Incidentally, Cheung and Cheung's rabid fans: I do not hate sex. I do not hate men or women, except in specific cases. I am neither Christian nor prudish and I don't believe that keeping the lights on is the most exciting thing one can do in the bedroom. I'm just very clear on where an empowered female character who just happens to enjoy sex becomes a juvenile vehicle for fanservice and wanking.
The above comes from the recently revived Your Webcomic is Bad blog. Sadly, I did not voice my suspicion that the Jade Raymond/Dave Cheung controversy would cause Cheung's webcomic Chugworth Academy to be at the top of the list if/when the blog revived; alas, instead of looking prescient, I just seem cranky.
But read that paragraph: After going on at length about how she isn't against sex, oh no no, she wraps it up with one sentence that immediately whips around 180° and condemns what she considers "juvenile". If you like what's in the strip, juvenile, creepy or not, it's your sex she's against. Not "sex", per se, just what she finds distasteful, nevermind if you like it or not.
She is upset that Dave Cheung draws what she finds creepy and unsettling; I get the sense she's also upset that anyone might possibly find any of it arousing, and I can't imagine she does not believe that some people are indeed "wanking" over it, despite her disgust and derision.
This is what I've been grumbling about back here all along. It's all very well to say you don't want to "take the sexy away", or that you aren't "against sex", if you define what you like and approve of as "the sexy", and anything that falls outside of your personal preferences and approval as some filthy perversion that must be expunged.
Strap that jerking knee down: Ms. Ester is free to not like Chugworth or Dave Cheung or any of that stuff, I don't care. Criticize it all you want until the Heat Death of the Universe, knock yourself out. But don't tell me you aren't against "the sexy" when what you really mean is "I'm not against anything I like but anything I dislike is fair game". Admit that you are against someone else's "sexy".
In other words: Just don't bullshit me.
32 comments:
People find 8-year olds sexy. People find rape sexy. People find snuff sexy. By your logic, not wanting/being offended by/arguing against those things being in comics is "Taking (someone's) Sexy AWAY."
Oh, you don't find those things sexy? Or you mean lots of people don't find them sexy? Or is it only sexy if you find it sexy?
In the long run, the pornification of comics is a relatively new thing. Do you need porn to have sexy? Why do you need porn poses in MAINSTREAM comics? Why not get an erotic comic, if you want that? If you never saw Jean Grey's nipple again, would she suddenly cease to be sexy? Was she not sexy in the days when such representations were less common?
"By your logic, not wanting/being offended by/arguing against those things being in comics is "Taking (someone's) Sexy AWAY." "
Well, isn't it? If someone intends to remove something they find objectionable from comics, by way of criticism or protest, the end result (if they succeed) is to take the objectionable material away from those who may very well enjoy it.
THAT'S WHAT IT IS, whether or not the material in question is found to be disgusting or "creepy" by those who protest it.
Let me be clear again: If you want to protest those things, fine. Just don't paint it as you being all pro-sex (or in some cases, even pro-porn), if what you really mean is you're just pro-the-stuff-you-approve-of-but-not-anything-else.
"In the long run, the pornification of comics is a relatively new thing. "
Oh no. No, it is very much NOT a new thing. You need to rephrase that statement or get some history.
But here, consider these questions in response to your questions:
How much "sexy" is too much? Would you really be comfortable (as in, enough to not protest it) if all this objectionable stuff were shunted to some line of outright erotic comics? Is Chugworth okay because it's neither superhero nor mainstream?
Some people find even some of the improbably-revealing outfits on superheroines to be objectionable, and they speak out against them. Would you concede that at least THOSE people are indeed trying to take someone's sexy away...?
In the long run, the pornification of comics is a relatively new thing.
*snicker*
Oh, my. With misstatements like this, is it any wonder people think comics are for kids?
If a guy finds small children sexy, then yes, his sexy needs to be taken away. We have laws about that, whether you agree with 'em or not.
Cheung's art is really chickenshit in that the guy clearly wants to rape little girls or teenagers, and he obviously thinks women are stupid whores. He's also probably afraid to talk to women or carry out the physical violence a rape would require.
