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

[Lonzilla]

I am officially dumber after reading that article!

"There is also no reason that Magneto or Professor X can’t follow in the footsteps of prominent African-American Jews"

Sammy Davis Jr? Lenny Kravitz? yeah, that's all of them

Just....wow!

[Doktor]

Especially considering that they just changed 2 of their other high-profile characters from being Jewish (they're only Romani now, I believe)

[Mr 9.8]

Isn't marc spectre the Moon Knight Jewish?

[Comicopolis]

Isn't marc spectre the Moon Knight Jewish?

 

Marc Spector is an American rabbi's wayward son.

[Lonzilla]

Isn't marc spectre the Moon Knight Jewish?

 

Marc Spector is an American rabbi's wayward son.

I'm sure they'll change that soon and make him a Palestinian so they get invited to all of the right cocktail parties

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

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/

When I read your post, my first reaction was that that suggestion is silly. (Actually, my first reaction was that I should check the article and see if what is said there is accurately represented here, especially because I doubt that Salon as a whole has taken a position, and indeed it's one writer's opinion. But I digress…) Having read the article, you have to admit that he has a point insofar as Magneto's origin is tied to a historical event, and it becomes problematic to hold his origin to that event as time passes. I think that solving that issue by invoking time travel or something similar makes the character less grounded in reality, which is what makes him interesting. Since Marvel is doing a big reboot, it seems like the ideal time to tweak characters to have them work with contemporary times (One thing I considered some time back is the Punisher's origins would have to be updated; Marvel isn't holding to him being a Vietnam vet, are they?), but I think that making him part of the civil rights movement in the U.S. is a bit too much of a departure from what's at the core of his origin.

 

The best solution, I think, is to reframe his origin in the context of another genocide. The three possibilities I see are:

• Late '70s: Cambodia under Pol Pot

• 1994: Rwanda

• Early '90s: Bosnia-Herzegovina

 

All three possibilities changes the ethnic and/or religious background of the character. The best solution I see is the scrap Magneto altogether, especially since Marvel doesn't own the movie rights, and create an entirely new character with the same thematic origin (especially if the third option is chosen; can you imagine the outrage if previously Magneto was Jewish and his origin was update to make him Muslim?).

 

I don't expect my suggestion to go without criticism, but the main question I'd like to pose to those who don't like it is this: Do you see a problem with linking Magneto's origin to a historical event that makes it less and less likely for an active character to have lived through and remembered? If so, what's your solution to that? If not, why not?

[Doktor]

One thing with Magneto (and Xavier).... neither of them are in their original bodies anymore. Xavier has a cloned body with his original mind & Magneto was de-aged a while back & has never been restored to his original age. That makes the need to disconnect his origin with WWII less necessary. (Yay comics)

[Lonzilla]

One thing with Magneto (and Xavier).... neither of them are in their original bodies anymore. Xavier has a cloned body with his original mind & Magneto was de-aged a while back & has never been restored to his original age. That makes the need to disconnect his origin with WWII less necessary. (Yay comics)

Exactly what I was going to say about Magneto's age.

Funny that in a comic world filled with people who can fly, healing factors, super powers and the like, the historical time period is what has to make sense?

[revat]

Rod Carew is Jewish

[natevegas]

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/

When I read your post, my first reaction was that that suggestion is silly. (Actually, my first reaction was that I should check the article and see if what is said there is accurately represented here, especially because I doubt that Salon as a whole has taken a position, and indeed it's one writer's opinion. But I digress…) Having read the article, you have to admit that he has a point insofar as Magneto's origin is tied to a historical event, and it becomes problematic to hold his origin to that event as time passes. I think that solving that issue by invoking time travel or something similar makes the character less grounded in reality, which is what makes him interesting. Since Marvel is doing a big reboot, it seems like the ideal time to tweak characters to have them work with contemporary times (One thing I considered some time back is the Punisher's origins would have to be updated; Marvel isn't holding to him being a Vietnam vet, are they?), but I think that making him part of the civil rights movement in the U.S. is a bit too much of a departure from what's at the core of his origin.

