#comicsgate is a hate group

[sjbattleangel]

Moon Studios' Thomas Mahler supports a hate movement

As someone who adores the Ori games, this is just awful in so many ways.

"Cancel culture" DOESN'T EXIST. What you're talking about is people demanding certain figures of power and influence to be held accountable for spewing bigoted hate speech or causing a toxic environment.

"Woke culture"? You mean a culture that acknowledges the existence of marginalized communities i.e people of colour, disabled people, queer, gender-non comforming people. Yet to you, that's somehow a terrible thing.

How dare you use a powerful poem dedicated to the victims of the Holocaust-the horrific tragedy of the history of humanity-to complain about your first-world persecution complex! To whine how sad it is that cishet white men like you own-*gasp*-slightly LESS of the world! Oh woah is me! You don't deserve to utter those words. Also, wanting more diversity, representation and equality in video games, game development and games journalism ISN'T THE SAME AS NAZISM! And don't me give that "The Nazis were socialists" bullcrap! THEY WERE FAR-RIGHT FASCISTS! You should know better. You're Austrian for crying out loud!

Having a women and minorities exist in video games and development isn't an "agenda". It's called KNOWING PEOPLE OTHER THEN CISHET WHITE GUYS EXIST. Also, "Hollywood" and "west coast developers" have nothing to do with this. Society is just changing, becoming more inclusive for the better and entertaining of all mediums are reflecting that. And that's great! Unless you have a problem with that.

Your friends were never "ridiculed" because they "didn't conform". Far from that tragic martyr rubbish you claim. They were rightfully reprimanded and fired for being bigoted jerks who didn't respect the humanity of marginalized people....just like you.

If you really believe the existence of minorities are "political", then I have nothing to say but SCREW. YOU.

Overall, there's just no way of putting it: Thomas Mahler is member and supporter of Gamergate.

Despite what they might tell you, Gamergate isn't and never was about "ethics" or "wanting fun apolitical entertainment". It is, has been and always will be a white supremacist hate movement (alongside Comicsgate and The Fandom Menace) dedicated to chasing women, LGBTQ+ people and BIPOC out of gaming and fandom. Its members and ringleaders are and have always been LITERAL NEO-NAZIS. Even when boycotting certain games over the supposed diversity consultants or the inclusion of minorities, they can barely hide their hatred.

Oh, and once again, THESE PEOPLE ARE LITERAL NEO-NAZIS:

(As evidenced by the "Embrace Tradition. Reject Modernity" white supremacist slogan*.)

Remember, if you still want to play his games, that's fine. I don't have the power to stop you. Just be warned that this developer stands with a hate movement.

*Hey, Nazi-turds, Japan and Korea aren't your Aryan utopias nor are their people your precious Aryan supergods!

[samasmith23]

Iceman Almost Came Out as Gay Back in the 1990s

So prior to Brian Michael Bendis revealing Iceman (aka, Bobby Drake) was gay in the pages of his All-New X-Men run from 2015, apparently writer Scott Lobdell had planned to have Bobby come out of the closet two decades earlier but was unable to go through with his plans. Lobdell did however, lay the ground work for Bobby coming out during his time on the X-books in the mid-to-late 1990s.

Specifically, during an encounter with Emma Frost back when she was still a villain, the former White Queen of the Hellfire Club briefly took control of Bobby’s mind and actually used his mutant powers in more creative ways than he ever had done before. Emma accurately pointed out that Bobby was intentionally holding back the true potential of his powers, and was using humor as a shield to mask his own insecurities due to his conservative upbringing by mutantphobic parents.

Writer Sina Grace actually followed up on this old plot point from the 90s during his Iceman solo-series which immediately followed Bobby being outed by the time-displaced Jean Grey in All-New X-Men. In addition to depicting Bobby becoming more comfortable with his sexuality and gradually out to his fellow teammates, ex-girlfriends like Kitty Pryde, and especially his bigoted parents...

...Grace finally allowed Bobby to fully embrace his potential as an Omega-Level mutant. Not only did Iceman singlehandedly defeat the unstoppable Juggernaut in combat after after overcoming his greatest fear by coming out to his parents, but he began using his powers in more creative ways than before such as constructing ice-shuriken and multiple ice-clones and kaju.

Furthermore, Grace also revealed in his run that yes, during that time Emma Frost had mind-controlled Bobby back in the 90s, she actually did learn that Bobby was gay. But unlike the time-displaced Jean Grey, Emma never outed Bobby’s closeted sexuality to him or anyone else, and instead respected his privacy due to her own tragic experiences with her older brother Christian Frost being forced into "gay conversion therapy" (aka, torture...) by their abusive father.

Essentially, all of the people who try to argue that Iceman coming out makes zero sense or that it somehow "ignores/erases several decades of past continuity" (I'm looking at you homophobic Comicsgaters!) completely miss the fact that both Bendis & Grace were simply building upon the foundation that was already put in place by Lobdell back in the 90s! That’s NOT “ignoring or erasing several decades of continuity,” but the exact opposite!

And if you still need further proof that Bobby was always gay, just a reminder that during his very first appearance in X-Men (1963) #1 by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby, Iceman was the only person who was not acting like a horny jack-rabbit at the mere sight of the then-new student Jean Grey.

In other words... Iceman was always gay even as far back as his inaugural issue! Suck it Comicsgaters!

[samasmith23]

Lol! Stupid Comicsgaters in a nutshell!

[thankskenpenders]

Help me out here: Why is there so much Ian Flynn hate going around lately? I thought everyone loved that he was contributing to the games. Now suddenly they aren't. I guess that's par for the course for this series but I don't get it. He isn't perfect but I like what he's done. Am I a weirdo?

Ian Flynn has always had a lot of fans, but any creator putting their work out there is going to have detractors as well. That's just the nature of being an artist. To some extent, it's no big deal. He's not a perfect writer. Nobody is! I consider myself a fan of his work, but I've criticized plenty of individual writing decisions from him on here.

