Party animals! 2 ladybugs dancing, a porcupine spinning on his back, with a frog, turtle, squirrel, lizard, and rabbit dancing in the background.
Imagine you are at a party. You are surrounded by a big group of people including your friends and some new faces. You are telling a story when you think of a great joke. You believe this joke is absolutely hilarious and everyone else will clearly love! You tell the joke and get mixed results: some people laugh along with you, others are quiet, and some groan. This is an example of a joke falling flat for some people.
Now let’s change things a bit. Imagine that some of the people are visibly disturbed by the joke you just told. They approach you saying, “That really bothered me and here is why…” or simply, “HEY! That was incredibly offensive!”. This is NOT a joke falling flat. In this second case the joke may actually have an offensive undertone. It may not have been your intent but this is a joke that may be problematic. How would you react in this second scenario?
Joystiq.com ran an article on Friday, September 30th about an attack that occurred after a prolonged multiplayer game of Call of Duty: Black Ops. The article was written in two sections. The first section (before the cut) criticized the actions of the attacker. The second section (after the cut) lauded him as a hero akin to Batman. When linking the article on his Twitter, the author wrote:
- Mark Bradford chokes a kid and makes the world safer for all gamers. What’d you do today? aol.it/n7tZHv
Followed by :
- To say you’d never choke a kid misses the point. Bradford is choking kids so you never have to. He’s the kid-choker we NEED, not deserve.
The post itself quickly gained attention. There were over 300 comments within a few hours of publication. In reading the comments at least 1/3 of them were people agreeing with the assault. They lauded the man in ways similar to the second half of the article. While many of them may mean this in a joking manner, by sheer numbers there are likely a few that are seriously endorsing this behavior. The author, Justin McElroy, began to get negative feedback through his Twitter account. Some people found the article disturbing or disgusting and saw some of the comments on the post as endorsing violence. Here is where we see a situation similar to the second party joke analogy. These people are not saying they didn’t find the joke funny. This is not a joke that simply fell flat. Instead people are saying that it was offensive. So how did the author handle the aftermath of the article? Here is where we start seeing a reaction very similar to the one after the Penny Arcade Dickwolves comic .
- (directed at one person that complained) I’ve been doing this for a while Mike, and I’m pretty sure it was a funny post. Sorry you didn’t like it.
- If you stop reading my stuff because you don’t know a joke when you see it, seems like a good arrangement for everyone.
- (directed at someone that said they didn’t find it funny) Saying that it’s not funny is objectively untrue. Sorry it didn’t resonate with you.
- It’s OK you don’t “get it.” if I wrote jokes for the lowest common denominator I’d be a staff writer on Mike and Molly.
- Note: If you think I literally endorse hunting people down who are rude on the internet … how is antagonizing me the smart play?#loco
- … Popular internet opinion seems to be that I’m a monster.
- I give not a shit if people think it’s funny. Plenty do. I jut don’t like people accusing me of literally condoning violence.
- (at another critic) you seem like a sharp dude from all I know about you. You can’t literally thing a major outlet with millions of readers would condone violence against children. It was a humorous article, meant to provoke, not condoing. Most got that. (This was broken up into 2 tweets originally which I combined here)
- Original comment – “No one is calling you a monster, but you are communicating harmful messages whether you meant to or not.” The reply – “Nope.”
- Original comment – “Whatever point you had to make, you totally fumbled. Do you not see how the onus is on you to correct that?” The reply – “I would if you weren’t in the minority. You are.”
4) Finally, after enough criticism a realization that some people are genuinely upset and not laughing.
- Being totally honest, I could have tweaked my tone to make the satire come across better. But I went to a public college, what do you want?
- Regardless, there’s a disclaimer on the article now, so at least people can judge me as a poor comedian rather than child abuser
The disclaimer on the article –> [Editor's note: The above is clearly a work of satire, most obviously denoted by its support of a 46-year-old man who choked a 13-year-old child – that sort of gives it away – but also thanks to comedic cues like "Choke-a-Cola." While it may not have hit the comedic high-water mark of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, we won't stop working until we get there. – C.G.]
This editorial disclaimer shows that a vocal minority were upset by the article. It may have been meant as satire, but clearly did not read as such to some people. Either they did not know it was meant as a joke OR they knew this but still did not find it funny. Rather than pulling the post the disclaimer was added. You can all draw your own conclusions for how you feel this acts as an end to this situation.
