Triggering content in #875 [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 06:44 PM

Chapter 875 contains an obvious reference to a real world atrocity, pretty much used as a joke. It doesn't matter if it's intentional or not, people will draw parellels to it.

This was enough to leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I know people who have lost family members to the atrocity in question. How do you think they would feel if they read this chapter?

The purpose of this thread is not to discuss RL politics. Its purpose is to state my disapproval of that part of the latest chapter. Such things should not be used as a punchline for a joke.

RPGuru1331

2013-03-01, 06:49 PM

I can't claim to have such a personal connection, but it was outrageous. Why you'd think that's funny, I don't know.

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 06:50 PM

Yeah, it was not exactly the most tasteful joke. Especially not given how it doesn't fit with the general image the site and comic tries to project, after all talking about politics is strictly forbidden, even if it's the politics of the late middle ages.

Ellye

2013-03-01, 06:51 PM

I don't think that was intended as a joke at all. I believe it was there for the exact purpose that it looks like: it highlighted how cold Malack truly is.

hamishspence

2013-03-01, 06:52 PM

it's not intended to be a joke- it's intended to remind us of just how monstrous Malack is in his devotion to "calm, orderly and efficient" destruction.

Domino Quartz

2013-03-01, 06:53 PM

Yeah, I have to wonder why you guys thought it was supposed to be a joke.

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 06:55 PM

"Let's replace a less efficient engine of murder with a more efficient one!", in the context it was used here, is pretty much a joke. It's used to showcase Malack's evilness, but it's still a joke.

And even if it's not a joke, it's still very triggering. How would you feel if OotS had a reference to an event in which you lost someone you knew?

tensai_oni

2013-03-01, 06:56 PM

It's not a joke. But it's still incredibly offensive content to appear in a webcomic. I am personally disgusted.

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 06:57 PM

People doing asides in grand monologuing always comes off a bit silly. It was essentially the villain laying out his big villainous scheme, to go out on a tangent that really serves no purpose, which is usually a joke, even if it was clearly black humor. The smaller font, the fact that he took the time to declare the arena silly and the vagueness of saying "some sort of chamber" contribute to that impression.

EatAtEmrakuls

2013-03-01, 06:58 PM

Art should make an emotional impact.

This is art. The goal was to make sure you, as a reader, understand the scope of Malack's depravity.

I could get into a huge thing about how you can't ignore or avoid tragedies because that's how they get repeated, but it's not gonna end well for my account.

Morquard

2013-03-01, 07:00 PM

I honestly don't see the joke there.

It highlights that Malack is Evil. Capital E evil, not "Oh but he was so nice, I bet he's just misunderstood Lawful Neutral" like I bet some people still claim even today.
It shows that Malack thinks even Tarquin's evilness is not enough yet.

Also a punchline is generally at the end of a comic, not almost literally in the middle.

martianmister

2013-03-01, 07:02 PM

Funny, no one criticised Rich for pedophile priests (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html) joke...

Xelbiuj

2013-03-01, 07:03 PM

I don't take it as a joke at all. Even with the context of mocking Tarquin's arena.
It was meant to be shocking. It worked, get over it.

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 07:03 PM

Procyonpi

2013-03-01, 07:07 PM

Evil Characters do evil things. That's just storytelling. If anything, having someone who committed genocide as one of the Protagonists (V) is more questionable.

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 07:10 PM

Evil Characters do evil things. That's just storytelling. If anything, having someone who committed genocide as one of the Protagonists (V) is more questionable.

Said genocide doesn't reference actual crimes against humanity with actual victims who are actually still alive. There's a rather big difference right there. This is just going for the low-hanging fruit for instant shock value. Malack's evil would be no less clear without that reference.

Xzeno

2013-03-01, 07:11 PM

Well. I thought it was pretty funny.

I sympathize with the desire for political correctness though. I generally think offending people is pretty uncool and that people should endeavor to be politically correct in general. Since it's clear that this joke, or point, or whatever offended some people, I can see the objection.

I particularly find the argument of the tone of the comic and the previously established levels of political correctness might offend taste because it is a violation of an unspoken convention of the comic that might be a required standard for the continued readership of a subset of readers. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I stopped consuming some form of media because it violated the standards of political correctness.

Honestly I'm not sure it was meant as a reference to, well, that. I didn't get that from it until I read this thread. Then I reread the comic and laughed uproariously because I thought it was funny. But I feel like your disgust is more important than my amusement, because I can be amused without disgusting you (have been for 874 strips). Color me ambivalent.

Carry2

2013-03-01, 07:13 PM

With respect, Belkar has been casually going ha-ha-only-serious about disembowelling the helpless since his first appearance. I don't see how this is any different, given that CE has always, statistically, given LE a run for it's money in terms of body count. There are real serial killers, you know, and any number of casual stabbing fatalities.

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 07:13 PM

To anyone springing to the comic's defense: read this, and answer this question for yourself. And answer honestly.

How would you feel if OotS had a reference to an event in which you lost someone you knew?

It doesn't matter which argument you use: "it's not supposed to be a joke", "it's art", "it's supposed to be shocking", "it's to show how evil Malack is". None of this changes the fact that this is something that'll remind many people of very bad memories, and many others will find it offensive and distasteful. At the very least there should be a trigger warning.

Gnoman

2013-03-01, 07:14 PM

Funny, no one criticised Rich for pedophile priests (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html) joke...

Probably because, absent Word Of Giant, there is absolutely no suggestion of priests in that comic. It's simply a choir of dead Acceptable Targets.

Douglas

2013-03-01, 07:15 PM

The point of that speech was to drive home in an extremely thorough and hard to dismiss way that, however affable Malack might have appeared before, he really is monstrously Evil. Referencing a terrible real world atrocity is a good way to do that, and the only way I would interpret it as making light of said atrocity is if he somehow turns out later to not actually be that bad.

And even if it's not a joke, it's still very triggering. How would you feel if OotS had a reference to an event in which you lost someone you knew?
I don't actually know because I've been fortunate enough to not have any such events, but I imagine I would hate the character who did it and develop a strong desire to see him meet an appropriate end. If he never does meet an appropriate end, then I might get mad at the author.

Punching someone in the face makes an emotional impact, mostly anger and confusion, but I don't think anybody thinks that thugs are great artists for assaulting people in the street. It specifically went on a tangent related to one of the great atrocities of the 20th century, one that still has tens of thousands of living survivors and a far greater number of friends and relatives of those survivors, to try and create those emotions, while also maintaining a flippant tone as if not taking said atrocity seriously. In general, using the suffering of others to bolster your own, unrelated message is neither clever, polite nor tasteful, especially not when you completely ignore the actual victims.
It is not Rich Burlew who is treating the subject lightly, but Malack. It is the character who deserves hate over this, not the author. Unless you honestly believe that Malack represents Rich's own viewpoint.

Carry2

2013-03-01, 07:16 PM

To anyone springing to the comic's defense: read this, and answer this question for yourself. And answer honestly.
To which I honestly respond: Lots of people know folks who got murdered, but you had no problem with Death's 'lil helper harvesting goblin kidneys for XP.

Koo Rehtorb

2013-03-01, 07:17 PM

Should OotS steer clear of depicting any murders because some people have known people who were murdered?

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 07:17 PM

Was someone you knew killed by Belkar in real life? No? Then it's not the same thing. Thank you.

Now, if OotS had a reference to a specific recent murder spree, that wouldn't be okay by me either.

Koo Rehtorb

2013-03-01, 07:18 PM

Was someone you knew killed by Belkar in real life? No? Then it's not the same thing. Thank you.

Was someone you know sacrificed by a vampire lizardman to appease his death god in real life?

The Pilgrim

2013-03-01, 07:20 PM

Like many other readers, I don't think the reference was written as a joke.

I suppose the Giant was so annoyed that people could still argue that Malack wasn't evil and that Durkon was some sort of "racist" for rejecting parley with him, than he decided to put thigs extra clear.

Malack is a monster, and thus, thinks alike other monsters.

gerryq

2013-03-01, 07:20 PM

Somebody probably also knows someone who was killed by lightning. Or died in one of the many other ways that are referenced. If your relative died of alcohol-induced liver disease, for example, should you complain about dwarven afterlife rules?

The joke was not meaningless, although it falls under the category of joke. Some jokes are grim.

Also, "trigger warnings" are a meme that needs to die.

Xelbiuj

2013-03-01, 07:20 PM

Was someone you knew killed by Belkar in real life? No? Then it's not the same thing. Thank you.

So you get to arbitrarily use a literally oots character when someone might be offended by something you don't find offensive but we don't get to say, "Well was your ____ killed by Malack in the 30's?"

Mutant Sheep

2013-03-01, 07:21 PM

I did not see a direct reference, but a room for efficient killing of people isn't exactly an idea unique to one specific regime. Painting the Giant as denying or belittling some of the worst recorded acts of mankind because he wanted to tell a joke is not being fair to him or his work. Saying that him mentioned the idea of a room for mass murder is "for shock value" and that he is "using the suffering of others to bolster his own, unrelated message" is definitely not.

Kish

2013-03-01, 07:22 PM

How would you feel if OotS had a reference to an event in which you lost someone you knew?
Uh. What do you consider to be an "event"?

That is, if I know someone who died in a heart attack, does that mean I can say "It did" because of this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0329.html)? If I know someone who was murdered, can I say "It did"?

I get that you believe that's a legitimate and answerable question, and a trump card, but I fail to see how it's any of the above.

ti'esar

2013-03-01, 07:22 PM

Was someone you know sacrificed by a vampire lizardman to appease his death god in real life?

So you get to arbitrarily use a literally oots character when someone might be offended by something you don't find offensive but we don't get to say, "Well was your ____ killed by Malack in the 30's?"

I can sort of understand the distinction here, but yeah, double standard ahoy.

Tev

2013-03-01, 07:23 PM

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 07:23 PM

Also, "trigger warnings" are a meme that needs to die.

No. They serve a specific purpose - to warn people with traumatic memories that the content of the comic (or whatever) might bring those memories up. It doesn't matter if you personally don't care about it, it's extremely important for the people who do have such memories.

Howler Dagger

2013-03-01, 07:24 PM

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 07:25 PM

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 07:26 PM

From my perspective, it seems you are mad because Rich is portraying the historical event in question as EVIL.

