|
There is nothing funnier than people who take incredibly serious, principled stands on concepts they fundamentally do not understand.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Look, if somehow instead of making their objections clear and starting a debate about the topic that resulted in the publisher making a measured decision not to publish the material they'd just stayed quiet and somehow made it go away through some kind of money-magic, I'd be completely fine with it, that's all I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Every time I have a discussion with someone and end up changing my mind from my initial perspective, I'm being censored. From now on I'm going to blurt out the first thing I think of and then stick with it come hell or high water, nobody's gonna deny my first amendment rights anymore 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Every time I have a discussion with someone and end up changing my mind from my initial perspective, I'm being censored. From now on I'm going to blurt out the first thing I think of and then stick with it come hell or high water, nobody's gonna deny my first amendment rights anymore Don't worry, if you ever do change your mind, I will defend your initial opinion, regardless of if you want it or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:They can talk about why they don't like it all day, of course. The problem I have is when they make it so that no one can consume the media they find offensive. That's a bad path that will lead to nothing good being produced because all of the companies will be too scared of publishing anything offensive to any group. I clearly meant boycott as in don't purchase, as I said. Vote with your wallet. Chill with the mental gymnastics. That's why I said changed/censored/removed in my initial post, because whatever you call it, it's a slippery slope. Are you just picking random words out of a bucket? Do you honestly think people expressing their opinion is a form of censorship? Edit: Mods, please ban Bottom Liner because he disagrees with me and therefore is censoring me and that's illegal under a very dumb interpretation of the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:There is nothing funnier than people who take incredibly serious, principled stands on concepts they fundamentally do not understand. This is why conservatives are the funniest people. Also, someone doesn't have to take pride in their work. I know multiple artists who have worked for people and done work they hate, or been given direction that makes them uncomfortable to do it. But they still did it because its a paycheck. Saying someone should stand by their work and have integrity, when the artist has stated that it was no longer his original concept, and that it was one made worse by request of an editor, which he felt uncomfortable with? Clearly he should have had artistic integrity and told his boss no, and refused to ever change his work because otherwise would be censorship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Do you honestly think people expressing their opinion is a form of censorship? No, but I do think that cancelling the release of a cover because a group of people find it offensive is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:No, but I do think that cancelling the release of a cover because a group of people find it offensive is. You cannot censor yourself in a manner that is censorship. You cannot take your own product and go 'oh no we're being censored'. What they did was remove a product of their own making from the market to establish good will after realizing the effect it was having. There is no government agency that swooped down and went 'nope you can't release that'. That would be censorship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:No, but I do think that cancelling the release of a cover because a group of people find it offensive is. You're oversimplifying and wrong about the details and the situation. DC weren't bullied or intimidated into doing this, they heard the concerns, and whatever else came to them, and made a decision about their output, a decision based on 'a group of people' that included their audience, the artist and the writers of the comic in question. You have no idea what you're talking about and have chosen the dumbest hill to die on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:You have no idea what you're talking about and have chosen the dumbest hill to die on. So... Bobby Hill?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I guess I just really take issue with changing/censoring/removing art because some people find it offensive. That's just a core issue I can never agree with, regardless of the dumb drama on both sides of this issue. I'm more mad that the artist didn't stand by his work than anything. Just going to point out how hung up you guys got on one word in this post and spent the whole page arguing semantics. Whatever you want to call it, being offended is part of viewing art sometimes and I don't think creators should have to be so PC just because they're scared of offending someone. Again, I'm talking big picture and the precedence this sets. I'm done talking about this now, but I appreciate your efforts at dissecting my posts. Also, I'm far from being a conservative and it's hysterical I was called one 
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Hey, loving off topic, I guess, but I just looked up the first Wonder Woman issues on Comixology and saw William Moulton Marston had a co-writer named Alice Marble. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Marble She was a #1 tennis pro celebrity who retired into working for DC, then became a spy in WW2 and got shot in the back by a Nazi officer. I'm ordering the hell out of her biography. e: If there isn't a Bluewater comic on her, I dunno what Bluewater is doing. Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Also, I'm far from being a conservative and it's hysterical I was called one I wasn't actually meaning to call you a conservative, I was just making the reference to the whole 'it's funny when people argue about concepts they don't understand' thing, and tying it into making fun of conservatives because I do that a lot. I think that the precedent this sets is good though - it shows the DC isn't afraid to look at negative reactions and realize what's wrong with it and change it, rather than continue being tone deaf like they have for the past 30 years and refuse to accept that anything could be a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Just going to point out how hung up you guys got on one word in this post and spent the whole page arguing semantics. The only reason you're hung up on semantics is you spent the last page not understanding definitions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:No, but I do think that cancelling the release of a cover because a group of people find it offensive is. Jesus loving christ, you are the dumbest person on this forum, and that was quite a competition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Just going to point out how hung up you guys got on one word in this post and spent the whole page arguing semantics. Whatever you want to call it, being offended is part of viewing art sometimes and I don't think creators should have to be so PC just because they're scared of offending someone. Again, I'm talking big picture and the precedence this sets. I'm done talking about this now, but I appreciate your efforts at dissecting my posts. Also, I'm far from being a conservative and it's hysterical I was called one Skwirl posted:Jesus loving christ, you are the dumbest person on this forum, and that was quite a competition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:The issue with the variant, is that some people expressed displeasure with it, and those critics received death threats Seriously, why is that the go to reaction for some people? Like, do we seriously need classes in schools in how not to flip out online. I'd like to say that's hyperbole on my part but I wouldn't be too upset if they started teaching online etiquette (or just etiquette in general) in my kids Junior school if it stops the knee jerk reaction of random offers of murder to different opinions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Just going to point out how hung up you guys got on one word in this post and spent the whole page arguing semantics. Whatever you want to call it, being offended is part of viewing art sometimes and I don't think creators should have to be so PC just because they're scared of offending someone. Again, I'm talking big picture and the precedence this sets. I'm done talking about this now, but I appreciate your efforts at dissecting my posts. Also, I'm far from being a conservative and it's hysterical I was called one
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Creators don't have to be so PC and literally nobody is arguing with you that they should be. I would argue that, just not right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
I picked the wrong week to click on the chat thread and to stop sniffing glue
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:I would argue that, just not right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Nevermind~!
