Is it fair to hold creators' statements or politics against them?

[Arrogantcur]

With my current sig, you can tell that I do. I'm curious as to whether people think it's fair or not.

Specifically referring to PAD here, I'd read some of his work when I was a teenager long before he even had a blog. But part of what made me get interested in his most recent work was the fact that when reading about the history of the Hobgoblin's development I happened across a blog entry of his and looked at the site more. It soon became apparent that he believed in a lot of the same things I did, and that made me think "You know, he seems like a pretty good guy. Maybe I should check out his work."

Not everybody felt the same way. Some people made posts saying in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't be buying his work any more because of something he said that offended them. The way I recall him taking this was with a combination of annoyance that these people would keep buying his stuff if he kept his mouth shut but would decide not to buy it if he refused to censor himself, and an inability to understand how they could go from liking his work one day and not liking it the next. He felt the same way about what the Dixie Chicks went through, although he didn't take it as personally of course.

As HE said, despite his feud with John Byrne he'd enjoy reading a new "Next Men" story. Despite him not seeing eye to eye with Charlton Heston, he likes "Planet of the Apes." Despite not seeing eye to eye with Schwarzenegger, he's liked that guy's movies. And so on.

Basically his position appeared to be that when people decide what to buy and what not to buy, they shouldn't take the personal beliefs of the person who makes the product into consideration. That it's unfair to do so. That he couldn't for the life of him understand why somebody might do that instead of focusing only on the product, or the work of fiction.

So I'll try to play devil's advocate for a minute here. Um...okay, Vincent Van Gogh wasn't the picture of mental health, but he made some good paintings. David Zucker made that piece of shit "American Carol" recently, but "Airplane!" is still funny IMO. And despite Orson Scott Card being a homophobe and all kinds of neoconservative he's written some good books, or so I hear anyway. Why not just ignore WHO created something and concentrate on WHAT it is?

The answer for me is that I have trouble ignoring who made something and I have trouble ignoring what kind of person they are, if I happen to know. I mean, I've heard that Orson Scott Card's books are good, but I don't want to buy one because I don't want to give the man a single cent of my money. Or Dave Sim. The more I hear about Dave Sim, the less interested I am in reading anything he's written. Chuck Norris is a jerk, as has been pointed out in a previous thread that was posted here after he wrote that open letter to President Obama. For me, if I see Chuck Norris on TV one of these days, the first thing that will pop into my head is what a jingoistic, obnoxious, homophobic asshole he is, and I'll want to change the channel.

I care a lot about political issues. Some issues I'm able to see both sides of. Others I'm not. An example of an issue which I can understand the other side's position somewhat is gun control, because even though I think giving people easy access to guns makes things more dangerous I can understand how somebody might be afraid and want protection. An example of an issue where I cannot understand or forgive the other side's position is torture, because...it's just wrong. I wish I could present a better argument against torture, but that's what it comes down to for me.

Back when I had no disagreements with PAD I said that if I were a conservative then I probably wouldn't be able to stand him, so it was fortunate that I was (and still am) a liberal. When he was saying the Iraq war was wrong, I was in total agreement. When he was saying that torture was wrong because the ends do not justify the means I was in total agreement, because I don't believe the ends justify the means either...ever.

What's happened in Gaza isn't exactly the same as the Iraq war, because unlike Iraq there were actually people in that area who were attacking Israel. But still, Israel was acting in a way that would make Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld proud (not that Democrats like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer aren't also hawkish when it comes to this, and I'm just as disgusted with them). How is bombing residential areas in Gaza in order to take down Hamas any different than bombing residential areas in Iraq to take down Saddam? Both result in civilian casualties. Since the ends do not justify the means, ever, both are unacceptable. Or, if you believe the ends DO justify the means, then both ARE acceptable. I can't understand how anybody, Jewish or not, could criticize America for attacking and invading Iraq but applaud Israel for attacking and invading Gaza. How about a little consistency?

I was just as angry about the assault on Gaza as I was about the Iraq war, for pretty much the same reasons. In the case of Iraq, PAD said it was wrong and I applauded him for doing so. In the case of Gaza, he said it was justified and talked about how the media was biased (just like neocons do) against Israel, and of course talked about how there were no "civilians" and that "they" were training their children to be terrorists. Rationalizing. Dehumanizing the casualties on the other side. I didn't applaud that. I was horrified, and angry, and disgusted, and as a result I don't want anything to do with him or anything he's written any more.

I don't feel that way about every disagreement. There are some things I can overlook. I can overlook fiscal conservatism, or being pro-life, or being pro-gun as I said above, or even being uncomfortable with gay marriage (because while that's bad, at least it's not condoning the deaths of innocent people, or saying that there are no innocent people in a certain country). Being pro-war is something I can't overlook. Condoning the deaths of hundreds of innocents is something I can't overlook.

Should I be able to overlook it? Should I be buying a comic book and ignoring the name printed next to the word "writer," concentrating purely on the story? What do you think?

EDIT: Since I've changed my sig by now, here's what it had been for anybody just finding this thread:

"And honestly? I'm not sure what constitutes a civilian anymore. They're indoctrinating their children into a philosophy that says Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth. You read about the Hamas leader whose children were killed in the raid and your first thought is, 'Oh, those poor children'...except last year that same leader sent one of his own sons on a suicide bombing raid to blow up Israeli civilians."

-Peter David (http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/006668.html), on the slaughter of civilians in Gaza. He's lost me as a fan.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Against them? Absolutely. Against their work? Depends. But I tend to do so.

[Red Jack]

Everybody has a line they won't cross. I don't read Byrne or Eisner because of their issues with Race.

I disagree with Chuck Dixon's and Bill Willingham's politics but it won't stop me from enjoying their work, provided that work doesn't reflect those differences to too high a degree.

PAD's public position on Israel doesn't prevent me from enjoying his work.

Some people won't see Woody Allen or Polanski movies and others won't listen to [even the good stuff from] Michael Jackson.

[Tommy]

Against them? Absolutely. Against their work? Depends. But I tend to do so.

I most definitely agree. I will not support an artist financially if they fight against me politically (I'm not talking every single issue here, just the most important ones). If I am sincerely interested in something that artist did, then I'll buy it used.

[Lester C.]

Celebrating diversity and tolerance means getting along with someone who’s political view point you can’t stand. The whole my way or the highway attitude is why Bush is so reviled even among members of his own political party.

[Linkara]

I'll echo statements made already - unless they do or say something aggregiously wrong, I tend to be able to separate the work from the creator. Heck, reading stuff from people with differing viewpoints is a good thing sometimes, too.

Heck, JMS is an atheist and yet he's written some of the most profound and positive things about religion that I've ever seen. ^_^

[Arrogantcur]

Celebrating diversity and tolerance means getting along with someone who’s political view point you can’t stand. The whole my way or the highway attitude is why Bush is so reviled even among members of his own political party.

Tolerance is good Lester, I agree. But what happens when somebody says something bigoted? Do you tolerate intolerance?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Celebrating diversity and tolerance means getting along with someone who’s political view point you can’t stand. The whole my way or the highway attitude is why Bush is so reviled even among members of his own political party.

It means being able to dialogue, use diplomacy to find solutions to a common problem. It doesn't mean liking or blindly trusting those who wish you ill.

[RachelEvil]

Tolerance is good Lester, I agree. But what happens when somebody says something bigoted? Do you tolerate intolerance?

Tolerating intolerance furthers intolerance. Period.

[Arrogantcur]

It means being able to dialogue, use diplomacy to find solutions to a common problem. It doesn't mean liking or blindly trusting those who wish you ill.

Well put, Maxine. I mean, the Democrats tried to get along and compromise after they won the 2006 midterms, but they were trying to compromise with a guy who--as Lester pointed out--didn't know the meaning of the word, and so nothing truly important really changed (if I were saying this in front of Nancy Pelosi this is where she would say "well we raised the minimum wage," making me want to throw my head back and scream in frustration).

I guess it's kind of ironic that I'm here right now saying "you can't always get along with people, sometimes you have to fight them," when that's similar to what I object to PAD doing when he talks about Israel and Palestine. There are still differences, though. I'm talking about political battles, whereas he's referring to life and death battles. If the Democrats had tried to impeach Bush then no innocent people would have suffered as a direct result.

To be fair, the stuff I said in the thread linked to in my sig was not always conducive to civilized dialogue. Things were said that made me lose my temper and as a result I said things that threw fuel on the fire, and pretty much killed any chance of me and PAD "agreeing to disagree."

I'm not sure how different it would've been if I had been able to keep my temper in check, though. I mean Typo Lad, a.k.a. Mordechai Luchins, posted there too. As I understand it based on his posts about it in the "Justify" thread, he started out trying to be reasonable, and eventually he gave up because he came to the conclusion that PAD had ideological blinders on and that there was just no talking to him. Apparently Israel is Mr. David's country, right or wrong.

Tolerating intolerance furthers intolerance. Period.

Yeah, exactly, and that statement about "I'm not sure what constitutes a civilian anymore" looks pretty damned intolerant and bigoted to me. It's painting all Palestinians with the same brush.

If you want to see intolerance, look at this video. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FABqq_jjRRo) Thank God for guys like Max Blumenthal.

[Infra-Man]

For me it depends, and so far I can't think of someone's politics getting in the way of a work I was interested in to begin with. If that was ever the case, I'd probably separate my enjoyment of the work from my opinions of the individual and leave it at that.

Now if there is work you want but you do not want to support the creator with your money, all you do is buy used copies of the work in question (unless the individual and his or her work are so odious to you, in which case you can avoid the work entirely).

[Tommy]

If the Democrats had tried to impeach Bush then no innocent people would have suffered as a direct result.

They knew that no matter how the trial in the Senate went, they could never get the votes to remove him from office. So impeaching him would just have been a futile act of spite.

[Arrogantcur]

The thing for me, Infra-Man, is that I'm more of a fan of certain creators than I am of characters. For instance, while I like Steve Rogers as a character I think that Ed Brubaker wrote him a lot better than Paul Jenkins. I'd pay to read a Cap story by Brubaker (if they ever bring Rogers back, of course), but wouldn't pay to read one by Jenkins.

So in order for me to be interested in something to begin with, I first have to have a high opinion of the writer. Secret Invasion piqued my interest, but since I'm not much of a Bendis fan I didn't bother buying it. I just kept track of what was happening by looking at Wikipedia periodically to see what the latest developments were.

EDIT TO ADD: They knew that no matter how the trial in the Senate went, they could never get the votes to remove him from office. So impeaching him would just have been a futile act of spite.

Well, you never know. The GOP was confident that John Bolton would be confirmed as U.N ambassador, but at least one Republican Senator (Voinovich) opposed it unexpectedly. That forced Bush to get him in with a recess appointment.

It's possible, even if not likely, that they could have gotten enough Republicans to vote to impeach. Maybe guys like Arlen Specter. I don't think they had anything to lose by trying, particularly not when the President's approval ratings were below 30%.

[Infra-Man]

The thing for me, Infra-Man, is that I'm more of a fan of certain creators than I am of characters. For instance, while I like Steve Rogers as a character I think that Ed Brubaker wrote him a lot better than Paul Jenkins. I'd pay to read a Cap story by Brubaker (if they ever bring Rogers back, of course), but wouldn't pay to read one by Jenkins.

So in order for me to be interested in something to begin with, I first have to have a high opinion of the writer. Secret Invasion piqued my interest, but since I'm not much of a Bendis fan I didn't bother buying it. I just kept track of what was happening by looking at Wikipedia periodically to see what the latest developments were.

If that's the case, it winds up being an entirely personal decision based on whether or not you can separate the work per se from the creator of the work--essentially if you feel you can admire an aesthetic creation of a person with whom you disagree (and maybe even fervidly disagree).

Is the high opinion of a writer due more to the work he or she does, or do the personal opinions and politics of a writer play into your opinion of the writer? Both? Does one have greater signifigance for you than the other?

[Arrogantcur]

Is the high opinion of a writer due more to the work he or she does, or do the personal opinions and politics of a writer play into your opinion of the writer? Both? Does one have greater signifigance for you than the other?

Usually it's based on the quality of their previous work. If I've read something by a particular writer and enjoyed it, I feel pretty certain that I'll enjoy everything they write. Usually I haven't been disappointed.

This is the exception, where I had a high opinion of a writer based on his work and my opinion of him changed based on something he believed, and other things he said.

It's possible that if I never posted on PAD's site and didn't see everything he wrote on this subject, I wouldn't care about it as much as I do. I might be told "Hey, Peter David thinks Israel is just defending itself and has a right to attack Gaza," and I might say "Really? Well, that's just wrong," and that would be the end of it.

But I did see exactly what he wrote on the subject, I remember it, I remember being enraged by it and I remember being angry at him. And if I see a comic book or a novel with his name on it, those memories and those emotions are going to come rushing back and put me in a bad mood that prevents me from wanting to buy the book and would even prevent me from enjoying the story, regardless of HOW well-written it was.

[section 8]

It depends on how much their politics goes into their work.

If I hire someone to paint my house, i don't care what their political views are, just paint the damn house.

I am the same way with entertainers. If the work is good, and their politics is not a huge part of it I don't care....... everyone is entitled to an opinion

[Infra-Man]

Arrogantcur, it's definitely your call, but if the mere sight of his name gets you angry, you might want to step away from his work for awhile, at least until you don't get pissed just by reading his name.

[Dazzler]

Depends on how much of a douchebag said creator is while espousing those opinions.

I won't read anything by Chuck Dixon or Orson Scott Card because I think they're total assholes, which accentuates the bigoted things they say.

There are some creators I disagree with on some issues, but I've never heard them be tools about it, so I still pick up their stuff.

Mike Allred is a Mormon, through and through, but he's also a very, very decent person and is still my favorite artist of all time.

--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Just be careful which creators you critisize in nerd circles and to whom you critisize them! To fans, these creators can be their rock stars, and they'll cut your face if you don't like their favorites.

[Arrogantcur]

Arrogantcur, it's definitely your call, but if the mere sight of his name gets you angry, you might want to step away from his work for awhile, at least until you don't get pissed just by reading his name.

Done, and for more than just a while too. Like indefinitely.

Just be careful which creators you critisize in nerd circles and to whom you critisize them! To fans, these creators can be their rock stars, and they'll cut your face if you don't like their favorites.

Thanks for the advice. PAD would certainly be one of those rock stars, and even though I've lost respect for him as a person I'll acknowledge that he's earned that status. But I've had my face cut before (methaphorically speaking), here and on PAD's site and on another comic site where I used to post, so I figure I can take whatever people wanna dish out. I've also had this sig for weeks and nobody's said anything to me about it so far, so I might be okay.

EDIT TO ADD: I do feel a bit guilty that I didn't use DanMCH's Vicious Rumor About Gail Simone as a sig as I said I would, because it was totally sig-worthy. :biggrin: I plan to use it after I get rid of this one, but no promises...

[Dazzler]

Just be careful which creators you critisize in nerd circles and to whom you critisize them! To fans, these creators can be their rock stars, and they'll cut your face if you don't like their favorites.
Exactly.

Or just give them a pass on the shit they say and tell you, despite all evidence, you're being unreasonable.

--Dazz

[TCJohnson]

I try not to unless these ideals are evident in their comics. If I can't tell somebody's political leanings from their comics, I try to ignore it. Just smacks too much of censorship for me.

[FalconX2000]

I dunno if Mel Gibson is racist, but he's a genius at movie making.

[Paul McEnery]

I try not to unless these ideals are evident in their comics. If I can't tell somebody's political leanings from their comics, I try to ignore it. Just smacks too much of censorship for me.

For me, it depends on how it impacts the aesthetics. Preachiness is still a drag if I agree with the sentiments. And I like to be challenged by someone's point of view, so long as the work is interesting, and the point of view is honest and honourable. And in art, it may be necessary to voice some ugly opinions in order to get to the truth of something. And some artists may be completely naive about some aspects of life, but completely spot on about their subject.

David is, IMHO, talking utter bollocks about the Israel/Palestine conflict -- for a start, if you justify Israeli atrocities in principle, you justify Palestinian atrocities by the same token, so that doesn't get us very far. And that kind of side-taking can poison who you are so much that it takes a toll on the work. OTOH, a principled angry polemic can be downright invigorating, so it depends; and what it mostly depends on is truthfulness, I think, even if it's no more than a partial truthfulness.

What matters more to me, then, I think is whether the artist gives less of themselves, and skews their vision, because they've let the world get to them.

My key example is TS Eliot. I can work with his prejudices in the early work, even as they make me wince, because they're a true reflection of the world he came from -- and if we ourselves flinch from looking that in the eye, then we're just as bad.

But after Eliot gave in to cowardice, got rid of his crazy wife, and embraced a very certainty-based version of his religion, then he stopped honestly engaging with his own inner tensions; and then his lines became slack, his morality evasive, his profundities very shallow, and incisive observation gives way to empty rhetoric, and the nerve to accept the jumble of a terrifying reality that can't make sense is replaced by a bland, supposedly unified vision of a reassuring plenitude in which everything happens because it must. Which neatly gets him off the hook for being a bastard.

So I'm fine with the conservatism he adopted, except that it's a dishonest conservatism that drains all the fire and precision from the work. Better he should have done a Bukowski and lived with being a bastard because he had to, and accepted that he was a big fucking mess instead of plastering ten tons of vapid spiritual bandaid over his neurosis, through which very little of his genius was able to make it to the paper.

I'm seeing David do something very like this over the Israel/Palestine issue, and it's going to do him harm if he can't find a way to honestly dramatize his internal conflict in his work, is my guess.

[Reverend Smooth]

I most definitely agree. I will not support an artist financially if they fight against me politically (I'm not talking every single issue here, just the most important ones). That's what I do my best to do, too. Usually on issues of human rights, etc.

[David O Burcham]

If I judged creators based on their political beliefs instead of their craft I wouldn't be watching movies and TV, reading novels and comics, or listening to music at all! :biggrin:

I think it's petty.

[Corrina]

I think it's fair to hold the statements you disagree with against them in the sense of not buying their stuff.

It's your money. Do what you want with it.

[JKCarrier]

I don't think I've ever stopped buying a creator's work just because of some comment or political stance. If I can still enjoy Dave Sim's or Steve Ditko's work, I'll obviously put up with anything. :tongue:

[snarkbunny]

I think it's fair to hold the statements you disagree with against them in the sense of not buying their stuff.

It's your money. Do what you want with it.

I agree with that it's your money, and do what you want with it. If you only want to buy books with green covers, that's an equally good reason as disliking the creator's stance.

I do think it's deceiving yourself to either buy it used or read a pirated version. If you are objecting to a work based on the creator, then it shouldn't matter whether it's free or not, or whether the creator is getting any renumeration from it.

