothing to do with my position, as stated in my previous (well, prior to the previous) post.



> _To put it differently, while you may feel that it would be immoral to boycott PA over the shirts, I do not.  I see nothing legally, ethically, or morally wrong in the exercise of free speech or boycotts to protest the Team Dickwolves shirts, etc._




I feel that there's nothing immoral about not patronizing something, or telling others why you don't like them. I feel that's different in regards to attempting to make something cease being available to any who want it, however.



> _Let me ask you directly: Why shouldn't they speak out?  Why shouldn't they boycott?  What are the objective moral grounds you see for saying they shouldn't exercise their abilities to speak and act to the fullest?_




I've never said they shouldn't do those things. I'm simply acknowledging the difference between saying what you feel, and trying to suppress something else.



> _*What are the objective moral grounds for advocating proportionality of response?*_




I disagree with too many of the premises of this question to be able to answer it. For one thing, I don't believe in "objective morality." For another, absolutely nothing I've talked about has been in regards to "proportionality of response," which makes it very strange that you keep attributing that to me.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 9, 2013)

Janx said:


> To me, the story hits my pet peeves:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> i think I'd take a few cheap shots at those people as well.




I can certainly understand reacting badly to pet peeves and can't imagine anyone reacting well to being accused of being something they aren't (or even think they aren't).

Subsequent posts dealt with anything else I was going to say.  Good points.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Let me ask you directly: Why shouldn't they speak out?  Why shouldn't they boycott?  What are the objective moral grounds you see for saying they shouldn't exercise their abilities to speak and act to the fullest?




Not talking about this particular issue, but the concept in general:  there is a moral problem with the non-fact-checked-pitchfork-mod mentality.  Luckily, these days it is limited to blog posts and boycotts, but once upon a time that very same human trait was directed in a much more physical way.  Now, in this particular case, it's clear that a lot of folks are railing without checking the facts (and having been on the receiving end of such things more than once, it's frickin' _horrible_ - and there is absolutely nothing you can do); however, those who _have_ checked the facts and still decide to boycott or what-have-you?  That's just fine.

So calling for boycotts and stuff without checking the facts first?  Morally problematic.  Checking the facts and _then_ deciding that action is warranted?  Much better.  Both are legally OK as long as libel isn't involved.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I agree with you insofar as their personalities might have almost _demanded_ the lame apology.  I can't agree with you if we apply that excuse to the shirts.




Nah.  I can totally see somebody thinking "If you thought my comic about how it was wrong to not help stop a rape was somehow saying rape is OK, then let me show you what ACTUAL offensive material looks like"

Not a good idea.  But if you're equally enraged that somebody is so stupid as to misunderstand your point to think that you condone rape, then what happened is exactly how that would play out.

It's two cases of bad software running into each other.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Not talking about this particular issue, but the concept in general:  there is a moral problem with the non-fact-checked-pitchfork-mod mentality.  Luckily, these days it is limited to blog posts and boycotts, but once upon a time that very same human trait was directed in a much more physical way.  Now, in this particular case, it's clear that a lot of folks are railing without checking the facts (and having been on the receiving end of such things more than once, it's frickin' _horrible_ - and there is absolutely nothing you can do); however, those who _have_ checked the facts and still decide to boycott or what-have-you?  That's just fine.
> 
> So calling for boycotts and stuff without checking the facts first?  Morally problematic.  Checking the facts and _then_ deciding that action is warranted?  Much better.  Both are legally OK as long as libel isn't involved.




Well said.  That's the concern I been talking about.


While I hate to see news articles about "the alleged bank robber who we see here shooting the teller in the face"  there's a reason for it.  Even in the face of "facts", some of those facts can be wrong.  And while we may need to move forward to take action on the facts we have, we also need to have our foot ready to step on the brake and reconsider what we think we know.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> I feel that there's nothing immoral about not patronizing something, or telling others why you don't like them. I feel that's different in regards to attempting to make something cease being available to any who want it, however.




I think I agree with this.

There's a whole bunch of bad ideas on the internet.

I don't have an urge to go try to shut them down.

I choose not to visit them.  I choose not to view them.  I choose not to give them my money.

If asked on the subject, I may deliberate on what I think is bad about them.

Or I may participate on a forum (like this).

but I don't go writing a web campaign and starting an army to kill that which offends me.

Trying to shut down somebody else's speech that I don't like seems wrong to me.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 9, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> If the sole reason for not distributing something is that they find it to be morally objectionable, then I believe that does violate that particular moral duty. However, in this case we've acknowledged that the action in question is a highly specific one, in that it's an act specifically done to suppress their creative expression - that's not necessarily the case with the follow-up questions you posted, in which case there can be other actions taken that would result in not being able to distribute something without it being an act of suppressing the creative expression therein.





I think I understand, so I'm trying to splitting hairs...

A) Say a store has a stated policy of "All products we sell are legal or approved by their industries for anyone aged 13 and up." because they market themselves as family friendly as a business strategy.  That is ok because it isn't specifically designed to curtail anyone's expression.

B) Say a store has the same policy because they find sex and violence immoral and don't want anyone to sell them.  That would be bad because they are intending to try and curtail a type of expression?

C) Say a store has the same policy because they believe it is personally immoral for them to run a business involving extreme violence or graphic sex.   In that case is he morally ok, or should his morality preclude him from even owning a store that could sell videos? (Analogous to pharmacists with religious beliefs against certain drugs?)

D) Say a store has the same policy because they believe that videos of pornography and violence are actively exploitative and harm the people who make and view them.  ?

And then there is this one.  An English language bookstore in Cuba was recently profiled on NPR.  They only sell books the owner personally likes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

> I can totally see somebody thinking "If you thought my comic about how it was wrong to not help stop a rape was somehow saying rape is OK, then let me show you what ACTUAL offensive material looks like"




i can see it, too- I just won't cut anyone any slack for doing so if they get results out of _their_ comfort zone.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Cadence said:


> And then there is this one.  An English language bookstore in Cuba was recently profiled on NPR.  They only sell books the owner personally likes.




I think the core of your examples is: does the store have a right to not sell content it doesn't like?

In the Rockstar game example, I'm pretty sure the studio knew exactly what kind of game they were making and the rating they were going to get.

I'm pretty sure the stores had a pretty simple bar they set.  Anything less than a certain rating from the rating board.

There were no surprises here.  Certainly no favoritism of the picky Cuban book store owner.

I think from a generic standpoint, of course the owner has a right to sell what they want to sell.  There's a reason the guy sells books and not hats.  Because he wants to sell books.  That's his right.

Where the line gets fuzzy on that right, is when the owner's preferences are unreasonable and discriminatory.

If I don't carry books about watermelon because I don't like watermelon, that might be OK.  But if I don't carry those books because black people like watermelon (a terrible stereotype on which I have no reason to believe is true) and I don't want them in my store, that might be a different animal entirely.

I suspect that saying "My store doesn't sell naughty games. This game was rated N for naughty by an external board, so we can't sell it" is a reasonable policy.  there's no reason a Naughty Game store can't exist, so it's not on me to provide it.

Whereas, if a case can be demonstrated that I'll accept books about other fruit, except Watermelon because I am targeting a demographic of people.  That's wrong.

Now should a ton of people rally outside my door?  Maybe it depends on the facts.  If they do it because they think I'm a racist, when it's really because I just can't stand watermelon, then they are in the wrong.

If you're going to take a stand, you better be doing it for the right reasons and against the right target.  I reckon that might be hard to tell which is which.  But in that, case I suggest erring on the side of caution and NOT rallying.


----------



## tomBitonti (Sep 9, 2013)

Trying to figure out the degree of relevance of this topic.

Read the original post.  Personally, found it in poor taste.  But, the consequence of that -- I'm unlikely to revisit the strip, is pretty much what a boycott would do, so I'm not finding the request to have significance.

As to a request to boycott a trade show carrying the comic ... that is a different matter.

Is there a legal issue here?  Can a trade organization (not sure if the show qualifies as this, or even close), prohibit a company?  I suppose yes, but there would seem to be some limits.

As to the substance, the fault seems to be more of style than substance.  How often are there jokes made about the consequence of being in prison?  Those would seem to be of the same substance, but often expressed more carefully.  What distinguishes this comic from, say, the Dark Legacy?

As to the ensuing debate and controversy, I'm finding that that fails to find purchase because the original problem has no (or very little) purchase.

Anyone else tending to want a careful deescalation?

Note: Not wanting to sound insensitive to the general topic.  Net of that: I don't think this board is good channel for more detailed discussions.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 9, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I think I understand, so I'm trying to splitting hairs...




I want to reiterate, before anything else, that there's no objective framework in play here - as I noted before, everyone defines a given action differently, and likewise ranks actions on the deontological tiers as they like. Ergo, the best I can provide you with is my personal reasoning; as with all forms of moral beliefs, you may not agree.

In regards to the examples you post, I'm presuming that they're operating in regards to an action of a store owner refusing to sell a particular item or material. In which case, we then attempt to devise what specific action is happening here, and where it ranks. (It should be noted that this can sound an awful lot like trying to determine the motivation of the store owner. It's not, however, simply because we don't know what the owner's motivations are - even if he or she tells us, we can't determine their honesty. Hence, we have to make a judgment call in regards to the nature of the action itself.)



> _A) Say a store has a stated policy of "All products we sell are legal or approved by their industries for anyone aged 13 and up." because they market themselves as family friendly as a business strategy.  That is ok because it isn't specifically designed to curtail anyone's expression._




Presuming that this was intended to be a question, I'm not sure I understand the policy in question. The legal aspect goes without saying, but the part about them selling materials approved for ages 13 and up suggests that they don't sell materials that are specifically designed for children, which tends to be the opposite of how those sorts of bans usually work (e.g. "we don't sell anything that's only approved for people 17 and up").



> _B) Say a store has the same policy because they find sex and violence immoral and don't want anyone to sell them.  That would be bad because they are intending to try and curtail a type of expression?
> 
> C) Say a store has the same policy because they believe it is personally immoral for them to run a business involving extreme violence or graphic sex.   In that case is he morally ok, or should his morality preclude him from even owning a store that could sell videos? (Analogous to pharmacists with religious beliefs against certain drugs?)
> 
> D) Say a store has the same policy because they believe that videos of pornography and violence are actively exploitative and harm the people who make and view them.  ?_



_

In each case, the lens through which these scenarios is examined (at least for me) is, "do not suppress someone else's creative expression." As such, all that needs to be answered is if these actions are those, or is another action that simply happens to have the same consequences. Leaving aside that this is my own personal framework, what you think the answers to each of these are?  




And then there is this one.  An English language bookstore in Cuba was recently profiled on NPR.  They only sell books the owner personally likes.

Click to expand...



Then for his sake I hope that he's very widely-read!_


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 9, 2013)

Janx said:


> PA never would have reacted terribly had somebody actually passed the reading comprehension part of the test in school.
> 
> As some chunk of the male population learned, "Never start a fight.  Always finish it."
> 
> Somebody threw the first punch because their neural network couldn't fathom a valid point about crappy MMO quest design was not an insult to their sacred cause, and in fact, was effectively in support of it.




I'd tell both sides the same thing I tell my boys when a fight escalates and they point the finger at each other as to who started it (as I'm sure the people offended believe PA 'threw the first punch' by creating the comic): "It doesn't matter who started it. You _both_ made bad decisions on how to handle the situation that led us to where were are now."



Janx said:


> Since somebody was falsely accused, all bets are off the table on how they'll react.  It's kind of like being upset by my reaction when you say I'm crazy and try to get me certified.  Ever notice how that trope always leads to the accused acting in ways that might be seen by others as "crazy"
> 
> I might be the only person on the planet who sees that PA might not have been capable of handling it better (just as the initiating mistaken offendee may not have been able to read the comic differently).
> 
> I can totally see a frame of mind where what PA did as response made sense.  From what works I've read from the PA guys, if you irritate them, they will unload more than F-Bomb at you.




There's a HUGE difference between someone actually trying to get a person committed and internet rage accusations. PA had a choice on how to react. And I always find it kind of hypocritical of anyone in comedy to ask their audience to limit their outrage ("Can't you take a joke?"), but then fly off the handle themselves when criticized over the joke.



Janx said:


> From what I can tell PA was making a valid point that MMOs were guilty of dismissing of Rape Avenging/Prevention as not needed for quest completion, thereby setting the tone that the MMO didn't think it was a big deal.




Agreed. I see no offense in the comic. But one should expect reactions from people that don't find even the mention of a serious subject like rape to be funny. Just like you claim that people should expect PA to react like they did.



Janx said:


> And I also suspect, from what I know of the personality types who bristle at imagined slights, is that even if PA had a savvy, professional PR agent who really posted any responses to thus eliminate the communication mistakes, that PA still could not win.




You don't (usually) need to _win_ over the overreactionary types. A quick statement like they initially put out to clarify the ridiculous accusation that they condone rape... and then walk away. Let the ranters remaining yell and scream. They look like blahtering fools, while you take the high road.



Janx said:


> These crazy people, once they latch onto a target, will harry it until they destroy it.  They are looking for trouble, and they are yet another problem with society.




They are definitely a problem if they're allowed to actually destroy something. And you should certainly defend yourself if the accusations become all too real. But fighting against big noisy blowhards that really have no power to destroy you and that will move on to their next outrage when Miley performs at the VMAs is wasted effort that just makes you look as crazy as them.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Presuming that this was intended to be a question, I'm not sure I understand the policy in question. The legal aspect goes without saying, but the part about them selling materials approved for ages 13 and up suggests that they don't sell materials that are specifically designed for children, which tends to be the opposite of how those sorts of bans usually work (e.g. "we don't sell anything that's only approved for people 17 and up").




Based on your apparent preference to not restrict the sale, I would expect to find the Rockstar game in your game store.

