Penny Arcade and 'The Mike Problem'

[psychopez]

-double post-

[psychopez]

One idea is to watch the drive, but any money you would donate to Child's Play, donate to a local children's charity instead.

Sure, you're missing out on raffles and such, but you'd not be engaging with a PA property while still giving to the kids.

[Elomin Sha]

Wouldn't that be hypocritical watching something that is still related?

[JackSlack]

I can't find myself disagreeing with anything Ditto said. Sorry guys, but yeah. My mind's made up. I'm done with Penny Arcade too.

And yes, that includes Checkpoint, Desert Bus, and Child's Play.

[AlexanderDitto]

There's also nothing in that post about actual action they're going to take to, you know, try to make things better. Like strengthening and clarifying the harassment policy at PAX. Or disclosing how much PA made from selling those damn shirts and donating all of that and then some to a women's charity. Or, I dunno, going to sensitivity training? It might actually be good for him to talk that shit out with someone who has experience with it. His apology may be sincere but it doesn't actually do much to fix anything.

Actually, at this point, the best thing they could do would be to divorce PAX from PA entirely. It should be its own thing, like Child's Play. And then they could just... not go.

I still can't decide whether going to PAX and trying to be a positive force there is more worthwhile than not going in terms of trying to change the culture. I dunno. I won't stop watching Checkpoint, because I want LRR to be able to put food on the table, and the more money going away from PA and toward LRR the better.

[Elomin Sha]

I don't think anyone is going to be happy until Mike's head joins Eddard Stark on the ramparts of King's Landing (spoilers).

I wonder if anyone here is going to boycott coca~cola for the nefarious deeds they have done indirectly or directly.
Coca~Cola factories in India have dried up local rivers to make the drink? Child labourers in the sugar cane fields of El Salvador. Indian workers exposed to toxic chemicals. Colombian union leaders falsely accused of terrorism and jailed alongside the paramilitaries who want to kill them.

How many of you will boycott coca~cola right now and all the things it has its hands in with sponsorship? Olympics. NBA. NASCAR. iTunes. Santa/Christmas.

Before I forget. Boycott India.

[Lord Hosk]

I can understand and appreciate any choice that anyone makes in regard to future PAX attendance, or PA related shows and work. What is getting me about this is the people, those in this thread included who are saying "well he apologized but that doesnt fix it" or "sure he clarified what he said and that makes sense but he should have done X, Y years ago"

You cant change the past, no apology will ever "fix" anything that has happened. But what Mike said certainly seemed sincere, and absolutely shows growth. 3 years ago, he didnt apologize, because he didnt have a clue that he had really dont anything wrong. He just said "I was wrong" what more proof do you want?

As I said earlier in this thread, it wasnt the dick wolves comic that was the problem, it was the follow up, and the merchandise, it was Mike not letting it go and instead going on and on and fanning the flames and being not just insensitive but very offensive to people that was the issue. He said in that same panel that him trolling people was his biggest failing and he and the people at PA were working on that shortcoming specifically. He then reiterated just that in his apology.

Once again, what he said at the Q&A with Khoo was that the way Khoo pulled the merch was a mistake, instead of just pulling it he made it a publicity thing "because people are upset we are pulling this" That was specifically what he was talking about. You can still be upset about dickwolves but dont assign motives that he says he didnt have to the comment on monday, you cant know what he was thinking all you can know is what he said, and he expressed quite clearly what I was saying all along, that people were misrepresenting this current situation.

This explanation and clarification does exactly what people said they wanted out of him, a sign of growth and change. Is he now a upstanding perfect person, NO, but there is a marked change.

Three years ago, he responded to people being upset by insulting them, dismissing their pain, and fanning the flame of insensitivity and saying anyone with a problem is wrong in fact so wrong that they should pay me to say they were wrong.

4 months ago, he responded with ignorance, then when people responded to his ignorance with hatred and proded him he turned to insults, and then brought himself back and apologized, if possibly not whole heatedly.

This week, people misunderstood him and responded with hatred again, his response was to sit quietly and then apologize not only for the misunderstanding but for his past actions.