Where I get concerned is when people starting basing their judgment of the work on what they think of the author and not the work itself. It's admirable in many ways to say "I won't read ??????? because of XXXXXXXXX's stand/words on YYYYYYYY" It is not admirable to say "?????? is a POS because of XXXXXXXXX's stand/words on YYYYYYYY" and far too many people do, especially when they haven't read it. Critique the works for what they are, not who the creators are.

[bert]

Depends on how much of a douchebag said creator is while espousing those opinions.

I won't read anything by Orson Scott Card because I think they're total assholes, which accentuates the bigoted things they say.

There are some creators I disagree with on some issues, but I've never heard them be tools about it, so I still pick up their stuff.

Mike Allred is a Mormon, through and through, but he's also a very, very decent person and is still my favorite artist of all time.

--Dazz

how funny. . . I tweaked your answer just a bit to remove Dixon, as I really enjoy his work, and have never had an issue with the man.

other than that minor adjustment, you've written exactly what I would have posted.

I agree with you 100% on Card, and I'll never give Marvel directly another dime due their homophobic polices, and haven't for years (and gee. . guess who hired Card to write some books for them. . surprise, surprise).

but I stock up on the Marvel books at CAPE and other cons, where I can pick em up for a quarter, well after the shops have already paid Marvel for the books.

[the4thpip]

This is actually an easy one for me, as PAD's work has evolved in a similar direction to his online statements. His comics read to me, and I realize that this purely subjective, like the heart's gone out of them. They've become darker, more violent, cynical and twisted. And that's not something I need in my escapist literature; I get enough of that at work and when I watch the news.

[Charles RB]

Depends on the statements/politics, and if their statements or politics are reflected in the work, and far too blatantly. That could be far too much of a turn-off.

Mind you, I own the last Cerebus phonebook which is full of Sim's politics and views (and, with Cerebus as a marginalised aged ranting figure who's alone and has had the structure he created infested with immorality, seems to say things about how Sim feels that Sim may not have intended...).

of course talked about how there were no "civilians" and that "they" were training their children to be terrorists.

The Israeli army has national conscription, should we tell PAD that under his logic there are no Israeli civilians because "they" train everyone to be soldiers?



If you want to see intolerance, look at this video. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FABqq_jjRRo)

I really hope that Blumenthal and his cameraman deliberately sought out intolerant and ignorant people there.

[Charles RB]

Just be careful which creators you critisize in nerd circles and to whom you critisize them! To fans, these creators can be their rock stars, and they'll cut your face if you don't like their favorites.

*looks around*

STAN LEE SUCKS, YO!

*runs*

[4PointOh]

I'm not sure whether or not it's fair, but I certainly do it. Thus, I don't support the work of Orson Scott Card, Bill Willingham, Chuck Dixon and a couple of others.

[Tommy]

I do think it's deceiving yourself to either buy it used or read a pirated version. If you are objecting to a work based on the creator, then it shouldn't matter whether it's free or not, or whether the creator is getting any renumeration from it.

Interesting considering you go on to say...

Where I get concerned is when people starting basing their judgment of the work on what they think of the author and not the work itself. It's admirable in many ways to say "I won't read ??????? because of XXXXXXXXX's stand/words on YYYYYYYY" It is not admirable to say "?????? is a POS because of XXXXXXXXX's stand/words on YYYYYYYY" and far too many people do, especially when they haven't read it. Critique the works for what they are, not who the creators are.

There is a difference between a work of art, and its creator. Objecting to a creator is not objecting to every single thing that person created. Sometimes bigoted assholes create moving, inspirational artwork.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I try not to unless these ideals are evident in their comics. If I can't tell somebody's political leanings from their comics, I try to ignore it. Just smacks too much of censorship for me.

Smacks more of the free market to me.

[Tommy]

Smacks more of the free market to me.

Exactly. Censorship is an organization that attempts to prevent ANYONE from having access to an artwork. What's being described here are personal boycotts.

[Red Jack]

Only governments can censor.

[Arrogantcur]

*looks around*

STAN LEE SUCKS, YO!

*runs*

STOP HIM! HE'S GETTING AWAY!

(...he wrote after Charles had a 50 minute head start)

I don't think I've ever stopped buying a creator's work just because of some comment or political stance. If I can still enjoy Dave Sim's or Steve Ditko's work, I'll obviously put up with anything. :tongue:

Ditko's a good example of what happens when I just get the Cliff's Notes version of somebody's beliefs instead of reading them talk about those beliefs, or actually arguing with them about those beliefs.

For a long time the only thing I knew about Ditko was that he worked with Stan Lee on many silver age comics that introduced major characters such as Spidey, Fantastic Four, X-Men and so on. Then one day I read that he was an Objectivist, and I had to find out what exactly that was. When I found out what it was, I thought "Well, I don't agree with that," but I didn't really get angry or anything because I hadn't read any actual statements he made that would've made me angry. Even if I had, I still think I'd be able to re-read those old stories and not think about Ditko too much, because I think of them as primarily Stan Lee's stories; Stan wrote them, and told Ditko "draw this."

That's the same reason I'm able to enjoy the Claremont/Byrne run even though statements Byrne has made have gotten me angry. Claremont did the writing, Byrne did the drawing, so I think of them as primarily Claremont stories.

(Of course there is the possibility that either Lee or Claremont might have views that I'd find offensive, but I hope not.)

David is, IMHO, talking utter bollocks about the Israel/Palestine conflict -- for a start, if you justify Israeli atrocities in principle, you justify Palestinian atrocities by the same token, so that doesn't get us very far. And that kind of side-taking can poison who you are so much that it takes a toll on the work. OTOH, a principled angry polemic can be downright invigorating, so it depends; and what it mostly depends on is truthfulness, I think, even if it's no more than a partial truthfulness.

Agreed.

I don't actually know if David's going to put anything about this conflict into any of his work. If he's smart, he won't. But sometimes he will get preachy (as a matter of fact, weren't the last several issues of She-Hulk a commentary on Myanmar?), and when I brought up what he said in the other thread I believe somebody told me "You shouldn't be surprised; he's put pro-Israel stuff in his work before." (Not that being pro-Israel is bad in itself, mind--it's being pro-Israel no matter what that's bad, just like being pro-America no matter what is bad. I wanted to say that just to ensure nobody would get the wrong idea about what I was saying.) So maybe he will.

[Charles RB]

I didn't really get angry or anything because I hadn't read any actual statements he made that would've made me angry.

Well as far as I know, Ditko didn't make any statements on his beliefs except those made in his comics - which could be quite blunt, I saw a page of his self-published Mr A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._A) where the titular hero directly tells us Steve's views on money.

[NatGertler]

On one hand, you don't owe it to anyone to be their audience. You are free to not read whomever's work you want to not read. Heck, there's one author whose work I won't read because he has the same name as a asshole I know in college. It's not the author's fault that I can't pick up one of his books without thinking of someone else, but I'm not reading to benefit the author, but to benefit myself.

On the other hand, writing is about the last place where we should demand uniformity of thought. Literature is rich because not everyone is seeing things from the same perspective.

[snarkbunny]

Interesting considering you go on to say...



There is a difference between a work of art, and its creator. Objecting to a creator is not objecting to every single thing that person created. Sometimes bigoted assholes create moving, inspirational artwork.

I agree there is a difference between a work of art and its creator.

I separate the artwork from the creator. I think David Sim is wrong with his stance to women, but I read and bought Cerebus.

But to me, when a person says "I will no longer buy Creator X's work, because Creator X's stance of blah-blah taints my enjoyment of his work" isn't that linking of the creator to his work? If so, how does not paying for it remove that taint? If you read it when it's free, aren't you really saying "I like Creator X's work, I just don't want to pay X for it?"

Both are valid, but they are not the same thing.

[Tommy]

But to me, when a person says "I will no longer buy Creator X's work, because Creator X's stance of blah-blah taints my enjoyment of his work" isn't that linking of the creator to his work?

That is an individualistic personal preference. Some people can't separate an author's personal stances from what is actually written in the book. I am certainly not one of those people, and I've often argued against such thinking. But that's a personal thing.

If so, how does not paying for it remove that taint? If you read it when it's free, aren't you really saying "I like Creator X's work, I just don't want to pay X for it?"

Both are valid, but they are not the same thing.

It isn't about taint, at all. As an informed consumer, I won't support businesses that would use my money against me. And I support businesses that use my money to support me. It is sort of a symbiotic relationship. If mythical "Creator X" happens to write something I find interesting, I'm not going to buy it from "Creator X" because "Creator X" will turn around and use my money against me. But why, because I don't want someone to use my money to harm me, should I be forced to deny myself what ever happens to be in "Creator X"'s work that might be enlightening? Especially since I can walk to the local used book store and financially support it, rather than some asshole who would turn around and use my money against me?

[stealthwise]

Only governments can censor.

Or schools. Or churches.

Anywhere that can control the flow of information, and/or prevent signs or postings or performances or hell, messages of any kind from being displayed or delivered to other people.

[Arrogantcur]

It isn't about taint, at all. As an informed consumer, I won't support businesses that would use my money against me. And I support businesses that use my money to support me. It is sort of a symbiotic relationship. If mythical "Creator X" happens to write something I find interesting, I'm not going to buy it from "Creator X" because "Creator X" will turn around and use my money against me. But why, because I don't want someone to use my money to harm me, should I be forced to deny myself what ever happens to be in "Creator X"'s work that might be enlightening? Especially since I can walk to the local used book store and financially support it, rather than some asshole who would turn around and use my money against me?

I think making choices like this give us the illusion of power when in reality we're powerless. A writer whose book I've dropped probably won't notice whether or not a percentage of my $2.99 per issue gets to him or her. They can afford to alienate the occasional fan. So I haven't dropped his books to hurt him, because I know that it won't hurt him.

As for the signature, in all honesty I did put that there out of anger. If he's going to say shit like that I want people to know about it and see him for what he is.

Anyway, while it's true I could go to a used book store and buy something there, I wouldn't want to. By not buying the work of PAD or Byrne or Dixon or whoever, I don't feel as though I'm "denying" myself anything.

There's a thread in the Spidey forum asking the question of how long people intend to boycott the book as a result of "One More Day." In my answer, I said that even though it's been over 8 years since the first "Lord of the Rings" movie came out, I still haven't seen it. That isn't because I have anything against Peter Jackson, because I don't. I simply haven't gotten around to renting it, and I have no idea when or if I eventually will. I know it's a great movie, I know that I'll enjoy it, yet I still haven't. I said "if I can live without watching 'Fellowship of the Ring' and not care that I'm missing out, then I can live without a particular comic book and not care if I'm missing out."

[Typo Lad]

I'm not sure how different it would've been if I had been able to keep my temper in check, though. I mean Typo Lad, a.k.a. Mordechai Luchins, posted there too. As I understand it based on his posts about it in the "Justify" thread, he started out trying to be reasonable, and eventually he gave up because he came to the conclusion that PAD had ideological blinders on and that there was just no talking to him. Apparently Israel is Mr. David's country, right or wrong.

Actually, the person who made me throw my hands in the air was another poster. Mr. David certainly has blinders, but the other gentleman was just as bad, if not worse.

[Tommy]

I think making choices like this give us the illusion of power when in reality we're powerless. A writer whose book I've dropped probably won't notice whether or not a percentage of my $2.99 per issue gets to him or her. They can afford to alienate the occasional fan. So I haven't dropped his books to hurt him, because I know that it won't hurt him.

That's not the point. It isn't a question of "Is this going to noticeably hurt 'Creator X?'" it is a matter of being an informed consumer, and choosing who I want my money to go to. Arguments like these are why people don't vote since "one vote doesn't matter."

Then again, alienate enough fans and it will get noticed.

[Paul McEnery]

Or schools. Or churches.

Anywhere that can control the flow of information, and/or prevent signs or postings or performances or hell, messages of any kind from being displayed or delivered to other people.

We shouldn't forget TV stations, publishing houses, etc. etc.

[Arrogantcur]

Actually, the person who made me throw my hands in the air was another poster. Mr. David certainly has blinders, but the other gentleman was just as bad, if not worse.

Ah, guess I misunderstood. Sorry.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Tell you what; if someone whose views I find appalling can turn out something on the level of 'The Merchant Of Venice', then I'll feel I'm 'depriving myself' by not reading their work .

No writer we've discussed posesses a thousandenth of the genius of the Bard. None are even fit to stand in the shadow of his grave.

Hardly think I'm depriving myself of one of the Great Works by not reading BATO or G.I. Joe.

[NatGertler]

Shakespeare's grave casts a shadow? What, was he buried in mid-air?

[thehod]

Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

My one and only yardstick is whether I'm enjoying their work, regardless of the intrinsic quality of it.

The fact that the guy creating it may be a total twat who thinks all children should be sent off to the workhouse or whatever is utterly immaterial.

I'm reading his work, not going on a date with him.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Shakespeare's grave casts a shadow? What, was he buried in mid-air?

Oh hush, you. :wink:

[MartinRedmond]

Please, the only reason people hate John Byrne is because he tought Steve Irwin was selfish endangering his life for entertainment while he had kids of his own. The haters are shallow if they even know why they hate him. They prolly just hate cause it makes you seem pertinant on a message board saying JB is evil.

[JamesRitcheyIII]

John Ford is regarded by most talented Directors as the guy who perfected the art-form. John Ford was NOT a liberal, but was the 'left-to-middle' Orson Welles' biggest influence. There are lofty ideals about 'fair play' that both liberals and conservatives share, and Ford was always reaching for that quintessence of what being a human is. John Milius is generally worth watching, as well. Akira Kurosawa was a Japanese Nationalist.

Chuck Dixon is a superb writer. Steve Ditko is a masterful storyteller, and one of my biggest influences as an artist. My friend Ron Fortier is an underrated genius, who can pop out a 22-page, plot-driven masterpiece with pitch-perfect characterization in a day--something that takes me 10 days, at least.

If any of them decided to do comics about killing black people, foreigners or homosexuals in the streets, I'd feel sad for them, that they'd gone off the deep end of hate and insanity--but fortunately, we'd never likely see that.

I've never understood the concept of not reading or watching something with ideas you don't agree with. I've read Mein Kampf and Das Kapital--and liked Das Kapital better, but still found it naive of the totality of human experience...

...I'm of the 'READ EVERYTHING' contingent. Know the enemiy of enlightenment, or lose it.

[Infra-Man]

Tell you what; if someone whose views I find appalling can turn out something on the level of 'The Merchant Of Venice', then I'll feel I'm 'depriving myself' by not reading their work .

No writer we've discussed posesses a thousandenth of the genius of the Bard. None are even fit to stand in the shadow of his grave.

Hardly think I'm depriving myself of one of the Great Works by not reading BATO or G.I. Joe.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7885/motivator2767426oi5.jpg

[Pink Bat Maxine]

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7885/motivator2767426oi5.jpg

And why not? He's immortal for a damn good reason.

[Tommy]

And why not? He's immortal for a damn good reason.

I know I have a shotgun next to my bed for the next time Zombie Shakespeare shows up.

[Corrina]

There's so much creative work out there and my time is so limited that my main criteria for buying something is if the work reaches me.

I don't usually care about political views unless they somehow leach into the work. I don't usually seek out a creator's political views either. (Note, I'm not talking about hatred or racism, which I don't see as political views...I'm more wary of Card because of what he's said but I think "Ender's Game" is quite brilliant.)

I don't read much of Alan Moore not because I disagree with his politics but because I don't find his worldview and the themes he works with in many of his comics do anything for me in the least. They don't make me think, they don't make me angry, they just make me go 'meh,' despite the technical merit.

I do draw the line at criminal behavior, especially where children are concerned. No money for Roman Polanski for me. And given how Woody Allen can be so synonymous with his work, I don't want to spend time watching him have crushes on screen with women who are barely legal. Not criminal but squicky as all hell. I've avoided his later movies because, well, my viewing time is limited and I'd rather put it elsewhere. It doesn't bother me in the least that I might be missing a great movie. There are always other great movies.

I don't think 'fair' or 'unfair' really plays into it when it comes to how to spend your money on creative work. Best to please yourself.

[Michael P]

I know I have a shotgun next to my bed for the next time Zombie Shakespeare shows up.

http://a628.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00696/72/61/696991627_s.jpg

[Infra-Man]

And why not? He's immortal for a damn good reason.

Yeah. He's experienced his first death, came back, and kicks ass with a samurai sword.

[Tommy]

Well as far as I know, Ditko didn't make any statements on his beliefs except those made in his comics - which could be quite blunt, I saw a page of his self-published Mr A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._A) where the titular hero directly tells us Steve's views on money.

Sometime I'd like to go back in time and explain to Ayn Rand that according to quantum physics A is not just A, A is also B, and sometimes A is both A and B at the same time.

[Michael P]

Sometime I'd like to go back in time and explain to Ayn Rand that according to quantum physics A is not just A, A is also B, and sometimes A is both A and B at the same time.

She probably thought quantum physics was communist hogwash. I mean, there's that whole Uncertainty Principle.

[Tobias March]

And why not? He's immortal for a damn good reason.

Pft. I prefer Racine :tongue:

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Yeah. He's experienced his first death, came back, and kicks ass with a samurai sword.

Rock Me Sexy Shakespeare.

[Gail Simone]

I actually think it's perfectly valid to not buy a person's work because you find their views or behaviors repugnant. As I've said, I LOVE Phil Spector. The man's a genius. But he murdered an innocent woman for no goddamn reason and if there was any chance in the world he would ever see another dime from me, I would do everything I could to make sure that didn't happen.

By the same token, I have no problem buying Dave Sim comics. I find his ideas about as nutty as a loon bug and pretty mean-spirited (and completely fictional and dishonest), but strongly held opinions don't as a rule preclude me from enjoying someone's work. Lovecraft was a virulent and idiotic racist, but I still like his stories.

I think it's a judgment call each way.

[jhota]

it's your money to spend.

[Gail Simone]

I have to say...I could not disagree more strongly with Chuck Dixon and Bill Willingham on some issues. Even after talking with Chuck directly about some of his previous comments, I can't say I fully understand his position, and Bill, whom I admire and respect and like very much, well, the one time we really talked gender, it was like we were from two different planets.

But I have to say, I find nothing hateful in either person's comments, at least that I've read. To me, they both come off as maybe, at worst, a little bit sheltered. I hate to put it that way, but that was my impression. If you meet and get to know some civil women of achievement, or a diversity of gay people, it's likely pretty hard to keep your prejudices against such people, ASSUMING you have any. But my feeling is that those guys are both decent, moral guys who are both kind and generous. To be blunt, I haven't read anything either has said that struck me as that egregious, even though I might strenuously disagree with them.

Is it possible to disagree and still think someone a perfectly decent person? I should certainly hope so!


While guys like Card, man, every word that man says about gays makes my skin crawl. Maybe it's just my own radar, but I think he's coming from a hateful place that isn't entirely explained by his religious beliefs. I think if he had his way, he'd make homosexuality illegal, which, if true, is miles beyond a discomfort in having gay characters in comics ostensibly read by kids.