When he states his opinions of women bluntly, he gets the Jade Raymond debacle. So he disguises his strip with the shitty veneer of pale satire of gamer/anime culture, one of the fucking easiest targets to shoot at and yet one he still misses. Deep in the heart of that shit sandwich is sexual repression and misogyny so vile it'd make Dave Sim think it was a bit much.
If you whack off to the kind of porn Cheung likes, you may or may not be a terrible person. If you whack off to Cheung's porn specifically, you either have fucking low standards or at the least have a deeply buried dom fetish you're too chickenshit to express.
In short, any sexy Cheung is bringing to the party is, specifically, valueless. Trying to defend it as a "freedom of speech" thing is only defending your right to humiliate yourself with enthusiasm for stupid shit. This exists, sure, but you're not fucking hero for bringing it up. You're just an idiot, and the internet may be too dangerous for your regular use.
So you're a pedophile, huh?
"Cheung's art is really chickenshit in that the guy clearly wants to rape little girls or teenagers.."
That statement and the blog post(same person?) are too funny. The poster should quickly report Cheung, the future rapist, to the police since he's "clearly" a danger to society, and more specifically to "little children".
Horrible webcomic and a more horrible review.
"If a guy finds small children sexy, then yes, his sexy needs to be taken away. We have laws about that, whether you agree with 'em or not."
Oh? What law is that, exactly?
There are laws against actually having sex with real people under the age of consent; as drawn images, the characters in a webcomic are not real people.
There have been attempts to define drawn images and other images that have no actual children in them as "child porn"; unless there's a new development I'm unaware of, most of those attempts get shot down in the courts.
But there is no law that forbids someone to simply have pedophiliac desires, and you should be thankful for that. When merely feeling some way can become a crime, then everyone becomes a criminal.
(It is also worth noting that as a citizen of the UK, the laws Dave Cheung has to abide by may be different than those the USA enforces.)
As for the rest of your post: "free speech" is not a concept dependent on merit. If you don't defend what you find distasteful along with what you approve of, then "free speech" is meaningless.
That, however, is NOT the point of my post, which is: Don't try to defend your stance by saying how you aren't against sex, when what you really are saying is that you're against sexual depictions that offend you.
Just as you claiming that me defending Cheung's work on the grounds of free speech doesn't make me a hero, your criticism of what you think Cheung's sexual tendencies are doesn't somehow make you a pro-sex champion. You're every bit the bitter, frowning, 97-year-old-librarian-circa-1942 when something appears on the outside of your personal comfort zone.
Awesome! I didn't know Your Webcomic Is Bad And You Should Feel Bad was back! Thanks for the heads up. :P
In the name of truth in advertising, I humbly suggest that you change the name of this blog to "I'm Creepy."
If I creep you out just by what I've been saying, you're in for some major head trauma when you reach, say, over the age of fifteen, or whenever it is you finally have to deal with the real world out there.
In short, any sexy Cheung is bringing to the party is, specifically, valueless. Trying to defend it as a "freedom of speech" thing is only defending your right to humiliate yourself with enthusiasm for stupid shit.
Yes, because freedom of speech obviously only applies to things of "value". And what is of "value" is defined by... whom exactly? You? The moral majority? If that'd be the case, we could kiss all cultural developement good bye, because every artform would suddenly stagnate. Adios, U-Comix.
Anon, my point is that you, Scott, and apparently Dirk Deppey are SERIOUSLY rallying around the wrong subject here if your point is simply to defend cheesecake. Championing the cause of badly drawn twelve-year-olds with angel cup implants who star in a strip by the author of the Jade Raymond comic is unlikely to win hearts and minds, and will only lead people to question what in the fucking fuck YOUR deal is.
Anon, my point is that you, Scott, and apparently Dirk Deppey are SERIOUSLY rallying around the wrong subject here if your point is simply to defend cheesecake. Championing the cause of badly drawn twelve-year-olds with angel cup implants who star in a strip by the author of the Jade Raymond comic is unlikely to win hearts and minds, and will only lead people to question what in the fucking fuck YOUR deal is.
Darling, you've got it all wrong. We're not championing Cheung. We're castigating you. You're review is bad, and you should feel bad. You are the kind of toxic, judgmental, vicious, erotophobic person that I’d be ever so happy to have as an enemy. I am prouder of nothing more than being opposed to small, cruel, self-serving, talentless, deluded hypocrites like you.