Again, Go to PAX or dont go to PAX as you feel is right for you dont support him or his work, I 100% support your choice as it works for you no matter if I agree with your rational or not. Feel he is still a terrible person if you want or that he should be better than he is and he should have learned all the lessons by now. However, you cant say he isnt growing and getting better, you cant say he isnt learning.

[JackSlack]

But what Mike said certainly seemed sincere, and absolutely shows growth ... However, you cant say he isnt growing and getting better, you cant say he isnt learning.

He's getting better at PR, a little. But no, this is our big point of contention. He doesn't seem sincere. As Ditto pointed out; why bring up a defence of the original strip? I don't believe he's grown. Nor do I believe he's shown any real interest in doing so. There's no mention of plans to improve, of ways to ensure this doesn't happen again. All I see is him covering his ass and doing damage control.

During the Ocean's thing he said, "There's a difference between being sorry for what you've done and being sorry you got caught."

Quite right.

[korvys]

Otherwise why would it start by making it clear he thinks the joke that started all this was still totally funny? Why is that relevant here? Why can't he apologize without couching it in an "actually we were in the right to begin with so...."

I think the point of the post was to clarify everything, where possible. To not leave anything about his feelings on each part of the who debacle unambiguous. He went from start to finish, from making the comic, the responses, the second comic, the shirts, etc. If he didn't mention the comic itself, I think it would be worse. He'd still get questions about if he regretted it.

Otherwise why would he have felt sorry for hurting "innocent people," as though there is some group of rape victims who were complaining who were not innocent? If only he hadn't used an AoE! He might have hit them in a more targeted strike? Like, what? Does he not realize that a number of people who felt threatened were people who WERE fans? People who go to PAX?

As someone mentioned earlier, the response he likely heard the loudest when he made the comic was not a measured "Hey, that's not cool" but more likely death threats and the like. So when he has lashed back out, by mocking his detractors, he's thinking of the really vile ones, not the more measured ones, but they all get it the same. And without knowing what else everyone said, each person is going to view the response as only for them.

I feel like you're reading too much into it. Or maybe I'm reading too much into your post. I'm not sure.

I feel like his apology is genuine. It seems like he really doesn't understand some things, but unlike some other posters, I think he is trying, and that he wants to. I think he doesn't understand his influence, and that he gets defensive and lashes out when he feels attacked (especially about his art), and uses humour, and mockery when he does, and that combining these things is a really bad idea. When the trans thing happened, it seemed like he really didn't get it until a person he knew contacted him directly, rather than a stranger contacting him publicly.

I think he has done some thoughtless, upsetting things, and I've spent too much time thinking about this than I care to say. I think he'll probably fuck up again. But I think he does more good than harm. And I don't think he's a bad person.

I think he's human, and I don't know what more you can ask of him than admitting fault and apologising when he fucks up.

[Lyinginbedmon]

We are now at the stage of analysing every individual word in his statement as though trying to unravel its unique DNA and genetic history.

[AlexanderDitto]

I wonder if anyone here is going to boycott coca~cola for the nefarious deeds they have done indirectly or directly.

I was wondering when someone was going to trot out that old derailing favorite, Don't We Have More Important things to be Worried About.

I already don't drink Coke. But that doesn't matter, Elomin. Don't be a silly goose. Just because there are other bad things doesn't mean smaller bad things aren't worth fixing. "Well, the whole universe is going to suffer a heat death eventually anyway, so is this really worth talking about?" is a dumb thing to say.

I care about PAX, and this shit is something that is easy to fix, which is why we're here. If you want to work toward effecting change in Coca cola's business practices, make another thread.

Hosk: Yes, at least he's apologizing now, and yes, we can't change the past. But I do think he could do more to actually fix things, right now, to show he actually gets it. Oh well.

OK no more posting for me about this ever because it's giving me a headache.

[Lord Hosk]

JackSlack

He brought up a defense of the original strip because he doesn't feel it was wrong and he wanted to separate that from the apology for what he does feel was wrong, what came after.

