The Future of White Ethinic Oriented Fiction in a Rapidly Wide Spreading MultiModal Reflection Sorting Environment

[Femina]

Um wouldn't that be hypocrisy? Why wasn't the Spider man cover removed or subsequently similar poses? Why was the outrage ONLY when Spider Woman posed like that? Same with Batgirl. Why did the Batgirl cover have to be removed? Of course there the Batgirl title was supposed to be aimed at minor girls so it was dark but that wasn't the reason given for pulling.

I'd just like to point out that the Spiderman/Spiderwoman covers were not really the same. They were both very similarly posed YES, but the angle of the ass and clear spine shattering curve in the spiderwoman cover were completely at odds with Spidey's more anatomically correct pose. I'd like to also make it clear that I don't CARE personally about spineshattering sexy poses for women on comic book covers. I don't believe being 'sexy' is actually anything to be mad or ashamed about and was not personally thrilled with where they took Spiderwoman's costume afterward, particularly in the pregnancy phase, (though isn't it already back to normal in the A Force? I mean hard to cry 'doooom' when every change of costume inevitably returns to the classic) BUT I still think it should be somewhat clear enough that those two covers were never as similar as some people wanted them to be, at least in terms of the issue that was made about them.

As for the Batgirl cover, I was lead to believe that the artist who drew it was part of the voice of people who eventually decided to take it off. They were saying it might still have gone to print if it wasn't for his(/her?) agreement on the matter. It read to me as the lead coming to the artist and having a discussion like 'Hey great artwork as always, but I'm thinking this might go against the grain of what we're trying to do with batgirl with our run' and the artist listening and agreeing. Much as I wish it were, this is not Gail Simone's series anymore, so Batgirl will be a while in returning to her 'Dark Knightess' awesome, but then I'm still mourning Stephanie Brown as Batgirl over anything else!

[Heroine Addict]

I'd just like to point out that the Spiderman/Spiderwoman covers were not really the same. They were both very similarly posed YES, but the angle of the ass and clear spine shattering curve in the spiderwoman cover were completely at odds with Spidey's more anatomically correct pose.

Plus Spider-Woman's pout just looked ridiculous. It seemed like a really poor quality piece of fan art. I was amazed anyone thought it was good enough for a cover. Even a variant cover.

[FallOutDweller]

I'd just like to point out that the Spiderman/Spiderwoman covers were not really the same. They were both very similarly posed YES, but the angle of the ass and clear spine shattering curve in the spiderwoman cover were completely at odds with Spidey's more anatomically correct pose.

Plus Spider-Woman's pout just looked ridiculous. It seemed like a really poor quality piece of fan art. I was amazed anyone thought it was good enough for a cover. Even a variant cover.

For the sake of all fairness this court demands the prosecution a.k.a. Mr Heroine Addict to provide the images you are talking about, please.

[Heroine Addict]

As you said please...



Here it is alongside another Milo Manara masterpiece, also including a buttcrack which can used to park a bicycle. The guy has done some good erotic art in the past, but his Spider-Woman just looks fucking ludicrous.

Now, there are some pics of Spider-Man in similar poses, but not with the raised ass of a bitch (in the canine sense) presenting herself to a mate and the inexplicably deep, deep buttcrack.

[shevek]

I thought I was only going to post in this crazy thread to absolve myself of responsibility for any of Fallout Dweller's goofiness..

But I think I do need to respond to Viridian's comment about "acting like Sarkeesian *is* feminism". In fact, when she and Zoe Quinn are the only ones approaching the UN about ending supposed "online abuse" (which often turns out just to be criticism of their third-wave cause..see the case about the guy in Toronto who got doxxed by ultra-left feminists, but won his case with the judge because he actually didn't "harrass" anyone), yes they basically represent feminism today to the UN.

When Feminist Frequency is brought on as a philosophical partner by Intel, one of the biggest companies in the world, yes Anita *is* feminism. When Feminist Frequency recently announced a partnership with Crash Override with a joint goal to "end all online abuse" (in other words, once again, any criticism of their cause), with their goal to make sure that companies like Twitter and Google have more restrictive policies to prevent anyone from criticzing far-left third-wave intersectionalists and their theories of kyriarchy....once again there's a strong case to be made about how she's now considered the leading spear-point of feminism. So there is something to be said for that.

As for the Spider-Woman cover...Milo Manara is an *erotic artist*! OMG I used to love Penthouse Comix..of course Hericane was the hit, but I actually had the hots for the sexy superstrong scientist Doctor Dare if you don't mind





So why was anyone surprised that Spider-Woman was posed in that position? Of course he's going to draw her sexy, he draws erotica! It should have been a non-issue. Rather than being removed, shouldn't the cover just have been a variant that could only be sold to adults in a wrapper (like the variant covers of Sex Criminals, that were *drawn by women*!!). And instead of cancelling two others they were going to have him draw, they should have hired him to do the covers, checked the art ahead of time and put them in the same wrapper. Stuff that's prurient and is controversial should sell better, no? Why take away the livelihood of a hot-blooded Italian man? Nobody ever heard of Fellini, Dario (and Asia) Argento, Lucio Fulci, nobody ever heard of giallo, or the election of Cicciolina? Italians are hot, let them be hot!!

[FallOutDweller]

@Heroine Addict,

I am deeply offended for your lack of sensibility with such a great artist like Milo Manara. His Spider Woman is clearly just a copy made from Ed Benes art work, nobody is perfect and Milo's art can be easily forgiven.

Honestly, I don't know what you guys have against sexual exploitation in general. Is about time to start to sexually exploit the singularities you can find on the male body as well.

No Exposition Without Equal Exploitation ! Defend Gender Equality ! Porn Art Matters !

[FallOutDweller]

Intermission : Can you see what we gonna get if Sony and Fox learn how to work together with Marvel/Disney's blessing ?

[Femina]

I thought I was only going to post in this crazy thread to absolve myself of responsibility for any of Fallout Dweller's goofiness..

But I think I do need to respond to Viridian's comment about "acting like Sarkeesian *is* feminism". In fact, when she and Zoe Quinn are the only ones approaching the UN about ending supposed "online abuse" (which often turns out just to be criticism of their third-wave cause..see the case about the guy in Toronto who got doxxed by ultra-left feminists, but won his case with the judge because he actually didn't "harrass" anyone), yes they basically represent feminism today to the UN.

Firstly, You owe me a nickel.

Secondly, online death threats can't be chalked down to 'criticism of third-wave causes' because then you must accept that death threats are valid criticism to other causes, which also introduces the question of whether face to face death threats also represent valid criticism to things like 'your face' and 'your attitude' and how much your smile seems 'shady.' If someone can't make a criticism without resorting to violent threats on a person, no matter what the inciting factor, they need to be held back or sent off back to grammar school maybe and participate in the new anti-bully policies rampant in schools to remind them what is and is not appropriate in civilized society. Abuse is abuse, even if it happens to come up alongside basic online criticism, you can see potentially how someone who is receiving ten to fifteen death threats a day by psychopathic forum trolls might cause them to view less hostile messages in a more suspicious light. One man who won a case in Toronto doesn't represent the whole of the world, he represents that man in Toronto and nobody else.

Seriously. Nickel up.

When Feminist Frequency is brought on as a philosophical partner by Intel, one of the biggest companies in the world, yes Anita *is* feminism. When Feminist Frequency recently announced a partnership with Crash Override with a joint goal to "end all online abuse" (in other words, once again, any criticism of their cause), with their goal to make sure that companies like Twitter and Google have more restrictive policies to prevent anyone from criticzing far-left third-wave intersectionalists and their theories of kyriarchy....once again there's a strong case to be made about how she's now considered the leading spear-point of feminism. So there is something to be said for that.