I think the challenge is in how each of us interprets the store's policy


> A) Say a store has a stated policy of "All products we sell are legal or approved by their industries for anyone aged 13 and up." because they market themselves as family friendly as a business strategy. That is ok because it isn't specifically designed to curtail anyone's expression.




Taken literally, you're right.  They said 13 and up.  Not 17 and down.  Taken with Cadence's "because they market themselves as family friendly as a business strategy", then I might assume the 17 and down was implied.

In seeing such a restriction, I might parse their intent to be family friendly.  And a Rated N for Naughty product would surely distress a parent when the kid gets to that aisle.  Which might be why a parent doesn't go to a store where Rated N products are found.

but the challenge is, with the brief and imperfect verbiage available, how is a "normal" person expected to interpret a statement or policy?

In my No-Watermelons book store, how are you going to interpret my policy, sans any knowledge of my actual intent (I really do hate watermelon).

I think we know how non-normal humans can read more into something than is actually present and escalate that terribly.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Not talking about this particular issue, but the concept in general:  there is a moral problem with the non-fact-checked-pitchfork-mod mentality.




Agreed, 100%.

But lets look at facts:

_In this case,_ there was a misunderstanding of the strip on the part of people _who had been traumatized by rape_.  Comprehension error on Team Readers

Instead of a a plain-jane apology and/or explaining the strip in order to correct the misunderstanding, they got a little snarky and kind of "mailed it in."  PR error Team Cartoonists.

When the apology wasn't accepted- and given the apology's content and the intended audience, its not a surprise- they upped the ante with the shirts.  THAT pissed off the first group more, and got people who WEREN'T rape survivors pissed off.  _Biiiig _PR error Team Cartoonists.




> So calling for boycotts and stuff without checking the facts first?  Morally problematic.  Checking the facts and _then_ deciding that action is warranted?  Much better.  Both are legally OK as long as libel isn't involved.



Sometimes- especially in the arts- its not about facts, but understanding.

The initial wave of reactions was a simple misunderstanding that could have been rectified with decent communications skill.  The second wave was 100% fine by me.

Do you remember the controversy over Ice-T's "Cop Killer" song?  I have multiple copies, despite having family & friends in law enforcement?

I also have G'n'R albums despite the racist lyrical content of some of the songs.

What about Robert Mapplethorpe's art?  Lots of controversy there.  I fully supported his art, but also understood why people reacted to it the way they did.  RM never really tried to educate people as to the "why" of his work: he may have felt it would have been futile- and he may have been right- but he didn't try.  Instead, he rode the wave of controversy...until it crashed on him.

Controversial art and speech are necessary for society.  But it has a cost to its creators, and it always will.  It can backfire, sometimes ruinously.  If you don't want to be a part of that equation, don't engage society on that level.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 9, 2013)

Janx said:


> I think the core of your examples is: does the store have a right to not sell content it doesn't like?




IMO any store is within moral, ethical, and legal rights to not sell any product they wish not to sell. If they try to enforce their choices upon others through unfair pressure, taking legal action, or lobbying for restrictions under the law, they are not within their moral or ethical rights. These businesses may have to deal with their own repercussions for choosing not to carry certain goods (I probably wouldn't patronize the example English Bookstore, e.g.).

Walmart and the three platforms were not trying to restrict Rockstar Games right to publish an AO game. Rockstar still had every right to seek other platforms, self-publish, etc. They limited themselves by wanting to do business only through these platforms and Walmart. Probably for good reason, but I find no fault in anyone else for not wanting to carry an AO game.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> ...snip..plenty of good points..snip..
> They are definitely a problem if they're allowed to actually destroy something. And you should certainly defend yourself if the accusations become all too real. But fighting against big noisy blowhards that really have no power to destroy you and that will move on to their next outrage when Miley performs at the VMAs is wasted effort that just makes you look as crazy as them.




I think the problem is, these people DO have more power than they should.

I've seen these types in the workplace, almost always in higher positions of management.

And on the internet, these bullies seem to be persuasive enough to attract enough followers to get some power.

While you're right that the best choice is to take the high road (and not let the PA guys write any responses), it is dangerous to dismiss these people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

> I feel that there's nothing immoral about not patronizing something, or telling others why you don't like them.




Agreed.



> I feel that's different in regards to attempting to make something cease being available to any who want it, however.



Here, I say "That depends."

1) I think some things should not be available because they are simply indefensible, like kiddie porn.

2) I think that MOST things should not be made unavailable by the government.

3) However, I think private individuals- singularly and in groups- can advocate and take action against _some_ things in an effort to make them unavailable, and others are free to support those things, all completely within the strictures of ethics and morality.  That doesn't mean I think one side or the other is right*, just that neither is acting immorally.







* because THAT is something that depends on the individual thing in question.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 9, 2013)

Janx said:


> I think the problem is, these people DO have more power than they should.
> 
> I've seen these types in the workplace, almost always in higher positions of management.




The workplace is a funny animal. I do think issues get overblown too quickly and too easily. But I don't think the resolution from the top is always necessarily because they agree with it. They want us to work. Anything that stirs up from personal beliefs just gets fundamentally cut out. It's the easy way out, unfortunately. Add to that harrassment and hostile work environment, etc. and you get management that rolls over and gives in too easily so they don't get the company sued and lose their job.



Janx said:


> And on the internet, these bullies seem to be persuasive enough to attract enough followers to get some power.




I've not heard of any that were successful in destroying anything, but I'm sure there's some story out there somewhere I've missed.



Janx said:


> While you're right that the best choice is to take the high road (and not let the PA guys write any responses), it is dangerous to dismiss these people.




Agreed.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Controversial art and speech are necessary for society.  But it has a cost to its creators, and it always will.  It can backfire, sometimes ruinously.  If you don't want to be a part of that equation, don't engage society on that level.




There is this as well.

Knowing that like 20% of the female population has been raped, I will never ever feature rape in my gaming campaigns.
Gaming is usually kind of personal, and not knowing who has suffered or knows somebody, it's just got no use in my game.  I can think of other horrible non-sexual things to do to PCs and NPCs (like roasting and eating them).

However, in other non-gaming circles, I may refer to corporate price-gouging as "wallet rape" (to which somebody on this forum objected to), or the relentless involuntary ear licking my dog gives as "ear rape".  Most people get that these things are not derogatory toward victims and have nothing to do with the real thing.  Folks who don't get that bug the stuffing out of me as they are lobbying to elevate their interpretation over mine, the speaker.

If I give in to such objections, I am ceding power over my self expression.  As much as "the slippery slope" may be cited on other political topics, letting others decide that their inability to parse words per their context means they can restrict everyone's use of them is indeed a slippery slope.  At some point, we will be reduced to just "ug" until somebody argues that it refers to their sexual paraphenalia and that's offensive too.

I think it will be simpler if we mulch everybody who got offended by the original PA comic.  And then mulched everybody who bought the Dickwolf shirt.

And then mulched everybody who thought about the PA debacle.


----------



## Janx (Sep 9, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The workplace is a funny animal. I do think issues get overblown too quickly and too easily. But I don't think the resolution from the top is always necessarily because they agree with it. They want us to work. Anything that stirs up from personal beliefs just gets fundamentally cut out. It's the easy way out, unfortunately. Add to that harrassment and hostile work environment, etc. and you get management that rolls over and gives in too easily so they don't get the company sued and lose their job.




We may not be thinking of the same examples.

I have seen upper tier managers and directors who will read an email, and start a firestorm about what a person said and how they said it.

In review of the original message, in most cases, while they could be worded differently (and what message couldn't), there was no ill intent in the message and nothing actually wrong with it when addressed to and read by a normal person.

In virtually all cases, said offendee was often seen being guilty of sending messages that could equally be mis-interpreted.

In effect, these were cases of somebody exercising power to bully somebody else over their own paranoia


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2013)

> If I give in to such objections, I am ceding power over my self expression. As much as "the slippery slope" may be cited on other political topics, letting others decide that their inability to parse words per their context means they can restrict everyone's use of them is indeed a slippery slope. At some point, we will be reduced to just "ug" until somebody argues that it refers to their sexual paraphenalia and that's offensive too.




While I agree in general, here, the initial wave of misunderstanding was on the part a group of people who are _understandibly_ hypersensitized to a particular word.

While I don't think words should be excised from the language, when you are a speaker, you have to also be aware of your audience.

You've seen pictures of my CD collection?  I guarantee you that it contains adult lyrical content.  I do not play that music when kids are around.  Some, I don't play when certain other adults are around.

PA, as producers of a web comic, don't have the luxury of that kind of control.  Their product goes out for all & sundry to read...and that means there is always a possibility to offend.  What they CAN control is how _they_ react when someone expresses offense.  Of all the options they had- including simply ignoring the complaints- they _escalated._

And i have to say, I'm an attorney of 17 years experience, and I've been in training to be a mediator and arbitrator for the past 3 years: I have NEVER seen an instance of (non-violent) escalation of a conflict or disagreement that shortened the process.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 9, 2013)

Janx said:


> We may not be thinking of the same examples.




I honestly never encountered that before. Interesting.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 9, 2013)

For @Alzrius  ,


			
				badly phrased old quote said:
			
		

> A) Say a store has a stated policy of "All products we sell are legal or approved by their industries for anyone aged 13 and up." because they market themselves as family friendly as a business strategy. That is ok because it isn't specifically designed to curtail anyone's expression."




Gack.  I was worried so much about the rest of the examples I botched the set-up.  So here is a cleaned up version (I hope).

Am I correct in interpreting your personal framework for the following?

A)  Consider a store that markets itself as "family friendly" as a business strategy and has a number of policies to help with this (choice of music played in the store, employee dress code, type of items displayed by the register, etc...). To make the overarching store concept workable (so they don't have to inspect every product in detail) they've come up with a screen for what they carry: "We won't sell any product that is legally un-purchasable by someone who is 13 years of age, or that is rated to have a minimum appropriate age older than 13.  So, alcohol and cigarettes are out.  In movies, for example, G, PG, and PG-13 are Good, R and NC17 are out."    As such they will not carry the AO rated Rockstar game.    Am I correct that you would be ok with this because the exclusion of Rockstar games is based on the marketing attempt to create a store atmosphere, and the restriction of someone else's creative expression is just a byproduct?

B)  A store owner finds sex and violence immoral and doesn't want anyone to sell such products.  They actively pursue this goal, and as part of that pursuit their store also has the G-PG-PG13=ok, R-NC17=bad type policy.  Am I correct that this is a solid example of their exclusion of Rockstar games being bad because the overarching policy is explicitly to deny someone's creative expression?

C)  A store owner believes that it is immoral to run a business involving extreme violence or graphic sex.  As such, they would have to decline the AO Rockstar game.   Am I correct that their only moral option is to choose another business to go into?   Can we view running a store (the design, set-up, marketing, etc...) as a creative process?  If so, is Rockstar being immoral by asking this store to surrender its own creative process by carrying their AO game?

D) A store owner believes that videos and games depicting pornography and violence are actively exploitative and harm the people who make and view them?   Am I correct that they could morally decline to carry the AO game on the same moral reasoning they could decline to carry the child pornography?  (As the morality and legality are separate issues and they think it is exploiting and harming others).

Personally, I tend to be hypocritical in my views of this (if I think its wrong so should they, and if they think something I like is wrong then they're wrong) and would like to work on that before I have to make my own decisions on some of them. 

In general, as long as monopolies and collusion are illegal, and no discrimination is occurring based on race, religion, orientation, disability, etc... , I don't see a moral obligation for the store to use its time and money to enable creative enterprises they disagree with.


----------



## jeffh (Sep 10, 2013)

Cadence, I'm not the original target of the above post, but for my own part my responses would be as follows:

A: Unproblematic.
B: Nothing you have specifically described them as doing strikes me as the least bit unethical, or indeed, as differing in any significant respect from what you describe in A. Some of the unspecified _other_ things they do in pursuit of this goal might be problematic - you haven't given enough information to say.
C: I don't see why he'd have to go into some other business. That's crazy. Why couldn't he just not carry that game?
D: Unproblematic.

Alzrius can speak for himself, but it seems to me as though you're reading far too much into what he said about not restricting others' freedom of expression. None of the things you described seem to me to count as that. Some of them might stem from an attitude that, _when expressed in other ways_, does have that problem, but none of them in themselves have that issue.

Relatedly, I think some people in this thread are thinking about freedom of speech in a sloppy and over-broad way. On the views of, as far as I can see, pretty much every serious philosopher and political theorist ever to write about the topic, you're not restricting someone's speech in any objectionable sense just by refusing to provide them with a platform and an audience - especially if forcing you to do so would infringe _your_ property rights. You shouldn't _stop_ someone from expressing their views, but that doesn't oblige you to _help_ them to do so.

(And you _certainly_ can't restrict someone's freedom of speech just by criticizing what they say. Anyone who claims this is trying to unreasonably restrict _your_ freedom of speech, and anyone who claims this _in the name of freedom of speech_ is either a hypocrite or an idiot, and that's an inclusive "or".)


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 11, 2013)

dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 1) I think some things should not be available because they are simply indefensible, like kiddie porn.
> 
> 2) I think that MOST things should not be made unavailable by the government.[/i]




I agree that certain things necessitate immoral acts, and by way of that may be (as per my previous definition of immorality) expunged from society. I will say though that I'm not sure I agree with the qualifier "by the government" in your second point. Why is it okay for someone to make something unavailable to others due to their lack of governmental authority?



> _3) However, I think private individuals- singularly and in groups- can advocate and take action against some things in an effort to make them unavailable, and others are free to support those things, all completely within the strictures of ethics and morality. That doesn't mean I think one side or the other is right*, just that neither is acting immorally.
> 
> * because THAT is something that depends on the individual thing in question._




In terms of "advocating," if that means "expressing their opinion" then I don't disagree, but otherwise taking action against something (presuming that the thing is an instance of creative expression) to make it unavailable strikes me as being immoral (with the usual caveat that this is a generalization for a moral framework that works best when applied to specifics).