 

The best solution, I think, is to reframe his origin in the context of another genocide. The three possibilities I see are:

• Late '70s: Cambodia under Pol Pot

• 1994: Rwanda

• Early '90s: Bosnia-Herzegovina

 

All three possibilities changes the ethnic and/or religious background of the character. The best solution I see is the scrap Magneto altogether, especially since Marvel doesn't own the movie rights, and create an entirely new character with the same thematic origin (especially if the third option is chosen; can you imagine the outrage if previously Magneto was Jewish and his origin was update to make him Muslim?).

 

I don't expect my suggestion to go without criticism, but the main question I'd like to pose to those who don't like it is this: Do you see a problem with linking Magneto's origin to a historical event that makes it less and less likely for an active character to have lived through and remembered? If so, what's your solution to that? If not, why not?

Why should Magneto be scraped? I think its high time Marvel picks on non x & ff characters in all fairness. Why not mess with Captain America's (Steve Roger's) origin or something.

 

Or how about they stop messing with tried and true characters all together and create some new ones to fit their new stories?

[GeeksAreMyPeeps]

One thing with Magneto (and Xavier).... neither of them are in their original bodies anymore. Xavier has a cloned body with his original mind & Magneto was de-aged a while back & has never been restored to his original age. That makes the need to disconnect his origin with WWII less necessary. (Yay comics)

Exactly what I was going to say about Magneto's age.

Funny that in a comic world filled with people who can fly, healing factors, super powers and the like, the historical time period is what has to make sense?

In short, yes. We can't be expected to relate to characters based on their having amazing powers. What makes them relatable is grounding their motivations in understandable experiences, which works especially well by referencing real-world events. The further you depart from that, the less relatable the characters are.

[Doktor]

One thing with Magneto (and Xavier).... neither of them are in their original bodies anymore. Xavier has a cloned body with his original mind & Magneto was de-aged a while back & has never been restored to his original age. That makes the need to disconnect his origin with WWII less necessary. (Yay comics)

Exactly what I was going to say about Magneto's age.

Funny that in a comic world filled with people who can fly, healing factors, super powers and the like, the historical time period is what has to make sense?

In short, yes. We can't be expected to relate to characters based on their having amazing powers. What makes them relatable is grounding their motivations in understandable experiences, which works especially well by referencing real-world events. The further you depart from that, the less relatable the characters are.

 

I'm pretty sure they still teach the horrors of the Holocaust in a way that's fairly relatable (at least as relatable as all the other genocides suggested) in virtually every history class in most of at least the Western world. He's still pretty relatable IMO.

[Prince Namor]

I don't have the patience to parse quotes.

 

Of course not, that would be answering the questions directly, which you can't do.

 

Instead you'll try and turn this around and pretend it's ME avoiding the facts.

 

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're right about one thing here.. you're NOT hiding anything about your politics.

 

You also don't seem to grasp that there's a direct parallel at the moment between the PC culture police

 

Who are the PC Police?

 

Seriously, answer this question (Question 1):

 

What have the PC Police done? Who have they stopped from expressing themselves? Give me an example.

 

 

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"

 

Question 2:

 

So if Ms. Marvel starts selling 12,000 copies a month, Marvel will keep it going? yes or no?

 

 

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.

 

See! Nice try, but I just laid it out a few posts ago:

 

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'.

 

I realize most of what you say wasn't discovered through critical reasoning skills, but rather learned through listening to talk radio and the like, but really, if you're going to try and manipulate what has gone on in the conversation, you may want to a) wait a few more pages before trying to lie about what was said and b) pick someone less clever than me.

 

Question 3: What name did I call you? Show me.

 

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".

 

Lie.

