Ubisoft threatens to sue Something Awful over Jade Raymond webcomic

[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Again, the comic assumed you're smart enough to be able to apply the context to it, and not have to spell everything out to you. Which, clearly, you're not.

I don't think that this comic was made for people who don't know anything about Raymond, and who might actually take the comic's joke at face value. It was made for people who have been paying attention to the situation, who have grown cynical of her over-exposure, and who can understand the joke.

If you're too inept to apply the context and history of Raymond's use in the promotion of Assassin's Creed, to apply even that tiny bit of critical thinking, then just go read something stupid like Penny Arcade, and yuck it up about how huge Xbox is or something.[/QUOTE]

Look, I understand your reading of the comic; however, you can't simply assume that even the most informed viewer is going to make the same assumptions about authorial intent that you are. I feel you're overreaching, searching for what the comic can be presumed to be saying rather than what it actually is.

That said, I do not need everything "spelled out" for me; rather, I merely need to see the sublest indication that the comic is designed to comment on something beyond Raymond's competance and character. I don't. From such, I arrive at my opinion.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']I feel you're overreaching, searching for what the comic can be presumed to be saying rather than what it actually is.[/quote]

Like any work of art, it may be interpreted different ways, but the artist has the final say on what it says.

And the artist already cleared up the meaning. It's pretty much exactly like CoffeeEdge said.

Except he can suck a fuck for dissing Penny-Arcade.
 
Isn't this thing being blown all out of proportion? It's just a cease and desist letter right? This can't be the first time SA has been threatened, I'm sure there's no real issue here or Lowtax wouldn't have such a hilarious response.

I can't wait to see someone do a Will Wright version for Spore.
 
[quote name='B:L']Like any work of art, it may be interpreted different ways, but the artist has the final say on what it says.

And the artist already cleared up the meaning. It's pretty much exactly like CoffeeEdge said.[/QUOTE]

Intentional fallacy. What an artist says his work means has no effect on how we can and/or should interpret it.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Intentional fallacy. What an artist says his work means has no effect on how we can and/or should interpret it.[/quote]

It is an affective fallacy to bring up intentional fallacy.

This isn't frikkin' Mona Lisa. It's clear what it's trying to convey, and the removal of all context is what makes it "bad". And bringing up intentional fallacy only further removes context from the work to the point that all it is, is pornography.

That's what happens when you remove context.
 
[quote name='SpazX']If the intent of the comic writer was to make fun of how Ubisoft was "whoring her out" he did a terrible job by actually depicting her as a whore. It's not my fault he can't tell the difference.[/quote]
...

She was getting jizzed on because she was sucking off three nerds to get them to buy her game.
 
[quote name='B:L']It is an affective fallacy to bring up intentional fallacy.

This isn't frikkin' Mona Lisa. It's clear what it's trying to convey, and the removal of all context is what makes it "bad". And bringing up intentional fallacy only further removes context from the work to the point that all it is, is pornography.

That's what happens when you remove context.[/QUOTE]

p'shaw. "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."

Moreover, the very NEED for clarification on this issue suggests that the comic is, by itself, not as cut and dry as some of you claim. If it were so perfect on its own, there would be no need for further comment from the person who drew it.

Jesus some of y'all are thick.

It's quite simple. Were Don Imus' "nappy headed ho" comment inoffensive because he didn't mean them to be? I think the Rutgers womens' basketball team begs to differ.

I've no idea what is trying to be proven by the "sexism" inherent in not thinking it appropriate that men should be jizzed on as well. What is critical in defining this comic as sexist is that, as people who play games, and as people who follow the industry, we have seen:
1) many producers promote their games to the point wherein the producer becomes as prominent as the game itself.
2) much criicism of those in #1.
3) One comic depicting a producer performing sexual acts on male gamers in order to entice them to buy "their" game.
4) The fact that this kind of criticism laid dormant until the very first instance of a female lead producer being in the position as described in #1.

What's so hard to grasp?
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Intentional fallacy. What an artist says his work means has no effect on how we can and/or should interpret it.[/quote]
That's a fallacy these days?! What are we teaching kids in schools? The artist is then responsible for whatever rhetorical games are played with his work by the most thin-skinned party?
 
[quote name='B:L']It is an affective fallacy to bring up intentional fallacy.[/QUOTE]

In response to your statement, or in reference to the comic?