But Ian doesn't just have critics. He has his own obsessive hatedom. And the specific nature of Ian's hatedom is... interesting.

A decade ago, Ian was only the guy writing for Archie Sonic, meaning any debates over his work were quarantined within that tiny niche of the larger Sonic fandom. Only people who kept up with the comics month to month had any real reason to have an opinion on the guy, which means we're talking about merely thousands of fans as opposed to millions.

Within that group, he had some haters. You had the people who were mad about story changes made during his run, particularly things like ancillary characters getting killed off (although over the years we've learned that most of those were editorial mandates from Mike Pellerito). You had the people mad that Ian didn't push their favorite ship, with feuding SonAmy and Sonally fans claiming that he was CLEARLY biased towards one or the other. You had the people who just really, really liked one of the previous writers way more - usually Penders, as hard as that may be to believe today. That sort of thing. Pretty normal comic fandom type stuff. Again, it comes with the territory.

Unfortunately, many of those haters only got worse over time, morphing into reactionaries who constantly try to incite Comicsgate type culture war bullshit.

There are people still mad at Ian for making Sally bi and pairing her with Nicole instead of Sonic in the later Archie comics. There have been elaborate MS Paint red string conspiracy boards explaining how people like Ian and Jon Gray have apparently been destroying the franchise from the inside for years by Making Sonic Woke. (Jon gets dragged into this because people are still mad about him drawing The Slap 20 years later. Yes, really!!) There was an unhinged change.org petition trying to get Ian fired, specifically from people who were mad that the Freedom Fighters aren't in the IDW comics. There was even a very sad little fan campaign from these people trying to get Sega to move the Sonic comic license away from IDW and over to Udon, because they thought Udon would bring Sally and Bunnie back and also make them sexy again. There's a lot of this.

(Unfortunately, Penders has also exacerbated this by gossiping about Ian on Twitter and giving these fans ammo, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

The thing is, for years, people who only played the games or watched the cartoons had no reason to pay attention to any of this. Now, though, Ian isn't just writing for some weird spinoff comics that only the super nerds read. Now he's writing comics that are canon to the games, and ALSO some of the games themselves, and ALSO consulting on other tie-in media like Sonic Prime, and ALSO writing the official Sonic encyclopedia, and ALSO serving as part of the new Sonic Lore Team at Sega. And on top of all this, he's got an increasingly popular podcast where he fields questions about his work on all of these things, which serves as one of the fandom's main windows into creative decisions being made behind the scenes.

As a fan of Ian's work, it's been really cool to see him rise in prominence. But the dark side of this is that his obsessive haters from the Archie days now have WAY more of a potential audience of their own. Now, every Sonic fan has to have an opinion on Ian. What this frequently means is that you'll have the Comicsgate types taking things Ian writes or says out of context, attempting to get more of the general fandom to yell at the guy.

Unfortunately, there are a wide variety of Sonic fans who take the bait:

You've got hardcore fans who disliked basically any recent piece of Sonic media and are looking for someone to blame.

You've got the people who are concerned about the sanctity of Sonic's canon, who shoot the messenger any time Ian mentions a new retcon from Sonic Team on the podcast - or any time he even mentions the THOUGHT of changing anything about the canon, as we saw recently with the Sol Dimension nonsense.

You've got people who romanticize some sort of mythical artistic vision that Sega of Japan supposedly has (or had) for the franchise. To many of these fans, American contributors like Ian just don't "get" the heart of the series and are trying to turn Sonic into something different. (This "heart of the series" tends to be some mix of Japanese instruction manual lore, the cinematics from Sonic CD, the OVA, and/or the games written by Shiro Maekawa, depending on what Sonic media the fan in question grew up with.)

You've got fans of specific characters or ships who pin the blame for how their faves are depicted entirely on Ian - most vocally fans of Shadow, even though the root problem is that Sonic Team hasn't known what to do with Shadow since 2006. At best this stops at regular old criticism, but at its worst this devolves into claims that Ian has an agenda against certain characters.

You've got fans annoyed by a perceived over-emphasis on comic-original characters in the IDW comics, ignoring the obvious facts that these characters exist because the game cast is so tightly controlled by Sega, and also, you know, that people just like the IDW characters and want more stories about them.

You've got a LOT of discourse over IDW's Sonic being a hero who tries to give his enemies second chances, as if half of Sonic's closest friends aren't already former villains and rivals. Honestly this is very transparently just reheated Steven Universe discourse lmao

You'll also see people who just think they could do Ian's job better. They can't believe that THIS GUY is the American fan working on all these Sonic projects, when clearly THEY understand the characters and lore and themes SO much better than this charlatan.

All it takes is for someone in one of these categories to be unhappy about some recent piece of Sonic media, and for them to come across an out of context quote or comic panel that rubs them the wrong way, and suddenly the leftist Zoomer Sonic fans will join the latest dogpile on Ian alongside the reactionary Comicsgate types who are mad at him for Making Sonic Woke.

In general, when fandoms get upset, they tend to want a scapegoat. A person or two to point a finger at and go "THAT's who ruined the thing I love!" This tends to be based less on reality and more on which contributors are the most visible online. You'll sometimes see teenage and adult fans of children's cartoons single out a storyboarder who's particularly vocal on Twitter, blame them for every story decision they don't like, and harass them off the platform out of a sense of retribution for their favorite ship or whatever. Failing that, fans might choose to blame every nitpick, down to individual lines of dialogue and frames of animation, on a showrunner, just because that's the name they associate with the show. And unfortunately, when it comes to Sonic, Ian is now arguably the most prolific and outspoken contributor on the English speaking internet, and therefore a common scapegoat.

