Penny Arcade and 'The Mike Problem'

[King Kool]

Well, isn't that everything on the internet? A thousand people tell you that they love you, one person hates you and says it in just the right way and then... all the positivity is sliced through like it was fog.

[Lyinginbedmon]

I think we are now exploring things significantly outside the relevance of the thread, we've gone beyond the antics of Mike Krahulik and into gender studies and issues.

[Cybren]

that's how threads work.

[Aydin225]

Maybe its because as a Christian I'm constantly having to defend myself against being called a bigot and a homophobe, but I have a hard time getting too upset about all of this. I've read the links in this thread, and I completely understand why people are upset about this issue--it has so much less to do with the actual issue as it does Mike's response to the issue. Dude said the wrong thing, certainly. However, I think there is way too much good in Mike's corner. The same man that said these things is the man who created a unique and amazing charity, a convention that hundreds of people consider the only place they can feel at home, a reality series that changed the lives of 12 wonderful artists, and is by all accounts and evidences a loving husband and father. One thing in a person's life cannot define that person as a whole, we are a product of all our choices, not a few of them.

My father in law is very similar to Mike in a lot of ways. He had a horrible childhood between his home life and routine verbal and physical attacks at school. When he joined the army, he got the power and training to ensure that no one could ever hurt him again, and he was not afraid to use it. To this day, despite how far he's come, his immediate response to any perceived disrespect is to intimidate whoever he is arguing with--using his power to go on the offensive to avoid ever being hurt again. This instinctual fear has held him back as a father, husband, mentor, and friend for over 30 years. He still weeps when he thinks about all the time he has lost apologizing.

Mike is the same way. Any limited research will tell you that his childhood was extremely rough. Even ignoring the awful school life he must have suffered, his own intense mental issues crippled him emotionally and socially. Through Penny Arcade, Mike has been given enormous power. It is only natural that he would use that power as a shield. The man is regularly receiving death threats and being called terrible names by the people who are supposedly in the right in these issues. While he certainly could have used more class in his responses and I DO NOT CONDONE WHAT HE SAID I cannot blame him for his reaction. This is a sad, scared man who provides for his family by making dick jokes. We cannot pin the hopes of the future of gaming on him.

Instead of boycott and abandonment, I think the only real way to help Mike is through love and support.

[Wraith]

mikes ignorant of a lot of gender politics introspection so when he offends someone and gets criticized his instant response is defensive. it's, and i hate using this phrase, a case of him being unable to check his privilege.

You should hate it. Because it's one of the dumbest phrases ever conceived. I keep hearing things like “male privilege is things like being able to walk down the street without being harassed by men.”

Do you know what something is when everyone is inherently entitled to it? It’s a right. And it REMAINS a right, regardless of whether or not your current circumstances allow you to do/enjoy it. A privilege, on the other hand, is something that some people get to do that people are NOT automatically entitled to.

So when people say “check your privilege.” They're essentially doing one of two things:

1. They are saying something that makes no sense and is entirely inaccurate, by referring to rights as privileges.

2. They are implying that they believe that not everyone is entitled to such things as walking down the street without being harassed by men.

Either way; seems kind of counter to your typical attitude of the type of people who say it.

If it were me, and the only time I had ever heard the word "cis" was in a negative context within the circles I travelled, and yet was assured that people use it in a respectful way by someone (like Duckay), I might reconsider the company I keep, or the discussions I choose to be a part of.

I'm sorry, perhaps my tone has not made this clear: I do not "keep company" with the type of people who use cis in a negative context. As for the discussion I choose to be a part of, my aim is to influence and affect change for the better. You can't do that by only engaging the people who think like you, or by sticking your head in the sand and pretending that people who see things differently don't exist. You can't hope to reach people unless you understand them, and you can't understand them if you avoid them.

In any case: I am a cis-hetro male. There. Now you have evidence of use outside of your categories.

