I am aware of this phenomenon — it happened to a friend of mine (who has previously been on the more "activist" side of things) so I'm painfully aware of it, so I simply needed to make my displeasure known.

I am now closing comments on this post.

Dude, I am going to tell you this because you're a nice guy, real reasonable, and that is why they will destroy you. You don't have to approve this comment, you just have to read it. What you are saying here reveals the depth of the ignorance of your comments on this topic. I do not say this as an insult but as a warning. What you are doing is what they call a "concern troll". The accusation of concern trolling is when someone makes a reasonable request that debate not include death threats and name calling, they will be accused of trying to shift the debate to the form while evading the substance. Thus, all attempts at civility are framed as being in bad faith and their maker a troll The irony is that this accusation in of itself is used as a method of evading honest debate. So, when you make this sort of argument, you will be seen as the enemy.

That the argument is perfectly legitimate is beside the point, people who use debate to promote their viewpoint rather than find truth find it a useful tool in their toolbox. Krahukik has said that he is a jerk, he has made public the reasons that he is like this and how it makes him react. if you angrily attack him, he will immediately go into a violent offense is the best defense mode, he will clam up to further debate and he will angrily lash out by any means he can. I know this behavior well, because I am the same way for the same reasons, I was heavily bullied as a child.

What I am saying here is, the form of the debate does matter because people come from wildly disparate backgrounds which means that they are receptive to different kinds of arguing. Krahulik isn't going to respond well to angry accusations, it will accomplish the opposite and both sides will come out looking worse. But his accusers don't care, if they wave their pitchforks and torches and an angry beast afraid of light comes thrashing out of the castle, their point is just proven to themselves all the more, the righteousness of their cause confirmed.

Couldn't agree more about the first part. I guess we're talking here about the way Penny Arcade's dismissive and insulting treatment of rape survivors during the "Dickwolves" blowup led to the creation of Twitter accounts called Dick Wolvington, Team Rape, Team Dickwolves and so on, and the way some fans took it upon themselves to attempt to shame at least one woman publicly by claiming that she lied about her own experience of rape in order to sell T-shirts, right?

However, I'm not sure about the second part. Even in the face of that, many commentators continues to talk about and engage with the situation, even when the response they got from Penny Arcade itself was dismissive and insulting. People I think, are better than you're giving them credit for. And, over time, it seems like that process – of engaging, of making the case, of honestly sharing the hurt they are feeling, of taking principled stands about participating in PAX – is having an positive effect, agonisingly slow and effortful as it may be.

The problems I see with that argument is that much of the time, concern about the form of a reaction is often used as grounds to dismiss it. Yes, a lot of what was said via twitter to Mike was harsh, some of it was intensely vitriolic, and by any measurement we cannot define the entirety of the responses he received as measured and thoughtful. But Mike then used the vitriolic elements as license to dismiss all responses, civil or otherwise, that were in opposition to his position. This is referred to in some circles as a tone argument; "It's not what you said but how you said it/ you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar etc etc." Tone arguments are used to dismiss valid criticism on the grounds that the delivery is too aggressive, confronting, or argumentative, and they place the onus on the wronged party to conduct themselves in a measured fashion. Often someone who dismisses an argument on the grounds of tone has no intention of 'listening to reason', as it were, and merely uses the aggressive responses as an easy 'out'.

I feel like Mike used this method of dismissing the criticism directed at him, because having gone back to look at the initial comments he made on the 7th, it seems obvious that many of the initial responses to his first claim (that only women had vaginas) were not aggressive in tone. Did this deter him from his position? No, because ten days later he was making the same claims again. This is what I mean when I talk about expecting people to continually offer the olive branch, time and time again. Mike was told why his comments were problematic, and a lot of the comments he got were measured and informative. Yet the only responses he acted on were the vitriolic ones… and they were by no means the majority of the responses made. It's disingenuous to frame the narrative of this as Mike being crushed by an angry wave of protest, while simultaneously ignoring his outright dismissal of so many measured responses.