I hope that's cleared things up for you.
What Scott said.
Also:
"Unlikely to win hearts and minds"? Please. I've been championing an unpopular (at least in the WFA circles) idea since I started this blog, which is: Just because you're offended by something, that doesn't justify you trying to take it away from someone else. It's an idea that rankles those who want to edit the fantasies of others. That alone gets me labeled as a troll and/or misogynist.
"will only lead people to question what in the fucking fuck YOUR deal is"? Well, that's why I use a pseudonym, because some people are so afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome that they can't see someone discussing a controversial subject without assuming they endorse that subject. Such retards may be present in this very comments section.
If you actually read Dirk Deppey's column on a regular basis, you'd find that he has called Dave Cheung a "vile little douchebag" over the Jade Raymond incident. If he is showing support now, I wager it's mainly for the principles instead of any endorsement of the man.
As long as we're on the topic of "what someone's deal is", this has been bugging me long enough that I'll go ahead and ask: Assuming you're the same "anonymous" that lead off this comments section, where did you pull "Jean Grey's nipple" from? Has there been a sighting I'm unaware of? Why that and not some other heroine? What did Jean Grey ever do to you...?
I'm actually not the same anonymous. I thought about posting under my, like, name, but you know...you don't. So fuck it!
I'm also not the author of the review, Scott. Or a woman. That doesn't sound, at least, like the kind of tone you take with men, unless you're a good deal femmier than your bearish appearance implies. If so, good for you! Smash those stereotypes, says me!
As to whether Dirk's championing this cause, I didn't think so when he linked just here -- that seemed a little more like a point and laugh sorta thing to me -- but when he prominently linked to your attempt to follow up on anon's criticism, I had to reconsider. I'm aware he's called Cheung a douche in the past, and for that matter YOU may well have called him a douche in the past, but this remains a...well...defense of a douche. It is hard to defend the douchey without getting a slimy coating of douche on oneself. I'm surprised, for that reason, that you have chosen this douche to champion, but here we are.
Anyway, all I said was that your (anon, you) defense of this particular comic's "sexy" was creepy. It's creepy to me because, well, the protagonists look like children. This is not an accident, or an eccentricity on the part of the artist; their youth is implied by the title of the strip. That that doesn't strike you as creepy strikes me as creepy. I suspect it would strike most people as creepy or, at the very least, a little bit questionable. This may well be exactly what you have been talking about, but I don't think it's what most of the bloggers you have an issue with have been talking about -- because it's so taken for granted that something bordering on lolita porn is kinda not right that this is an assumption that's rarely even called into question. To be honest, I'm kinda baffled that you would even leap on this, so obviously objectionable is it, and I'm sure the people you regularly disagree with are fucking ecstatic.
Your Webcomic Is Bad And You Should Feel Bad gives me raging boners. You don't have the right to take that from me. Stop trying to take away my webcomic review porn.
I'm also not the author of the review, Scott. Or a woman.
You know, that really doesn't matter. Whether you are Ms. Ester or not, you still have the same toxic, asinine, overly-judgmental, pissant little coward attitude, that she does. Scott's statement (despite it's tone) still hold. true for you nonetheless.
Because, you see, your comments here have truly betrayed your true self. You think yourself so superior to others, that you can not only decide what creative works have "value" and not, but you also know the heart and minds of those who create, view, or defend them. How pathetic you are. You are superior to NO ONE.
Sorry, buddy, but "1984" was almost a quarter of a century ago. You missed out on your chance to be the "thought police" of mankind.
I guess the ability to create a work about something you don't personally believe is foreign to your kind, but hey, that's your problem. The worst thing about Cheung's work is that is is unoriginal and cliched. It's dick and fart humor, with scantily clad jailbait image. Wow, we've never seen anything like that before, have we?
What I've seen of Cheung's work has pretty much been boring for me. A couple of strips might have gotten a mild chuckle out of me, but it is no where near as fun as Cheung himself might thingk it is.
And yet, despite that, I don't cast moral judgments on him, his viewing audience, or those who defend them from uptight, wannabe tyrants like you and Ms. Ester. His work isn't all that inspired, but that's hardly a crime deserving to be "shot in the balls" over, or being insinuated as a pedophile over.