Not really. You're using the term in the middle of a discussion ABOUT the term; which revolves around a man who said something controversial in response to - say it with me now - social justice bloggers.

Yeah, I'm perfectly ok with him making that assumption. It's not unreasonable if you aren't familiar with the topic to assume that the medical and colloquial definitions are the same.

Even if you are, it's not unreasonable to use the scientific definition instead of the "colloquial" definition, as you call it. Particularly since for more people than not, they're the same thing; and for the rest of the world, you can define it however you chose, but you don't have a right to get angry at other people for not complying with your personal definition.

[Cybren]

i hate the term "check your privilege" because it's exclusionary and used to shut down arguments in place of educate. There's times where it's appropriate. Mike is legitimately unable to separate himself from his privilege as a heterosexual cismale

[Wraith]

His "privilege as a heterosexual cismale."

Please, tell me; what exactly does he enjoy that other people are not inherently entitled to as members of the human race?

Because that's what a privilege is. Like I said, if everyone is inherently entitled to it, then it's not a privilege, it's a right; and it remains so regardless of whether it is denied you or not.

[Duckay]

The thing is, though, that while the things usually referred to as being straight/white/male/able-bodied/whatever privilege should be afforded to everyone, they often are not. While "privilege" is not the best term for it, I honestly don't know what term would be appropriate.

I dislike the way it is used to dismiss but there are those who use the term to dismiss, and those who use it to educate, and so I think sometimes it's useful.

[Avistew]

I don't know Mike personally and won't pretend that I do or know anything about who he is as a person. I can talk about the impressions I got from what I was exposed to, though. I'm not going to say "I feel", "I think" or "it seems to me" every sentence because it would be repetitive, but imagine every sentence to contain this sentiment.

From what I've read, seen, heard, etc, Mike sounds like he is, at his core, a nice guy. However, when he feels he is unfairly criticised, he reacts strongly and stubbornly in an aggressive way.

The first time was a rape joke, which in itself didn't seem specifically offensive to me but got some negative reactions. The gist of the comic was still that rape was something bad, it wasn't condoning it or anything. Mike felt like he was being accused of being pro-rape and since he is not, he reacted by calling people insensitive and sticking to his ground, which only made the whole thing worse.

Much more recently, two years later, Mike talked about female masturbation, and failed to include a disclaimer along the lines of "not all women have vaginas, not all people with vaginas are women" or simply, he assumed the presence of a vagina rather than saying "for women who have a vagina".
The response was about how he failed to mention it, and not about what was the core of what he said, which was masturbation.
He felt attacked about something that was mostly irrelevant, and rather than go "oh, I hadn't thought of that, sorry people", he once again stood his ground and said something along the lines of "well of course I didn't specify, because the definition implies a vagina" and so on.

But when you read his email exchange, he says to a trans woman that a) he'll always treat her as a woman, b) he doesn't care what her genitals look like and doesn't want to know and c) he didn't know she was trans until recently, and doesn't care.
BUT he keeps stating that he doesn't consider her a woman.

At this point it seems to me he's arguing for the principle of arguing and not saying he was wrong. Because if he doesn't care what people's genitals are like, and if he'll treat people the way they present, then for all intent and purposes, he's treating transwomen as the women they are, and transmen as the men they are.

So it seems to me, the way it goes is Mike hitting a nerve on an issue he's not specifically informed on or simply hadn't really thought of, people reacting to it, and Mike feeling attacked and "defending" himself by stating whatever he stated even more strongly, even if at some point it feels he doesn't actually believe it anymore.

Mike does support LGBT rights, including through charity, and I believe he supports women rights, etc. It seems to me he's just very sensitive to being attacked, and when he is, he acts like an asshole because he's hurt.

But he big issue isn't Mike bringing up the dickwolves (or the more recent cis issue), even though he's a public figure and what he says influences a lot of people. The big issue is more about his actions, what he supports through his work and through his money. Through his actions (not his words), I think he's not a bigot in either of the issues.