I keep getting called an apologist for this, but I think that's pretty ridiculous. I believe my record on getting diversity in comics is pretty clear, and I also think everyone here has heard me strenuously voice my opinion on any number of 'sensitive' subjects. But to me, there's a scale of intolerance, and on one end, you have something akin to Nazis, and on the other, you get some people who are not at all mean-spirited or hateful, but are uncomfortable for one reason or another. I think those people have to be considered very differently from the angry bigots and the religious zealots, at least partially because their position doesn't seem to come from hate, but more from inexperience with the people they're nervous about.

Yelling at them isn't going to help, name-calling isn't going to help.

When I talk to someone who clearly doesn't care for gay people and isn't afraid to say it, my first reaction is always just contemptuous disgust. It's like talking to an intelligent design enthusiast, to me. But I do believe in the scale I mentioned, and I think it's important to consider that not everyone who is a bit inexperienced and nervous around gay folks is a raving, hateful, virulent bigot. They're just underexposed and underinformed. In most cases, I think those people, if they spent some time around some gay people, they'd probably leave their small bigotries behind like used KFC wrappers.

Same thing with sexism...there's the guy who has a distrust of women for whatever reason, but doesn't HATE them, and that guy shouldn't automatically be lumped in with the rabid misogynists.

Just my opinion.

[Tommy]

While guys like Card, man, every word that man says about gays makes my skin crawl. Maybe it's just my own radar, but I think he's coming from a hateful place that isn't entirely explained by his religious beliefs. I think if he had his way, he'd make homosexuality illegal, which, if true, is miles beyond a discomfort in having gay characters in comics ostensibly read by kids.

Yes he would...

This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.

Because we all know homosexuality was not practiced prior to Lawrence v. Texas.

[Gail Simone]

Yeah, see, that's a dickhead, right there, and I will happily boycott his work until the end of time.

Screw that guy.

[jerrymcl89]

Generally, I don't care about a creator's political and social views unless they are present in the work. But there are limits.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Yelling at them isn't going to help, name-calling isn't going to help.

As for me, when I don't buy someone's comics, I'm not trying to help. I'm leaving them alone, and getting the same from them in return.

I'm not gonna save the world by not buying a comic created by someone I object to. I'm gonna save $2.99.

[Arrogantcur]

Please, the only reason people hate John Byrne is because he tought Steve Irwin was selfish endangering his life for entertainment while he had kids of his own. The haters are shallow if they even know why they hate him. They prolly just hate cause it makes you seem pertinant on a message board saying JB is evil.

No, what he said about Steve Irwin is not the only reason people don't like him. Look at this. (http://peeinginthewind.blogspot.com/) Byrne's number two on the list.

Believe it or not I can kind of see where he was coming from with Irwin. But there's a big difference between saying "You know, if you have a family that's going to grieve if you die then you shouldn't be risking your life all the time," and saying "I am glad this asshole is dead. Sorry for his wife and kids, but relieved they are in no further danger from his lunacy!" BIG difference.

Regarding Christopher Reeve, he could've said something like "It's terrible what happened to the guy, but I'm not sure that you could call what he's doing 'heroic.' Just having something bad happent to you doesn't automatically make you a hero." I'd be able to respectfully disagree with Byrne on that without hating him if that had been what he said about Reeve (since I think Reeve speaking in favour of stem cell research was doing some good).

But that's not what Byrne said.

What Byrne said was "I have noticed that people have begun referring to Christopher Reeve as a hero. I do not wish to take away one iota of the courage he must have needed not to wake up screaming every single day, but the hard truth is there was nothing heroic in what happened to him or how he dealt with it...In fact, as far as how he dealt with it he didn’t even have a choice. We could imagine he spent every hour of every day when not in front of the cameras begging family members to simply kill him and get it over with—but none of them did so he had no choice but to deal with each day as it came. Heroism I believe involves choice." And he went on to say "I’ve gotten tired of people calling Christopher Reeve a hero. A really terrible thing happened to him and our society can’t deal with it when terrible things happen so we try to make out that it isn’t a terrible thing—'It’s an uplifting thing. He’s a hero.' He’s not a hero, he’s in hell."

Hell??? He's in hell?

Finally, his comments on terrorism. They aren't as easy to find as they used to be, I'm guessing because if Byrne made them on his message board he deleted them in the hopes that people would forget. But they're still out there. Here's one:

JB: America has been trying for the hundred years of so to "make the world a better place". What this has earned us is the contempt of our "friends", and the emnity of people who think their own master plans—usually including religious fervor and the subjugation of minorities, including women—are so much better than that freedom and democracy crap.
——The only acceptable response, now that we are officially in a new world, is for the American government to go Old Testament on these motherfuckers. Operation Flaming Sword. Find them and kill them. And kill their wives, their children, their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers. Go Super-Israel, and let them know what it =feels= like to be "at war" with the United States.

That's the main reason why I don't like Byrne, that last quote.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7885/motivator2767426oi5.jpg

The Godwin's Law of writing discussions! :tongue:

But I have to say, I find nothing hateful in either person's comments, at least that I've read. To me, they both come off as maybe, at worst, a little bit sheltered. I hate to put it that way, but that was my impression. If you meet and get to know some civil women of achievement, or a diversity of gay people, it's likely pretty hard to keep your prejudices against such people, ASSUMING you have any. But my feeling is that those guys are both decent, moral guys who are both kind and generous. To be blunt, I haven't read anything either has said that struck me as that egregious, even though I might strenuously disagree with them.

Is it possible to disagree and still think someone a perfectly decent person? I should certainly hope so!

It is for me too, but it depends on the issue and of course on the person. I also hear what you're saying about it being different when you actually know somebody. There was this girl I knew years ago who was gay. She told me a story about how when she was still in the closet, she had a male friend who would often make jokes about gay people. That made her uncomfortable. Eventually she came out to everybody, including him, and not only did he stop telling jokes like that but he made other people stop when they started to tell them. So yeah, it often makes all the difference.

There is one thing I actually agree with Dixon on, which is that it's better to introduce new characters who are gay (such as Scandal) than take old characters who've been established as straight and retcon them into being gay (such as Living Lightning). When Dan Slott did that with Living Lightning, he said that all of the prior relationships he'd had with girls were beards or that he'd been fooling himself, and "he's gay. Get over it." When Slott, or anybody else, says something like that I can't help but think what it would mean if they did the same thing with a bigger-name character like, say, Scott Summers. I mean despite Byrne's part in it, the Dark Phoenix Saga is a great story not just because of the action but because of the romance as well. So it just wouldn't be right for somebody to come along and say "Guess what? Scott's always been gay, and he didn't really mean it when he said he was in love with Jean or showed affection for her. It was all fake."

(Now if somebody were to make Scott bi, there would be no problem; the love he felt for Jean would've been real, and the love he feels for...ummm, let's say Cannonball...would also be real.)

I keep getting called an apologist for this, but I think that's pretty ridiculous. I believe my record on getting diversity in comics is pretty clear, and I also think everyone here has heard me strenuously voice my opinion on any number of 'sensitive' subjects. But to me, there's a scale of intolerance, and on one end, you have something akin to Nazis, and on the other, you get some people who are not at all mean-spirited or hateful, but are uncomfortable for one reason or another. I think those people have to be considered very differently from the angry bigots and the religious zealots, at least partially because their position doesn't seem to come from hate, but more from inexperience with the people they're nervous about.

Yelling at them isn't going to help, name-calling isn't going to help.

Agreed. Some people are capable of seeing the light, others aren't. Getting angry at the ones who might be able to see the light doesn't help. (Getting angry at the lost causes doesn't help either, but it doesn't necessarily hurt either and it can be cathartic.)

I guess it's the difference between Rick Warren and Fred Phelps. Rick Warren might have supported Proposition 8, but at least he doesn't appear to hate gay people. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge/the-choice-is-ours-now_b_152947.html) Phelps, of course, absolutely loathes gay people. Somebody might be able to convince Warren to reverse his position on gay marriage one of these days. Phelps, on the other hand, is going to be the same hateful prick until the day he dies. I don't know what made him that way, but that's the way he's always gonna be, and there is no reasoning with him.

[JKCarrier]

Even if I had, I still think I'd be able to re-read those old stories and not think about Ditko too much, because I think of them as primarily Stan Lee's stories; Stan wrote them, and told Ditko "draw this."

At the risk of ruining your enjoyment, :redface: -- lf you look at the later issues of Ditko's Spider-Man, the credits read "Script by Stan Lee, Plot and Art by Steve Ditko".

Anyway, it's not that I find Ditko's views especially hateful or anything (although I do fundamentally disagree with Objectivism)... it's just that he's so repetitious and blatant about it. Just about all of his creator-owned material amounts to illustrated lectures about his philosophy. It's a real chore to try and read, but I can happily look at his gorgeous pages all day long.

[Arrogantcur]

At the risk of ruining your enjoyment, :redface: -- lf you look at the later issues of Ditko's Spider-Man, the credits read "Script by Stan Lee, Plot and Art by Steve Ditko".

D'oh. :frown:

Actually, the only stories I've got that Ditko worked on are in a "Green Goblin" trade I bought some years ago that collects the Goblin's (Norman's) most notable appearances, as well as the story where Harry dies.

[section 8]

I know I have a shotgun next to my bed for the next time Zombie Shakespeare shows up.

You don't need to keep it so handy, you'll have plenty of time to grab and load it while Shakespear is waxing poetic:

O grey matter, the flawless mind!
the human engine which brings forth thought, the ancestor of all action

For this I hunger
apon this I must feed!

When he could just say...
BRAINS!

{Zombie Cliff's Notes]

[Infra-Man]

You don't need to keep it so handy you'l have plenty of time to grab abd load it while Shakespear is waxing poetic

He'd probably be more likely to say (to maintain iambic pentameter):

Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
Brains and brains and brains and brains and brains,
For your beauty hungers me to eat,
A zombie, I, must feast upon your meat.

[section 8]

Or
"Roses are red
Voilets are blue
I'm gonna crack open that head
And eat the brains outta you!"

[Tony Bang]

Or
"Roses are red
Voilets are blue
I'm gonna crack open that head
And eat the brains outta you!"

That sounds like something that would come from zombie Hulk Hogan.

[Indigo Al]

Has anyone here ever been severely judged for enjoying the work of a creator they disagree with? Just curious

[That JonoGuy]

I have to say...I could not disagree more strongly with Chuck Dixon and Bill Willingham on some issues. Even after talking with Chuck directly about some of his previous comments, I can't say I fully understand his position, and Bill, whom I admire and respect and like very much, well, the one time we really talked gender, it was like we were from two different planets.

But I have to say, I find nothing hateful in either person's comments, at least that I've read. To me, they both come off as maybe, at worst, a little bit sheltered. I hate to put it that way, but that was my impression. If you meet and get to know some civil women of achievement, or a diversity of gay people, it's likely pretty hard to keep your prejudices against such people, ASSUMING you have any. But my feeling is that those guys are both decent, moral guys who are both kind and generous. To be blunt, I haven't read anything either has said that struck me as that egregious, even though I might strenuously disagree with them.

Is it possible to disagree and still think someone a perfectly decent person? I should certainly hope so!


While guys like Card, man, every word that man says about gays makes my skin crawl. Maybe it's just my own radar, but I think he's coming from a hateful place that isn't entirely explained by his religious beliefs. I think if he had his way, he'd make homosexuality illegal, which, if true, is miles beyond a discomfort in having gay characters in comics ostensibly read by kids.

I keep getting called an apologist for this, but I think that's pretty ridiculous. I believe my record on getting diversity in comics is pretty clear, and I also think everyone here has heard me strenuously voice my opinion on any number of 'sensitive' subjects. But to me, there's a scale of intolerance, and on one end, you have something akin to Nazis, and on the other, you get some people who are not at all mean-spirited or hateful, but are uncomfortable for one reason or another. I think those people have to be considered very differently from the angry bigots and the religious zealots, at least partially because their position doesn't seem to come from hate, but more from inexperience with the people they're nervous about.

Yelling at them isn't going to help, name-calling isn't going to help.

When I talk to someone who clearly doesn't care for gay people and isn't afraid to say it, my first reaction is always just contemptuous disgust. It's like talking to an intelligent design enthusiast, to me. But I do believe in the scale I mentioned, and I think it's important to consider that not everyone who is a bit inexperienced and nervous around gay folks is a raving, hateful, virulent bigot. They're just underexposed and underinformed. In most cases, I think those people, if they spent some time around some gay people, they'd probably leave their small bigotries behind like used KFC wrappers.

Same thing with sexism...there's the guy who has a distrust of women for whatever reason, but doesn't HATE them, and that guy shouldn't automatically be lumped in with the rabid misogynists.

Just my opinion.

Your view on things pretty much echo my own. For the most part I try not to let different views influence what i buy, but sometimes a creator has wrote or said something that is so offensive I can't help but not support that creator anymore.

[Dazzler]

I don't believe in sliding scales of bigotry, and mitigating forgiveness based on where they fall on it. To me, Dixon's "gay people warp children" and Card's "gay people should be thrown in jail" come from the same hateful place.

The way I look at it is that there are probably a ton of creators whose views I wouldn't agree with IF I knew them. There are some I KNOW I don't agree with. It becomes something different when a creator espouses views completely outside of the creation of their work, oh, let's say, in an interview about the new book they're doing. They're putting it out there, and some people, like me, listen and take it to heart. When a creator says something that I so strongly find repugnant I can't, in good conscience, pick up their work because of...then I'm not going to buy it. It's comics, not classic literature. I don't really feel I'm going to be creating a void in my life by not reading Ultimate Iron Man. I would, however, feel like crap knowing I was supporting someone who thought my kind should be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives.

A decent, moral person doesn't keep saying mean-spirited and bigoted stuff after it's been pointed that's it's a bad thing to say. And they definitely don't repeat that stance while mocking those who are offended by it. That's their chance to change. If they're decent, they think, "you know, I think what I said was upsetting...maybe I should rethink this position." I'm not going to sit around and stroke egos until they come to their senses.

Granted me buying or not buying their stuff isn't going to change the way they think, either, but at least it lets me save the money to be put to better use.

--Dazz

[Joshua Pantalleresco]

For me it depends on how intelligent the politics are and how their viewpoints are expressed in their stories.

It's much easier when you agree with the politics and the ideas presented. I'd argue John Ostrander's Hawkworld to be a very political book, but I enjoyed it immensely as the viewpoints in there were very close to my own, and it made me really love what this country stands for. At the same time the idealism in that book was hit with a very healthy dose of reality of some of the pitfalls of the country as well. But I'd say it was a very political book all the way through. (Well done series by the way; everyone should read it.)

The opposite spectrum for me is Dave Sim. Cerebus is a feat I don't think anyone is replicating anytime soon. It's an amazing accomplishment. That said, his prayer at the end of the series and a lot of his views near the end of that run...I really didn't need to read that. It left a bad taste in my mouth and those kind of politics ruined that book for me. He's an amazing talent, but his viewpoints and the way he presented them ruined me from touching any more of his stuff.

When it comes to blogs and journals, I tend to give a little more leeway. Blogs are the owner's personal property. It'd be like going to a house and being offended at the way someone puts away their dishes. It's their place to vent if they choose, and like anything else, are optional to read. They can be evil nazis or practicing voodoo on that blog. I don't care. I'm choosing to come read their stuff. If I'm offended, I have the choice to not read any more stuff on their blogs. They put it up there. It's up to me to read it. I think I have more responsibility there than they do.

One could argue that work in art as well, but in art, I think presentation is everything, especially if it's a point of view I don't agree with. If it comes across as hateful or preachy, it turns people off. I think this is why many creators DON'T talk politics in their blogs. It's too much of a headache to make everyone else happy.

In any case, presentation of whatever you believe or politics period determines how it's received. If it's done well, and intelligently, even if I don't agree I'll at least come away with an "agree to disagree" attitude. If it comes off as preachy, or something hateful or forced down my throat, it ruins the story or piece, and my opinion on the creator.

JP

[Flying Saucers Over Oz]

It's both unfair and unavoidable.

I mean, granted, if Gail's a great storyteller, I shouldn't care how she feels about, say, Gay Rights. But if Gail repeatedly attacks Gay Rights, it's impossible for that not to color my reaction to her work. That's just how it is.

(Note: She doesn't. Don't worry.)

[4PointOh]

I don't believe in sliding scales of bigotry, and mitigating forgiveness based on where they fall on it. To me, Dixon's "gay people warp children" and Card's "gay people should be thrown in jail" come from the same hateful place.

The way I look at it is that there are probably a ton of creators whose views I wouldn't agree with IF I knew them. There are some I KNOW I don't agree with. It becomes something different when a creator espouses views completely outside of the creation of their work, oh, let's say, in an interview about the new book they're doing. They're putting it out there, and some people, like me, listen and take it to heart. When a creator says something that I so strongly find repugnant I can't, in good conscience, pick up their work because of...then I'm not going to buy it. It's comics, not classic literature. I don't really feel I'm going to be creating a void in my life by not reading Ultimate Iron Man. I would, however, feel like crap knowing I was supporting someone who thought my kind should be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives.

A decent, moral person doesn't keep saying mean-spirited and bigoted stuff after it's been pointed that's it's a bad thing to say. And they definitely don't repeat that stance while mocking those who are offended by it. That's their chance to change. If they're decent, they think, "you know, I think what I said was upsetting...maybe I should rethink this position." I'm not going to sit around and stroke egos until they come to their senses.

Granted me buying or not buying their stuff isn't going to change the way they think, either, but at least it lets me save the money to be put to better use.

--Dazz

Pre fucking cisely.

[Calybos]

It's the same as boycotting any other retailer whose practices and policies you disagree with. If you don't like how they operate, don't give them your money.

[Undead]

I tend to separate the artist or writer from their works. They don't have to be anyone I get along or agree with. Nobody is pure. I'm sure every writer I have read has done something I have disagreed with at least once in their lives.

[Gail Simone]

As for me, when I don't buy someone's comics, I'm not trying to help. I'm leaving them alone, and getting the same from them in return.

I'm not gonna save the world by not buying a comic created by someone I object to. I'm gonna save $2.99.

Yeah, I admit, that makes perfect sense to me, as well.

[Gail Simone]

I don't believe in sliding scales of bigotry, and mitigating forgiveness based on where they fall on it. To me, Dixon's "gay people warp children" and Card's "gay people should be thrown in jail" come from the same hateful place.

The way I look at it is that there are probably a ton of creators whose views I wouldn't agree with IF I knew them. There are some I KNOW I don't agree with. It becomes something different when a creator espouses views completely outside of the creation of their work, oh, let's say, in an interview about the new book they're doing. They're putting it out there, and some people, like me, listen and take it to heart. When a creator says something that I so strongly find repugnant I can't, in good conscience, pick up their work because of...then I'm not going to buy it. It's comics, not classic literature. I don't really feel I'm going to be creating a void in my life by not reading Ultimate Iron Man. I would, however, feel like crap knowing I was supporting someone who thought my kind should be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives.

