Triggering content in #875

[Tengu_temp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Tengu_temp]

"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]

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

[Terraoblivion]

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]

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]

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]

Funny, no one criticised Rich for pedophile priests joke...

[Xelbiuj]

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]

{{scrubbed}}

[Procyonpi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Funny, no one criticised Rich for pedophile priests 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]

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]

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]

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

[Tengu_temp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? 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.