This being said, I do think that acting like an asshole when he feels attacked is shitty. And I think he acts like a bully a lot of the time. And I wish he would work on that, because in his position, getting upset and attacking minority groups is, well, a powerful thing to do. He has a lot of support, and people will rally behind him, and yes, it could lead to violence and harassment and I think he should be aware of that.
I don't think any non-rapist read the dickwolves strip and thought "You know what, I'm going to rape someone"(and even if they did, he didn't write the joke, he drew the strip). However, I do think that his attitude in the two years since has led to a lot of females being harassed and threatened, including sexually, over being "oversensitive", "deserving to be raped" and so on. And that's bullying, and people did it at least partially because they felt condoned and supported by Mike, and because of mob mentality.

Anyway, I'm not going to boycott PAX or Child's Play. I believe that refraining from giving many to a good cause because you don't like the person who started it is self-defeating. I'm not going to punish sick kids because I think Mike has serious sensitivity and anger issues.

As for Khoo and Jerry, the way I see it, they're not Mike's keeper. If Mike says something, they don't have to pitch in whether they agree or disagree, unless someone asks them for their opinion. Mike is his own person and his opinion don't reflect anyone else's. I don't think they're condoning his words by not speaking out against him publicly. It makes sense to me that they're staying out of it.

[Avistew]

His "privilege as a heterosexual cismale."

Please, tell me; what exactly does he enjoy that other people are not inherently entitled to as members of the human race?

Because that's what a privilege is. Like I said, if everyone is inherently entitled to it, then it's not a privilege, it's a right; and it remains so regardless of whether it is denied you or not.

Well, I think "privilege"is precisely used for things that should be a right. For instance, white males used to have a voting privilege, but now women and non-whites also have the right to vote.

As a white person, I'm treated better. Everyone should be treated that way, but they aren't. That makes it a privilege: something I'm getting that others aren't, for no reasons other than my being white.
It would be silly to say "women have always had the right to vote". No they haven't. Sure, they should have, but they didn't.

The fact that I am privileged doesn't mean I'm a bad person or did anything wrong. But it's good to be aware that other people don't get the things I do. I have a straight privilege, I see relationships I can relate to everywhere in the media, and people assume right about my sexuality. I never have to come out as straight. That is a privilege. It's not my fault that other people deny gays the same rights. But they do, so instead of merely having rights, I have privileges.

[Wraith]

The thing is, though, that while the things usually referred to as being straight/white/male/able-bodied/whatever privilege should be afforded to everyone, they often are not. While "privilege" is not the best term for it, I honestly don't know what term would be appropriate.

I dislike the way it is used to dismiss but there are those who use the term to dismiss, and those who use it to educate, and so I think sometimes it's useful.

The term is completely inaccurate, and even ignoring that; it's irrelevant. The truth is what it is; and neither a persons's experiences nor the circumstances of his birth changes that. Words of wisdom are no less so when spoken by an idiot, and foolish babble is no more wise when spoken by a genius.

I'm no stranger to social injustice. I lived through 9/11 while looking like a middle-easterner, and I lived in a town with an active Klan chapter with a black father and a white mother. But I've never felt the need to treat a white man's words differently because he was a white man.

[korvys]

I think you might be misunderstanding what it's supposed to mean.

It doesn't mean "you said something that is true, but because of who you are, you are actually wrong". It means "You said something that is not true, and it's probably because of your perspective. Maybe you should reconsider some of your assumptions".

But then just as people interpret it wrong, others use it wrong as well.

[AlexanderDitto]

I am sorry I am responding to this, but I cannot keep silent.

His "privilege as a heterosexual cismale."

Please, tell me; what exactly does he enjoy that other people are not inherently entitled to as members of the human race?

Here's a few:

He never had to come out to his parents.

He never had to see his parents yell and scream and cry and threaten to destroy all his possessions or tell him he was a worthless piece of trash because he was gay. His parents never pulled a knife on him because he came out to them.