[quote name='B:L']This isn't frikkin' Mona Lisa. It's clear what it's trying to convey, and the removal of all context is what makes it "bad". [/QUOTE]

Since I'm apparently not alone in my position, I'd say it stands to reason that it's anything but clear in what it's trying to convey, let alone what it actually is conveying.

[quote name='B:L']And bringing up intentional fallacy only further removes context from the work to the point that all it is, is pornography.

That's what happens when you remove context.[/QUOTE]

The only context removed is the author's stated basis for its creation. I was only challenging your assertion that the author, like the voice of God, has bequeathed unto us the final truth as to the meaning of his work -- such is not so.

Look, I'll meet everyone in the middle. I understand that the supposed intent of the comic is to criticize Jade Raymond's "media oversaturation." Since I can't prove either way whether or not her exposure is somehow irregular, based on sexual appeal rather than merit, and ultimately contrary to the promotion of Assassin's Creed itself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is.

That said, I would expect a work intending to criticize such oversaturation to be threefold, against the developer, the media, and the figure in question. Instead, what I see is one which ignores the former two in favor of the latter, and focuses entirely on only one narrow aspect of the issue, the question of whether or not the figure's sexual appeal has been willfully manipulated to spur sales. Since this decision seems to have been made as a direct consequence the ease of manipulating certain gendered stereotypes, and since the work in question appears to foreground base, visual humor rather than its attempt at critique, I am left with no recourse but to cast it as criticism of the weakest and ultimately most irrelevant kind: the ad hominem invective.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']The artist is then responsible for whatever rhetorical games are played with his work by the most thin-skinned party?[/QUOTE]

No. The artist is responsible for nothing. Works gain their meaning through the public discourse.

Like, you know, this thread.

Edit: Not really sure if your attitude is sarcastic or questioning, so forgive me if I misread you.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']That's a fallacy these days?! What are we teaching kids in schools? The artist is then responsible for whatever rhetorical games are played with his work by the most thin-skinned party?[/quote]

Intentional fallacy - no one created the work
Affective fallacy - no one cares about the work

Both are pretty much used by "New Critics". Don't like them very much at all due to the above interpolation.


[quote name='mykevermin']Jesus... should be jizzed on as well.[/quote]
Funny how context makes everything understandable, and removing contextual elements can affect the meaning conveyed.


It's meant to be a metaphorical work, even though it has a crude physical feature to it. I would not consider it mere ad hominem based on the fact that the premise of it is rooted in fact: her image was overexposed. The comic was then a representation of how the artist viewed this exposure and the meaning he interpreted from it.

Jade Raymond is not literally a whore. But the artist felt that she was "whored out", and parts of the gaming populace lapped it up. The imagery is visceral, but it is a tangible reflection of the abstract disgust the artist has about how Jade is portrayed.

The work is raw, yes, but at the same time it is skin deep.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']No. The artist is responsible for nothing. Works gain their meaning through the public discourse.

Like, you know, this thread.

Edit: Not really sure if your attitude is sarcastic or questioning, so forgive me if I misread you.[/quote]
No, no they don't. That's wrong in the most basic sense. If the artist has no bearing on the meaning of a work, why is the artist an artist? Why does the artist create? I sincerely doubt that most artists have no meaning in mind when they create. What meaning is created by public discourse is at best a construct OF that discourse using the artist's signifiers as an inspiration. In essence, that sort of meaning, if it isn't appealing to and attempting to discern what the AUTHOR meant, is just creative writing.
 
[quote name='RollingSkull']No, no they don't. That's wrong in the most basic sense. If the artist has no bearing on the meaning of a work, why is the artist an artist? Why does the artist create? [/QUOTE]

You misinterpret. The artist crafts the meaning of a work entirely (he/she creates it, after all, and its content will serve as the basis for its interpretation). The caveat is that his/her EXPRESSED INTENTIONS in creating the work do not necessarily have any bearing on the range of meanings which can be drawn from it.

[quote name='RollingSkull']I sincerely doubt that most artists have no meaning in mind when they create. What meaning is created by public discourse is at best a construct OF that discourse using the artist's signifiers as an inspiration.[/QUOTE]

Both true statements.