A decent, moral person doesn't keep saying mean-spirited and bigoted stuff after it's been pointed that's it's a bad thing to say. And they definitely don't repeat that stance while mocking those who are offended by it. That's their chance to change. If they're decent, they think, "you know, I think what I said was upsetting...maybe I should rethink this position." I'm not going to sit around and stroke egos until they come to their senses.

Granted me buying or not buying their stuff isn't going to change the way they think, either, but at least it lets me save the money to be put to better use.

--Dazz


I find that sad, Dazz. Abso-fucking-LUTELY there are scales of ignorance, and by the way, that's a different thing from a mitigating factor, another subject entirely.

Do you have NO prejudices whatsoever? I tend to doubt it. Everyone has SOME. But it's likely that your prejudices are more along the "this sort of person makes me mildly uncomfortable." If that's the case, should you be judged the same way as the person who says, "this sort of person should be in jail"?

Absolutism isn't good for anyone. It certainly doesn't educate anyone. A person who is, perhaps, two percent bigoted is not the same as an angry skinhead on the prowl to bash gays and blacks. A person who has some minor prejudices about women is not the same as a raving wife-beater. When I was working at a crisis center, they taught us not to quantify victims, but that it was important to understand the variety of abuses and who committed them. It's never RIGHT to be a bigot under any circumstances, in my opinion, because the word literally is about being uninformed. But the response to a raving misogynist, for me, is different than from someone who, say, doesn't feel women should be in politics or whatever dumb philosophy they've come up with.

Now, did Chuck ACTUALLY say this, ""gay people warp children"? Because I haven't read that. It seemed to me that he tried to clarify his position here and some were simply unwilling to listen. We've had this discussion before, but that was my impression, as someone who likes everyone involved in that conversation. He may not have won many converts, but I believe he honestly tried to state his position, and while I heartily disagree with it, it was clearly not as virulent as you can find on any message board any day of the week.

More than that, Chuck's done a reasonable job with several gay characters in his recent work. I think that says a lot as well.

I am not an apologist. I find apologists loathesome. I don't agree with everything Bill Willingham or Chuck Dixon says, and I fancy that that goes for them with me. But I have yet to be convinced of their awfulness at this time.

[Ghost]

Not everybody felt the same way. Some people made posts saying in no uncertain terms that they wouldn't be buying his work any more because of something he said that offended them. The way I recall him taking this was with a combination of annoyance that these people would keep buying his stuff if he kept his mouth shut but would decide not to buy it if he refused to censor himself, and an inability to understand how they could go from liking his work one day and not liking it the next. He felt the same way about what the Dixie Chicks went through, although he didn't take it as personally of course.

As HE said, despite his feud with John Byrne he'd enjoy reading a new "Next Men" story. Despite him not seeing eye to eye with Charlton Heston, he likes "Planet of the Apes." Despite not seeing eye to eye with Schwarzenegger, he's liked that guy's movies. And so on.

Basically his position appeared to be that when people decide what to buy and what not to buy, they shouldn't take the personal beliefs of the person who makes the product into consideration. That it's unfair to do so. That he couldn't for the life of him understand why somebody might do that instead of focusing only on the product, or the work of fiction.

So I'll try to play devil's advocate for a minute here. Um...okay, Vincent Van Gogh wasn't the picture of mental health, but he made some good paintings. David Zucker made that piece of shit "American Carol" recently, but "Airplane!" is still funny IMO. And despite Orson Scott Card being a homophobe and all kinds of neoconservative he's written some good books, or so I hear anyway. Why not just ignore WHO created something and concentrate on WHAT it is?

The answer for me is that I have trouble ignoring who made something and I have trouble ignoring what kind of person they are, if I happen to know. I mean, I've heard that Orson Scott Card's books are good, but I don't want to buy one because I don't want to give the man a single cent of my money.

See, this is why we have internet piracy.

Thus, you can enjoy good fiction and art and still deny the creator your hard-earned doubloons, which is a double burn! XD

[Corrina]

No, we have internet piracy because people don't like to pay money for stuff.

Pirating the stuff insures that the creative won't benefit, true, but it also ensures that the publishing house and whoever backed that creative work won't get the funds either.

Meaning, to use an example, if you pirate Card's work, then his publisher loses money. And they then have less money to pay other authors.

If creators want to put their work up for free, more power to them. But that doesn't give anyone the right to walk into the store and take the work of someone who doesn't want to give it away.

[Arrogantcur]

Now, did Chuck ACTUALLY say this, ""gay people warp children"? Because I haven't read that. It seemed to me that he tried to clarify his position here and some were simply unwilling to listen. We've had this discussion before, but that was my impression, as someone who likes everyone involved in that conversation. He may not have won many converts, but I believe he honestly tried to state his position, and while I heartily disagree with it, it was clearly not as virulent as you can find on any message board any day of the week.

Here's what I found after some Googling...

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=96409

The word "warp" isn't in there. What he does seem to be saying is that children read comic books and that they shouldn't learn about certain things until they're a certain age. In the interest of full disclosure, I used to agree with that; I was like "I have nothing against gay people, but I didn't learn about them until I was in my teens and I don't think other people should either."

The trouble with that, as I see it today, is that not knowing anything about gay people for the first 10+ years of my life wasn't a good thing. When I first learned about it, I was all grossed out by the thought of anal sex; this was before I learned that it did not necessarily mean genital-to-fecal-matter contact and before I learned that straight couples do it as well and so on. So for a few years there I thought that gay sex was disgusting. If I had learned about it earlier on, or if I'd known somebody who was gay and out and could answer any questions I had, I probably wouldn't have thought so.

Also, at this point in my life I think it's kind of sad that homosexuality is thought of by Dixon and others as a mature theme, something that ought to give something the equivalent of a "PG-13" rating all by itself. That's homosexual relationships as opposed to sex. Dixon says...

CD:...So Clark and Lois can be seen kissing and being affectionate and there’s no need to explain it. The sexual aspect of their relationship doesn’t have to be explored. But if Wonder Woman and Supergirl are seen kissing then that does call for an explanation. The sexual aspect of a relationship like that will call forth questions from the kiddies.

But that's just kissing. That kiss, by itself, doesn't require an explanation of the sexual aspect of this hypothetical Kara/Diana relationship any more than a kiss between Clark and Lois does. A parent doesn't need to explain the mechanics of what the characters do in bed, not in either case. All a parent needs to say when asked "Why are Wonder Woman and Supergirl kissing?" is "They love each other." That's it. Why should love between any two people be considered a mature theme? :confused:

[Arrogantcur]

See, this is why we have internet piracy.

Thus, you can enjoy good fiction and art and still deny the creator your hard-earned doubloons, which is a double burn! XD

Meh, the way I feel about the dude right now I don't even want to do that much. For some reason I've lost all interest in what happens to Jen after her arrest, and what's going to happen with Siryn and Madrox and their baby, and all the rest.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

The trouble with that, as I see it today, is that not knowing anything about gay people for the first 10+ years of my life wasn't a good thing. When I first learned about it, I was all grossed out by the thought of anal sex; this was before I learned that it did not necessarily mean genital-to-fecal-matter contact and before I learned that straight couples do it as well and so on.

Well, also, if you tell kids that some boys like to kiss boys at a young age, you're not telling them sexual techniques any more than telling them that some boys and girls like to kiss each other.

And the stone fact is.... whether you tell 'em or not, they're gonna encounter it or references to it, and sooner than you think. So who do you want to be the one to answer their questions.... you or equally clueless kids on the playground?

I suspect this is what you were saying.... just felt the need to expound.

[Tommy]

Well, also, if you tell kids that some boys like to kiss boys at a young age, you're not telling them sexual techniques any more than telling them that some boys and girls like to kiss each other.

If a child is old enough to learn about heterosexuality, then they are old enough to learn about homosexuality. There's no intrinsic difference in learning about them.

What strikes me as extremely funny is the insinuation that mere exposure to knowledge of homosexuality causes children to become gay. If sexuality worked that way there would be no gay people, since the amount of heterosexual indoctrination compared to homosexual is at least a hundred thousand to one.

[TCJohnson]

But that's just kissing. That kiss, by itself, doesn't require an explanation of the sexual aspect of this hypothetical Kara/Diana relationship any more than a kiss between Clark and Lois does. A parent doesn't need to explain the mechanics of what the characters do in bed, not in either case. All a parent needs to say when asked "Why are Wonder Woman and Supergirl kissing?" is "They love each other." That's it. Why should love between any two people be considered a mature theme? :confused:

While I agree with everything you say...especially this last paragraph. I wish they never coined the term homosexuality. It is misleading, implying it is all about sex.

That being said, I see a lot of ignorance in Dixon's statement, but I just don't see hate.

[TCJohnson]

If a child is old enough to learn about heterosexuality, then they are old enough to learn about homosexuality. There's no intrinsic difference in learning about them.


I would say if they are old enough to learn about LOVE they are old enough to learn about homosexuals.

[Infra-Man]

See, this is why we have internet piracy.

Thus, you can enjoy good fiction and art and still deny the creator your hard-earned doubloons, which is a double burn! XD

Nah, if you want to look into certain works but don't want a creator to see your money, buy things used. Support your local bookstores, comic book stores, music stores, etc.

[Tommy]

While I agree with everything you say...especially this last paragraph. I wish they never coined the term homosexuality. It is misleading, implying it is all about sex.

Well at the time it was quite an improvement on "sodomite" or "pederast."

[Arrogantcur]

Well at the time it was quite an improvement on "sodomite" or "pederast."

Certainly. However, have you noticed how often anti-gay politicians use the word "homosexuals" when referring to the people they don't like, and the way they say the word? As opposed to "gay people," which just sounds friendlier even though it's synonymous with "homosexuals."

It's like they're trying to turn the word into an insult, similar to the way everybody in the GOP seems to have gotten a memo to start referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party."

[Alix Harrower]

I am not an apologist. I find apologists loathesome. I don't agree with everything Bill Willingham or Chuck Dixon says, and I fancy that that goes for them with me. But I have yet to be convinced of their awfulness at this time.

Dixon's support for torture isn't proof of awfulness?

[Arrogantcur]

Dixon's support for torture isn't proof of awfulness?

Shit, he supports that? Have you got a link?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Shit, he supports that? Have you got a link?

Someone did. If I recall, he said that he doesn't see waterboarding as a big deal, and if we didn't torture them, we might as well kill them where we find them?

It was at his homesite. Can someone post it to get the actual factual words?

[Alix Harrower]

Shit, he supports that? Have you got a link?

See his posts in this thread (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=229391).

[Arrogantcur]

Ugh.

All right, I've read as many of them as I can stand.

Fuck that guy. I am DEFINITELY not buying Knightfall now, whereas I was just extremely unlikely to before.

What pisses me off more than his positions are the way he says things like the Tipton Three are guilty because they look guilty, even though there's no proof, but guys accused of torturing prisoners should be considered innocent because there isn't more proof of their guilt. Holy hypocrisy, Batman!

Oh yeah, and if they did torture prisoners then it was justified because it yielded important life-saving imformation that prevented another 9/11 or worse. :rolleyes: & http://www.gangsterbb.net/emoticons/fuming.gif

You're absolutely right that Dixon is awful, Alix. And if that's what a political discussion with him looks like, if he's that closed-minded, he's a lost cause.

EDIT TO ADD: Someone did. If I recall, he said that he doesn't see waterboarding as a big deal, and if we didn't torture them, we might as well kill them where we find them?

Okay, he's saying that waterboarding isn't a big deal...but it nevertheless was bad enough to coerce prisoners into revealing accurate, truthful, information that saved lives.

Which is it, Mr. Dixon? Is it not a big deal, or is it a horrible experience that makes people spill their guts? If you end up reading this, I suggest you try being on the receiving end of it sometime so you'll know for sure.

I want to say more, but I know there's a line somewhere and I'm worried that I might cross if I don't stop now.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

If a child is old enough to learn about heterosexuality, then they are old enough to learn about homosexuality. There's no intrinsic difference in learning about them.

What strikes me as extremely funny is the insinuation that mere exposure to knowledge of homosexuality causes children to become gay. If sexuality worked that way there would be no gay people, since the amount of heterosexual indoctrination compared to homosexual is at least a hundred thousand to one.

Well, there goes my leafleting campaign.......

[Rattlehead]

I don't know it depends. I don't agree with much of what Chuck Dixon believes, but at the same time I've never read a comic of his where he had Batman condone waterboarding, for example. If he did that would be another thing entirely, but the fact is he doesn't push his views in his work. He's just going to give y0ou a well-written superhero story, nothing more, nothing less. That's all I ask really. I won't read Dave Sim because Dave Sim did start pushing his views and beliefs within the pages of Cerberus, and I have no interest in reading that. That's where the line gets drawn for me, think whatever kooky crap you want, that's part of being American. That's the double edged sword of living in a "free' society, Freedom of Speech covers everyone, not just those folks who agree with you. I feel a lot of people these days would much rather shut someone they disagree with up, for that is much easier than challenging and dialoguing with someone they disagree with. It's so much easier to just spout off "intolerance" and stick fingers in the proverbial ears than even attempting to understand why someone may think that way. Hell, you see this very scenario play out daily on this very board, and it's heavily perpetuated by the so called "open-minded" folks. ideaology in and of itself is close-minded, and ascribing to eithier the Left of the Rights purely Political rhetoric is the dumb way to go.

I guees what I'm getting at is saying, "Fuck that guy, he's a bigot and and idiot" makes you just as dumb, counter-productive, and downright lazy as the bigot. the words Fuck You never changed anyone's mind.

[MartinRedmond]

The reason I've stopped reading Peter David often is that sometimes he seems to milk stuff for a bunch of issues. ie For a couple of months, it seems like there's next to no story in his books. I like my books a little meatier.

I mean, if simply having the surprise spoiled ruins everything, then it wasn't worth reading anyway. The journey is the most important part to me.:wink: I still love his characterisation and all his lame jokes still make me chuckle.

For some reason I've lost all interest in what happens to Jen after her arrest, and what's going to happen with Siryn and Madrox and their baby, and all the rest.
I stopped when he had Guido kill someone under mind control. It just ruined it for me. I couldn't accept that! >:( I've read the latest issue at the store, so it doesn't count as piracy, LOL. I'm kind of peeved at Syrin. Perhaps she'll change her mind once she comes back to her senses? :/ It's such cheap drama. I can't believe she'd think he'd do that on purpose.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I reiterate: Me not buying a comic for my personal reading is not the same as me censoring anybody. It's me choosing what to do with my money.

Talking about how 'Freedom of speech is a two edged sword' misses the point entirely and dramatically. Nobody's appealing to comics publishers to insist his work not be printed. Nobody's pulling the comics off library bookshelves, or or insisting libraries not but them in the first place. Nobody's shutting down anybody's websites where they talk about their beliefs.

People aren't under any obligation to buy any product they don't want to, and the reason why is immaterial. Whether I don't buy a comic because 'So and so is a big meanie' or if it's because 'I don't like the sheen on the staples it's put together with,' that's my right.

It becomes censorship if I try to interfere other people's right to consume said material. If I choose not to consume it myself, that's just a personal choice, and as I tell my student's it's a case of 'Nunya.' As in 'Nunya Business.'

To paraphrase the great Billie Holliday, "Ain't nobody's business if I don't."

[Gail Simone]

I would say if they are old enough to learn about LOVE they are old enough to learn about homosexuals.

Sure, but is being a bigot behaving in a bigoted manner, or is it simply not having the EXACT same views we have?

And when Chuck made that comment, even that short span of years ago, he WAS writing for a younger audience. To me, hell yeah, there are a lot of topics in the Batman comics of that era that are a lot more 'damaging' than reading that some people in the world are gay, but I still think it's a different thing from what Dazz claimed, entirely.

[NickGuy]

no, because i wouldnt want people to hold my opinions against me.

[spark627]

I have a hard time buying someone's work if I have problems with their beliefs. I refused to buy anything by Chuck Dixon bc I have read his opinions online and don't want to give money to someone with those thoughts. To me this is no different then not buying a book bc you don't like an author's writing. Judd Winick believes he is a good writing, I strongly disagree... therefore I don't buy it :)

[spark627]

no, because i wouldnt want people to hold my opinions against me.

I understand what you're saying but you are what you put out there. If have you have bigoted/homophobic/racist/sexist etc beliefs then you are a bigot/homophobe/racist/sexist etc, you can't seperate yourself from that... and you will be judged on it (we aren't talking about looks here, where you shouldn't be judged. We are talking about a persons thoughts, heart, soul and morals. How else do you judge a person?)

[Mr.EZ]

Nah, if you want to look into certain works but don't want a creator to see your money, buy things used. Support your local bookstores, comic book stores, music stores, etc.

ESPECIALLY the Mom & Pop shops!

Libraries have some great sales too, and proceeds usually go right back into the library.

[Arrogantcur]

That's the double edged sword of living in a "free' society, Freedom of Speech covers everyone, not just those folks who agree with you. I feel a lot of people these days would much rather shut someone they disagree with up, for that is much easier than challenging and dialoguing with someone they disagree with. It's so much easier to just spout off "intolerance" and stick fingers in the proverbial ears than even attempting to understand why someone may think that way. Hell, you see this very scenario play out daily on this very board, and it's heavily perpetuated by the so called "open-minded" folks. ideaology in and of itself is close-minded, and ascribing to eithier the Left of the Rights purely Political rhetoric is the dumb way to go.

Rattlehead, I'd try talking to him if I thought it would do any good. But you see people in that thread saying to him more or less what I'd try to say to him, and he just comes back with GOP talking points and snark. Looks to me like he was more interested in an argument than a discussion or civil debate, and trying to get through to somebody like that is an exercise in futility and frustration.

I guees what I'm getting at is saying, "Fuck that guy, he's a bigot and and idiot" makes you just as dumb, counter-productive, and downright lazy as the bigot. the words Fuck You never changed anyone's mind.

As opposed to calling somebody dumb?

Tell me what I'm supposed to say, man. Tell me what actually WOULD be helpful, what WOULD make a guy like Dixon hear me out and seriously consider what I had to say. I don't think anything could make him consider what I had to say.

Finally, as far as trying to understand his point of view on torture? I understand it fine. I understand the logic of it.

His point of view is that 9/11 was so bad that nothing like it must ever happen again, and that torture is a necessary evil because it gets information out of guys who would like to kill more Americans. That information, according to Dixon, is used to stop terrorist plots and, again according to Dixon, there might very well have been another 9/11 if not for the use of torture to extract information from prisoners.

I can understand why somebody might believe that.

But I still think it's a crock of shit.