Cadence said:


> Gack.  I was worried so much about the rest of the examples I botched the set-up.  So here is a cleaned up version (I hope).
> 
> Am I correct in interpreting your personal framework for the following?




It took me way too long to get back to this, due to a combination of my home computer down and the difficulty of finding the time to post this on my work computer. Apologies for the delay on my end.

That said, here are my answers to the following.



> _A)  Consider a store that markets itself as "family friendly" as a business strategy and has a number of policies to help with this (choice of music played in the store, employee dress code, type of items displayed by the register, etc...). To make the overarching store concept workable (so they don't have to inspect every product in detail) they've come up with a screen for what they carry: "We won't sell any product that is legally un-purchasable by someone who is 13 years of age, or that is rated to have a minimum appropriate age older than 13.  So, alcohol and cigarettes are out.  In movies, for example, G, PG, and PG-13 are Good, R and NC17 are out."    As such they will not carry the AO rated Rockstar game.    Am I correct that you would be ok with this because the exclusion of Rockstar games is based on the marketing attempt to create a store atmosphere, and the restriction of someone else's creative expression is just a byproduct?_




Before anything else, I want to reiterate (simply because I think that it's important to keep these caveats forefront in the course of my responses) that the nature of the moral framework I listed previously relies upon the interpretation as to the nature of the act under discussion (e.g. asking what is happening here). I bring this up again to highlight the degree of ambiguity that will more often than not be a part of this consideration, since you can't know the other person's intent and can't judge the consequences until after the fact (and sometimes not even then). You can judge a particular action to be X, and someone else can judge it to be Y, and quite often that'll be it - you'll need to agree to disagree.

Likewise, I want to restate that this is my own personal framework and the responses are likewise reflective of me, and nothing else.

The above scenario can be interpreted as "selling only products that fit within an established theme of items for sale," much in the same way that you wouldn't expect a furniture store to sell cars. While I personally wouldn't care for that particular theme, it doesn't strike me as being the same as refusing to grant a venue to a product based on the nature of the content (hence why, in the actual instance of Manhunt 2 I mentioned previously, I said I found the moral fault to be with the video game companies).



> _B)  A store owner finds sex and violence immoral and doesn't want anyone to sell such products.  They actively pursue this goal, and as part of that pursuit their store also has the G-PG-PG13=ok, R-NC17=bad type policy.  Am I correct that this is a solid example of their exclusion of Rockstar games being bad because the overarching policy is explicitly to deny someone's creative expression?_




I respectfully disagree with jeffh here in that I do think that this runs afoul of the negative duty "do not suppress another's creative expression." Given that in this example it's very hard to interpret this action as being anything other than an attempt to stop a given media from reaching the public since the person under examination doesn't like it, I'd call this a breach of that duty.



> _C)  A store owner believes that it is immoral to run a business involving extreme violence or graphic sex.  As such, they would have to decline the AO Rockstar game.   Am I correct that their only moral option is to choose another business to go into?   Can we view running a store (the design, set-up, marketing, etc...) as a creative process?  If so, is Rockstar being immoral by asking this store to surrender its own creative process by carrying their AO game?_




The first question is a fairly loaded one, as you're asking what their moral responses are. To the latter question (asking if running a business can be seen as creative expression), I can tell you that I personally don't think that it is (which obviates your third question). For the former, I'm reluctant to comment on what another person's moral options are, since I don't know what moral framework they're using to make their decisions - that's why I highlighted above that these answers are specific to me.



> _D) A store owner believes that videos and games depicting pornography and violence are actively exploitative and harm the people who make and view them?   Am I correct that they could morally decline to carry the AO game on the same moral reasoning they could decline to carry the child pornography?  (As the morality and legality are separate issues and they think it is exploiting and harming others)._




In this case, the best answer I can give is "if they're using the same moral framework that I am, I suppose they could," but this carries a very big "but" with it (and I like big but's) in that I don't agree with the underlying reasoning that led to this particular ranking of moral action - that is, I don't agree that depictions of pornography and violance are exploitive and harmful to the viewer. Ergo, I'd still disagree with their decision; just not the process by which they reached it.



> _Personally, I tend to be hypocritical in my views of this (if I think its wrong so should they, and if they think something I like is wrong then they're wrong) and would like to work on that before I have to make my own decisions on some of them. _




Nobody is consistent all the time, whether due to acquiring new information, changing opinions, or simple human nature. As I noted above, if someone reinterprets the nature of a given action, that alone is enough to change the entire moral judgment that can be passed upon it. That's notwithstanding alterations to the moral framework itself (e.g. elevating something from being supererogatory to being a positive duty).



> _In general, as long as monopolies and collusion are illegal, and no discrimination is occurring based on race, religion, orientation, disability, etc... , I don't see a moral obligation for the store to use its time and money to enable creative enterprises they disagree with._




They don't have to enable it; they just have to not disable it via the venue(s) they control.


----------



## Janx (Sep 12, 2013)

jeffh said:


> Relatedly, I think some people in this thread are thinking about freedom of speech in a sloppy and over-broad way. On the views of, as far as I can see, pretty much every serious philosopher and political theorist ever to write about the topic, you're not restricting someone's speech in any objectionable sense just by refusing to provide them with a platform and an audience - especially if forcing you to do so would infringe _your_ property rights. You shouldn't _stop_ someone from expressing their views, but that doesn't oblige you to _help_ them to do so.
> 
> (And you _certainly_ can't restrict someone's freedom of speech just by criticizing what they say. Anyone who claims this is trying to unreasonably restrict _your_ freedom of speech, and anyone who claims this _in the name of freedom of speech_ is either a hypocrite or an idiot, and that's an inclusive "or".)




In the sloppy form of freedom of speech, I can say what I want, and you can say what you want.

The conflict is when I say something, and you not only don't like it and say something in response, but then use your speech to try to squelch, intimidate, or silence mine.

Let's say my blog/comic strip says "I hate watermelon"

You disagree with that, so you start an "I love Watermelon" website.

Seems fine to me, and probably most people in the sloppy freedom of speech world.

Now let's say you really object to my hating of watermelon.

So now you start telling people to avoid my site, because I am a watermelon hater.

That's kind of negative, and ratcheting things up a notch from just trying to extol the virtues of watermelon and thus shape the malleable minds of America.

Now let's say you crank up the rhetoric that me and other people who hate watermelon are evil and are a detriment to society.

That's really negative.

I can't say if that's right or wrong in the moral sense.  It's probably legal in the legal sense.

But it's crossing a line from presenting facts and opinion to trying to silence my speech.

I think part of the reason I object to this (and maybe Alzrius, but it's been a long thread to be sure), is that it goes from you and me presenting basic info and letting the market decide (do I get more followers on my site or do you?), and instead attempts to manipulate people  into choosing your side over mine.

In my view, if watermelon is so awesome, that truth should be self evident and I should have few people agreeing with my site.  Thus, sales of my anti-watermelon stickers will be very low, etc.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> But it's crossing a line from presenting facts and opinion to trying to silence my speech.




Not really. If they were lobbying to get your "watermelon hate" site taken down and banned from all forms of media, that would be trying to silence your speech.

Just telling others not to listen to you is not. Those people still have the opportunity to listen to you. Now, the negative means used against you may be impolite, immoral, even illegal, but I don't see your example as someone trying to silence you.

It's like the tree falling in the woods. Of course it makes a sound. Only philosophical arguments make it a silent falling tree.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 12, 2013)

When you wear Team Dickwolf shirts, sell Team Dickwolf shirts, or take as your mascot a one note monster whose only purpose is to rape people it is time to reevaluate your life choices.  When, after three years, your biggest regret is that you stopped using a fictional monster whose only know attribute was that it was a rapist then it's going to take an audit of your life top to bottom.

The rest was mostly feedback loops and internet hype - miscommunication happens and easily gets blown out of proportion.  (The original comic isn't something I have a problem with - and neither is the response.)


----------



## billd91 (Sep 12, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> When, after three years, your biggest regret is that you stopped using a fictional monster whose only know attribute was that it was a rapist then it's going to take an audit of your life top to bottom.




Fortunately, nobody said that. The question put to the PA guys was when had they felt their business manager, Robert, had made a mistake. That's not about a biggest regret by a long shot. The posted apology says a lot more about regretting everything involved in the follow-up to initial strip including how they handled the initial response and making the merchandise in the first place. So no, there is no information out there that I've seen that says his biggest regret is stopping using the dickwolves.


----------



## Janx (Sep 12, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> When you wear Team Dickwolf shirts, sell Team Dickwolf shirts, or take as your mascot a one note monster whose only purpose is to rape people it is time to reevaluate your life choices.  When, after three years, your biggest regret is that you stopped using a fictional monster whose only know attribute was that it was a rapist then it's going to take an audit of your life top to bottom.
> 
> The rest was mostly feedback loops and internet hype - miscommunication happens and easily gets blown out of proportion.  (The original comic isn't something I have a problem with - and neither is the response.)




As bill91 pointed out, that ain't what PA said they regretted, and that kind of misinterpretation is exactly how this kind of blow up started.

In other news, there's some guy in Texas selling these tailgate skins that look like the empty truckbed with a woman tied up in the back.

Of course there's a huge rally to shut that kind of thing down.

My view is, people sporting that tailgate art or the Team Dickwolf shirt have publicized their jerk status.  You don't need to rally against the product, the product has done you a service.  You now know exactly who not to hire, date or do business with.

Though in the case of the tailgate kidnappee art, if I saw it on the road, I'd be inclined to call 911 with "I'm driving on I-10, and there's this black truck in front of me that it looks like the tailgate is down and there's a woman tied up in the back of it."

The problem takes care of itself.


----------



## Janx (Sep 12, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Not really. If they were lobbying to get your "watermelon hate" site taken down and banned from all forms of media, that would be trying to silence your speech.
> 
> Just telling others not to listen to you is not. Those people still have the opportunity to listen to you. Now, the negative means used against you may be impolite, immoral, even illegal, but I don't see your example as someone trying to silence you.
> 
> It's like the tree falling in the woods. Of course it makes a sound. Only philosophical arguments make it a silent falling tree.




The scenario I'm really asking, is if I only post on my site, and you only post on your site (or similar sites), is it possible for one of us to cross the line of breaching the other's free speech?

At some point, speech is about calling to action, so at some point your speech MIGHT include trying to shut me down or shut me up.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> In other news, there's some guy in Texas selling these tailgate skins that look like the empty truckbed with a woman tied up in the back.
> 
> Of course there's a huge rally to shut that kind of thing down.
> 
> ...




So... you find it more problematic to rally to ostracize or boycott a producer than to send the police to harass a product user?


----------



## Janx (Sep 12, 2013)

billd91 said:


> So... you find it more problematic to rally to ostracize or boycott a producer than to send the police to harass a product user?




both are probably wrong, but calling 911 is funnier.

There's also the difference that rallying a cause is me trying to influence others to support my cause, whereas calling 911 is me directly using a tool (911 and that technically worded phrasing) to make the problem with that tailgate art known to the owner.

It's actually probably not a good use of 911 for other reasons.

And at its simplest, knowing who the jerk-holes in town are and boycotting those individuals specifically is more valuable than trying to stop the source of the material.

So in reality, I prefer that I choose whose practices I don't like and to avoid those people/businesses than trying to persuade other people to my viewpoint through a large public exercise.  Other people are free to observe the world and come to their own conclusions without me trying to lobby them to my cause.

Naturally, there's some hypocrisy there, in that pretty much all communication contains attempts at persuasion.

I'm less keen on the big scale persuasion attempts to try to shut somebody else down just because I object to it.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> The scenario I'm really asking, is if I only post on my site, and you only post on your site (or similar sites), is it possible for one of us to cross the line of breaching the other's free speech?
> 
> At some point, speech is about calling to action, so at some point your speech MIGHT include trying to shut me down or shut me up.




Trying to get you shut down is not infringement, IMO. Actually getting you shut down is more complicated, as I've tryed to type my response 4-5 times now and I don't feel I can convey my thoughts well enough via post.


----------



## Janx (Sep 12, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Trying to get you shut down is not infringement, IMO. Actually getting you shut down is more complicated, as I've tryed to type my response 4-5 times now and I don't feel I can convey my thoughts well enough via post.




That's OK.  This isn't one of those threads where I can win with some better logic or morality.

My gut says that the more force you exert against my fictional site and its terrible watermelon hating message that a line is crossed from expressing an opposing view to trying to eradicate my message.

If infringement isn't the right word as Freedom of Speech may not be used correctly, it is still pushing the boundary of wrongness.

A better example might be that guy in the news again who wants to burn some books that other people strenuously object to.

Is he hurting anybody?  Not in any physical or financial way (though he might be causing pollution).  The emotional harm is mostly because some people choose to put value on the books of a specific title.

Is it a good thing to burn the books? Not really.  He's deliberately trying to insult people.

Does he have a right to burn books he owns (barring the pollution issue)?  I think so, and apparently others begrudgingly agree.

Is it right to try to stop him?  I don't think so.

Any form of intimidation, coercion or persuasion to stop him is interfering with his free will and free action.

Does somebody have to right to be accidentally insulting (ex. PA's initial comic)?
Does somebody have the right to be deliberately insulting (ex PA's t-shirt, or this book burny guy)?
Do you have the right to try to stop a deliberate insult?

I think we get a collision when my will is in conflict with your will.

Why does your will get to override mine?
Are there conditions on when that is OK?


----------



## DMZ2112 (Sep 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> My view is, people sporting that tailgate art or the Team Dickwolf shirt have publicized their jerk status.  You don't need to rally against the product, the product has done you a service.  You now know exactly who not to hire, date or do business with.