 

Question 4: Show me where my answer was "I'll know it when I see it" or anything close to that. Now you're just making stuff up.

 

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.

 

I've never deflected. Ask me a question straight out and I'll answer it. YOU are the one who has avoided direct questions, which why you skipped the nesting. Why are you trying to turn this around? It's clever, I guess to some, but highly transparent.

 

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)

 

Oh no, 'weak argument' and 'name calling' (I never called anyone specifically a name), 'discredit', added to the discussion.

 

And you're welcome to keep putting words in my mouth,

 

Question 5: When did I do that? Show me.

 

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"

 

And I think crying 'censorship!' when no one is actually being censored is hyperbole.

 

And 'shout'... how do you 'shout' on a message board?

 

I get it, you're 'out-debated' and playing the victim. Nice angle, but again, highly transparent. I've been debating guys like you for 30 years. It's always the same thing. You must all use the same debate handbook or something.

 

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.

 

Uh hunh. So's revisionist history.

 

Just answer the 5 questions.

 

You WON'T because you can't.

 

This is where you say, "I'm done with this!" because you're being called to the carpet to prove what you've been saying.

 

Go.

[Prince Namor]

One thing with Magneto (and Xavier).... neither of them are in their original bodies anymore. Xavier has a cloned body with his original mind & Magneto was de-aged a while back & has never been restored to his original age. That makes the need to disconnect his origin with WWII less necessary. (Yay comics)

Exactly what I was going to say about Magneto's age.

Funny that in a comic world filled with people who can fly, healing factors, super powers and the like, the historical time period is what has to make sense?

In short, yes. We can't be expected to relate to characters based on their having amazing powers. What makes them relatable is grounding their motivations in understandable experiences, which works especially well by referencing real-world events. The further you depart from that, the less relatable the characters are.

 

I'm pretty sure they still teach the horrors of the Holocaust in a way that's fairly relatable (at least as relatable as all the other genocides suggested) in virtually every history class in most of at least the Western world. He's still pretty relatable IMO.

 

I think it has to do with a question of age...if Magneto was even 5 years old in 1945, that'd make him almost 80 now...

[natevegas]

Be careful Doktor if you don't answer his questions to his liking he'll call you names.

[krighton]

Salon and the Mary sue are of the same ilk, avoid at all cost.

[Beastfeast]

I don't know if some ya'll are interested in art or art history, but I think there are some relatable parallels that are happening in the current state of comics that have been happening in the art world for decades.

 

I've seen many of you say, "Just make original characters and don't mess with established story lore." Of course, I'm paraphrasing but that's about the it.

 

That's also what's said about appropriation in art. Very often by people who either are ignorant to history, not visually-literate, or simply don't understand art and how it moves (Classic, Modern, and Contemporary.)

 

For example, Warhol was essentially dismissed and sometimes outright hated by the general public and by some critics when he was doing the Monroe's and Mao's. The Campbell's soup can was laughed at and generally mocked by millions. Even Campbell's rejected it. "he's just copying" "Make something original." was common.

 

Before him, Duchamp was HATED for Fountain. "That's not art." "Anyone can do that." "Make something original." Again...same thing

 

I'm going to skip the hundreds of others that have been given the same criticism and focus on a contemporary one: Richard Prince (look it up if you don't know him. It'll either be interesting to you or you'll fall into the category of dismissers.)

 

Same thing, again. "Make something original."

 

The point? This isn't a new thing that's suddenly being perpetrated by the PC police (I hate that name). When people don't like an establishment being challenged or questioned, they lash out...often in a really ignorant way. That ignorant way in his caseand many others is the cry of "Make something original."

 

Having a character be original is essentially irrelevant. It's cool when it happens, but it's not necessary to tell a good story.

 

I get that we feel attached to these stupid comics but they're not ours. We have no say so (except with our wallets, to a certain extent), and with a whole lot of you, they're not written for YOU anymore.