Some of the things I've seen Ian blamed for are truly wild. A lot of people have claimed for YEARS that he's just lying about the existence of creative guidelines and restrictions from Sega - or, as fans call them, The Mandates - even though they're just an inherent aspect of working on a licensed property. Others claim that The Mandates are real, but somehow Ian's fault. A vocal minority of fans have convinced themselves that Ian is the sole reason the Freedom Fighters don't exist in the IDW comics, even though Ian says he's been pushing to bring them back since day one.

Sometimes you'll see people say he ruined shit he didn't even work on. A few weeks ago on Twitter I saw someone claim that Ian had written a rejected script for Sonic Forces in which Tails died. I could not find a source for this for the life of me. As far as I can tell, the rumor seems to have been born from an alleged leaked script for Forces with margin notes from Aaron Webber that criticized the way Tails was written, and also an old tweet where Aaron joked that Tails would die in an upcoming episode of Sonic Mania Adventures. These merged into "Aaron Webber criticized a draft of the Forces script in which Tails died." How'd Ian get dragged into this? Who fucking knows!

It's all just a big game of telephone. All it takes is some asshole to make something up about Ian on Twitter or YouTube or a DeviantArt journal or some forum, and at least a couple people will believe it, and then it gets repeated as fact. Again, this used to be contained by the niche nature of the Archie Sonic fandom, but now there are WAY more people who are receptive to this shit.

It's just sad to me that Ian tries to be so open and honest about his work, to try to explain the rationale for certain things, to keep fans looped in on the direction the franchise is headed, and this just gives the Flynnspiracy types more quotes to take out of context and try to paint him as the devil. If it sounds like I'm being overly defensive and dismissing his critics, man... some of the things I've seen people say directly to him are just unbelievable. People will send paragraphs-long angry screeds in to his podcast that completely tear him apart, and he has to sit there and be like "Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it." People literally pay for special guest interview episodes where they just rapid fire complaints about his writing at him directly to his face. I don't know how he does it. I would snap.

All of this over Sonic the fucking Hedgehog of all things.

I don't know how to wrap this up. Engaging with fandoms online is very tiring, which is why I tend not to do it. Things like this are too common. I guess, just... remember that making art collaboratively is a complicated thing. The people involved are generally trying their best given the circumstances, but they're only human. They make mistakes. But please treat them like humans. Criticism and dogpiling are not the same thing.

[martyrbat]

[ID: a Wikipedia article from under the controversies category on the page for ex CIA member (and comic book writer) Tom King. Text reads:

In July 24 2020, Tom king posted on his Twitter account a complaint about comic book artists Jae Lee doing an alternate cover for his upcoming Rorschach series. He stated that DC comics did not consult with him about it and said that Jae Lee had previously done a cover for an alleged hate group called ComicsGate. King said that he reached out to DC comics to let them know how much disappointed he was with that cover and that for him, the only real cover for issue number one of the series was the one by main artists Fornés Jorge.

The post received several responses, some users that sided with King, demanded DC comics to cancel Lee's cover for his alleged ties to ComicsGate. The same day, King made another post on his twitter account this time stating that he had talked to Lee, he is not on Twitter and he had no idea what ComicsGate is about and does not support any kind of similar groups. He ended the post saying that they were all good, and that it was the best possible outcome to the whole situation.

On July 26, Lee took on his Instagram account to post his side of the story, explaining how he was unaware of all the drama that unfolded on twitter because of King's post. He compared it to "A plague" that came barging into his life at a very sensitive moment as his beloved dog had just passed from health complications. He went on to explain how King's post took away his time for mourning for his dog, as he received several calls and texts by friends and colleagues bringing news of the hatred coming from a stranger's mouth into his life. Lee stated clearly that was not a part of any group and that he was angry, saying: "These irresponsible tweets are not harmless. They do not just go away. They have real world consequences. They can take away your job. Your life. Your memories. June (wife) and i were robbed of a special day. So, no, we are not ALL GOOD."

Following Lee's Instagram post, King tweeted that he was very sorry and wanted to publicly apologize to Lee and that he had done a critically mistake and would delete his post as a sign of closure.]

[sjbattleangel]

*Bioshock. Fallout. Metal Gear Solid. Call Of Duty. Halo. Jak II. Final Fantasy VII. Final Fantasy X. Valkyria Chronicles. Tales Of Symphonia. Tales Of Versperia. Fire Emblem. Rachet & Clank. Grand Theft Auto V exist*. Gamergate/Comicsgate/Fandom Menace chuds: YAY!

*Gone Home. Abby and Ellie from The Last Of Us Part II. Spider-Man (Miles Morales) and Hailey Cooper from Marvel's Spider-Man 2. Saga Anderson from Alan Wake II. Vinyl from Bomb Rush Cyberfunk. Mizhena from Baldur's Gate: Siege of Dragonspear. Life Is Strange: True Colors. Usual June. Dustborn exist* Gamergate/Comicsgate/Fandom Menace chuds: You Made it political.

[samasmith23]

Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan)

Art by Minkyu Jung

[lilyvalerieorchard]

Don't watch Kaiser Shounen.

He likes and follows members of the Gamergate/Comicsgate/Fandom Menace hate group like...

Literature Devil, Manga Kamen, LostChord, Critical Drinker, Just Some Guy...

and E;R, A LITERAL, HARDCORE NEO-NAZI.

These are not "critics" or "media analysists", these are vile hate mongers using "media analysis" as a trojan horse for their white supremacist, misogynist, anti-LGBTQ+ hate speech, all under the guise of "wanting better writing". Gamergate/Comicsgate/The Fandom Menace do not care about "wanting better writing", all they want is to chase women and marginalized people out of video games, comics, animation and film so they can gatekeep nerdom as an "apolitical", cishet male, whites only space.

