Let's argue about diversity in comics and what censorship is here

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

So we can keep the other threads on-topic.

[jcjames]

[greenhoody]

Changes white/straight hero's to something else: lame.

Making new cool ones like Silk: Cool

 

I never put much thought into non white hero's. Easy for me to say as a white male. Well I got a half white half mexican (she looks mostly mexican) GF and it opened my eyes a little more. Like how as a kid she identified with Jasmine from aladdin. Was her favorite Disney princess by a mile. The only comics I've got here to read and her to ask for more of is Silk.

 

She doesn't push for diversity in any ways about anything but I can tell shes def more drawn to story's that are not about a blonde girl.

 

So I say bring it on. Just quit messing with how things use to be. Make something original.

[kaholo1256]

I don't think I ever cared what race a super hero was. I never grew up as a child and was like, let me stop pretending to be the hulk because when he gets small he's going to be Caucasian. Or went to wear the Transformer Optimus Prime costume during Halloween and was like I'm obviously a Ford loving child. For me as an Islander there isn't much in the way of super heroes. For me the extent of a superhero is a Pineapple guy, a guy that got blown away by Arcade, and then the fact that they use Hawaii as the backdrop for random vacation fighting.

 

I'm ok with diversity but I'm better with history and leaving continuity alone for pivotal characters. To me if you want to create a gay, black Asian, female then do it. Have fun, make her the new it girl of the Avengers. But don't take an established character change there race, there sexual orientation, and there sex and tell me I'm not going to question it. Just kill off one guy/girl and replace him with another. Most of these characters have been around long enough they should be dead by now with grown children. Do that and make changes to characters in that manner.

[the authority]

I have very mixed emotions on this stuff. First, I agree that Marvel and DC need new blood in their veins because I'm tired of reading the same old stories. That being said, I fall into the camp of "please create completely new, likable characters". It has nothing to do with race, religion, sexual orientation, or anything of the like for me. My favorite characters as a kid consisted of the X-men, whose lineup was American, Canadian, Russian, German, American Indian, African, and more. They were white, black, blue, and silver. They were male and female. Other favorites were aliens, gods, mystics, green, huge, small, and well, there you go.

 

Azrael is a good example. Here was a character with a cool story and costume/look. Why did he need to try to be Batman ? It didn't work and created a terrible ending to a great storyline imo. How many versions of Thor have there been to this point ? How many lasted ?

 

Miles Morales is a character that works. Midnighter and Apollo work. Kamala Khan works. They are familiar but different.

 

There are so many Green Lanterns that I've lost count. DC can justify this because there are supposed to lots of Lanterns. So why change Alan Scott ? Why not create a new Lantern like Kyle Rayner ? He was okay. Couldn't they leave the old one alone and create a new one ? Well, no, there would be no write up on CBR or Bleeding Cool would there ?

 

I think its great that they shelve a character until someone comes out with a story worth reading but add something new before yanking the carpet out from under people. If they allowed creators to earn real royalties, I think you'd see a meaningful expansion of 2 great comic universes. Maybe that should be the discussion.

[DEATHLOK9147]

Honestly, I kind if feel like Latinos and Asian hero's don't exist in Marvel or DC.. But I don't mind the diversity at all. As long as it is done right anyways

[FutureFlash]

I have very mixed emotions on this stuff. First, I agree that Marvel and DC need new blood in their veins because I'm tired of reading the same old stories. That being said, I fall into the camp of "please create completely new, likable characters". It has nothing to do with race, religion, sexual orientation, or anything of the like for me. My favorite characters as a kid consisted of the X-men, whose lineup was American, Canadian, Russian, German, American Indian, African, and more. They were white, black, blue, and silver. They were male and female. Other favorites were aliens, gods, mystics, green, huge, small, and well, there you go.

 

Azrael is a good example. Here was a character with a cool story and costume/look. Why did he need to try to be Batman ? It didn't work and created a terrible ending to a great storyline imo. How many versions of Thor have there been to this point ? How many lasted ?

 

Miles Morales is a character that works. Midnighter and Apollo work. Kamala Khan works. They are familiar but different.