No one woman IS Feminism, it doesn't matter what she's doing, and arguing that she is just insults the intelligence of every other feminist even if the woman you were claiming IS feminism actually represented very positive things about feminism. It just means that you may be focusing all your attention to hard on one space. It also means that you have to accept then that the opposition is allowed to decide that YOUR stance is representable by one person. Since we're on the topic of Feminist Frequency I'll choose Jonathan Irons who said "The only question left is will @FemFreq be raped first, or killed first or both?" Gee... how dare anyone want THAT to stop? Or how about, "Kill yourself, feminists are a waist of air, also more games should have girl characters half naked such as 'Tomb Raider etc.'" *Low Whistle* The VOICE of a generation that one! Or how about "Eyo F^(*ing slut! If you will ever come to England, I will rape you into Oblivion!" Guess we'll check England as the continent of Anti-Feminism then.

It goes on.

These threats, and the attitude pervading them are what give Anita the celebrity to partner with all those influential people and oganizations. Unrepentant, unceasing, and undeserved ONLINE ABUSE is what made her famous, not their criticism, and not her video game damsels video. The very people who perpetrated that abuse, and agree with the abuse, have no one to blame but themselves for the influence she now possesses.

So... did I mention the Nickel?

[shevek]

I don't know what this nickel is about...but I'm fairly certain that just like some third-wavers and identity-obsessives who inflate sexual violence statistics, make staged catcalling videos (which often, to their dismay, show catcalling to be culturally more prevalent among certain 'oppressed' identity groups) and fabricate racial attack stories (as this past week with the black girls on the bus in Albany), Ms. Sarkeesian is inflating claims and exaggerating the amount of "abuse" she receives ("Jonathan Irons" is not a person, it is a character from Call of Duty portrayed by Kevin Spacey, and that is a quote from his character) for purposes of seeking legitimacy and public sympathy, after having done nothing worthwhile other than make a series of videos criticizing the video game industry for too many damsels in distress and sexy fighters (basically, for promoting the same aesthetics we champion on this very forum, but just writ large). She does not engage in discussion with her opposition, and her videos are always comment-disabled. This is typical of the approach of the authoritarian left, whereas in contrast, Youtube video channels which oppose political correctness keep their comments open for freedom of speech purposes.

From what I understand, the one attempt she made to feebly create a game herself was a disaster with a shitty-looking pixellated character..god forbid anyone should enjoy seeing a beautiful woman's body while playing a video game, because it's so important that we always "empathize" with the character (empathy, as everyone knows, is not the purpose of a video game - immersion in the fantasy world is!).

How do I know she's got a track record of exaggeration? She raised a ton of Kickstarter money and only made a handful of videos with it, far below the number she said she was going to make, and not even containing the level of content she had promised. Yes, the guy in Toronto is just one guy but his story is not unique..he was attacked by the overly politically-correct milieu that exists now in big Canadian cities, and if it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone (for example, a Lauren Southern video I watched covered a somewhat similiar incident in Vancouver).

In her new announcement, she's now going to make some videos about supposedly underexposed women heroes. Why do each of these videos cost thousands of dollars to make, which she has to beg for from the public, when there are tons of content producers who don't beg? But the claims made about these heroes don't stack up. For example, Ada Lovelace (whom feminists have taken to calling the first computer programmer) simply publicized the ideas of Charles Babbage. Female pirate Ching Shih is not unknown..she is already super-famous in Asia, the subject of several movies, and a playable character in Assassin's Creed (interesting how a supposedly sexist video game has strong female characters...it's probably where Ms. Anita stole her idea to feature Ching). Murasaki Shikibu was supposed to have written the "first modern novel" but the only problem is that the idea of the Western novel was influenced Zero Percent by a woman in Japan in 1100..novels came from sagas and epics, and the extended prose works of Rome and Greece, so although Shikibu was certainly an amazingly creative woman, nothing connects her directly to any kind of "modernity", which Japan didn't experience until the 19th century. And lastly...doing something on Emma Goldman is anything close to an original idea? Come on....what it really boils down to is a bone thrown to the far-left anarchist anti-capitalist set that she's trying to impress.

I just watched a video of hers where she complains about a trope called the "straw feminist" where TV and movies depict some kind of exaggerated angry feminist. While I've no doubt that it occurs in some places to create an antagonist or a humorous effect (for example, the ironically quite-hot villainess Femme Fatale on Powerpuff Girls) she uses this trope (as always) to play the victim, rather than acknowledging that right now, on television, there are a *ton* of strong female characters who could be identified as feminist without directly proclaiming themselves as such (and there are even some that do, like on Girls or Broad City)..from Juliana Margulies and Tina Fey to Debra Messing and Gillian Anderson, the list just goes on for blocks.
Even the Powerpuff Girls show itself typically has pretty strong female empowerment messages, and yet Anita sees fit to cherrypick out one villain among dozens. But of course, to Anita, not directly acknowledging these kinds of characters as feminist would actually make them post-feminist. She cherrypicks the caricatures (including the one on Veronica Mars that depicts college campus social justice warriors) while ignoring the majority of positive portrayals. If she had her druthers, she'd make sure no negative portrayal of a feminist ever got through production, because it (waaah!) "hurts the movement." There is a much stronger and more prevalent "stupid docile husband" trope on television, but men aren't complaining about that - they just laugh at the dumb dude on the screen and then go about their day. But apparently, the ideas of third-wave feminism aren't strong enough to stand up to...mere acting.

Also, I'm not arguing that she *is* feminism...I'm arguing that a lot of prominent companies and organization *see* her as the Gen-Y equivalent of a Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan, and see her as representing modern feminism. Which is unfortunate because I do know there are a lot of less vehement, less extremely-SJW-ish women doing their thing for reasonable women's rights issues but since they don't make outrageous claims, beg for money from the public, and shack up with big companies, they don't get the spotlight. They toil quietly for change with strength and grace, while publicity and money hogs like Anita play the helpless victim.

[Femina]

I don't know what this nickel is about...

It's about this, literally from the post where I mentioned what you wanted to talk about.

Of course not, but you can't argue that the same isn't applied by the opposition. If we all got a nickel every time someone arguing with a feminist brought up Anita Sarkeesian as if she WAS feminism, dropped the mic and tried to walk out as though all the problems of the world were resolved we'd have like, fifteen dollars more each.

The threats I pulled were from twitter accounts. Seems one of them was a guy quoting CoD, still doesn't look nice showing up in your mailbox.

Also, I'm not arguing that she *is* feminism...I'm arguing that a lot of prominent companies and organization *see* her as the Gen-Y equivalent of a Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan, and see her as representing modern feminism. Which is unfortunate because I do know there are a lot of less vehement, less extremely-SJW-ish women doing their thing for reasonable women's rights issues but since they don't make outrageous claims, beg for money from the public, and shack up with big companies, they don't get the spotlight. They toil quietly for change with strength and grace, while publicity and money hogs like Anita play the helpless victim.

Really? Because this

When Feminist Frequency is brought on as a philosophical partner by Intel, one of the biggest companies in the world, yes Anita *is* feminism.

Is literally from your last post. I already said, all of the people who slung death threats, and slung their abuse MADE Anita. They DID that. They did it to themselves by making a big fuss about someone, and enough people in the world decided that the fuss made about that person was unfounded or cruel or could make them money. So now she's famous and gets attention. I'm not going to be talking anymore about Anita, it's already gone on quite far enough considering that the initiating post that featured her name was meant to keep her OUT of the conversation.

[Heroine Addict]

And seeing as this site shows up prominently in Google search results, there's a fairly good chance she'll see this discussion while running searches for her own name. Having said that, it would be naive to think the genre and this forum have somehow escaped the attention of the activists.

Why hasn’t this community been targeted very much? My own theory is that it’s such a small market that widespread analysis and discussion would give producers a huge sales spike in the short term. (Even if the activists succeed in getting a ban in the long term.) So there’s concern about inadvertently exacerbating the “problem”.

