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

[Prince Namor]

[natevegas]

I can choose to believe all these changes Marvel is doing to sell books is playing off the diversity stick via the media and pc influences. THAT DOES NOT MAKE ME A RACIST CHUCK.

 

If you want to talk about someone being ignorant you called my comments racist. I'm not but you don't care. Have I called you names like a little child that got his feelings hurt? NO I think you need to look into the mirror because what you said is the real ignorant stuff.

[Mike's Rack]

I thought this was a good thread for a while and I was enjoying the discussion but the "I'm rubber you're glue..." devolution has been a let down. I'm not even sure what the actual positions are any more.

[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. 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.

 

Jiminy Freaking Christmas on Popsicle Stick. You think Disney or Warner bow down to their fans? Give in to pressure to make things more diverse?

 

Do you believe that?

 

Marvel held the Kirby estate, with a pretty big team of lawyers, and pretty darn good reasonable angle at bay for 3 DECADES. All the while taking BAD press for it.

 

Yeah. Disney's listening.

 

 

[Prince Namor]

I thought this was a good thread for a while and I was enjoying the discussion but the "I'm rubber you're glue..." devolution has been a let down. I'm not even sure what the actual positions are any more.

 

A. One side is claiming that Marvel becoming more diverse is because of either political pressure or fan pressure to make it happen - while the other is saying Marvel is trying to expand their market to reach more people, because all they care about is making more money.

 

B. One side is saying that it's 'censorship' that Manara's Spiderwoman spread booty variant cover wasn't printed by Marvel due to fan complaints and the other is saying it was a smart business move by Marvel to not put out a cover that offended people and that it's NOT censorship, because the piece is readily available and can be sold as a print by Manara or published in a collection if HE chooses to do so.

 

C. One side saying that asking for quotas on the number of 'diverse' characters (i.e. non-white non-male superheroes) ISN'T racist and the other side is saying it most definitely IS. ESPECIALLY if they believe the latter part of 'A'.

 

[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.

 

Jiminy Freaking Christmas on Popsicle Stick. You think Disney or Warner bow down to their fans? Give in to pressure to make things more diverse?

 

Do you believe that?

 

Marvel held the Kirby estate, with a pretty big team of lawyers, and pretty darn good reasonable angle at bay for 3 DECADES. All the while taking BAD press for it.

 

Yeah. Disney's listening.

 

 

I thought I was on ignore?

 

Also... I really don't think you understand what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Marvel or DC or anyone else. I'm using them as an example for 1 case. I'm talking about Diversity as a concept, not just diversity in comics. I'm talking about the subjective nature of the concept of diversity, not Marvel comics.

 

I don't care about what Marvel does. I read what I like and don't read what I don't. And I'm about the last person to whine about it online. I might find some things humorous or sad or even make a joke about it. But I don't care that much. The worst reaction I might have is "well, I'm gonna drop this. I'm a little bummed that I lost that piece of entertainment but I don't like it anymore after these changes"...

 

However, to answer your questions... I think Marvel/Disney will chase readers if it's possible, not bow down to them. If they are convinced that changing Thor into a green chicken with a fetish for cheese will bump sales by 20% more than anything else, you can bet your that Thor is going to be a green chicken rubbing him/herself down with cheese in 2-3 months.

 

And in today's climate that is obsessed with PC opinions and identity politics, NOT believing that Marvel/Disney or DC/WB will chase additional sales by jumping on that bandwagon is pure fantasy.

[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. 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.

 

Jiminy Freaking Christmas on Popsicle Stick. You think Disney or Warner bow down to their fans? Give in to pressure to make things more diverse?

 

Do you believe that?

 

Marvel held the Kirby estate, with a pretty big team of lawyers, and pretty darn good reasonable angle at bay for 3 DECADES. All the while taking BAD press for it.

 

Yeah. Disney's listening.

 

 

I thought I was on ignore?

 

You answered before I had the chance.

 

Also... I really don't think you understand what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Marvel or DC or anyone else. I'm using them as an example for 1 case. I'm talking about Diversity as a concept, not just diversity in comics. I'm talking about the subjective nature of the concept of diversity, not Marvel comics.

 

I understand perfectly well what you're talking about. You're using your political views to veil them into the conversation. And as I expose the inadequacy of your comparison, you're backtracking.

 

I don't care about what Marvel does. I read what I like and don't read what I don't. And I'm about the last person to whine about it online. I might find some things humorous or sad or even make a joke about it. But I don't care that much. The worst reaction I might have is "well, I'm gonna drop this. I'm a little bummed that I lost that piece of entertainment but I don't like it anymore after these changes"...

 

"Oh I don't really care... I'm much too cool... I'm above it all.... blah..blah...blah..."

 

However, to answer your questions...

 

"Which is my defense mechanism before I give yet another opinion I know you'll see through..."

