Websnark

Comment from: Tangent posted at March 11, 2005 7:40 PM

Hey, these things happen. We're human (well, most of you at least...). *grin*

Here, have a low-carb biscuit. It's a *real* man to admit when they are wrong.

Robert A. Howard

Comment from: jjacques posted at March 11, 2005 7:40 PM

What the hell is this crap, Eric? EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITY?! This is the Internet! You are supposed to defend yourself to the death, regardless of whether you are right or not! Preferably a la Dave Sim- I expect to see a 4,000 word diatribe on this site TOMORROW. ;)

Comment from: RKMilholland posted at March 11, 2005 7:49 PM

I'm so sick of people taking responsibility and admitting when they feel they're in the wrong. Thank GOD this isn't common amongst webcomics!

YOU'LL BE HEARING FROM MY LAWYER!

p.s. - I have cheesecake and you do not.

p.p.s. - happens to the best of us. You're a good man, Eric.

Comment from: quiller posted at March 11, 2005 7:56 PM

Bravo! Your reputation is much less tarnished in my eyes now. (If there was no tarnishing that wouldn't be fair to your standards and your status as pre-eminent webcomic journalist.)

Comment from: kirabug posted at March 11, 2005 8:01 PM

See? See? And that's why I'll be back and keep reading. Thank you - you've got class.

*hands over the cookies*

Comment from: mckenzee posted at March 11, 2005 8:03 PM

Nicely done.

Comment from: Wednesday posted at March 11, 2005 8:03 PM

It's the end of the world as we know it.

Comment from: DanShive posted at March 11, 2005 8:08 PM

Yay! ^_^ Well, my respect for Websnark has gone up. Not that I had an opinion one way or the other prior to today ^^;

Comment from: Jamie posted at March 11, 2005 8:25 PM

Thanks, Eric! :) That was cool!

Comment from: Mitch Clem posted at March 11, 2005 8:28 PM

It wasn't the behind-the-scenes politics that bothered me about the whole issue so much as the fact that she felt the need to remove that ad from her site in the first place. But whatever, I don't want to start another thread like the last one.

Cheeseburgers, anyone?

Comment from: Phil! posted at March 11, 2005 8:29 PM

No sweat, man. Admitting you're wrong is the best thing to do.

At least we got to break the record on comments for a Snark, right?

And Randy! I thought you were bringing pie!

Comment from: Sage posted at March 11, 2005 8:32 PM

I think you're apologizing for the wrong thing, Eric.

Once Keenspot failed in its responsibility to provide the newsbox in advance, all bets were off. There's no moral authority gained by the artist waiting for Keenspot to respond to his complaint. If he had the right to pull the newsbox, he had that right as soon as it was posted without advance notice.

So I don't think you need to apologize for getting the chain of events wrong. That's a minor detail. That's not really a screwup.

Where I think you did screw up was in going off half-cocked on the assumption that objection to the newsbox constitutes bigotry, hatred, et. al. I find this particularly disappointing in the wake of your previous post about knowing one's opponent, particularly when it comes to folks like evangelical Christians, etc.

There are a number of people who believe, for religious reasons, that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle. I don't agree, and it's clear that you don't either, but until the causes of homosexuality are empirically determined, those people have legitimate -- perhaps even reasonable -- concerns about that lifestyle. That does NOT mean they are hostile to or against fair treatment of homosexuals.

On top of that, an objection to the ad could mean something much different from an objection to homosexuality. With the U.S. population as divided as it is on issues like gay marriage, an artist may be less concerned with being offended by the ad himself than he is with offending a portion of his readership. An idealist would be quick to dismiss those readers as not worth keeping, but a pragmatist, especially one trying to build a revenue stream, would have to make a careful business decision.

I think you went off half-cocked, exhibiting a blatant black-&-white, "with us or against us" attitude on this, and that's what I think you should be addressing here. That's what's really unfair to the artist in question.

What's more, this kind of thinking holds back the gay rights movement far more than it helps, because it asks the mile of folks who might only be ready to give an inch. As a result, those people don't budge at all, and progress is never made.

Comment from: DanShive posted at March 11, 2005 8:58 PM

Didn't Eric just give an inch?