 

I'm not telling you to not be outraged or annoyed or whatever the hell you guys are. But to take a step back, think critically about the subject and not try to wave the wand of "PC Police" over things. That doesn't help anything and makes you look scared and out of touch.

 

EDIT: It did just strike me...I'm not comparing a master work such as Fountain to a comic book with a Muslim Ms. Marvel or Thor as a meat popsicle. I'm trying to illustrate that things change, people (writers, in this case) try to uproot established ideas to TRY to make things better or as a criticism of what is.

 

It might be good or it might age out and be forgotten.

 

[rjrjr]

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/

When I read your post, my first reaction was that that suggestion is silly. (Actually, my first reaction was that I should check the article and see if what is said there is accurately represented here, especially because I doubt that Salon as a whole has taken a position, and indeed it's one writer's opinion. But I digress…) Having read the article, you have to admit that he has a point insofar as Magneto's origin is tied to a historical event, and it becomes problematic to hold his origin to that event as time passes. I think that solving that issue by invoking time travel or something similar makes the character less grounded in reality, which is what makes him interesting. Since Marvel is doing a big reboot, it seems like the ideal time to tweak characters to have them work with contemporary times (One thing I considered some time back is the Punisher's origins would have to be updated; Marvel isn't holding to him being a Vietnam vet, are they?), but I think that making him part of the civil rights movement in the U.S. is a bit too much of a departure from what's at the core of his origin.

 

The best solution, I think, is to reframe his origin in the context of another genocide. The three possibilities I see are:

• Late '70s: Cambodia under Pol Pot

• 1994: Rwanda

• Early '90s: Bosnia-Herzegovina

 

All three possibilities changes the ethnic and/or religious background of the character. The best solution I see is the scrap Magneto altogether, especially since Marvel doesn't own the movie rights, and create an entirely new character with the same thematic origin (especially if the third option is chosen; can you imagine the outrage if previously Magneto was Jewish and his origin was update to make him Muslim?).

 

I don't expect my suggestion to go without criticism, but the main question I'd like to pose to those who don't like it is this: Do you see a problem with linking Magneto's origin to a historical event that makes it less and less likely for an active character to have lived through and remembered? If so, what's your solution to that? If not, why not?

Why should Magneto be scraped? I think its high time Marvel picks on non x & ff characters in all fairness. Why not mess with Captain America's (Steve Roger's) origin or something.

 

Or how about they stop messing with tried and true characters all together and create some new ones to fit their new stories?

 

Spider-Man's origin has been messed up many times over the years. In fact didn't Marvel just tack on another character getting bit by the spider recently? all that messing with the origin might help explain why Spider-Man is not Marvel's best selling title anymore.

[Prince Namor]

I don't know if some ya'll are interested in art or art history, but I think there are some relatable parallels that are happening in the current state of comics that have been happening in the art world for decades.

 

I've seen many of you say, "Just make original characters and don't mess with established story lore." Of course, I'm paraphrasing but that's about the it.

 

That's also what's said about appropriation in art. Very often by people who either are ignorant to history, not visually-literate, or simply don't understand art and how it moves (Classic, Modern, and Contemporary.)

 

For example, Warhol was essentially dismissed and sometimes outright hated by the general public and by some critics when he was doing the Monroe's and Mao's. The Campbell's soup can was laughed at and generally mocked by millions. Even Campbell's rejected it. "he's just copying" "Make something original." was common.

 

Before him, Duchamp was HATED for Fountain. "That's not art." "Anyone can do that." "Make something original." Again...same thing

 

I'm going to skip the hundreds of others that have been given the same criticism and focus on a contemporary one: Richard Prince (look it up if you don't know him. It'll either be interesting to you or you'll fall into the category of dismissers.)

 

Same thing, again. "Make something original."

 

The point? This isn't a new thing that's suddenly being perpetrated by the PC police (I hate that name). When people don't like an establishment being challenged or questioned, they lash out...often in a really ignorant way. That ignorant way in his caseand many others is the cry of "Make something original."