 

There are so many Green Lanterns that I've lost count. DC can justify this because there are supposed to lots of Lanterns. So why change Alan Scott ? Why not create a new Lantern like Kyle Rayner ? He was okay. Couldn't they leave the old one alone and create a new one ? Well, no, there would be no write up on CBR or Bleeding Cool would there ?

 

I think its great that they shelve a character until someone comes out with a story worth reading but add something new before yanking the carpet out from under people. If they allowed creators to earn real royalties, I think you'd see a meaningful expansion of 2 great comic universes. Maybe that should be the discussion.

 

I agree well said.

 

Speaking of other Green Lanterns, what happened to Simon Biaz? I was really starting to like the character, he's just kinda faded into the background. Who else shoots Sinestro with a .45, that is just cool in my book.

 

Overall I think DC has done a better job than Marvel with adding diversity to their titles lately. Marvel seems to be doing it a bit more hamfisted. Just my opinion of course, your results may vary.

[Awax]

Wassup Rockers

[the authority]

[the authority]

I have very mixed emotions on this stuff. First, I agree that Marvel and DC need new blood in their veins because I'm tired of reading the same old stories. That being said, I fall into the camp of "please create completely new, likable characters". It has nothing to do with race, religion, sexual orientation, or anything of the like for me. My favorite characters as a kid consisted of the X-men, whose lineup was American, Canadian, Russian, German, American Indian, African, and more. They were white, black, blue, and silver. They were male and female. Other favorites were aliens, gods, mystics, green, huge, small, and well, there you go.

 

Azrael is a good example. Here was a character with a cool story and costume/look. Why did he need to try to be Batman ? It didn't work and created a terrible ending to a great storyline imo. How many versions of Thor have there been to this point ? How many lasted ?

 

Miles Morales is a character that works. Midnighter and Apollo work. Kamala Khan works. They are familiar but different.

 

There are so many Green Lanterns that I've lost count. DC can justify this because there are supposed to lots of Lanterns. So why change Alan Scott ? Why not create a new Lantern like Kyle Rayner ? He was okay. Couldn't they leave the old one alone and create a new one ? Well, no, there would be no write up on CBR or Bleeding Cool would there ?

 

I think its great that they shelve a character until someone comes out with a story worth reading but add something new before yanking the carpet out from under people. If they allowed creators to earn real royalties, I think you'd see a meaningful expansion of 2 great comic universes. Maybe that should be the discussion.

 

I agree well said.

 

Speaking of other Green Lanterns, what happened to Simon Biaz? I was really starting to like the character, he's just kinda faded into the background. Who else shoots Sinestro with a .45, that is just cool in my book.

 

Overall I think DC has done a better job than Marvel with adding diversity to their titles lately. Marvel seems to be doing it a bit more hamfisted. Just my opinion of course, your results may vary.

 

I'm not sure but that really is cool in the same way that Batman KO'd Guy Gardner.

[Prince Namor]

The Merriam-Webster definition of Censorship:

 

Full Definition of CENSORSHIP

1

a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring

b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

 

2

: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor

 

3

: exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor

 

Merriam-Webster Definition Link

 

The first entry is the one that applies to this discussion, so yes it is possible to censor by public shaming, it doesn't have to be a government doing the censoring.

 

But who got censored? Manara created his art. He didn't get censored. In fact, HE'S still free to publish if he chooses.

 

I'm not saying that America is at the level of censorship that much more repressive countries have, but say it doesn't exist here, you are not being honest.

 

It exists, but not in the way most here think.

 

Take a few weeks ago about a Game of Thrones episode that had certain groups in an tizzy and were calling for a boycott of the show. Have they not been watching GoT for the last five years, and now they get offended. That is an attempt at public shaming censoring. Not giving the specifics for spoilers.

 

But... it DIDN'T get censored. Why not? If the offended group made their case, why didn't it work this time?

 

And... really... we're calling people giving their opinion's on a TV show, 'public shaming?' Seriously?

Don't the actors working on that show pay the people who walk their cat once a week more money than most of the people blogging about it?

Seriously... we want to censor the people giving their opinion' about a TV show - in the name of censorship - to protect the rights of a corporation....?

WTF?

 

Also college campuses all over the country have adopted speech codes, how is that not censorship?