You obviously have a great many issues with sex, yourself, so maybe you should concult some psychiatric assistance in dealing with that. I mean, seeing drawing of ink as real people, enough to make a cliched webcomic equivalant to child porn, that is some seriously repressed issues you have going.
So, maybe next time, you should hold off on the armchair psychiatric evaluations of others, and instead deal with the psychic sludge rolling around in your own mind first. Because, as "creepy as you find Anon, Scott, Deppey and now myself (I'd imagine), none of us confuse drawing of ink as real people and think fictional fantasy is the same as a real life desire.
Get yourself some help soon, before you pop your cork and go on a murderous rampage at the local McDonalds or something, they way uptight jackasses like you tend to do.
"Anyway, all I said was that your (anon, you) defense of this particular comic's "sexy" was creepy. It's creepy to me because, well, the protagonists look like children."
What's creepy to ME is that you haven't tumbled to the utterly poisonous nature of the reasoning you're using.
"I wonder why you defend that pervert! You must be a pervert yourself!"
Compare with:
"You're for gay rights? You must be some sort of faggot!"
"You oppose the war? You're against the troops!"
"You're pro-choice? Why do you want to kill innocent babies??"
It's all bullshit, and I treat it as such. If you think I'm going to alter my stance just because of some kind of idiot-mentality schoolyard innuendo, then you're completely misunderstanding the point and misjudging my character.
I stand in opposition to people who get upset about other people's fantasies. These people don't fret about what people actually DO, they get worked into spasms over what people THINK. They can't stand the idea that people think in ways they don't approve of. They live in abject fear that thinking must always, without exception, lead to doing. The ultimate end to such a stance must be that, for the good of society, people should be restricted on what they are or are not allowed to think. (Yes, "thought police" is an apropos term in such a case.)
Feminists who feel that sexism in comics results in sexism in real life fall under this category. So do people who think that Dave Cheung's jailbait DRAWINGS are equal to assaulting a minor in real life.
I do not accept this line of (supposed) logic, however. It's more based on people getting the "creeps" or having their personal feelings hurt than it's based on any real evidence that depictions in media cause the same thing to happen in real life. And as I said a few posts back, if that WERE the case, you'd think people would be more concerned about all the MURDERS that comics should be causing every week.
Anyone rubbing their hands with glee over the idea that I might be painted with the same broad brush as Dave Cheung is an irredeemable idiot, and I won't waste (much of) my time trying to persuade such a person, since they're the kind most likely to be stubbornly close-minded to any debate.
It's not like I'm unaware that it might happen, either. You can go right to the very first post in my blog to see how I anticipated that kind of insanity right from the start.
Wow, comments here have gotten triple-hilarious since I last posted. I love how everyone thinks my first anonymous post int he thread means I'm Lilith Ester, or the same anon who posted later, or a woman, or whatever. There's no male entitlement happening here, guys! And it's totally not hypocritical that you fuckrags think you can judge and discredit the totality of a person's being over one fucking comment.
Yeah, you can use a slippery slope argument to say that to be against Dave Cheung is to be against all porn for men ever. What would it mean if I was? The entire fucking establishment of civilization is behind you, and even making this garbage illegal wouldn't stop it. As long as men hold the majority of power, women are there to be exploited, and if you think there's no direct link between what Cheung draws and what women endure at the hands of men every day you enjoy not giving a fuck about people. And sorry, sir, but you're no lawyer-- double check the way current digital law works, and you'll find that the vast majority of what Cheung draws is illegal in most of the world. Have fun with that.
Anyway, you know what-- I was against Brittany's sexualization as an underage singer, it was gross and weird. I do think that should be taken away. She can come back and show all the T&A she wants when she's an adult. I wouldn't mind Cheung's right to publish his shit (he can draw it all he wants, publishing is another thing) being taken away. He can think whatever he wants, and I'll call him garbage for thinking it, because that's what freedom of speech means. And if ever he tries to act on his thoughts, he should be beaten with sticks. British sticks, if necessary. I hate the son of a bitch and always will; his porn is vile and exploitive, on top of being crude and poorly-drawn.