This has been documented: https://thisiscomicsgate.wordpress.com/category/discrimination/racism/ https://angrywhitemen.org/2014/12/01/neo-nazis-for-gamergate/ https://angrywhitemen.org/2017/12/25/mike-peinovich-and-eric-striker-complain-that-feminists-and-jews-ruined-their-video-games/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180216050304/http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2017/10/06/the-5-nazi-est-moments-from-buzzfeeds-expose-of-the-milobreitbart-alt-right-sausage-factory/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221129035022/https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/08/24/weev-gamergate-is-the-biggest-siren-bringing-people-into-the-folds-of-white-nationalism/ https://rewritingripley.medium.com/in-plain-sight-how-white-supremacy-misogyny-and-hate-targeted-the-star-wars-sequel-trilogy-and-2fd0be4b242 https://thisiscomicsgate.wordpress.com/category/discrimination/transphobia/ https://thisiscomicsgate.wordpress.com/category/discrimination/sexism-misogyny/ https://thisiscomicsgate.wordpress.com/category/discrimination/homophobia/

Kaiser Shounen has fallen for their acts, spewing the very same hateful bile they propagate.

Don't give any of these ghouls a platform

P.S despite what these creeps tell you, "Mary Sue" is not and never has been a legitimate form of criticism. It is a sexist buzzword used to bash women/minority characters with agency and gatekeep marginalized creators from telling their stories.

[majingojira]

So I read your post and all I have to say is no. No. No. No. NO. NO!

Sjbattleangel and Samasmith23 are not nor ever have been motivated by "righteous malice" or any of that nonsense! All they ever wanted was for you and your friends to do better!

Those posts made by HellYeahHeroes, Ubernegro and others were ALWAYS wrong and so was Nostalgia Critic and Mr. Plinkett in encouraging that sort of behaviour! AVGN and Linkara have long apologised for this sort behaviour and strived to do better. The worst Linkara ever did was call Joe Quesada a "moron", "dickhead" and "hack" but now he realized how out of line he was and, like I said, has APOLOGIZED for it. As for the MANY false equivalences: The way HellYeahHeroes, Ubernegro, Farsight-The-Chad and TheFemaleFury treat creators and the way Linkara goes after-let's say-Frank Miller and Gary Brodsky are two completely different things: 1) Miller and Brodsky are ACTUAL loud and proud misogynistic bigots who deserve Linkara's tongue-lashing! 2) Tynion, Snyder, Williamson, Slott, Cates, Hickman, Aaron and others are NOT "hacks", "bigots", "TERFs", "eugenists", "misogynists", "perverts", "fascist sympathizers", "closeted Neo-Nazis", ect. Especially when there's ZERO evidence to prove otherwise! HellYeahHeroes, Ubernegro and others have every right dislike their work, every right to be angry but to spread misinformation about them and attack them as people is, was, and always has been wrong!

Just because something was once acceptable, doesn't make it right!

Also, hyperbolic attacks against these creators ISN'T the same as MST3K 's snarky jokes towards B-Movie filmmakers!

"Don't make my friends apologise for being toxic because it distresses them!" So you constantly move the goalposts, deliberately turn a blind eye to actual evidence of their toxicity towards creators, always making excuses for them. There are words for that: Complicity and enabling. Is this the community you want? Are these the people you'll happily defend just because you happen to share the same beliefs? If they ever enact out hurting any of these creators due to some twisted sense of justice for fictional characters, how will you defend them then? Sjbattleangel was right. You, HellYeahHeroes, Ubernegro, Farsight-the-chad and the others are no better then the far-right hate mongers of Comicsgate and The Fandom Menace.

Enjoy the community you made.

Looks like you exploded, must have hit a nerve.

For someone who is trying to defend people to make it appear as though they aren't full of Righteous Malice, you sure are expressing a lot of it yourself on your self righteous proclamations. Like, your rant does more to damn you and your allies than anything I've said about them.

Me, I personally have an apology I waiting to the appropriate parties, and I am not a person who demands personal control over every acquaintance and their choices. You, however, demand it of any and all that you see. By what right do you do so? How much damage will you do in your pursuit?

I also know that I can be a complete tool. You, however, have done no self reflection for someone so sheeted in righteousness.

You can do no wrong, because you don't truly know what it is.

Or, to paraphrase another great writer:

"You can't call yourself the good guys and do bad guy things!"

Remember when SJW battle angel tried to weaponize another group when the creator was trying to take a break but wouldn't back down? I do. It was hilarious.

Your call for justice is shallow and superficial.

I mean, you are so full of yourself that you failed to realize that Linkara hasn't scaled back that far, he scaled back even further, limiting himself to the behaviors rather than the people 99% of the time. The other counterarguments are equally ignorant.

Hell, your reading comprehension is so poor you failed to understand that the core of the points we've been trying to make are the thing you think is a moved goal post.

HYH not talking about this stuff anymore for mental health reasons. Do demand an apology out of them now is a dick move. If they change their mind, then you may proceed -- once they start up again.

Once upon a time, you could have talked to us about the subject and gotten defenses or apologies for recent, active behavior.

But the statute of limitations ran out.

No, really, if you wanted to view any of what we said as libelous, the statue of limitations on it are one year, and (IIRC) only the affected party could file suit.

But that's just the legal take on it. And what are uncontroversial laws in the face of self righteous internet jackasses like you?

That's the difference between us.

I know I can be a monster. A long winded, condescending jackass who uses his higher than average intelligence as a cudgel and barrier against criticism. It's gotten me in hot water before.

And I've had to eat crow more than once.

While you think your farts smell like roses based on what you've been doing here.

That you devolve into Slippery Slope reasoning based on talk that hasn't been engaged in for several years is telling! How can they go down a path they are no longer on?! It only shows the depths you have gone to justify harassment.

Belated harassment at that.

Like, it just goes to show your incompetence that it took you this long to react.

"You are no better than far right hate mongers!"

Oh, really? That just tells me you never actually dealt with any of them directly.