The dick wolves comic offended people yes, however their style of comic is not a inoffensive one. Artists should never have to apologize for people they unintentionally offended with their work. He apologized for his intentional offense and for his insensitivity.

If you dont believe him, fine, I do. If he was just covering his ass and doing damage control why not also apologize for "everything" for what he said at the panel and for the original comic? Because he doesnt feel those were wrong.

If he had come out and said "it was all wrong, I was wrong, im sorry for being wrong" I and everyone else would have said "bullshit" you can still say that but I think you are wrong.

[Kapol]

One thing I'd like to say is that I don't feel it's fair to punish Child's Play or Desert Bus for being angry at Mike, or even Penny Arcade as a whole. As far as I know, Penny Arcade doesn't actually make money from Child's Play at all. If that's the case, then that does it do to punish Mike by not giving money to them? It doesn't assist in taking anything really away from him.

Yes, you can donate to a local children's hospital to make up for that. But that money doesn't necessarily go towards ways to actually entertain the children. It's still a good cause, don't get me wrong. But it's not the same either. Child's Play is also a global charity from my understanding. It doesn't only help out local children, but children around the world.

And Desert Bus helps Child's Play and LRR much more than it does PA. A great number of LRR fans, myself included, got into them from Desert Bus. It's a great deal of fun and raises a butt-ton of money for a good cause. And I worry that trying to boycott it or make it out as though it's helping the problem instead of being a solution only helps to sour the experience. If not for the LRR crew themselves, who seem to think highly of a good deal of people here, then for those of us from the forum who watch.

I just feel like going against anything PA related is getting away from the point. It starts to hurt others more than it hurts the person or people who caused the problem. But then again, I don't feel anyone needs to do anything that makes them uncomfortable. If you really feel that giving money to Child's Play is a bad thing at this point, then that's fine. I'm just sharing how I personally feel.


As for PAX itself, I intend to still try to go. But I worry doing so will make me feel guilty. Because that's what this entire ideal is starting to do I worry. It makes me sad at the idea of going to something that causes people I respect pain and suffering, and makes them sad by not feeling able to go with it. But I feel like me going is better than sitting at home where I can't do anything about it all.

Because when I think of this idea of boycotting PAX due to the actions of the currently, I feel, vocal minority will turn them into the vocal majority. In the end this might taint PAX for even more people. It reminds me of something Dr. Mark Kline said during the Escapist Expo last year. He spoke about how he'd been treating a pedophile, and in talking about him learned of a convention of them. There, they talked and felt like it was something that was good, and would become legal. It's an issue of surrounding yourself with people who have similar ideals, which only makes those ideas grow and strengthen.

On top of that, I worry it'll drive more and more people who are bothered by being associated with the growing number who don't care to either stop going to PAX themselves. It's a problem of not wanting to associate with such people (understandably) and guilt. Thus making the mentioned group-confirmation even worse.

Of course, I'm not saying people should do what makes the uncomfortable. Don't go to PAX if you feel you shouldn't just to try to 'save it.' Because at that point, it's not worth saving. But if you still find fun and enjoyment from it, then I think it's worth at least trying to keep it from degrading any further than it already has.

And if you choose to not go because of this whole ordeal, I do recommend emailing Penny Arcade and telling them specifically why you aren't going. Tell them why you won't go. If enough people do, even if they still sell out, there should be some effect for the better. Maybe mention the changes or ideas you've mentioned here to hopefully make things better. Even if it changes nothing, at least you've tried. That's really the most one can try to do.

...sorry this turned into a mega post. I meant to make a post discussing what this whole ordeal has made me think of and realize, but at that point I'd be getting off topic. Sorry if I've offended or annoyed anyone.

[phlip]

During the Ocean's thing he said, "There's a difference between being sorry for what you've done and being sorry you got caught."

Exactly. The fact that he includes pulling the merch in the list of things he "regrets" is a sign towards his thought process being "this is bad because it spurred more debate re: us being bad people" as opposed to "this is bad because it (indirectly) contributed to people being hurt".