Comment from: Mitch Clem posted at March 11, 2005 9:00 PM

There are a number of people who believe, for religious reasons, that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle. I don't agree, and it's clear that you don't either, but until the causes of homosexuality are empirically determined, those people have legitimate -- perhaps even reasonable -- concerns about that lifestyle. That does NOT mean they are hostile to or against fair treatment of homosexuals.

Does that context mean that it should be tolerated? Oh, well, since Jesus says these guys should hate fags, then I guess we should leave them to it.

Let us not forget that the Catholics and Christians and all the other silly religious folk of the world have been using that same bible to perpetuate their personal agendas of hate and intolerance for GENERATIONS. The bible has been used to justify slavery, the subordination of women, and now homosexuals. The bible was the driving force behind the Ku Klux Klan, and was the preferred book of choice by the German Nazi party.

Just because someone's stupid enough to think God wants them to hate does not justify their hate, it only serves to make them weaker.

Comment from: sequential posted at March 11, 2005 9:01 PM

Good show, Eric.

Not enough supposedly intelligent people have the balls to demonstrate character, especially when it means breaking a nail. Thanks for proving people still exist who take lumps when they're in error, especially on the Web.

One poster to the Axe thread was totally hypocritical in his statement about integrity and what he actually did on his forums, so journalistic integrity is not any more sacred among creators than the general public. I was really glad to see you step up past questionable credibility, and erase that doubt for me.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at March 11, 2005 9:02 PM

Let's be careful of Godwin invocations, gang.

Comment from: jjacques posted at March 11, 2005 9:10 PM

An artist may be less concerned with being offended by the ad himself than he is with offending a portion of his readership. An idealist would be quick to dismiss those readers as not worth keeping, but a pragmatist, especially one trying to build a revenue stream, would have to make a careful business decision.

The notion of compromising my beliefs in order to sell a few more t-shirts strikes me as particularly repellent. I don't think what you're describing is "pragmatism" so much as "weak moral character".

Comment from: Mitch Clem posted at March 11, 2005 9:16 PM

The notion of compromising my beliefs in order to sell a few more t-shirts strikes me as particularly repellent. I don't think what you're describing is "pragmatism" so much as "weak moral character".

In the punk rock circles we call that type of thing "selling out".

Comment from: Jamie posted at March 11, 2005 9:26 PM

An artist may be less concerned with being offended by the ad himself than he is with offending a portion of his readership. An idealist would be quick to dismiss those readers as not worth keeping, but a pragmatist, especially one trying to build a revenue stream, would have to make a careful business decision.

The notion of compromising my beliefs in order to sell a few more t-shirts strikes me as particularly repellent. I don't think what you're describing is "pragmatism" so much as "weak moral character".

Now this is an interesting topic. Should artists bow to readers? Is the customer always right? Is everyone a Republican when it comes to money? For most webcomics artists, myself included, getting more readers is more of an ego boast than a boast in a living wage. What happens when losing readers means losing income? Are ethics still important when you have a family to support? These are hypothetical questions and for most of us, myself included, weÌll never have to deal with this in a big way. Still, what if?

Comment from: Jamie posted at March 11, 2005 9:27 PM

Sorry for all the gaps. I'm new to the typepad thingie.

Comment from: Kris@WLP posted at March 11, 2005 9:38 PM

"Let's be careful of Godwin invocations, gang."

Let's not.

Damn, I wish I still had a copy of _Luftwaffe 1946 in which Ted Nomura drew Hitler drawing comics for a couple of kids.

"This strip will run for a thousand years!"

"My Artist's Alley table is too small! I require Lebensraum!"

"Today ucomics.com, tomorrow the WORLD!"

There. Godwin, Godwin, Godwin.

Let's put this ugly affair behind us all and get back to the -fun- comic stuff.

Like the Queen of Wands commentary. Is that cool or what?

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at March 11, 2005 9:41 PM

Actually, I've followed Alien Dice for a while. Tiffany Ross does support herself almost wholly through her "graphic novels in progress" works. This includes getting the medicine for her toddler, who has had some severe medical problems.