I believe that torture doesn't work because a prisoner can easily lie to their interrogator. I believe that it's possible to prevent another 9/11 WITHOUT using torture. I believe that if Americans start doing evil things like torture, regardless of what it may or may not achieve, then those Americans have proven that they are as bad as al Qaeda. Those Americans will then deserve the same fate that al Qaeda deserves.

I for one would rather die right now in a terrorist attack than have my safety guaranteed by "enhanced interrogation." Particularly if innocent people end up getting imprisoned and tortured, which we KNOW has happened.

[Gail Simone]

Dixon's support for torture isn't proof of awfulness?

I think wanting the US to support torture is a hideous, evil, vile, Un-Christian, monstrous thing to do.

I don't remember Chuck's exact stance on it, but I would fight against the notion that torture is okay for the US 'til my last tree-hugging breath.

I remember an actual SOLDIER on Chuck's board saying he felt torture was a bad idea, and some of Chuck's boarders obviously hurt that a real-life soldier, the guy they want to be so bad, would tell them they were wrong on such a rabid Right-wing point. I thought that was pretty amazing.

I think most people in America who support torture have simply not thought it through. They're so besotted with idiot talk show spin and the lies of people like Karl Rove and Jack Bauer that they don't really want to think of the rapes, sexual abuse, nerve damage, 'accidental' death, and permanent disfigurement that goes with the stupid little ticking clock scenarios in their heads.

I believe you can argue the correctness of the death penalty. There's no sane argument that supports torture. It is the epitome of inhumane behavior and I will never stop trying to convince those who disagree otherwise.

[Black Atom]

Not only is it fair, but I believe people have a responsibility to.

[TCJohnson]

Sure, but is being a bigot behaving in a bigoted manner, or is it simply not having the EXACT same views we have?

And when Chuck made that comment, even that short span of years ago, he WAS writing for a younger audience. To me, hell yeah, there are a lot of topics in the Batman comics of that era that are a lot more 'damaging' than reading that some people in the world are gay, but I still think it's a different thing from what Dazz claimed, entirely.

And I was agreeing. I don't like Mr. Dixon's views on homosexuality but I think calling him a bigot on that is taking it too far.

Now, his views on torture...that I have more of a problem with.

Don't know if I would stop buying his books based on it, however, unless he was the one who was actually doing the torturing.

[Gail Simone]

I reiterate: Me not buying a comic for my personal reading is not the same as me censoring anybody. It's me choosing what to do with my money.

Talking about how 'Freedom of speech is a two edged sword' misses the point entirely and dramatically. Nobody's appealing to comics publishers to insist his work not be printed. Nobody's pulling the comics off library bookshelves, or or insisting libraries not but them in the first place. Nobody's shutting down anybody's websites where they talk about their beliefs.

People aren't under any obligation to buy any product they don't want to, and the reason why is immaterial. Whether I don't buy a comic because 'So and so is a big meanie' or if it's because 'I don't like the sheen on the staples it's put together with,' that's my right.

It becomes censorship if I try to interfere other people's right to consume said material. If I choose not to consume it myself, that's just a personal choice, and as I tell my student's it's a case of 'Nunya.' As in 'Nunya Business.'

To paraphrase the great Billie Holliday, "Ain't nobody's business if I don't."



Nah, I'm with you, I don't think it's fair to CONDEMN someone for not buying the work of a creator whose beliefs and words are that repugnant to them.

By the same token, from the other side of the fence, I know I take some risk when I say my opinions, particularly during the "Americans have to be careful what they say" period. I have to give at least some small props to those who had the courage to speak their convictions, because there are a lot who do not.

[spark627]

And I was agreeing. I don't like Mr. Dixon's views on homosexuality but I think calling him a bigot on that is taking it too far.

Now, his views on torture...that I have more of a problem with.

Don't know if I would stop buying his books based on it, however, unless he was the one who was actually doing the torturing.

Calling him a bigot may not be too far though honestly. If you are going to call someone that, make sure you know the facts, he put his feelings in print for everyone to see. As far I have read I would call Dixon a bigot as far as homosexuals go, beyond that... I dunno

[NickGuy]

I understand what you're saying but you are what you put out there. If have you have bigoted/homophobic/racist/sexist etc beliefs then you are a bigot/homophobe/racist/sexist etc, you can't seperate yourself from that... and you will be judged on it (we aren't talking about looks here, where you shouldn't be judged. We are talking about a persons thoughts, heart, soul and morals. How else do you judge a person?)


yeah, but should that affect your decision to buy their books? I mean, thats like avoiding clint eastwood movies because he called this generation a pussy

[TCJohnson]

Mrs. Simone,

Doesn't Mr. Dixon own Bane and get a small amount of money every time he is used?

So wouldn't buying Secret Six be supporting Chuck Dixon?

Or am I completely wrong on that.

[Arrogantcur]

Mrs. Simone,

Doesn't Mr. Dixon own Bane and get a small amount of money every time he is used?

So wouldn't buying Secret Six be supporting Chuck Dixon?

Or am I completely wrong on that.

I thought DC owned the character.

[TCJohnson]

I thought DC owned the character.

Part owner. I know every time Bane appears in a movie or a cartoon or a video game Chuck Dixon gets money. I am not sure of comic books.

[K-DoG7p7]

I thought DC owned the character.

Well... Mr Dixon has confirmed on this very forum that he does get money for "Batman and Robin" because Bane is in it (But he has never seen the movie.. I envy him..)

[spark627]

yeah, but should that affect your decision to buy their books? I mean, thats like avoiding clint eastwood movies because he called this generation a pussy

To buy or not to buy is a personal choice. I won't buy an Eminem album (sorry my ref is kinda old lol) bc of his views on gays, women, the idea of killing women etc. I personally, won't buy Dixon's work, that's my choice. For me, anyone in a field where they or their product is bought runs the risk everytime they open their mouths. Celebrities, for example, turn off a lot of people when they talk politics. It is a risk they take, Dixon never had to give his views on homosexuality and torture... he chose to, therefore he welcomes himself to be judges by others. Gail is pretty outspoken about her beliefs and I am sure she has offended people as well, but I am sure she knew the risk of offending people when she spoke about her beliefs. Personally, it made me love her work more :)

[Arrogantcur]

Well... Mr Dixon has confirmed on this very forum that he does get money for "Batman and Robin" because Bane is in it (But he has never seen the movie.. I envy him..)

Hah...I saw a little bit of the part with Bane. As I recall, the Bane in that movie looked pretty silly.

Oh well, I'll keep on buying Secret Six even if Dixon does get a little money from it.

[TCJohnson]

I reiterate: Me not buying a comic for my personal reading is not the same as me censoring anybody. It's me choosing what to do with my money.


When I said that before about censorship, that was my own personal feeling about my buying habits. It comes from the fact I know of authors who were boycotted because they spoke out against President Bush. That pissed me off, and I don't want to be like that because I disagree with what somebody said. But that is my personal choice in the matter and I don't expect it to apply to anybody else.

Although I do wonder how many people on this board would consider me the enemy if I do buy something of Mr. Dixon's.

[NickGuy]

To buy or not to buy is a personal choice. I won't buy an Eminem album (sorry my ref is kinda old lol) bc of his views on gays, women, the idea of killing women etc. I personally, won't buy Dixon's work, that's my choice. For me, anyone in a field where they or their product is bought runs the risk everytime they open their mouths. Celebrities, for example, turn off a lot of people when they talk politics. It is a risk they take, Dixon never had to give his views on homosexuality and torture... he chose to, therefore he welcomes himself to be judges by others. Gail is pretty outspoken about her beliefs and I am sure she has offended people as well, but I am sure she knew the risk of offending people when she spoke about her beliefs. Personally, it made me love her work more :)

yes, but the topic of this thread is all about if its fair or not...I dont think it's fair because i wouldnt want people holding my views against me. thats why the country I live in allows me to be able to express those views. It's impossible to keep everyone pacified. I wouldnt want people to say "Im totally not going to check out NickGuy's new comic because he said that *insert groups of people here* should be *insert view here*"

For some examples, I dont agree on Frank Miller's views of the middle east and terrorism, and i dont agree on will eisner's views of racism....but that wont stop me from a) picking up their work, or b) enjoying it. if anything, it gives me a new way to analyze it, knowing what they think.

[spark627]

yes, but the topic of this thread is all about if its fair or not...I dont think it's fair because i wouldnt want people holding my views against me. thats why the country I live in allows me to be able to express those views. It's impossible to keep everyone pacified. I wouldnt want people to say "Im totally not going to check out NickGuy's new comic because he said that *insert groups of people here* should be *insert view here*"

For some examples, I dont agree on Frank Miller's views of the middle east and terrorism, and i dont agree on will eisner's views of racism....but that wont stop me from a) picking up their work, or b) enjoying it. if anything, it gives me a new way to analyze it, knowing what they think.

Right, but deciding if it is fair or not is a personal choice, isn't it? There is no right or wrong answer here. To me it is fair, to you it isn't. You should ALWAYS be allowed to express you views, however you will be judged on them and people will fight you. You can't have one without the other. You said you wouldn't want people to judge your comics based on your beliefs, but then you shouldn't share them if you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences, IMO.

[Arrogantcur]

Although I do wonder how many people on this board would consider me the enemy if I do buy something of Mr. Dixon's.

I wouldn't. I'd say it's up to you, and I don't think it has any significant impact on the state of the world or anything. It's one thing for me to avoid somebody's work, but I wouldn't ever demand that others follow my lead.

[Charles RB]

Well at the time it was quite an improvement on "sodomite"

What I want to know is what a gommorite would be.

[NickGuy]

You said you wouldn't want people to judge your comics based on your beliefs, but then you shouldn't share them if you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences, IMO.


why should i have to be afraid of pissing people off though?

[That JonoGuy]

why should i have to be afraid of pissing people off though?

No one says you have to be afraid. I think they are just saying if you plan on voicing controversial opinions, don't be surprised if the sales drop a bit.

[Gail Simone]

Mrs. Simone,

Doesn't Mr. Dixon own Bane and get a small amount of money every time he is used?

So wouldn't buying Secret Six be supporting Chuck Dixon?

Or am I completely wrong on that.

You usually don't get money unless they are cover-featured with a logo, I believe, but I'm not sure what the deal with Bane is.

But I think that's really stretching it, even if it were true. I did a Spirit story, should that not be supported because of Ebony in the 40's?

[NickGuy]

No one says you have to be afraid. I think they are just saying if you plan on voicing controversial opinions, don't be surprised if the sales drop a bit.

oh definately. theres always a price to pay by saying something. on the other hand, sometimes neutrality can cost you too.

[spark627]

why should i have to be afraid of pissing people off though?


Ok, maybe I am not being clear. You should always feel free to give your POV, however, there are going to be people who disgree (and have the right to do so). So they may fight you on what you say, and they have the right just as you had the right to give your POV.

When you meet someone new, they may seem great and then they say "gays should be shot and killed" (I am gay and do not feel this way). If you disagree with this, then you have the choice of:

a) I like this person, I don't agree with this belief, but I can still manage a friendship.

or

b) I can't be friends with someone who believes this, we're done.

It is the same thing with deciding to buy someone's work if you strongly disagree with them.

You said, why should I be afraid? Well, its not about being afraid it about being held accountable for what you say. If you don't care what people think about your beliefs then you have to also say I don't care if they buy my work based on beliefs. You can't seperate yourself from what you say and believe.

[NickGuy]

When you meet someone new, they may seem great and then they say "gays should be shot and killed" (I am gay and do not feel this way).


if you believed that then I would be worried for you. :biggrin:

[spark627]

if you believed that then I would be worried for you. :biggrin:

I certainly do not believe that :tongue:

[TCJohnson]

You usually don't get money unless they are cover-featured with a logo, I believe, but I'm not sure what the deal with Bane is.

But I think that's really stretching it, even if it were true. I did a Spirit story, should that not be supported because of Ebony in the 40's?

If you are asking me you really are asking the wrong person.

[That JonoGuy]

There is one incident I remember that the actions of a creator had a big effect on his work. Namely he no longer got any. Does anyone remember the name of the guy. He claimed to be in the military. I think he was the writer on an Image title.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

When I said that before about censorship, that was my own personal feeling about my buying habits. It comes from the fact I know of authors who were boycotted because they spoke out against President Bush. That pissed me off, and I don't want to be like that because I disagree with what somebody said. But that is my personal choice in the matter and I don't expect it to apply to anybody else.

Although I do wonder how many people on this board would consider me the enemy if I do buy something of Mr. Dixon's.

Do you honestly imagine many people would?

Shall we ask for a show of hands?

[TCJohnson]

Hell, people get on my case because I say I like Brand New Day.

[4PointOh]

Nah, I'm with you, I don't think it's fair to CONDEMN someone for not buying the work of a creator whose beliefs and words are that repugnant to them.

By the same token, from the other side of the fence, I know I take some risk when I say my opinions, particularly during the "Americans have to be careful what they say" period. I have to give at least some small props to those who had the courage to speak their convictions, because there are a lot who do not.

But how much courage does it take, really, to say, "gay characters don't belong in comic books?" With homophobia still being the go-to safe harbor for bigots, I'd say little to none--particularly when your audience is primarily male and overwhelmingly heterosexual.

I don't think it's courageous (or harmless) to say, "I don't hate black people, but I definitely wouldn't want one of them to marry my daughter," which is ickily similar in theme to remarks Chuck Dixon and Bill Willingham have made regarding their respective points of view. It's the same old bigotry in newer, finer, more tasteful clothing. But it's still carrying a noose.

I guess my fear is being exposed to their beliefs in their work. Many of my friends objected to Dixon's BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS for that very reason. I guess I just do without being reminded how disgusting I am.

From what I understand, Chuck and Bill are very talented individuals and might be really nice people besides. But I can't, in good conscience, knowingly put money in the pocket of people who think like they do and who are proud to think that way.

[NickGuy]

Hell, people get on my case because I say I like Brand New Day.



the art, the story, or the fall-out and resulting confusion?

[Gail Simone]

I think it takes no courage at all to be a bigot, Bobby. But if you knew the numbers of Conservative creators who don't fly under their true colors in public, I think you'd be very surprised. All I'm saying is, it DOES take some courage to out yourself as Conservative in a predominantly liberal medium, and I can't really see how that is arguable.

I have no sympathy for Chuck's position about gays as stated at the time, and I'm not sure I totally understood his explanation for it, either. I've asked him about it a couple times and it's clear we weren't going to come to an agreement. But whatever he said years ago, his work since then seems to fly right in the face of it, as he's done books with prominent gay characters ever since, and perfectly credibly, in my view.

I don't think Chuck or Bill said anything like the example you've mentioned, at least not to my knowledge. To me, cooking the books to make the case is something that we have to guard against completely. People should be judged by what they say or do, not by what makes them the easiest target, as I'm sure you'll agree. Reality is vital when you're accusing people of something.

[Gail Simone]

There is one incident I remember that the actions of a creator had a big effect on his work. Namely he no longer got any. Does anyone remember the name of the guy. He claimed to be in the military. I think he was the writer on an Image title.

I think you're thinking of Micah Wright, who claimed to be, I believe, an Army or Air Force Ranger, can't remember which. It was all a complete fraud, and pretty shameful. That said, I think he's served his time.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Hell, people get on my case because I say I like Brand New Day.

Uh huh.

So is that a yes or no on the show of hands thing?

[NickGuy]

I think it takes no courage at all to be a bigot, Bobby. But if you knew the numbers of Conservative creators who don't fly under their true colors in public, I think you'd be very surprised. All I'm saying is, it DOES take some courage to out yourself as Conservative in a predominantly liberal medium, and I can't really see how that is arguable.



true, and i think its kind of ironic how conservative alot of comic fans are when it comes to people messing with characters.

[4PointOh]

To me, cooking the books to make the case is something that we have to guard against completely. People should be judged by what they say or do, not by what makes them the easiest target, as I'm sure you'll agree. Reality is vital when you're accusing people of something.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I think it takes no courage at all to be a bigot, Bobby. But if you knew the numbers of Conservative creators who don't fly under their true colors in public, I think you'd be very surprised. All I'm saying is, it DOES take some courage to out yourself as Conservative in a predominantly liberal medium, and I can't really see how that is arguable.

What?

'Predominantly liberal medium?'

Isn't the main message in superhero comics that Might Makes Right?

I missed something.

Honestly, when it comes to 'paragons of courage', I don't think comics creators. Maybe Kirby, Eisner..... those who fought in WWII FOR their soldier days. But for their comics work?

I love you, but I think you're overstating the case now, Gail.

[Gail Simone]

What?

'Predominantly liberal medium?'

Isn't the main message in superhero comics that Might Makes Right?

I missed something.

Honestly, when it comes to 'paragons of courage', I don't think comics creators. Maybe Kirby, Eisner..... those who fought in WWII FOR their soldier days. But for their comics work?

I love you, but I think you're overstating the case now, Gail.


Only because you misread my meaning, Maxine.

The vast majority of people in the industry are liberal or left-leaning. I'm not speaking of the values of fictional characters following the heroic traditions and created decades ago. I'm speaking of the reality of the industry as it exists, that the people who give out the jobs are much more likely to be liberal than conservative.

[Dazzler]

I'm bowing out of this, because I find it complete crap.

Cooking the books, indeed. Dixon may not have said that "gay people warp children" verbatim, but there's no way to justify the things he's said as meaning anything other than that. It goes beyond mere discomfort and straight into the territory of, well, straight up bigotry.

All this dancing around it, trying to excuse it by placing it on a spectrum of hate is the exact same excusitory stuff that allowed things like Prop 8 to pass. Because the damage you do and the hatred you spew is okay as long as you you're not out there lynching someone nightly. There are tons of people in California right now who may seem like pleasant enough people, but are teaching their children this same exact stuff, and it's letting it slide that gets us where we are today.

Sorry, I'm not buying into it in the slightest. I've read several times that people see he's uncomfortable or ignorant...but not hateful. Well, obviously, it may just be because I'm closer to the fire than some of you, but when someone tells me that children shouldn't be exposed to me because I would confuse them or stunt their development because of my sexual orientation, I don't look at that as just being "misinformed".

Just as his dear old Aunt Rose. The one who was a lesbian, but it was okay, because she stayed in the closet her whole life and didn't make anyone think of it. Seriously.

--Dazz

[Gail Simone]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

You said that something they said was 'ickily similar' to something that they didn't say at all, Bobby. I'm saying, when accusing someone of something, it's important to stick to the exact wording, wherever possible, for your own case as well as for the rights of the accused.

If they actually said something like that, can you present it in context?

I don't think they did, at least not to my knowledge.

[Gail Simone]

I'm bowing out of this, because I find it complete crap.

Cooking the books, indeed. Dixon may not have said that "gay people warp children" verbatim, but there's no way to justify the things he's said as meaning anything other than that. It goes beyond mere discomfort and straight into the territory of, well, straight up bigotry.