There is some fine, fine porn by men about women that is... well, fine. Not that I'm going to tell you asscracks my favorites, since you'd immediately try to take a shit on them or prove that I was wrong. I will say I like porn where the females have a personality, do things they are clearly enjoying, and take something of value from it for themselves. I don't want to look at images of women pretending to whore themselves for me, and even if you like fantasizing about that, what value is there in putting such juvenile banality to paper?
Appreciating sex is like appreciating wine; your first impulses are neither correct, nor enriching. Everything Cheung purveys is hideous and wrong and likely to retard a viewer's future enjoyment of sex, and why bother defending it? YOu're a paranoid reactionary if you think there's a real threat of him being forced to stop. If he is shamed into stopping, then it's a triumph for culture and intelligence.
"I love how everyone thinks my first anonymous post int he thread means I'm Lilith Ester, or the same anon who posted later, or a woman, or whatever."
Anyone who posts as "anonymous" has very little grounds to complain about identity confusion. Take your lumps or distinguish yourself in some meaningful way. Typing in some name, ANY name, to mark yourself as separate from the other anonymii isn't all that complicated a concept to understand.
As for the rest: A wad of unsubstantiated claims and angry, pointless griping does not persuade. Your opinions and objections are noted, and summarily dismissed for lack of evidence. I hope you got everything you wanted out of that.
(c.f. note about not wasting much time attempting to sway the close-minded.)
Yeah, you can use a slippery slope argument to say that to be against Dave Cheung is to be against all porn for men ever. What would it mean if I was?
That you are retard-minded, sexually repressed, asinine fuckwad, who would make a great poster child for why abortion should always remain legal? That's just my guess, though.
And it's totally not hypocritical that you fuckrags think you can judge and discredit the totality of a person's being over one fucking comment.
Just goes to show how fucking dipshit your comment is, that it can so easily be done. You'd think you'd learn from that, but your type never does.
As long as men hold the majority of power, women are there to be exploited, and if you think there's no direct link between what Cheung draws and what women endure at the hands of men every day you enjoy not giving a fuck about people.
Correction, it means we enjoy not giving a fuck about self-rightous, overly-jedgmental, fear-mongering, slander-spewing asswipes, like yourself. And your kind barely qualifies as "people," so you'd be well-advised to watch your step.
As to Cheung's little strip bringing down oppression on women, well, that's just the latest in a LONG line of fallacies. Just like the one that violent video games will cause young teens and adults to become more violent, which is disproven here: http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames
Or that men having greater access to porn, will increase the rapes of women, which is disproven here: http://www.porn-report.com/403-porn-social-and-behavioral-science-research.htm
And here: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-NYapGagiRKXkibx6bHvcaBbV36Q-?cq=1&l=71&u=75&mx=80&lmt=5 (which has a host of links to disprove that little bit of nonsense, claimed as "fact").
So, if one thinks there is a direct link to Cheung's unoriginal strip and any kind of oppression of women, well, I think they should head over to their nearest hardware store and purchase a crowbar. That might be the only thing that will help those folks who believe that falsehood, to get their heads dislodged from their asses.
He can think whatever he wants, and I'll call him garbage for thinking it, because that's what freedom of speech means.
Yep. And it means Anon, Deppey, Scott, myself and whoever else using rational logic and not personal emotion to determine the truth, will call you out on being the emotional-retarded jackasses you are. That's what freedom of speech means, too.
I hate the son of a bitch and always will;
And now you betray the real reason for your bitter-minded tirades here. You don't give a fuck about people, or kids, or anyone else. It's all a personal grudge for you. It's about you pushing your feelings and beliefs onto others, no matter the hypocracy in your own words and actions in doing so. God, you are just the most pathetic excuse for a human being I've ever seen.
I don't want to look at images of women pretending to whore themselves for me, and even if you like fantasizing about that, what value is there in putting such juvenile banality to paper?
Then don't look at them, cock-face! Is Cheung hacking into your comp and forcing you to view his "creepy" strip? No? You are seeking it out on your own? Then I guess it's your fault you are offended, not his. If you had more self-control, maybe you wouldn't have to feel offended. Of course, if your kind had more self-control, you wouldn't be the gigantic tools you are.