[quote name='RollingSkull']In essence, that sort of meaning, if it isn't appealing to and attempting to discern what the AUTHOR meant, is just creative writing.[/QUOTE]

Here we reach an ideological divide, as I feel this sort of logic needlessly places a straitjacket upon a text. To say that a work has only one "meaning," that which the author intended to infuse in it, is to basically disavow any work's ability to:

a) mean different things to different groups
b) change/remain relevant over time
c) function as something beyond a rhetorical tract and/or ultimately frivolous bit of entertainment
d) be debated

This, of course, will lead me back to the same questions that begin your post, inquiries about why art should even be attempted in the first place. As such, I suspect we're at an impasse.
 
[quote name='getmyrunon']That's a stretch.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2686438

They asked them to remove the offending material or they may pursue legal recourse. There's a huge difference.[/quote]

It's bullying pure and simple.

Ubisoft didn't send a letter of idle speculation from the land of maybes and what-ifs.

It's a threat from a big corporation to a website with much smaller revenues. It's an attempt to make an end-run around the first amendment by suing anyone who exercises their free-speech rights into oblivion.
 
[quote name='B:L']It's meant to be a metaphorical work, even though it has a crude physical feature to it. I would not consider it mere ad hominem based on the fact that the premise of it is rooted in fact: her image was overexposed. The comic was then a representation of how the artist viewed this exposure and the meaning he interpreted from it.

Jade Raymond is not literally a whore. But the artist felt that she was "whored out", and parts of the gaming populace lapped it up. The imagery is visceral, but it is a tangible reflection of the abstract disgust the artist has about how Jade is portrayed.

The work is raw, yes, but at the same time it is skin deep.[/QUOTE]

I thought you were arguing about context just a few posts back? How quickly things change, no? Where does the comic show this "invisible hand" of the agent that is forcing her into this situation? Where does the comic, deliberately or subtly, state that Ubisoft is complicit, or the gaming media is complicit? Where is there agentive action outside of Jade Raymond *at all*?

The moment you try to declare things such as this is the moment you lose your (already absurd from the start) "context" high ground.

There is no "how Jade is portrayed" in the comic. Don't use passive language to describe her treatment when the comic does no such thing in portraying her as a mere puppet/pawn being used by larger corporate bodies. The moment you do that is the moment you begin to interpret the work outside of what it presents...then it loses that beloved "context" you were protecting for it yesterday.
 
[quote name='B:L']Actually, that's the very definition of sexism. You're discriminating by gender.

Look, you're defending women. That's all well and good, but when you put them up on a pedestal so high that it enters Imaginary Land where all women don't have penises, then that's a sexist viewpoint.

Because of that, you're discriminating FOR them and discriminating AGAINST guys, BECAUSE of your sexist stereotypes.

That's why that is sexism.[/quote]

Jesus I hate to drag this out any further, but here goes.

Nowhere have I put women on any pedestal or in any way said that women are better than men or men better than women. For the fifty millionth time the difference in gender and social position between women and men is what makes jizzing on a woman sexist and on a man not. Men hold a higher position in society than women, they are stereotyped as dominant and women as submissive, jizzing on a woman is an act of dominance that is based on that stereotype, therefore it is sexist. I don't understand where I'm losing you here.

You're trying to stretch the definition of sexism so that anyone who says something is sexist is sexist because of the distinction that they make between genders. That's stupid. Discrimination in the definition of sexism does not mean making a distinction between genders as that would be a stupid defintion since there are obvious distinctions between them, if there were not they wouldn't have separate definitions. Discrimination in that definition means favoring for or against someone based on their gender. I'm not fucking favoring anybody, I said that jizzing on someone is demeaning in any situation, but in this one it can be described with the word "sexist."

For christ's sake it's just a word, why do you feel the need to stretch its definition so much just to negate it? Saying that something is sexist for one gender, but not the other is not favoring that action for one gender and not another since that doesn't mean that it is therefore acceptable because it isn't sexist, so I don't understand where the hell you're coming from.


And as a general comment on the comic, I agree with myke when making the distinction between Ubisoft whoring her out and her being a whore and the comic obviously depicting the latter. I've said it before, but maybe myke explains things better, I dunno.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Context Context Context[/quote]
You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.


[quote name='SpazX']jizzing on a woman sexist and on a man not[/quote]
But it is.

You're arguing that women can not be sexist no matter what because of societal stereotypes. Saying that a feminazi dominatrix who whips slave men into submission is not a sexist because she doesn't fall into traditional gender roles.