He never has to worry about holding hands with his wife in public. He never has to wonder if someone is around who will beat him up or stab him or shoot him because he's holding hands with his wife. He can hug his wife in public and not feel self conscious or exposed or ashamed of himself.

He never has to out himself over and over to people. He never has to see how people's faces change when he tells them he's spending time with his wife.

Those are privileges I don't share. He will never know what it's like to live without them. Neither will you.

And the fact that he doesn't have to think about any of this, and can in fact deny that he is privileged in any of these ways? That too is a privilege. Because he's lucky enough to not have to feel any of these things.

You're lucky in these ways too.

I am not.

[Wraith]

I think you might be misunderstanding what it's supposed to mean.

It doesn't mean "you said something that is true, but because of who you are, you are actually wrong". It means "You said something that is not true, and it's probably because of your perspective. Maybe you should reconsider some of your assumptions".

Perhaps, but I can't say I've ever really seen it used that way. The LEAST obnoxious way I've ever seen someone use this term - this inaccurate, ironic term - is in the manner of "you said something that's not true, and it's probably because you're not as oppressed as I am, so you can't possibly understand me." Which is just oppression Olympics at it's best. It's a presumptuous, self-pitying, aggressive, self-righteous attitude that marginalizes anything the person they're talking to has endured in their life.

I am sorry I am responding to this, but I cannot keep silent.

His "privilege as a heterosexual cismale."

Please, tell me; what exactly does he enjoy that other people are not inherently entitled to as members of the human race?

Here's a few:

He never had to come out to his parents.

He never had to see his parents yell and scream and cry and threaten to destroy all his possessions or tell him he was a worthless piece of trash because he was gay. His parents never pulled a knife on him because he came out to them.

So you're saying that not having your parents go nuclear on you is not something people are inherently entitled to? Because if they are, then regardless of whether someone is or is not able to enjoy it, that's a right, not a privilege.

He never has to worry about holding hands with his wife in public. He never has to wonder if someone is around who will beat him up or stab him or shoot him because he's holding hands with his wife. He can hug his wife in public and not feel self conscious or exposed or ashamed of himself.

Yet again, are you saying that the ability to walk peacefully with your spouce without being attacked is not something people are inherently entitled to? Because if they are, then regardless of whether someone is or is not able to enjoy it, that's a right, not a privilege.

He never has to out himself over and over to people. He never has to see how people's faces change when he tells them he's spending time with his wife.

Those are privileges I don't share. He will never know what it's like to live without them. Neither will you.

And yet you're telling me that you never had any right to do so? That these things where not inherently something that you should have been able to do? Because, as I made very, very clear, as was my entire point had you bothered to actually read it, was that unless you're talking about something that you believe that people such as yourself are not inherently entitled to do, then you are talking about rights, not privileges.

And rights REMAIN rights regardless of whether they are denied you or not.



Read first. Thought second. Outrage third. Stop skipping steps.

[korvys]

Ok, yes. Fine. We're all using the word privilege wrong. And yet, somehow we all understand what is meant by it. We understand your point, and there are arguments to be made about the evolution of language and such, but now isn't the time. If you want to mentally swap the words "good fortune" or something in there for privilege, go ahead, but I'm fine with it. All that matters is that whoever I'm talking to understand's what I'm saying, and I them. Being pedantic doesn't move the discussion forward.

Back to Mike, this is a good example of someone not examining his place in the world. Until the Dickwolves thing, he likely had never really thought about rape victims, and how incidental uses of the word "rape" might affect them. Until the trans thing, he likely never really thought about non-binary gender.

In both these cases, he's joked as a response to criticism about them, and then lashed out at response of those who think it's wrong to make thos jokes. And he has done harm with these responses. Each time there were people who make jokes of rape, or of trans people, who felt like they had a supporter. Making the shirts being the worst of it.

But to me this looks like the arc of a man who is learning. The Dickwolves issue went on for months. The trans issue was a few days. This time, the PAX Q&A thing, he stepped up the next day to clarify.