 

Oh you mean, where you can't sing fraternity songs with racial slurs?

 

Here's how that's NOT censorship.

 

See... you want your fraternity to be on our campus... where we have certain guidelines, then YOU have to follow those guidelines.

 

That fraternity is free to go be it's own thing off campus and not a part of that college community, the same as the Klu Klux Klan is out there operating still.

 

They just don't get to set up shop wherever they want.

 

Why is that so hard for people to understand.

 

It's not against the law to sell Adult DVD's in America. A church however can tell you you're not allowed to sell them on their property.

 

That's not censorship.

 

Bottom line is, a free country that embraces liberty, the government shouldn't be the arbitrators of what is proper speech/art and what is not. If you don't agree with a group or persons views, then don't associate with them and move on. You don't need the government telling you that.

 

I seriously have no idea what that means.

 

I, for the life of me, have no one that I can think of that the government has ever told me I can and can not associate myself with, nor what is proper as far as speech/art.

 

I just have no idea what anyone is talking about when they say that.

 

No one is forcing me to say or do anything. Why does everyone else feel like that?

 

I feel no oppression whatsoever.

 

Way to dial up the rhetoric with a Ku Klux Klan example.

 

Hey, you guys are the one's dialing up the hyperbole about 'censorship' of art that's readily available to be viewed at anytime by anyone.

 

Why the hell do you need the college you are attending tell you the Klan are a bunch of pond scum, isn't that obvious?

 

... oh god, this one is almost too easy....

 

As for the insufficiently_thoughtful_person frat boys incident a few months ago, let the fraternity deal with the matter and the punishment. That is the way it should be. If I said something like that at work, I would face disciplinary action and more than likely be fired. That is well within my employer's rights and yes it is censorship.

 

So what is it you're against them 'censoring' on college campus'?

 

I was just pointing out censorship can exist even with out the government mandating the censorship.

 

No one, in comics, got censored by a government mandated anything.

 

You shouting down people by throwing out words with extremely negative connotations such as Racist, you are in a sense trying to censor that person without fair debate.

 

And there it is... "You disagree with me! So you're censoring me by using mean words!"

 

Oh... My... God...

 

When Natevegas posted: "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?

Is there ever a "right number of people represented" because when diversity is used there is always a number to follow."

 

I didn't censor him. I called him out on it.

 

Sorry. I find that to be both racist and ignorant.

 

Nobody said anything remotely racist.

 

Uh, wrong... see above.

 

People were voicing their concerns about the method of gaining diversity in comics not the end result of having more diversity. To which I say bring on the diversity we need all the people we can get into comics. I think most comic collectors/readers/retailers would agree with that.

 

But the people I'm arguing with DON'T. They think this is all being done from some kind of Political Pressure.

 

Natevegas is already concerned about specific numbers that allowed to be changed!

[Prince Namor]

Bottom line is, a free country that embraces liberty, the government shouldn't be the arbitrators of what is proper speech/art and what is not. If you don't agree with a group or persons views, then don't associate with them and move on. You don't need the government telling you that.

 

I seriously have no idea what that means.

He's suggesting that if you don't like something, rather than criticize it, you should just shut up and move on. What's being suggested here is what some have dubbed "self-censorship"; there's irony for you.

 

Yes, most of these people don't realize that they've been manipulated by corporations to turn the common man's voice into 'public shaming', so that they can silence any speaking out against said corporation.

 

It's brilliant propaganda really.

 

Look at the amount of people who believe that the bloggers are the powerful ones, while Disney and Warner Brothers are the 'victim's'.

 

It's astounding.

 

If Disney or Warner Brothers decided tomorrow that they wanted to make porn mainstream, they'd pay a lobbyist to write the legislature, they'd pay to have their congressmen vote it in, and anyone who dared speak out against it, they'd bury in court for decades, while they made buttloads of money.

 

And the media? Between Disney and Warner, they pretty much own all of it.

 

In fact the guy who flosses Bob Iger's bidet once a month probably lives a more luxurious lifestyle than most anyone here.

 

 

[Doktor]

In fairness, throwing out terms like "racist" or "sexist" or any other "ist" is not so much a way of censoring a person as it is a way of discrediting the person regardless of how correct or incorrect their argument is. I have issues with things like that. It's attacking the messenger, which we've apparently decided as a society that we're cool with these days and is now an acceptable form of discrediting a message.