It's the equivalent of saying that it is not racist for a group of black people to hang a white man for his skin color, because it's not traditional.

And that's just wrong.
 
[quote name='B:L'][quote name='mykevermin']Context Context Context[/quote]You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/media]
 
[quote name='B:L']You use that word a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means.[/QUOTE]

How clumsy. I'd say that you're trying to "dance" around the point I brought up, but it's much closer to "stumble with the subtlety of a wino."

My point, in case you missed it (as opposed to deliberately trying to change the subject in the hopes that I'd drop it) is that you're presenting a double standard about interpreting the comic's context. In your world, you draw from situations that are unstated in the comic to provide "context" that, in your mind, is the only possible truth (that parties external to JR are responsible for her being whored out). Also in your world, it is inappropriate to draw from something that happened outside of the comic (e.g., the claim that this is the first occasion that explicitly sexual actions were used to visually depict a "celebrity" producer, and that this is the first time said "celebrity" producer is a female), as it violates the "context" of the comic's intent, in your mind.

As I said before, the very fact that the person who made this comic was compelled to offer his creative insight into the comic shows, quite clearly, that what was represented in the comic, on its own, is not enough to draw out the context you claim of JR as unwilling pawn in Ubis/gaming media's evil scheme to whore her out.

It's a deliberate misreading of the comic as a literal work on its own, while simultaneously declaring other interpretations invalid for having missed the "context."

Absolutely laughable. I greatly anticipate your next diversionary post.
 
[quote name='scion of ys']my "red herring sense" is tingling....[/quote]

redherringnz1.jpg
 
[quote name='B:L']But it is.

You're arguing that women can not be sexist no matter what because of societal stereotypes. Saying that a feminazi dominatrix who whips slave men into submission is not a sexist because she doesn't fall into traditional gender roles.

It's the equivalent of saying that it is not racist for a group of black people to hang a white man for his skin color, because it's not traditional.

And that's just wrong.[/quote]

If you can point out where I said anything similar to any of that, I will give you $100 million.

I believe you're reading quite a bit into my saying "a man jizzing on another man is not sexist like a man jizzing on a woman is." Simply because this circumstance is sexism because of a gender role stereotype doesn't mean that's the only kind of sexism and I've never said it is. A woman given a position of power and discriminating based on gender would certainly be sexist. It's an unusual example because women usually don't have positions of power and when they do it's usually because they act like and/or relate to men. It's certainly possible though.

In any case even if a man getting jizzed on was sexist it would be a man being sexist to another man, a woman wouldn't be involved, so I dunno where you got the idea that I was saying anything about women being sexist.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I believe you're reading quite a bit into my saying "a man jizzing on another man is not sexist like a man jizzing on a woman is."[/quote]
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the viewer's interpretation of what you wrote is vitally important, and that the author's intent is not important at all.

And yes, a woman can jizz on a man. That's why I'm saying you're putting women on a holy untouchable pedestal, because you're certain of the fact that all women can't jizz.
 
[quote name='B:L']That's why I'm saying you're putting women on a holy untouchable pedestal, because you're certain of the fact that all women can't jizz.[/QUOTE]

"Women" can't.

What makes you think there's only two genders?

:D
 
[quote name='Magus8472']"Women" can't.

What makes you think there's only two genders?

:D[/QUOTE]

Sexes.

Sex=biology
gender=psychology/sociology

Think of the semantic difference b/w "transgender" and "transsexual."
 
[quote name='Magus8472']You misinterpret. The artist crafts the meaning of a work entirely (he/she creates it, after all, and its content will serve as the basis for its interpretation). The caveat is that his/her EXPRESSED INTENTIONS in creating the work do not necessarily have any bearing on the range of meanings which can be drawn from it.[/quote]

The question here is of the nature of a message... or at least the vocabulary involved. I believe that, when it comes to a message, the signifiers used to communicate and the intended meaning of the message are intertwined to create a message. If the artist intends something with his message, then, for all intents and purposes, his is the CORRECT meaning for intepreting that message (Holding the artist constant, of course. The same artist could be in a different state of mind at a different time.).

So, taking the same signifiers and attaching a different message to them, while certainly an interesting ideological exercise in the right circles, simply can not be more important than the original message.