This seems to be a man who fucks up, and will fuck up again, but who seems to be becoming more aware of how what he says can hurt people, and how much influence he has. I guess we'll see what happens next time he fucks up.

And those, like Jack, who feel like the damage from his previous fuck ups, and potential future fuck ups is too much? Well I hope you're wrong, and I hope he can win people back. They do a lot of good, and provide a lot of value to the gaming community.

[Duckay]

The LEAST obnoxious way I've ever seen someone use this term - this inaccurate, ironic term - is in the manner of "you said something that's not true, and it's probably because you're not as oppressed as I am, so you can't possibly understand me." Which is just oppression Olympics at it's best. It's a presumptuous, self-pitying, aggressive, self-righteous attitude that marginalizes anything the person they're talking to has endured in their life.

Are you confident that this is the meaning? Or is it really "because you have never experienced this, it isn't on your radar, whereas other people have to live with it everyday"? At the end of the day, you have experienced things I have not, I have experienced things that you have not, any given person in the thread may have experienced something else, and we are not doing each other any favours pretending that they are exactly the same.

Read first. Thought second. Outrage third. Stop skipping steps.

I hope you are willing to do the same thing.

[Wraith]

Ok, yes. Fine. We're all using the word privilege wrong. And yet, somehow we all understand what is meant by it. We understand your point, and there are arguments to be made about the evolution of language and such, but now isn't the time. If you want to mentally swap the words "good fortune" or something in there for privilege, go ahead, but I'm fine with it. All that matters is that whoever I'm talking to understand's what I'm saying, and I them. Being pedantic doesn't move the discussion forward.

Unless someone says "woman" without adding a special qualifier, apparently.

Back to Mike, this is a good example of someone not examining his place in the world. Until the Dickwolves thing, he likely had never really thought about rape victims, and how incidental uses of the word "rape" might affect them. Until the trans thing, he likely never really thought about non-binary gender.

In both these cases, he's joked as a response to criticism about them, and then lashed out at response of those who think it's wrong to make thos jokes. And he has done harm with these responses. Each time there were people who make jokes of rape, or of trans people, who felt like they had a supporter. Making the shirts being the worst of it.

"His place in the world." He didn't have an easy life growing up. Do you think he'd flip out if people made jokes about the stuff he went through? Are we just going to go out and protest every dark comedy now? Because the vast majority of them make jokes about things that somewhat out there has dealt with very painfully.

How many jokes do you see that take place in the middle of a war? Do you have any clue how traumatizing it is to be in the middle of a warzone, watching your best friends get torn apart? But I'll be you've laughed at a sketch or a movie with jokes about fighting in a combat zone Better check your privilege!

At what point did this become the reverse-holy grail of comedy? The one thing left, out of religion, violence, race, sex, drugs, illness; all these things that are either sacred or take horrible toles on people's lives, that are still joked about, with a lot of these same people shouting "freedom of speech! Better grow a sense of humor!" that still makes people go "oh no, that's never ok?"

Are you confident that this is the meaning? Or is it really "because you have never experienced this, it isn't on your radar, whereas other people have to live with it everyday"? At the end of the day, you have experienced things I have not, I have experienced things that you have not, any given person in the thread may have experienced something else, and we are not doing each other any favours pretending that they are exactly the same.

I'm pretty confident, yes. I mean, I'm not a mind reader, but between tone and context, That's always how it sounds when I encounter it.

Read first. Thought second. Outrage third. Stop skipping steps.

I hope you are willing to do the same thing.[/quote]

I am. If you look at my posting history, you'll notice that my post style tend to be that I quote what people say and respond to it point by point, instead of just the entire post all at once.

Some people think I'm just nit-picking; but to be honest, the way I see it is that by responding to every point made on an individual basis, people can't really say that I didn't actually read their post, or I just glossed over this or that. I read every single word and contemplate it all before I respond.