But let's imagine for a moment that activists do start "analyzing" this place. The ideological position of some members that women have a perceived unfair advantage in the comics industry and network television would almost certainly be linked to the more extreme peril content. So the narrative would be that we're a bunch of inadequate misogynists who can't cope with women's position in the modern world and use the peril genre to realize our revenge fantasies. That may well be an unfair conclusion to reach, but that's exactly how it would go down.

While some may cry "straw man" at the very suggestion, the palpable bitterness and anger at women getting something as meagerly advantageous as an all-girl comic book (in a field which remains a sausagefest) makes the fantasy perils we enjoy much harder to defend.

[shevek]

Heroine Addict: Glad to see that you see the logic on "how exactly it would go down"..and why we (including Viridian) shouldn't be buying into SJW publicity-hogs like Sarkeesian, Lacey, Francesca and their ilk.

Two videos contrasting how Sarkeesian actually does little to nothing for women anywhere, contrasting with a cause actually intending to really help oppressed women. Do I watch Sargon and Amazing Atheist? Yes I do, a bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3F_wlbjJik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g-zpc-QQCM

Expert cosplayer, game industry veteran and reasonable feminist Liana K takes apart Anita's always overblown claims. She's one of many women in gaming and media who don't agree with Sarkeesian's findings in the slightest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaP6A6Sdg7E

I'm done in this thread. If necessary, we can perhaps agree to disagree.

[Mr. X]

I would say Sarkeesian is extremely myopic in her so called cause. Video game characters are hardly a concern for anyone. When I see her and Zoe Quinn in front of the UN or congress it scares me cause government loves nothing more than to come in and regulate the crap out of things.

So that's why SJWs make me nervous because like minded people as them get government jobs and are more likely to then exercise gov power. Then everything is ruined.

But yes lets have "safe spaces" for minorities... away from whites. Like... oh... their own drinking fountains and buses and park benches and.... gee didn't we already do this?

[Femina]

But yes lets have "safe spaces" for minorities... away from whites. Like... oh... their own drinking fountains and buses and park benches and.... gee didn't we already do this?

That's what makes it all the more important that we see interracial and intersex equality though don't you think? The more universally acknowledged everyone is the LESS segregation or 'safe spaces' will even be necessary to the people who think they want them. Certainly The Ultimate Superheroine Forum, for instance, feels like a safe place for us to sit and chat about heroine peril, but if we could suddenly blip to a world where it didn't HAVE to be in a safe space, how many of us would want to? How many of us would? How many of us wouldn't?

TRUE Feminism, TRUE calls for equality mean exactly that, a call for equality. Very often demands for equality spike out of control when someone gets a taste of 'getting what they wanted' and mistakes that for 'I can just ASK FOR THINGS!!!!' No cause is perfect because we're human beings. No one on earth will ever be 'over' racism, or over 'sexism' or over any kind of prejudice until it becomes so commonplace that no one even notices (such as how dark skinned people in Europe are simply 'European' like everyone else) Humanity works slowly. Two steps forward, one step back. Two steps forward, two steps back. Two steps forward, one step back, *pastern continues. That doesn't mean that people should stop calling for advancement or equality. It doesn't mean people don't DESERVE equality. There will always be a future for White Ethnic Oriented Fiction in a Rapidly Wide Spreading Multimodel Reflection Sorting Environment, for as long as white people feel ethnically white, and separate, from everybody else (and vice versa)

[Mr. X]

That's what makes it all the more important that we see interracial and intersex equality though don't you think? The more universally acknowledged everyone is the LESS segregation or 'safe spaces' will even be necessary to the people who think they want them. Certainly The Ultimate Superheroine Forum, for instance, feels like a safe place for us to sit and chat about heroine peril, but if we could suddenly blip to a world where it didn't HAVE to be in a safe space, how many of us would want to? How many of us would? How many of us wouldn't?

That is solved by each person having the freedom to do as they please and cater to whom they please. I don't care if the private sector does this. I care if the government does this. The term "safe space" to me means some use of gov force to attain that.

My only addition to this is if you think Groups A,B,C should be allowed safe spaces then every group should. In other words accept it when you're excluded.

People are not going to practice rampant racism or discrimination. They could do that now real easily if they want to. Curves gets away with excluding men because its a club you join. Humans are not inherently like that.

So what you'll get are edge cases only and if those people want to exclude, then so be it but they have to accept that others may exclude them.

But there is no acceptable outcome where group A has to include everyone and groups B thru Z can exclude anyone they wish. That's hypocrisy.

Yes its a good idea to include people. what's a good idea and what is forced on people are two different things.

[Femina]

That's what makes it all the more important that we see interracial and intersex equality though don't you think? The more universally acknowledged everyone is the LESS segregation or 'safe spaces' will even be necessary to the people who think they want them. Certainly The Ultimate Superheroine Forum, for instance, feels like a safe place for us to sit and chat about heroine peril, but if we could suddenly blip to a world where it didn't HAVE to be in a safe space, how many of us would want to? How many of us would? How many of us wouldn't?

That is solved by each person having the freedom to do as they please and cater to whom they please. I don't care if the private sector does this. I care if the government does this. The term "safe space" to me means some use of gov force to attain that.

No it is not 'solved' by this. Each person having the freedom to do as they please is called anarchy, and its a system that resulted in ages and ages of bloodshed, war and violence. Yeah government sanctions are always more sever than private sector, but certain things REQUIRE regulation and repercussion to discourage. That doesn't have a lot to do with ethnic representation though, except that if everyone had the freedom to refuse service to everyone, it'd be harder for non white ethnicity to shop for food.

My only addition to this is if you think Groups A,B,C should be allowed safe spaces then every group should. In other words accept it when you're excluded.

Please re-read my last post, I'm actually saying the opposite. 'Safe spaces' are only what people think they want, because it makes them feel safe, but doesn't solve the problem. Representation in comic books and entertainment however, do NOT qualify as 'safe spaces' they qualify as representation.

People are not going to practice rampant racism or discrimination. They could do that now real easily if they want to. Curves gets away with excluding men because its a club you join. Humans are not inherently like that.

People DO practice rampant racism and discrimination. All the time. It IS easy to do, but it happens less and less often as there are actual consequences to it now if it can be proven. There's a catch 22 here in that it CAN result in 'the card' being pulled by whatever oppressed entities, but progress never comes without some backlash.

So what you'll get are edge cases only and if those people want to exclude, then so be it but they have to accept that others may exclude them.

But there is no acceptable outcome where group A has to include everyone and groups B thru Z can exclude anyone they wish. That's hypocrisy.

Yes its a good idea to include people. what's a good idea and what is forced on people are two different things.

Yeah but how many people are actually FORCING you or anyone else to do anything based on your ethnicity or sex? Has anyone shoved something in your hands recently and said 'you owe me this much, have it by Tuesday or you go to jail!' Group A can still buy mountains of content for group A that caters to them and ALREADY excludes B through Z. The only difference in the arguing between group A and groups B through Z, is that group A argues very very strongly that B through Z are ungrateful maggots who aren't entitled to anything. Group A does all of this from on top of their mountain of content and representation, making their argument drone downward from Privilege Mountain at the poor pitiful beggars who are circling around the bottom of the hill, and then to make it all the worse, group A still likes crying foul and that it is proof of hypocrisy or racism or sexism etc. when one of group b through z makes something for themselves. Empathy, in this situation, is important, because as 'dangerous' as any of Group A may find Group B through Z's actions to be, Group A comes off as little more than the droning complaints of a privileged people. None of the comic books being written for Groups B through Z HURT group A, and none of them are being made 'just because *insert activist cause.* no matter how much group A wants that to be true. Things are being made for groups B through Z because *insert activist cause* made it loud and clear that they exist and are WILLING to buy things that cater to them.