So what can we learn from this incident? I argue that it is a lesson we should have all learned after the Penny Arcade Dickwolves debacle. It can apply to all of us as people and not just to bloggers or public figures.
I can’t stand being accused of having no sense of humour for anything giving a toss about this sort of thing. Also, the sense of humour this type of person tends to have isn’t clever, it’s just juvenile. I’m not missing out on anything by not finding it funny.
That said I’ve probably been guilty of it and need to watch my step too.
Is there a Law (a la Godwin’s) for “you have no sense of humour, therefore I win”?
Great post and well said. This whole incident was pretty pathetic on the part of Joystiq. (Also I love the illustration!)
I really liked this post by Darius Kazemi, which breaks down the satire defense by pointing out that someone choking a child over a video game isn’t some outlandish, hyperbolic thing if it actually happened.
Well said all around. The article in question was in fundamentally poor taste. As has already been pointed out, it’s not satire. You have to be satirising *something* and unless McElroy was satirising himself, the target is unclear here.
If one wanted to leave the text unchanged… picture this. The Onion starts running a gaming news section meant to pick on the excesses of games journalism. It runs this article. Instant satire, playing on the fact that- as McElroy helpfully demonstrated- there are some real problems in the games journalism trade where sophomoric nonsense like this is somehow elevated to a high art.
But McElroy’s context was different, and the hortatory language he used is difficult to get around. At the very best, it’s sarcasm but not satire. Violence against children remains a very serious issue, and trying to get laughs off of this incident, at the expense of the victim, is pretty tasteless.
What I find more annoying still is that while this whole affair makes gamers look absolutely terrible, McElroy has effectively *divided* opinion about what he wrote. Contrast this to that Gizmodo article where a woman mocked the Magic: The Gathering world champion and refused to date him, and the near universal outrage that came at her by the torrent-load. Would I find “Choke-a-Cola” funny in another context? Yep. And anything that compares someone to Batman is almost funny by default to me (I’m strange). But again the actual context of this situation is something that makes McElroy just plain callous and juvenile.
Well to me, Darius is wrong. The article did criticize something, the behaviour of the little punk-ass (and his ilk) whom got assaulted by the perpetrator. The article is satire, not ‘good’ satire, or even the directed satire Darius may want but it is by definition satire, yes it is part sarcasm but to deny the satyr… well that’s just goofy. Cognitive dissonance maybe…
Whatever…
The adolescent (he’s not a child) wasn’t choked out because of a video game, he got choked out because he was verbally abusing a violent man. There’s a stark difference between the two. While choking out an adolescent over verbal abuse isn’t outlandish or hyperbolic since it did happen in this situation: it is when you are being likened to Batman and being used as an urban legend to other adolescents in society for doing it when in reality you’re just a cautionary tale convicted of assault.
Yes, the child was definitely wrong in his actions. He was verbally abusing other players. But that does not give license for anyone to track down his home address and go there to choke him. Neither party is worth of praise here.
Oh I’m not defending the perpetrator. That guy is a testament to what’s wrong with the world. He deserves his conviction, hell if it was me it might also be harsher… but that verbally abusive ‘adolescent’ is not a ‘child’. He’s an adolescent, a verbally abusive, rage-baiting, little punk-ass mark, whom is now getting protection by law enforcement and his coddling mother instead of being punished for his behaviour. Yet again we have a case where some asshole gets to escape responsibility for their behaviour. I don’t even know if I want him to learn anything from this, reinforcing better behaviour via violence isn’t something I am in favour of. However that’s all there is to take away from this in his case. Not a single part of me wants this to be neutral. The perp’ was out of his natural south-east-English mind if he thought what he did could be justified.
Oh he thew insults at someone he DESERVED TO DIE! Let’s just blame the kid here, because we all know that grown adults would NEVER engage in this kind of behavior! Oh WAIT there’s a whole website about “grown” adults insulting and taunting other people, I suppose they deserve to die too.
As far as I know, none of those people that hurl insults at others ever go into rehabilitation or even jail, which tells me that the kid deserves police protection from a FUCKING STALKER-MURDERER!
What!? What in fucks name are you on about fam’?
I don’t know quite why you think being an ‘adolescent’ is all that different from being a child, given that in this particular case the adolescent in question is only 13 years old, and at least according to Wikipedia’s definition of adolescence (I know, I know) barely an adolescent. If he’d been 12 would that have been alright for him to verbally abuse the adult? If he’d been 18 would it have been that much worse?