He thinks that Hypothetical World A, where he makes the strip, makes the followup strip and news posts, makes the merch, and then disengages, pretends nothing ever happened, and leaves the merch on sale... is better than Hypothetical World B, where he does all those things, but then pulls the merch, and then disengages. That pulling the merch was, in and of itself, a step downward in the spiral. And his reasoning is that doing so "[brought] on a whole new wave of debate". As if it's the debate that was the problem.

This is the same shortsightedness as comedians who make rape jokes, or racist jokes, or whatnot, and get backlash from people who are offended... and think that it's the offence that's the problem, and try to blow it off by saying "well if you didn't make a big deal about it, it wouldn't be a problem"... and think that if the offence goes away, then it's not a problem any more. When that's just curing the symptom... The joke causes both harm and offence (when it's working properly, the offence is because of the harm)... the offence is what causes people to speak up, but what they're speaking up about is the harm. And fixing the offence without fixing the harm is just trying to patch over it to make the debate go away, and put the harm in the "out of sight, out of mind" basket.

It's the same thing with the apology post that came up after his trans* debacle on Twitter... it read like a sincere apology, but it also read like he still had no idea why what he was saying was a problem... all he new is that he got a lot of backlash for it, and so he had to apologise. So it came across as "I'm sorry you're offended" instead of "I'm sorry I said dumb things".

My personal stance is: I'm still not going to boycott Child's Play. My gut feeling on that one is that the good outweighs the harm, there. None of that money should be going to M/J/R, so all it would be doing on that front is contributing to giving them the good feels as the Child's Play total climbs higher. I can live with that. I will, however, be avoiding buying anything from PA, and that includes not going to PAX, and not buying anything from the LRR store. I just can't justify that to myself.

[Duckay]

I wonder if anyone here is going to boycott coca~cola for the nefarious deeds they have done indirectly or directly.

If I take part in a rally for one political issue that moves me tomorrow, am I obligated or in some way a bad person if I don't then spend every day for the rest of the month campaigning for all the other issues that I think are important?

Yes, you can donate to a local children's hospital to make up for that. But that money doesn't necessarily go towards ways to actually entertain the children. It's still a good cause, don't get me wrong. But it's not the same either. Child's Play is also a global charity from my understanding. It doesn't only help out local children, but children around the world.

I don't want to get into this too deeply, but I just feel like it needs to be said. If you as an individual want to put your money towards a different charity, especially one that is important to you, I don't think you should be made to feel bad for that.

Personally I think that if the reason you are boycotting Child's Play is because of the Penny Arcade connection, you should think more about that and consider how much effect it will actually have. However, the mere act of giving your money to another charity instead is not and in my opinion never will be the problem.

[Kapol]

I don't want to get into this too deeply, but I just feel like it needs to be said. If you as an individual want to put your money towards a different charity, especially one that is important to you, I don't think you should be made to feel bad for that.

Personally I think that if the reason you are boycotting Child's Play is because of the Penny Arcade connection, you should think more about that and consider how much effect it will actually have. However, the mere act of giving your money to another charity instead is not and in my opinion never will be the problem.

Right. For the record, I hadn't intended to make giving the money to a different charity into a bad thing. I just don't think there's an actual equivalent charity out there in terms of what it does (at least that I know of). Getting games to kids who are stuck in hospitals is honestly something that's important to me, hence why I mention it. But the important part is giving to a good cause in the end.

[JackSlack]

Well, since we're into the mega-posts now, here's mine.

My motivation here is probably larger than Mike. It's part of a wider dissatisfaction with where gaming is, and where it isn't. And happily, an article in response to this helped put my finger on the whole thing. It's hardly a new point, but it's a wonderful evocation of the point none the less.

The impetus behind Child's Play was to provide a counter-narrative. Helping children is great, don't get me wrong, but if that was the only goal, there were easier and even better ways to do it than founding a whole new charity.