Really its as simple as this. Group A likes their mountain. They should, it's a beautiful and time tested mountain, but Group A is also frightened of other mountains, when they have basically no reason to be, because those other mountains are of little threat to them, and in MOST CASES have no interest in threatening them. If Group A would relax, the arguing would basically stop entirely, because I sure as hell would not have started a topic named "The Future of White Ethinic Oriented Fiction in a Rapidly Wide Spreading MultiModal Reflection Sorting Environment" The title and author was fishing for this, and has no right to bemoan the resistance that it attracts.

[Mr. X]

No it is not 'solved' by this. Each person having the freedom to do as they please is called anarchy, and its a system that resulted in ages and ages of bloodshed, war and violence. Yeah government sanctions are always more sever than private sector, but certain things REQUIRE regulation and repercussion to discourage. That doesn't have a lot to do with ethnic representation though, except that if everyone had the freedom to refuse service to everyone, it'd be harder for non white ethnicity to shop for food.

No actually it does not. You practice anarchy every day when you trade money for coffee. People don't murder cause a law says don't murder. People do not murder because they are not murderers. Only a tiny minority murder.

Its solved in that people can do as they please without force. ONLY force is the issue.

But by all means you present me with the worst example you can of anarchy and I'll top it in orders of magnitude of severity caused by government. I'll even be more fair and not even mention Stalin, Mao or Hitler. Democide alone is responsible for over half a BILLION deaths in the 20th century. Yes I will take freedom of association any day. It may not be perfect but its far better than forced integration or forced segregation. The vast majority of racism in the south was due to governments forcing people to disassociate. Zoning towns with black and white zones for example.

Please re-read my last post, I'm actually saying the opposite. 'Safe spaces' are only what people think they want, because it makes them feel safe, but doesn't solve the problem. Representation in comic books and entertainment however, do NOT qualify as 'safe spaces' they qualify as representation.

Ok but if people want to represent then they are free to do so. They should not be FORCED to do so under duress. Its OK to ask for representation and maybe it IS a good idea but that should be through free exchange not through force. I have no issue with a Telemundo or BET TV or ION Tv. Just allow EVERYONE to have their own TV networks. The point is its dishonest to rant about non-represntation, then have say a TV network for Hispanics like Telemundo, then scream racism if whites have a TV network for just whites. If you accept for example there can be special interest TV networks like ION for LGBT or women's network like WE or Oxygen then don't scream racism when whites have a network for whites. In fact why can't whites have stuff for themselves? And please don't say "cause the default is all white" cause that just a fallacy and incorrect. Where's white history month... and NO history is not by default, white.

People DO practice rampant racism and discrimination. All the time. It IS easy to do, but it happens less and less often as there are actual consequences to it now if it can be proven. There's a catch 22 here in that it CAN result in 'the card' being pulled by whatever oppressed entities, but progress never comes without some backlash.

Government cannot prevent racism. It can only practice it. People don't practice racism because they aren't racists, not cause some law tells them not to. Racism will never go away. But what needs to be stopped is government racism which is what the CRA did. No more Huey Long standing on school steps with a baseball bat saying no black children will get into publically funded high schools. Its not for telling me who I will or won't do business with. The vast majority of institutional racism was from government and from labor unions protecting white jobs.

The government can never make you like or not like someone. Its can only destroy.

Yeah but how many people are actually FORCING you or anyone else to do anything based on your ethnicity or sex? Has anyone shoved something in your hands recently and said 'you owe me this much, have it by Tuesday or you go to jail!'

What is affirmative action?

No, no one forces me directly. Constant pestering yes. So my argument to them is if you want your special things accept others do as well. My message to them is also quit thinking one group is a public utility that must provide for everyone else. I do not OWE diversity anymore than the Japanese OWE diversity in Japan.

Really its as simple as this. Group A likes their mountain. They should, it's a beautiful and time tested mountain, but Group A is also frightened of other mountains, when they have basically no reason to be, because those other mountains are of little threat to them, and in MOST CASES have no interest in threatening them.

Given this analogy other mountains then should understand that Group A does NOT owe them a part of their mountain unless they are willing to reciprocate in kind. If I build a house I don't owe you 50% cause you showed up and whined.

[Heroine Addict]

If I build a house I don't owe you 50% cause you showed up and whined.

Except you don't own the house. (If the house is Marvel or DC in this analogy.) You've just been paying a fraction of the rent on it for a long time.

The landlord (Disney or WB) has no obligation to honor the furnishings and decor favored by past tenants out of some sense of tradition. The only thing that matters is who's paying the rent on the house now. And, as 47% of the current tenants are women (it's a big house), they have a considerable say in the current furnishings and decor.

[tallyho]

Its ok, with that many women, they will never agree on the wallpaper.

[Mr. X]

If I build a house I don't owe you 50% cause you showed up and whined.

The landlord (Disney or WB) has no obligation to honor the furnishings and decor favored by past tenants out of some sense of tradition. The only thing that matters is who's paying the rent on the house now. And, as 47% of the current tenants are women (it's a big house), they have a considerable say in the current furnishings and decor.

EXACTLY! DING DING DING! Now you get it. Disney can do AS THEY LIKE. And they are NOT obligated to provide to any group.

My argument is WHY complain there is no representation for women in comics geared for men or with mostly male characters in them but NOT complain when a comic is ALL female with NO males on the team and even celebrates its a "feminist paradise". All I am asking for is integrity in complaints and to apply the standards universally. If this cannot be done then the complaint is hardly rational. Either one accepts one can do as they like or you apply the rules fairly. You can complain but then people can complain about other material as wel... like an all female team not having males.

But there is no rational outcome of "women can exclude anyone and you can't complain but women can demand 50% representation in anything men make."

If women can have women only titles then men can have male only titles. Accept the same set of rules and expectations.

[Heroine Addict]

EXACTLY! DING DING DING! Now you get it. Disney can do AS THEY LIKE. And they are NOT obligated to provide to any group.

They are obligated to do right by their shareholders. And that means making whatever creative decisions are deemed to be best for the long-term survival of the business.

All I am asking for is integrity in complaints and to apply the standards universally. If this cannot be done then the complaint is hardly rational. Either one accepts one can do as they like or you apply the rules fairly.

You keep talking about "rules". Where exactly are you getting the notion that Marvel has to follow "rules" beyond those set out in law?

Marvel is a business.

But there is no rational outcome of "women can exclude anyone and you can't complain but women can demand 50% representation in anything men make."

If women are demanding 50%, they're obviously not receiving it.

My argument is WHY complain there is no representation in comics geared for men or with mostly male characters in them but NOT complain when a comic is ALL female with NO males on the team and even celebrates its a "feminist paradise".

If women can have women only titles then men can have male only titles. Accept the same set of rules and expectations.

Only the mini-series version of A-Force was set in the "feminist paradise" of Arcadia. The regular series is set in the main Marvel universe with male and female characters. It's only the group itself that's all-female.

There was an all-male Illuminati mini-series fairly recently. Are you assuming it didn't get a regular title purely due to sexism against men?

Do you actually want more all-male titles from Marvel? If so, ask for them.

[Bert]

Its ok, with that many women, they will never agree on the wallpaper.

Much like Oscar Wilde!

[Mr. X]

They are obligated to do right by their shareholders. And that means making whatever creative decisions are deemed to be best for the long-term survival of the business.

Yes we are in agreement. They are not obligated to provide in the name of social justice. They can do as they like.

You keep talking about "rules". Where exactly are you getting the notion that Marvel has to follow "rules" beyond those set out in law?

If you complain about not enough women in a marvel comic can other complain about not enough men in a comic intentionally published for females? Can Marvel make a comic intentionally published for men. I know you understand this and you're intentionally avoiding the question. When you apply a standard do you apply it universally and treat all groups the same. I have repeatedly asked this time and time and time again and you repeatedly reply with a strawman or rosy path or irrelevant response. Its a very very simple question. Do you understand integrity?

if the rules are different for each group then explain WHY and explain how anyone can have a conversation about fairness if each group has its own rules?