All this dancing around it, trying to excuse it by placing it on a spectrum of hate is the exact same excusitory stuff that allowed things like Prop 8 to pass. Because the damage you do and the hatred you spew is okay as long as you you're not out there lynching someone nightly. There are tons of people in California right now who may seem like pleasant enough people, but are teaching their children this same exact stuff, and it's letting it slide that gets us where we are today.

Sorry, I'm not buying into it in the slightest. I've read several times that people see he's uncomfortable or ignorant...but not hateful. Well, obviously, it may just be because I'm closer to the fire than some of you, but when someone tells me that children shouldn't be exposed to me because I would confuse them or stunt their development because of my sexual orientation, I don't look at that as just being "misinformed".

Just as his dear old Aunt Rose. The one who was a lesbian, but it was okay, because she stayed in the closet her whole life and didn't make anyone think of it. Seriously.

--Dazz


You said he said something HE NEVER SAID, Dazz.

THAT is crap, too.


Be as mad as you like, I prefer accuracy to outrage every time. Sometimes, they go hand in hand. But outrage WITHOUT accuracy just looks ridiculous.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Only because you misread my meaning, Maxine.

The vast majority of people in the industry are liberal or left-leaning. I'm not speaking of the values of fictional characters following the heroic traditions and created decades ago. I'm speaking of the reality of the industry as it exists, that the people who give out the jobs are much more likely to be liberal than conservative.

Well, I certainly can't speak to that point, not having experience seeking work in the comics field. Perhaps other people in the industry would address the point better than I.

Seeing that there ARE conservatives out there working in the field and supporting their families, I am a touch skeptical. But as I say, I can't back that up with experience or evidence, as I don't have any.

What say you, various comics professionals?

[Gail Simone]

I love that asking for quotes to be, oh, I don't know, TRUE, is somehow "dancing around."


Jesus.

[Dazzler]

You said he said something HE NEVER SAID, Dazz.

THAT is crap, too.


Be as mad as you like, I prefer accuracy to outrage every time. Sometimes, they go hand in hand. But outrage WITHOUT accuracy just looks ridiculous.

Whatever, Gail.

Okay, then, the thousand and one times I quoted HIM DIRECTLY, you said the same old stuff.

Obviously, the man gets off the hook one way or another.

--Dazz

[Gail Simone]

Well, I certainly can't speak to that point, not having experience seeking work in the comics field. Perhaps other people in the industry would address the point better than I.

Seeing that there ARE conservatives out there working in the field and supporting their families, I am a touch skeptical. But as I say, I can't back that up with experience or evidence, as I don't have any.

What say you, various comics professionals?

Be as skeptical as you like. Until very recently, there were almost no openly conservative creators in mainstream comics. Most kept their beliefs firmly in the closet when dealing with fans, the press, or even their editors.

It's still lopsided to the left (which I obviously am happy about), but there's no question that there are still darn few openly Right wing creators who have made their positions clear. Chuck, Bill Willingham, Billy Tucci, Ethan Van Sciver, Frank Miller (by some accounts, anyway), I'm already running out.

But I'm aware of many more who won't talk about it, and I can hardly blame them after a thread like this. Though my sympathies are firmly elsewhere, I can see why they wouldn't want this following them around.

[4PointOh]

You said that something they said was 'ickily similar' to something that they didn't say at all, Bobby. I'm saying, when accusing someone of something, it's important to stick to the exact wording, wherever possible, for your own case as well as for the rights of the accused.

If they actually said something like that, can you present it in context?

I don't think they did, at least not to my knowledge.

Chuck Dixon said that he was not a homophobe. He said he just thought that it was not proper to include homosexuality in comic book stories because it was inappropriate to expose it to children.

Then, according to my friends, in a BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS story, he had Batman take a questionable position regarding a teammate's sexuality.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous, but I don't know how else to interpret that. It feels, to me, ickily similar to that whole, "I'm not a racist, but...." argument. Enlightened bigotry is still bigotry. That's all I'm trying to say.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Passions aside, I think that inferring that the reason someone says young children oughtn't be talked to about homosexuality is that it would have a detrimental effect on them is a reasonable interpretation.

So I'm curious, now.... do we all agree with this interpretation, or do we interpret this differently? I ask not to be snarky, but because I honestly don't know the answer to this question. Could this be the sticking point?

[Gail Simone]

Chuck Dixon said that he was not a homophobe. He said he just thought that it was not proper to include homosexuality in comic book stories because it was inappropriate to expose it to children.

Then, according to my friends, in a BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS story, he had Batman take a questionable position regarding a teammate's sexuality.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous, but I don't know how else to interpret that. It feels, to me, ickily similar to that whole, "I'm not a racist, but...." argument.

your friends are mistaken, Bobby. That opinion came from a preview, if I remember correctly, that people freaked out about, when the whole issue said something different entirely.

I don't know the motives or the rest of the story behind that so I won't speak to it, but I believe the full issue showed the preview to be leaving a false impression.

[TCJohnson]

Chuck Dixon said that he was not a homophobe. He said he just thought that it was not proper to include homosexuality in comic book stories because it was inappropriate to expose it to children.

He said that it was inappropriate to expose children to the topic of sex and sexuality, and that includes the topic of homosexuality. Which I disagree with him about, and think homosexuality and sex in general can be two very different things. I view that as extremely old fasioned, not hateful.

Then, according to my friends, in a BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS story, he had Batman take a questionable position regarding a teammate's sexuality.

I read the issue.

Batman said that he didn't want Thunder on the team because of Grace and Thunders "special relationship."

Grace got angry and accused Batman of having a problem with them being lovers.

On the next page, Batman told them that he didn't know they were lovers, he didn't really care one way or the other and the special relationship he was talking about was Grace being Thunder's mentor...and Thunder was too inexperienced to be on the team and Grace was too close to make that call.

Of course, this was setting up another scene in a later issue where the Outsiders were trapped and the only one free to save them was Thunder. Grace and Thunder were then united and Grace insisted Thunder be on the team.

And Pink Maxine...take a hand count. :Shrug: Just stating the vibe I get from some people on this board.

[Red Jack]

Passions aside, I think that inferring that the reason someone says young children oughtn't be talked to about homosexuality is that it would have a detrimental effect on them is a reasonable interpretation.

So I'm curious, now.... do we all agree with this interpretation, or do we interpret this differently? I ask not to be snarky, but because I honestly don't know the answer to this question. Could this be the sticking point?

I think of it as old-fashioned and well within Mr. D's rights. I don't share his view or the behavior but there's nothing in it that is inherently hateful.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I think of it as old-fashioned and well within Mr. D's rights. I don't share his view or the behavior but there's nothing in it that is inherently hateful.

I don't think it's a question whether it's 'Within his rights' or not. People have the right to have any view they'd like.

And also, describing an idea as being 'old fashioned' has no bearing of whether it's benevolent or not.

But do you agree, then, that he believes talking to children about homosexuality or exposing them to the fact that it exists will be detrimental to them?

[Dazzler]

I think of it as old-fashioned and well within Mr. D's rights. I don't share his view or the behavior but there's nothing in it that is inherently hateful.

Then you'd be okay if he'd have instead said, "I have to bar the windows and doors to keep out all the messages the black community is intent on pushing on my children?"

I have a feeling you'd be fit to be tied if this was about race rather than sexuality.

--Dazz

[TCJohnson]

And also, describing an idea as being 'old fashioned' has no bearing of whether it's benevolent or not.


I think it is pretty benevolent...that anything of an adult nature should not be talked about in front of kids. Wrong headed, but not meant to be mean.

Then you'd be okay if he'd have instead said, "I have to bar the windows and doors to keep out all the messages the black community is intent on pushing on my children?"


I think that a closer analogy would be saying "I have to bar the windows to keep the entire world out" since he was talking about all sexuality, hetero and homosexuality, in the statement.

[4PointOh]

I think it is pretty benevolent...that anything of an adult nature should not be talked about in front of kids. Wrong headed, but not meant to be mean.



I think that a closer analogy would be saying "I have to bar the windows to keep the entire world out" since he was talking about all sexuality, hetero and homosexuality, in the statement.

But didn't his BIRDS OF PREY run ooze sexuality, or rather heterosexuality?

[Dazzler]

I think that a closer analogy would be saying "I have to bar the windows to keep the entire world out" since he was talking about all sexuality, hetero and homosexuality, in the statement.

Are you serious when you say that?

Because that's not what he said, at all. He specifically cited "the gay community" in that statement AND in a truckload of others....like the extremely bizarre Wonder Woman/Supergirl kissing quote.

No, he may say he's against all sexuality in comics, as a way of damage control, but he's most certainly talked more specifically, and pointedly, of gay characters (not even their sex lives).

--Dazz

[Spackling Compound]

Then you'd be okay if he'd have instead said, "I have to bar the windows and doors to keep out all the messages the black community is intent on pushing on my children?"

I have a feeling you'd be fit to be tied if this was about race rather than sexuality.

--Dazz

It can be more construed as "values" versus race as the argument isn't about one's sexuality, it's the importance of one's sexuality as self-identification. Where sex can be hidden or private, race cannot.

[Spackling Compound]

Only because you misread my meaning, Maxine.

The vast majority of people in the industry are liberal or left-leaning. I'm not speaking of the values of fictional characters following the heroic traditions and created decades ago. I'm speaking of the reality of the industry as it exists, that the people who give out the jobs are much more likely to be liberal than conservative.

Might makes right isn't always the message. It also is about resolving issues through problem solving...many times not involving shows of might.

[Gail Simone]

But didn't his BIRDS OF PREY run ooze sexuality, or rather heterosexuality?

Well, I wouldn't say 'oozed,' exactly, but certainly there was plenty of heterosexual content. Which I agree, makes the argument more specifically about non-vanilla sex than ALL adult content.

Like I say, I've asked him about it, but I could never reconcile the argument. He came here and tried to explain his standing and some of it made sense (though I disagreed) and some did not, not to my ear, anyway.

But again, what he said several years back when gay content in mainstream comics was relatively new is very different from what he's actually been writing in the years since. Both things have to be considered, if we're being honest.

[Dazzler]

It can be more construed as "values" versus race as the argument isn't about one's sexuality, it's the importance of one's sexuality as self-identification. Where sex can be hidden or private, race cannot.

Well, how convenient that it's only ever gay people being asked to stay hidden or private. And the MORE we hide our lives, the more in tune with other peoples' values we are.

Yeah, that really makes sense.

Being gay informs every aspect of my life, just as being heterosexual informs other peoples'. Why should it be preferable for one group of people to stay hidden, so as not to make bigots "uncomfortable"?

At any rate, because (some, not all) gay people CAN stay hidden, why does that make it okay because race can't be hidden? It's still telling someone the mere fact of their being causes distress. It's all about making someone else comfortable while you remain miserable.

--Dazz

[Gail Simone]

Might makes right isn't always the message. It also is about resolving issues through problem solving...many times not involving shows of might.

I think might makes right is less often the intended message than might in DEFENSE of right, a neither conservative nor liberal-exclusive value.

[Gail Simone]

Well, how convenient that it's only ever gay people being asked to stay hidden or private. And the MORE we hide our lives, the more in tune with other peoples' values we are.

Yeah, that really makes sense.

Being gay informs every aspect of my life, just as being heterosexual informs other peoples'. Why should it be preferable for one group of people to stay hidden, so as not to make bigots "uncomfortable"?

At any rate, because (some, not all) gay people CAN stay hidden, why does that make it okay because race can't be hidden? It's still telling someone the mere fact of their being causes distress. It's all about making someone else comfortable while you remain miserable.

--Dazz


Right, and personally, I find the whole thing ridiculous and repugnant. No one should have to hide their sexual preference because some hick in morontown says they should.

The enemy is ignorance, which is defeated by truth and education and will and compassion.

[Spackling Compound]

I think might makes right is less often the intended message than might in DEFENSE of right, a neither conservative nor liberal-exclusive value.

Yeah, I sort of got that from you a few years back. I made the remark that so many pacifists are on this board yet read comics and you said that thing above.

Agreed. Appreciated.

[Spackling Compound]

Right, and personally, I find the whole thing ridiculous and repugnant. No one should have to hide their sexual preference because some hick in morontown says they should.

The enemy is ignorance, which is defeated by truth and education and will and compassion.

I think that one of the basic issues in the fight for rights is that someone can CHOOSE to not make an issue of their sexuality but it's damn near impossible to "hide" one's race.

We've talked about this on another thread around here.

I believe that any aggression toward others is untoward but see the point that one issue is more immediate that the other. I see it but am open to convincing.

[Chris Lang]

I think you're thinking of Micah Wright, who claimed to be, I believe, an Army or Air Force Ranger, can't remember which. It was all a complete fraud, and pretty shameful. That said, I think he's served his time.

I remember him. He had these wonderful anti-war and anti-Bush Administration (and anti-neocon, anti-Fox News/mainstream media) posters and such. But he blew it all by claiming to be an Army Ranger ... when he wasn't. His credibility was completely ruined because he turned out to be a liar.

Of course, there are sites you can go to where you can find out about REAL people from the Armed Forces who oppose the Iraq War. People like Lt. Ehren Watada, who was actually put on trial for refusing to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that the war was illegal. The first attempt at trying him was unsuccessful, because any discussion of Watada's motives would have ended up putting the war itself on trial, and that was something they didn't want to do.

But back to the subject. I agree that Micah Wright's making up a completely fictitious backstory (just so he'd sound more credible than, say, the Dixie Chicks) was wrong, and completely unnecessary. Instead of giving us all phony credentials, he should have sought the endorsement of ACTUAL servicemen opposed to the war.

[Dazzler]

Right, and personally, I find the whole thing ridiculous and repugnant. No one should have to hide their sexual preference because some hick in morontown says they should.
Holy crap, are we agreeing in this thread? I think my computer's busted.

The enemy is ignorance, which is defeated by truth and education and will and compassion.

Well, that's all true, it's just not for me anymore. I've fatigued myself out after so many years of trying and getting spit on. I'm more likely to call someone a dick than try to coax them out of their bigotry.

--Dazz

[4PointOh]

Well, I wouldn't say 'oozed,' exactly, but certainly there was plenty of heterosexual content. Which I agree, makes the argument more specifically about non-vanilla sex than ALL adult content.

Like I say, I've asked him about it, but I could never reconcile the argument. He came here and tried to explain his standing and some of it made sense (though I disagreed) and some did not, not to my ear, anyway.

But again, what he said several years back when gay content in mainstream comics was relatively new is very different from what he's actually been writing in the years since. Both things have to be considered, if we're being honest.

I'm not the Chuck Dixon expert by any stretch of the imagination. I stopped collecting stuff by him years ago when my friends put me on to his POV. So, honestly I couldn't tell you anything about what Dixon's writing now. But wonderful if he's had a change of heart!

[Michael P]

But didn't his BIRDS OF PREY run ooze sexuality, or rather heterosexuality?

There were some definite lesbian overtones in the scene where Babs and Dinah finally meet.

[Arrogantcur]

When you meet someone new, they may seem great and then they say "gays should be shot and killed" (I am gay and do not feel this way).

LOL! :tongue:

Isn't the main message in superhero comics that Might Makes Right?

I'm not sure I'd say that. That's usually what the villains think. The heroes usually (but not always) try to protect people from the villains and they stick to the moral high ground.

You also have times when those people referred to as heroes either kill their enemies, or maim them, or do pretty awful things to them. Like, for instance, Daredevil carving over Bullseye's tattoo, or Monet St. Croix crucifying a guy who burned a building full of mutants, or what Wally West did to Inertia after Bart Allen's death. But that seems to be the exception more than the rule. Usually, these guys show mercy.

Passions aside, I think that inferring that the reason someone says young children oughtn't be talked to about homosexuality is that it would have a detrimental effect on them is a reasonable interpretation.

Hmm. That's a good question and I had to think for a minute before writing down my answer.

My answer is that it's possible he meant something else. He might think that it's unfair to parents to make them explain homosexuality to their kids at a certain age. There's no way to KNOW for SURE why he thinks they shouldn't be talked to about it, but if I had to guess? My guess would be that he thinks it'd have a detrimental effect.

But maybe not. I mean back when I thought the same as him, that kids shouldn't learn about it until a certain age, I never really asked myself "why is that? If somebody does tell them about it when they're really young, what's the worst that could possibly happen?" I just thought that was the way it should be. Maybe he thinks that's just the way it should be because that's how it's always been.

Well, that's all true, it's just not for me anymore. I've fatigued myself out after so many years of trying and getting spit on. I'm more likely to call someone a dick than try to coax them out of their bigotry.

When it comes to Dixon and torture, as you can see from my earlier posts, I'm the same way.

I can understand why this would be upsetting for you Dazz, and I'm really sorry for whatever it's worth. You've got good reason to be angry.

Having taken some time to calm down, you see me writing what might be perceived as a defense of Dixon above. You can rest assured that I'm not eager to defend him. Because of what he said in the thread Alix linked to, I don't like the man, and I'm not eager to defend him. However, I don't believe we should assume the worst about anybody unless we know it to be true beyond any doubt. If we do that, we are as bad as Dixon when he assumes that people like the Tipton Three were terrorists or terrorist supporters and deserved to be held in Gitmo.

[Dazzler]

When it comes to Dixon and torture, as you can see from my earlier posts, I'm the same way.

I can understand why this would be upsetting for you Dazz, and I'm really sorry for whatever it's worth. You've got good reason to be angry.
Well, to be honest, I'm not pissed all about Chuck Dixon, I consider him a small fish in the greater threat of piranha infested waters. It's a position like his that I, personally, think allows bigger problems to stem from.

Anyway, it's complicated. And it's true that I just find what the man said downright douchey.

Having taken some time to calm down, you see me writing what might be perceived as a defense of Dixon above. You can rest assured that I'm not eager to defend him. Because of what he said in the thread Alix linked to, I don't like the man, and I'm not eager to defend him. However, I don't believe we should assume the worst about anybody unless we know it to be true beyond any doubt. If we do that, we are as bad as Dixon when he assumes that people like the Tipton Three were terrorists or terrorist supporters and deserved to be held in Gitmo.

I understand what you're trying to say, but, honestly, why would I ever, as a gay dude, want to associate myself with or give the benefit of nobility to someone who says my kind is (paraphrased) icky? Life's a little too short to knock myself out when there are good people I know are good people who don't think I'm icky.
When someone says, "gay people are dot dot dot", and it smacks me of bigotry, I might try to understand where they're coming from, which is good, but I'll never make the mistake of thinking that it's NOT bigotry.

--Dazz

[Arrogantcur]

I understand what you're trying to say, but, honestly, why would I ever, as a gay dude, want to associate myself with or give the benefit of nobility to someone who says my kind is (paraphrased) icky? Life's a little too short to knock myself out when there are good people I know are good people who don't think I'm icky.