And honestly, how bad was the abuse that a 46 year old man (up until this point I’m sure, the very definition of mature) had to assault someone, anyone? You say you don’t support the guy, but you seem awfully eager to almost excuse his behaviour.
Being an adolescent is very different from being a child. Calling him a child is infantilizing him. The little shit has already gotten away without having to bear any REAL responsibilities in this case, the last thing I want is for the language surrounding him to paint him as some rosy-cheeked, doughy-eyed, symbolism of innocence (which whether you like it, the word CHILD does) when in fact he’s a verbally abusive prick whom was almost the author of his own demise. He put his family and possibly his friends in danger and all of this could have been avoided if he simply ate a slice of humble pie and didn’t bully dragons (too much tvtropes) err verbally abuse anyone.
That should put a nail in the coffin of why I prefer to use the most appropriate language when citing the ‘victims’ age. That and that’s what he is… he’s an adolescent, it’s like calling an infant an infant to me, and it is what they are. I was called adolescent at 13 and I call people adolescents when they are at that age. It’s just how I talk.
Sorry got to highlight this:
“You say you don’t support the guy, but you seem awfully eager to almost excuse his behaviour”.
Ex-squeeze me?! Fam… That’s just ri-cockulous. I’m not excusing Bradford’s behaviour at all. I’m just not excusing his adolescent victims’ behaviour either. If this topic was JUST about the victims trauma then I wouldn’t mention his behaviour but it’s not, it’s about a satirical article written about the story and to that end I think there’s enough wiggle room to get it in.
But that’s just me.
You’re right, I’m sorry for saying you’re excusing his behaviour, it’s just I find that even trying to explain why the older man may have had a reason to choke this kid (adolescent, teenager, spawn-of-hell) often verges on that “well good for him”. (For assaulting someone much younger and presumably weaker than him) Alternatively I may have just been reading too much Reddit.
I think the thing is that I don’t consider the Joystiq article satiric. It’s stupid, thoughtless and really, really stupid. The point he was trying to make was that choking kids is…? Good? Bad? Without the “satiric” note at the end (which the author had to ad) it does sound like he applauds the mans actions. Even if it is satire, it’s really very poor satire, as is obvious by the fact that a lot of people (including myself) “didn’t get it”.
Again, I’m sorry I said you were excusing the mans behaviour, you weren’t; it’s just the distinction you make me adolescent and child doesn’t really seem that great to me, and appears to be a needless attempt to make a point about the way the story is being presented in the media, in which case you could have made it much clearer.
Great article.
It’s unsettling to see so many of my fellow FPS players jump in to defend the perpetrator, and I agree with the author that some of them are indeed sincere. The boy’s behaviour was also reprehensible, but it is unfortunately also normative in the context of online FPS multiplayer.
I get the “joke”, and I even had a little chuckle at it – as I understand how infuriating out of control, verbally abusive adolescents can be when you’re trying to enjoy yourself playing a game – but I sympathize wholeheartedly with those who took exception to it. This is a serious crime we’re talking about. It would have been classier on the part of the OP to apologize, but point out that his “joke” is intended to criticize the boy’s behaviour, not excuse the man’s.
I really wish more parents actually took the whole “R18″/”M” thing seriously. Some teenagers may be mature enough to handle those themes, but that one clearly wasn’t.
I don’t think that everyone has a right to be listened to and to have their views respected. I certainly don’t think that the right is so obvious that it constitutes “humanity 101″.
I think there’s an ugly glibness about this post that is glossing over many of the difficulties inherent in online communication.
The issue, it seems to me, is that a piece was written with a certain set of values in mind. Values as to what is funny and what is an appropriate subject for humour. Because of the winds of online distribution, the piece washes up on the shores of a community that simply does not share those values. Said community then points out the ethical problems inherent in those values and the person who wrote the piece responds by making it clear that they really don’t care.
You then write a piece in which you say that it’s humanity 101 that the author of the piece SHOULD care what the members of that community think. In fact, they should sit quietly and reflect upon the things that said community has to say about their values.
While my values have a lot more in common with the values of the community than they do with the values of the person who wrote the piece, I really do not think that there is some basic human right to be taken seriously. If I point out that someone is being rude, insensitive and displaying values that are misguided then telling me to go fuck myself is an entirely legitimate response.