 

Not only is it poor logic, but it's nothing more than a crutch for those that can't or don't want to form a cogent argument against the message that they disagree with. Or for those with an emotional objection to an opinion to try to get out of finding a rational objection to make.

 

For instance, Chuck... the one quote you had there from whatever his name is about "how many white characters are appropriate...". That's not a racist series of question. And calling it so is a way to ignore the inherent problem with the concept of "appropriately diverse" or whatever. Diversity is an emotional & subjective concept & when asked to quantify it in objective and rational terms, there's nothing even close to a uniform answer. But see... emotional & subjective isn't a way to win an argument or even be acceptable as an answer to people interested in an objective answer.

 

All of the questions that whatshisname posed are legitimate. But because there's only one truly honest answer someone can have when they are posed a question of "when will it be diverse enough?" and that is some variation of "when I feel that it's diverse enough", we deflect because that's not an actual answer. In this case, we deflect by calling the question racist & ignorant.

 

But see.. nobody wants to actually give that answer because it acknowledges that diversity is something that we want but can't define, so as a way to avoid it... we turn around and claim that questions regarding diversity are racist or sexist or ignorant or whatever and by default, cast aspersions upon the character of the person posing the question, further deflecting from any sort of tacit acknowledgement that diversity is a very ethereal concept that we're a long way away from defining in any objective way to actually put into practice.

[rjrjr]

In fairness, throwing out terms like "racist" or "sexist" or any other "ist" is not so much a way of censoring a person as it is a way of discrediting the person regardless of how correct or incorrect their argument is. I have issues with things like that. It's attacking the messenger, which we've apparently decided as a society that we're cool with these days and is now an acceptable form of discrediting a message.

 

Not only is it poor logic, but it's nothing more than a crutch for those that can't or don't want to form a cogent argument against the message that they disagree with. Or for those with an emotional objection to an opinion to try to get out of finding a rational objection to make.

 

For instance, Chuck... the one quote you had there from whatever his name is about "how many white characters are appropriate...". That's not a racist series of question. And calling it so is a way to ignore the inherent problem with the concept of "appropriately diverse" or whatever. Diversity is an emotional & subjective concept & when asked to quantify it in objective and rational terms, there's nothing even close to a uniform answer. But see... emotional & subjective isn't a way to win an argument or even be acceptable as an answer to people interested in an objective answer.

 

All of the questions that whatshisname posed are legitimate. But because there's only one truly honest answer someone can have when they are posed a question of "when will it be diverse enough?" and that is some variation of "when I feel that it's diverse enough", we deflect because that's not an actual answer. In this case, we deflect by calling the question racist & ignorant.

 

But see.. nobody wants to actually give that answer because it acknowledges that diversity is something that we want but can't define, so as a way to avoid it... we turn around and claim that questions regarding diversity are racist or sexist or ignorant or whatever and by default, cast aspersions upon the character of the person posing the question, further deflecting from any sort of tacit acknowledgement that diversity is a very ethereal concept that we're a long way away from defining in any objective way to actually put into practice.

 

I cannot tell you what diversity is, but I know it when I see it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

[Doktor]

In fairness, throwing out terms like "racist" or "sexist" or any other "ist" is not so much a way of censoring a person as it is a way of discrediting the person regardless of how correct or incorrect their argument is. I have issues with things like that. It's attacking the messenger, which we've apparently decided as a society that we're cool with these days and is now an acceptable form of discrediting a message.

 

Not only is it poor logic, but it's nothing more than a crutch for those that can't or don't want to form a cogent argument against the message that they disagree with. Or for those with an emotional objection to an opinion to try to get out of finding a rational objection to make.

 

For instance, Chuck... the one quote you had there from whatever his name is about "how many white characters are appropriate...". That's not a racist series of question. And calling it so is a way to ignore the inherent problem with the concept of "appropriately diverse" or whatever. Diversity is an emotional & subjective concept & when asked to quantify it in objective and rational terms, there's nothing even close to a uniform answer. But see... emotional & subjective isn't a way to win an argument or even be acceptable as an answer to people interested in an objective answer.