If women are demanding 50%, they're obviously not receiving it.

And SO WHAT. Is there some expectation they should? Can you PROVE 50% of the market for comics are women? As you said, Marvel is a business just like romance novels are a business. Are romance novel writers OBLIGATED to make 50% of their inventory for male readers when there are so few male readers? In fact where is the demand for the romance novel industry to include 50% male readers? Shouldn't someone demanding 50% female representation in comics then support 50% male representation in romance novels? That's integrity is it not.

Only the mini-series version of A-Force was set in the "feminist paradise" of Arcadia. The regular series is set in the main Marvel universe with male and female characters. It's only the group itself that's all-female.

Ok should equity be demanded from this all female team EXACTLY the same as demanded from mostly male teams like Avengers and Justice League? Do the people complaining apply that complaint universally and have the same expectation of all? if not then why is that expectation ONLY for men and not for women?

There was an all-male Illuminati mini-series fairly regularly. Are you assuming it didn't get a regular title purely due to sexism against men?

Did it get complaints there were no women?

Do you actually want more all-male titles from Marvel? If so, ask for them.

No what I want is the people who complain to have some integrity.

[Heroine Addict]

Yes we are in agreement. They are not obligated to provide in the name of social justice. They can do as they like.

Except you don't like it when they listen to the "wrong" customers. So you obviously don't think they can do as they like.

If you complain about not enough women in a marvel comic can other complain about not enough men in a comic intentionally published for females?

You're welcome to complain. Fill your boots. But, as nobody on here is known to be a Marvel employee, complaints on here won't reach anyone who can act upon them.

Can Marvel make a comic intentionally published for men.

They can make a title for any group they like. (Within the law, obviously.)

I know you understand this and you're intentionally avoiding the question. When you apply a standard do you apply it universally and treat all groups the same. I have repeatedly asked this time and time and time again and you repeatedly reply with a strawman or rosy path or irrelevant response. Its a very very simple question. Do you understand integrity?

I've answered clearly that Marvel can do what they like. Many times. You're the only person invoking imaginary "rules".

if the rules are different for each group then explain WHY and explain how anyone can have a conversation about fairness if each group has its own rules?

WHAT RULES? SEND ME THE DAMN RULEBOOK!

And SO WHAT. Is there some expectation they should? Can you PROVE 50% of the market for comics are women?

Research on shows women account for just under 47% of the market.
http://www.comicsbeat.com/market-resear ... omic-fans/

As you said, Marvel is a business just like romance novels are a business. Are romance novel writers OBLIGATED to make 50% of their inventory for male readers when there are so few male readers? In fact where is the demand for the romance novel industry to include 50% male readers? Shouldn't someone demanding 50% female representation in comics then support 50% male representation in romance novels? That's integrity is it not.

Romance novels have evolved to meet the marketplace. Just like every other genre. If a lot of men start buying them, then publishers will clearly respond to that.

Ok should equity be demanded from this all female team EXACTLY the same as demanded from mostly male teams like Avengers and Justice League? Do the people complaining apply that complaint universally and have the same expectation of all? if not then why is that expectation ONLY for men and not for women?

Did it [Illuminati] get complaints there were no women?

I haven't seen any. As you're the one claiming that women make such demands, the onus is entirely upon you to provide the evidence.

As it is, you're conflating a general complaint about the under-representation of women across the industry with your own very specific complaint about under-representation of men one title. The two things are clearly not the same

[Mr. X]

Except you don't like it when they listen to the "wrong" customers. So you obviously don't think they can do as they like.

Wow! You are so arguing something else I don't even think we're in the same room let along the same page. I think you're too busy disagree to see the argument.

You're welcome to complain. Fill your boots. But, as nobody on here is known to be a Marvel employee, complaints on here won't reach anyone who can act upon them.

yeah so what? Another strawman?

They can make a title for any group they like. (Within the law, obviously.)

Glad we agree.

I've answered clearly that Marvel can do what they like. Many times. You're the only person invoking imaginary "rules".

Then marvel can make any type of title they wish and if you accept they can make an all female title then you accept they can make an all male title. Glad we agree.

WHAT RULES? SEND ME THE DAMN RULEBOOK!

for the 10th time ad nausium.

"If you complain that male groups do not have female representation then you should at least hold that same standard for female groups that does not have male members"

Is that CLEAR enough for you? Or do you want to play this game some more?

Do you hold your standards UNIVERSALLY or just for certain groups?

Ok then please WHAT rule book. I throw this RIGHT back at you. WHY must men include women? Where is it written down? Why must all groups get equal representation? Other than some sales figures what reason? How are they obligated?

You bitched last post women are NOT equally represented. OK WHY must they be equally represented? WHY? What rule. Show me they rule.

Research on shows women account for just under 47% of the market.
http://www.comicsbeat.com/market-resear ... omic-fans/

Ok so why must content made to appeal to men be altered to appeal to women? why can't women just have content that appeals to them? I can see both men and women then having content that appeals to each other. What I don't understand is why the male content must please women. By all means Marvel can go out and seize the female audience. Make new characters. Changing Thor into a woman is not making new characters. That's taking someones old skid stained blue jeans and giving it to someone else. Its condescending to women.

Romance novels have evolved to meet the marketplace. Just like every other genre. If a lot of men start buying them, then publishers will clearly respond to that.

But that is NOT what the comic diversity complaints are about. They are NOT merely to meet the market. They are demands for QUOTAS. Where's the quota demands for romance novels. So we're back to if an industry caters to mostly women they are not obligated to cater to men BUT an industry that in the past catered to mostly men MUST include everyone else. Did the comic industry get more women cause they catered to more women? If so would the romance novel industry get more men if they catered to more men? Why expect the comic industry to expand to cater to women but not expect the romance novel industry to expand to cater to men? How is that integrity? Why do you have one set of standards for comics than romance novels and OOPS what a coincidence, comics were male dominated and romance novels are female dominated. What a wonderful, magical coincidence. So please weasel up a special exception. Again there's always an "out" that maintains this lack of integrity isn't there?

As you're the one claiming that women make such demands, the onus is entirely upon you to provide the evidence.

Wow. So you really are saying NO ONE is complaining there is no diversity of women in comics? Ok fine by me. Nothing to see here. Move along. No complaint. Alls well.

As it is you're conflating a general complaint about the under-representation of women across the industry with your own very specific complaint about under-representation of men one title. The two things are clearly not the same

WHOA! You just asked me to PROVE that there are complaints of under representation of women in comics and here you just STATED there is an under representation of women in comics. You just answered your own question.

Ok why is under representation bad? So what. Why must there be 50%? For example LGBT are only 1.5% of the total population according to the census. Maybe 5%. So why must they even be considered for equal representation? Shouldn't they be only 1.5% of the total? Plenty of areas with disproportionate representation. More black basketball players. More romance novels for women.

And you haven't proven there is lack of female representation in comics or there's anything wrong with that. Again you seem to have no issue with a comic made with a solely all female team. Why don't you demand equity out of that? Where are the male team members? Or again are you going to conflate some explanation about why its different for men than women.


BTW if you use this "its the market" explanation and Marvel was just catering to markets then clearly there is no "plot" by men to exclude women. Marvel merely catered to what used to be a mostly male audience. Unless you'd like to prove that men conspire and women do not.

[Heroine Addict]

Here's some stuff about representation for you to dismiss:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wom ... mic-books/

Why must there be 50%? For example LGBT are only 1.5% of the total population according to the census. Maybe 5%. So why must they even be considered for equal representation?

I'm not sure any campaigner in history has ever called for 50% representation of LGBT. And if you can find one who has called for that, they're clearly insane. That is a frankly surreal claim worthy of FallOutDweller.