I said read first, thoughts second, outrage third because I thought I made my "that's a right, not a privilege" pretty clear, and then Ditto took it and responded as if I'd simply said "pffft, as if there's anything gay people have to deal with that Mike hasn't. Whatevs." And that is the check your privilege attitude. "I went through horrible things and if you disagree with me, it means you're marginalizing my suffering."

I don't like it when people take my words and attach negative connotation that was never there. I don't like it when they do it to me, I don't like it when they do it to other people (like Mike), it's just a really disingenuous, unfair thing to do.

[Duckay]

I don't like it when people take my words and attach negative connotation that was never there. I don't like it when they do it to me, I don't like it when they do it to other people (like Mike), it's just a really disingenuous, unfair thing to do.

Maybe you can clear this up for me, then, because when people tell you what they mean, and you reply saying that you're "pretty confident" that they mean something else, that certainly feels like attaching negative connotations to other people's words to me. If that's not what you meant, can you please clarify?

And yes, I agree it's disingenuous and unfair. I also think that sometimes people do it without realizing because they're not perfect. Other people do it to "win". I'm sure there's other reasons, too.

ETA: My apologies for bad formatting.

[korvys]

I don't like it when people take my words and attach negative connotation that was never there. I don't like it when they do it to me, I don't like it when they do it to other people (like Mike), it's just a really disingenuous, unfair thing to do.

Unless the words are "Check your privilege", apparently.

You've been presented twice now, with a person saying explaining that their impression of something is different to your, and both times you have insisted that your experience trumps theirs, and your impression is the correct one. You obviously have no intention of trying to see things from another's point of view, or trying to understand why someone might disagree. So I'm done with you.

[JackSlack]

But don't stop being reasonable; don't stop having a positive influence.

The road ahead of you is long, and almost completely unchanging, and it's GOING to get discouraging...

...but that's no reason to not journey down it.

Empath, can I get a clarification here? Are you arguing that you should never give up on someone, that there's always the possibility for change? Are you arguing, in fact, for the inverse of the Penny Arcade philosophy, an 'always engage' philosophy?

Or are you arguing that since Mike claims to be trying to improve, we owe it to him to take him at his word, and keep engaging with him? A more partial, "engagement can help" sort of philosophy?

[RedNightmare]

Ok, Holy hell, did this thread get big fast. I felt I had to read it all so I can add something to the discussion. I stayed up late last night and just finished it this morning.
Take a seat, grab some coffee, this might take a while.

@JackSlack
Thanks for starting this thread. You came across as very neutral and wanting to find out what others thought and what to do with this. I don't have my thoughts on it in order just yet, even while typing this, but you made me think and that's always a good thing.

Now on too stuff that happened around PA:

- The Dickwolves comic: the word rape there was used to make the stay of those prisoners seems as horrible as possible. Could they have used a different word? Probably, but they went with the worst they could find. Also, remember, that's not just Mike, Jerry writes most of it, so he's as responsible as Mike.

- The response comic: Ok, this was not very nice. Did the original comic makes someone a rapist? No. Did it perpetuate the current 'rape culture'?* I have no idea. Do we have any psychological studies into this? Because I am willing to learn.
What this hover did do was marginalize the legit comments from people and ridicule victims. It might not have been their intention, but it was one of the things it did.

- The t-shirts: Ok, what the hell! This I feel was a bad move, from all of them. I would have expected Robert to have caught this one, but he didn't. I actually 'blame' him for this more then the rest. This one just seemed to enable the people that were harrasing the victims. That probably wasn't their intention, but Robert should have seen that one coming.