 

All of the questions that whatshisname posed are legitimate. But because there's only one truly honest answer someone can have when they are posed a question of "when will it be diverse enough?" and that is some variation of "when I feel that it's diverse enough", we deflect because that's not an actual answer. In this case, we deflect by calling the question racist & ignorant.

 

But see.. nobody wants to actually give that answer because it acknowledges that diversity is something that we want but can't define, so as a way to avoid it... we turn around and claim that questions regarding diversity are racist or sexist or ignorant or whatever and by default, cast aspersions upon the character of the person posing the question, further deflecting from any sort of tacit acknowledgement that diversity is a very ethereal concept that we're a long way away from defining in any objective way to actually put into practice.

 

I cannot tell you what diversity is, but I know it when I see it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

 

Pretty much. And while it's sometimes an acceptable legal argument, that doesn't make it a rational argument.

 

And in all honesty? I'd be a lot more cool with people saying "I cannot tell you what diversity is, but I'll know it when we get there" than just deflecting with name-calling or dismissive/discrediting terms. At least then, both parties are acknowledging where their differences are (one party viewing it subjectively while the other trying to determine an objective criteria)

[revat]

I think my argument is against people saying "THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO DIVERSITY in comics"

 

Well the truth is, we haven't been doing 'diversity' in media very long, and there are probably many 'right' ways to do it. I give credit to the creators and market who are helping to make it happen, whether they're successful or not. And no, its not always gonna work, and sometimes it is outright horrible (for any number of reasons, which may vary from person to person), and sometimes it does feel (and may actually be) forced. But sometimes it works well, and is beautiful, AND profitable. But give the world (and creative teams and companies) some time to 'get diversity right', its a new very subjective world.

 

Aside from that, no one is saying that there isn't racism or pc police. But the truth is, most of us, and the Comic target audience are in the middle. So the comic makers are trying to make money and cater to the market that exists, the money of people 14-49. They want to be the center of pop culture, right now comics is about being 'cool' in a way that it never has been before. And guess what, Pop Culture in the Western World now skews more diverse and more 'progressive'. It just does. And the mega-media companies that own DC and Marvel of course have certain ideologies but more than that are chasing your benjamins.

 

But as always, you have control over your kids and your dollars.

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

In fairness, throwing out terms like "racist" or "sexist" or any other "ist" is not so much a way of censoring a person as it is a way of discrediting the person regardless of how correct or incorrect their argument is. I have issues with things like that. It's attacking the messenger, which we've apparently decided as a society that we're cool with these days and is now an acceptable form of discrediting a message.

 

Not only is it poor logic, but it's nothing more than a crutch for those that can't or don't want to form a cogent argument against the message that they disagree with. Or for those with an emotional objection to an opinion to try to get out of finding a rational objection to make.

 

For instance, Chuck... the one quote you had there from whatever his name is about "how many white characters are appropriate...". That's not a racist series of question. And calling it so is a way to ignore the inherent problem with the concept of "appropriately diverse" or whatever. Diversity is an emotional & subjective concept & when asked to quantify it in objective and rational terms, there's nothing even close to a uniform answer. But see... emotional & subjective isn't a way to win an argument or even be acceptable as an answer to people interested in an objective answer.

 

All of the questions that whatshisname posed are legitimate. But because there's only one truly honest answer someone can have when they are posed a question of "when will it be diverse enough?" and that is some variation of "when I feel that it's diverse enough", we deflect because that's not an actual answer. In this case, we deflect by calling the question racist & ignorant.

 

But see.. nobody wants to actually give that answer because it acknowledges that diversity is something that we want but can't define, so as a way to avoid it... we turn around and claim that questions regarding diversity are racist or sexist or ignorant or whatever and by default, cast aspersions upon the character of the person posing the question, further deflecting from any sort of tacit acknowledgement that diversity is a very ethereal concept that we're a long way away from defining in any objective way to actually put into practice.

 

I cannot tell you what diversity is, but I know it when I see it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

 

Pretty much. And while it's sometimes an acceptable legal argument, that doesn't make it a rational argument.

