Babillygunn
New Age Outlaw
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2014
- Messages
- 5,241
- Reaction score
- 7,296
- Points
- 118
Oh that's why I couldn't find the atheism thread few months back.2.) People of all faiths are welcome but DO NOT use this site to preach yours. We had to get rid of the religion threads for a reason.
Gee, I dont know, I generally think Twitter is not for real people and should be ignored. But I have seen several times, tons of people replying on stuff, clearly not having a clue about the characters or the characters history. This coming from every side of the argument. People getting really really angry about something (or pretending to be angry) about either somebody being being bi/gay in comics, OR! for example getting really angry about stories were Joker and Harley are a couple.
General insanity.
The colorist got angry and ranted that they stopped using the slogan "Truth Justice and The American Way". He said that was his reason
" It's not about gay or anything else. What really ****** me off was saying truth, justice, and a better world, **** that it was Truth, Justice, and the American way. My Grandpa almost died in World War II"
Now I am only commenting on what the colorist said. Not what anyone else said that is quoted in that article.
I am commenting on what Gabe Eltaeb said. And when you do a rant like that, its known that you most likely wont continue working for the company you are ranting about.
It's so interesting to see people get hyped for Joker/Harley at this point. If you are actually a fan of the character, why would you want to see that? Her being abused? I'd much rather watch her have fun and grow as a person. One of the brilliant things about her show, is they start with the end.Harley Quinn has evolved into a character I really enjoy, beyond her "side kick" status for the Joker. And yes, there are reasons why people don't like stories with Joker and Harley together. Because when written correctly, it is an abusive relationship. And when you have a character who has very much grown into their own character, that isn't great to read.
And really, if Cyclops can survive Jean/Emma debates, I think Tim will be fine with Steph/Bernard debates.
Considering how many people who complain about gay folks end up being gay, you have to wonder how many people bringing the BS comparison to raping animals want to... you know.And I just saw a clip of where Mr. "American Way" Eltraeb was on Evan Van Sciver's show discussing this, and in the conversation about "slippery slope" commented about how there "already was a comic about a guy banging his dog". Man is a bigot and all in on the comics gate grift. **** him.
Like what you want. The issue isn't that, at least not for me. I like plenty of stuff others don't, and I dislike popular stuff as well. That's how the world is. One can have a different opinion, and it be objectively bad, however. Whether someone likes a comic? subjective. But lets say someone dislikes a comic based on a character's sexuality. Sure, it's a different opinion. It's also objectively hateful.I see on what level this discussion is. The constant "you made it worse" etc. Accusations starting with me not reading comics, to me not having family/friends/relatives who are part of the LGBT community.
I dont regret any of my posts. Me commenting on what the colorist said is one of those posts that I dont regret at all. It was a bit typical rant that I expected from him, and its a guy who has implied for a long time that he was quitting DC . I
find it quite amusing with this "divorced from reality" stuff. Possibly becouse I have always been around people who have very different opinions, political and othervise. Also it might be cultural difference, not being as tribal as people in the US often seem to be.
That guy has done coloring on various Indiegogo projects before that people would categorize as CC. Its not like any of this came as a surprise.
Biggest issue here seems to be people getting offended that I think the majority of modern books are quite bad, and that I think twitter is a freakshow. I think both of those thoughts are sane and normal. Something can be really progressive but still not be a very good comic you know. I really like Maggie Sawyer and North Star. I was a huge John Byrne fan as a kid. Those characters were featured in actually
GOOD COMIC BOOKS. But I suppose this will probably also be made to that I just made that up, and I secretly loathe those characters.
Anyway, enjoy your day.
Superman shouldn't be bisexual. My opinion has nothing to do with sexuality or religion or any of that nonsense. Superman has always been heterosexual, and there's simply no need to change what works.
In practically all comic books, Clark has been with Lois, and occasionally Diana(?) along with a few other characters whilst working at the Daily Planet or before (such as Lana). Not once has he ever been in a relationship with another man because ... he's always been heterosexual.
WB changing his sexuality was presumably done to please a minority within the LGBTQ+ which, frankly, is BS.
If WB needs a LGBTQ+ character, create one. Don't change one.
Gabe Eltaeb Not Coloring Superman: Son Of Kal-El #5 After DC Comments?
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Or do.
Like what you want. The issue isn't that, at least not for me. I like plenty of stuff others don't, and I dislike popular stuff as well. That's how the world is. One can have a different opinion, and it be objectively bad, however. Whether someone likes a comic? subjective. But lets say someone dislikes a comic based on a character's sexuality. Sure, it's a different opinion. It's also objectively hateful.
If someone hangs with white supremacists, shares their talking points, the idea they aren't at least associated with them is fundamentally wrong. It exist outside of reality. It wouldn't just be a different opinion, it would be a wrong one.