I suspect you have massively misunderstood what equality means in the context of LGBT.

for the 10th time ad nausium.

"If you complain that male groups do not have female representation then you should at least hold that same standard for female groups that does not have male members"

Is that CLEAR enough for you? Or do you want to play this game some more?

Do you hold your standards UNIVERSALLY or just for certain groups?for the 10th time ad nausium.

Ah, it's that first part of the question where you're constructing the straw man.
"If you complain that male groups do not have female representation..."
I don't complain that male groups do not have female representation. I'm saying that women are under-represented across the genre.

I am applying the standard universally. Sorry, that's UNIVERSALLY in extra-shouty caps. I would like to see as many superheroines as there are superheroes.

I like superheroines, you see. I know it's weird.

[Mr. X]

Here's some stuff about representation for you to dismiss:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wom ... mic-books/

Ok so are arguing if the comic audience is 47% female then there should be something like 47% female comic book characters? is this the case? Is this the rule?

I'm not sure any campaigner in history has ever called for 50% representation of LGBT. And if you can find one who has called for that, they're clearly insane. That is a frankly surreal claim worthy of FallOutDweller.

You miss read me. Might be bad typing. No I said if LGBT are 1.5% then only 1.5% of comics characters should be LGBT according to the rule of equally representing audiences.

Ah, it's that first part of the question where you're constructing the straw man.
"If you complain that male groups do not have female representation..."
I don't complain that male groups do not have female representation. I'm saying that women are under-represented across the genre.

So what. Men are under represented in that Aforce title. Men are under represented in romance novels. Do you cry about that?

I am applying the standard universally. Sorry, that's UNIVERSALLY in extra-shouty caps. I would like to see as many superheroines as there are superheroes.

YOU"D like to? So then its just your preference to see that. So again you're stating the rule is if comics are 47% female that 47% or so of comic characters should be female? Is this correct?

Why do you assume female readers want more female characters? That doesn't apply in other areas. The vast majority of customers are females yet romance novels are just 95% females and only 5% men.

The TV show Supernatural has around an 80% female fan base. Should 80% of the regular characters be female instead of 4 guys? So there should be 16 regular females on that show according to the rule of equal audience representation? Why do women like a show that doesn't have women as the regulars on the show?

Comic book sales

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2015.html

Top 20 for 2015

1 Star Wars† 1 $4.99 Marvel 1,073,027
2 Secret Wars 1 $4.99 Marvel 550,467
3 Bravest Warriors Tales Holo John† 1 $4.99 Boom 502,964
4 Orphan Black† 1 $3.99 IDW 502,023
5 Dark Knight III Master Race 1 $5.99 DC 449,099
6 Star Wars Vader Down 1 $4.99 Marvel 410,620
7 Darth Vader 1 $4.99 Marvel 315,578
8 Spider-Gwen 1 $3.99 Marvel 288,648
9 Invincible Iron Man 1 $3.99 Marvel 282,432
10 Princess Leia 1 $3.99 Marvel 271,019
11 Deadpool 1 $4.99 Marvel 261,805
12 Amazing Spider-Man 1 $5.99 Marvel 247,633
13 Secret Wars 2 $4.99 Marvel 234,017
14 Secret Wars 3 $3.99 Marvel 230,028
15 Secret Wars 4 $3.99 Marvel 227,284
16 Star Wars 2 $3.99 Marvel 219,689
17 Star Wars 4 $3.99 Marvel 216,325
18 Star Wars: Shattered Empire 1 $3.99 Marvel 215,191
19 Secret Wars 5 $3.99 Marvel 207,173
20 Amazing Spider-Man Renew Your Vows 1 $3.99 Marvel 206,499

Why aren't 47% of these female comic characters? Only spider gwen and princess leia and orphan black.
Whay aren't women buying 47% female titles?

http://comicvine.gamespot.com/articles/ ... 00-153537/
Top 10

Where are the female titles? Wonder Woman? Power Girl? Where are those female titles being bought?

Why do you assume women WANT female characters?

[Heroine Addict]

Ok so are arguing if the comic audience is 47% female then there should be something like 47% female comic book characters? is this the case? Is this the rule?

No, I'd say around 50%, in line with the general population. Unless there's some compelling reason why more men are born with superpowers or have accidents that give them super powers?

You miss read me. Might be bad typing. No I said if LGBT are 1.5% then only 1.5% of comics characters should be LGBT according to the rule of equally representing audiences.

No, you clearly said: "Why must there be 50%? For example LGBT are only 1.5% of the total population according to the census. Maybe 5%. So why must they even be considered for equal representation?"

Only one way to interpret that. Unless you made one Hell of a typo which involved using completely wrong words?

So what. Men are under represented in that Aforce title. Men are under represented in romance novels. Do you cry about that?

Men are under-represented in romance novels? Have lesbians taken their place or something?

Why get hung-up on individual titles when the disparity is across the industry? You'll never find a representative sample in small groups, so it makes more sense to look at the overall bias.

YOU"D like to? So then its just your preference to see that. So again you're stating the rule is if comics are 47% female that 47% or so of comic characters should be female? Is this correct?

50-ish%, as in the general population.

Why do you assume female readers want more female characters? That doesn't apply in other areas. The vast majority of customers are females yet romance novels are just 95% females and only 5% men.

The TV show Supernatural has around an 80% female fan base. Should 80% of the regular characters be female instead of 4 guys? So there should be 16 regular females on that show according to the rule of equal audience representation? Why do women like a show that doesn't have women as the regulars on the show?

What fresh nonsense is this? Literally nobody is calling for that!

If all the shows in that genre had all-male regular casts or all-female, then there would be a problem.

Comic book sales

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2015.html

Top 20 for 2015

1 Star Wars† 1 $4.99 Marvel 1,073,027
2 Secret Wars 1 $4.99 Marvel 550,467
3 Bravest Warriors Tales Holo John† 1 $4.99 Boom 502,964
4 Orphan Black† 1 $3.99 IDW 502,023
5 Dark Knight III Master Race 1 $5.99 DC 449,099
6 Star Wars Vader Down 1 $4.99 Marvel 410,620
7 Darth Vader 1 $4.99 Marvel 315,578
8 Spider-Gwen 1 $3.99 Marvel 288,648
9 Invincible Iron Man 1 $3.99 Marvel 282,432
10 Princess Leia 1 $3.99 Marvel 271,019
11 Deadpool 1 $4.99 Marvel 261,805
12 Amazing Spider-Man 1 $5.99 Marvel 247,633
13 Secret Wars 2 $4.99 Marvel 234,017
14 Secret Wars 3 $3.99 Marvel 230,028
15 Secret Wars 4 $3.99 Marvel 227,284
16 Star Wars 2 $3.99 Marvel 219,689
17 Star Wars 4 $3.99 Marvel 216,325
18 Star Wars: Shattered Empire 1 $3.99 Marvel 215,191
19 Secret Wars 5 $3.99 Marvel 207,173
20 Amazing Spider-Man Renew Your Vows 1 $3.99 Marvel 206,499

Why aren't 47% of these female comic characters? Only spider gwen and princess leia and orphan black.
Whay aren't women buying 47% female titles?

http://comicvine.gamespot.com/articles/ ... 00-153537/
Top 10

Where are the female titles? Wonder Woman? Power Girl? Where are those female titles being bought?

Why do you assume women WANT female characters?

Most of those are ensemble titles.

[Femina]

No actually it does not. You practice anarchy every day when you trade money for coffee. People don't murder cause a law says don't murder. People do not murder because they are not murderers. Only a tiny minority murder.

Oh. My. God. I do NOT practice anarchy when I purchase coffee with money. That's an Organized monetery exchange. Anarchy would be if I Beat the man to death and took the coffee for free, because 'whatever! why the F%*k not!'