 

And in all honesty? I'd be a lot more cool with people saying "I cannot tell you what diversity is, but I'll know it when we get there" than just deflecting with name-calling or dismissive/discrediting terms. At least then, both parties are acknowledging where their differences are (one party viewing it subjectively while the other trying to determine an objective criteria)

The problem is that it's going to look different for each individual. But in general I'd say we'll be there when it's not newsworthy that Marvel or DC is launching a new title featuring a Black, Asian, Gay, Transgender, Muslim, [insert "Other" category here] character. Just as electing Obama president didn't mean that we're in a post-racial society. We'll be in a post-racial society when the skin color of the person we elect isn't notable.

[natevegas]

The Merriam-Webster definition of Censorship:

 

Full Definition of CENSORSHIP

1

a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring

b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

 

2

: the office, power, or term of a Roman censor

 

3

: exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor

 

Merriam-Webster Definition Link

 

The first entry is the one that applies to this discussion, so yes it is possible to censor by public shaming, it doesn't have to be a government doing the censoring.

 

But who got censored? Manara created his art. He didn't get censored. In fact, HE'S still free to publish if he chooses.

 

I'm not saying that America is at the level of censorship that much more repressive countries have, but say it doesn't exist here, you are not being honest.

 

It exists, but not in the way most here think.

 

Take a few weeks ago about a Game of Thrones episode that had certain groups in an tizzy and were calling for a boycott of the show. Have they not been watching GoT for the last five years, and now they get offended. That is an attempt at public shaming censoring. Not giving the specifics for spoilers.

 

But... it DIDN'T get censored. Why not? If the offended group made their case, why didn't it work this time?

 

And... really... we're calling people giving their opinion's on a TV show, 'public shaming?' Seriously?

Don't the actors working on that show pay the people who walk their cat once a week more money than most of the people blogging about it?

Seriously... we want to censor the people giving their opinion' about a TV show - in the name of censorship - to protect the rights of a corporation....?

WTF?

 

Also college campuses all over the country have adopted speech codes, how is that not censorship?

 

Oh you mean, where you can't sing fraternity songs with racial slurs?

 

Here's how that's NOT censorship.

 

See... you want your fraternity to be on our campus... where we have certain guidelines, then YOU have to follow those guidelines.

 

That fraternity is free to go be it's own thing off campus and not a part of that college community, the same as the Klu Klux Klan is out there operating still.

 

They just don't get to set up shop wherever they want.

 

Why is that so hard for people to understand.

 

It's not against the law to sell Adult DVD's in America. A church however can tell you you're not allowed to sell them on their property.

 

That's not censorship.

 

Bottom line is, a free country that embraces liberty, the government shouldn't be the arbitrators of what is proper speech/art and what is not. If you don't agree with a group or persons views, then don't associate with them and move on. You don't need the government telling you that.

 

I seriously have no idea what that means.

 

I, for the life of me, have no one that I can think of that the government has ever told me I can and can not associate myself with, nor what is proper as far as speech/art.

 

I just have no idea what anyone is talking about when they say that.

 

No one is forcing me to say or do anything. Why does everyone else feel like that?

 

I feel no oppression whatsoever.

 

Way to dial up the rhetoric with a Ku Klux Klan example.

 

Hey, you guys are the one's dialing up the hyperbole about 'censorship' of art that's readily available to be viewed at anytime by anyone.

 

Why the hell do you need the college you are attending tell you the Klan are a bunch of pond scum, isn't that obvious?

 

... oh god, this one is almost too easy....

 

As for the insufficiently_thoughtful_person frat boys incident a few months ago, let the fraternity deal with the matter and the punishment. That is the way it should be. If I said something like that at work, I would face disciplinary action and more than likely be fired. That is well within my employer's rights and yes it is censorship.

 

So what is it you're against them 'censoring' on college campus'?

 

I was just pointing out censorship can exist even with out the government mandating the censorship.

 

No one, in comics, got censored by a government mandated anything.

 

You shouting down people by throwing out words with extremely negative connotations such as Racist, you are in a sense trying to censor that person without fair debate.

 

And there it is... "You disagree with me! So you're censoring me by using mean words!"

 

Oh... My... God...

 

When Natevegas posted: "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?