The issue with your twitter discourse. When you say something like, "it's a freakshow" after complaining about "blue haired" folk on twitter, the coding isn't subtle. Anyone who has ever talked about this before knows what you mean when you use that phrase. Your talking about the LGBTQIA+ community on there. And to even associate them with the word freak, is incredibly crappy. I would think someone with family members in the overall community would understand that.
Guilty as charged. Admittedly, I saw a few posts about Superman being bisexual on Instagram, and comments where people were complaining about it, some of which specifically stating "but Clark's always been with Lois". They obviously hadn't read the actual articles either, and I came here having read their posts, so wasn't in the know.
Fundimentally, you're right. It wouldn't change anything about the character and his love for Lois, but I'd ask the question why are the writers making the change in the first place, and it's going back to what I said earlier; it's putting something in place to please a minority, and it's something that's never needed to be addressed. To address it now, to please a select few is, honestly, quite sad.
If the LBTQ+ community want people to accept them, then they should accept what already is, and not want it to be changed to suit their ... exploits. Acceptance works both ways. I'm not suggesting either that they've petitioned for this, but someone has obviously spoken out about it, or felt pressure from somewhere to highlight Jon's sexuality.
These are very different examples though. Slavery, racism, misogyny and a whole heap of other labels have been improved upon for the better, though granted, there's still a little way to go. How is anything improved by having (or in some cases, turning) a superhero from heterosexual to homosexual, or bisexual?
If DC wanted Harley and Ivy to get married, taking into account their relationship, there'd not be a problem - not from me at least, because they're not going out of their way to turn what I deem an established heterosexual character into a homosexual one.
I don't watch it any more, I bailed because of Ruby Rose, but the Batwoman series is a prime example of this. Rather than cast someone as Batwoman, they had to highlight that not only was the role of Kate Kane a lesbian, but also they had to cast a lesbian in the role. Why? Any good actress can portray a lesbian, so why was there a need to specifically cast a lesbian? Caity Loitz is (as far as I know) heterosexual, and she's played the bisexual role. Matt Ryan is heterosexual, and again, has played the bisexual role.
The Batwoman crew needed to cast a lesbian for the role of a lesbian, and then highlight time and time again that Batwoman was a lesbian? Who cares. If an actress can act, cast her, regardless of sexuality, and it should be Batwoman that draws in the crowd, not her sexual exploits.
I didn't say they were white supremacists. The point is, if you hang and agree with white supremacists, your a white supremacist. In this case, he'as hanging and agreeing with racists, sexists, transphobic and homophobic people. We know, because they are Comicsgate people. That's their ideology. That's the point. I also noticed you just ignored Sithborg's posts pointing out he is exactly that. Why?I looked at that clip. None of those guys he hangs with is a white supremacist. Many of them are conservative, some of them can be rather obnoxious and I can understand the dislike for that, but no, I dont buy that "white supremacist" thing, just because somebody dislikes a person. And I get that hanging out that crowd usually means that they wont be doing work for mainstream comics anymore. I don't really have anything against companies having that policy either, If I would run a comics company my policy would be that social media is to promote books, not argue about politics or insult people to the right or the left.
Also, if somebody gets really offended at my little blue-haired thing, fine, get offended. None of my LGBT friends have blue hair, I don't care what somebody's sexuality is if there a part of twitter keyboard activists. I already pointed out that the platform gathers a "freakshow" of all sides of political opinions.
Classy.If the LBTQ+ community want people to accept them, then they should accept what already is, and not want it to be changed to suit their ... exploits. Acceptance works both ways. I'm not suggesting either that they've petitioned for this, but someone has obviously spoken out about it, or felt pressure from somewhere to highlight Jon's sexuality.
I am going to ignore the fact that crapping on minorities, especially those based around immutable characteristics like skin color and sexuality, is just wrong. Most white people didn't want black people integrated into their schools. Should that not have happened, because it was meant to please a few? Of course not.Fundimentally, you're right. It wouldn't change anything about the character and his love for Lois, but I'd ask the question why are the writers making the change in the first place, and it's going back to what I said earlier; it's putting something in place to please a minority, and it's something that's never needed to be addressed. To address it now, to please a select few is, honestly, quite sad.
Their exploits? The ****?If the LBTQ+ community want people to accept them, then they should accept what already is, and not want it to be changed to suit their ... exploits. Acceptance works both ways. I'm not suggesting either that they've petitioned for this, but someone has obviously spoken out about it, or felt pressure from somewhere to highlight Jon's sexuality.
Integration that works towards normalization has a very good track record. See below...These are very different examples though. Slavery, racism, misogyny and a whole heap of other labels have been improved upon for the better, though granted, there's still a little way to go. How is anything improved by having (or in some cases, turning) a superhero from heterosexual to homosexual, or bisexual?