WickedHate fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
TwoPair posted:For some reason the second one just makes me laugh. The angry expression just makes me think of Barbara's internal monologue as "Christ, this rear end in a top hat again?" They should have gone with that one from the beginning. Still somewhat tasteless, but you clearly see that the next panel would be Batgirl giving the Joker a severe beatdown. Also the whole loving Internet apparently needs a Censorship 101. It seems every stupid idiot thinks anyone calling poo poo poo poo or boycotting said poo poo is censorship already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Not now Rhyno. Hey now, there's no need to be that mean to Rhyno.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
Hey Bats, are you doing all right? You look really hung over.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Artist Ronald Wimberly put out a comic about Marvel asking him to lighten the skin tone of an African-American/Mexican character. https://thenib.com/lighten-up-4f7f96ca8a7e
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:Artist Ronald Wimberly put out a comic about Marvel asking him to lighten the skin tone of an African-American/Mexican character. That's really drat good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
I don't read DC but the impression I get is that the tone of the new Batgirl series is supposed to be lighter or at least different, and I read that the creative team on it is trying to do everything they can to stay away from the Joker in the book, and have said he will never appear during their run. I've read a bit about it and from what I can tell DC commissioned a variant for an issue, the dude drew it unaware of the creative stance on "no Joker" and once he found out about it personally agreed that it didn't fit the tone and theme of the book. So that one dude who is not saying (but is basically saying) that it's SJW bullshit is mega off base just like all the internet MRAs who are pitching a fit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:Artist Ronald Wimberly put out a comic about Marvel asking him to lighten the skin tone of an African-American/Mexican character. These sorts of vulnerable bits always make me feel uncomfortable for reasons I can never pin down. Then I thought ''if I were the editor in question would I have asked to lighten a person's skintone?'' and the answer was no, that's ridiculous so I guess I'm not a horrible racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:The only reason you're hung up on semantics is you spent the last page not understanding definitions. To expand on this a bit, the meaningful part of censorship is the repression of dissent and subcultures, so questions of why and what are the broader effects are pretty important. I'd go a bit further and say censorship only is meaningful when it is people in power censoring a minority, if only because folks without power cannot stifle debate and expression in a meaningful way. If you're (e: bottom liner) worried about a more general case of DC censoring images of a strong female hero reduced to a powerless mess, then you should totally speak up about that because I'm sure it will lead to a healthy and productive debate. If you take the censorship point out of the argument, all you're saying is "I wish DC left the cover in", and I disagree with you, but I feel your pain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
It's amazing how many words can be typed about a minor business decision made by a dying corporation in a niche hobby
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Chinaman7000 posted:It's amazing how many words can be typed about a minor business decision made by a dying corporation in a niche hobby I don't think that'll fit as the new forum name
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I think protesting a company to change a piece of art is a form of censorship, yes Then you don't understand what censorship is. There is a vast, vast gulf between "we think you should drop this alternate cover" and "you must by force of law drop this alternate cover." By the same token it's not infringing on anyone's First Amendment rights because there's no government involvement do we need to get a flowchart made for this poo poo? I know the thread's mostly moved past this but dammit, I demand my chance to call out stupidity too. Endless Mike posted:Artist Ronald Wimberly put out a comic about Marvel asking him to lighten the skin tone of an African-American/Mexican character. This was a really, really good and interesting comic that everyone should read. Lovely, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:I don't think that'll fit as the new forum name Close enough 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
God's work and all that sir
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
A niche hobby?! How dare you. Why, if I wasn't the only one I knew who was at all interested in comics, I'd show you what for!
redbackground fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
I just found out there used to be a character loving named Gothic Lolita in Marvel.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
NotAnArtist posted:These sorts of vulnerable bits always make me feel uncomfortable for reasons I can never pin down. Then I thought ''if I were the editor in question would I have asked to lighten a person's skintone?'' and the answer was no, that's ridiculous so I guess I'm not a horrible racist. Thing is, the editor's response was "I've been told..." which means there are other editors putting in their two cents or Marvel has some kind of bible/guideline for their characters. She even sent a swatch for reference. Wimberly nailed it when he brought up how frustrating it is for a person of color to bring up racism because the entire conversation shuts down. "Racist" to a white person may as well be calling them a friend of the family, you just set off all their fire alarms and activated full defense mode. But you don't have to be a horrible racist to play into racism because it's so ingrained into the status quo. Same with sexism and homophobia, we all have to be aware how society influences our decisions. Like when Erik Larsen was going off on female character designs he said "I'm tired of the big two placating a vocal minority at the expense of the rest of the paying audience" which is the #1 argument people use against changing anything in the media. But I don't know how anybody doesn't realize how inherently bigoted this statement is. If a minority audience (and by that I mean anyone who isn't a white straight male) buy into media that have zero representation then why is the majority incapable of doing the same when they're represented slightly less? Oh no, Aquaman is a Pacific Islander man! Surely this will upset delicate balance of the Justice League. They already have cyborg, isn't that enough? (actual comment I read about Jason Momoa)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I just found out there used to be a character loving named Gothic Lolita in Marvel. That was in Adam Warren's "Livewires" mini. I think all the characters were based on Japanimation stereotypes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Warren is usually more clever with superhero names than that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:10
|
|