Wow. Nice strawman.

Domino Quartz

2013-03-01, 07:26 PM

One of my grandfathers died of bowel cancer. Does that mean I should be offended by this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0007.html)?

stevem

2013-03-01, 07:27 PM

1. It highlights how evil Malack is and, by contrast, that Durkon is right to oppose him.

2. It is art.

3. It is comedy.

The comment works on many levels. And requiring a comedic artist to be politically correct misses the point or art and comedy completely.

Ellye

2013-03-01, 07:28 PM

The holocaust is a historical event, not a recent tragedy. Yes, there are living relatives of people that died in said tragedy, but no one is making light of that.

The comic isn't joking about the holocaust. Much to the contrary - it is being used to highlight an extreme level of evilness and coldness.

Straying too much into real-world discussion, but I don't think that the correct stance regarding ugly events of the past is to pretend that they didn't happen.

Edit: To be fair, I'll concede that the reference did jump out for me when I read this strip, because I honestly also never expected to see it played out so directly in OotS.

Chessgeek

2013-03-01, 07:31 PM

Was someone you know sacrificed by a vampire lizardman to appease his death god in real life?

If only this thread was more light-hearted, I would practically beg to sig that.

Oh uh yeah, the forum topic. Evil villain is evil. Rich is not suggesting that what Malack is suggesting is in any way okay. Nor is he belittling the incident by having one of his characters in a web comic consider something like it.

And if we want to discuss offensive occurrences, the Colosseum is also a reference to a horrible time period, the only difference is that it was millennia in the past, not decades.

Tev

2013-03-01, 07:32 PM

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 07:33 PM

Jarian

2013-03-01, 07:34 PM

I'm not going to touch this debate with a ten-foot pole. However, I think a few people could benefit from some sage advice, so I'm going to drop this here.

What you should recognize - what everyone arguing anything should recognize - is that there is a possibility that you are wrong. Rather than just try to muster arguments against that possibility, try to give it a fair consideration; even if it doesn't change your mind, it can help broaden your perspective, which will make it easier to avoid destructive conflicts [...] in the future.

Carry2

2013-03-01, 07:34 PM

Now, if OotS had a reference to a specific recent murder spree, that wouldn't be okay by me either.
I don't consider this a relevant distinction either. Whether murders occur on a random and sporadic basis or as a single concerted massacre, they can still be pretty traumatic for the relatives.

So, yeah, I maybe found Malack's remarks slightly off-colour, but I had worse reactions to, for example, Nale's extracurriculars in Cliffport. For better or worse, this is what the comic is. I don't think you should suddenly get special consideration because this one mention of a potential act of savage, inhuman atrocity within an imaginary world coincidentally overlapped the concerns of your personal emotional sphere.

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 07:34 PM

Straying too much into real-world discussion, but I don't think that the correct stance regarding ugly events of the past is to pretend that they didn't happen.

Which is why I never said that. There's a difference between "pretend it doesn't happen" and "don't reference it in your webcomic".

Koo Rehtorb

2013-03-01, 07:35 PM

No, but quite a few people died in "some sort of special chamber...to make the process more efficient." It's also rather more specific than simply getting stabbed with a knife, evoking a very specific crime against humanity conducted in a very specific way.

I think it's a stretch.

But even if it wasn't, then could you lay out specific criteria for when something isn't okay to reference?

Does there have to be a certain number of people affected by a tragedy for it to become taboo? How specific does it have to be? Is making a cancer reference unacceptable because of how many people die of cancer every year?

Quorothorn

2013-03-01, 07:36 PM

I, personally, feel that "trigger warnings" do have great merit, and perhaps in time they will spread, become an accepted norm as a more detailed "ratings system", and that will be helpful.

That said, they have NOT gained anything like widespread acceptance to this point, and so I feel blaming Burlew in particular for this is kind of missing the point. I have read many books that did worse than anything that has appeared in OOTS with absolutely no warning whatsoever. (In fact, one might note that video games, TV shows, and movies are the only things really "tagged" even in a general/vague sense. The closest published works based around the written word get is some "For Mature Readers" on stuff like very violent comics or, I'unno, the Book of Vile Darkness.)

I did not see a direct reference, but a room for efficient killing of people isn't exactly an idea unique to one specific regime. Painting the Giant as denying or belittling some of the worst recorded acts of mankind because he wanted to tell a joke is not being fair to him or his work. Saying that him mentioned the idea of a room for mass murder is "for shock value" and that he is "using the suffering of others to bolster his own, unrelated message" is definitely not.

Also? Yeah, this.

Toastkart

2013-03-01, 07:36 PM

No. They serve a specific purpose - to warn people with traumatic memories that the content of the comic (or whatever) might bring those memories up. It doesn't matter if you personally don't care about it, it's extremely important for the people who do have such memories.

This is a waste. All comics, all media everywhere would need such warnings. For everything that anyone could ever conceive of being offensive. Cue censorship. Everyone has traumatic memories of one sort or another, and no one's suffering is greater than anyone elses.

Whelk

2013-03-01, 07:37 PM

Was it a deliberate parallel? That it is similar to a real-world event doesn't mean it was put in with that specific event in mind. I didn't even make the connection until I accidentally read this thread instead of the "New comic is up" thread, and we have veterans in the family. If it was a specific reference to a specific event, and not simply the general concept, I imagine it was in an attempt to bring to light just how terrible the villain characters are by pointing to the parallel.

The event I'm assuming being referred to here in this thread isn't the only usage of "chambers" being used to kill people, and not the first, either. I can see how it could bring up painful memories, and I sympathize, but I don't think the author needs to be scolded and made out to be a horrible person for the content of this strip. We've had plots and stories that have involved all manner of horrible and terrible things committed against mankind (or humanoidkind, I guess, in this case), many of which could be similar to events that people have experienced or been close to in their personal lives, but because this is ultimately a fiction comic used to tell a fictional story in a fictional universe, they shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Xzeno

2013-03-01, 07:38 PM

The comment works on many levels. And requiring a comedic artist to be politically correct misses the point or art and comedy completely.

Political correctness to one degree or another is usually a baseline requirement to maintain a viewership. People just like to act like it's not political correctness, because they like to pretend political correctness is a dirty word. Political correctness isn't a bad thing; it's a basic standard of decency. Of course I don't question the author's freedom of speech. I'm just saying that a violation of the implicitly established standards of political correctness in the comic may be cause for complaint.

I don't know. I'm ambivalent. I find it kind of odd that I'm not willing to say that the people complaining are wrong, but I'm apparently the only one willing to say I thought it was hilarious. But really, if you can't sympathize with the views of the offended parties, you should really examine the situation more carefully. I feel like there is clearly a qualitative reason to be offended here and if you honestly don't get why that is, that's on you, not on the offended parties. There is room for debate as to what should or should not be in the comic of course, but I don't think that a disregard for the offended or a questioning of the right to be offended should be an exalted point of view.

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 07:38 PM

I think it's a stretch.

But even if it wasn't, then could you lay out specific criteria for when something isn't okay to reference?

Does there have to be a certain number of people affected by a tragedy for it to become taboo? How specific does it have to be? Is making a cancer reference unacceptable because of how many people die of cancer every year?

It's pretty simple, really. Are people who were personally affected or who has somebody close to them who was? Did you check if they were okay with it? And finally, and most importantly, how are you going to treat the topic? The more indifference to the victims you show, the less okay it is. And just using it as a quick shorthand to go "this guy is evil" is about the highest amount of indifference you can show, short of actually making fun of the victims or praising the perpetrators.

ti'esar

2013-03-01, 07:38 PM

CoffeeIncluded

2013-03-01, 07:39 PM

This is a waste. All comics, all media everywhere would need such warnings. For everything that anyone could ever conceive of being offensive. Cue censorship. Everyone has traumatic memories of one sort or another, and no one's suffering is greater than anyone elses.

So you think we should get rid of content ratings for movies? Trigger warnings are much the same thing, they're just a way of saying, "By the way, this piece of media has X, Y, and Z in it, just so you know what to expect."

As for the specific topic in question...It didn't sit right with me, but there's a lot in the comic that left me with a pit in my stomach (although this is probably the first time in a while I've had that "swift drop" feeling so quickly when reading this comic), and that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

Aljada

2013-03-01, 07:40 PM

As someone with an extremely close relationship with the genocide in question, I understand why some people may be offended. However, I am certain Rich did not mean this as a joke.
One of the primary reasons that the Holocaust was so terrifying was that the extermination were methodical, efficient and government-supported. Malack making this reference here serves to highlight that while he may be personable, he is still absolutely Evil, and that Chaotic Evil is no more dangerous or inhumane than Lawful Evil.

Warbull

2013-03-01, 07:40 PM

FujinAkari

2013-03-01, 07:41 PM

Ok, what the heck is this thread even about?

People seem to be claiming that Rich is making a joke about the holocaust... where?

I sure don't see it. I see that he considers the arena unnecessarily inefficient, but how does that point to the holocaust any more than Stalin's Russia, Ancient Rome during the decimations, or France during the height of the guillotine?

It really seems to me that people are deciding what Rich means and then getting mad at him because of their own assumptions.

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 07:41 PM

I am glad I live in a culture that still honors the concept of free speech. No topic should be off limits for jokes or even serious debate. Don't like it? Grow up.

Free speech doesn't mean what you think it means. Good night.

RPGuru1331

2013-03-01, 07:42 PM

I can sort of understand the distinction here, but yeah, double standard ahoy.
Malak is referring to a specific thing. It's really, really, really clear.

The comic isn't joking about the holocaust. Much to the contrary - it is being used to highlight an extreme level of evilness and coldness.
Is it for the sake of those affected by it? No? Then it's irrelevant.

And if we want to discuss offensive occurrences, the Colosseum is also a reference to a horrible time period, the only difference is that it was millennia in the past, not decades.
If you know any Roman subjects who lost friends in a colosseum, then that's a shame, and they have every right to be shocked and angry at those comics. (Also, the colloseums weren't only used for blood sport at all)

Zale

2013-03-01, 07:42 PM

He's evil. This is showing us how he is evil.

Why is this a problem again? We're fine with Belkar doing unspeakable things to people but not Malack outlining his plans for mass murder?