As to the "value" of "juvenile fantasies" that you don't agree with, the value is in two things:
1) Having the right and freedom to have such a fantasy, without the "thought police" coming to castigate you (verbally or otherwise) for it.
2) To have the ability to express these types of fantasies through a harmlessly creative way, which will allow others who share it to not have to feel they are alone or "depraved" because they have them too, as well as to allow these fantasies to exist to further the cause of creativity. Because, even if someone finds the fantasy to be "utterly juvenile shit," by it existing it not only opens the door for other fantasies to have the same ability to exist, but could inspire better works (if only because someone feels "I could do better than that").
But a repressive, thought-policing, pissant like you probably will never be able to comprehend that.
YOu're a paranoid reactionary if you think there's a real threat of him being forced to stop.
That's just what all wannbe-tyrants want people to think. That nothing could ever imped the rights and freedoms we all enjoy. Except, as history has taught us, it's when we think that the most, when we think the self-serving, embitter-minded troglodytes can never step into a position of power and take it away, that is precisely when it will happen.
And that, my reactionary punk-ass, is reason enough to always stand up and speak out in defense against those like you.
If he is shamed into stopping, then it's a triumph for culture and intelligence.
No, it's a triumph for verbal bullies and close-minded assholes only. But I don't think we need to worry about it. If Cheung has the guts to put his ideas out into the public forum as he has, I doubt the verbal bluster of a bunch of outmoded and ill-informed windbags, like you, will ever be able to shame him into anything. Which, truly, is as it should be.
Hey, I've been in Reno for six weeks. Did I miss anything?
Oh look, the Reverend Donald Wildmon is posting as anonymous no.1!
"There is some fine, fine porn by men about women that is... well, fine. Not that I'm going to tell you asscracks my favorites, since you'd immediately try to take a shit on them or prove that I was wrong."
I think this line is revealing of the whole philosophy behind creating a blog with no other purpose than to tear down the work of others. I guess it feels so much more validating and cool and "safe" to piss on stuff than to write about something you feel positive about. Or heaven forfends, do something actually creative yourself. I think that's a bit sad, the pervasive anti-intellectual, anti-creative tendencies in certain cultural strata.
I feel somewhat personally spoken to, because most of Ester's venom could be directed to my own webcomic as well (there but for the fact that nobody reads it ^^)
It's hard to take moralizing seriously from someone whose pseudonym is a reference to a snuff porn story about a guy being skullfucked with a tentpeg, though...
Oh my, did I just confuse Ester and Jael? Sleep deprivation is bad for me...
People using logic don't *need* to resort to what you're saying, last time I checked.
Actually, as far as I can tell, the only people who have to resort to whiny name-calling mixed indiscriminately with attempts at logic are, well...angry teenagers, with that level of cursing.
Is there a reason you don't attempt to be mature about this? I'd think you'd at least want to prevent being open to the kind of attack that questions your "reason" because you keep resorting to childish constructions involving the word "ass" and "fuck".
Well, I've officially lost track of how many "anonymouses" are posting here, and which one is which, and which one stands for what. So in future, please use your real name or at least a lame pseudonym.
Thanks.
Is there a reason you don't attempt to be mature about this?
Sure, because I have absolutely no respect for ass-hats like you (provided you are the same anon who said they wished for Cheung to get beaten with "British sticks"). I never have and I never will.
So, unlike people like Mouse and Scott, I don't waste my effort on trying to talk sense with those like you. Not only because such efforts will produce squat with judgmental-minded, mini-dicators like yourself, but because i simply enjoy giving your kind the exact same treatment you want to give everyone else you don't agree with.
You want maturity and respect, then you best be bringing ti to the table, Hoss. Otherwise, the most you'll get from me is the exact same treatment your kind likes to dish out to others.
As for how others will view me for it, that doesn't really matter. Those who don't do as your kind, don't get that kind of response from me. And as for what your kind thinks of me, well, I'd be more worried about what a dried-up lump of dog shit thinks of me, before you and your kind would ever get that kind of consideration from me. So, take your attitude and opinions and stuff them right up where you keep your head, bwecause that's the only place that kind of shit belongs.