Is there ever a "right number of people represented" because when diversity is used there is always a number to follow."

 

I didn't censor him. I called him out on it.

 

Sorry. I find that to be both racist and ignorant.

 

Nobody said anything remotely racist.

 

Uh, wrong... see above.

 

People were voicing their concerns about the method of gaining diversity in comics not the end result of having more diversity. To which I say bring on the diversity we need all the people we can get into comics. I think most comic collectors/readers/retailers would agree with that.

 

But the people I'm arguing with DON'T. They think this is all being done from some kind of Political Pressure.

 

Natevegas is already concerned about specific numbers that allowed to be changed!

I've tried to let this go but I keep seeing you post in here now using my name and now saying what I said was racist. How did my thought provoking question instantly make you jump to those conclusions. I posed some questions and you jumped to conclusions.

 

When I was attending college years ago the university decided to roll out these diversity weeks. It sounded like harmless fun but then things took a turn for the worse. The campus started exploiting minorities using local media, newspapers and press releases basically getting praise for how "diverse" this campus really is and we should be applauded for it. I myself am in a minority even though I choose to think of myself as not but I digress. Long story short other minority students started a small group to challenge the event. They asked me to join and I said yes. The main point we made that couldn't ever be answered by the administrators was this. Having a week about diversity in a round about way points just how insecure and sensitive the campus was. Either a campus is diverse or it isn't but pointing out how diverse it was or is was counter-productive.

 

I've stated this before either comic books are diverse or they aren't you can't have it both ways. And guess what comic books have been for a long time and that is great. America is a melting pot we don't have to be constantly poked to be shown how much we are its common sense. Yet the politicians and media have to do these fluff pieces and makes Marvel and other publishers look like they are making ground breaking strides. They aren't making any strides the diversity already exists.

[Prince Namor]

In fairness, throwing out terms like "racist" or "sexist" or any other "ist" is not so much a way of censoring a person as it is a way of discrediting the person regardless of how correct or incorrect their argument is. I have issues with things like that. It's attacking the messenger, which we've apparently decided as a society that we're cool with these days and is now an acceptable form of discrediting a message.

 

Not only is it poor logic, but it's nothing more than a crutch for those that can't or don't want to form a cogent argument against the message that they disagree with. Or for those with an emotional objection to an opinion to try to get out of finding a rational objection to make.

 

For instance, Chuck... the one quote you had there from whatever his name is about "how many white characters are appropriate...". That's not a racist series of question.

 

Yes. Yes it is.

 

Because his belief is stated that the change is being done for political reasons or because of some kind of PC Police. There is no minimum, there is no number and to ask for such, is to believe there needs to be some sort of guidelines in place to make sure there ISN'T TOO MANY. He's basically saying we can't allow them to get rid of all the white male superheros, so we need to institute quotas!

 

That's racist.

 

And it's an ACTUAL form of censorship.

 

And calling it so is a way to ignore the inherent problem with the concept of "appropriately diverse" or whatever. Diversity is an emotional & subjective concept & when asked to quantify it in objective and rational terms, there's nothing even close to a uniform answer. But see... emotional & subjective isn't a way to win an argument or even be acceptable as an answer to people interested in an objective answer.

 

Hey man... when I see someone calling for quotas on the number of non-white superheroes being created, I get annoyed by that. I see it as racist. Or at the very least culturally ignorant. But definitely censorship.

 

All of the questions that whatshisname posed are legitimate.

 

You're dead to me too. After this post you're also on ignore. Please tell me not everyone in modern's isn't this ignorant.

 

But because there's only one truly honest answer someone can have when they are posed a question of "when will it be diverse enough?" and that is some variation of "when I feel that it's diverse enough", we deflect because that's not an actual answer. In this case, we deflect by calling the question racist & ignorant.

 

Because it is. Let them create whatever they want. You can chose to buy it or not. WHO THE HELL are YOU to say what they CAN and CAN NOT CREATE.

 

You guys are talking backwards out your butt about censorship. What YOU are calling for is censorship.

 

This whole freaking world is upside down!