You do realize that neither Harley nor Ivy started off bisexual, right? Harley was created in the 90s, Ivy the 60s. They revealed their bisexual status later. Just like Jon and Tim. It's the exact same thing.If DC wanted Harley and Ivy to get married, taking into account their relationship, there'd not be a problem - not from me at least, because they're not going out of their way to turn what I deem an established heterosexual character into a homosexual one.
What qualifies as shoving it into your face?Except that it isn't. I don't mind LGBT characters. I don't particularly care when it's shoved in our faces, but if it's the character, then so be it.
So, bigotry. Why argue for the side of bigotry?I hope that's a rhetorical question because I don't have the answer for you.
Same sex relationships are probably frowned upon for varying reasons; insecurities, circumstantial, societal, belief. If you're brought up continually told that same sex relations are wrong and impure, you're going to grow up believing that; the middle east is a prime example of that theme, among many other poor messages, but even then, you needn't look too far back into the western world where churches and various religions frowned upon it. Thankfully, in the western world at least, it's starting to change and become accepted.
Go back a century or two, and it wasn't frowned upon at all; in fact it was probably somewhat the norm. It's only really society that's placed these labels as wrong - a similar society that's now trying to label sexual differences as accepted, or normal. At what point did it become wrong?
that's an understatement.Poor choice of wording on my part...
Here's my question. What about any of these characters require them to be white? I can tell you why Black Panther, needs to be black. Why does Clark Kent, an alien from outer space need to e white? Why does he need to conform to Earth's expectations for sexuality?That's just the thing though, there's change, and then there's change.
Nick Fury aside (and I'm sure there's a couple of others too), but you don't turn Kal-El black to suit diversity. You create Val-Zod. You don't turn Bruce Wayne black. You create Tim Fox. Using that very same logic, you don't turn Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne homosexual or bisexual. You use (or create) another character and apply a non heterosexual label to them.
So, not a Bond fan? Never enjoyed a ladies man character at all?Sara Lance and the need to portray her desire to sleep with every woman in history... John (Constantine) had same sex relationships, but it wasn't in practically every episode. Legends went through a phase back some seasons ago where Sara's character became unbearable and cringe-worthy to watch. Not quite as bad as Ruby Rose, but close.
You just compare rape to the sexual acts of consenting adults. That sounds an awful lot like comparing being gay/bi/pan to being a murderer. And well...Controversial, I'm sure, but take paedophiles into account here. As far as I'm concerned, they're in the LGBTQ+ community too (I should highlight the difference between a paedophile and a convicted paedophile here); the LGBTQ+ community exists for those who have an attraction to anyone that isn't specifically the opposite sex and of a certain age. If you walked into a LGBTQ+ event and promoted that paedophiles apply to the label, you'd be evicted. Why? Because such a label doesn't comply, when it should. Paedophillia by it's core definition is just another level of sexual attraction (that thankfully isn't always acted upon). Should that be accepted and/or tolerated because those people are different too? If not, why not?
Two things all should be aware of:
1.) equating being gay or bi with being a murderer will never be acceptable behavior here.
2.) People of all faiths are welcome but DO NOT use this site to preach yours. We had to get rid of the religion threads for a reason.
Controversial, I'm sure, but take paedophiles into account here. As far as I'm concerned, they're in the LGBTQ+ community too (I should highlight the difference between a paedophile and a convicted paedophile here); the LGBTQ+ community exists for those who have an attraction to anyone that isn't specifically the opposite sex and of a certain age. If you walked into a LGBTQ+ event and promoted that paedophiles apply to the label, you'd be evicted. Why? Because such a label doesn't comply, when it should. Paedophillia by it's core definition is just another level of sexual attraction (that thankfully isn't always acted upon). Should that be accepted and/or tolerated because those people are different too? If not, why not?
Two things all should be aware of:
1.) equating being gay or bi with being a murderer will never be acceptable behavior here.
2.) People of all faiths are welcome but DO NOT use this site to preach yours. We had to get rid of the religion threads for a reason.
So. Don’t leave me in suspense. What’ve you been reading?*Opens thread to discuss the DC comics I picked up this week*
I didn't say they were white supremacists. The point is, if you hang and agree with white supremacists, your a white supremacist. In this case, he'as hanging and agreeing with racists, sexists, transphobic and homophobic people. We know, because they are Comicsgate people. That's their ideology. That's the point. I also noticed you just ignored Sithborg's posts pointing out he is exactly that. Why?
You just use coded language by accident, and agreed with posts that were pretty obviously bigoted crap. Ask Calvin how those posts worked out for him.
Since its clearly impossible to dislike mediocre comics by DC Comics here, if those mediocre comics have an agenda that is popular that is, Ill have to rethink this then. I shall not comment on stuff that I find awful. Ill just comment on stuff that I enjoy.