Me? I've been fighting Creationists and Anti Abortion activists online and IN PERSON for over 2 decades now. You would shrivel up and die if you were exposed to half of the horrors I've endured.

Personally, I find it amusing that your crusade devolves into such blatantly bad logic. I particularly it funny that you want to go after me as if I had some control over other people.

"But you still hang out with them!"

You've never hung out with people who had different opinions than your own? Who you never disagreed with?

No wonder you are so brittle. You lack flexibility.

[samasmith23]

What the actual heck?! Iman’s response was the complete and total OPPOSITE of how that chud described it! She was completely calm and rational even if there was some disappointment. The only ones I see “raging” and “losing it” here are these man-baby Comicsgater/FandomMenace chuds! Screw them!

But she gave the most classy and nice response ever.

This is gaslighting at its finest.

[hellyeahheroes]

Eve L. Ewing (ironheart, Champions) and Evan Narcisse (Rise of the Black Panther) write about being black creators working on black superheroes, including a lot of Ewing’s work on Ironheart and dealing with harrasement from ComicGate hate group. Which made members of said hate group lost their minds about being called out for their shit. Especially youtube shithead Richard Meyer who infamously was so determined to defend his right to harass Eve Ewing so much he attempted to mansplain career of Neil Gaiman... to Neil Gaiman.

-Admin

[hypocrisyofandrewdobson]

Hi I just read your ask post about comicgate and gamergate but... if it's alright with you, could you please explain those 2 with little words, like pre school level words please.

Comicsgate and GamerGate? I’m not really the best to describe them, as I was never really involved in them, but I’ll give it a shot. Just a heads up that this is what I understand them to be.

GamerGate was people getting fed up with professional game reviewers rating games high not because they were actually high quality, but because game companies would, in some form or fashion, pay for good reviews. It got labeled sexist due to people like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian being called out as being involved and then accusing GamerGate of only doing so because they hated women.

Comicgate is similar, only it was indie and professional comic artists being fed up with being told or forced to follow a more “woke” agenda, and the other side accusing them of being just plain sexist/racist and that’s why they were complaining.

Both essentially come down to a group of people calling out what they considered corruption in said medium and the opposite side claiming it was just hatred against women/minorities/ect. Who you side with is dependent upon your own personal opinion and interpretation of what happened.

Hope that was more clear.

[bigskydreaming]

Have you seen Linkara's review of The Dark Knight Returns? He goes into why the view of Robin as a soldier, popularized but by no means invented by Miller, is so dangerous.

I have not, but I need to refresh my memory before I go check it out because I’ll either agree with it or be infuriated by it and I can’t remember which just at the moment but would like to before I restart that argument ten years later.

LOL, so like, I knew Linkara yeeears and years ago. We were both regular posters on Gail Simone’s messageboard on CBR like fifteen years ago, maybe longer. Pretty sure we even met in person a couple times at Gail’s annual SDCC breakfast meetups, but not sure. I do know for sure though that he and I were both involved in a three way argument about this very topic with another guy.....I just can not remember if he was the one who agreed with me or the one we were both fighting with about it, LOL. I THINK we were in agreement as while I wasn’t like.....as pro-DC as most YABSers were given that it was Gail’s board and I mostly hung out at the X-boards and just swung by YABS once a week or so BECAUSE I couldn’t stand all the ass-kissing that went on at that board so that DC writers and artists would hang out and post regularly, LOL, like I’m pretty sure I remember Link as being one of the less....vehement of the pro-DC camp.

(Tbh, one of the biggest ways in which I disagreed with Gail on stuff is I UNDERSTOOD her feeling a need to be civil with other DC pros even if she didn’t like them personally, I just....couldn’t manage the same and didn’t feel any desire to try. Like for example, not sure how many people know who Ethan van Sciver is, but he’s a long time high profile DC artist, best known for his GL stuff.....but he used to hang around YABS pretty regularly. EvS is ALSO a haaaaaardcore conservative, Trumpian, and all around terrible person. And he always was.

Like he’d play it civil back then but his opinions were downright hateful on a variety of topics, particularly towards marginalized groups, but he was good at picking just the right moments to half-assedly walk something back the second he took something ‘too far’ - so like, the end result was he said it and everyone saw and remembered, but before anyone could react he’d drop the mea culpa card and be like oh I’m sorry I know that was out of line, I was just caught up in the moment and it’s all good cuz this is all friendly debate anyway right? We’re just talking here.

And he’d pull this crap all the time but because he was a DC pro, people would let him get away with it and warn people off coming down on him so he didn’t feel unwelcome at the board. Now the painfully ironic twist here is that shockingly, totally unexpectedly.....fast forward to about five or six years ago where good old Ethan burns a shit ton of bridges and decides well why not make things a dumpster fire for everyone in my vicinity....and he became the driving force behind a bunch of alt right comic book fans starting their own weak ass version of Gamergate, only called Comicsgate. It never was nearly as....big...as Gamergate was, but it was still ugly. And the thing is, Ethan sicced his sycophants on other industry pros he’d worked with over the years but always disagreed with on politics.....like really let the ugly fly....and most of these pros included Gail as well as a bunch of the other DC professionals from back in the YABS days.

Because thing was....that was literally WHY he’d hung out at YABS so much back then, despite being so far in disagreement with most of the progressive leaning board. He was always just interested in stirring shit up, he never actually had the slightest interest in debate or seeing the other side of anything....he just knew how to play the right cards to get the right people to come to his defense and cool things off rather than run him off, in the name of keeping things civil and such...all so he could start it all up again a couple weeks later.

And this is literally why that kind of thing doesn’t work for me at all. Because he wasn’t really that subtle even then, most people knew all along exactly what he was doing, and letting him get away with shit that would have gotten anyone else banned purely because he was a industry pro just meant that his opportunities to subject anyone in his vicinity to just vile, hateful shit ended up more protected than all the marginalized posters on that board who didn’t come to it to see his shit but had to constantly listen to it anyway because people were more interested in making excuses for him than making it comfortable for everyone else.