The topic of con-goers cosplaying as Nazi soldiers came up a while back, and I had a similar thought.  It's not the dressing up as Nazis that ought to be outlawed; it ought to be against the rules for these morons to go about 99% of their lives WITHOUT some kind of identifying mark.

Seriously, as kids, how often were we told to put ourselves in the other person's shoes before doing something to them?  We could all do with a little more empathy, but failing that I'm officially endorsing forehead branding.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> If infringement isn't the right word as Freedom of Speech may not be used correctly, it is still pushing the boundary of wrongness.




Agreed.



Janx said:


> A better example might be that guy in the news again who wants to burn some books that other people strenuously object to.
> 
> Is he hurting anybody?  Not in any physical or financial way (though he might be causing pollution).  The emotional harm is mostly because some people choose to put value on the books of a specific title.




That's debatable. Certainly many people place a direct causal link between his actions and violence.



Janx said:


> Why does your will get to override mine?
> Are there conditions on when that is OK?




Yes. Child pornography is a good example. Snuff films another. Yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater. And if this man's actions can be linked directly to the safety risk of soldiers and civilians overseas there may be a case to treat his actions like any of these.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 12, 2013)

billd91 said:


> Fortunately, nobody said that. The question put to the PA guys was when had they felt their business manager, Robert, had made a mistake. That's not about a biggest regret by a long shot.




Point.  I overstated the case.  Apparently the mistake was paying attention to the free speech they claim to support but seemingly really don't like when it's pointed in their direction.  And yet they roll over like kittens when lawyers are pointed their way as in the case of Strawberry Shortcake.

As for Janx' point about rallying against the product, making the point in no uncertain terms that that is not acceptable anywhere is an integral part of genuinely free speech.  What is acceptable and what is seen as uncivilised behaviour changes over time - and objecting to what you see as uncivilised behaviour is necessary - because if people are cheering it (as they were) and not opposing it then it is allowed to become mainstream.


----------



## jimtillman (Sep 12, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Without going into the fine details of the non-grandma-friendly comic strip which started this whole thing, you might be aware of the Penny Arcade controversy that's been  everywhere this week.  Without going into too many details, it involves a  several-year-old comic strip with an inappropriate joke, and the way  criticism of that was handled; and how the issue was resurrected this  week at PAX Prime due to another comment about the whole affair.  Well, here's the apology/clarification.  I've seen a number of game publishers and attendees stating that they intend to boycott PAX until this issue is resolved.




I personally feel that the dickwolf strip is hysterical and  very true if you play it stright with mmo world ethics 

though the controversy could have been mitigated by a little more diplomacy in there reply's to people that , misunderstood the joke or got the joke but were still offended.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> My gut says that the more force you exert against my fictional site and its terrible watermelon hating message that a line is crossed from expressing an opposing view to trying to eradicate my message.




Who personally is your watermelon hating message hurting?  How does it lead to harm.



> A better example might be that guy in the news again who wants to burn some books that other people strenuously object to.
> 
> Is he hurting anybody?  Not in any physical or financial way (though he might be causing pollution).  The emotional harm is mostly because some people choose to put value on the books of a specific title.
> 
> ...




On the other hand it is right to say "That guy burns books for bad reasons.  I will not buy anything from him and I will not buy from anyone who advertises on his site."  That too is free speech.



> Any form of intimidation, coercion or persuasion to stop him is interfering with his free will and free action.




I await the information that legions of hackers tried to erase Penny Arcade from the internet.



> Does somebody have to right to be accidentally insulting (ex. PA's initial comic)?




This is not in dispute.



> Does somebody have the right to be deliberately insulting (ex PA's t-shirt, or this book burny guy)?




This is not in dispute.  The question is "If someone is deliberately insulting are people allowed to say so?  And are they allowed to treat that person differently because they are being deliberately insulting?"



> Do you have the right to try to stop a deliberate insult?




This is not relevant.  No one was trying to stop the deliberate insult because it had already happened.  They were trying to make the insult lead to consequences.  They were taking their right to be insulted and using it.  Returning speech with more speech.  Speech pointing out how the rape-monster T-shirts were vile.  How they upset people.  And how they would not have anything to do with people who thought that that sort of behaviour was acceptable.

Why do you think "I will not give money to people who associate themselves with rape monsters and by associating yourself with a rape monster you are going down in my estimation" either isn't speech or is speech that should be banned?

Freedom of speech means freedom of speech.  That includes the right to reply.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 12, 2013)

And while I'm at it, the clarification of what he now thinks about the whole fiasco is good - and I'll even agree that the original piece is one of their better strips and there was no malice in it at all.  Live interviews are a minefield.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 12, 2013)

These are both more tech than gaming, but I probably paid more attention to both of them this week than I usually would have because of thinking about this thread (they might just have gotten buried under all the other things on FB and google news respectively):

https://www.usenix.org/blog/my-daughters-high-school-programming-teacher
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-from-years-of-tech-conference-sexism/279459/


----------



## scourger (Sep 12, 2013)

Truck bed art man needs to be pulled over early and often by the police.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> Is it a good thing to burn the books? Not really.  He's deliberately trying to insult people.
> 
> Does he have a right to burn books he owns (barring the pollution issue)?  I think so, and apparently others begrudgingly agree.
> 
> Is it right to try to stop him?  I don't think so.




A large part of my job on EN World is stopping folks from (often deliberately) insulting other folks, at least within the sphere of this site.  Am I wrong to do so?

I expect you'll say, "No, because your actions are limited to one website, and the users agree to abide by rules."  Which is fine.  The functional bits are that a specific area/community and a social contract are involved.

Well, then we get into an argument of where to draw lines.  Certainly, there's an implicit social contract between you and members of your community concerning behavior and how you treat each other.  But we have an issue about the community.  This website is a community.  But so is your neighborhood, your town, your county, your state, and your nation.  At what point of scale does it shift from being acceptable to stop insults, to not acceptable?


----------



## Janx (Sep 13, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> That's debatable. Certainly many people place a direct causal link between his actions and violence.




OR, we could consider that the reaction is in violation of other people's rights as an abuse of the protest form of freedom of speech.

If I can burn any book on the planet EXCEPT one specific title and not get rioting and pillaging in the streets, then whose really the problem?

Furthermore, aren't the people organizing the protest responsible for the injuries, damage and littering that occurs when they decide to take umbrage at an insult?

So sending an insult is certainly a "wrong" thing to do.  But as they say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

The person reacting to those words is making a choice to decide that they were hurt and then to respond in a way that actually tends to cause more harm to other innocent parties.

Now saying something to hurt somebody is always wrong, and probably should not be fully protected as Free Speech.

but I don't think there's a right of incredibly huge reaction to counter that.

additionally, what bugs me about that kind of thing is that anybody can make any claim that something offends them.  If they are given special entitlements when alleged offence occurs, there is the potential for abuse.

Who regulates what is offensive?  If rape is offensive because it brings back painful memories, what about murder?  Robbery?  

Are we forbidden from making jokes about anything because somebody on the planet had that bad thing happen to them?

What about people who just make stuff up?  I'm offended by larger than 4 syllable words because it makes me look dumb that I don't know them.

Not doing provocative things is smart because there are spaztards out there who can't react reasonable.  That doesn't mean that others are specifically entitled to protection from those provacative actions.  Only that its a bad idea to antagonize things that will bite you.


----------



## Janx (Sep 13, 2013)

Umbran said:


> ...snip... At what point of scale does it shift from being acceptable to stop insults, to not acceptable?




And that might be a very short way to say what I was asking.  Plus, I agree with the stuff I snipped.  I just hang long quotes.

The old How to Speak Minnesotan video observed that Minnesotans don't generally talk about politics or religion (as opposed to Texas where you'll get asked what church you go to while in line at the BBQ restaurant).

This avoids a great deal of conversation controversy and shock that not everybody votes the same way or goes to the same church.

I liken EN World's policy to that same concept.

On EN World, we all have a social contract to try to avoid sensitive subjects because we know it'll probably agitate somebody.

Out in the real world, I think there's no such agreements, no such expectations, no such protections. As such., whether I stick to Minnesotan Best Practices or not, have no specific right to expect the treatment I may desire or prefer.  As such, I am best prepared if I constrain my reactions to anything I may encounter.  So I may treat you under my presumably decent protocols, but I do not expect it in kind.  You may try to kill me, insult me or be nice to me and I will react in a way that protects my interests and minimizes future trouble for myself.

So, in the real world, while it would be nice if everybody would be nice to each other, since that doesn't happen, I don't think that entitles anybody to act like a sissy when somebody insults them.  It's a tough world, and we Minnesotans are hardy folk (we also tease the stuffing out of each other to harden our young.  We don't tolerate sensitive wimps).


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 13, 2013)

Janx said:


> If I can burn any book on the planet EXCEPT one specific title and not get rioting and pillaging in the streets, then whose really the problem?




You and I know the answer, but we're now delving into people actually dying, not hurt feelings on he internet.



Janx said:


> Who regulates what is offensive?  If rape is offensive because it brings back painful memories, what about murder?  Robbery?
> 
> Are we forbidden from making jokes about anything because somebody on the planet had that bad thing happen to them?




To be clear, I have no problem with the original joke. I don't think anyone has the right to regulate what is offensive. But the book burnings lead to real attacks. Not just rioting, but basically modern warfare. People often won't recognize it as such because the responsible groups aren't formal armies, but they are enemy combatants nonetheless.


----------



## Janx (Sep 13, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You and I know the answer, but we're now delving into people actually dying, not hurt feelings on he internet.
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, I have no problem with the original joke. I don't think anyone has the right to regulate what is offensive. But the book burnings lead to real attacks. Not just rioting, but basically modern warfare. People often won't recognize it as such because the responsible groups aren't formal armies, but they are enemy combatants nonetheless.




And for that, I don't recommend burning such books.  Not out of ethics or morals, but out of tactical sense that some people react dangerously.  Just as I wouldn't chum the waters before taking a swim in the ocean.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 13, 2013)

Janx said:


> A
> Out in the real world, I think there's no such agreements, no such expectations, no such protections.




Oh, sure there are.  There's a ton of different behaviors you dang well know are unacceptable, so you don't do them.

Go take a look at the Rules of EN World.  Note how they aren't all that specific.  Open to interpretation.  The rules in the rest of the world are similar.  You just disagree with some on what the interpretations are.  The only difference between here and there is that Morrus has chosen some individuals to be that arbiters of interpretation.  The rest of the world has those for only a set of behaviors (crimes).  The rest are not so clearly policed.  



> I don't think that entitles anybody to act like a sissy when somebody insults them.




And now, unfortunately, I have to be more official...

Ah, yeah!  Big man, calling people names!  That really makes your point *soooooo* much more valid.  That you say that right after I remind you that my job includes stopping insults... well, it doesn't make you look too bright.  Might make folks question how valid the rest of the reasoning is.



> We don't tolerate sensitive wimps.




And we (meaning EN World Moderators) don't tolerate name-calling.  It is, in this context, a form of bullying - those who stand against you are now branded, "sissy" and "sensitive wimp", safely dismissed.  However, you can't intimidate me with that crap.  Cut it out.  Raise your rhetorical game.

Or, you know, don't.  At the moment, you're doing less to prove that you're right, and more to demonstrate that you can be a jerk.

Interestingly, given your setup, you can't complain about how rude I just was, can you?  That would make you a sissy, wouldn't it?

I do apologize to the collected folks for that little display.  It was to prove a point - we have social rules, for good reason.  It isn't all that hard to see when someone has violated them, and no, it isn't wrong to speak out when you do see it.  It doesn't make you a sissy.  It makes you someone who wants people to treat each other with a modicum of respect and thoughtfulness.  And standing up for that is not weakness.

With the right of free speech (which, of course, is actually the right not to have the government stomp on you for what you say) comes a responsibility to use that right wisely.  As with most rights, you fail in the associated responsibility, you risk losing the right.


----------



## Janx (Sep 13, 2013)

Umbran said:


> And now, unfortunately, I have to be more official...




And I stand corrected.  Since I also used some made up names previously, I'll refrain from that as well if I continue in this thread.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 13, 2013)

Janx said:


> And for that, I don't recommend burning such books.  Not out of ethics or morals, but out of tactical sense that some people react dangerously.  Just as I wouldn't chum the waters before taking a swim in the ocean.




Which is why I have no issues with authorities stopping him. Because what he's doing is chumming the waters _while_ *you* are taking a swim.


----------



## SkidAce (Sep 13, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Which is why I have no issues with authorities stopping him. Because what he's doing is chumming the waters _while_ *you* are taking a swim.




There's an important point in this analogy.....


----------



## Cadence (Sep 13, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> It took me way too long to get back to this, due to a combination of my home computer down and the difficulty of finding the time to post this on my work computer. Apologies for the delay on my end.




I hope your home computer situation starts cooperating! 

So, I think I understand how you're applying things and might be able to explain where I differ.



Alzrius said:


> They don't have to enable it; they just have to not disable it via the venue(s) they control.




I'm inclined to view deciding to carry something as an action that gives a (possibly minimal) sign of approval of the product (and likely a sign that they also think it will make them money).  I would also view the decision to carry the product as (at least minimally) enabling the product's success by giving its producers the opportunity to sell more of the product and to make it easier for them to do so.

I'm also inclined to add that "approving, encouraging, or actively enabling something you think is immoral" is a negative duty. 

Thus, it would be a negative duty for a store's owner who believe that sex-and-violence filled AO games are immoral to sell them.

On the other hand, I don't think that declining to sell something falls afoul of:



Alzrius said:


> "do not suppress someone else's freedom of creative expression."




unless the store in question has a monopoly on the distribution of that type of product, because I don't think that meets my definition of suppression (namely I don't think there is a right to have one's products sold at particular stores, and declining to sell a product is different than trying to stop others from selling it).