So Jaime's questions are more than just theoreticals to Syke. She relies on people giving her donations, buying her merch, and giving her ad impressions. Principles, sadly, have prices sometimes. I don't like what she did, and I don't agree with the sentiments that would drive her to do that.

Especially with a daughter who needs regular medical care, I don't think it's so easy to come down on Tiffany. I don't mention this to drive pity her way over her life situation, but merely to point out that she had reasons, however much I disagree with them.

Comment from: toddandpenguin posted at March 11, 2005 9:42 PM

Eric,

Come here and give me a kiss!

I didn't object to the ad, though I think it was online before my site went live with KeenSpot. The SoreThumbs porn one though got me some email asking me why I was peddling smut, so I switched to the G rated box because I know some kids do read my comic. If I had a different comic at KeenSpot, though, I wouldn't care what ad they put there. I wouldn't pull anything dealing with homosexuality, though. I've posted many a messages against the anti-gay agenda on my blogs and other places which has gotten me some hate mail and angry responses, but I don't really care if my open-mindedness offends them. I grew up around a lot of racism, and saw firsthand how that kind of torment affects a person, and what is happening in some areas to gay people is nothing short of that. In many places it is seen as acceptable! The last acceptable prejudice. I wonder how long that will take to change.

I've posted less on the subject more recently so as not to turn people off my comic. I don't want my politics to be in your face and color your experience with the comic. It's just a personal preference. I know if someone I liked had some opinion I completely disagreed with on such a deep level, it would affect how I think of their work, and would have me looking for an agenda or message in their work where there might otherwise not be any. I don't want to ruin my comic for other people, so I try to keep my opinions to myself. Sometimes, though, I still find myself ranting about something, though.

I really should be doing a leftist political Bloom County type comic. :)

Comment from: jjacques posted at March 11, 2005 9:44 PM

Well, I think it varies from person to person. I am a pretty liberal fellow when it comes to moral/social/political beliefs, but I am also not the sort of person who goes around trumpeting my personal politics at every opportunity. The fact that I'm simply not a particularly vocal person in the first place when it comes to politics probably saves me a lot of conflict, but I would never remain silent about something just because I thought it would piss off part of my audience. People who disagree with me so strongly that they wouldn't buy something they otherwise might aren't worth catering to anyway.

I'd rather have to go get a "real" job and be able to say I didn't compromise myself rather than sell out to keep doing my comic full time.

Comment from: Forsaken_One posted at March 11, 2005 9:58 PM

Mitch Clem wrote: Does that context mean that it should be tolerated? Oh, well, since Jesus says these guys should hate fags, then I guess we should leave them to it.

Yes, we should tolerate their views so long as they don't act upon these views in a way that hurts other people. In other words, we all should tolerate them. This isn't to say you have to like them, simply that you have to suck it up and put up with it. Becaues if you don't you, sir, are being intolerant.

In any event, as I see it a lot of the difference between those who are championing the right to take down of the newspost (regardless of whether the author asked first) and those who feel it was dead wrong to take down the newspost is that the former sees Keenspot as a publisher and thus focuses on the contract while the latter sees Keenspot as a community and thus focuses on the interaction between two members of that community. I could be completely off base here, but that's how I see it.

So I'm a member of the former group myself, I see Keenspot and any other webhosting service as I would see a publishing house in the literature world. If I'm publishing a novel under Random House that targets young adults (say fourteen to twenty one) and Random House wants to put an advertizement for Interview With a Vampire that shows Louis and Lestat in an embrace I have every right to object to that and, if my contract allows it, pull the ad before publishing. Doing so is not a slight to all the other authors published by Random House, nor is it a slight to Anne Rice or her novels. I'm simply saying that, in my opinion, that content should not be included in my book, even as an advertisement. And so long as I didn't break my contract in pulling the ad, everything is fine.

The view of Keenspot as a community seems to make the analogy of a group of people living together in the same block. Then when someone moves in who starts posting pro-homosexual signs up on their own front yard and on the community whiteboard I erase all the messages on the whiteboard while saying I agree with their views but don't want it on the communal area.