Oh, I'm not saying that you should, don't worry. :smile: I just wanted to make it clear that my speculation about what he might have meant besides "telling kids about gayness has a detrimental effect on them" wasn't done because I feel this is a man worth sticking up for. I was just considering the different possibilities and answering Maxine's question. But like I said, if I had to guess then I would say he thinks telling kids about it would have a detrimental effect on them.

[Dazzler]

Oh, I'm not saying that you should, don't worry. :smile: I just wanted to make it clear that my speculation about what he might have meant besides "telling kids about gayness has a detrimental effect on them" wasn't done because I feel this is a man worth sticking up for. I was just considering the different possibilities and answering Maxine's question. But like I said, if I had to guess then I would say he thinks telling kids about it would have a detrimental effect on them.
Oh, okay.

Well, I know it doesn't seem that way right now, but deep down I do realize that even if you held the opposite opinion on his statements, I shouldn't hold it against you personally. I tend to get heated on the subject a little too much for my own good. :smile:

--Dazz

[TCJohnson]

Here is the thing, Dazzler, and this is why I am defending Chuck Dixon.

I used to think the same way about Dixon on this subject. Homosexuality was something you didn't talk about in front of kids. It is not because I thought it would warp kids minds or it would negatively affect the children. It was not because I hate homosexuals because I don't at all. It was how I was programmed. I was just raised to think that it was not something you talked about in front of kids. It wasn't...polite.

Then on this board Gilda Dent very politely challenged me on that way of thinking and about those precieved notions. I forgot what she said exactly, but I saw things from her point of view and realized that my thought processes about the subject were outdated...hold overs from a time when homosexuality was a dirty little secret which is the wrong way to think about it.

I won't cop to being a bigot but I will admit that I was ignorant and wrong.

The thing is, if Gilda Dent got pissed at me for thinking that and called me a bigot, I would never had listened to her. My defenses would have gone up and I would have stood my ground. Most people would, it is human nature when attacked. Because Gilda challenged my preconcieved notions with intelligence, however, she got through my thick skull.

I look at Dixon's writings and don't see any hatered towards homosexuals. He has had several good gay characters (Grace and Thunder in Outsiders for example). I also look at the people who speak highly of him and they are not the type of people who tolerate bigotry well.

The only time I see Dixon with a really bad attitude towards gays is when somebody calls him a bigot or attacks him for it, like they did after the Outsiders preview which was blown way, way out of porpotion and people got pissed at him for no reason. He digs in and goes on the defensive, which most people do when being confronted by that. I would really like to see what would happen if we can get him and Gilda together and she can ply her logic on him.

I do believe there is a difference between the bigots and the ignorant. Bigots act the way they do out of hatered and they are, for the most part, without hope. The ignorant act that way because they just don't know that you shouldn't be acting the way you do, and the damage they can cause...and they will change if they are made to understand. There is hope.

[Dazzler]

Here is the thing, Dazzler, and this is why I am defending Chuck Dixon.

I used to think the same way about Dixon on this subject. Homosexuality was something you didn't talk about in front of kids. It is not because I thought it would warp kids minds or it would negatively affect the children. It was not because I hate homosexuals because I don't at all. It was how I was programmed. I was just raised to think that it was not something you talked about in front of kids. It wasn't...polite.

Then on this board Gilda Dent very politely challenged me on that way of thinking and about those precieved notions. I forgot what she said exactly, but I saw things from her point of view and realized that my thought processes about the subject were outdated...hold overs from a time when homosexuality was a dirty little secret which is the wrong way to think about it.

I won't cop to being a bigot but I will admit that I was ignorant and wrong.

The thing is, if Gilda Dent got pissed at me for thinking that and called me a bigot, I would never had listened to her. My defenses would have gone up and I would have stood my ground. Most people would, it is human nature when attacked. Because Gilda challenged my preconcieved notions with intelligence, however, she got through my thick skull.

I look at Dixon's writings and don't see any hatered towards homosexuals. He has had several good gay characters (Grace and Thunder in Outsiders for example). I also look at the people who speak highly of him and they are not the type of people who tolerate bigotry well.

The only time I see Dixon with a really bad attitude towards gays is when somebody calls him a bigot or attacks him for it, like they did after the Outsiders preview which was blown way, way out of porpotion and people got pissed at him for no reason. He digs in and goes on the defensive, which most people do when being confronted by that. I would really like to see what would happen if we can get him and Gilda together and she can ply her logic on him.

I do believe there is a difference between the bigots and the ignorant. Bigots act the way they do out of hatered and they are, for the most part, without hope. The ignorant act that way because they just don't know that you shouldn't be acting the way you do, and the damage they can cause...and they will change if they are made to understand. There is hope.

Sorry, but all I see is that you defend him and excuse his position away. And defending him for a position that is pretty shitty to some very real people.

He's had several good chances to change, and has he? Not to the best of my knowledge. There are some people with the patience to coddle bigots and hope they change. I'm not one of them. Because that's what it is...just coddling them and hoping through whatever good graces they may or may not have, they change.

Good for you on changing your position, and very good on Gilda for changing it. But here's the thing...not everyone in the world is going to be patient or caring enough to hold someone's hand and pray they don't get offended when you point out that they've got some petty hatreds running around in there.

And...several good gay characters? Name some more, besides Grace and Thunder. And name them so that they weren't used by him to bait and then mock gay fans?
--Dazz

[TCJohnson]

The serveral I was thinking of off the top of my head are Thunder, Grace and Midnighter. Those are the ones off the top of my head.

[Dazzler]

The serveral I was thinking of off the top of my head are Thunder, Grace and Midnighter. Those are the ones off the top of my head.
Thunder and Grace, I could see the argument for, although I honestly haven't touched BatO.

But Midnighter? A lot of the issues I take with him come directly from an interview he had about that series. To be writing a series with a gay main character and yet still say in the interviews for it the stuff he did...besides being kinda weird, it's just baffling. I guess I can't speak about the actual series...because, like I've said...personal boycott. Could you tell me what he did with that series that made it a good handling of a gay character?

--Dazz

[Tracer Bullet]

I guess it depends on what they're saying, and whether or not it bleeds into their work.

[DanCMH]

One of several reasons I stopped buying any Marvel books was because of Card. I felt to me as of Queseda was made aware of his bigotry and said, "Screw it. It's just the gays he hates. We really want Enders Game in graphic novel form for sales..." That's why the man got in under the radar and wrote the Iron Man mini series. (This isnt meant as an actual quote...it was just my impression from interviews and such...)

Well I'm gay and my spending power is far more impressive than that of an 11 year old. I took all the money I was spending on Marvel...about 15-20 books a month...and now spend it on DC books. Will it matter to anyone but me? Probably not but I feel more comfortable with it.

On the flip side, being super liberal doesnt get my money either. Winnick is about as liberal as they come and while I used to be a fan I wont spend a dime on that dreck he's trying to sell over on the Titans.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Here's my experience with it.

I hear a lot of 'with a little patience and discussion I overcame my bad attitudes, and so one should be patient and talk it out.'

I hear that, and I wonder that people think that after a day living in my skin, I have the energy to help someone through their issues with me.

Everywhere I go, I am the freak. Some of it is small.... People refusing to sit next to me on public transit. Stares. Whispers. Then there's the bigger; louder comments, meant for me to hear. Busses letting people on, then closing their doors and driving off when it's my turn. Comments yelled from passing vehicles. Snarls and withheld service from cashiers. Then there's the bigger ones; being stalked, being shouted at and threatened. Physical confrontations. Assault. And being mocked and laughed at all the while. All this and bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, and a history of suicidal ideation, having to stave off THOSE impulses.

So why am I not engaging all these borderline intolerances in Very Meaningful Discussion?

My energies are spent in surviving in my skin. And honestly, what I want at the end of the day is to be left the fuck alone.

Someone thinks my existence is an unsavory topic for children? All right, whatever. It's his responsibility to work through it or not too. Hooray for those who try to convince by civil discussion. Really. Bully on you.

Me? I have to concentrate my energies on survival. Someone else's attitudes about me? It's their responsibility to contend with thier own issues. I'm busy keeping my head above water, thanks

[Arrogantcur]

Damn.

I'm breaking my policy of "don't post while drunk" again, Maxine, but I'd have pretty much the same thing to say when sober. Which is the following.

I'm terribly sorry that you have to go through that shit and I wish that I could do something about it. I met a post op transsexual once and she told me about how she went through sort of the same thing, because there were some physical attributes that were left unchanged even after surgery. Her hands, for example. So people WOULD stare at her and say rude things and so on.

If I ever meet you I'll want to give you a hug in the hopes that it'll somehow make things a little bit better for you. :frown:

[BnL]

By coincidence, I just happened to find this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKdcJfIM-tE&feature=channel_page) through a blog, about a badass transsexual woman letting a douchebag on a bus know what's what. By further coincidence, I just noticed that it was posted by our very own Bobby, aka 4PointOh! (BTW, I just sent you a friend request over YouTube, Bobby.)

Also, Maxine, you rock. And don't you forget it, bitch!

[Reverend Smooth]

To folks who make excuses:

People don't stay bigots because the folks whom they are bigoted against are sick of it. They are bigots because they want to be. Making excuses for oneself or others' bigotry is just making excuses.

'If you'd reacted to me with profanity...' It's still YOUR choice -- or whoever's -- to think there's something wrong with gays. It's not the gay person's job to be nice to you when you're being a douche (and yes, you may be nice, but being a bigot still makes you a douche). They don't owe you anything. They haven't even done anything except be the target of your refusal to not be a jerk, and they are entitled to not have to be martyrs about it just because your poor fragile easily-offended feewings were hurt because you couldn't stop being a bigot.

'Bigotry means hatred...' No, it doesn't. It means negative discrimination against another group. If you don't like being called a bigot, don't be one. And if this post makes folks hate gays, then they're being spiteful morons who pass off the blame on other people instead of just not being bigots.

[Crowley]

I thought I would have an answer to the question posed by the thread.
I thought the answer would be "I can separate the art from the artist."

In certain cases I can admire Picasso's work in spite of knowing he was a massive cretin, watch John Wayne movies in spite of him being a colossal racist prick, and listen to Miles Davis in spite of the fact that he was an asshole and overt misogynist.

I don't know the answer though. I find Dave Sim's views repugnant and haven't read Cerebus because of them.

Perhaps the question is... do we give a pass only when one becomes deceased?

[Dazzler]

By coincidence, I just happened to find this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKdcJfIM-tE&feature=channel_page) through a blog, about a badass transsexual woman letting a douchebag on a bus know what's what. By further coincidence, I just noticed that it was posted by our very own Bobby, aka 4PointOh! (BTW, I just sent you a friend request over YouTube, Bobby.)

THIS woman is my motherfuckin' hero. That's the way to make sure you don't get walked over. Take a stand, and stop being a victim.

AND the fact that she's shaking up her mace while giving him the riot act makes make think, "Holy shit. I think I'm in love"

--Dazz

[Calybos]

A lot of people separate the writer/artist from their work and will continue to buy stuff made by reprehensible people with horrifically evil ideas and opinions.

A lot of us, however, will not.

No one's saying these people don't have the right to their views. But complaints about "Why should I have to watch what I say? Why should my opinions affect sales of my stuff that isn't even ABOUT that issue?" are absurd.

Turn it around. Aren't they really saying, "I have a right to your money no matter what you think of me"? As the wingnuts pointed out to the Dixie Chicks a few years back, fans have the right to vote with their dollars when you express an opinion they dislike.

The Chick-haters were wrong in their REASONS, of course, but they still had the right to do what they did--refuse to buy the CDs. And today's Chuck-haters have that same right. (And they're in an even better position ethically, since they're opposing something genuinely wrong.)

[4PointOh]

THIS woman is my motherfuckin' hero. That's the way to make sure you don't get walked over. Take a stand, and stop being a victim.

AND the fact that she's shaking up her mace while giving him the riot act makes make think, "Holy shit. I think I'm in love"

--Dazz

Mimi is NOT to be fucked with, you hear me? LOL!

Thanks for posting the video, BnL!

[4PointOh]

Here's my experience with it.

I hear a lot of 'with a little patience and discussion I overcame my bad attitudes, and so one should be patient and talk it out.'

I hear that, and I wonder that people think that after a day living in my skin, I have the energy to help someone through their issues with me.

Everywhere I go, I am the freak. Some of it is small.... People refusing to sit next to me on public transit. Stares. Whispers. Then there's the bigger; louder comments, meant for me to hear. Busses letting people on, then closing their doors and driving off when it's my turn. Comments yelled from passing vehicles. Snarls and withheld service from cashiers. Then there's the bigger ones; being stalked, being shouted at and threatened. Physical confrontations. Assault. And being mocked and laughed at all the while. All this and bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, and a history of suicidal ideation, having to stave off THOSE impulses.

So why am I not engaging all these borderline intolerances in Very Meaningful Discussion?

My energies are spent in surviving in my skin. And honestly, what I want at the end of the day is to be left the fuck alone.

Someone thinks my existence is an unsavory topic for children? All right, whatever. It's his responsibility to work through it or not too. Hooray for those who try to convince by civil discussion. Really. Bully on you.

Me? I have to concentrate my energies on survival. Someone else's attitudes about me? It's their responsibility to contend with thier own issues. I'm busy keeping my head above water, thanks

If you are ever in NY, you are welcome in my home. Love given freely.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

By coincidence, I just happened to find this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKdcJfIM-tE&feature=channel_page) through a blog, about a badass transsexual woman letting a douchebag on a bus know what's what. By further coincidence, I just noticed that it was posted by our very own Bobby, aka 4PointOh! (BTW, I just sent you a friend request over YouTube, Bobby.)

Also, Maxine, you rock. And don't you forget it, bitch!

Wanna talk about what courage looks like? This is it.

And thanks, BNL. I'm preparing to walk the gauntlet to get to a job where a student will be allowed to walk around, stalking me and shouting transphobic slurs at me until I can get behind a locked door. The vote of confidence puts a smile on my face! :biggrin:

[Pink Bat Maxine]

If you are ever in NY, you are welcome in my home. Love given freely.

I'll so take you up on that in a heartbeat. Don't think I won't! :biggrin:

[Pink Bat Maxine]

THIS woman is my motherfuckin' hero. That's the way to make sure you don't get walked over. Take a stand, and stop being a victim.

AND the fact that she's shaking up her mace while giving him the riot act makes make think, "Holy shit. I think I'm in love"

--Dazz

I love how she deflected the meant-to-menace 'What street you gettin' off at?' I've heard that a lot, always with the ''Cause I'm following and gonna kick your ass' subtext. "I'm gettin' off at Jarvis, Baby." Love it. Unafraid, and unbowed. That's a surviver.

[Stanlos]

But didn't his BIRDS OF PREY run ooze sexuality, or rather heterosexuality?

Early BOP was indeed very sexy. Dinah's dating habits were on full display. One of the minis (Manhunt) had a sexual note as an important plot point--Huntress discovers a bandits identity through familiarity with his posterior.

[Libaax]

I dont have a problem with Orson Scott Card despite his beliefs are really wierd to me.

I dont have to like it but since i have not seen it influence Ender's Game books i have no problem reading his book.

Whats wrong with Chuck Dixon ? Whats his problem ?


But i have lost some respect for Peter David cause this is too much.

And honestly? I'm not sure what constitutes a civilian anymore. They're indoctrinating their children into a philosophy that says Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth. You read about the Hamas leader whose children were killed in the raid and your first thought is, "Oh, those poor children"...except last year that same leader sent one of his own sons on a suicide bombing raid to blow up Israeli civilians.

Basically, their main weapon isn't artillery, isn't suicide bombers, isn't even propaganda. Their main weapon is counting on Israel to be more considerate of human life than they are.

PAD

[NickThompson]

I dunno. I like to think I can seperate the creator from the work, but I don't know if I really could. Easy to say when you've not been truly tested.


I think it really depends on the statements or politics though. A liberal not buying a creator's work because they are Conservative is stupid, being Conservative doesn't make you good or bad. Not buying someones work because of a specific issue? More logical.


Also though, I think that there is a difference between HAVING an opinion and PUSHING an opinion. If someone has an opinion you disagree with but they pretty much keep it to themselves, it's sortof contained. If they have an opinion and constantly tell people it and try to convince people that they are right, that's a bigger deal.




So overall, dunno :)

[Gail Simone]

Sorry, but all I see is that you defend him and excuse his position away. And defending him for a position that is pretty shitty to some very real people.

He's had several good chances to change, and has he? Not to the best of my knowledge. There are some people with the patience to coddle bigots and hope they change. I'm not one of them. Because that's what it is...just coddling them and hoping through whatever good graces they may or may not have, they change.

Good for you on changing your position, and very good on Gilda for changing it. But here's the thing...not everyone in the world is going to be patient or caring enough to hold someone's hand and pray they don't get offended when you point out that they've got some petty hatreds running around in there.

And...several good gay characters? Name some more, besides Grace and Thunder. And name them so that they weren't used by him to bait and then mock gay fans?
--Dazz

Well, he did an entire mini-series of Midnighter/Grifter, for another, and quite credibly, in my opinion.

[Gail Simone]

What did he say in that interview, Dazz?

[scout1279]

I thought I would have an answer to the question posed by the thread.
I thought the answer would be "I can separate the art from the artist."

In certain cases I can admire Picasso's work in spite of knowing he was a massive cretin, watch John Wayne movies in spite of him being a colossal racist prick, and listen to Miles Davis in spite of the fact that he was an asshole and overt misogynist.

I don't know the answer though. I find Dave Sim's views repugnant and haven't read Cerebus because of them.

Perhaps the question is... do we give a pass only when one becomes deceased?
It's the same for me, where it matters in some cases and not in others, and I think the difference is whether I was exposed to the artist's work before I learned of his or her views. If I was already a fan of their work, and was not made uncomfortable by it, than I can separate the two. Coming to an artist's work after learning something repugnant about the artist pretty much makes it impossible for me to not look for evidence of those views in the work itself, or just not be able to bring myself to read/watch/etc. it at all.

[Arrogantcur]

'If you'd reacted to me with profanity...' It's still YOUR choice -- or whoever's -- to think there's something wrong with gays. It's not the gay person's job to be nice to you when you're being a douche (and yes, you may be nice, but being a bigot still makes you a douche). They don't owe you anything. They haven't even done anything except be the target of your refusal to not be a jerk, and they are entitled to not have to be martyrs about it just because your poor fragile easily-offended feewings were hurt because you couldn't stop being a bigot.

You're right. A guy like Dazz doesn't owe it to a bigot to tolerate their crap and try to reason with them. Likewise, I don't owe it to a pro-torture or pro-war person to try and reason with them if they're going to be jerks by, say, telling me I'm naive, or that I hate America, or things of that nature.