Pausing and listening when many people say they are offended or upset does not strike me as a bad lesson in humanity. I never say that people MUST agree with their critics, in fact I say that disagreeing is an option. The value used to write this post is the idea that when someone says they are hurt then we should listen to what they have to say before passing judgement. Listening is not the same as agreeing with them in the end.
Very good post. It reminds me of one of my favourite comedy routines from Stewart Lee : ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0i0RXMvzMs
What’s interesting about the assault itself is that if the situation had started as a face-to-face encounter – if Mark Bradford had been waiting at a bus stop and a 13-year-old had taunted and verbally abused him – no-one would have been quite so surprised that he’d attacked the kid. That is not to excuse his behaviour, just to say that it would not be such an unexpected outcome. We are all aware that strangers may react dangerously for a variety of reasons (including mental health) so most 13-year-olds know not to taunt them.
I don’t support Mr. Bradford’s actions but I do pity him to a certain extent, He has not yet been sentenced; a report is pending if I read the stories correctly. He is reported to have mental health difficulties. We do not know why he did what he did, or what other pressures may have affected his behaviour. To make him out as some kind of “hero” even in jest is unfair to everyone involved. An unwell man lost the plot. Ha ha.
It also trivialises another very real problem: that online gaming culture has been allowed to develop into something incredibly toxic and hostile. The 13-year-old was not the problem; he’s a symptom.
So no, I don’t think the article was funny, because as Frankie Howerd said, it’s wicked to mock the afflicted.
“What’s interesting about the assault itself is that if the situation had started as a face-to-face encounter no-one would have been quite so surprised that he’d attacked the kid”
This is an interesting point, although I think there is a valid reason for the intuitive reaction you’re feeling. As painful as words can be, when you are online you ALWAYS have the option to disengage and the threat of (immediate) violence is always negligible.
If the situation played out online, the target of the verbal abuse would not necessarily have an escape route, which is a much scarier position to be in.
I’m sorry, the last sentence should have begun “If the situation played out OFFLINE”.
I dunno. It feels like there’s a degree of whitewashing of the verbal abuse this kid was dishing out, and as someone who was verbally abused and bullied as a kid, I find the controversy around this event somewhat problematic. Not that this man was justified in choking a 13-year-old over a friggon video game, but especially in the wake of all these instances of bullying and suicide in the past year, it’s disappointing that the default mentality is that laying a hand on someone in anger is automatically INFINITY BILLION times worse than verbally abusing someone, even if no lasting physical damage is inflicted*. Maybe that’s a particularity of this case because of the extreme age differences, but something about this whole situation still grosses me out.
*I tried looking for information on the boy’s condition but I couldn’t find any further details, and I’d imagine that if he had suffered a severe physical injury it would have been mentioned somewhere.
When writing this post I specifically did not discuss the situation in much detail because I did not want that to be the focus. The focus of the post was about what we do when someone says they are offended or hurt by things we say, and not about the incident covered in the original Joystiq article.
That being said, I see you point with the coverage of the attack. However I do not think that most people are defending the kid. What he did was horrific. He was being verbally abusive. His actions were wrong. But the actions of the adult were also horrid. As I see it there are no heroes in the story.
This whole thing is a trick. It’s not a binary situation and all of these posts bait you into thinking that it is.
Lauding some psycho because he put a trash talker in his place is idiotic. This is the same kind of attitude that, next week, will have the guy tracking down the polite player that interrupts his killstreak, or who maybe uses the leaderboards as a greatest “hit list”.
Morality and everything aside — might doesn’t make right, people don’t deserve to be xyz and all — but as an abstract none of us like being haranged in a video game by anyone, much less someone we deem inferior (like those with the high-pitched wine of adolescence). It’s cathartic to imagine them being “put in their place,” and I imagine that’s what a great deal of these people do: seeing an article posted on a website about something like this isn’t the same as seeing it happen, and they’re divorced from the fact.
Then we have the usual insane defense mechanisms when people perceive that they might be sticking their foot in their mouth.
Good times.
A joke is only as funny as the audience thinks it is.
The person telling the joke does not get a say- this seems to be the hardest part for most ‘jokers’ to understand. Once you put a joke out there, it either swims or sinks. Getting upset that some people didn’t ‘get’ your humorous donation to the history of mankind? Then write better material next time.
Some of this confusion could be traced back to the fact that on the internet, everyone is your audience. On game ‘journalism’ websites there is still the pervasive idea that the main market is 17 year old boys. This is quickly proving untrue and is forcing these ‘journalists’ to scramble as they try and figure out their audience.