I'm also trying to think of a question to ask you about your views of what a blogger or web-site owner who posts about creative things needs to do in regards to anything creative they have submitted to them to avoid negative duty... but I'm having trouble doing so.


----------



## Alzrius (Sep 13, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I hope your home computer situation starts cooperating!




It'll start when the new computer I ordered arrives. 



> _So, I think I understand how you're applying things and might be able to explain where I differ._




For what it's worth, that's sort of the point of all this. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong (notwithstanding the insane individuals who do not), but comparatively few people seem to think through _why_ certain things are right or wrong, and _how_ they reach those determinations. I'm saying that in order to have a debate, it becomes necessary to examine those processes so as to better explain our thinking on the matter.



> _I'm inclined to view deciding to carry something as an action that gives a (possibly minimal) sign of approval of the product (and likely a sign that they also think it will make them money).  I would also view the decision to carry the product as (at least minimally) enabling the product's success by giving its producers the opportunity to sell more of the product and to make it easier for them to do so._




Bear in mind that if one were to have a negative duty regarding not suppressing another's creative expression, then the above could be in conflict with it. Since the point of a tiered structure is to have the higher duty win out in the event of a conflict, that would likely mean that even with the above caveat, one could still come to the conclusion that they should carry products they don't personally approve of.



> _I'm also inclined to add that "approving, encouraging, or actively enabling something you think is immoral" is a negative duty.
> 
> Thus, it would be a negative duty for a store's owner who believe that sex-and-violence filled AO games are immoral to sell them._




As a note, this would seem to run afoul of the general guideline I mentioned in regards to specificity of action (since actions are what we're judging the morality of). Citing "something you think is immoral" in a framework set up to make the state of morality be the _determination_, rather than part of the qualifiers being judged, is somewhat counterproductive.



> _On the other hand, I don't think that declining to sell something falls afoul of:
> 
> 
> unless the store in question has a monopoly on the distribution of that type of product, because I don't think that meets my definition of suppression (namely I don't think there is a right to have one's products sold at particular stores, and declining to sell a product is different than trying to stop others from selling it)._




I personally disagree with the requirement that something only be considered suppression if performed by a singular monopoly-holder, since that means that such actions, when performed in groups, are never considered to be suppressive (e.g. the case with Manhunt 2).



> _I'm also trying to think of a question to ask you about your views of what a blogger or web-site owner who posts about creative things needs to do in regards to anything creative they have submitted to them to avoid negative duty... but I'm having trouble doing so._




I can intuit the question you're thinking of (at least I think I can), and the answer I can come to is that I wouldn't consider that to be an act of suppression because your personal space doesn't really constitute a venue for distribution in the first place. If your neighbor from across the street wants to paint your car with commercial logos for his new business start-up, you saying no isn't an act of suppression because he's not looking to use any sort of public medium to do so; he's looking to use an extension of yourself - saying that you don't want to be used in that manner is not suppressing someone else.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Sep 13, 2013)

SkidAce said:


> There's an important point in this analogy.....




If it's "don't get in shark-infested waters" I agree personally. But others are braver and interact with the rest of the world despite the danger. They shouldn't suffer for the acts of a hateful coward that isn't content to extol the virtues of his beliefs, but instead believes he must tear down others. And in his ignorance lumps in even those who practice their beliefs peacefully.


----------



## Dannager (Sep 13, 2013)

I understand that a handful of people have decided to take a stand on this and "boycott" PAX, but given that they run three massive, annual conventions and that they all sell out within days (if not hours) of tickets going on sale, I think there's precious little chance that there will be any impact on PAX whatsoever (as an aside, part of me hopes that they actually follow through on their boycott because it means I stand a slightly better chance of actually being able to snag a ticket this next year). And the developers who have decided not to go are, as far as I can tell, indie groups with little overall impact on the games industry. Indeed, the pro-boycott reactions have run dangerously close to concern trolling (such as Christine Love's assertion that she doesn't feel "comfortable" at PAX, Leigh Alexander describing her outrage as "challenging to contain", or Elizabeth Sampat - in a post riddled with lies, mischaracterizations, and insane internet rage - attempting to shame everyone (EDIT: Link was broken due to profanity in URL; fixed now) planning on attending PAX at some point in the future). One way to examine this issue is to look at who is choosing to be outraged over it. It's not finding serious traction in the community at large, or even in reasonable people, but instead is largely kept perpetually aloft by a small flock of dedicated but minor internet personalities who have made gender issues their personal banner, and piggyback off the manufactured PA controversy to try and generate notoriety for their opinions.

The most ironic part is that a lot of these same internet personalities are advocating that people boycotting PAX instead attend cons dedicated to female gamers. Because voluntary segregation is how you advance feminism, right?

Long story short, Penny Arcade is absolutely massive and does hundreds of times more good than harm. A bunch of people upset over comedians being comedians isn't going to change that.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 13, 2013)

Dannager said:


> ...I think there's precious little chance that there will be any impact on PAX whatsoever.
> 
> ...And the developers who have decided not to go are, as far as I can tell, indie groups with little overall impact on the games industry.




On this point though, I think it is fair to say that the people who do end up boycotting PAX probably aren't doing it for other people... they're doing it for themselves.

I don't think any of them are naive enough to think "If I boycott, then others will boycott, then PAX will get shut down, and we win!"  Rather... they just have made a personal moral decision for themselves that they just don't want to be associated with the Penny Arcade group.  And because it's a personal choice, they don't give a rat's ass if anyone else agrees with them or doesn't.  Because their choice isn't for other people, it's for themselves.  Which I think is a pretty ballsy thing to do... stand up for your personal ethics, even if doing so causes yourself a bit of difficulty (which for some indie game companies, not getting the exposure at PAX certainly does), or on a macro level doesn't "do anything" per se (which is true inasmuch as that the con isn't shutting down and people aren't stopping to go just because they've chosen not to attend.)

You've made a personal choice for yourself so you can look at yourself in the mirror in the morning-- and it matters not whether anyone else thinks you are wrong or right for doing it.


----------



## Dannager (Sep 13, 2013)

DEFCON 1 said:


> On this point though, I think it is fair to say that the people who do end up boycotting PAX probably aren't doing it for other people... they're doing it for themselves.




I don't think it's fair to say that. In fact, I have literally seen many of them talking about how they need to "send a message" to Penny Arcade that they can't be allowed to do what they did. If they're doing it for themselves, _why are they making and publicizing blog posts about it?_

More importantly, _why are they shaming others into doing the same?_



> I don't think any of them are naive enough to think "If I boycott, then others will boycott, then PAX will get shut down, and we win!"




Perhaps not, but I think some of them truly believe that a large enough boycott (I've seen suggestions of protests in front of the convention hall) would generate attention for their cause.



> Rather... they just have made a personal moral decision for themselves that they just don't want to be associated with the Penny Arcade group.  And because it's a personal choice, they don't give a rat's ass if anyone else agrees with them or doesn't.




It is patently obvious from many of the people in question that they *do* give a rat's ass - one of them literally titled her blog post "Quit F*cking Going To PAX Already, What Is Wrong With You".



> Because their choice isn't for other people, it's for themselves.  Which I think is a pretty ballsy thing to do... stand up for your personal ethics, even if doing so causes yourself a bit of difficulty (which for some indie game companies, not getting the exposure at PAX certainly does), or on a macro level doesn't "do anything" per se (which is true inasmuch as that the con isn't shutting down and people aren't stopping to go just because they've chosen not to attend.)




I don't think they're standing up for personal ethics. I think that anyone who paused to give the issue a few moments' calm, serious thought would come to a conclusion very different than theirs. I think that they see a way to generate attention, and they leapt on that bandwagon as fast as they could. And it's served them well, so that same group of people latches onto any new development on the issue and continues to inflate it.



> You've made a personal choice for yourself so you can look at yourself in the mirror in the morning-- and it matters not whether anyone else thinks you are wrong or right for doing it.




Their priorities are _*incredibly*_ messed up if supporting Penny Arcade would cause them to be unable to look at themselves in the mirror. I would like to believe that these are not people who are so out-of-touch with reality, but rather are simply people with a cause that makes them feel superior to others who aren't as fanatical as they are, and are trying to drum up attention for it. And I think that the way they've chosen to argue their case is pretty damning evidence to that effect.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 13, 2013)

Dannager said:


> One way to examine this issue is to look at who is choosing to be outraged over it. It's not finding serious traction in the community at large, or even in reasonable people, but instead is largely kept perpetually aloft by a small flock of dedicated but minor internet personalities who have made gender issues their personal banner, and piggyback off the manufactured PA controversy to try and generate notoriety for their opinions.




_Argumentum ad populum_ (appeal to widespread belief - as if being popular makes it correct).  Appeal to motive (dismissing a premise by calling into question the motives of the proposer).  A bit of _ad hominem_ with the "reasonable people" remark.

Not doing well in the rhetoric quality there, Dannager.

How about this?  Read the comic.  Read for yourself their apologies.  Decide for yourself whether they were being jerks.  Kinda simple.


----------



## Dannager (Sep 13, 2013)

Umbran said:


> _Argumentum ad populum_ (appeal to widespread belief - as if being popular makes it correct). Appeal to motive (dismissing a premise by calling into question the motives of the proposer).  A bit of _ad hominem_ with the "reasonable people" remark.
> 
> Not doing well in the rhetoric quality there, Dannager.




And if that were the totality of my argument, you'd have a point, Umbran. (But you had to skip two thirds of my post to get there.)



> How about this?  Read the comic.  Read for yourself their apologies.  Decide for yourself whether they were being jerks.  Kinda simple.




It would be, if people (like some of the bloggers highlighted above) were not doing everything in their power to mislead their readers into forming conclusions in line with their agenda.

For instance, from Elizabeth Sampat's blog, "Mike and Jerry posted a rape joke. They were respectfully called out on it." That's not what happened. Mike and Jerry posted a joke that referenced rape, but which did not make rape or the rape victim the punchline. They were _*not*_ respectfully called out on it. Mike had his _family_ threatened. She then goes on to state that, "Mike lost his sh*t," as though that was an unreasonable reaction to being respectfully chided for a rape joke, rather than a totally reasonable reaction to having his _family _threatened over a joke which referenced rape.

And that's only 10% or so of the way into her post. The rest is equally horrid.

These are not reasonable people who are interested in a well-reasoned examination of the subject matter, or interested in an open dialogue over what is or isn't acceptable in comedy. These are people who found a target, and have spent three years concertedly trying to take him down.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 13, 2013)

Dannager said:


> And if that were the totality of my argument, you'd have a point, Umbran. (But you had to skip two thirds of my post to get there.)




I still have a point - those bits were weak, and their presence brings the rest of your reasoning into question.



> It would be, if people (like some of the bloggers highlighted above) were not doing everything in their power to mislead their readers into forming conclusions in line with their agenda.




You cannot allow readers to make their own choice, because THEY are trying to influence the readers.  So you have to try to influence them back.  So far, you're on the same playing field, then.  Neither really trusts folks to do what's right.

You say THEY are unreasonable, and bad, but you yourself include those emotionally charged, logical fallacies (which are, by definition, not reasonable) to bolster YOUR argument?  Really?  Pot, kettle, and all that.  Basically, if you see someone acting like a poo-flinging monkey, you don't look like a more advanced hominid when you pick up poo yourself.  That stuff smears on everything you say.



> These are not reasonable people who are interested in a well-reasoned examination of the subject matter, or interested in an open dialogue over what is or isn't acceptable in comedy. These are people who found a target, and have spent three years concertedly trying to take him down.




And if he stopped saying jerkish things each step of the way, they would have failed.  While I'm not part of a lynch mob here, the PA people have repeatedly shown themselves to be rather less than thoughtful on the matter.


----------



## Dannager (Sep 14, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I still have a point - those bits were weak, and their presence brings the rest of your reasoning into question.




Now, see, _that's_ a fallacy. ("One part of his post was an ad hominem argument, therefore the validity of all of his arguments is in doubt.")



> You cannot allow readers to make their own choice, because THEY are trying to influence the readers.  So you have to try to influence them back.  So far, you're on the same playing field, then.  Neither really trusts folks to do what's right.




I don't think you understand what I'm doing. I'm not trying to convince anyone that Mike or Jerry or Khoo or whomever is "right" (that's a fool's errand, and not even particularly interesting), I'm highlighting the fact that this issue is kept afloat and magnified by a group of people who are, at the heart of it, disingenuously manipulating their audience in order to provoke an incensed reaction.



> You say THEY are unreasonable, and bad, but you yourself include those emotionally charged, logical fallacies (which are, by definition, not reasonable) to bolster YOUR argument?




I'm not attacking them for their formally fallacious argumentation. I'm pointing out that they are deliberately mischaracterizing or misrepresenting what happened (or outright lying, in some cases) in order to provoke a reaction from an audience predisposed to be vulnerable to that sort of manipulation.



> Really?  Pot, kettle, and all that.  Basically, if you see someone acting like a poo-flinging monkey, you don't look like a more advanced hominid when you pick up poo yourself.  That stuff smears on everything you say.




I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this. You're hunting for something that doesn't exist and trying to paint me as guilty of the same things I'm criticizing others for, without bothering to stop and understand exactly what it is I'm criticizing. Come on, Umbran.



> And if he stopped saying jerkish things each step of the way, they would have failed.




Out of curiosity, Umbran, do you believe that it was "jerkish" of him to explain that he thought pulling the shirts was a mistake? If so, why? Do you understand why he said what he said? Or have you come to your own conclusion because it fits your mental conception of the guy, ignoring his own explanation?



> While I'm not part of a lynch mob here, the PA people have repeatedly shown themselves to be rather less than thoughtful on the matter.