Warbull

2013-03-01, 07:43 PM

Procyonpi

2013-03-01, 07:45 PM

So you think we should get rid of content ratings for movies? Trigger warnings are much the same thing, they're just a way of saying, "By the way, this piece of media has X, Y, and Z in it, just so you know what to expect."

As for the specific topic in question...It didn't sit right with me, but there's a lot in the comic that left me with a pit in my stomach (although this is probably the first time in a while I've had that "swift drop" feeling so quickly when reading this comic), and that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

To be fair, movie content ratings (at least in the US) are more about appeasing puritanical parents than actual trauma. Mass killing can get a PG, while consensual sex and nudity usually lands a movie at least an R.

skim172

2013-03-01, 07:47 PM

Chapter 875 contains an obvious reference to a real world atrocity, pretty much used as a joke. It doesn't matter if it's intentional or not, people will draw parellels to it.

Honestly, I'm not sure this as obvious as you may think. It took me a few re-reads to realize what you were getting at.

I believe that you're understanding the usage of "chamber" as an allusion to the Holocaust? And as it is used in the context of a mass killing, I can see that argument now.

However, I'm not entirely convinced that this is an intentional allusion. "Chamber" is a fairly common word, especially in medieval-era fantasy lit. It is often used to designate a specialized room or compartment used for a specific, important, often official function - "judge's chambers", "royal chamber," etc. It is also often used to refer to an official institution or administrative system - "chambers of Parliament, chambers of Congress."

My point is, the word is common enough that it carries a lot of connotations besides "mass execution" that I'm not really confident it was really on Burlew's mind when he was writing this.

CoffeeIncluded

2013-03-01, 07:49 PM

To be fair, movie content ratings (at least in the US) are more about appeasing puritanical parents than actual trauma. Mass killing can get a PG, while consensual sex and nudity usually lands a movie at least an R.

Not quite to that extreme, though you do have a point. But let's be honest, a rating system of some kind is necessary, especially when it comes to media that is much less child friendly than it would seem to be at first glance.

Zmeoaice

2013-03-01, 07:49 PM

I thought it was kind of funny. Partly due to the shock value, and finally ending the "Is Malack Evil or Neutral" debate.

Anyhow, I don't think this topic will last long since people are actually talking about real life events.

Not quite to that extreme, though you do have a point. But let's be honest, a rating system of some kind is necessary, especially when it comes to media that is much less child friendly than it would seem to be at first glance.

Have you seen the Chronicles of Narnia movies?

Toastkart

2013-03-01, 07:49 PM

I don't consider this a relevant distinction either. Whether murders occur on a random and sporadic basis or as a single concerted massacre, they can still be pretty traumatic for the relatives.

So, yeah, I maybe found Malack's remarks slightly off-colour, but I had worse reactions to, for example, Nale's extracurriculars in Cliffport. For better or worse, this is what the comic is. I don't think you should suddenly get special consideration because this one mention of a potential act of savage, inhuman atrocity within an imaginary world coincidentally overlapped the concerns of your personal emotional sphere.

I agree completely. Well written post.

Amen.

Honestly, the whole idea of trigger warnings makes no real sense. Some things are certainly more likely to press people's emotional buttons than others, but it's absurd to try and draw an arbitrary line on which ones need to be warned against - and if you're not going to draw a line, then pretty much every work imaginable (except for some children's literature, I guess) needs a list of "triggers".

Seconded.

So you think we should get rid of content ratings for movies? Trigger warnings are much the same thing, they're just a way of saying, "By the way, this piece of media has X, Y, and Z in it, just so you know what to expect."

Answering fully would be against board rules. However, I will say that I don't think they are as necessary as they are made out to be.

jidasfire

2013-03-01, 07:51 PM

This thread's gonna get locked soon, but ugh. Seriously, guys? I was just thinking the other day about how glad I was that the social justice warrior bullies hadn't made their way to this forum, and here they are, demanding trigger warnings for things that kinda sorta tangentially relate to a historical event. Look, lots of unpleasant stuff happens or is referred to in the comic. Anyone who's reading strip number 875, and has seen things like the bouncy ball of insanity, should bloody well know that the bad guys get nasty sometimes and it's supposed to make you uncomfortable. It's not about the real world, and artists shouldn't have to spend every second apologizing for their art. Please take the inevitable demands to never be offended elsewhere.

Tragak

2013-03-01, 07:52 PM

Remember kids, it's OK to portray an antagonist as being a villain for not being a human (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticRacism), but not because they did anything violent or evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButNotTooEvil)

... Wait, no, that doesn't make sense. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12718550&postcount=120)

This is going to get locked soon, isn't it?

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 07:52 PM

ti'esar

2013-03-01, 07:53 PM

Malak is referring to a specific thing. It's really, really, really clear.

And that's a rebuttal... how, exactly?

No, seriously - I can understand why someone might draw a distinction between references to different types of real world atrocities in fiction. But a distinction between specific and general references? I really don't see how that's anything but a double standard, especially in the way it's being used in this thread.

Koo Rehtorb

2013-03-01, 07:53 PM

Did you check if they were okay with it?

This seems like it would present enormous logistical problems. Is a single person involved involved in a group of people saying it's not okay enough or does there need to be a consensus or at least a certain percentage?

And finally, and most importantly, how are you going to treat the topic? The more indifference to the victims you show, the less okay it is. And just using it as a quick shorthand to go "this guy is evil" is about the highest amount of indifference you can show, short of actually making fun of the victims or praising the perpetrators.

Well I'd be wary about interpreting ill intent, or the interpreting the other person's motivations behind something at all.

But the main problem I see is that just about every conceivable bad thing, at least in a general sense, is going to have happened to someone somewhere. If you go down the road of making it not all right to bring it up then that's going to rule an awful lot of things out.

Again I don't really think an organized mass murdering vampire lizardman making sacrifices to his god is particularly more specific than a spree killer murdering dozens of people.

hamishspence

2013-03-01, 07:54 PM

In Dungeon Crawling Fools, the commentary points out that the comic "will sometimes drift into PG13 territory" with strip 28 being the "first warning".

The Pilgrim

2013-03-01, 07:55 PM

This was enough to leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I know people who have lost family members to the atrocity in question. How do you think they would feel if they read this chapter?

You seem to be using double standards here. Let's see:

Was someone you knew killed by Belkar in real life? No? Then it's not the same thing. Thank you.

Now, if OotS had a reference to a specific recent murder spree, that wouldn't be okay by me either.

So, applying your own rules, then if you want to find someone who can feel offended by what Malack suggested to build in the last comic, you'd have to find someone who is at least 600 years old and related to the Aztecs. Because that was the last time I remember someone mass murdered slaves in "special chambers" in order to sacrifice them to the Gods.

That said, if you want to be coherent and, thus, broad your expectatives on who is legitimated to feel offended by the Giant's work, then I inform you that less than twenty strips ago a character was drawn laughing at family mass murder (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html). I don't recall many objections back then.

ti'esar

2013-03-01, 07:55 PM

Also, for the record, I should note that I do believe a rating system of some kind serves a necessary purpose. However, I don't think the way it exists currently, or the way that trigger warning advocates are in favor of, are good ways of achieving that purpose (although the latter actually comes closer).

And that's all I can say without delving any closer into real-world topics than this thread has already come.

Tragak

2013-03-01, 07:57 PM

.That said, if you want to be coherent and, thus, broad your expectatives on who is legitimate to feel offended by the Giant's work, then I inform you that less than twenty strips ago a character was drawn laughing at family mass murder (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0856.html). I don't recall many objections back then.

Me neither.

SaintRidley

2013-03-01, 07:58 PM

To anyone springing to the comic's defense: read this, and answer this question for yourself. And answer honestly.

With black humor.

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 07:58 PM

{Scrubbed}

skim172

2013-03-01, 07:58 PM

Thank you for telling us the meaning of a common word when we've shown ourselves literate in English, because I know how often someone grows up with proper spelling, grammar and a large vocabulary and then misses common words like "chamber".

Anyway, it's not chamber on it's own, it's the fact that it's a chamber specifically designed to make killing more efficient, that's the issue. That is a rather more specific thing than just a chamber where people die and contrary to what some people here has claimed it really only happened once.

As it was obviously a sensitive issue, I felt thoroughness was important to defray any possible misconceptions. It was not intended to cast aspersions on anyone's intelligence or language skills.

My point was that the usage of the word "chamber" here may have been divorced from the concept of "killing" and that the connection between the two is not so instinctive that it would immediately leap to the forefront of every English user's mind. Perhaps Burlew's usage was innocuous in intent.

FujinAkari

2013-03-01, 08:00 PM

Thank you for telling us the meaning of a common word when we've shown ourselves literate in English, because I know how often someone grows up with proper spelling, grammar and a large vocabulary and then misses common words like "chamber".

If you wish to convince people, it would help not to be intentionally rude to them. You have now lost my sympathy.

Anyway, it's not chamber on it's own, it's the fact that it's a chamber specifically designed to make killing more efficient, that's the issue. That is a rather more specific thing than just a chamber where people die and contrary to what some people here has claimed it really only happened once.

The Aztecs and the Egyptians both had chambers specifically designed to expediate the killing of sacrifices intended to honor the gods, which is exactly what Malack is talking about, and yet those aren't the event you are assuming the allusion refers to...

Why?

B. Dandelion

2013-03-01, 08:04 PM

I didn't see it as being used as the butt of a joke or to elicit humor or anything of that nature. Because Malack was being so obviously blase about it, it came off as even more unsettling, which I am pretty sure was the point. The comic kinda teased around the unlikely-but-not-ruled-out possibility that Malack was Neutral and only passively complicit to the atrocities around him. The past few comics really took the steam out of that idea. This one blew it out of the water in similar fashion to what Tarqin's flaming letters accomplished.

If it were being used as a real joke I would find it utterly tasteless, but I just don't see it. To me something being the butt of the joke, like ha-ha wasn't this funny, is pretty important to whether it's perceived as offensive. I felt similarly about the ending of 757 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html) and of course the flaming letters incident. I didn't laugh because I was too busy being creeped out, but I wasn't offended. The comic gets to what a terrible person Tarquin is. That Tarquin is a terrible person should be readily inferred by the comic. It's kind of the point honestly.