If you are like me, every time you see an article like this one, where the author claims that video games are training our nations youth to kill you get angry. The media seems intent on perpetuating the myth that gamers are ticking time bombs just waiting to go off . . . Let’s give these kids the Christmas that they deserve and let’s give the news papers a different kind of story to write about gamers.

And yes, at the time, that was indeed a legitimate goal and hope. To some degree, it still is. Still, a supreme court decision later, and a lot of study and media swing later, the narrative has changed. When a tragedy occurs with a link to gaming, the media has now become more reflective. Articles like "Condemning game for tragedy is missing bigger issue" have become unremarkable. Yes, it still comes up. But it's no longer the dominant narrative. Instead, the new narrative has become one dominated by topics of sexism, racism and bigotry. There's a reason Anita Sarkeesian has become the new Jack Thompson for many gamers. (There's at least one Youtube video I won't link to that makes the comparison directly. Moviebob instead has provided some commentary about the similarities in the gaming community's response.)

And Mike's directly aiding and strengthening that narrative.

But here's the thing: The counter-narrative is already at work. And it can work.

GaymerX was a hit. It provided a voice for GLBT gamers, Bioware attended, and they've already announced GaymerX2... even if the title keeps making me think of the X-Men. That may be intentional.

And, as the article I first mentioned notes, Gone Home got a woman to buy her very first video game after a lifetime of disdaining them.

This would be the game made by the Fullbright Company. The same ones who pulled out of PAX.

For me, this is the clear line in the sand. Yes, I think Child's Play did wonderful work in two regards. It helped children, and it helped the gaming community. But now? Well, I still think it does good work for children. But it also grants legitimacy and importance to Penny Arcade...

And I can no longer see Penny Arcade as helping the gamer community. I now see them as, on balance, a detriment to it.

It's time, I feel, for gaming to move past Penny Arcade.

[Duckay]

I don't think that's entirely true, JackSlack. The counter-narrative may be at work, but that does not mean that the job is done. I think arguing that now that we are partway there we should stop is missing the point.

Of course, I can't argue with some of your other points. GaymerX is amazing, yes. I was not as familiar with the other stories before you linked them, so I won't express any deep opinions about them.

At the end of the day, though, I think you're underselling the impact it has on the children. Penny Arcade may have gone in with an ulterior motive, but if Child Play suddenly stops (not that it will, but hypothetically), what is going to happen for these kids?

I am not asking you if you would personally like your money to go there. I have already gone into that with Kapol. I know that you might have your charity dollars earmarked for other things. However, are you really comfortable with saying that it would be better if Child Play did not exist?

[korvys]

It's getting weird to discuss this, where there isn't really a right or wrong answer.

I mean Jack says

And Mike's directly aiding and strengthening that narrative.
...
And I can no longer see Penny Arcade as helping the gamer community. I now see them as, on balance, a detriment to it.

and I disagree. Which means inherently, I think he is incorrect. But I can't fault him for it. It's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw, I just draw a different one.

I think this is just me rambling in appreciation of the level of maturity in discourse that exists here, compared to other places, on the internet and in meat-space.

More on topic, I'd be interested to know how much Mike actually knows about the response to the things he says. He's enough of a celebrity to get random abuse on twitter, etc, so I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't read a lot of his @ replies from people he doesn't already follow, and depending on what sites he reads, it might be days before some things get back to him.

Of course, given that his job involves commenting on current gaming events, he might be fully aware. It's likely, even. But I'd be interested to know...

[Metcarfre]

Two equally-intelligent people can look at the same set of facts and reach different conclusions, and I wish people (particularly on the internet) would remember that more often.

Duckay, I don't believe that Jack's saying the work is done. I think he's saying that while we're making progress, certain aspects of PAX or at least, the personalities behind it, are hindering it.

Couple things about Child's Play; First, although PA of course does not receive any money from the event, let's not pretend they don't benefit from it - just as LRR has, from free press and exposure. That's not positive or negative, it simply is.

That said, I have no problem supporting their charity. I think it was created in a, shall we say, questionable spirit as Jack indicated, but I think one positive thing is that Mike and Jerry have come around to just how amazing this charity can be in and of itself and for the children.