Perhaps this is also a difference in opinion as to whether webcomics are primarily a buisness or an artistic enterprise? Ah well, let me know if I'm completely off my rocker here. And sorry if it looks weird, I'm still getting the hang of this posting system.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at March 11, 2005 10:01 PM

Also, worth mentioning...

The ad in question isn't running anymore. And Tiffany Ross still has the link button to FH on Alien Dice's front page, which is the only link (outside of the newsbox) on the front that leads to a comic she doesn't do.

Comment from: Shaenon posted at March 11, 2005 10:26 PM

All I can say is, I'm glad I'm on Modern Tales.

Comment from: Jamie posted at March 11, 2005 10:34 PM

All I can say is, I'm glad I'm on Modern Tales.

Being on both, (well, Graphic Smash actually), I can honsetly say it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at March 11, 2005 10:42 PM

Please differentiate. Not all religions are against gay marriage; not even all Christian ones. The Canadian Anglican church performs gay marriages.

I suppose the issue is whether Keenspot wants to be seen as part of the world stage or just American.

Although, from what I've seen/heard and observed, two women kissing is O.K its just two men that's not in a certain author's eyes.

Comment from: gwalla posted at March 11, 2005 10:50 PM

Does that context mean that it should be tolerated? Oh, well, since Jesus says these guys should hate fags, then I guess we should leave them to it.

Let us not forget that the Catholics and Christians and all the other silly religious folk of the world have been using that same bible to perpetuate their personal agendas of hate and intolerance for GENERATIONS. The bible has been used to justify slavery, the subordination of women, and now homosexuals. The bible was the driving force behind the Ku Klux Klan, and was the preferred book of choice by the German Nazi party.

Just because someone's stupid enough to think God wants them to hate does not justify their hate, it only serves to make them weaker.

So basically, you're demanding atheism as a necessary prerequisite to tolerating homosexuality? Is that it?

And radicals wonder why nobody takes them seriously...

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at March 11, 2005 10:55 PM

Let's stay on the right side of personal attacks, gang. Not mentioning names. (Calling me an idiot remains legal, of course.)

Comment from: jjacques posted at March 11, 2005 11:04 PM

So basically, you're demanding atheism as a necessary prerequisite to tolerating homosexuality? Is that it?

No, he's saying that religious beliefs are not an excuse for bigotry and hatred.

Comment from: Freak posted at March 11, 2005 11:06 PM

What matters:

Eric apologized. Syke accepted the apology. (See http://syke.livejournal.com/ )

Comment from: Amanda W posted at March 11, 2005 11:12 PM

"No, he's saying that religious beliefs are not an excuse for bigotry and hatred."

except that it isn't even necessarily religious beliefs. i am Christian and i fully believe that a lot of the "Christian" beliefs being battled here are probably more aptly describd as cultural beliefs, not religious ones -- these people were brought up in these sorts of beliefs, and they are prevalent enough within American culture to be a cultural subset, but they aren't necessarily within the religious doctrine they are said to be.

so, Jesus didn't say to hate fags. some random guy said Jesus said to hate fags. there's a big difference -- and it's fully possible to believe in Jesus while fully renouncing Mr. Random Guy.

Comment from: Jamie posted at March 11, 2005 11:36 PM

This came up on some thread somewhere, but the point is that Jesus Christ never uttered a single word about homosexuality either pro or con. Paul, in his letters to the Corinthians, I think, did say that homosexuality was a sin. One could surmise that Paul assumed that Jesus said being gay was a sin and we all know what happens when one assumes. The Old Testament does denounce homosexuality as a sin however Christians donÌt have much of a leg to stand on when denouncing homosexuality because if Jesus said anything that contradicted the Old Testament Christians must side with Jesus. Jesus said ÏDonÌt hate.Ó AinÌt religion is fun. :)

Comment from: FlyingFish posted at March 12, 2005 12:58 AM

First, kudos to Eric for being man enough to admit when he's wrong. (Yeah, bad phrase to use given the topic, but I couldn't think of a better one.)

Second: Jesus said ÏDonÌt hate.Ó

I don't hate people who drinks or smokes too much, but I think it's a bad idea that they continue to do it (and I wouldn't want them drinking or smoking around my kids either, lest they set a bad example). So one can disapprove of a behavior without hating anyone. I grew up in a Baptist church and know several people there who are loving and caring, and at the same time find homosexual acts to be a sin. And there is no conflict whatsoever.