On the contrary, I have seen no less than three _lengthy_ posts of theirs on the matter (and I may even be forgetting one or two), all three of which struck me as particularly thoughtful. In fact, I'd wager they've given this a metric _ton_ of thought over the past few years. It's almost ridiculous to think otherwise, given how embroiled and embattled they have been in this.


----------



## Janx (Sep 14, 2013)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> If it's "don't get in shark-infested waters" I agree personally. But others are braver and interact with the rest of the world despite the danger. They shouldn't suffer for the acts of a hateful coward that isn't content to extol the virtues of his beliefs, but instead believes he must tear down others. And in his ignorance lumps in even those who practice their beliefs peacefully.




Just a note, as I am not a mod but recently got called out for this.  I suspect that "hateful coward" and "in his ignorance" might also be construed as insulting descriptors.

Though we may or may not disagree on it being an infraction or bad thing, mayhap for the rest of the conversation we should doubly endeavor to avoid such terms.  We can both consider it a writing challenge.


----------



## Janx (Sep 14, 2013)

Dannager said:


> I don't think you understand what I'm doing. I'm not trying to convince anyone that Mike or Jerry or Khoo or whomever is "right" (that's a fool's errand, and not even particularly interesting), I'm highlighting the fact that this issue is kept afloat and magnified by a group of people who are, at the heart of it, disingenuously manipulating their audience in order to provoke an incensed reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attacking them for their formally fallacious argumentation. I'm pointing out that they are deliberately mischaracterizing or misrepresenting what happened (or outright lying, in some cases) in order to provoke a reaction from an audience predisposed to be vulnerable to that sort of manipulation.




Like you, I assumed that general consensus was that the PA guys didn't do the best response.  Had they hired a proper PR person to handle any such stuff, they might have avoided fault in the matter.

It's the extremism of some of the reactions and the inaccurate rhetoric by those specific opponents that I think strike some of us (such as yourself) as bad.

Umbran may be right that popular appeal or "how a reasonable person would see things" isn't a valid test, but I do feel that it is a gut check for smelling that something fishy is going on.

Therefore, using logic, how does one measure if the responsive reaction is appropriate or not?

It's probably good to find logical rules that support the foregone conclusion that our gut says (ex. we don't like their behavior)

But I think there's some clues:
did they tell the truth or speak accurately?
Did their reaction cause harm beyond stopping the bad thing they objected to?


----------



## D'karr (Sep 14, 2013)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Which I think is a pretty ballsy thing to do... stand up for your personal ethics, even if doing so causes yourself a bit of difficulty




Interestingly enough the same could be said of Mike's responses to this whole thing.  Was he insensitive? Sure.  But he stuck to his guns in the middle of a crapstorm.  Whether right or wrong, he is now paying the consequences of his actions.


----------



## Dannager (Sep 14, 2013)

Janx said:


> But I think there's some clues:
> did they tell the truth or speak accurately?
> Did their reaction cause harm beyond stopping the bad thing they objected to?




Exactly. And, like I pointed out, I think the answers to those questions are, "No," and, "Unlikely, but they wish it had," respectively.


----------



## Dannager (Sep 14, 2013)

D'karr said:


> Interestingly enough the same could be said of Mike's responses to this whole thing.  Was he insensitive? Sure.  But he stuck to his guns in the middle of a crapstorm.  Whether right or wrong, he is now paying the consequences of his actions.




And because it's important to say, his guns weren't "I support rape," but rather, "I'm a comic artist, and your personal trauma or trigger doesn't mean that I need to restrict my own comedy, or that I need to apologize every time I draw something someone might find less sensitive than required."

As he's pointed out a number of times, it's _*ridiculous*_ that this is what got people riled up, after years of jokes about murder, dismemberment, grievous bodily harm, penises, vaginas, and all other manner of crude or potentially offensive humor. The people choosing to be offended by this aren't offended because he drew insensitive comedy. They're being offended because _he drew insensitive comedy about a personal pet cause of theirs_.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 14, 2013)

Dannager said:


> The people choosing to be offended by this aren't offended because he drew insensitive comedy. They're being offended because _he drew insensitive comedy about a personal pet cause of theirs_.




I was under the impression that a lot of the people offended by PA's conduct understood the original strip and had no problem with it.  A few posts from those upset with PA even start by explaining that.  Instead they claim to be upset with how PA responded to those who were offended by the original strip by mocking all those who are concerned about a "rape culture" (perhaps one where around 1 in 6 women are subject to attack and many are afraid to report it?), mocking those worried about trigger warnings, and making a shirt using the personification of rape as a standard to fight for free (consequence-less?) speech. 

So, it seems odd to see discussions on how people treated PA unfairly about this that focus only on the original strip and ignore the later actions.



Dannager said:


> And because it's important to say, his guns weren't "I support rape," but rather, "I'm a comic artist, and your personal trauma or trigger doesn't mean that I need to restrict my own comedy, or that I need to apologize every time I draw something someone might find less sensitive than required."




Were his guns a bit closer to:  "Anyone who's offended by my comedy deserves to be mocked, and if that catches a bunch of previously unoffended people in the cross-fire then they should just suck it up too"?

Following some of the arguments by other posters above, it seems reasonable to me that he just responded to those who over-reacted and accused him of falsely being insensitive and worse by over-reacting and actually being insensitive himself.

If fighting against over-reaction on-line is someone's pet cause... should at least some of their outrage land on PA too?


----------



## Dannager (Sep 14, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I was under the impression that a lot of the people offended by PA's  conduct understood the original strip and had no problem with it.  A few  posts from those upset with PA even start by explaining that.  Instead  they claim to be upset with how PA responded to those who were offended  by the original strip by mocking all those who are concerned about a  "rape culture" (perhaps one where around 1 in 6 women are subject to  attack and many are afraid to report it?), mocking those worried about trigger warnings, and making a shirt using  the personification of rape as a standard to fight for free  (consequence-less?) speech.





I think they were well within their rights to respond as they did, given how they were being treated. It's telling that the only way people can build support for the idea that their reaction was uncalled for is by falsely characterizing the initial reaction to the comic as "reasonable", instead of the torrent of threatening or harassing tweets and emails that it was.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 14, 2013)

Cadence said:


> a standard to fight for free (consequence-less?) speech.




See that's the problem.  Free speech is not "consequence-less", and should not be assumed to be so.

PA routinely makes fun of a lot of things that people might find offensive.  In this case PA's reaction to people that were, for good or ill, offended caused a bigger crapstorm.  All of their actions have in one way or another led here.  So their "free-speech" was obviously not consequence-less.

I have every "right" to say insensitive stuff.  If I do so, there are some people that will be offended.  It is obvious to see that it comes with the territory of saying insensitive stuff.  I should know that I have to live with the consequences of those words, because "free-speech" always has consequences.  There is a reason why in our country it is a right that is protected from intrusion/squelching by the government.  Because there are times when "free-speech" will be insensitive or not agreeable to "the government".  So our base "laws" prevent the government from creating laws that will prevent me from speaking out against them.

That still does not mean that my "words don't have consequence".  They always do.  It is up to me to decide if I can live with the consequences of those actions/words.


----------



## Tanstaafl_au (Sep 15, 2013)

Dannager said:


> And because it's important to say, his guns weren't "I support rape," but rather, "I'm a comic artist, and your personal trauma or trigger doesn't mean that I need to restrict my own comedy, or that I need to apologize every time I draw something someone might find less sensitive than required."
> 
> As he's pointed out a number of times, it's _*ridiculous*_ that this is what got people riled up, after years of jokes about murder, dismemberment, grievous bodily harm, penises, vaginas, and all other manner of crude or potentially offensive humor. The people choosing to be offended by this aren't offended because he drew insensitive comedy. They're being offended because _he drew insensitive comedy about a personal pet cause of theirs_.





It is not *ridiculous* to be offended by this comic:





It falls far away from your description of 'PA's guns'. That isn't an insensitive bit of comedy, that's a shallow, insincere, condescending apology that belittles the people it claims to be apologizing to.
It also makes them (PA) look like smug gits.

The initial joke I don't think was worth boycotting them for, but I can see why people would after their response to criticism of it.

Edit: A time line for those interested: http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/3041940865/the-pratfall-of-penny-arcade-a-timeline


----------



## Dannager (Sep 15, 2013)

Tanstaafl_au said:


> It is not *ridiculous* to be offended by this comic:




Yes, it is.



> It falls far away from your description of 'PA's guns'. That isn't an insensitive bit of comedy, that's a shallow, insincere, condescending apology that belittles the people it claims to be apologizing to.




The people they are responding to are the people who accused them of being rape apologists, or of promoting rape culture. Those people deserve to be belittled. If you aren't one of the people who was conflating the PA guys with rapists, you weren't who they were satirizing.

Did you think that comic was supposed to be an apology? It wasn't. It was them highlighting how obscenely ridiculous it is of people to draw a link between making a comical reference to rape in a comic strip and supporting rapists. It "claims" to be an apology in the same way I might "claim" to be the Queen of England.

Yes, it was condescending and insincere. *That was the point.* If you're going to make an idiot out of yourself on the internet by accusing two guys who run a multimillion dollar children's charity of being _rape apologists_ because they referenced rape in a joke, you're probably going to be the target of some well-deserved condescension.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 15, 2013)

Dannager said:


> ... or of promoting rape culture. Those people deserve to be belittled...




Thank goodness there are plenty of people willing to jump into the breach and defend edgy millionaire cartoonists from oversensitive rape victims.   We're certainly more in danger of losing edgy humor than we are of having a rape culture.

http://oscar.go.com/blogs/oscar-news/seth-macfarlane-to-host-85th-oscars
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130914-rape-asia-pacific-un-men-violence-women/

Bonus points for using running a children's charity as a defense argument for something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky#The_Second_Mile

I'm bad at drawing, but if I add a smiley face   ,  that makes this humor for anyone who chooses to be offended, right?


----------



## jimtillman (Sep 15, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Thank goodness there are plenty of people willing to jump into the breach and defend edgy millionaire cartoonists from oversensitive rape victims.   We're certainly more in danger of losing edgy humor than we are have having a rape culture.
> 
> http://oscar.go.com/blogs/oscar-news/seth-macfarlane-to-host-85th-oscars
> http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf
> ...




I am a survivor of rape, from 7 to 16 it was a horrible regular occurrence that was inflicted on me and I think that there is some merit int he concept of rape culture though I feel that it is often a term that is to vague to actually be useful but  in the case of this comic  I am not seeing an issue.
The joke was not about rape , they have not defended rape.
  I do however thank that they allowed there emotions to get the better of them with some of there responses,  , but I get why, , they received not only there share of ridiculous responses but also threats to themselves and there family and they got pissed off about it, which came off badly in some of there responses.

As for being offended by  humor?
  I think that I would be hard pressed to find a lot of humor that could not conceivably offend someone, that's the nature of a lot maybe most  humor.
It might be more useful to ask  what was the humor about, why was it funny or not funny in your opinion  and if you were offended what exactly you found offensive.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 15, 2013)

jimtillman said:


> The joke was not about rape , they have not defended rape.  I do however thank that they allowed there emotions to get the better of them with some of there responses,  , but I get why, , they received not only there share of ridiculous responses but also threats to themselves and there family and they got pissed off about it, which came off badly in some of there responses.




That sounds on target to me.

I wonder how radically it would change the internet if our pcs/phones could sense our anger/outrage levels when posting things and gave a ten minute pause before sending posts through when we were riled up.


----------



## jimtillman (Sep 15, 2013)

Cadence said:


> That sounds on target to me.
> 
> I wonder how radically it would change the internet if our pcs/phones could sense our anger/outrage levels when posting things and gave a ten minute pause before sending posts through when we were riled up.




I do think that the ability to respond immediately can  serve people poorly at times


----------



## Dannager (Sep 15, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Thank goodness there are plenty of people willing to jump into the breach and defend edgy millionaire cartoonists from oversensitive rape victims.




Rape is terrible. Absolutely horrific. Life-shatteringly, soul-crushingly debilitating to go through, and awful to even be _adjacent_ to.

But that isn't unique to rape. Rape isn't the only horrible thing humanity has to offer itself. Murder, dismemberment, bullying, bigotry, grievous bodily injury - all of these things are but a small sampling of things that traumatize people every day.

Are these things off limits, in humor? _Should they be off limits?_ Should comedians tread lightly for fear of offending someone with an edgy joke? Should we just shrug and say, "Oh, he deserved to be harassed for being so edgy," when their families are threatened because of a joke they made?

The answer to all of those questions should be an emphatic, "No." Humor is one of the ways that we cope with the awful. If we start to embrace the idea that comedians need to avoid potentially offensive topics, where do we draw the line? Rape? Murder? Injury? Bullying? Sexism? Pets being run over? Car accidents? Deaths in the family? Breakups?

By the way, _*"bonus points"*_ for using their status as popular comedians as a way of marginalizing anything they may have gone through.



> Bonus points for using running a children's charity as a defense argument for something.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky#The_Second_Mile




You're comparing a guy who used his children's charity as a tool to allow him to sexually molest young boys to a couple of guys who run a children's charity because _they want to see hospitalized children enjoying life a little better_. Why would you do this? The point was to remind you that these guys are really warm-hearted people, on a personal level, and that their _high crime_ was being perhaps too insensitive to the topic of rape. Now you're conflating them with _child molestation__?_ What the hell?


----------



## Janx (Sep 15, 2013)

jimtillman said:


> I am a survivor of rape, from 7 to 16 it was a horrible regular occurrence that was inflicted on me and I think that there is some merit int he concept of rape culture though I feel that it is often a term that is to vague to actually be useful but  in the case of this comic  I am not seeing an issue.
> The joke was not about rape , they have not defended rape.
> I do however thank that they allowed there emotions to get the better of them with some of there responses,  , but I get why, , they received not only there share of ridiculous responses but also threats to themselves and there family and they got pissed off about it, which came off badly in some of there responses.
> 
> ...