We have a situation where Mike made several statements that others (including myself) would consider deeply offensive. Stating that transgender people everywhere are members of their assigned birth sex is an oppressive and hurtful comment to make, as it is exactly that attitude which engenders so much hate, discrimination and prejudice directed at trans people. But this is dismissed as a comment made in ignorance (despite addressing the issue a week prior… hmmm). That doesn't preclude it from causing hurt and offense, it's merely an excuse for why the comment was made in the first place. Intent is not a shield that absolves you of the responsibility of having hurt someone. It is, in my opinion, an easy way out for people who make hurtful comments to claim ignorance as an excuse for causing offense. But if you cause offense to someone, you're not entitled to a reasonable, measured and non-confrontational response. Asking a hurt party to only react in ways that are inoffensive is an unreasonable demand. In short, if you offend someone, they may be hurt and to react to that. That's life. It's a pity, but it's human nature.

If Mike claims ignorance of the issues concerned, and his ignorant comments are disputed, surely that's grounds for him to stop commenting on a topic he knows nothing about and to try and learn why people are disputing his comments. It seems foolish to, as he did, double down, maintain his ignorant comments and dismiss any and all responses. It's a shame that it had to turn into a bitter fight before he chose to reconsider his actions. I am glad he said he was wrong and made the donation he has, it speaks of a desire to do better. It's just a shame that this was not his initial response to what started out as a constructive criticism of his comments, which he admits were made in ignorance.

I agree that Krahulik hasn't handled this all that well and has a history of not handling things well (though he has apologised and made a hefty donation to a relevant organisation today) — but this isn't just about Penny Arcade, transphobia and/or sexism, though; it's a more widespread problem of which the recent debacle was just the most high profile case. Any time there's a "controversy" or someone says something they shouldn't, it immediately gets reacted to in the strongest way possible, and anyone who disagrees or urges caution is somehow an asshole.

I cannot and will not respect someone who sinks to swearing, yelling and insults in an attempt to make their point — particularly when that point centres around inclusivity. And there's too much of that going on. Some people are giving helpful resources, yes, but they get drowned out by the much louder, much more aggressive ones — making their message easily lost.

I also will not respect people who turn on their friends when said friends try and get them to calm down and discuss things rationally, as I saw yesterday. It's completely unacceptable behaviour, regardless of what provoked it, and it's why despite agreeing with a lot of the points these rather vocal people fight for, I want nothing to do with their causes and would rather just keep my mouth shut. Surely that's counter-productive to the causes they're trying to advance?

Mike's position at the start of the saga was the kind of understanding that preschoolers have. His position at the end of the saga is… the kind of understanding that preschoolers have. He professes that he will 'treat you as you wish to be treated', but most trans people I know wouldn't wish to be referred to as the sex they were born as. That's not treating people how they'd wish to be treated. And so, it's plain to see that Mike's platitudes are really just handwaving away the problematic mindset that he's chosen to publicly voice.

What this boils down to is that people who face incredible hardship and frustration by constantly running up against the 'ignorance' in society, along with the intolerance, vitriol and rejection that comes along with that, are once again being told that it's not okay to lash out at people who would literally deny you your right to exist as you see fit, it's only reasonable to offer some olive branch of tolerance and understanding time and time again and hope that, maybe this time, it won't be smacked down and rejected and dismissed out of hand. People get sick of that rejection. People react negatively to that rejection. People see that this hasn't been a 'new' issue for DECADES, now, and they see the same tired old 'ignorance' excuse being used to wipe away hurt and pain as if it ever could, and they get sick of it. Trans people don't have infinite patience, and they shouldn't be expected to in the face of infinite ignorance and infinite discrimination.

RIGHT. Totally. This is exactly what I'm saying.

When people start yelling at Jenn Frank, of all people, you know that things are just getting unreasonable. I really felt for Jenn yesterday; I don't know if you followed any of it, but it was shameful and heartbreaking to see people whom she obviously considered "friends" tearing into her.