Comment from: sequential posted at March 12, 2005 1:55 AM

I feel the minute you intend to use your artistic talent to earn your keep, you make a conscious decision to compromise some of your artistic scruples. The minute you make something that has to appeal to the general public and not just yourself, is the moment you've technically sold out, sorry.

To state that this is something bad, yet make any money from the general public buying products connected to your creations is patent hypocrisy. Actions speak louder than words, blad-dee blah. Creators that make any money from their web art to me are nowhere near this extreme and academic definition of a sell-out, but to squeak that you hate the grind, yet profit from it, is laughable and ignorant of reality. We're all sellouts in one way or another. Otherwise you're a hermit on a desert island, friendless.

Comment from: Aeire posted at March 12, 2005 4:17 AM

Let's put this ugly affair behind us all and get back to the -fun- comic stuff.

Like the Queen of Wands commentary. Is that cool or what?

I fully endorse this suggestion!

Comment from: Aeire posted at March 12, 2005 4:18 AM

Let's put this ugly affair behind us all and get back to the -fun- comic stuff.

Like the Queen of Wands commentary. Is that cool or what?

I fully endorse this suggestion!

Comment from: Phalanx posted at March 12, 2005 7:13 AM

In the past few week, there have been two major ruckuses: One of Keenspot and the other on 'Space.

In both cases, someone made a mistake. The difference here is you're big enough to admit it and apologise. And it makes all the difference in the world, in my book.

And I'm proud to see that the readers of Websnark are a discerning bunch, with the courage to argue against the blogger they like instead of blindly agreeing. For a moment I was sick of blogs and their followings, but Websnark is different.

Comment from: Daemonic posted at March 12, 2005 9:55 AM

"Let's put this ugly affair behind us all and get back to the -fun- comic stuff.

Like the Queen of Wands commentary. Is that cool or what?

I fully endorse this suggestion!"

lol!

I agree! Great commentary Aeire! Its a beautiful insight!

More Comics discussion, less politics! :)

Oh, and kudos Eric. It takes a man to admit his mistakes! Great character!

Comment from: Hankblog posted at March 12, 2005 12:14 PM

Nicely put Eric. We need more people like you who can admit that they were wrong. To your credit, it would have been nice if the Keenspace folks had mentioned that the issue had been brought to them and there had been an unsuccessful attempt at resolution. But the discussion that went on was pretty engaging.

Comment from: Tangent posted at March 12, 2005 2:14 PM

Okay, Eric... you *did* ask for it... ;)

Eric, you're an idiot.

But you're *our* idiot, and we're proud of you for it. :)

Robert A. Howard, internet-renown idiot and tangentier

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at March 13, 2005 11:20 PM

Geez, you lose access for five days and you miss whole scandals.

Comment from: readsInDC posted at March 15, 2005 11:11 AM

Mitch Clem wrote: Does that context mean that it should be tolerated? Oh, well, since Jesus says these guys should hate fags, then I guess we should leave them to it.

So you want to be tolerated, but do not want to extend your tolerance to others? Wow.... Another thing that really pisses me off about the whole "liberal" agenda: they're liberal for just as long as it suits them. Tolerate me, but hate the other guy. I am more impressed with people who say "Ok, you don't agree with my lifestyle. Why and what can I do to show you that I am not a threat to you?" than "AAAAAAAAH, you said I am bad, you must be evil and rotten and beat your kids every day."

For one reason or another, certain groups of people find homosexuality a threat. Why, that is beyond me. It might be that I was exposed to way too many religions to accept a teaching. I believe in a Higher Power, but I don't read the Bible or Qur'an or Bhagavadgita so I can't tell you what it's in those past the stories I read for my religion classes.

All I can do is question them and engage in dialogue.

Comment from: Denyer posted at March 28, 2005 12:21 PM

If you don't you, sir, are being intolerant.

Hate hate. Be intolerant towards intolerance. These things aren't contradictions, because no-one ever advocated unequivocal tolerance, peace and love; that's merely a simplification by those wishing to polarise an argument.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: