|
fritz posted:Does Dave Sim's Cerebus count? (the message is "women are evil") The last few years have taught us that "Women won't gently caress/date me, therefor..." is that start of a disturbing number of men's political lives, so yeah unfortunately. To anyone here who knows, was S'Sym from 80s New Mutants/X-Men stuff supposed to be a Dave Sim reference? Seems pretty obvious, but Claremont usually wasn't that level of petty. Then again, most other artists aren't Sim's level of human refuse.
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:Chris Claremont and Dave Sim were friendly throughout pretty much the entirety of the 1980s. There was long-ish serious talks about doing an X-Men/Cerebus crossover for years. Fair enough. I though his misogynistic turn was something that happened earlier, as in closer to when his wife GTFO'd. I could have been confusing Ms. Loubert with his later relationship. I thought about reading Cerebus, but a) who wants to read something that turns into Reddit halfway through, and b) I don't like giving creepers money-- also why some Alan Moore stuff is off the table.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
So you're making the argument that boycotts don't work? Because that doesn't seem to be the case as witnessed by reality.The position you are stating is slacktivism to the extreme. I'm not saying that everyone should fully vet what they consume, but acting like you're an idiot for trying to not give shitheads money is some of the dumbest poo poo I've heard on this forum. Saying the author isn't affected by someone not purchasing their work, and at least in the case of royalties that's fully untrue. They're denied that money they get from the sale of the book-- this makes more of a difference in normal books where there's full returnability of new stock. It's less true with comics, where the solution has to be to keep stores from ordering them in the first place, since Diamond is where the royalties would be calculated from since they're the last step that is returnable.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
zoux posted:No I'm saying that wringing your hands over whether to buy stuff that you like because the author, or publisher, or whatever might be a "bad person" is stupid. Boycotts are just this on a large scale though. I get that my 50 cents or whatever that goes to a shithead like OSC is not a meaningful amount of money individually. In aggregate across a larger community it is however. Your position is simple learned helplessness that I've seen all over the left. everything is poo poo and nothing can ever get better, so you might as well lean into it. Sorry, I don't buy it, and neither does reality. Making sure that known shitheads get less sales for publishers make them less valuable and limit their potential to harm later. It's the equivalent of making sure that skinheads and klansmen don't get decent jobs and lose them when they get them. You can act like it's nothing, but using money as a tool to make people comply has a fairly well documented history.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:Like what? He lost work with DC because decent people stood up and said they wouldn't buy his work because he was making it and they don't want to give money to a homophobe like him. I don't know how much money he lost (because I don't know how DC pays) but he didn't end up doing work for them. It's one of the few times DC has acted like functional humans about this kind of stuff in the last decade or so (see not making GBS threads on Julius Swartz while he was still alive, plus the missing stair jackass in the Superman office) so it sort of stands out. zoux posted:Ah sorry didn't realize I was going to be an exemplar for everything you are mad about politically. You're being the exemplar because you're using the same lazy line I've seen out of piles of slacktivists. Don't want to be criticized for saying something stupid? Don't say it.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Lonos Oboe posted:Someone mentioned Alan Moore and that is a similar point. Sure, he is a bit weird and a creep. But reading his work knowing his points of view on authority and society help you understand works like Watchmen and V for Vendetta. If you are opposed to his personal politics, then chances are you will not like his work. Moore is almost a special case here. I'm the one who mentioned him, and it's honestly not his politics that I find off putting. He wrote Lost Girls, which can be best described as a very lovingly designed book of child pornography. I have a general rule about only hoping the worst things happen to child pornographers and pedos, and I don't see this as a particularly political stance. Recent offline conversations have somewhat disabused me of this, unfortunately.  To use a sports analogy, it's like clumping my dislike of Tom Brady for his politics with my dislike of Aaron Hernandez for killing 1-3 people.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Lonos Oboe posted:Being willing to discuss adolescent sexuality does not make a person a pedo or a pornographer. But it seems like it's something that can't really be discussed without people jumping in with their own personal axes to grind. (Not referring to you) He wrote this book about women discussing their past sexual experiences as teens and was instantly villfied by some for writing about a subject matter that made some people uncomfortable. He wrote a comics that describes sex between a minor and adults in a way that an actual pedo could crank to. Comics already have a seedy unbelly of weird fetish comics that do a decent part to keep LCS nerd dungeons the way they are. Moore is making this worse, because the acts he's depicting are both incredibly non-consentual, but also tacitly allowed be society. We don't heavily punish adult male/minor female pedophilia in this country, and even go out of our way to define it down in court when it shows up. We give light sentences to perpetrators of these crimes, and even in some cases fail to prosecute crimes that are open and shut when the ages of parents and children are known. Hell, there's even a channer/reddit meme (epebophilia or whatever it's called) that is designed to give cover to people fantasizing about minors. Several people I deal with closely have been victims of this kind of crime as children, and our court system did nothing to protect both these children and other children from the victimizers by at least getting them on a registry if not into prison or other instituions. I treat this stuff as serious because I see the effects on a daily basis, and get more than a bit worked up when people begin defining it down. Mainstream comics already have huge issues with the depiction of sexual assault being normalized, and Moores stuff isn't helping. I'm fine with young people have authentic sexualities, but it's not a thing for adult to luridly view, period. Lost Girls does at least try to show the relationships as damaging to the young women, but everything about it screams being "Crime Does Not Pay" but for sex crimes against young girls. quote:The argument that he is writing lovely pretentious bullshit is kinda moot. As long as what he writes is not something that is promoting loving kids. (Which was decided it was not in the UK by a panel who actually sat down and read it to decide if it was child porn.) Again, Western society tends to define down sex crimes that are committed against women in general. We also allow the anime creeper poo poo like the "She's a 10,000 year old in a 10 year old's body" stuff into the West instead of being the kind of thing that gets you put on a registry, so I wouldn't exactly hold legality up as if that makes a work acceptable. Jesus Titty loving Christ, I did not think the line "Don't show kids having sex" is something that would be a controversial opinion on SA. It really makes me sad that I have to defend this position from people who aren't just standard channer trolls. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 14:56 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Why would anybody want to have a discussion with you when you've pre-emptively declared that anyone on the other side of the argument is just in it for the virtue signaling? Yup. Didn't quite make the connection, but "performative wokeness" is the exact same idea as virtue signaling. People can't be interested in a cause because it effects them or people they know, or even that they believe in something. They have to try to be getting cool points, and Zoux is just too cynically hip to ever give a drat about anything.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 20:40
|
|