 

I think Marvel/Disney will chase readers if it's possible, not bow down to them. If they are convinced that changing Thor into a green chicken with a fetish for cheese will bump sales by 20% more than anything else, you can bet your that Thor is going to be a green chicken rubbing him/herself down with cheese in 2-3 months.

 

Ya think? What've I been saying for the last 10 pages?

 

And in today's climate that is obsessed with PC opinions and identity politics, NOT believing that Marvel/Disney or DC/WB will chase additional sales by jumping on that bandwagon is pure fantasy.

 

If it didn't sell for them. They wouldn't do it. That's your answer. That's your reason. Has nothing to do with politics.

 

NOTHING.

 

If Ms. Marvel sold 15,000 copies they'd cancel it.

 

They wouldn't keep it around because of 'today's climate that is obsessed with PC opinions and identity politics'. They'd cancel it.

 

There's your answer.

 

There's your proof.

[Mike's Rack]

I thought this was a good thread for a while and I was enjoying the discussion but the "I'm rubber you're glue..." devolution has been a let down. I'm not even sure what the actual positions are any more.

 

A. One side is claiming that Marvel becoming more diverse is because of either political pressure or fan pressure to make it happen - while the other is saying Marvel is trying to expand their market to reach more people, because all they care about is making more money.

 

B. One side is saying that it's 'censorship' that Manara's Spiderwoman spread booty variant cover wasn't printed by Marvel due to fan complaints and the other is saying it was a smart business move by Marvel to not put out a cover that offended people and that it's NOT censorship, because the piece is readily available and can be sold as a print by Manara or published in a collection if HE chooses to do so.

 

C. One side saying that asking for quotas on the number of 'diverse' characters (i.e. non-white non-male superheroes) ISN'T racist and the other side is saying it most definitely IS. ESPECIALLY if they believe the latter part of 'A'.

 

Thanks Chuck, I'm back on track (thumbs u

[Lonzilla]

One side will be thrilled that Chiwetel Ejiofor was cast as Baron Mordo, even though he looks like Brother Voodoo

[Mr 9.8]

A question if I may, do we know why DC felt the need to change the race of the West family in The Flash? Is this DC's way of saying they weren't working as gingers so make them black? Just curious.

[natevegas]

A question if I may, do we know why DC felt the need to change the race of the West family in The Flash? Is this DC's way of saying they weren't working as gingers so make them black? Just curious.

Maybe to match the tv show? Idk

[Mr 9.8]

A question if I may, do we know why DC felt the need to change the race of the West family in The Flash? Is this DC's way of saying they weren't working as gingers so make them black? Just curious.

Maybe to match the tv show? Idk

But the TV show came out long after they changed the West's in the comics.

[Lonzilla]

Wally West sure looks white to me

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR2.TRC1.A0.H0.Xmego+kid+flash.TRS0&_nkw=mego+kid+flash&_sacat=0

[Mr 9.8]

Wally West sure looks white to me

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR2.TRC1.A0.H0.Xmego+kid+flash.TRS0&_nkw=mego+kid+flash&_sacat=0

That's pre52 wally.

[FutureFlash]

Again asking questions about diversity in comics, is not racist. It is called having an intelligent conversation about an issue.

 

But some people on this forum just want to berate, create straw man arguments and name call people who they don't agree with, rather than have a civil conversation.

[eyeofhorus777]

Natevegas's questions weren't racist, he never asked for quotas. He stated at what point is it diverse enough that people won't bring the issue up anymore?

 

The issue is to bring in diversity they do it at the expense of existing non minority characters.

 

I personally believe Marvell & DC are doing this for money not for any sense of civic duty. They plan events, press releases etc around these new characters.

 

I feel that once they create these minority characters and use them in great stories and all anyone says is, that's a great story then we will have reached a good level of diversity.

 

Also Chuck you might have customers or potential new customers on this board I would tone down calling them all

[awakeintheashes]

because I always see this term brought up in situations such as this.

 

America is a salad bowl, not a melting pot. We mix but retain our own identities. Sure some tomato juice may get on the lettuce, but the tomato is a tomato and the lettuce is still lettuce.

 

America is great because its people are different and unique. America is not, and will never be, a melting pot creating a homogeneous nation or culture.

[Mr 9.8]

Since this is on the topic of race here's something that's lighting up the twitter and Facebook world.

 

Salon wants Marvel to reboot Jewish comic book character who survived Auschwitz as black follower of MLK Jr.

 

http://twitchy.com/2015/06/07/salon-wants-marvel-to-reboot-jewish-comic-book-character-who-survived-auschwitz-as-black-follower-of-mlk-jr/

[Lonzilla]

Since this is on the topic of race here's something that's lighting up the twitter and Facebook world.