- The transgender twitter debacle (I really don't know what to call this)
Ok, now normally I don't talk about these things, because I feel I am completely in the dark on LGBT subjects, but I feel that I can make some mistakes here and people will educate me about them.
Firstly, I understand Mike's confusion about females and vaginas. For me, I'm in kind of the same camp as Wraith, but not completely. I'm a biologist at heart and to me the only thing that determines gender/sex (don't really know which I mean here) is XX or XY. That's where it ends for me. But where I feel things go wrong is that that's not where society stops. To them guys like cars, are tough and are mostly rational, while woman like dolls, are fragile and emotional, etc. A gender isn't just a genetic make-up, it's also a enormous load of expectations from society. I think the really problem is this view of society on gender/sex and that solving that is the main issue. If that happens, I think that being identified as one gender/sex or the other won't be such a important thing anymore.
Now a important addition to this is that I feel changing an entire culture will be way harder and take way longer than simple reidentifing yourself within the current definitions, so I totally agree with people who do that.

People posting death threats over Mike's tweets just seems wrong, but people trying to explain things to him was good. Sadly, he lashed out at the vocal bad and hit the good people in the process, which happens a lot on the internet (more on that later). This doesn't excuse anything. Mike was a dick there and it got bad. He really should have not engaged there and thought things through.

- Mike's recent answer to a question in the Khoo & A:
If I remember correctly, the question was R:"At what point do you feel I failed you?"

Mike Krahulik: You know that I don’t hold grudges. I can be incredibly mad, and then fine the next minute as long as I get it out. And I feel like we got this out, so I’m not mad about it anymore. But I think that pulling the Dickwolves merchandise was a mistake.
Robert Khoo: Clearly had I known the following steps that would follow after that move, I would have never brought it up to you. Of course I wouldn’t have because I did not know— I don’t want to say, “Alright, well… because of this, this happened, and people said this, I said this, you said that….” Clearly it would have been better to just be like to not say anything, and that’s sort of our policy on all these types of things now.
Krahulik: Now, yeah.
Khoo: Whereas it’s just better not to engage, and in fact pulling it was a way of engaging.
[Mike expresses agreement]
Random Audience Member: Bring it back!
Khoo: No, that’s a terrible idea.

Now, Khoo talks about following steps? What where those? What happened afterwards? Because this is crucial to what I think about this statement:

*The Pro-shirts lashed out at the people that had concerns with the t-shirt: If this happened and it caused a lot of pain to the victims, I totally get why Mike feels it was the wrong move to pull the shirt, especially this publically.

*The anti-shirts demanded more or brought even more shit on top of them: This would have been bad from a purely businness stand point, something Robert is in charge of, so understandably, Mike could have seen that as failure.

*There was no real backlash either way afterwards and he just wanted to see the shirt sold: That would have made Mike a insensitive, bad man and I would feel very much less of him.

Does anyone know what happened afterwards? Can we go find out somehow, because this seems to be a very important make or break for this whole discussion.

- Mike as a person: I think Aydin225 summed it up for me nicely. It reminded me of something The Doctor once said: "The good doesn't always negate the bad, but it still matters."

Some other stuff:
@Duckay & Wraith
It seems that both of you have very different experiences reagerding the word "cis". Duckay seems to see it mostly in benign discussions, while Wraith keeps seeing them pop up in very horrible ones**. How about you each post about 5 links to discussions/blogs/sites where the word is used how you see it used most often? We won't be able to agree on which way it's used more (Anybody up for a global internet counting, cause I ain't), but we could get an idea of where each of you is coming from.***

And finally, regarding the way the internet always seems to bring out the most horrible comments, while people that just like or appreciate something stay quite, causing creators to only see the vitril. I would like to set up some sort of movement to post a thankfull, positive (or just politely offering suggestions) at least once a day. I'll probably start a different thread about that later today, cause I have gone on long enough.

Now can someone please point out every single grammar and spelling mistake I made, cause I want to get better at English!

*I always find that word really weird to write, am I the only one?

**Can't really think of a other word for it without using bad words. Fill in whatever seems appropriate there.

***I'm very sorry if this sounds like I'm talking down on anyone, I'm not, but I can't really see a way of rephrasing it. If you do, please tell me how so I can do better in the future.