I do have to admit I feel terrible if anyone was triggered or felt bad after reading the comic -- I mean point blank, I just feel bad. But I don't think it's one of those instances that it is offensive because it made light of the topic, if there is offense it is based on the material being brought up either in the same sentence or paragraph as humor or even just being mentioned at all without a trigger warning, which has not been a standard the comic has been held to before now.

In any case good luck to Mr. Burlew in navigating this one, it's gotten to the point that for me seeing a conversation about trigger warnings is itself a trigger. The terrible, terrible memories.

martianmister

2013-03-01, 08:04 PM

I don't really understand this thread. It's the same comic that using " x kilonazis" joke! With that logic, you could say that strip 361 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0361.html) is TC too because it's a reference to Manson murders...

Domino Quartz

2013-03-01, 08:06 PM

jidasfire

2013-03-01, 08:07 PM

Right, it's the people who think that others shouldn't have their trauma used for cheap darkness points by hacks who are bullies, not the ones who tell others to suck it up when something hurts them.

Well, calling the author a hack isn't going to win you points here for starters (unless you're talking about me, then you might have a case). Second, not sure if you've heard, but life is full of pain and we all have to suck it up sometimes. It would be one thing it was a direct reference and Mr. Burlew was making directly flippant remarks about the subject in question, then I might even agree that it was too far. However, everything could be taken in a painful light by someone. How far does it go? At what point do we allow people to assume responsibility for their feelings? If you think the world is never going to hurt you, intentionally or otherwise, I'm sorry, but you're in for a rude awakening, and a comic strip about D&D is pretty far down the list of things designed to hurt anyone. Don't like the strip, think it was too far, that's your deal. You don't have to like it. But it could mean a lot of things, and the incident you refer to wasn't my first line of thought. So hey, maybe instead of assuming it was intentional, and that a guy like Rich, who is pretty damned enlightened on most topics, is a hack out to cause pain, you could give the benefit of the doubt and not declare war? Just a thought.

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 08:08 PM

If you wish to convince people, it would help not to be intentionally rude to them. You have now lost my sympathy.

Doesn't seem like I ever had it. Also, I'd like to point out that lecturing someone on the meaning of the word "chamber" is fairly rude too. As is saying that people hate freedom for thinking others ought to voluntarily exercise sensitivity.

The Aztecs and the Egyptians both had chambers specifically designed to expediate the killing of sacrifices intended to honor the gods, which is exactly what Malack is talking about, and yet that isn't the event you are assuming the allusion refers to...

Why?

Those would be for ceremonial purposes, rather than for efficiency which Malack made quite clear he was talking about. Also, google doesn't know about either, but does know about how Egyptians "might" have conducted retainer sacrifice in the early dynastic period and that Aztecs performed sacrifices under the open sky.

Shieldhill

2013-03-01, 08:08 PM

Blackdrop

2013-03-01, 08:09 PM

I have to ask, since you've referred to the Giant as a hack twice in this thread, why are you in this section of the forum?

Edit: Swordsage'd

Bling Cat

2013-03-01, 08:13 PM

Doesn't seem like I ever had it. Also, I'd like to point out that lecturing someone on the meaning of the word "chamber" is fairly rude too. As is saying that people hate freedom for thinking others ought to voluntarily exercise sensitivity.

There is no way I'm getting involved in his argument as a whole, but are you suggesting that because other people were rude, or in some cases you perceived them to be rude, as I believe skim172 has already said he wasn't trying to lecture anyone, that that is grounds for you to be rude to them?

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 08:13 PM

If you wish to convince people, it would help not to be intentionally rude to them.

I'd say that, by the standards of this thread, Terra is being positively pleasant.

ti'esar

2013-03-01, 08:15 PM

What I'm getting here, and I may be wrong, is that offense is being taken to the idea of the real-world victims of a similar event being the butt of a joke.

I don't see that in the comic. An indirect reference to the event, but without a punchline, at the expense of the victims or anyone else.

I don't think anyone is really arguing that it's a joke. What the people who are objecting are objecting to (please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing this) is the existence of that reference at all, particularly in a passing/casual context (allegedly) intended primarily as an easy way of establishing a character as Evil.

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 08:15 PM

I have to ask, since you've referred to the Giant as a hack twice in this thread, why are you in this section of the forum?

Edit: Swordsage'd
{scrubbed}

The Curt Jester

2013-03-01, 08:17 PM

Those would be for ceremonial purposes, rather than for efficiency which Malack made quite clear he was talking about. Also, google doesn't know about either, but does know about how Egyptians "might" have conducted retainer sacrifice in the early dynastic period and that Aztecs performed sacrifices under the open sky.

Actually, the Aztecs were pretty ruthlessly efficient in their mass sacrifices. It's also this that would be my first thought of reference from the comic. Oh, I also have ancestors who were natives of Mexico, so, yeah. I still don't get why there's one particular instance of a mass atrocity that people demand constant apologies for, demand sympathy, demand that memories be kept on. I mean, seriously, if it was such a big deal and causes so much, why purposely preserve the memory with museums and such. No other atrocity garners so much attention. Horrific incident that it was, sadly, many people just use it as a political tool.

Atrocities happen everywhere. Different people have different associations with them. My ancestors dealt with a government that killed its own people, and farther back, a society that killed its own (and its prisoners) in a sacrifice to their deity. I suppose, then, by the logic put forth by some here that I should be jumping on the author's back about this because of some association I have.

Cizak

2013-03-01, 08:17 PM

The Aztecs and the Egyptians both had chambers specifically designed to expediate the killing of sacrifices intended to honor the gods, which is exactly what Malack is talking about, and yet those aren't the event you are assuming the allusion refers to...

Why?

Those would be for ceremonial purposes, rather than for efficiency which Malack made quite clear he was talking about. Also, google doesn't know about either, but does know about how Egyptians "might" have conducted retainer sacrifice in the early dynastic period and that Aztecs performed sacrifices under the open sky.

Malack is talking about ceremonial sacrifice in an efficient way. So yeah, if he's referfencing anything (which I don't think he is) he's definitely referencing the aztecs and the egyptians more than the third reich.

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 08:19 PM

No other atrocity garners so much attention. Horrific incident that it was, sadly, many people just use it as a political tool.

Yes, it gets undue attention, but the response to that is to be aware and tactful about other atrocities as well, not to ignore it. I can think of dozens of other atrocities that deserve to be handled sensitively too and I'd list them if the board rules allowed me.

Atrocities happen everywhere. Different people have different associations with them. My ancestors dealt with a government that killed its own people, and farther back, a society that killed its own (and its prisoners) in a sacrifice to their deity. I suppose, then, by the logic put forth by some here that I should be jumping on the author's back about this because of some association I have.

Do you know those ancestors? Do you know anyone who did? The fact that it happened centuries ago and everyone involved and everyone who knew someone involved being long dead kinda matters.

Malack is talking about ceremonial sacrifice in an efficient way. So yeah, if he's referfencing anything (which I don't think he is) he's definitely referencing the aztecs and the egyptians more than the third reich.

You mean referencing those sacrificial chambers that Fujin is the only person who knows about? And those large scale Egyptian human sacrifice that neither google nor wikipedia has heard about?

Caivs

2013-03-01, 08:21 PM

What I'm going to say has already been said multiple times, but you can't avoid fiction from sometimes containing events ressembling X sad event that could have happened to someone IRL.

See, in order to have a good story you need some tension. And to have tension, you need bad things to happen to people from time to time. And since bad things also happen from time to time in real life, it's possible a fictive story might remind you of such event. See, imagine I had a friend who got decapitated in his sleep, and reading the strip where Roy coup-de-grace the sleeping goblins always made me feel really bad, would it be a reason to complain about this strip?

While it's true there are some taboos in fiction, you can't remove everything that might ressemble any controversial or sensitive topic.

Besides, the allusion in strip 875 really wasn't that evident to see, it's just another example of a concept or word we can't even use anymore without it being considered a direct reference. It's nonsense, really.

EDIT: Reading the thread more in detail, I honestly think this is a pretty pointless discussion. The comic was written that way, and readers can take it the way they want. It must really be a pain for the Giant having to deal with that sort of reaction, whathever he writes.

ti'esar

2013-03-01, 08:23 PM

Also, pulling a stunt like this makes him a hack or at least makes me aware of him being one. I wasn't really thinking about it before.

And this, more than anything else you could have said, expresses why I am fundamentally opposed to your position. I do assess writers on their moral positions, but I do not make their adherence or lack thereof to an arbitrary standard of taste the sole determinant of whether they're "hacks" or not.

Yeah, I think "social justice warrior bully" is an accurate description here.

Tragak

2013-03-01, 08:24 PM

This thread is getting locked soon, isn't it?

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 08:25 PM

And this, more than anything else you could have said, expresses why I am fundamentally opposed to your position. I do assess writers on their moral positions, but I do not make their adherence or lack thereof to an arbitrary standard of taste the sole determinant of whether they're "hacks" or not.

The hackery isn't due to moral transgression, it's due to taking the easy way out by referencing an event he knows will shock people.

Also, in general, you people really need to learn to tell "treat some topics with care and thoughtfulness" and "never talk about these topics, ever" apart. I at least is arguing for the former.

Shieldhill

2013-03-01, 08:25 PM

I don't think anyone is really arguing that it's a joke. What the people who are objecting are objecting to (please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing this) is the existence of that reference at all, particularly in a passing/casual context (allegedly) intended primarily as an easy way of establishing a character as Evil.

The original poster did say, "Such things should not be used as a punchline for a joke." I suppose the thread has drifted somewhat from that initial focus into broader territory.

Quorothorn

2013-03-01, 08:26 PM

To be fair, movie content ratings (at least in the US) are more about appeasing puritanical parents than actual trauma. Mass killing can get a PG, while consensual sex and nudity usually lands a movie at least an R.

And that is why, IMO, they need to be changed so they're actually helpful to people.

Commenting on something I found tasteless and expressing my displeasure. If you do a search on my posts or look around the section, you'll notice this is the first time I've ever searched here.

Also, pulling a stunt like this makes him a hack or at least makes me aware of him being one. I wasn't really thinking about it before.

I was not aware you were the sole arbiter as to what acts qualified one to be deemed a "hack".