And in the end, he ended up turning on the very people who’d protected him from everyone else ripping into his hateful viewpoints with the directness they merited. Which just. Sigh. To me just smacks of a whole lot of unnecessary years spent putting up with his barely veiled bullshit until he didn’t bother even veiling it anymore....even though the reality is NOBODY was ever buying into his veil of it in the first place and we all knew what was right behind it all along. Anyway. Not that it matters LOL, but good old Eth, was one of the primary reasons I decided not to go into comics when I had a couple of opportunities come up, as I decided to focus my efforts on Hollywood at the time instead. Lmao, I figured if I was going to have to keep my mouth shut about coworkers whose opinions I vehemently disagreed with in the name of professionalism, I might as well focus on the profession that would pay me more money to keep that to myself. Look, at least capitalism is useful when ADHD and trying to pretend to be decisive about life choices.)

Long ramble nobody asked for aside, like I said, I can’t remember Link’s take on this particular topic but it’s likely the one I agreed with for the most part. My own take has always been that Miller sucks and if he said it chances are I said he was wrong because he is about everything and my religion is people saying so and by people I mean me. My religion’s also big on self-actualization. Not sure what else, I did just make it up and I think I’ll probably just stop there so I don’t accidentally make it a cult.

But yeah. I mean, maybe it’ll surprise people given how critical I am of the abusive elements of canon, but I’ve never applied the child endangerment/child soldier argument to sidekicks. It’s obviously not that they don’t get hurt in these stories and even traumatized, it’s not that they’re NOT in danger as kids....it’s just why I put such an emphasis on it being their choice to fight crime and be heroes and NOT something that Bruce or any other mentor or parent pushed them into.

Because this is one of the reasons why death of the author more often than not just doesn’t work for me. Authorial intent matters. Readers are always free to interpret a text however they want, regardless of authorial intent....but IF a writer has a specific intent behind a narrative choice, chances are most interpretations that refuse to align themselves with that viewpoint aren’t really all that RELEVANT to the story the writer was trying to tell in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong. Those other interpretations can still exist. They’re allowed to exist. People can abide by them all they want. But if someone’s takeaway from a story is a deliberate choice to read it entirely different from the story the writer intended it to be.....like, their interpretation is all well and good, but it’s not actually at all a RELEVANT commentary on or review of the story the writer was actually writing. They’re not actually saying the writer did a poor job of telling the story or was wrong in how they did it....because they’re not actually talking about the story the writer was actually telling.

Thus their commentary on it exists. But it’s just not that relevant. Because nothing in it even CAN offer an opinion on how else the writer could or should have written that story....because the story they ARE talking about isn’t the story the writer was even interested in writing.

Now, there are some times when authorial intent DOESNT matter. And when criticism of it is entirely fair and earned even if it’s of something the writer didn’t consciously or deliberately write into their story at all. But these things are almost ALWAYS unconscious. Unlike what I was just talking about, where the writer was very consciously writing the story a certain way for a reason, and thus people who aren’t interested in reading the story the way it was written to be read just can’t offer up a commentary that says anything useful or meaningful about the story that was actually written...the flip side of this is when the writer puts things they don’t intend into the text, but still are very much there all the same.

And this sort of thing applies to things like micro aggressions or racism, homophobia, sexism....things where a writer didn’t sit down intending to be offensive or alienate their readers but still put in things that they don’t think to view as offensive due to their own privilege and lack of experience EXPERIENCING the microaggressions that marginalized readers might be all TOO familiar with and thus can’t avoid reading into a passage where the writer might not have INTENDED harm or offense, but delivered it all the same. Because they didn’t think to put it into their story, they weren’t TRYING to....but they didn’t think to avoid putting it in there either, even if it’s because they didn’t know to until it’s pointed out to them that it’s there.

And this also applies to when the writer puts into their story, via whatever viewpoint they’re writing from, things that herald from their own viewpoints, how they view the world, even in terms of unconscious biases or expectations....but things that readers can still interpret as something they vehemently disagree with, even if the narrative seems to condone it. Because a lot of these viewpoints are things where the way they’re written....even just not coming out as clearly not condoning or agreeing it can effectively be read as tacitly condoning it.

So to apply all this to the idea of child sidekicks and child soldiers:

They’re not one and the same, and thus treating them as one and the same or interchangeable is IMO an inherently flawed perspective that doesn’t ever have anything USEFUL or RELEVANT to the stories that most people are trying to tell with child heroes and sidekicks.

With the notable exceptions of Miller, Ennis and certain other writers who by their own admission usually aren’t even trying to write about superheroes but rather deconstructions of the genre as a whole.....the vast majority of comic book writers, even the ones I dislike LOL, aren’t writing about child soldiers when they write characters like the Robins. Because CONSCIOUSLY, with INTENT, they’re already trying to write something completely different:

Child heroes and sidekicks are almost universally written to be child (although to be really fair, for the most part they’re largely teen) empowerment allegories. They’re youth power fantasies.

They’re stories about kids, about teens, getting to be the ones to save the world. About kids who don’t need adults to save them because they save themselves or their friends. Kids saving other people, other kids, grown adults. Stories about child HEROES are written as metaphors of hope for the future and the promise of the younger generations, or power fantasies where kids who feel helpless and powerless in their own lives can read these stories and vicariously imagine through the characters the idea of one day having the power to save themselves or other people, what that would be like, what they’d do with that.

But here’s the important part, and why people interpreting these teen and kid heroes as child soldiers doesn’t really offer relevant commentary to stories that are written to be allegorical youth power fantasies, regardless of authorial intent or death of the author....