 

Having a character be original is essentially irrelevant. It's cool when it happens, but it's not necessary to tell a good story.

 

I get that we feel attached to these stupid comics but they're not ours. We have no say so (except with our wallets, to a certain extent), and with a whole lot of you, they're not written for YOU anymore.

 

I'm not telling you to not be outraged or annoyed or whatever the hell you guys are. But to take a step back, think critically about the subject and not try to wave the wand of "PC Police" over things. That doesn't help anything and makes you look scared and out of touch.

 

EDIT: It did just strike me...I'm not comparing a master work such as Fountain to a comic book with a Muslim Ms. Marvel or Thor as a meat popsicle. I'm trying to illustrate that things change, people (writers, in this case) try to uproot established ideas to TRY to make things better or as a criticism of what is.

 

It might be good or it might age out and be forgotten.

 

Good post.

 

 

 

[Doktor]

I don't have the patience to parse quotes.

 

Of course not, that would be answering the questions directly, which you can't do.

 

Instead you'll try and turn this around and pretend it's ME avoiding the facts.

 

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're right about one thing here.. you're NOT hiding anything about your politics.

 

You also don't seem to grasp that there's a direct parallel at the moment between the PC culture police

 

Who are the PC Police?

 

Seriously, answer this question (Question 1):

 

What have the PC Police done? Who have they stopped from expressing themselves? Give me an example.

 

 

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"

 

Question 2:

 

So if Ms. Marvel starts selling 12,000 copies a month, Marvel will keep it going? yes or no?

 

 

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.

 

See! Nice try, but I just laid it out a few posts ago:

 

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'.

 

I realize most of what you say wasn't discovered through critical reasoning skills, but rather learned through listening to talk radio and the like, but really, if you're going to try and manipulate what has gone on in the conversation, you may want to a) wait a few more pages before trying to lie about what was said and b) pick someone less clever than me.

 

Question 3: What name did I call you? Show me.

 

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".

 

Lie.

 

Question 4: Show me where my answer was "I'll know it when I see it" or anything close to that. Now you're just making stuff up.

 

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.

 

I've never deflected. Ask me a question straight out and I'll answer it. YOU are the one who has avoided direct questions, which why you skipped the nesting. Why are you trying to turn this around? It's clever, I guess to some, but highly transparent.

 

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)

 

Oh no, 'weak argument' and 'name calling' (I never called anyone specifically a name), 'discredit', added to the discussion.

 

And you're welcome to keep putting words in my mouth,

 

Question 5: When did I do that? Show me.

 

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"

 

And I think crying 'censorship!' when no one is actually being censored is hyperbole.

 

And 'shout'... how do you 'shout' on a message board?

 

I get it, you're 'out-debated' and playing the victim. Nice angle, but again, highly transparent. I've been debating guys like you for 30 years. It's always the same thing. You must all use the same debate handbook or something.

 

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.

 

Uh hunh. So's revisionist history.

 

Just answer the 5 questions.

 

You WON'T because you can't.

 

This is where you say, "I'm done with this!" because you're being called to the carpet to prove what you've been saying.

 

Go.

 

Still not bothering to parse quote because it's a waste of time. You're welcome to keep taking the time to add in the HTML code, but I'm not bothering.

 

I'll answer your questions, because this is moderately amusing to me

 

1. The PC culture police are as ethereal as diversity is. It's a general term for the faceless mob that pervades both the media & social media whenever someone voices an opinion outside of the acceptable range. Those faceless persons on the internet & on media that blow minor comments into major firestorms by contributing to making something viral in a negative way, that "just happen to know that guy & oh wait, here's their personal information. But you know, don't call their boss or anything" that attempt to tear down those whose opinions they disagree with by making themselves as anonymous as possibly by being part of a large group. Oh yeah, you're trying to play the "you can't name this group to a person so they don't exist" game? I'm not playing that game.