Jahmon

2013-03-01, 08:26 PM

The Curt Jester

2013-03-01, 08:29 PM

Do you know those ancestors? Do you know anyone who did? The fact that it happened centuries ago and everyone involved and everyone who knew someone involved being long dead kinda matters.

I referenced two instances. In one, no, I don't know anyone alive who lived through it. Five hundred years ago and all that. In the second instance, yes, I do personally know people who are still alive who lived through it. You were just assuming because the one instance I mentioned was long-past history that the second one would be as well.

Zmeoaice

2013-03-01, 08:29 PM

skim172

2013-03-01, 08:33 PM

Tragak

2013-03-01, 08:34 PM

By the way, is J.K Rowling an evil psychopath for saying that "there is no good or evil, there is only power and those to weak to wield it"?

Or is she a writer who created a Fictional Character, and if every writer who wrote Villains were as evil as the villains they created, there would be no fiction because no psychopath would want to give herself away by creating a fictional psychopath?

Ellye

2013-03-01, 08:34 PM

Also, in general, you people really need to learn to tell "treat some topics with care and thoughtfulness" and "never talk about these topics, ever" apart. I at least is arguing for the former.And how was the Giant unthoughtful in that strip?

From what I gather, in your opinion the problem is that Rich used this as a only a passing remark, as if it was of little consequence, only as a cheap tactic to make Malack seem eviler.

Thing is, I think a lot more thought was put on that, because that "cold efficiency" of killing chambers makes a lot of sense for Malack. He is highlighting that he's not only more Evil than Tarquin, but also more Lawful and, most importantly, more cold. More inhuman (and yes, I know the irony that an act committed by humans is often a perfect portrait of inhumanity, and I imagine that the author might think the same). He's an undead, he's a monster. His sympathetic character showed earlier is now just a warning for us that, behind sweet words and gestures, there can be complete evil.
So, I imagine that Rich decided that mentioning this detail of Malack's plan was worth it, but only did it as a passing remark - and this might have been a thoughtful decision too, though one you disagree with. He might have find it better to not dwell on this topic any more than absolutely necessary.

Of course, I might be wrong about what I gather from your posts, and I might very likely be wrong about Rich's though process. But this is just how I'm seeing things right now.

ti'esar

2013-03-01, 08:35 PM

Moral Crusader fits better... SJ is more about race or sex

Eh, as I understand it, "social justice warrior" has become the generally-used term for anyone who suddenly appears to complain about how something has violated their particular arbitrary standards on what is "appropriate".

Terraoblivion

2013-03-01, 08:35 PM

No one reading this comic, not a single person in the whole world will have a PTSD-flashback to WW2 because they saw the word "chamber" in there somewhere. Why? The people reading this are the children, grandchildren and relatives of the people who actually experienced it, and since humans don't have ancestral memory you can't have flashbacks to things you didn't experience so no, the comic doesn't have "triggering" content, it has words.

Uhhh, humans live for less than 68 years now? Because that's how long time we're talking about. I have living relatives who remember living through the period.

I referenced two instances. In one, no, I don't know anyone alive who lived through it. Five hundred years ago and all that. In the second instance, yes, I do personally know people who are still alive who lived through it. You were just assuming because the one instance I mentioned was long-past history that the second one would be as well.

I'll admit that I missed the part about the more recent atrocities. I will say that you weren't making it awfully clearly, people who are still alive and only a few steps removed from you tend to be relatives, not ancestors and putting it in all of half a sentence makes it easy to miss it. Still, you're right, you did mention two instances and while I don't know what the first is, I can make some guesses.

Blackdrop

2013-03-01, 08:35 PM

This is NOT a case of people not caring about the Holocaust. This is a case of people disagreeing with the premise that the comic is a reference to the Holocaust at all.

Actually, I think it's a case of people incorrectly thinking the strip was making fun/light of the Holocaust.

Darilian

2013-03-01, 08:41 PM

The only moral responsibility that Mr. Burlew has is to himself and to his muse.

The art can never be immoral, only how the art is used. And since it is really clear that Mr. Burlew has as his intent the desire to showcase how 'E'vil Malack is, I have no real problems with his quasi reference.

Ultimately, however, art can never be immoral, for only human beings are capable of making moral choices.

"Leci n'est pas une pipe." The art is not the object.

Darilian

Mutant Sheep

2013-03-01, 08:44 PM

{{scrubbed}}

Uhhh, humans live for less than 68 years now? Because that's how long time we're talking about. I have living relatives who remember living through the period.You seem to have completely misread what he said. You are not your relative. You are the "child, grandchild, or relative of a person who experienced it", and since you are not your living relative, you do not have their memories and cant have a PTSD trigger. You can argue on behalf of your relatives, but you aren't them. Reading 'chamber for efficient mass ritualistic sacrifice' as a reference to the Holocaust is a personal thing you did, and you were offended on behalf of your relatives.

The Pilgrim

2013-03-01, 08:45 PM

I felt similarly about the ending of 757 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html) and of course the flaming letters incident.

I recall #757 as perhaps the only time I felt annoyed by a punchline on this series. Because, unlike Malak's project, in #757 the woman being brutalized is actually the punchline of the comic. I've done volunteer working with organizations who help battered women, so that's quite a sensitive subject for me.

But I did not a big fluss about it. Because, hey, even the best scribe makes a blot here and there. And, also, I don't usually complain about free stuff. If I don't like it, I just quit.

Jahmon

2013-03-01, 08:46 PM

Uhhh, humans live for less than 68 years now? Because that's how long time we're talking about. I have living relatives who remember living through the period.

If they remember it they have to be older, so I'd say 75-80 minimum. But they're not reading the comic now are they? I might be exaggerating my point a bit, but I'm certain not a single person reading this experienced the holocaust. You? You're the relative I mentioned in my post who has no connection to the holocaust at all. You can't have horrible WW2 flashbacks because even the Cold War had ended by the time you were born. So stop complaining and looking for imaginary meanings and agendas behind single words.

Ted The Bug

2013-03-01, 08:49 PM

Seriously?

*sigh*

How many times has genocide already been committed (or been attempted) already by various characters? A good deal, especially counting in SoD. It's not a "triggering" joke - it's evil characters being evil. That's kind of the point. Malack might be a nice guy to have a conversation with, but he's still planning on doing terrible things. That's called a villain. It's called a plot.

I can't help but wonder how people can act like being offended by stuff like this is in any way a shock - it's being done by people you're supposed to oppose! If the plot's too dark for you, that's one thing (I can't take certain movies, for example), but that's not on the author - that's on your personal taste.

Edit: Jahmon said it best.

Also, this entire threat has gone over the cliff in terms of RL politics/religion. Can we get a mod to lock this thing?

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-01, 08:50 PM

Yeah I actually got the aztec feeling from it too. He's a cleric, they're in a ziggurat just seemed to fit.
Malack has always had a problem with Tarquin's showboating tendencies the idea that he finds the arena inefficient is perfectly in character with previous characterization.

But i have a question for those who felt bad about this. What would you have done if you wanted to get across the idea that Malack wanted to streamline the process of state-sponsored murder. Or if you can't think of a different way, what concessions would you make to the audience to make them feel better about it?

EDIT: In the interest of clarity, technically Malack isn't committing genocide since it seems he'll be killing lizardfolk, kobolds and humans indiscriminately. Im not sure theres a word for what he is doing though

Emmit Svenson

2013-03-01, 08:54 PM

The worst part about the original post is that in trying to shame Rich for so inoffensive an artistic decision, the original poster trivializes the very real issues involved here.

Please develop a sense of proportion--it's a wonderful fallback when your sense of humor fails you.

B. Dandelion

2013-03-01, 08:55 PM

MeanMrsMustard

2013-03-01, 08:56 PM

My two cents on the issue is that I'd rather Malack had said something like "I'm hoping that by then I'll have a system more efficient than Tarquin's silly arena," but I'm not going to get worked up about it. There are times when authors tastelessly use Bad Things(TM) to get cheap drama points, but, in my view, this was not one of those times.

Tragak

2013-03-01, 08:57 PM

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 08:58 PM

Let's ignore all the subtle and not-so-subtle insults (stay classy, OotS subforum!) and focus on answering something that contributes.

But i have a question for those who felt bad about this. What would you have done if you wanted to get across the idea that Malack wanted to streamline the process of state-sponsored murder. Or if you can't think of a different way, what concessions would you make to the audience to make them feel better about it?

Simple. Cut the "special chamber" part, replace it with something else. Just these two words, and it's not a reference to a real life atrocity anymore. Even calling it a "special measure" would work.

The worst part about the original post is that in trying to shame Rich for so inoffensive an artistic decision, the original poster trivializes the very real issues involved here.

Please develop a sense of proportion--it's a wonderful fallback when your sense of humor fails you.

It's not inoffensive. As I said, I know people who would be deeply disturbed by this reference, due to personal experiences. What'd you tell them? "Chill out, you're overreacting, stop trivializing important real life issues"?

I'm not usually a social justice crusader and I usually don't mind controversial humour, so when something like that bothers me, you know it's not just a small thing.

Zmeoaice

2013-03-01, 08:59 PM

EDIT: In the interest of clarity, technically Malack isn't committing genocide since it seems he'll be killing lizardfolk, kobolds and humans indiscriminately. Im not sure theres a word for what he is doing though

Democide probably

Simple. Cut the "special chamber" part, replace it with something else. Just these two words, and it's not a reference to a real life atrocity anymore. Even calling it a "special measure" would work.

This is ridiculous. You shouldn't be upset over two words that have a larger meaning like it was implied. If Malack talked about tricking people into going into showers that expelled toxic gas, then you'd have a point, but chamber works perfectly fine as any generic room.

Douglas

2013-03-01, 08:59 PM

Kepler

2013-03-01, 09:03 PM

I recall #757 as perhaps the only time I felt annoyed by a punchline on this series. Because, unlike Malak's project, in #757 the woman being brutalized is actually the punchline of the comic. I've done volunteer working with organizations who help battered women, so that's quite a sensitive subject for me.

But I did not a big fluss about it. Because, hey, even the best scribe makes a blot here and there. And, also, I don't usually complain about free stuff. If I don't like it, I just quit.

I have to admit, this was my exact thought (and strong enough that I shifted from long-term lurking to registering to make it...).