 

Salon wants Marvel to reboot Jewish comic book character who survived Auschwitz as black follower of MLK Jr.

 

http://twitchy.com/2015/06/07/salon-wants-marvel-to-reboot-jewish-comic-book-character-who-survived-auschwitz-as-black-follower-of-mlk-jr/

Because a Holocaust survivor doesn't pack as much realism into the pages of a comic book as someone who watched the assassinations and riots on TV. After all it is Salon, that's the MSNBC of journalism

[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.

 

Jiminy Freaking Christmas on Popsicle Stick. You think Disney or Warner bow down to their fans? Give in to pressure to make things more diverse?

 

Do you believe that?

 

Marvel held the Kirby estate, with a pretty big team of lawyers, and pretty darn good reasonable angle at bay for 3 DECADES. All the while taking BAD press for it.

 

Yeah. Disney's listening.

 

 

I thought I was on ignore?

 

You answered before I had the chance.

 

Also... I really don't think you understand what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about Marvel or DC or anyone else. I'm using them as an example for 1 case. I'm talking about Diversity as a concept, not just diversity in comics. I'm talking about the subjective nature of the concept of diversity, not Marvel comics.

 

I understand perfectly well what you're talking about. You're using your political views to veil them into the conversation. And as I expose the inadequacy of your comparison, you're backtracking.

 

I don't care about what Marvel does. I read what I like and don't read what I don't. And I'm about the last person to whine about it online. I might find some things humorous or sad or even make a joke about it. But I don't care that much. The worst reaction I might have is "well, I'm gonna drop this. I'm a little bummed that I lost that piece of entertainment but I don't like it anymore after these changes"...

 

"Oh I don't really care... I'm much too cool... I'm above it all.... blah..blah...blah..."

 

However, to answer your questions...

 

"Which is my defense mechanism before I give yet another opinion I know you'll see through..."

 

I think Marvel/Disney will chase readers if it's possible, not bow down to them. If they are convinced that changing Thor into a green chicken with a fetish for cheese will bump sales by 20% more than anything else, you can bet your that Thor is going to be a green chicken rubbing him/herself down with cheese in 2-3 months.

 

Ya think? What've I been saying for the last 10 pages?

 

And in today's climate that is obsessed with PC opinions and identity politics, NOT believing that Marvel/Disney or DC/WB will chase additional sales by jumping on that bandwagon is pure fantasy.

 

If it didn't sell for them. They wouldn't do it. That's your answer. That's your reason. Has nothing to do with politics.

 

NOTHING.

 

If Ms. Marvel sold 15,000 copies they'd cancel it.

 

They wouldn't keep it around because of 'today's climate that is obsessed with PC opinions and identity politics'. They'd cancel it.

 

There's your answer.

 

There's your proof.

 

I don't have the patience to parse quotes.

 

Nothing in my reply has changed. I have am not hiding anything about my politics in here. I AM discussing LOGIC and philosophy. Diversity is a SUBJECTIVE concept. It's ethereal. No 2 people can agree on exactly what IS diverse and what is NOT diverse.

 

You also don't seem to grasp that there's a direct parallel at the moment between the PC culture police that pervade both media and social media & what is making money at the moment. That some people might see the correlation between them while you aren't... well.. I don't know what to tell you. That's what's selling & it's a pandering PR tool at the same time. Win-Win for a company. "You mean we can stay on the nice side of the militant lunatics that pervade the internet at the moment & make money? Awesome. Done and done"

 

You haven't exposed the "inadequacy" of anything. You've done some name-calling and yelling but still haven't formed a single cogent argument, but OK. Keep going on that. I am still discussing & sticking with a topic of trying to view a SUBJECTIVE concept through the lens of an OBJECTIVE reality. You're yapping about Marvel & DC.

 

And I have no damn clue what you've been saying for 10 pages. Especially since this is only a 4-page thread that I jumped into like 1 page back. All I know is that you called someone who asked a question a racist to deflect from the fact that your answer was nothing more than "I'll know it when I see it". I pointed out what you were doing, which is deflecting by means of using name-calling to discredit the question & questioner to avoid answering it because "I'll know it when I see it" is a pretty weak argument. And I even explained why. I even did so without saying or insinuating a single negative thing about either your statement or person (weird that you don't seem to be able to do the same thing)

 

And you're welcome to keep putting words in my mouth, but I haven't changed my opinion on any of this yet. I still think that using terms like "racist" or "sexist" to essentially "shout down" any opposition or questioning by those that might not sagree with your opinion to be both juvenile & a sign of weakness of argument, but keep doing it. I'm sure it'll do well for you to get a bunch of Facebook likes. Won't really help win any arguments, but you'll get the smug satisfaction of name-calling & shouting down someone that disagrees with you. Cause we all know silencing the opposition by shouting them down is a totally valid method of arguing in the 21st century.