Thank you for sharing a personal trauma about your life and for having what I feel is a reasonable interpretation of the initial comic, despite having that terrible thing happen.

I know it's not an objective measure of reasonable interpretation, but the fact that some for whom the topic is sensitive, they can read the initial comic and not interpret it as PA supports rape is the problem.  How can a human read "rape is bad" and think I just wrote "rape is good"?

The whole problem started when people read the INITIAL comic and sent in irrational responses that caused PA to counter-respond in a cascadingly worse way.

The problem stems from people who can read something and find a completely different meaning and intent than the actual words say, and that the authors claim they had.

Since some people like tossing in the proper debate terms, how do we detect, define and measure that?

To me, they made an interpretive mistake and went on the attack with faulty information.  Presumably from there, threats were made against PA, etc.

From that situation is where PA would have been making their retaliatory stikes as posts and terrible T-shirt ideas.

I see a difference from people who respond poorly to threats and attacks from people who start trouble because they have the wrong information in their head about what really happened.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 15, 2013)

Dannager said:


> Are these things off limits, in humor? _Should they be off limits?_ Should comedians tread lightly for fear of offending someone with an edgy joke? Should we just shrug and say, "Oh, he deserved to be harassed for being so edgy," when their families are threatened because of a joke they made?
> 
> The answer to all of those questions should be an emphatic, "No." Humor is one of the ways that we cope with the awful. If we start to embrace the idea that comedians need to avoid potentially offensive topics, where do we draw the line? Rape? Murder? Injury? Bullying? Sexism? Pets being run over? Car accidents? Deaths in the family? Breakups?




All very easy to say when you're priviledged to be unlikely to be raped and unlikely to be threatened with rape by Internet critics (something I'll bet all of PA's female critics over this issue have probably experienced in their blog comments).

I too am so fortunate, but I try to respect their perspective enough that I can see how PA's response to the initial controversy was disrespectful and insulting (particularly the merchandise). Mentioning it again at the PAX interview was a totally bone headed move.


----------



## Dannager (Sep 16, 2013)

billd91 said:


> All very easy to say when you're priviledged to be unlikely to be raped




And if rape were the only topic that people objected to in comedy, you'd have a point. But it's not, so you don't. Everyone has things that are unpleasant for them. Some less so than rape, some more so. If you declare them all off limits, you've dealt a mortal wound to comedy.

So don't.



> and unlikely to be threatened with rape by Internet critics (something I'll bet all of PA's female critics over this issue have probably experienced in their blog comments).




What does that have to do with anything? None of the PA guys did that.



> I too am so fortunate, but I try to respect their perspective enough that I can see how PA's response to the initial controversy was disrespectful and insulting (particularly the merchandise). Mentioning it again at the PAX interview was a totally bone headed move.




It was disrespectful and insulting, to people who deserved that disrespect. I don't know if you read PA regularly, but they do not mince words. It wasn't aimed at anyone else. Anyone who decided to hop in on the offendee bandwagon wasn't being spoken to to begin with. Just people hunting for the next thing to be offended by.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 16, 2013)

Dannager said:


> Rape is terrible. Absolutely horrific. < snip> Humor is one of the ways that we cope with the awful. If we start to embrace the idea that comedians need to avoid potentially offensive topics, where do we draw the line? Rape? Murder? Injury? Bullying? Sexism? Pets being run over? Car accidents? Deaths in the family? Breakups?




I completely agree with everything you say in those first four paragraphs and posted things in that vein upthread. 

I was taking issue with it being "ridiculous to be offended" when a humorist does hit something that was horrible in one's life and that being a humorist gives carte-blanche to be publicly "condescending and insincere" to those who do take such offense.  

I intentionally made the post sarcastic (with a last line labeling it as a joke) because I thought it would both make the point I was intending and might also make any angry responses seem somewhat ironic.    




Dannager said:


> The point was to remind you that these guys are really warm-hearted people, on a personal level, and that their high crime was being perhaps too insensitive to the topic of rape. Now you're conflating them with...




I thought that line in my post was clearly aimed at discrediting the particular argument that charitable works implies someone is a good person and was clearly not aimed as an accusation at PA itself.  I would not have used such an example if I thought it would be taken that way and I was not attempting anything like a breach of Godwin's law.  I apologize for not making it more clear that I was solely commenting on the argument in question.   I wish I did as much for good charitable causes as the folks at PA.


Stepping away from anything having to do with PA, humor, comedians, or the internet -- I worry that giving any currency to the argument that "charitable works implies someone is a good person" is a bad thing because of the many cases in modern America where it has been effectively used as a multi-year shield by the truly vile to continue doing heinous things. On the other hand, taking that away from everyone (the only way to deny it to the evil?) seems unfair to all those who are good.   I wonder if the whole thing is related to some of the upthread discussions on judging the morality of individual actions based on them alone and not trying to divine intent, but I need to study philosophy more before wading in to that one.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 16, 2013)

Dannager said:


> What does that have to do with anything? None of the PA guys did that.




It seems like it's an indication that it wasn't just the "offendee bandwagon" that took PA's strips and posts the wrong way and that PA might not have been as on-target as they thought they were.    Similarly, having a group of supporters posting under @t eamrape (or the like) and having to tell some of your supporters to knock off harrassing people seems like a sign that things are getting unintentionally off message.   Those threatening PA were also reprehensible, but it doesn't seem like there's a single focal point on the "bandwagon" side who could reign things in (the "Dickwolves Survivor Guild" shirt doesn't seem like it was quite the rallying point as the "Dickwolves" one.)

Also, some defenses of PA seem to take the harassment and threats the PA folks received from some members of the other side as if they invalidate all of those who disagree with PA or validate PA posting anything they like about the matter.   The "offendee bandwagon" is no more monolithic than "PA + PA's defenders".   If getting or giving threats validates or invalidates an entire side, then aren't both in the same boat?


----------



## Dannager (Sep 16, 2013)

Cadence said:


> It seems like it's an indication that it wasn't just the "offendee bandwagon" that took PA's strips and posts the wrong way and that PA might not have been as on-target as they thought they were.    Similarly, having a group of supporters posting under @t eamrape (or the like) and having to tell some of your supporters to knock off harrassing people seems like a sign that things are getting unintentionally off message.   Those threatening PA were also reprehensible, but it doesn't seem like there's a single focal point on the "bandwagon" side who could reign things in (the "Dickwolves Survivor Guild" shirt doesn't seem like it was quite the rallying point as the "Dickwolves" one.)
> 
> Also, some defenses of PA seem to take the harassment and threats the PA folks received from some members of the other side as if they invalidate all of those who disagree with PA or validate PA posting anything they like about the matter.   The "offendee bandwagon" is no more monolithic than "PA + PA's defenders".   If getting or giving threats validates or invalidates an entire side, then aren't both in the same boat?




No one is talking about threats invalidating an entire "side". What I'm pointing out is that the fact that these threats existed make it _*much*_ more understandable to see Mike react in the way that he did - something that the blog personalities I highlighted earlier deliberately fail to mention.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 16, 2013)

Dannager said:


> What I'm pointing out is that the fact that these threats existed make it _*much*_ more understandable to see Mike react in the way that he did - something that the blog personalities I highlighted earlier deliberately fail to mention.




I can certainly understand how that would piss someone off and destroy any personal filtering.   And I'm not going to defend the way bloggers (and politicians) try to make their points!

As some on the pro-PA side have pointed out, a PR person seems like it could be be helpful for public figures when they're angered and insulted ... well, probably helpful for just about everyone at some time or another.



Dannager said:


> No one is talking about threats invalidating an entire "side".




Does



Dannager said:


> It was disrespectful and insulting, to people who deserved that disrespect. I don't know if you read PA regularly, but they do not mince words. It wasn't aimed at anyone else. Anyone who decided to hop in on the offendee bandwagon wasn't being spoken to to begin with. Just people hunting for the next thing to be offended by.




leave anyone among the offended undismissed?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 16, 2013)

Tanstaafl_au said:


> It falls far away from your description of 'PA's guns'. That isn't an insensitive bit of comedy, that's a shallow, insincere, condescending apology that belittles the people it claims to be apologizing to.
> It also makes them (PA) look like smug gits.



That comic says to me: "All those people who feel that there is some link between our comic and encouraging rape are idiots.  But in order to make you feel better, we'll point out that we don't like rape and if you feel we somehow have the power to make people rape or not rape someone else, we'll tell them not to.  That should make everything better."

Here's where I feel there is a major issue.  I've read enough of the blog entries to know that the argument goes something like this:

-Any mention of rape helps legitimize it, especially mentions of it in a casual context like a comic, ESPECIALLY if it is mentioned lightheartedly
-The more rape is legitimized, the more people will commit it

When people, quite legitimately respond with "Wait, that implies that I'm somehow encouraging or causing people to rape other people.  That wasn't my intention and I REALLY don't think ANYONE raped someone else because they read my comic" the response is almost always "We never said your comic caused anyone to go out and commit rape, that would be silly.  Of course your comic didn't make anyone rape anyone else.  However, it encourages Rape Culture, which means more rapes occur."  To which the only sane reply is "So if, by encouraging Rape Culture, I have caused more rapes you occur...then you ARE saying my comic caused rapes."

The argument tends to go around like that, in circles.

I haven't studied the phenomenon of Rape Culture.  I'm guessing there's no hard evidence on whether or not the idea of a Rape Culture encouraging rape is a real thing or not.  I suspect that those affected by rape believe it is, however.  The problem with this as a concept is that it can be applied to nearly every concept in existence.  It becomes a slippery slope because every mention of murder encourages a Murder Culture.  Every mention of shoplifting creates a Shoplifting Culture.

I think it's a mistake to trivialize bad things.  However, I think our entire culture is becoming hyper sensitive.  Racial, Gender, Cultural, Religious and all sorts of issues are being actively watched for by people who believe that their particular issue is the greatest threat to humanity.  Although these are all issue, we need to be careful as a society that while attempting to punish real incidents of discrimination and hate that we don't also aim our sights at simple misunderstandings and extremely minor incidents.  Being hyper sensitive will only hurt us in the long run in creating an "Us vs Them Culture".



Tanstaafl_au said:


> Edit: A time line for those interested: http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/3041940865/the-pratfall-of-penny-arcade-a-timeline



Just keep in mind that this particular timeline is extremely biased and created by someone who is an opponent of PA despite claims to the contrary.


----------



## Dannager (Sep 16, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I can certainly understand how that would piss someone off and destroy any personal filtering.   And I'm not going to defend the way bloggers (and politicians) try to make their points!
> 
> As some on the pro-PA side have pointed out, a PR person seems like it could be be helpful for public figures when they're angered and insulted ... well, probably helpful for just about everyone at some time or another.




A lot of the appeal of PA is the genuineness of the guys running it. There is no middle man, there is no one monitoring what they say (except for Khoo, and he doesn't appear to do much about it). They certainly have the resources to put a PR team together, but they choose not to because that would cost them a lot of the credibility as critical eyes on the industry that they've spent more than a decade building up.



> Does
> 
> 
> 
> leave anyone among the offended undismissed?




Now you're just crossing wires. There are people who were offended by the original comic and chose to lash out. Those people deserve to have their views dismissed, because it is not okay to respond that way. There is some merit to the idea that the PA guys were less sensitive than they ought to have been when rape victims started to chime in, but I firmly believe that the mocking reaction they had was warranted given how they were personally treated. At that point, a lot of people who were never the target of any mockery or derision to begin with started to _act_ like they were the target of mockery and derision.

So I'm not quite sure what your argument is. I don't think PA's reaction was anywhere near as insensitive as people make it out to be, and I think that what insensitivity _was_ displayed is easily chalked up to the result of deliberate provocation (which included, but was not limited to, threats to their families). There's really nothing noteworthy to get up in arms about, there. Someone was deliberately provoked to hell and back, and he responded with mockery of the people who provoked him.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 16, 2013)

@_*Dannager*_ :   I hadn't thought of the credibility angle of having a PR guy, good point. 

And thanks for the clarification.   I don't picture either of us changing our views on how insensitive we think some of their responses were, but threats received certainly explain lashing out.  Rereading their final apology again, it seems like it was all they could do to finally put the incident to rest (I'm probably too optimistic that if it had been a few days earlier that it would have). So I'll stop picking over the carcass and move on (unfortunately to things that include chores around the yard and house).


----------



## Janx (Sep 16, 2013)

I just read an interesting article.  Apparently science says rage spreads more readily through the internet than other emotions.

http://vator.tv/news/2013-09-16-does-the-internet-make-us-angry

Assuming it's true (or close enough to true), consider the PA incident.  Folks read a comic.  Some of them get mad, so they start responding with rage posts.  Which in turns spreads to other people.

So basically, once somebody goes off and starts sharing their version of what they're mad about, more people are likely to jump on the band wagon.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 17, 2013)

Janx said:


> Assuming it's true (or close enough to true), consider the PA incident.  Folks read a comic.  Some of them get mad, so they start responding with rage posts.  Which in turns spreads to other people.




I agree with your hypothesis.


----------



## jasper (Sep 18, 2013)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> I agree with your hypothesis.



I DON'T agree with statement.   
Ok. You right.


----------



## mythago (Sep 21, 2013)

What's baffling me about this controversy is the sheer level of doublethink generated by fanlove of PA. Rape jokes are OK because free speech, but if you say it's crummy to poke at rape victims, that's _not_ free speech and you should STFU. It's perfectly OK for Krahulik to behave badly because people are being mean to him and it hurts his feelings, but people who think PA behaved badly need to _stop being so gosh-darn sensitive_ and _grow a thicker skin_ and let's not talk about whether they are getting rape and death threats from PA fanbois. If Krahulik drags the Dickwolves thing up again and again - three years after the initial tempest - that's totes OK, but if anyone criticizes him, Great Chukulteh on a bicycle can't you people _let it drop already?!_ Bullying is bad, unless it's done by a massively powerful guy with an enormous web platform whose comic we adore?