And that’s because the key ingredient here, the thing that’s not really up for debate or open to interpretation....is that these stories can ONLY ever be allegorical.

Because like I said before, child heroes and child soldiers are not the same thing. There simply IS NO REAL WORLD EQUIVALENT for child and teen heroes as comic books style them.

And that’s why the fact that with most every child hero in comics, no adult makes them be a hero. They choose that for themselves, it’s almost universally characterized as a self-determination or empowerment moment rather than one of coercion like Miller likes to characterize it. His choice to characterize Bruce essentially drafting Dick as Robin to fight alongside him does nothing to provide commentary on any other superhero story, no matter what he’s told himself or his fans, because his story is the only one where Robin was drafted!

You can’t condemn narrative choices that nobody but you has actually written and then act like you’re saying something about any narrative other than your own fsjsjfshfzgzfhgs.

And you also can’t claim that you’re just seeing in the text something that’s inherently there and the other writers didn’t just see to avoid like I was talking about being a valid critique....because what’s being commented on there isn’t anything that was written unknowingly. Other writers consciously wrote the same things as Miller in terms of a child engaged in all that violence....but they deliberately wrote those moments to be metaphors of a kid that gets to save themselves and other people and CHOSE that, which is inherently opposed to the interpretation of a kid who is ONLY in harm’s way because he was forcibly drafted by a more powerful figure or force who cares neither what he wants or if he gets hurt.

These two ideas are mutually exclusive. They can not coexist in the same narrative because a character can not be powerless and self-empowering about the exact same specific choice. And thus anything that’s said about one of these narratives is inherently unable to say anything that’s relevant about the other....because the other is not written by its writer TO BE the kind of narrative that particular commentary is dissecting. It’s not TRYING to be that narrative, so no review of it can possibly say how flawed it’s execution is of an idea it’s not actually trying to execute.

And the differences between child heroes and child soldiers are not just limited to choosing that or being drafted and these other differences are equally key.

The biggest being that child heroes can not be seen as ‘basically’ the same thing as child soldiers.....UNLESS you are also perceiving adult heroes as basically the same thing as adult soldiers. And not even law enforcement or police or temporarily deputized or whatever else you want to spin it as....SOLDIERS, specifically. You don’t get to bring up something as charged as child soldiers and then get vague with your terminology when the close scrutiny that brings to your analogy stops working in your favor.

If sidekicks are child soldiers then you must in conjunction view adult superheroes as soldiers. And not in the abstract one man war on crime way Miller likes to consider Batman in his attempted deconstruction of superheroes. ACTUAL soldiers. If there’s no room in your comparison for child heroes to differentiate from real world child soldiers, there’s no wiggle room for the adults either.

And again, except for Miller, Ennis and specific others who by their own admissions are not TRYING to view superheroes the same way most other comic writers are, but fail to see that genre conventions are largely interpretive and thus seeing room for different interpretations of superheroes isn’t actually a commentary on how other people see and write those same heroes....like except for these select few, most writers are not writing superhero soldiers unless they’re Captain America or Captain Atom. Yes I know there are other superhero soldiers but let me be pithy. Even those aren’t really the same as their real world equivalents.

See, real soldiers don’t make distinctions about whether or not they’re willing to use guns. Their personal views on killing are not prioritized over whether they’ve been told to use lethal force to accomplish their objective. They have a chain of command. No matter the rationalization, they pledge their loyalty to singular nations and the aims and objectives of those specific nations over the abstract of acting in defense of the whole world.

Now again, maybe that applies to Captain Atom, but for the most part can you say the majority of comic book writers are TRYING to write Superman, Batman, Green Arrow, Wonder Woman etc through that lens? No. So while Miller really thinks he said something when he wrote his Batman with guns, fighting in the Middle East, killing people left and right, none of that actually ‘showed’ people that at the end of the day, Batman is no conceptually different from a real world soldier like. No all he actually did was write his own take on Batman, and said look, he’s a gun toting murderous asshole, huzzah I have deconstructed the modern superhero!

Like. Shut up Miller. Honestly.

But seriously. Superheroes do not have a real world equivalent and neither do child heroes. Even when it comes to nonpowered ones like the Batfam, they’re still deliberately written in a larger than life, four color perspective that requires a suspension of disbelief at the front door. We ALL know and understand that they aren’t a blue print for how to go out and be a real world vigilante. Even real world vigilantes exist. But they don’t look anything like the Batfam and it’s disingenuous to pretend they do for the sake of teh discourse. Nobody honestly believes that there is even the OPTION of going out one day and deciding to become a comic book style vigilante like one of the Batfam. It’s why even they’re termed superheroes despite the lack of superpowers. On a CONCEPTUAL level it’s understood that the stories being told about them require an extrahuman medium. You can not simultaneously write characters according to a mythic scale but then attempt to interpret that very writing on a real world one. It doesn’t work.

Which brings me to my final piece of this pie. Or puzzle. Idk I’ve been doing this response for awhile I forget what this is.

And that is again, the difference between interpreting a story in a way the author probably didn’t intend and understanding when a story isn’t meant to be interpreted in the way you’re trying to.

And this difference is how I can understand and reconcile the idea that it’s not inherently abusive for Bruce to allow his kids to fight crime at all, even though that would inherently be child endangerment in the real world, but at the same time, I can view him as abusive in other ways that don’t make allowances for the differences between real life and comics.

Basically it boils down to: CAN this specific element of a story be duplicated in real life or mirror a real life action or idea? Is there a direct parallel to a real world equivalent at all?

I can view Bruce fighting crime or saving the world alongside a child Robin without viewing that as child endangerment or inherently abusive, even when Robin gets hurt in the process....because there is no real world equivalent to those parts of a story. NO ONE, child or adult, is going out there and doing those things Batman and Robin style. Even the people who dress up in their own real life vigilante personas basically just do niche neighborhood things like walk people home from the bar. And even people doing real life vigilantism in terms of taking out criminals, like, that’s usually more of a personal revenge thing and not one where they’re trying to attract attention via a costumed persona. When you think real world Batman and Robin, nothing comes to mind for a reason.

