• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Moderns that are heating up on ebay!
71 71

63,768 posts in this topic

And then closet racists/mysogynists, as well as socially awkward nerds could claim politics and pc police were ruing their sandwich hobby.

 

Ruin no. But negatively affect, most definitely yes. See the recent censorship of cover art for evidence of this.

 

Censored art is art you're not allowed to see.

 

That art wasn't censored. You can see that art anytime you want.

 

Anyone who thinks we live in some kind of censored society is showing just how culturally out touch with the real world they truly are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then closet racists/mysogynists, as well as socially awkward nerds could claim politics and pc police were ruing their sandwich hobby.

 

Ruin no. But negatively affect, most definitely yes. See the recent censorship of cover art for evidence of this.

 

Censored art is art you're not allowed to see.

 

That art wasn't censored. You can see that art anytime you want.

 

Anyone who thinks we live in some kind of censored society is showing just how culturally out touch with the real world they truly are.

Censorship is real. People are being told to sit down and shut up on a regular basis. If they protest the racism and bigotry slurs follow to make sure that person sits down and shuts up. The days of freedom to think, feel, and say what you want are numbered. 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then closet racists/mysogynists, as well as socially awkward nerds could claim politics and pc police were ruing their sandwich hobby.

 

Ruin no. But negatively affect, most definitely yes. See the recent censorship of cover art for evidence of this.

 

Censored art is art you're not allowed to see.

 

That art wasn't censored. You can see that art anytime you want.

 

Anyone who thinks we live in some kind of censored society is showing just how culturally out touch with the real world they truly are.

 

Just because the original material is still available for consumption elsewhere doesn't mean it wasn't censored in that instance.

 

And when a potential,not even necessarily the intended, audience can effectively demonstrate that their approval is necessary in order for an artist to publish a piece of art, its hard to argue that we are not living in some degree of a censored society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you take a step away from the keyboard for a little while.

You are taking things pretty personal today.

 

Someone else made it personal. Perhaps they should step away. Nate made a general comment about change for the sake of change then words like racists were used to try to stifle an opinion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely whiffed on space riders, is it worth the prices that it's fetching on ebay? The covers look interesting, but my LCS told me today they didn't even order any originally and did not have the second print either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then closet racists/mysogynists, as well as socially awkward nerds could claim politics and pc police were ruing their sandwich hobby.

 

Ruin no. But negatively affect, most definitely yes. See the recent censorship of cover art for evidence of this.

 

Censored art is art you're not allowed to see.

 

That art wasn't censored. You can see that art anytime you want.

 

Anyone who thinks we live in some kind of censored society is showing just how culturally out touch with the real world they truly are.

Censorship is real. People are being told to sit down and shut up on a regular basis. If they protest the racism and bigotry slurs follow to make sure that person sits down and shuts up. The days of freedom to think, feel, and say what you want are numbered. 2c

 

That's hilarious.

 

Who's being told to sit down and shut up? Why are they complying?

 

You're saying whatever you want.

 

No one is stopping you.

 

Disagrement isn't censorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The art was self censored so it was censored....

 

No. The art was not censored. It still exists on the internet.

 

It was decided to not be used for a cover.

 

I mean seriously... go read about some people who truly were censored in other countries and you'll realize just how soft and easy we have it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then closet racists/mysogynists, as well as socially awkward nerds could claim politics and pc police were ruing their sandwich hobby.

 

Ruin no. But negatively affect, most definitely yes. See the recent censorship of cover art for evidence of this.

 

Censored art is art you're not allowed to see.

 

That art wasn't censored. You can see that art anytime you want.

 

Anyone who thinks we live in some kind of censored society is showing just how culturally out touch with the real world they truly are.

 

Just because the original material is still available for consumption elsewhere doesn't mean it wasn't censored in that instance.

 

And when a potential,not even necessarily the intended, audience can effectively demonstrate that their approval is necessary in order for an artist to publish a piece of art, its hard to argue that we are not living in some degree of a censored society.

 

Good god, are you seriously implying that?

 

Just because some artist decided, because people were threatening to rape and kill other people, to NOT use a piece of art for a comic book cover of all things, and you want to compare that to artists in other countries who've been attacked, had to go into hiding, leave their country, been imprisoned...???

 

Get out and see the world. There's no real art censorship in America.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on Wolverines #3 Parel variant?

 

I'm looking at buying one. Love the cover. Story is craps, but first appearance of fantomelle. Not a lot of them on the bay.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it wasn't used because of the backlash so it was censored...i don't care if you can find it on the internet it was self censored from publication on the cover.

 

It was censored or it was self-censored from publication? You claim both, but it's not the same thing. There's a big difference.

 

Either way, I'm sure someone like Salman Rushdie rolls his eyes over the whole thing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you take a step away from the keyboard for a little while.

You are taking things pretty personal today.

 

Someone else made it personal. Perhaps they should step away. Nate made a general comment about change for the sake of change then words like racists were used to try to stifle an opinion.

 

Stifle?

 

Seriously.

 

Disagreement is not censorship. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the original material is still available for consumption elsewhere doesn't mean it wasn't censored in that instance.

 

And when a potential,not even necessarily the intended, audience can effectively demonstrate that their approval is necessary in order for an artist to publish a piece of art, its hard to argue that we are not living in some degree of a censored society.

 

Good god, are you seriously implying that?

 

Just because some artist decided, because people were threatening to rape and kill other people, to NOT use a piece of art for a comic book cover of all things, and you want to compare that to artists in other countries who've been attacked, had to go into hiding, leave their country, been imprisoned...???

 

Get out and see the world. There's no real art censorship in America.

 

 

Implying what? That public backlash has caused the removal of TWO covers being edited or pulled entirely recently? Backlash that may not have even been from actual comic readers? Do you want to just pretend that didn't happen?

 

Nobody is comparing this to censorship in other countries; I certainly didn't. The only person making that comparison is YOU. There are different degrees of censorship. Having joe public step in and decide that the on Manara's Spider-Woman is too pronounced and therefore offensive is not a good road to be going down.

 

And please try and talk down to others just a little bit less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you take a step away from the keyboard for a little while.

You are taking things pretty personal today.

 

Someone else made it personal. Perhaps they should step away. Nate made a general comment about change for the sake of change then words like racists were used to try to stifle an opinion.

 

Stifle?

 

Seriously.

 

Disagreement is not censorship. lol

 

And HE made it personal when he asked, "How many white male characters are appropriate? Is there a specific number that have to represent each race and if so who is in charge of this specific number policy?"

 

THAT made it personal.

 

To insinuate that these artists are all making these decision's in their stories to appease a political philosophy is a slap in the face to people I've met, talked to , respect and follow in their work.

 

But since I disagree with him, and you agree with him, I must be trying to 'stifle' what he's saying.

 

Oh for God's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
71 71