Really?

Would so many people be passionately defending this dude if he were some no-name, anti-geek blogger making a webcomic dedicated to showing how games are stupid and the people who play them are losers? If the 'dickwolves' joke and the T-shirts were produced to make some kind of point about how gamers are all pro-rape knuckledraggers? I doubt it.

Also, seriously, when the people who produce _Cards Against Humanity fercryinoutloud_ think one is behaving badly, that is what we used to call "check yourself before you wreck yourself".


----------



## DMZ2112 (Sep 21, 2013)

mythago said:


> Also, seriously, when the people who produce _Cards Against Humanity fercryinoutloud_ think one is behaving badly, that is what we used to call "check yourself before you wreck yourself".




So what you're saying is that bullying is bad, unless it's done by a company that makes a game we enjoy playing?

Personally, I call that an unforgivable level of hypocrisy.


----------



## mythago (Sep 21, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> So what you're saying is that bullying is bad, unless it's done by a company that makes a game we enjoy playing?




Sorry, are we back to "criticism of PA = bullying"? Because I genuinely can't see any other reason you would get that out of my post.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Sep 21, 2013)

mythago said:


> Sorry, are we back to "criticism of PA = bullying"? Because I genuinely can't see any other reason you would get that out of my post.




What I'm saying is that it is possible (I suppose) that "if all of the progressive  people boycott PAX it will just become a carnival of rape culture and  there will be no cool game show to go to," but Cards Against Humanity will remain blatantly anti-Semitic no matter who plays it.

EDIT: I should have been clearer in my previous post.  /you/ (@mythago) are not being hypocritical (directly).  The Cards guy is.  He's developed a game that is specifically designed to create a space so unsafe that it makes /everyone/ uncomfortable, and then he puts a banner up on his booth and calls it social activism?  Ha!  Good times.


----------



## mythago (Sep 21, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> What I'm saying is that it is possible (I suppose) that "if all of the progressive  people boycott PAX it will just become a carnival of rape culture and  there will be no cool game show to go to," but Cards Against Humanity will remain blatantly anti-Semitic no matter who plays it.




Okay, I didn't think this was the "CAH: threat or menace" thread, but my point was not that CAH is an awesome game; only that it's a teensy bit difficult to shriek that everybody criticizing Krahliuk is a politically-correct oversensitive meaniepoo when the guys who wrote _Cards Against Humanity_ think he's behaving like a chump.* (And, if you read the article, it's not out of pure humanitarian concern for the feelings of others; it's for the impact Krahliuk's inability to behave like a grownup has on the industry in general, and CAH in particular.)

*And of course the criticism is also from people who like PA and who actually consider themselves current friends of the PA guys, like MC Frontalot.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Sep 21, 2013)

mythago said:


> Okay, I didn't think this was the "CAH: threat or menace" thread, but my point was not that CAH is an awesome game; only that it's a teensy bit difficult to shriek that everybody criticizing Krahliuk is a politically-correct oversensitive meaniepoo when the guys who wrote _Cards Against Humanity_ think he's behaving like a chump.




I would never suggest such (and of course, you didn't say I did); in my opinion it is never unreasonable to be offended by anything.  It's not even unreasonable to demand an apology when you are offended.  What is unreasonable is mobilizing your Twitter followers into an online vigilante army when you don't get your apology -- no matter which side of the issue you're on.  And from what I have read over the years, one side of this particular issue has been good about trying to talk the masses down, while the other has not.



> (And, if you read the article, it's not out of pure humanitarian concern for the feelings of others; it's for the impact Krahliuk's inability to behave like a grownup has on the industry in general, and CAH in particular.)




I noted this, and did read the whole article to make sure my post wasn't off-base.  The reference to PAX becoming a "carnival of rape culture" is undeniably his, but I will say that given his game design preferences it is difficult to tell whether he is being tongue-in-cheek or not.


----------



## mythago (Sep 21, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> What is unreasonable is mobilizing your Twitter followers into an online vigilante army when you don't get your apology




"Online vigilante army"? If by this you mean, exhorting others to make death threats or engage in actual harassment like trying to take down a website, I would hope we would agree that is unreasonable (and probably illegal) regardless of whether the motive is "I didn't get my apology" or "somebody made fun of my favorite game" or anything, really. If by "online vigilante army" you mean, exhorting others to join one in criticism or a voluntary boycott, then you're using 'vigilante army' to say that some speech is freer than others.



DMZ2112 said:


> And from what I have read over the years, one side of this particular issue has been good about trying to talk the masses down, while the other has not.




I am wondering what exactly you have read 'over the years' that people who are personal friends of Krahliuk and have supported PA seem to have overlooked. I'm also puzzled as to how Krahliuk's repeatedly bringing up and inflaming the 'dickwolves' controversy (first with the T-shirts, and then with the PAX comments _three years_ after the incident) constitute 'trying to talk the masses down'. Which, of course, carefully phrases the issue as one where there are two (2) sides, one of which is the Good Guys and the other the Unreasonable Masses + Evil Demagoges, and is begging the question more than a little.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Sep 21, 2013)

mythago said:


> "Online vigilante army"? If by this you mean, exhorting others to make death threats or engage in actual harassment like trying to take down a website, I would hope we would agree that is unreasonable (and probably illegal) regardless of whether the motive is "I didn't get my apology" or "somebody made fun of my favorite game" or anything, really. If by "online vigilante army" you mean, exhorting others to join one in criticism or a voluntary boycott, then you're using 'vigilante army' to say that some speech is freer than others.




I absolutely am suggesting that.  Without a doubt.  I think the legal boundaries of free speech are archaic and have yet to be updated for the digital age.  I absolutely agree that exhorting one's friends to boycott something that offends you is perfectly acceptable, but I also believe that leveraging resources to crush something that offends you is not.  The blogosphere blurs the line between "friends" and "resources" in ways that our legal system cannot cope with, which is why you get all the recent buzz about social media bullying.

As I said in my earlier post, everyone should walk a mile in the other guy's shoes before bringing down the sword of Damocles.  Snap judgements are always bad.



> I am wondering what exactly you have read 'over the years' that people who are personal friends of Krahliuk and have supported PA seem to have overlooked. I'm also puzzled as to how Krahliuk's repeatedly bringing up and inflaming the 'dickwolves' controversy (first with the T-shirts, and then with the PAX comments _three years_ after the incident) constitute 'trying to talk the masses down'.




You are conflating being offensive with being inflammatory.  PA didn't bring up the Dickwolves merch at the recent panel with the intention of inciting their followers to bash rape victims, nor did the mention do so, as near as I can tell.

The only thing I know of that Krahulik has done to be "inflammatory" was exhorting people to wear Dickwolves shirts to PAX.  That was, frankly, unconscionable, given the circumstances.  He has acknowledged as much.  Krahulik is often offensive, but I have not seen him generally issue calls to action in defense of his ignorance.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 21, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> I absolutely am suggesting that.  Without a doubt.  I think the legal boundaries of free speech are archaic and have yet to be updated for the digital age.  I absolutely agree that exhorting one's friends to boycott something that offends you is perfectly acceptable, but I also believe that leveraging resources to crush something that offends you is not.




??? What do you think a boycott is but an attempt to marshal resources to make the target feel the pain of some kind of deprivation?


----------



## DMZ2112 (Sep 21, 2013)

billd91 said:


> ??? What do you think a boycott is but an attempt to marshal resources to make the target feel the pain of some kind of deprivation?




Deprivation, fine.  Destruction, over the line.

And that's an opinion, mind you, not a fact.  Just so we're clear about the vehemence of disagreement here, e.g., not very.


----------



## Dannager (Sep 22, 2013)

mythago said:


> What's baffling me about this controversy is the sheer level of doublethink generated by fanlove of PA.




Oh god.



> Rape jokes are OK because free speech,




There weren't any "rape jokes". There was a joke that referenced rape, but the topic of the strip was not rape, and neither rape nor the rape victim was the punchline.



> but if you say it's crummy to poke at rape victims, that's _not_ free speech and you should STFU.




No. Full stop.

We're saying rape jokes (which this wasn't) - _*and jokes in general*_ - are okay because *they're jokes*. Humor is one of the ways we, as human beings, deal with difficult situations. Rape is not off-limits for comedy, just as murder, dismemberment, tragedy, war, or any number of potentially uncomfortable topics are not off-limits. Because if we made a habit of self-censoring our comedy every time someone decided to be offended by it and (rather than simply removing themselves from exposure to that bit of comedy) complain loudly on the internet, we'd rapidly have very, very little humor left.

(I mean, come on, have you ever_ seen_ a comedy roast? The stuff that gets said on there would be _incredibly_ offensive were it not for the context of comedy surrounding it. It's _*many times worse*_ than anything PA has ever done, and it's funny as hell and shouldn't have to take crap from people who think the ability to laugh at knock-knock jokes constitutes a well-developed sense of humor.)

This is not something that is _optional_ for you to understand. You need to wrap your head around this, before you discuss this any further.



> It's perfectly OK for Krahulik to behave badly because people are being mean to him and it hurts his feelings,




_*People threatened harm to his family*_.



> but people who think PA behaved badly need to _stop being so gosh-darn sensitive_ and _grow a thicker skin_




People who think that making a joke that references rape in their comedy webcomic strip constitutes "behaving badly" _*do*_ need to stop being so sensitive.



> and let's not talk about whether they are getting rape and death threats from PA fanbois.




What the hell do "PA fanbois" (I really cannot believe you are stooping to that kind of terminology) have to do with this? Mike lashed out because people threatened his family. The best you can come up with is that people lashed out _at Mike_ because "PA fanbois" threatened _them?_ That makes _sense_ to you?



> If Krahulik drags the Dickwolves thing up again and again - three years after the initial tempest - that's totes OK,




Yeah, it is, because _*he shouldn't feel the need to keep quiet about his own work*_.



> but if anyone criticizes him, Great Chukulteh on a bicycle can't you people _let it drop already?!_




He brought it up because he was _asked a question_ and he felt it was the correct response. The people who refuse to drop it refuse to drop it because _they are engaged in a concerted, drawn-out effort to tear Penny Arcade down for its perceived insensitivity._ I wish I were joking, but that is their explicit goal.



> Bullying is bad, unless it's done by a massively powerful guy with an enormous web platform whose comic we adore?




Are you _really_ going to be one of those people who sees a kid getting bullied finally lash out at the people harassing him, and then go and _blame the kid?_



> Would so many people be passionately defending this dude if he were some no-name, anti-geek blogger making a webcomic dedicated to showing how games are stupid and the people who play them are losers?




No, because that isn't something worth defending.



> If the 'dickwolves' joke and the T-shirts were produced to make some kind of point about how gamers are all pro-rape knuckledraggers? I doubt it.




Because that's not a point worth defending, either (though some of the bloggers in question definitely _*want*_ to make PAX out to look like a haven for pro-rape knuckledraggers because that suits their agenda).


----------



## mythago (Sep 22, 2013)

Dannager said:


> Oh god.




Yes, that was pretty much my own reaction when I read your post, which was a long screed in which you 1) attributed things to me I did not actually say, 2) ignored and distorted what I _did_ say, and 3) also ignored the fact that regardless of my own personal opinion, people who are or have been close to PA - not exactly the Shadowy Masters of the Hidden Agenda - are critical of how Krahulik has behaved.

If you were trying to have an actual discussion where you made meaningful points, you made a hash of it. If, instead, you were trying to reinforce the stereotype that Krahulik's defenders are simply of the mindset that PA is awesome and everyone else can STFU *micdrop*, well done.


----------



## Dannager (Sep 22, 2013)

mythago said:


> Yes, that was pretty much my own reaction when I read your post, which was a long screed in which you 1) attributed things to me I did not actually say,




Then show that.



> 2) ignored and distorted what I _did_ say,




Then show that.



> and 3) also ignored the fact that regardless of my own personal opinion, people who are or have been close to PA - not exactly the Shadowy Masters of the Hidden Agenda - are critical of how Krahulik has behaved.




Being critical once is not the same as repeatedly and persistently hounding them for every perceived slight against people they choose to be offended on behalf of, which is what I was talking about. Hell, _I've_ been critical of Mike's decisions on how to engage the people harassing him, but that doesn't mean I think he's a bad person for handling it the way he did.



> If you were trying to have an actual discussion where you made meaningful points, you made a hash of it.




Because you don't like how I broke down what you said, or what? You're not responding to anything here. You're just handwaving away my entire post. That's fine, but it doesn't contribute to the discussion.



> If, instead, you were trying to reinforce the stereotype that Krahulik's defenders are simply of the mindset that PA is awesome and everyone else can STFU *micdrop*, well done.




If that's the extent of your takeaway, then there really isn't anything that can be done for you. I went through the effort of breaking down and explaining what you were missing. I don't mind if you ignore it; it's there, and others will be able to judge for themselves what viewpoints have merit. But you're veering _incredibly_ close to personal attacks (starting out by insulting PA "fanbois", painting "Krahulik defenders" as a monolithic group with unseemly traits, and then trying to lump me into that group), so either produce reasonable counter arguments, or maybe skip this thread?


----------



## 3catcircus (Sep 22, 2013)

There is an easy solution to this - that everyone on _any_ side of this insipidness eat a bullet...

*Mod Edit:* Suggestions of violence, even in jest, are not appropriate.  ~Umbran


----------



## Dannager (Sep 22, 2013)

3catcircus said:


> There is an easy solution to this - that everyone on _any_ side of this insipidness eat a bullet...




What the everloving *what?*


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2013)

3catcircus said:


> There is an easy solution to this - that everyone on _any_ side of this insipidness eat a bullet...





Folks, let us not suggest violence, even in jest.


----------