In both cases, the best thing for me, or Dazz, or anybody, to do is walk away from the offending individual and try to associate with that person as little as possible.

If you want to get angry at the person and express that anger directly to them, you have every right to...but doing so doesn't help.

Let me explain why. I think that if I got into an argument with a conservative over torture and I stopped being civil and started shouting, that conservative might have his belief that most liberals are angry and intolerant (of conservatives) reinforced. That's what Ann Coulter believes. Dixon makes reference in the Newsarama interview to "left-wing rage."

I think that if Dazz got angry at a homophobe and starting shouting at that person, it would make that person think that gay people are also full of rage.

And the natural response for human beings when somebody is angry at them is to think of that person as the enemy, without really taking the time to ask "Does this person have a good reason for being angry at me?"

So the Gildas of this world, the people who've got patience and know how to talk to really infuriating individuals, are helpful. Guys like me and Dazz, who have shorter fuses, should just avoid them altogether, IMHO.

What did he say in that interview, Dazz?

Dazz may be referring to the interview I linked to before. This one. (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=96409)

EDIT TO ADD: It seems like I always remember something I forgot to say, but wanted to, right after I post. This is for Maxine.

Maxine, I know that when somebody drunk-dials or drunk-posts or whatever, they might say things they don't mean. But now that I've slept it off (and miracle of miracles, little to no hangover!) I want to say that I stand by everything I wrote last night. I really do feel for you.

I also have a question. I remembered you saying something about some people who were in favour of Prop 8 asking you to support it on the street, and how you totally lost your temper and started shouting at them (and I don't blame you at all, despite what I wrote above about getting angry at people who disagree with you not helping things). But if people can tell you weren't born with a female body by looking at you, I presume that those douches you yelled at could also tell, and that makes me wonder why they'd think you would ever listen to them or vote the way they did. :confused:

[Dazzler]

Mimi is NOT to be fucked with, you hear me? LOL!

Thanks for posting the video, BnL!
She will beat the shit out you with her goddamn shoes! I love it.

--Dazz

[Arrogantcur]

She will beat the shit out you with her goddamn shoes! I love it.

--Dazz

Those heels look pointy and good for stabbing things! :eek:

[Dazzler]

What did he say in that interview, Dazz?

I think Arrogantcur linked to the specific article on Midnighter that I was referring to.

My take on it was basically a dismissive and rather insulting take on liberals and especially gay people and what they "mean". I mean, he equates the mere fact of homosexuality with graphic and frank discussions of sex, dogs screwing in the street, and drug use. A gay character supposedly means an instantly "mature label" book.

Plus, the kicker for me was Dixon saying that Maggie Sawyer was a good lesbian character because of her level of deniability. Because she doesn't say it outright, it's preferable and makes her a better character. And then there's the weird example of Wonder Woman and Supergirl kissing that still makes no sense to me.

Now, I can see where some people would think the things he says aren't coming from a bigoted place. But I've heard everything he's had to say before, and I've never heard it come from a place of unintentional malice. And I've always heard the same things right before elections and motions that are meant to paint gay people as freaks and abnormalities, and to limit rights. I don't look at the his viewpoint as that of a nice person or potential ally that's just a little sheltered.

It's right there in the interview that he deplores ALL discussions of sexuality, but goes on to contradict himself directly by saying that heterosexual sexuality (kissing, pregnancy, romance) isn't something that's going to confuse and disturb children. That's why I think the disclaimer of disliking all sexuality is false when he seems to really focus on just the homo side of the spectrum.

--Dazz

[Arrogantcur]

Here are the parts Dazzler is referring to.

CD: I’m no more in favor of a frank sexual discussion between Reed and Sue or Lois and Clark than I would be were it Gay Character A and his partner.

When I was writing Dick Grayson and Barbara Gordon’s romance I stayed away from stating that they were in any kind of sexual relationship. You could absolutely imply it. But you could just as easily tell yourself they were saving it for marriage. Is this method naïve? In movies made before the 60s it was the norm to present characters as romantically involved and then leave clear indicators that they were getting it on between scenes. Clark Gable and Jon Crawford go into a hot kiss and we fade to black. Cut to next morning and she’s making him breakfast and dressed in a different nightgown. Now they could have kissed one and then played Monopoly until dawn. The audience was left to choose what they wanted to believe and there was no need to explain the facts of life to the kids after a Cary Grant movie. We used to call them “air force” scenes. Whoosh! Right over the kid's heads.

So Clark and Lois can be seen kissing and being affectionate and there’s no need to explain it. The sexual aspect of their relationship doesn’t have to be explored. But if Wonder Woman and Supergirl are seen kissing then that does call for an explanation. The sexual aspect of a relationship like that will call forth questions from the kiddies.

Maggie Sawyer, in Superman, was obviously being portrayed as a lesbian. But there was a level of deniability because she wasn’t always being shown in romantic clinches with her girlfriend. Astute readers picked up on it. Others either didn’t notice or chose not to. Maggie even appeared on the cartoons with her girlfriend. I much prefer this kind of characterization over Northstar’s “I’M GAY!”

The important thing, for story purposes, was that Maggie was a good, three-dimensional character first and a lesbian second.

NRAMA: That all said, Sue Richards has been pregnant three times. That could certainly lead to a life/sex discussion among kids. To play devil’s advocate, one could argue kissing and hand-holding and marriage – i.e. romantic love – does not necessarily equate to explaining a sex act of a homosexual character any more than it would a heterosexual character.

And to go a step further, certainly some people would argue explaining to a child why a woman and woman would kiss should be no more extraordinary than explaining why a man and a woman would. Little girls often say they want to marry their fathers. The difference between love, romance, and sex is learned for everyone. Couldn’t one argue that the path for romance between same sex characters to be something that children do not regard as unusual and intrusive to the story is for society to become more accepting of it?

CD: You bring up issues that carry us away from my initial opinion. It’s all about context. There are a million different ways that the issue of sexuality of any kind can be introduced to children. But why can’t some comic creators resist the urge to do so in the pages of a superhero comic? It’s a genre where people wear capes and masks and have magic rings and lift buildings up over their heads. And no matter how much you wish the genre could grow old with you, these are still characters for children. They’re on pajamas and backpacks. They’re Legos, for God’s sake.

Sure, your kids might see two dogs screwing on the sidewalk and you have to either brush it aside or have a “talk” about it. But that’s up to you as a parent. I really wish that superhero comics could be left to be about adventure and heroism and suspense. Why does Ant-Man have to be a wife-beater? Were the writers that much at a loss for a story?

And does anyone really suppose that the first time a child sees a pregnant woman is in a comic book? I’ve never proposed sheltering children from real life. But let them have the funnybooks, okay?

Will the inclusion of gay characters in mainstream comics make homosexuality more acceptable? I haven’t seen a mainstream comic story yet with a gay character that wasn’t loaded with stereotypes and clichés. A wise editor I used to work with cautioned his writers, “don’t write about human relationships unless you’ve had one.” Most of what I’ve seen of the conscious-raising variety of comics on this subject has been dismal and pandering. Loaded with mock outrage and received wisdom and very little honest human interaction. It’s dealt with an in-your-face issue rather than a story.

They’re no different than the embarrassing attempts at inclusiveness in 70’s comics. All those white-guilt driven stories about battling The Man. Ugh.

Having it all laid out in that kind of ham-handed way is far more harmful than the kids wondering why Uncle Jimmy never got married.

My opinions on this have never come from a position of intolerance. It’s all a matter of context. Sure, the kids are gonna have to learn about love and sex and relationships. But why can’t that be outside the pages of a superhero comic? Why do comic writers have to take on the mantle of social engineer? I haven’t met a comic book writer yet I’d let talk to my kids about sex. Why would I want them doing it as part of a story about super-powered men and women in tights?

NRAMA: So just t be sure to represent your position clearly, you objected to Slap Leather because even though it was a MAX title was and audience appropriate, it “retro-fit” a character. Grifter and Midnighter on the other hand is audience appropriate and it is consistent with the origin and established profile of the characters?

CD: It’s the retro-fit that bothers me. The MAX versions of Nick Fury or Luke Cage were just as annoying to me. Particularly the implications that Luke Cage’s story could now be properly told without restrictions. That’s insulting as well as being artistically bankrupt.

I’m sure you could get a lot of press with a Donald Duck book that showed sex, drug abuse, and domestic violence. But, in the long run, you’d have poisoned that franchise forever. Some publicity is bad publicity. And you can go broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

[Dazzler]

It's the pisspoor affectation that he's outraged for the dignity of the gays that gets me.

PLEASE.

--Dazz

[4PointOh]

She will beat the shit out you with her goddamn shoes! I love it.

--Dazz

"I ASKED you--VERY goddamn politely now." : )

[Pink Bat Maxine]

"I ASKED you--VERY goddamn politely now." : )

Do you know her?

[Spackling Compound]

Alan Moore interests me to no end. As a writer and a person.

His views on religion, sexuality, polyamory and even intergenerational sexuality are presented in such a way that I am not angered but all in all, not in agreement with.

It is interesting, and maybe to Gail's point, that the liberal extremes can be tolerated in the industry but the conservative not so much.
I'd say Moore's view on multiple partners, aside from one's own legal mate, would be cringworthy for a lot of people and something some would not discuss with their children as viable.

But he seems not to draw the ire.

Maybe because he's just that great?

[Dazzler]

Well, he did an entire mini-series of Midnighter/Grifter, for another, and quite credibly, in my opinion.

Sorry, guess I didn't push send on this one...

What about it do you think made it a credible handling of the character?

--Dazz

[4PointOh]

Nevermind. I think I've said enough on this topic.

[4PointOh]

Do you know her?

Just via internet and e-mail.

[Tobias March]

But he seems not to draw the ire.

Maybe because he's just that great?

Nah a fair amount of people seem creeped out by him. He's even been described as a sociopath because of his refusal to deal with Hollywood.

[Spackling Compound]

Nah a fair amount of people seem creeped out by him. He's even been described as a sociopath because of his refusal to deal with Hollywood.

Mostly because of the "Hollywood" thing but if you would just post the following:

"Alan Moore? Fuck that guy"

You would probably end up receiving some of the biggest, longest, epistles to breach the internet talking about wizardy, social contracts, sexual responsibility, talent and maybe math.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Nah a fair amount of people seem creeped out by him. He's even been described as a sociopath because of his refusal to deal with Hollywood.

Hahaha. Seriously, THAT'S the tipping point for people?

[Tobias March]

Mostly because of the "Hollywood" thing but if you would just post the following:

"Alan Moore? Fuck that guy"

You would probably end up receiving some of the biggest, longest, epistles to breach the internet talking about wizardy, social contracts, sexual responsibility, talent and maybe math.

I also refer you to this thread (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=123611).

[Paul McEnery]

Alan Moore interests me to no end. As a writer and a person.

His views on religion, sexuality, polyamory and even intergenerational sexuality are presented in such a way that I am not angered but all in all, not in agreement with.

It is interesting, and maybe to Gail's point, that the liberal extremes can be tolerated in the industry but the conservative not so much.
I'd say Moore's view on multiple partners, aside from one's own legal mate, would be cringworthy for a lot of people and something some would not discuss with their children as viable.

But he seems not to draw the ire.

Maybe because he's just that great?

I think that's probably because liberal extremes is a contradiction in terms.

Also, the right wing nutballs were out in force for Lost Girls. They'd be even more out in force over Promethea and From Hell if they were literate enough to understand what Mr. Moore was on about. And I rather think they'll be out in force -- they're already shooting across its bows -- for Watchmen once it's screened as something that doesn't require reading.

[Paul McEnery]

Hahaha. Seriously, THAT'S the tipping point for people?

Of course! He turned down money because he wanted to keep his integrity. How insane is that!

[Michael P]

Nah a fair amount of people seem creeped out by him. He's even been described as a sociopath because of his refusal to deal with Hollywood.

Well now that's fucking ridiculous. If anything, such refusal is a sign that he retains a core of sanity and human decency.

"Sociopath." Jesus, have these people *met* any Hollywood producers? There's your fucking sociopaths.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Of course! He turned down money because he wanted to keep his integrity. How insane is that!

Hospitalize the madman!

[Tobias March]

Of course! He turned down money because he wanted to keep his integrity. How insane is that!

I was inspired to look this up again. Monsters, Maniacs and Moore. (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/1987-monsters-maniacs-moore-01.php)

[Dazzler]

Of course! He turned down money because he wanted to keep his integrity. How insane is that!

That's the one thing I really respect Alan Moore for, is being protective of his creations. His move to indie comics is a good thing, I think.

As much flak as Robert Kirkman got for his weird little manifesto, and as silly I think he was in it, the heart of it makes a lot of sense to me.

--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

That's the one thing I really respect Alan Moore for, is being protective of his creations. His move to indie comics is a good thing, I think.

As much flak as Robert Kirkman got for his weird little manifesto, and as silly I think he was in it, the heart of it makes a lot of sense to me.

--Dazz

That's why I'm not selling out to The Man.












.,..yeah. THAT'S why.

[Dazzler]

That's why I'm not selling out to The Man.












.,..yeah. THAT'S why.

And the second you're offered a package deal for Eve's Apple, you'll break your neck reaching for that check. hehehehehehe


--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

And the second you're offered a package deal for Eve's Apple, you'll break your neck reaching for that check. hehehehehehe


--Dazz

Not at all.

Far more likely to break my wrist, or fingers.

[Dazzler]

Not at all.

Far more likely to break my wrist, or fingers.

ZINGO!

--Dazz

[Spackling Compound]

I also refer you to this thread (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=123611).

And in that thread, it seemed that there was a real effort from some of the more regular posters to explain the complexities of Moore's writing and to parse the difference between pederasty and paedophilia or the nonsense that children depicted as sexual in art is in any way pornography.

I've read Moore's commentaries on sexuality in other articles and find him objective and academic. He has his beliefs and can defend them.

I also think the same of Dixon in the articles cited.

It's just that Dixon gets a "fuck that guy" and Moore gets a "you must be too pedestrian to understand the subtexts of Moore's commentary".

Could it be that Moore, being pro-homosexual, is better defended than attacked because he's at least an open ally in the comic fight for gays having more prominence in comics?

[Arrogantcur]

Nah a fair amount of people seem creeped out by him. He's even been described as a sociopath because of his refusal to deal with Hollywood.

You know, Stephen King really wasn't happy with the movie adaptation of "The Shining" and afterwards he insisted on having more control over other adaptations of his work. I'm pretty sure that part of the agreement was that King would decide who would direct.

So I can see why anybody, not just Moore, would refuse to deal with Hollywood.

[Spackling Compound]

I was speaking more of the sympathy given for Lost Girls and maybe some of the things he and Gebbe have said about polygamy rather than his denial of Hollywood's treatment of his work.

[Paul McEnery]

And in that thread, it seemed that there was a real effort from some of the more regular posters to explain the complexities of Moore's writing and to parse the difference between pederasty and paedophilia or the nonsense that children depicted as sexual in art is in any way pornography.

I've read Moore's commentaries on sexuality in other articles and find him objective and academic. He has his beliefs and can defend them.

I also think the same of Dixon in the articles cited.

It's just that Dixon gets a "fuck that guy" and Moore gets a "you must be too pedestrian to understand the subtexts of Moore's commentary".

Could it be that Moore, being pro-homosexual, is better defended than attacked because he's at least an open ally in the comic fight for gays having more prominence in comics?

Or could it possibly be that Moore is one of the two greatest living writers of comics who is attacked only by nutballs?

[Spackling Compound]

Or could it possibly be that Moore is one of the two greatest living writers of comics who is attacked only by nutballs?

Who is the other one?

And define nutball.

[Charles RB]

Who is the other one?


I'm hoping for Gerry Finley-Day...

[Reverend Smooth]

Could it be that Moore, being pro-
It's the pro- part. His position isn't telling folks that being gay is wrong and harmful to kids. There's a) no scientific basis for that judgment and b) it's pretty dehumanising. That's why he's getting flak and Moore is not (from liberals anyway, who are forced away from being conservative by the main conservative party's being so anti-anything-not-heterosexually-monogamous).

Anyway, he's the one drawing the line in the sand. Beliefs are not automatically worthy of respect, especially when those beliefs say that a certain segment of humanity's personal lives are somehow harmful to kids, or bad, or wrong, when they are in fact, not belief, not.

Reducing it to, 'they don't like him because he's conservative!' is a childish argument. 'They disapprove because he's dissing his fellow human beings just because he doesn't like who their sweetie is,' is much more accurate.

[Arrogantcur]

Reducing it to, 'they don't like him because he's conservative!' is a childish argument. 'They disapprove because he's dissing his fellow human beings,' is much more accurate.

I wish I had thought to say that. I think it's the absolute truth.

My problem with Orson Scott Card is because he thinks gay people deserve for bad things to happen to them, or he doesn't care if bad things happen to them. My problem with Peter David is because he apparently thinks Palestinians deserve for bad things to happen to them, or he doesn't care if bad things happen to them. My problem with Chuck Dixon is that he thinks the people in Gitmo deserve for bad things to happen to them, or he doesn't care if bad things happen to them.

I'm sorry for the repetitiousness of that paragraph, but that's the constant here. I don't want people to suffer, and if somebody else does want them to suffer then I often get angry. A whole lot of conservatives don't mind when people suffer, and that makes it hard for me to get along with them.

[Spackling Compound]

Anyway, he's the one drawing the line in the sand. Beliefs are not automatically worthy of respect, especially when those beliefs say that a certain segment of humanity's personal lives are somehow harmful to kids, or bad, or wrong, when they are in fact, not belief, not.


He also doesn't believe in some cases pedophelia nor polyamory is harmful at all. This can be argued by some.

[Reverend Smooth]

He also doesn't believe in some cases pedophelia nor polyamory is harmful at all. This can be argued by some.

I wasn't meaning Moore after the first two sentences, should've been more clear. Um, I've been in polyamorous relationships, and they aren't always harmful. As for pedophilia, what did Moore say?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Reducing it to, 'they don't like him because he's conservative!' is a childish argument. 'They disapprove because he's dissing his fellow human beings just because he doesn't like who their sweetie is,' is much more accurate.

There are homophobic liberals and non-phobic conservatives.
You're absolutely right; this isn't about politics, it's about tolerance and respect.

[Larime]

He also doesn't believe in some cases pedophelia nor polyamory is harmful at all. This can be argued by some.

I'd really need to see his comments on pedophilia before even attempting to discuss that, but polyamory is not at all harmful in some, if not many cases.

[section 8]

I'd really need to see his comments on pedophilia before even attempting to discuss that, but polyamory is not at all harmful in some, if not many cases.

Well it is a potential legal nightmare, but that's another thread.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I've been in a polyamorous relationship. It wasn't for me, but it certainly wasn't harmful.

[Larime]

Well it is a potential legal nightmare, but that's another thread.

Polyamory is not the same thing as polygamy.