Here we reach an ideological divide, as I feel this sort of logic needlessly places a straitjacket upon a text. To say that a work has only one "meaning," that which the author intended to infuse in it, is to basically disavow any work's ability to:

a) mean different things to different groups
b) change/remain relevant over time
c) function as something beyond a rhetorical tract and/or ultimately frivolous bit of entertainment
d) be debated

This, of course, will lead me back to the same questions that begin your post, inquiries about why art should even be attempted in the first place. As such, I suspect we're at an impasse.
Click to expand...

Not as much. I'll start with the easy one first. Teasing out the author's intent can involve a great deal of debate in and of itself. While it does usually involve more concrete work rather than abstract, it still is not such a meaningless ideological exercise.

As for the rest, different interpretations of a work are certainly an interesting enterprise to chase down, so long as they do so with a modicum of self-awareness; that such intepretations reflect more on the interpreters than they do on the author or his work. I would argue that works do not change over time unless, say, the author were to change them. The work remains static.

I can see the intellectual value of reinterpreting a work outside of the author's intent, but I simply cannot see a practical way in which such exercises can possibly be even close to being as relevant as the author's original meaning.

Which is a fancy way of saying, when lit crit profs do that, I couldn't give a hoot. When the Supreme Court does that with the Constitution or some such similar nonsense, I begin to say "Wa-wa-waaaait..."
 
[quote name='B:L']Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the viewer's interpretation of what you wrote is vitally important, and that the author's intent is not important at all.

And yes, a woman can jizz on a man. That's why I'm saying you're putting women on a holy untouchable pedestal, because you're certain of the fact that all women can't jizz.[/quote]

You certainly aren't backpedaling from "you think women can't be sexist, therefore you are putting them on a pedestal" to "you think women can't jizz when they totally can, therefore you are putting them on a pedestal" are you?

I'm sorry I put women on the holy pedestal of those who cannot jizz. That is, certainly, the highest pedestal of them all and plainly shows how sexist I really am. Certainly I'm discriminating against women by saying they can't jizz like a man, or something stupid like that.

Can women ejaculate in a a manner that is similar to men? Yes. Does it happen even kind of frequently? No, not really. How often do men ejaculate at orgasm? Practically every time. How controllable is female ejaculation compared to male ejaculation? Not even close, maybe some women have more control than others or can practice. Is it a regular practice used to show dominance and control? No.

So if it's possible for a woman to ejaculate does that somehow negate the reasoning I laid out for you about why jizzing on women is sexist? No, it doesn't, as it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If a woman can jizz on a man does that mean that it has to be sexist if a man jizzing on a woman is sexist? No, it doesn't, as I've pointed out several times. That's not discrimination.

Now if you want to go even further to even rarer circumstances of transsexuals or sexual oddities (and the difficulty in saying whether or not they are women or men biologically) you're obviously not trying to understand anything I'm saying since none of those have anything to do with why a man jizzing on a woman is sexist in the first place.

If you just want to play semantic games with the word sexism and bring up irrelevant shit, then I'm done with the conversation. I'll find something else to do with my boredom.
 
Seventeen pages? This is really sad. I think this stopped being about the topic and more about rhetorical pissing contests, oh, a dozen pages ago? Sooner??

She's still the face that launched a thousand posts, so at the end of the day, it's all about The Hottie, isn't it?
 
This is why I come to CAG, a metaphysical debate about a webcomic that was loosely art. Other forums are probably filled with puerile teenagers making fellatio comments.
 
The comic is a parody of how Ubisoft is whoring out Jade Raymond. No other game besides Gears of War with Cliffy B has the lead design been used so much to sell the image of the game.

And Ubisoft is whoring her out so unusually prominently precisely because she has a vagina.


The comic sucked (no pun intended), sure, but it had a point.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Eloquent prose aside...

Your hatred of her seems almost personal.[/QUOTE]
She was a total bitch in high school, dude. You wouldn't even believe. Kids used to call her "Jadey from Hades."
 
I saw this comic a few days ago... it's mean. The shitty thing is that I read Chugworth Academy, and now I think less of Dave and it's affecting my ability to enjoy his work.
 
From what I've seen, Jade never pushed herself into attention. Just doing the typical interviews and such. Normally, Something Awful fails horribly, but in this case the threats are directed in the wrong direction.
 
Argh, the comic's gone. Any online copies of it?

Thanks google. Ubisoft's overreacting, it's Something Awful for chriss sakes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top