This comic has triggering content all over the place. I also have relatives affected by the event in question, and I shared with the OP the sense that this was a direct reference (although my second thought was that it also might have been the more direct reference to the Aztecs as well...). I felt shocked and pulled up by the reference - but that has happened previously in the strip, in reference to other atrocities (we've had a character on the team of the good guys commit a genocidal act!!), and in reference to Tarquin's treatment of his wives, etc.

These triggering elements often are punchlines, as well, or used in punchlines: it's the nature of the beast, and doesn't make the author a "hack" at all - although it does make the comic one that often juxtaposes genres and light/dark content in a way that, I think at least, actually regularly forces its readers to take a fairly raw look at forms of horrific conduct that we can actually sometimes protect ourselves from through conventional forms of reverence about the horror.

I'm not exactly comfortable with this strip. But I'm not offended by it, and I don't think this kind of reference should be off the table.

I'm also, of course, not surprised that people would strongly object as well. But I don't think the objection is intrinsically generated by a personal connection to a particular historical event. There are different ways of navigating, and believing other people should navigate, these sorts of issues.

RPGuru1331

2013-03-01, 09:04 PM

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-01, 09:09 PM

Simple. Cut the "special chamber" part, replace it with something else. Just these two words, and it's not a reference to a real life atrocity anymore. Even calling it a "special measure" would work.

Now see that might work for you but you can't tell me noone would be getting offended by it.

SaintRidley

2013-03-01, 09:09 PM

Just because a possible reference to a recent instatiation of an atrocity didn't come with a handkerchief and a shoulder-squeeze for those with connection to said instantiation does not mean that it was done trivially.

The Giant

2013-03-01, 09:09 PM

allenw

2013-03-01, 09:09 PM

Insulting.
This is NOT a case of people not caring about the Holocaust. This is a case of people disagreeing with the premise that the comic is a reference to the Holocaust at all.

While I must admit that there are a few people, such as yourself, who have claimed it wasn't a Holocaust reference, I really can't see how how such a claim makes any sense.
Of course Rich was talking about the Holocaust. Even if the fact-pattern happens to also fit the Aztecs or whomever, referencing the Aztecs wouldn't serve the narrative purpose here, which was to quickly and definitively establish Malack as EVIL (a topic on which there was still spirited debate among his readership). The Aztecs may or may not have been evil, but the average reader is unlikely to have strong opinions about them.
So yes, Rich was obliquely referring to the Holocaust as a shorthand way of establishing a character as EVIL. It's not like he hasn't used Nazi's for a similar purpose before (and the phrase "kilonazis," at least, was undoubtedly a joke).

Where I differ from the original poster is that I don't think that using a Holocaust-analogue as a brief shorthand for Evil trivializes the Holocaust, its victims, or its perpetrators. If Rich intends even the briefest tangental reference to the gas chambers to shock people out of their belief that Malack might not be Evil, then that means that he considers it very significant indeed.

SaintRidley

2013-03-01, 09:11 PM

While I must admit that there are a few people, such as yourself, who have claimed it wasn't a Holocaust reference, I really can't see how how such a claim makes any sense.
Of course Rich was talking about the Holocaust. Even if the fact-pattern happens to also fit the Aztecs or whomever, referencing the Aztecs wouldn't serve the narrative purpose here, which was to quickly and definitively establish Malack as EVIL (a topic on which there was still spirited debate among his readership). The Aztecs may or may not have been evil, but the average reader is unlikely to have strong opinions about them.
So yes, Rich was obliquely referring to the Holocaust as a shorthand way of establishing a character as EVIL. It's not like he hasn't used Nazi's for a similar purpose before (and the phrase "kilonazis," at least, was undoubtedly a joke).

Where I differ from the original poster is that I don't think that using a Holocaust-analogue as a brief shorthand for Evil trivializes the Holocaust, its victims, or its perpetrators. If Rich intends even the briefest tangental reference to the gas chambers to shock people out of their belief that Malack might not be Evil, then that means that he considers it very significant indeed.

You appear to have the very unfortunate timing of being ninja'd by the Giant contradicting you.

Douglas

2013-03-01, 09:13 PM

Zmeoaice

2013-03-01, 09:13 PM

If I was referencing any aspect of real life at all, it was factory farming, where humans have special chambers built to slaughter millions of cows and pigs each year all in the name of efficiency. I'm a vegetarian.

Dang. Well if Malack plans to sacrifice people in any way similar to factory farms, he's really REALLY evil.

But then not many of us have a right to condemn him for it except "Animals aren't as sapient" :smallfrown: (This too RL-y?)

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-01, 09:15 PM

To the Aztecs, sacrifice was a grand rite that was done in public, not in small chambers, and certainly not 'efficiently'.

He never said the chamber was small or that it wouldnt be in public. And the Aztecs had alot of spectacle to it sure but the actual process was as efficient as a culture of their tech level could make it. They cut out the heart dump the body cut out the heart dump the body. Not fast but not inefficient.

And if we're going to nitpick, Malack isnt even close to emulating the holocaust. He's not picking on one race or the sick or a few other races or the gay. He's not lying to his populace to keep them under control. No 'work' camps or trains to take them there. All you have is 'chamber'! A word that has a multitude of meanings.

ThePhantasm

2013-03-01, 09:17 PM

Some of you guys are still arguing about authorial intent... you might want to slow down just a sec because The Giant answered this question above.

Shieldhill

2013-03-01, 09:18 PM

I appreciate the word from the Giant himself. I hadn't considered that Malack was going to eat them, but that makes sense.

Nothing left to see here folks. Goodnight!

Rakoa

2013-03-01, 09:18 PM

I don't feel any lines were crossed here. Malack is evil, and so there you have it out there. It has highlighted that fact, and nothing more.

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 09:18 PM

When I made the reference, I was more considering post-apocalyptic science fiction like Soylent Green—people killed in mass numbers to serve as food (which would literally be the case here, since Malack feeds on humans). If I was referencing any aspect of real life at all, it was factory farming, where humans have special chambers built to slaughter millions of cows and pigs each year all in the name of efficiency. I'm a vegetarian.

I will not pretend that it never occurred to me that anyone could take it any other way, but it was not my intent. Ultimately, I felt that the differences between the reference and the historical event were enough that it would not be necessarily seen that way—the inclusion of a religious/sacrificial angle and the fact that Malack literally will eat the people killed seemed, at the time, to push it well into the realm of a fantasy event.

I'm not going to bother responding to the other charges about how I trivialized the Holocaust, because I don't feel that I did. I wrote a line with one specific thing in mind, and I did not properly gauge how other people would take that line. That's a mistake on my part, not an intentional transgression.

I accept this explanation. I'd just like to point out that people who live in different places are bound to take certain matters differently - what's a thing of the past in one area can still be a pressing matter for many people in another.

Thanks for giving an official stance on this.

ti'esar

2013-03-01, 09:19 PM

Edit: On second thought, probably better to drop it.

Although I do want to go on record as standing by my previous position that if the Giant was making a reference to the Holocaust, it does not automatically make him a "hack", nor does it justify showing up solely to complain about that (and only that).

Xzeno

2013-03-01, 09:20 PM

Thanks for taking the time to give an explanation, Rich. I'm sure that will help everyone feel better about it. It certainly addresses any concern I may have had.

And thanks for today's comic, as always.

CoffeeIncluded

2013-03-01, 09:22 PM

When I made the reference, I was more considering post-apocalyptic science fiction like Soylent Green—people killed in mass numbers to serve as food (which would literally be the case here, since Malack feeds on humans). If I was referencing any aspect of real life at all, it was factory farming, where humans have special chambers built to slaughter millions of cows and pigs each year all in the name of efficiency. I'm a vegetarian.

I will not pretend that it never occurred to me that anyone could take it any other way, but it was not my intent. Ultimately, I felt that the differences between the reference and the historical event were enough that it would not be necessarily seen that way—the inclusion of a religious/sacrificial angle and the fact that Malack literally will eat the people killed seemed, at the time, to push it well into the realm of a fantasy event.

I'm not going to bother responding to the other charges about how I trivialized the Holocaust, because I don't feel that I did. I wrote a line with one specific thing in mind, and I did not properly gauge how other people would take that line. That's a mistake on my part, not an intentional transgression.

Okay, that would also make sense. And for the record, I figured there was another meaning behind the line and it got misinterpreted. But man, there's no way Malack could eat a thousand people a day unless he was in some sort of contest with the Empress of Blood. Which is a...darkly gruesome and yet slightly humorous thought.

I think that might have been part of the reason it didn't occur to people that Malack would be eating them though, because there's just so many. I personally instantly made the other connection because when you have it taught to you in Hebrew school every single year, and then have it taught at public school with nearly as much frequency, certain verbal connections are stuck in your mind. Thank you for your explanation though, Rich. I really do appreciate it.

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-01, 09:22 PM

Come to think of it, you're also implying that if the Giant had meant it as a reference to the Holocaust and had not used that specific word choice, you wouldn't have complained in the first place.

See im not sure if this is a winning point or not. The issue here seemed largely to be effect not Rich's intent. So if he used a different word choice that had less impact but the same intent it probably wouldn't have been as much of an issue.

But it kind of should've been? I dunno.

Quorothorn

2013-03-01, 09:23 PM

Okay, that would also make sense. And for the record, I figured there was another meaning behind the line and it got misinterpreted. But man, there's no way Malack could eat a thousand people a day unless he was in some sort of contest with the Empress of Blood. Which is a...darkly gruesome and yet slightly humorous thought.

I think that might have been part of the reason it didn't occur to people that Malack would be eating them though, because there's just so many.

If his decision to make more children was not a Belkar-exclusive thought, that might not end up being quite as much of a problem, potentially??

allenw

2013-03-01, 09:23 PM

Definitely, my post had bad timing. :smallwink: Though at least I was only partially contradicted.

Ultimately, I felt that the differences between the reference and the historical event were enough that it would not be necessarily seen that way—the inclusion of a religious/sacrificial angle and the fact that Malack literally will eat the people killed seemed, at the time, to push it well into the realm of a fantasy event.