 

Oh... you want an example? A Nobel winning scientists made a poor comment about women in science like a week ago. The resulting firestorm on social media got him fired & essentially discredited and semi-blackballed from getting work just the other day. It was a cover story on Yahoo yesterday. You're welcome to go look it up. Oh, you're going to say that he wasn't censored? Yeah... I guess he's still able to speak his mind but in exchange for being able to be employed. Instead, his only viable option is to shut the %*#( up for a few months or a year, live on his savings, wait for the internet to forget about it, maybe find a job & never open his mouth again or do anything of importance without fear of the next headline being "Sexist Nobel winning scientist discovers..." where everything after the Sexist Nobel winning scientist part doesn't really matter.

 

2. Marvel will print whatever makes them money. I have no goddamned clue what you're trying to prove here since it's not a question relating to my statement. You're still ignoring the DIRECT CORRELATION between the militant lunatics pervading the world these days & what is selling. Please start to actually read what I'm writing.

 

3. Show me where I said you called ME a name. I said that "all you've done is some name calling and yelling". Not one place in my statement did I state that you've name-called me. But yelling racist or ignorant because you can't answer the question effectively is the definition of name calling. Reading comprehension is imperative.

 

Not one person has asked for quotas that I've seen. Whatshisname asked a series of OBVIOUSLY RHETORICAL questions to try to come to some idea of what is "diverse" in an objective sense. You want to interpret that as quotas? Ok. Sure. It's NOT, but whatever.

 

And don't you %*#()#$ dare call me a liar. You want to disagree with me? Be my guest. Kindly start disagreeing with what I'm actually typing and not what you want me to be typing and I'll keep replying to you, but that's the 1 and only time you get to call me a liar before you go on block too.

 

This thread is finally up to 6 pages. It was at 4 when I first replied & I only started reading at page 3 (which was the current page when I opened it). You're talking about "what have I been saying for the past 10 pages". I couldn't possibly know that since the thread was only 4 pages before, 6 pages now, and if you were doing something at page negative-6, I have no clue what it was. Unless you're talking about some other thread, in which case I still don't know what you're talking about because I don't remember what you said or where you said it or if I even ever read it.

 

4. You deflected from answering the question. Because that was what your answer would have been. You didn't need to say "I'll know it when I see it" because it was obvious by your deflection using terms like "racist". Unless you didn't realize that those were obviously rhetorical questions. In which case, you might want to go back & look this thread over with an eye on that.

 

You're correct, you didn't specifically say "I'll know it when I see it", but that was the obvious implication of your deflection & non-answer. And if it wouldn't have been your answer, then answer the questions initially posed without deflecting with another round of calling them racist and/or ignorant.

 

5. Oh, you didn't put words in my mouth? Like for instance: "Oh I don't really care... I'm much too cool... I'm above it all.... blah..blah...blah..."; "Which is my defense mechanism before I give yet another opinion I know you'll see through..." I'm pretty sure since I didn't say a single one of those things, you're putting words in my mouth

 

Now how about you answer some questions, boss?

 

1. Could you give an example of something you find sufficiently diverse?

2. What happens when your example isn't diverse enough for me? Whose definition is right then?

3. If a significant portion of people have X opinion on a subject and entertainment forms that also appear to share X opinion are outselling entertainment forms that show Y opinion, and the producer releases more product portraying X opinion and less product portraying Y opinion, is there a correlation between supply & demand? And if the fans of X-opinion entertainment go out of their way to shame & defame those that buy/agree with/produce Y-opinion product, would it not be a win-win for the producer to release more and more X-opinion product and less & less Y-opinion product?

4. Do you reply to all questions that make you uncomfortable with value-judgments on the merits of the question to avoid answering them? Is a question about a female characters relative merits automatically sexist & therefor you don't need to answer it?