[JustAName]

And if we're really going to get into this? The definition of privilege is "A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people." I think that fits what we were saying pretty well. White cis hetero males are granted a lot of privilege in this society. As a white cis woman, I am still granted a lot of privilege, and I try to be responsible with it.

The topic of conversation for this thread WAS, again, how Mike's saying they shouldn't have pulled the dickwolves shirts, and how that made a lot of rape survivors, female-bodied people, and female-identifying people feel unsafe, and whether this was reason to no longer support PA. The previous "blowups" informed decision for some people on this matter.

[empath]

But don't stop being reasonable; don't stop having a positive influence.

The road ahead of you is long, and almost completely unchanging, and it's GOING to get discouraging...

...but that's no reason to not journey down it.

Empath, can I get a clarification here? Are you arguing that you should never give up on someone, that there's always the possibility for change? Are you arguing, in fact, for the inverse of the Penny Arcade philosophy, an 'always engage' philosophy?

Or are you arguing that since Mike claims to be trying to improve, we owe it to him to take him at his word, and keep engaging with him? A more partial, "engagement can help" sort of philosophy?

Whew! I'm glad I checked this thread while drying my hair before running off to work; I dunno if I'd be in the mood to check it after the day I expect to have, and I'd hate to leave you hanging for a whole day!


Anyways:

....erm, yes and no.

Moreso, I meant in the context of "your activism (on ANYTHING) isn't going to change the world overnight, you'll need to be realistic about what difference you'll see...but don't let THAT discourage you" (Tangent: this is much like Meatloaf's explanation for what "that" means in each chorus of "I would do anything for love" - it's specific each time to the line before it ;P /tangent)

More "you aren't going to get a clear-cut 'win' but don't let THAT stop you".

Again, I was speaking generally.


Now.

To specifically address your dilemma:

Should you make a personal boycott of PAX and/or Penny Arcade?

I don't know, but if you do, you have every reason to, and I will support you.

...and if you don't, you have equally valid reasons to, and I will ALSO support you.

Because you are showing SO much integrity right now! You're not just bandwagoning onto a cause without thinking it over. You are giving this SERIOUS thought, weighing the options and considering everything very carefully.

Hell, you gave this so much sober thought, you started a discussion with other people and (as is clear from everything you've said here, right down to your post I'm replying to!) you're seriously mulling over what we say and suggest.

...and I am SO MOTHERFUCKING PROUD OF YOU RIGHT NOW for it!!!

I can't say what I feel you should do - whether you should continue to go to PAX to try to influence those involved with it that you think should act differently, or whether you should explicitly boycott same to make your disapproval and dissatisfaction known, and maybe make Mike et al. stop and ponder this issue and maybe change.

(sidenote: if you do stop going to PAX/cut PA loose from your life/whatever, I agree with whoever who suggested [b]you specifically email Mike/Robert/etc. explaining that you ARE doing this and WHY you're doing it, so the message gets across clearly)

I can only offer that whatever you choose to do should be what you feel deep down in your heart; and given your state of indecision, it might come down to whatever option makes you feel less queasy

...and you might have to give this more time for things to become clear in your head - you might end up waking up a week/month/etc down the road and say to yourself "YES! *THIS* is what I should do..."

But whatever happens and whatever you choose, I'm behind you all the way.

because I know - I have had it PROVEN to me - that you won't have made that decision lightly.

Every single damn prop, man.

[AlexanderDitto]

And rights REMAIN rights regardless of whether they are denied you or not.

What strange and funny rights these are, to be consistently and systematically denied to me through no fault of my own, at the whim of the greater culture, and not assured to me by anyone!

I am glad Wraith you were here to let me know that it is not that I am not simply being denied a privilege; instead, my rights are constantly being violated. That makes me feel so much better and completely erases the practical effects of those violations! I am glad you're here to set me straight (pun definitely intended).

Who shall I petition to ensure that my rights are afforded to me and have my profound sense of unease removed from me? The United Nations? Or does culture at large have a P.O. Box?

[Elomin Sha]

Did my sarcasm meter just go off?