See, I didn't get any sense that Malack would eat the people being "efficiently" killed. He's already explictly stated that he can't drink all the blood from those that are killed "inefficiently". Your intended parallel would have worked for me better if he had been talking about people more as cattle.

coineineagh

2013-03-01, 09:23 PM

I'm european, and half of the history lessons I received at school were about the world wars. Very boring. I'm living in China now, and I have astonishingly little knowledge of their cultural history. That's something that should have been learned during my childhood.

Despite World War history being continually hammered into my brain at school, when Malack referenced a 'special chamber' to make *sacrifices*, I actually thought of the mayans, not the nazis.

Evil is evil, and there's no problem with the reference. The comic is very lighthearted, but still makes concealed references to politically sensitive issues. I think the OP is one of those few people who understands the reference (if that was even the writer's intention), but feels offended by it.

Perhaps the word 'chamber' was simpy ill-chosen, because it's an uncommon word, and seems to allude to 'gas chamber'.

Mutant Sheep

2013-03-01, 09:23 PM

Okay, that would also make sense. And for the record, I figured there was another meaning behind the line and it got misinterpreted. But man, there's no way Malack could eat a thousand people a day unless he was in some sort of contest with the Empress of Blood. Which is a...darkly gruesome and yet slightly humorous thought.

I think that might have been part of the reason it didn't occur to people that Malack would be eating them though, because there's just so many.

It does. Thank you Mr. Burlew. Now go write 777!:smalltongue:

I think it was actually mentioned when the semantics of the word "chamber" were being argued. Not sure.

SaintRidley

2013-03-01, 09:24 PM

I think you have one too many "not"s in there. The last one, specifically.

Thanks. Fixed.

ThePhantasm

2013-03-01, 09:25 PM

Okay, that would also make sense. And for the record, I figured there was another meaning behind the line and it got misinterpreted. But man, there's no way Malack could eat a thousand people a day unless he was in some sort of contest with the Empress of Blood. Which is a...darkly gruesome and yet slightly humorous thought.

I think that might have been part of the reason it didn't occur to people that Malack would be eating them though, because there's just so many.

From the first time I read the strip, I had interpreted it as once Malack gets into power, there will be lots more vampires around, some of whom would be his children. I don't think Malack would be eating them on his own. He talks about a unified civilization of Nergal-worship.

The Giant

2013-03-01, 09:25 PM

I think that might have been part of the reason it didn't occur to people that Malack would be eating them though, because there's just so many.

My thinking is by that point, he would have created a vampire ruling class serving his god. I just didn't want to derail the whole strip explaining it.

EDIT: Also, I considered using "facility" instead of "chamber." I chose the latter because it strongly implied no spectators, to draw a contrast to Tarquin's method.

ti'esar

2013-03-01, 09:25 PM

See im not sure if this is a winning point or not. The issue here seemed largely to be effect not Rich's intent. So if he used a different word choice that had less impact but the same intent it probably wouldn't have been as much of an issue.

But it kind of should've been? I dunno.

Like I said when I edited my post, it's probably better to drop it, but yes, that was my point: it's pretty silly to make word choice a bigger issue than Rich's actual intent.

SaintRidley

2013-03-01, 09:26 PM

I think that might have been part of the reason it didn't occur to people that Malack would be eating them though, because there's just so many. I personally instantly made the other connection because when you have it taught to you in Hebrew school every single year, and then have it taught at public school with nearly as much frequency, certain verbal connections are stuck in your mind. Thank you for your explanation though, Rich. I really do appreciate it.

Then again, him turning the continent into his own personal buffet makes a lot of sense when #872 is re-read right before this -- he's already doing a smaller version right now, and there's a lot of waste.

Tragak

2013-03-01, 09:26 PM

Evil is evil, and there's no problem with the reference.
Yes, thank you.

ThePhantasm

2013-03-01, 09:27 PM

It does. Thank you Mr. Burlew. Now go write 777!:smalltongue:

Been there, done that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0777.html).

CoffeeIncluded

2013-03-01, 09:27 PM

My thinking is by that point, he would have created a vampire ruling class serving his god. I just didn't want to derail the whole strip explaining it.

Okay, that also makes sense. Thank you.

EDIT: Also, I considered using "facility" instead of "chamber." I chose the latter because it strongly implied no spectators, to draw a contrast to Tarquin's method.

EDIT: I personally feel "facility" might have been a better choice because it removes the horrible connotations and historical baggage of that specific word, but "chamber" was also a valid choice and of course it's not my decision. Again, I just kinda want to make it clear that I'm not angry at you or anything.

Ellye

2013-03-01, 09:29 PM

The Pilgrim

2013-03-01, 09:30 PM

Zmeoaice

2013-03-01, 09:32 PM

Okay, that also makes sense. Thank you.

EDIT: I personally feel "facility" might have been a better choice because it removes the horrible connotations and historical baggage of that specific word, but "chamber" was also a valid choice and of course it's not my decision. Again, I just kinda want to make it clear that I'm not angry at you or anything.

Chamber specifically means private or enclosed room. It was the better choice.

ThePhantasm

2013-03-01, 09:32 PM

And now I'm here thinking that Malack's plan is less a religious fanaticism issue, and more a ploy to feed himself and his kin.

The two are not necessarily antithetical.

Kepler

2013-03-01, 09:35 PM

EDIT: Also, I considered using "facility" instead of "chamber." I chose the latter because it strongly implied no spectators, to draw a contrast to Tarquin's method.

Yeah, to be honest, with "facility", I might well have thought of the factory-farming angle - "chamber" for me has connotations other "privacy", although it's nice to see the decision-making process that led to the word choice.

Mutant Sheep

2013-03-01, 09:39 PM

Been there, done that (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0777.html).

Gyaaaaah. *palm to the face*. I cannot coooooount.

Tragak

2013-03-01, 09:42 PM

I cannot coooooount.
Is that a new vampire joke?

TheYell

2013-03-01, 09:42 PM

If I was referencing any aspect of real life at all, it was factory farming, where humans have special chambers built to slaughter millions of cows and pigs each year all in the name of efficiency. I'm a vegetarian.

:smallmad: Bricks of corporate processed meat byproducts have been a beacon of hope and fraternal cooperation to oppressed people throughout the world!

Seriously, an explanation was demanded and graciously given, perhaps the thread should be closed.

The Pilgrim

2013-03-01, 09:43 PM

The two are not necessarily antithetical.

Yep. Pragmatism seems to be a definitory trait for Tarquin's group.

Dr. Gamera

2013-03-01, 09:49 PM

Also, I considered using "facility" instead of "chamber." I chose the latter because it strongly implied no spectators, to draw a contrast to Tarquin's method.

To me, "chamber" also seems a much more appropriate word choice than "facility" for a centuries-old vampire with a tendency towards archaic language.

Soylent Dave

2013-03-01, 10:25 PM

If your offence is predicated on a single word (in this case 'chamber'), then you're by definition making a semantic argument.

It's not the specific content of the strip that caused offence; it's what people read into it. That's not necessarily something the author can control.

That's something important to bear in mind when you find yourself offended by something, really - is the author trying to cause offence, or is this something you're (at least in part) bringing to the table yourself?

-

That ties in to some degree to Trigger Warnings; if you feel that labelling your own stuff with such warnings helps, then fair play, but insisting that others do so is setting up an impossible standard.

I have been treated for & am recovering from a PTSD, and I've had traumatic flashbacks triggered by references to cancer and by seeing someone smile.

I couldn't demand that trigger warnings be put in place for things like that - it would be ludicrous! I just had to deal with the flashbacks (or see the references coming and turn away / stop reading / change TV channel etc.).

It's not realistic to expect everyone else to make allowances for what is ultimately a very specific mental health problem (although again, nothing stops you choosing to make your own allowances as you see fit)

WindStruck

2013-03-01, 10:34 PM

Wow, holy crap.

There was a whole book dedicated to a "war" between azure city and the goblin forces. Did anyone complain about having lost someone they knew in a war?

How about the racism redcloak had against hobgoblins, and all the racism between mammal and reptile species. Did anyone whine about such events reminding them of racism they may have experienced?

What about the colon/tumor joke where Durkon is praying for a healing spell but gets a machine and the wrong effect. Seriously, did anyone bitch about losing a relative to cancer??

Simple solution: the problem isn't the comic. It's you. Don't get your panties in a bunch next time.

Giggling Ghast

2013-03-01, 10:40 PM

Malack literally will eat the people killed

He's going to eat one thousand people a day? Is he the Jughead Jones of vampires or something? :smalleek:

SaintRidley

2013-03-01, 10:45 PM

He's going to eat one thousand people a day? Is he the Jughead Jones of vampires or something? :smalleek:

Well, he and the vampire aristocracy he'll sire.

FujinAkari

2013-03-01, 10:53 PM

I just want to go on the record that I was one of (if not the?) first people to respond with "Wait... what? Holocaust? Where?"

Thus, I am amazing :)

Chambers

2013-03-01, 10:57 PM

The Giant

Like some others have, I took the "special chambers" line to be a direct reference to the Holocaust. Thinking about it afterwards I realized that the title of the comic had primed me to think about World War II as when I read the title (Calm, Orderly, and Efficient) one of the things that came to mind was the phrase "At least he made the trains run on time!", used in reference to Mussolini.

So when I read the "special chambers" line I immediately put them together and figured that you were making a reference to the Holocaust to illustrate how Evil Malack was. Regardless of whether that was your intent, I felt a chill down my spine when I realized what I was reading. Whether in good taste or not, the art was effective in communicating and reaching me.

All

All the people complaining about the "Social Justice Crusaders" (which I think is a hilarious and awesome title that I will adopt for myself; I'm taking your insult and making it a positive.) need to stop and understand something: you don't get to decide what another person finds offensive. Full stop.

To repeat: You don't get to decide what another person finds offensive.

Just as you are fully in control of what you find in good or poor taste and of what you think is acceptable or not, every other person gets to decide that for themselves. Just because you don't find something offensive doesn't mean that someone else is wrong because they find it offensive.

Belittling someones feelings by calling them things like 'butthurt' and telling them not to 'get your panties in a bunch' is a way of saying that their opinions are wrong, that they are wrong to feel that way about a certain thing, and that they shouldn't feel that way. STOP TELLING OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEY SHOULD BE FEELING. STOP TELLING OTHER PEOPLE THAT THEY SHOULDN'T FEEL A CERTAIN WAY.