 

Who cars if they create a hermaphrodite super hero with three boobs. Don't like it? Don't buy it! But don't you DARE tell them they don't have the right to make it. You don't OWN these characters. A BIG FAT corporation does. And really, to them, when you start complaining because of 'too much diversity'... they'll just manipulate the crowd back on you, and suddenly YOUR voice will be 'public shaming'.

 

Then you'll MAYBE understand just how powerless and how much of a puppet in all of this you truly are.

 

But see.. nobody wants to actually give that answer because it acknowledges that diversity is something that we want but can't define, so as a way to avoid it... we turn around and claim that questions regarding diversity are racist or sexist or ignorant or whatever and by default, cast aspersions upon the character of the person posing the question, further deflecting from any sort of tacit acknowledgement that diversity is a very ethereal concept that we're a long way away from defining in any objective way to actually put into practice.

 

Just stop.

 

It's comic books. It's artists and writers creating stories. What sex or race the characters are is of minimal importance.

 

Modern readers: waving the flag to save 'Manara Spiderwoman spread booty cover', but scared to death of 'too many non-white male' characters.

 

Classic.

[Doktor]

In fairness, throwing out terms like "racist" or "sexist" or any other "ist" is not so much a way of censoring a person as it is a way of discrediting the person regardless of how correct or incorrect their argument is. I have issues with things like that. It's attacking the messenger, which we've apparently decided as a society that we're cool with these days and is now an acceptable form of discrediting a message.

 

Not only is it poor logic, but it's nothing more than a crutch for those that can't or don't want to form a cogent argument against the message that they disagree with. Or for those with an emotional objection to an opinion to try to get out of finding a rational objection to make.

 

For instance, Chuck... the one quote you had there from whatever his name is about "how many white characters are appropriate...". That's not a racist series of question. And calling it so is a way to ignore the inherent problem with the concept of "appropriately diverse" or whatever. Diversity is an emotional & subjective concept & when asked to quantify it in objective and rational terms, there's nothing even close to a uniform answer. But see... emotional & subjective isn't a way to win an argument or even be acceptable as an answer to people interested in an objective answer.

 

All of the questions that whatshisname posed are legitimate. But because there's only one truly honest answer someone can have when they are posed a question of "when will it be diverse enough?" and that is some variation of "when I feel that it's diverse enough", we deflect because that's not an actual answer. In this case, we deflect by calling the question racist & ignorant.

 

But see.. nobody wants to actually give that answer because it acknowledges that diversity is something that we want but can't define, so as a way to avoid it... we turn around and claim that questions regarding diversity are racist or sexist or ignorant or whatever and by default, cast aspersions upon the character of the person posing the question, further deflecting from any sort of tacit acknowledgement that diversity is a very ethereal concept that we're a long way away from defining in any objective way to actually put into practice.

 

I cannot tell you what diversity is, but I know it when I see it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

 

Pretty much. And while it's sometimes an acceptable legal argument, that doesn't make it a rational argument.

 

And in all honesty? I'd be a lot more cool with people saying "I cannot tell you what diversity is, but I'll know it when we get there" than just deflecting with name-calling or dismissive/discrediting terms. At least then, both parties are acknowledging where their differences are (one party viewing it subjectively while the other trying to determine an objective criteria)

The problem is that it's going to look different for each individual. But in general I'd say we'll be there when it's not newsworthy that Marvel or DC is launching a new title featuring a Black, Asian, Gay, Transgender, Muslim, [insert "Other" category here] character. Just as electing Obama president didn't mean that we're in a post-racial society. We'll be in a post-racial society when the skin color of the person we elect isn't notable.

 

I agree entirely. It's entirely subjective because we haven't bothered to establish or agree on an objective definition of diversity (should it be equal representation? proportional representative? somewhere in between? etc)

 

But that's the double-edged sword with identity politics (and something like forced or perceived forced diversity in comics by a vocal segment of fans or potential fans [of unknown representation to the whole of fandom] demanding companies hit a certain number of specific check boxes on the diversity bingo card is an expression of identity politics applied to comic books the same way that Title 9 or Affirmative Action are expressions of identity politics in schools and business, respectively) . It reinforces the divisions or differences between groups of humans and propagates the distinctions of race/sex/creed/etc in an attempt to erase them.

 

Though in fairness, at least it's an attempt. Even if it's an attempt fated to fail.