I don't know about that. The Dick Wolves debacle was the Penny Arcade guys reacting to those who hate rape jokes and not only continuing the joke, but making things hostile for those who spoke out against this sort of behaviour.
Both stories are about someone or some people who are marginalised by a larger group. I think it's very relevant.
The problem is people who equate rape jokes (which are ok, if tasteless) and rape culture (which is not okay, and must be stopped).
The dickwolves thing was well done specifically because it was a joke (not a rape joke, even) that happened to use the word rape that caused a massive freakout among those who don't understand the actual problem and instead wish to attack the symptoms.
Rape jokes are not a positive identifier for those who perpetuate rape culture.
> making things hostile for those who spoke out against this sort of behaviour.
Maybe that kind of knee-jerk reaction deserves a little hostility? I mean, I get that PA crossed the line and got carried away, but I can't really be offended by somebody mocking the social justice blogosphere. Because, quite frankly, they're jerks. They're generally right, but they're jerks.
> I don't see the relevance of this comment to the story at all.
“don't see” or “don't want to see”? This is highly relevant: the original discussion is about how people behave horribly when there are no consequences for doing so. As long as the Penny Arcade fan-base insulates them from criticism by dismissing it and attacking anyone who speaks up, they might not be anonymous but share the same basic ability to avoid significant consequences from their actions.
You are commenting on a difference of ideology and really just changing the issue.
This story is about single human beings and our indifference to them when anonymous and in a group and perhaps unaware they might see our comments.
These are totally different issues. Most people would be horrified to think she read our comments if they were negative.
Most people stand by ideologies.