Yes, I'm internet yelling. Please understand that when you call people names and make fun of them because you think they need to toughen up or get over it, you're not fixing the problem, because the problem is that you think you have the right to tell other people how they should feel.

Don't trivialize another person's hurt because you don't feel the pain period.

Domino Quartz

2013-03-01, 11:04 PM

<mini-wall-of-text>
Maybe you should have made that post a page and a half ago.

Zmeoaice

2013-03-01, 11:09 PM

lol @ your username... Just lol

The Giant

All

All the people complaining about the "Social Justice Crusaders" (which I think is a hilarious and awesome title that I will adopt for myself; I'm taking your insult and making it a positive.) need to stop and understand something: you don't get to decide what another person finds offensive. Full stop.

The term was social justice bully.

Belittling someones feelings by calling them things like 'butthurt' and telling them not to 'get your panties in a bunch' is a way of saying that their opinions are wrong, that they are wrong to feel that way about a certain thing, and that they shouldn't feel that way. STOP TELLING OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEY SHOULD BE FEELING. STOP TELLING OTHER PEOPLE THAT THEY SHOULDN'T FEEL A CERTAIN WAY.

By that logic, when someone is offended they shouldn't tell Burlew that he should have done something differently because his content was disgusting

Chambers

2013-03-01, 11:12 PM

The Giants comments about the comic in no way changes the fact that people in this thread have engaged in the behaviors I described, and in fact are still engaging in them after his comments. While I appreciate his input I'm concerned about the reprehensible behavior that some posters are engaging in. It needs to stop.

Edit:

Zmeoaice

My apologies. Social justice bully. Crusader sounds nicer though.

And no, that's not an accurate extrapolation. I did not say that people should not tell an artist that they should not have made a certain piece of art because they found it offensive. Reread what I wrote.

I said that people should stop telling other people that they shouldn't be offended by something. There is a clear difference between "don't tell people they shouldn't be offended" and "don't tell an artist that this piece of art offends me."

Domino Quartz

2013-03-01, 11:18 PM

Why are we starting a new argument?

Zmeoaice

2013-03-01, 11:26 PM

T
Edit:

Zmeoaice

My apologies. Social justice bully. Crusader sounds nicer though.

And no, that's not an accurate extrapolation. I did not say that people should not tell an artist that they should not have made a certain piece of art because they found it offensive. Reread what I wrote.

I said that people should stop telling other people that they shouldn't be offended by something. There is a clear difference between "don't tell people they shouldn't be offended" and "don't tell an artist that this piece of art offends me."

Except that's not what they're saying. They're saying "This piece of art offends me, and the author shouldn't have done it"

There's a difference between stating your opinion, and saying opinions like they're fact.

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-01, 11:31 PM

Why are we starting a new argument?

People found different high horses to ride after we stabled the first few

Chambers

2013-03-01, 11:32 PM

Except that's not what they're saying. They're saying "This piece of art offends me, and the author shouldn't have done it"

There's a difference between stating your opinion, and saying opinions like they're fact.

That is what they are saying. Quoted below.

Simple solution: the problem isn't the comic. It's you. Don't get your panties in a bunch next time.

I don't take it as a joke at all. Even with the context of mocking Tarquin's arena.
It was meant to be shocking. It worked, get over it.

Somebody probably also knows someone who was killed by lightning. Or died in one of the many other ways that are referenced. If your relative died of alcohol-induced liver disease, for example, should you complain about dwarven afterlife rules?

The joke was not meaningless, although it falls under the category of joke. Some jokes are grim.

Also, "trigger warnings" are a meme that needs to die.

People need to get over something that happened more than half century ago . . . still?!

Also stop bringing up you're personally involved in that tragedy, a lot of people are, and they're not whning about every reference to that.

I am glad I live in a culture that still honors the concept of free speech. No topic should be off limits for jokes or even serious debate. Don't like it? Grow up.

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-01, 11:37 PM

That is what they are saying. Quoted below.

You realize that its equally valid to be offended by people being offended at the strip as it is to be offended by the strip itself?
I don't see you listing the fact that those offended condemned an artist as a 'hack' and all the other negative things said about Rich for authoring what they thought was offensive. If thats ok then telling people who offend me to grow up is, while not productive, allowable.

Nimrod's Son

2013-03-01, 11:39 PM

That's a mistake on my part, not an intentional transgression.
I don't believe it was either of those. At any rate, I hope you don't consider it enough of a mistake to change it in print, just for the sake of pleasing a couple of people with thinner-than-average skins.

I said that people should stop telling other people that they shouldn't be offended by something.
People can be offended all they want. Nothing happens when you get offended; you're just offended. It's up to you how a big a deal you make of it... and most of us here would prefer if it were kept to a minimum, cheers.

rewinn

2013-03-01, 11:40 PM

Why are we starting a new argument?

I believe the question has been "asked and answered".

If the discussion were to continue, I would point out that there are numerous references to major historical atrocities in literature, including fantasy literature; for example, the opening scene of the first X-Men movie that establishes Magneto's character in a heart-rending way; Life Is Beautiful (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118799/); The Producers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395251/); even OOTS uses "kiloNazis" as a mildly humorous unit of measure. It is simply unreasonable to exclude so major an historical event from the language when used not for humor but to establish character. If the line in question had been an actual punch line, it would be in exceedingly poor taste or worse, but it was not and it is difficult to see how it could have been construed as intended to be funny ... especially when there is ample prior evidence that this author in particular is quite sensitive and aware of the evil of racism.

Consider: what is the motivation behind the entire narrative arc of the series? What set the events in motion even before our heroes came on the scene? Roy's quest is a reaction to Xykon's quest which has been set in motion by Redcloak's quest which is a reaction to ... what?

It is not reasonable to assume that this author in particular is numb to such issues.

But the question has been asked and answered, so I should stop.

---

EDITTED:

I don't think this has been a bad conversation. Just because I disagree with the premise, still I think it has been worthwhile and also conducted mostly well.

Tengu_temp

2013-03-01, 11:46 PM

B. Dandelion

2013-03-01, 11:47 PM

The thing about the "you can't tell other people what they can feel is offensive" argument is that if someone is going to complain that "your comic made me feel bad," that complaint should probably hinge on it having done so via means that could have prevented had there been consideration beforehand, and a following of common courtesy. If anything and everything is potentially upsetting, then while other people may retain their right to the full legitimacy of their own upset, they have to own it themselves if it isn't from an entirely rational source that someone else shouldn't be held accountable for not knowing about.

I mean don't get me wrong I don't think we should say things like "you're a baby for getting upset", which tends to happen a lot in arguments such as these. But "don't ever make reference to anything which could hurt my feelings which are totally legitimate no matter why I have them" is an undue burden to put on other people.

Nimrod's Son

2013-03-01, 11:50 PM

Not to mention an unrealistic one.

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-01, 11:53 PM

I'd like to point out that I never called Rich a hack, and pretty much everything Chambers said was directed at me, so yeah, he has a point. As I said before: stay classy, GitP subforum!

...Which part of Chambers' speech is directed at you?
And i didnt mean to imply that you did call him a hack. You DID however say negative things about him specifically. I have no problem with this, just pointing out that by Chamber's logic he should. Tengu you have been very classy and held together, I'm not trying to come down on you, or anyone who was offended.

Toxinthegreat

2013-03-01, 11:55 PM

To me it wasn't even perceived as a joke. It was used more in reference or to show that Malack, much like Thog, has a massive fanbase and will rarely lose a substantial amount of fans no matter what evil atrocity he performs. Also to show it for Tarquin, since it's implied that he's thrilled about this secondary purpose after he's gone. Not to say that I didn't notice this similarity, because I did, but it's really more up to perception. For me it was more referential then making fun of. To each his own, I guess.

Ted The Bug

2013-03-01, 11:57 PM

Why are we starting a new argument?

Can we just post this over and over until the thread dies?

Chambers

2013-03-02, 12:04 AM

You realize that its equally valid to be offended by people being offended at the strip as it is to be offended by the strip itself?
I don't see you listing the fact that those offended condemned an artist as a 'hack' and all the other negative things said about Rich for authoring what they thought was offensive. If thats ok then telling people who offend me to grow up is, while not productive, allowable.

Sure. Someone could be offended by people being offended at the strip. You can even get further recursive if you'd like. That doesn't change or invalidate my argument; someone could be offended that people were offended, but that doesn't mean they have the right to tell them they shouldn't feel that way.

As far as people calling an artist a hack and saying negative things about the artist or art - I admit that there are more constructive ways of communicating criticism, but that wasn't my focus. People belittling others for how they feel - which is a part of bullying - is an issue for me. It really gets me upset and so that is what I was responding to.

Sneaky Weasel

2013-03-02, 12:25 AM

I have no intention of getting involved in this argument, but I would like to leave a little quote here for your edification.

'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so ****ing what?' —Stephen Fry

Lvl45DM!

2013-03-02, 12:32 AM

I have the right, or I should have the right to criticize people for the opinions they voice. Saying that they are morons or butthurt is unproductive and mean but I really should have that right (In life not on this forum since thats flaming. Rich gets to set his own rules.)

People's opinions are not automatically sacrosanct just cos they have them. They have the right to have them, sure, and I wouldn't take that away. But I, or anyone else, gets to have the opinion that they're being silly.

My problem with your statement Chambers is the blanket assumption that all opinions and feelings should be protected as a matter of course. Allowing criticism is how we speciate those that should have protection, like finding Holocaust jokes offensive?, and those that shouldn't, like finding the characterization of Elan offensive to blondes (<< Made up example).

I have no intention of getting involved in this argument, but I would like to leave a little quote here for your edification.

'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so ****ing what?' —Stephen Fry

Weasel I knew someone was going to quote that. To be fair Fry wasn't saying that anyone who uses that phrase is just whining. He was saying anyone who ONLY can use that phrase to justify their complaint is whining.

The Giant

2013-03-02, 12:34 AM

OK, it seem at this point that we're just stirring up things that had settled down. I responded with my explanation about the comic, the OP understood it, we all learned a valuable lesson about cultural sensitivity. Going back and further berating people who took one side or the other of a settled argument is not productive. Further, I don't want this to slide further into a flamewar or other infraction-worthy areas, so I'm going to take the advice of several of the posters here and lock this.

Thread locked.