Our family is blessed with a healthy income right now, and we set aside a certain amount each month for tithing and charity. Child's play is becoming less and less important in that equation, as we have other charities that take precedence. But I'll chip in $5 or $20 for a challenge at DB and feel no qualms.

******

Whether you're entirely satisfied with Mike's apology or not, I think it's fair to say that we have to wait for whatever the next "thing" is to see if there's been a change. If Mike can be contrite, humble, and honestly engaging? Fantastic, lesson learned. If not, I think the negative repercussions may become serious.

(Also, I know he said something like "Hey, I'm not gonna bullshit you guys, no PR here" - these guys absolutely need a PR person. Geez.)

[JackSlack]

I am not asking you if you would personally like your money to go there. I have already gone into that with Kapol. I know that you might have your charity dollars earmarked for other things. However, are you really comfortable with saying that it would be better if Child Play did not exist?

For gaming? Possibly. (Though maybe not, see below.) For the children? Of course not.

@Met:

More or less, Met. I think there's still some work to be done on the games and violence debate, especially outside of America. But when the supreme court comes down and says, "Nope, games are a protected form of speech", then the lion's share of the fight is done. Gamers won that debate. (In no small part due to the industry-friendly makeup of the supreme court, but what can you do? Nothing in politics is clean.)

My argument is that the major challenge facing games now isn't the issue of violence but issues of bigotry. Sexism, racism and homophobia are now where I feel the negative perceptions of gamers lie. There's less 'Games will make you a psychopath!' and more 'Games are for homophobic sexist fratboys' in the mix. I'm not convinced Penny Arcade fights that latter perception at all. Indeed, I'm rather convinced Mike aids it.

That said, a bit of time to rethink it later, and I admit: I'm not the person to answer this. I can't say with any authority if the good that PAX and Child's Play do outweighs the damage Mike and PAX do. (Yes, PAX I believe both does good and damage. Like I said, a lot of mixed feelings here.) I'm very curious what someone like, say, James Portnow has to say on it.

If Extra Credits decided to sever ties with Penny Arcade though, that'd be me going eyes wide. If anyone understands the political landscape of gaming today, it's Portnow.

[Duckay]

I certainly have a lot of time for the idea that Penny Arcade's PR stuff (like everything we're talking about in this thread, more or less) is ultimately perpetuating the parts of the video game industry that they were ostensibly trying to turn around. And I will wait for JackSlack to clarify, but I interpreted his comment to mean that because we are making progress, we no longer 'need' Child's Play to support the counter-narrative.

[Bebop Man]

I can't find myself disagreeing with anything Ditto said. Sorry guys, but yeah. My mind's made up. I'm done with Penny Arcade too.

And yes, that includes Checkpoint, Desert Bus, and Child's Play.

That seems a little rash.

[JackSlack]

OK, I'll see if I can clarify a bit.

I think Child's Play itself does not directly counter the current narrative, nor aid it. It's a charity and is therefore good, but it doesn't directly fight the bigotry narrative the way it negated the violence one. After all, bigotry and charity can go quite neatly hand in hand.

But I do think it grants legitimacy to Penny Arcade, and thus Mike, and I do think Mike aids the narrative quite a bit.

[Metcarfre]

My argument is that the major challenge facing games now isn't the issue of violence but issues of bigotry. Sexism, racism and homophobia are now where I feel the negative perceptions of gamers lie. There's less 'Games will make you a psychopath!' and more 'Games are for homophobic sexist fratboys' in the mix. I'm not convinced Penny Arcade fights that latter perception at all. Indeed, I'm rather convinced Mike aids it.

I have to agree on that point. It seems as though the negative associations of geekdom or nerdom of my childhood - lonerliness, social awkwardness, obsession with techincal things, bad jeans - have supplanted or, worse, supplemented with things like racism, homophobia, online abuse, and narcissism.

Frankly, I wouldn't ever describe myself as a geek anymore, at least partly for those reasons (but for many others too).