And thus this says nothing inherently abusive about their dynamic, even according to real life parallels of child endangerment, because it’s not a real scenario. And thus it’s not TRYING to say anything about real life. It’s innately allegorical. It’s power fantasy emphasis on the fantasy.

In contrast, when you have something like Bruce hitting one of his kids.....no matter who the characters are, that specific interaction and the dynamic it presents DOES have a real world equivalent. That’s just parent/child abuse. And thus even if the writer didn’t intend for it to be interpreted that way, it’s still a valid interpretation. If it looks like a parent hitting their child, you can call it a parent hitting a child.

Batman and Robin fighting killer mind controlled plants together? Can’t happen. I’m not going to call it child endangerment when it’s not a realistic scenario and not meant to be, and I’ve already been presented with a valid alternative interpretation of this being a child empowered to help save people alongside his superhero father. There’s no point in condemning a dynamic that CANT be translated to a non allegory in real life.

But Bruce hitting his son? A father no matter how good hearted normally, being affected by extreme stress or grief or something else that makes his behavior take a turn for the worse and reach a point where he physically lashes out even if he never would have in the past? Nothing remotely allegorical about that. That story has too many real world equivalents to dismiss as having nothing to say about abuse in real life. Even if the writer didn’t intend for this to read as abusive because they were thinking of how much worse Dick has been hurt fighting alongside Bruce and never held that against him even though technically it was Bruce letting him get hurt....doesn’t matter. That interpretation still requires viewing through a lens that can’t exist in reality. No kid can ever excuse a parent hitting them by thinking of how much worse they got hurt taking down their local mob together and if he didn’t blame his dad for that cuz he wanted to do it to help people then how can he blame his dad for hurting him in a moment of anger? Umm. Doesn’t track see? They’re not the same thing at all.

Or another one that really bugs....I’ve heard people defend shipping a Robin while underage with an adult by saying if they’re old enough to make the choice to risk their life and have that choice respected, they’re old enough to choose who they want to be with. Umm. No. That’s not just apples and oranges that’s genetically modified grapes and seventeenth century cannonballs.

That logic doesn’t apply because neither of those things is the underage character choosing ANYTHING. They’re fictional. Everything they choose is just what their writer wrote them choosing. But again, one of those choices is one that an underage reader CANT choose in real life and have respected by every adult in their life, and thus will never have a bearing on their life as anything BUT an allegory they have to interpret and translate into something actionable they can apply to their life and choices. The other choice is them being written as presented with an option that’s actually a textbook real life grooming technique and something abusers use to justify the relationship they’re trying to cultivate with a minor by saying aren’t you mature for your age, aren’t you old enough to know what you want or to do this or that in which case you should be old enough to make this choice?

See the difference? Putting on a cape and going out to fight robots? Not directly applicable. Saying yes to the grown man saying he wants to have sex with you and thinks you’re old enough given this other choice you’ve made that highlights your maturity? That’s a choice that can be presented both to a Robin or a real life minor, but a writer justifying that choice for that Robin by saying well he’s already previously made this other choice that has no real life equivalent.....that creates a pretty misleading interpretation to people reading that story and not stopping to think through the distinctions between what KINDS of choices the writer is presenting these characters with and then justifying via their narrative.

And while I haven’t watched the video you’re referencing, anon, I would definitely agree that this is an example of how viewing child heroes as child soldiers is....not great. Aside from being cynical, misusing the idea of death of the author and helping to validate Miller’s choices and thus ego which is NEVER a good look LOL....it also intentionally or not paves the way for putting fictional types and MEANS of harm on an even playing field with real life ones and acting like it’s all one and the same with no distinctions to be drawn. And this doesn’t actually offer anything substantive or constructive about holding characters accountable for reasonable expectations of harm, when the sources of harm have no reasonable equivalent and thus only exist in the medium of being a youth power fantasy in which the child involved is fictional and can’t truly be harmed, with the harm done the second the scene ends and where the character can be back in fighting form the very next scene. Thus the only lingering element there IS the power fantasy.

Nope, all it actually does is muddy the waters in the REVERSE, and make it so it’s actually easier to justify or rationalize types and means of harm that DO have a real world equivalent, but by pointing to examples from a fictional medium and emphasizing the fictional character’s lack of being harmed while de-emphasizing the fact that the writer has full control over depicting this in a solely positive light that doesn’t ALLOW the fictional character any angle from which to voice that this CAN result in harm when not written for fictional characters according to a writer’s specific intent.

And that’s that about that. My opinion: you have it.

[samasmith23]

Agreed 100%! Carol, Monica, and especially Kamala are FREAKING awesome and screw whatever those toxic dude-bro chuds say!

M-SHE-U LETS GOOOOOOO!!!!

[davidmann95]

So when are you gonna get around to writing that post where you defend Tom King siccing a mob on an innocent person and then lying on Twitter about things being "all good" with said person

I don’t question why Tom King’s immediate response to learning Jae Lee did a cover for EVS was “wow, I need to immediately publicly disavow him doing a cover for my book”, because that is indeed absolutely what he needed to do. I very much question why Jae Lee, the dude caught with his pants down - assuming maximum possible good faith that he’s telling the truth that he had no idea what Comicsgate is - used his post to castigate THE DUDE WHO THEN PUBLICLY EXONERATED HIM rather than the hate group he’d been unwittingly roped into doing work for.

[mandaloriangf]

What makes me not trust Zack Snyder is that thanked Ethan Van Sciver in his Justice League cut. Ethan Van Sciver is the creator of Comicsgate which is a hate group in the comic book community.

ew i didn’t know he did that