Wow, comments here have gotten triple-hilarious since I last posted. I love how everyone thinks my first anonymous post int he thread means I'm Lilith Ester, or the same anon who posted later, or a woman, or whatever.
yeah, I guess it was too much to hope that there was only one person posting this kind of stuff. I found it hard to believe that there could be more than one critic as ... odd as Lilith.
Hey Scott one of those anonymouses called you a bear! Are you going to take that lying down? Or are you going to smash him over the head with your Liza Minelli records?
Oh dear, I'm getting all of my trite gay stereotypes mixed up again!
Anyway, Mr. or Mrs. anonymous, the one that keeps swearing at everybody, let me state my own position:
David Cheung seems like a semi-talented little wretch of a man to me. His drawings aren't terrible from a technical standpoint, but his stories are essentially worthless. To me. If he's supposed to be doing satire, it's a satire that escapes my understanding. Which is why I don't bother reading his comics. I do that a lot. If I don't like something I just don't read it. I haven't seen anyone here defend the content of Chugworth Academy, have you? What I have seen are people with principles defending the rights of a man whose work they don't like. That's the thing you have to do in a free society. Anyone can defend the rights of someone whose work they love. But going to bat for someone whose work they find personally repellent, that takes real conviction.
And that's my two cents.
I stand in opposition to people who get upset about other people's fantasies. These people don't fret about what people actually DO, they get worked into spasms over what people THINK. They can't stand the idea that people think in ways they don't approve of. They live in abject fear that thinking must always, without exception, lead to doing.
>snip<
I guess it feels so much more validating and cool and "safe" to piss on stuff than to write about something you feel positive about. Or heaven forfends, do something actually creative yourself. I think that's a bit sad, the pervasive anti-intellectual, anti-creative tendencies in certain cultural strata.
>snip<
I haven't seen anyone here defend the content of Chugworth Academy, have you? What I have seen are people with principles defending the rights of a man whose work they don't like. That's the thing you have to do in a free society. Anyone can defend the rights of someone whose work they love. But going to bat for someone whose work they find personally repellent, that takes real conviction.
Just wanted to say that, I think these quoted pieces, from some of the intelligent and rational-minded people involved in this, makes for one very compelling case about why site like "Your Webcomic Is Bad..." are a sub-cultural blight and why those who share the viewpoint of those who run those types of places only give more proof to the type of miserable people they are deep inside. And we all know how much misery loves company. It's always easier to tear something down by someone else, than to build something yourself. It truly shows the cowardly nature of people of this ilk and why they need to constantly be exposed for the hypocritcal jerks they are.
Keep up the good job, folks. I know it isn't always easy, but your efforts are appreciated.
The Supportive Anonymous
Wow. Alright, I'm gonna go ahead and ignore the ad hominem nonsense going on in the previous comments and just say what I came in to say.
By your logic, pretty much every single human being in the world is anti-sexy. If you're anti-necrophilia, you're anti-sexy because someone finds that arousing. If you're anti-skull fucking, you're anti-sexy. If you're against fucking infants with a shovel, you're anti-sexy. Someone finds everything sexy. Look at all the weird fetishes that are out there, and realize that if you're personally repulsed by any of them, you're anti-sexy by the logic put forth by the OP.
There's a difference between being open-minded, being in defense of free speech and human rights, and taking it to the depths you've put forth. Just because something's censored doesn't make it worthwhile.
--Lame Pseudonym
Lame Pseudonym:
There's a difference between supporting someone's particular kink, and supporting their right to produce or read their kink in some fictional media.
I urge you to read a follow-up post I made on the subject:
http://imskeerdy.blogspot.com/2008/02/tolerating-intolerable-defending.html
In short, your assertion that someone must be "anti-sexy" if they find something personally repulsive is wrong.
It is when they decide that not only do they not want to see something, but that others should be forbidden from seeing it too, that I object.
There is a difference between saying you believe in freedom of speech, and then drawing a line in the sand and saying "except for all this stuff over here that I don't like, that can't be free because it disturbs me."
The difference is, once you draw that line you're no longer truly FOR free speech, and you should just admit it.
Anyone who wants to debate the issue further should take it over to the newer post; I think I'm going to lock the comments now to avoid "but you're wrong! but you're wrong! but you're wrong!" trailing off into infinity.
Post a Comment