Its solved in that people can do as they please without force. ONLY force is the issue.

You live in a dream world if you honestly believe this. People free to do as they please one hundred percent of the time will always always always degenerate into chaos. It could probably work in a small community, where everybody got along fine (nobody gets along fine 100% of the time) but it would never never never work for the population of a country.

But by all means you present me with the worst example you can of anarchy and I'll top it in orders of magnitude of severity caused by government. I'll even be more fair and not even mention Stalin, Mao or Hitler. Democide alone is responsible for over half a BILLION deaths in the 20th century. Yes I will take freedom of association any day. It may not be perfect but its far better than forced integration or forced segregation. The vast majority of racism in the south was due to governments forcing people to disassociate. Zoning towns with black and white zones for example.

Stalin, Mao and Hitler weren't democracies, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of representation, except perhaps to represent the furthest extremes of allowing organized racism to run rampant. So you're answer to this then is to just stay out of it. Well we did that when the United States was young, and we practiced slavery in our great nation of the free. It took a government action and a WAR to stop.

No, 'everyone do whatever' is indeed NOT perfect. You're right, integration shouldn't have to be forced, but we've proven as a race our inability to treat other races like human beings when left to our own devices (See 'Slavery' again, for example) Nobody is rolling around counting white heads and black heads and then turning to whites saying 'precisely 47% of you will die' there IS NO SUCH GOVERNMENT AGENDA, and god willing there never will be, but the call for racism to stop is not moving in any way towards forced integration. Every American today was born into an integrated society, if half of us chose to be racist WITHIN in, that's entirely their own retarded choice. They should have tried harder not to be an asshole.

Ok but if people want to represent then they are free to do so. They should not be FORCED to do so under duress. Its OK to ask for representation and maybe it IS a good idea but that should be through free exchange not through force. I have no issue with a Telemundo or BET TV or ION Tv. Just allow EVERYONE to have their own TV networks. The point is its dishonest to rant about non-represntation, then have say a TV network for Hispanics like Telemundo, then scream racism if whites have a TV network for just whites. If you accept for example there can be special interest TV networks like ION for LGBT or women's network like WE or Oxygen then don't scream racism when whites have a network for whites. In fact why can't whites have stuff for themselves? And please don't say "cause the default is all white" cause that just a fallacy and incorrect. Where's white history month... and NO history is not by default, white.

We are talking in circles. No one IS forced to represent under duress. Public opinion, revenue, and charity are basically the sole governing forces behind the surge of all anti-segregation acts. I agree that Black History Month is retarded. It's a glorification of segregation and nobody involved seems to get that through their heads. But White history month is basically every day. The reason we don't have one even in this imperfect world is, as I said in a post ages and ages ago, because the seesaw is already overbalanced in our favor. Jesus, do we really want to add more weight to the damn thing with a WHITE history month? They'd just play the same stupid history channel shows they show every day anyway!

Government cannot prevent racism. It can only practice it. People don't practice racism because they aren't racists, not cause some law tells them not to. Racism will never go away. But what needs to be stopped is government racism which is what the CRA did. No more Huey Long standing on school steps with a baseball bat saying no black children will get into publically funded high schools. Its not for telling me who I will or won't do business with. The vast majority of institutional racism was from government and from labor unions protecting white jobs.

The government can never make you like or not like someone. Its can only destroy.

I agree with almost all of this. Nothing to add except that 'governments can ONLY destroy' is just factually wrong.

No, no one forces me directly. Constant pestering yes. So my argument to them is if you want your special things accept others do as well. My message to them is also quit thinking one group is a public utility that must provide for everyone else. I do not OWE diversity anymore than the Japanese OWE diversity in Japan.

Well ignore them then! If that's what you want to do, but turning around and complaining that people are hypocrites for complaining is 100% hypocrisy. Sometimes, complaining gets shit done. That's why people complain, and that's why YOU complain.

Given this analogy other mountains then should understand that Group A does NOT owe them a part of their mountain unless they are willing to reciprocate in kind. If I build a house I don't owe you 50% cause you showed up and whined.

No, but a little empathy from atop the high horse can greatly reduce the oppressed's ire. Group A doesn't HAVE to shout 'Whiners!' downhill every time the other groups sigh. That's just them being shitheads.

[Femina]

Is there no way to delete our own posts?

[Mr. X]

No, but a little empathy from atop the high horse can greatly reduce the oppressed's ire. Group A doesn't HAVE to shout 'Whiners!' downhill every time the other groups sigh. That's just them being shitheads.

There is no group A on a hill.

[Heroine Addict]

Is there no way to delete our own posts?

You can do up until someone replies. (Too late now as Mr X already replied.)

It's the little X in the top-right of the actual post. It disappears when someone else posts.

[Femina]

No, but a little empathy from atop the high horse can greatly reduce the oppressed's ire. Group A doesn't HAVE to shout 'Whiners!' downhill every time the other groups sigh. That's just them being shitheads.

There is no group A on a hill.

Group A on a hill in America in this instance is White Americans Mr. X, and to pretend as though you don't have thousands upon thousands upon thousands of media and entertainment products provided with our interests at heart, and a severe imbalance toward other races in general is just a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the facts.

But it is nice to know that you will attempt to make your argument on the analogy until you decide you don't wish to anymore, and then disregard it entirely. It's all the evidence in the world I needed to brush you off as a lost cause.

[Mr. X]

Oh. My. God. I do NOT practice anarchy when I purchase coffee with money. That's an Organized monetery exchange. Anarchy would be if I Beat the man to death and took the coffee for free, because 'whatever! why the F%*k not!'

No that is voluntary mutual exchange. No authority necessary. You seem to think anarchy is road warrior which its not. When you voluntarily exchange goods and services you are doing so without authority.

You live in a dream world if you honestly believe this. People free to do as they please one hundred percent of the time will always always always degenerate into chaos. It could probably work in a small community, where everybody got along fine (nobody gets along fine 100% of the time) but it would never never never work for the population of a country.

Really? Show an example. Show an example of people free to act without authority degenerating into chaos. Look up Somalia. When Baree's regime collapsed all the UN indicators got BETTER, not worse. Its you ignoring history. If humans will devolve into brutal savages without authority then no authority could ever be established. This is called Hobbes's paradox. A small authority cannot keep a vast majority of evil people in line. Impossible.

People don't murder cause they are not murderers and not cause a law tells them not to. No fear of a gun. If that's all it is then everyone would be murdered.

And if people are like this then you cannot form a government to manage them because that government would be composed of inherently evil people with a monopoly on the use of force.

Stalin, Mao and Hitler weren't democracies, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of representation, except perhaps to represent the furthest extremes of allowing organized racism to run rampant. So you're answer to this then is to just stay out of it. Well we did that when the United States was young, and we practiced slavery in our great nation of the free. It took a government action and a WAR to stop.

They are still examples of authority. So how's N. Korea working out. Actually the civil war was unnecessary. Slavery was already on the way out. Only a small minority actually practiced it. Labor and automation was making it obsolete. But tell you what. I will limit my challenge to JUST the United States. So you name the WORST thing to happen under anarchy and I'll top it with atrocities committed by the US gov. BTW the US gov also allowed and supported slavery. If it had done its job and not provide troops to capture slaves then slavery would have been illegal and all practicers would have been arrested.

No, 'everyone do whatever' is indeed NOT perfect. You're right, integration shouldn't have to be forced, but we've proven as a race our inability to treat other races like human beings when left to our own devices (See 'Slavery' again, for example) Nobody is rolling around counting white heads and black heads and then turning to whites saying 'precisely 47% of you will die' there IS NO SUCH GOVERNMENT AGENDA, and god willing there never will be, but the call for racism to stop is not moving in any way towards forced integration. Every American today was born into an integrated society, if half of us chose to be racist WITHIN in, that's entirely their own retarded choice. They should have tried harder not to be an asshole.

As a race? Sorry don't include me in that. And actually we've proven we are less racist. Everyone is. And no, the common man will not resort to slavery. Slavery only occurs when governments uphold it. Otherwise people would practice self defense and kill their slavers.

Since half of americans won't be racist your argument is absurd. Assuming the common man is racist means any government created would be racist since its composed of those people. Hobbes's paradox.

We are talking in circles. No one IS forced to represent under duress. Public opinion, revenue, and charity are basically the sole governing forces behind the surge of all anti-segregation acts. I agree that Black History Month is retarded. It's a glorification of segregation and nobody involved seems to get that through their heads. But White history month is basically every day. The reason we don't have one even in a perfect world is, as I said in a post ages and ages ago, because the seesaw is already overbalanced in our favor. Jesus, do we really want to add more weight to the damn thing with a WHITE history month? They'd just play the same stupid history channel shows they show every day anyway!

No white history month is NOT every day. Schools are very diverse about teaching multiple history. In the 70s we had history of Africa. Just because the founding fathers were all white does not make all history white. There is no concerted effort to ONLY teach white history unlike black history month which makes a concerted effort to teach black history. Is everyday in Japan japanese history day?

I agree with almost all of this. Nothing to add except that 'governments can ONLY destroy' is just factually wrong.

All it can do is take from one through force.

Well ignore them then! If that's what you want to do, but turning around and complaining that people are hypocrites for complaining is 100% hypocrisy. Sometimes, complaining gets shit done. That's why people complain, and that's why YOU complain.

Ok I will ignore cries of inequality.

No, but a little empathy from atop the high horse can greatly reduce the oppressed's ire. Group A doesn't HAVE to shout 'Whiners!' downhill every time the other groups sigh. That's just them being shitheads.

There is NO group A on a mountain.

[Femina]

Is there no way to delete our own posts?

You can do up until someone replies. (Too late now as Mr X already replied.)

It's the little X in the top-right of the actual post. It disappears when someone else posts.

Okay, thanks.

[Mr. X]

Group A on a hill in America in this instance is White Americans Mr. X, and to pretend as though you don't have thousands upon thousands upon thousands of media and entertainment products provided with our interests at heart, and a severe imbalance toward other races in general is just a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the facts.

So this is a conspiracy or these markets catering to the demographic with the most money? So you are claiming there is an intentional conspiracy other than catering to a large demographic?

Are the Japanese conspiring to be racist if their products, ads, media etc focus on Japanese people?

But it is nice to know that you will attempt to make your argument on the analogy until you decide you don't wish to anymore, and then disregard it entirely. It's all the evidence in the world I needed to brush you off as a lost cause.

I brush off your absurd claim there is some vast white conspiracy. And I brush off your claim that whites somehow OWE. Did you know Africans and Arabs were the two number one groups in history to practice slavery? Whites were the LAST group to practice it and THEY put a stop to it. It ended in Europe and finally in the US. can you name ANY Africans or Arabs who fought a bloody conflict to end slavery? Any?

Do you know where the word "slave" comes from? Its short for Slav. Slavic people. White people. And who today does the most to fight for equal rights for ALL and not just a specific group? Liberal white men.

[Heroine Addict]

Whites put an end to slavery? So sweatshops, sex trafficking and drugs mules don't exist anymore? When did this happen?

[Femina]

Group A on a hill in America in this instance is White Americans Mr. X, and to pretend as though you don't have thousands upon thousands upon thousands of media and entertainment products provided with our interests at heart, and a severe imbalance toward other races in general is just a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the facts.

So this is a conspiracy or these markets catering to the demographic with the most money? So you are claiming there is an intentional conspiracy other than catering to a large demographic?

Are the Japanese conspiring to be racist if their products, ads, media etc focus on Japanese people?

But it is nice to know that you will attempt to make your argument on the analogy until you decide you don't wish to anymore, and then disregard it entirely. It's all the evidence in the world I needed to brush you off as a lost cause.

I brush off your absurd claim there is some vast white conspiracy. And I brush off your claim that whites somehow OWE. Did you know Africans and Arabs were the two number one groups in history to practice slavery? Whites were the LAST group to practice it and THEY put a stop to it. It ended in Europe and finally in the US. can you name ANY Africans or Arabs who fought a bloody conflict to end slavery? Any?

Do you know where the word "slave" comes from? Its short for Slav. Slavic people. White people. And who today does the most to fight for equal rights for ALL and not just a specific group? Liberal white men.

Don't twist my words. There is NO conspiracy! It's just FACT. It's Passive! It's something that has been since we were BORN. It is born not from a conspiracy, not from any living persons acts or intentions. It is a result of how we grew up, how we were raised, how the people who RAISED us were raised. You and I have a mountain of content. We have sixty years of comic books that have catered to us. We have had almost a centrury of film and television that has catered TO US. There was no conspiracy, its just how. it. was, pretending that this is not true simply insults the intelligence of everyone in the conversation. You know its true, you write to well to be an idiot, so let's not pretend like America has been a bastion of harmonic singing since even BEFORE slavery was abolished cause the south was about to ditch their free labor source entirely on our own anyway. They just waged the bloodiest war in American history to keep slavery for the principle of it all. Yeah whatever.

There were near enough as many black's to whites in America since the dawn of the entertainment age as there are now but they were not being catered to. Not always because of hatred or racism, its as simple as that nobody thought to do so, its as simple as because nobody complained! This generation is less amiable to sit and wait out their lives watching all the content cater to someone else. White Americans are only JUST feeling what it feels like to have other groups catered to instead of them for basically the FIRST time in their lives, and we have proven quite bluntly that we are the biggest bitching, whining, moaning hypocrits of them all. At least the base median of Blacks were patient for three hundred years. Our base median STILL HAVE all the chances we've ever had, and we're still whining whenever somebody else gets a toy.

[Philo Hunter]

I think if I've learned anything from all of this, its that I don't want to ever support Mr. X financially again.

[Bert]

Agreed.

[Mr. X]

Ok fine.

[MightyHypnotic]

LockedThread.jpg (16.9 KiB) Viewed 11288 times

[sugarcoater]

I find it amusing when an academic argument is written, yet the person can't even spell the plural form of "blacks" properly (they made the word possessive).

One of the first posts mentioned that apparently there are 8 of 55 superheroes/superheroines who are black. Based on that number, it almost mirrors the current percentage of blacks in America. Would that be acceptable? And is the goal to have precisely the number of ethnic heroes and heroines match the population in the US?
Perhaps the industry polls people to see who reads the most comics and which characters tend to sell the most. I can't speak for the industry, but it seems many here have a lot of inside information as to intent and motivation. Please feel free to site sources in the business to add credence to the claims.

As for Femina's amusing and preposterous claim of the same amount of blacks and whites in America since the "dawn of the entertainment age" (when is that?), that statement is entirely false. Just look at any census.

If this discussion is to be taken semi-seriously, there should be some input from those in the business. Otherwise, we merely have conjecture and slightly off-topic historical references. But I do enjoy a little debate...

[sugarcoater]

I also find it amusing when somehow white--which could constitute Spanish, Mexican, American, French, Australian, German, French, Russian, Canadian, etc. is somehow a reflection of a white American. White as a race makes no sense as an ethnicity. And if one is white, that doesn't mean they then have any connection with another white person. They might not even speak the same language. To use an admittedly a aired example, Cap (based on the current movies) has more in common with Falcon than he does with Ant-Man. Yet Cap and Ant-Man are both white. And Falcan had more in common win Cap than he does with Nick Fury, yet the same aforementioned issue applies.
So long as the absurd notion that one should be labeled by one's ethnicity and must therefore have more in common with someone of their own ethnicity than someone of a different ethnicity, then people will never get past the simplified race-identity nonsense.

[tallyho]

I thought this thread got locked?

Anyway lets just leave it there.