you dont site a single source ever.
but plenty of people have sited the fact that the ONLY two under represented groups are Latino and Asian. Who, for whatever reason, half the time Latinos are "white" in media.

Netflix currently has 7 superhero shows headlined by 1 named hero.. 3 are black. that is WAY OVER representation. Zero are Asian or Latino, you should probably start a crusade to change Luke Cage into an Asian Woman with an adopted Columbian child.

Your argument seems to be that minorities are so under represented that white characters should be changed to be minorities to increase their representation. Its a terrible argument. It DECREASES that character getting merch bought in nearly every case.

Sales of comics and entertainment where they "diversify" the cast TANK. That means... not even the minority people like it. Then that new proud to be whatever token ism they decided to change the hero into gets lost back into the void of obscurity destroying everything that characters creators had done to make it rise in popularity.

Its absolutely pointless to argue with someone who doesnt value anything white people have done or made.
Everyone else in this thread seems to value what every group brings to the table but you. I can't grasp why you don't value something simply because a white person made it.

Lothic wrote:

warlocc wrote:

I'm starting to think the forums need more moderation.

You're -just- starting to think that? ;)

I'm a big fan of free speech so I'm all about giving people enough rope to hang themselves.
This is a private forum operated by MWM though, and not a public space.

Lothic wrote:

warlocc wrote:

Marginalizing a race is still racism, even when they're not a minority, and we really shouldn't be tolerating any form of racism.

As Project_Hero said I'm not sure how you successfully "marginalize a majority" but I do generally agree that "building up" the acceptance of a minority does not automatically require that you have to "tear down" the current majority. As I said before these things are not inherently zero-sum games.

Saying "I hate whites, get rid of them. There's too many around here." Is racism. Replace it with any other ethnicity, it's still racism.
It bugs me. I'm sure it bugs other people too.

Huckleberry wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

You can't exactly marginalize the majority. That's not how things work.

This. Right. Here.

This is the most disturbing thing I've read on the internet in a long time, because it confirms a fear I've have had for a while now. The fear that people who exhibit reverse discrimination and racism think those terms don't apply to them if they are considered a minority themselves. This teflon attitude can only make things worse, not better.

ivanhedgehog wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

To quote Wikipedia on the subject of reverse racism...

"There is little to no empirical evidence to support the idea of reverse racism. Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States generally lack the power to damage the interests of white people, who remain the dominant group. Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism."

And also

"Despite a lack of evidence, belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States. While the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue, the concept of reverse racism has been used internationally to some extent wherever white supremacy has been diminished, such as in post-apartheid South Africa. Allegations of reverse racism therefore form part of a racial backlash against gains by non-whites."

Strange how a bunch of this stuff always seems to lead to white supremacy some how.

so you are saying that doing harm to someone based on their race is okay as long as they are the majority race? relativistic morals?

Special rules for people depending on what race they are? Why, I'm sure there's a word for that...

ivanhedgehog wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

A group of people get discriminated against, then when things are set in motion to attempt to make things more equal the same group of people who instigated the discrimination cry discrimination against them.

That's the long and short of it.

Edit: Essentially it's like a group starting a fight then complaining when their targets fight back.

what you are saying is that racism is not wrong, as long as it is against a certain group or skin color, in this case white people. racism is wrong, no matter whom it is targeted at. Tit for tat wont end anything, it only enshrines it in tradition.

Bingo.

Netflix has 7 Superhero shows? Luke Cage, Black lightning, daredevil, Jessica Jones, iron Fist, Punisher, and Supergirl... Is Gotham on Netflix, I don't remember. Also Netflix's content is different per country.

And no, people wouldn't want to change Luke Cage. Possibly changing Iron Fist to be Asian would have been an ok move. While yes, African Americans have been finally getting a little bit more representation in recent times it's still not enough. And as you say Latinos (Hispanics? Not sure what the preferred term is) and Asians, still need a lot more representation in modern media as does LGBT+ groups.

Going to ignore the whole "Whites are victims of racism too!" Crap because... No... They're not. You can not be in power and also discriminated against.

And people do realize I mentioned webcomics as a thing that has minority representation? You know the whole self publishing thing? But I guess people just ignore that. It's definitely not the same as having mainstream media representation, and if you can't understand that, there's no helping you.

For a bunch of people who, assumably, like super heroes you guys (and I'm pretty certain you're all guys, probably white guys) seem to miss the subtext of them. Hell, you seem to miss the text.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Those with power have a responsibility to use their power to help those without.

You know, like when you see white people sticking up for minorities?

So you could all try being a little less like Larfleeze and a little more like Saint Walker.

Whites have representation. Too much. I have never said, nor implied that whites should have no representation.

Saying that I assume you are white men is neither racist or sexist. Partially because I have never said there is anything inferior with being a white man. I assume you're white men because you're nerds, who are usually white men.

Again. You can not marginalize the group that is in power.

Project_Hero wrote:

Netflix has 7 Superhero shows? Luke Cage, Black lightning, daredevil, Jessica Jones, iron Fist, Punisher, and Supergirl... Is Gotham on Netflix, I don't remember. Also Netflix's content is different per country.

And no, people wouldn't want to change Luke Cage. Possibly changing Iron Fist to be Asian would have been an ok move. While yes, African Americans have been finally getting a little bit more representation in recent times it's still not enough. And as you say Latinos (Hispanics? Not sure what the preferred term is) and Asians, still need a lot more representation in modern media as does LGBT+ groups.

Going to ignore the whole "Whites are victims of racism too!" Crap because... No... They're not. You can not be in power and also discriminated against.

And people do realize I mentioned webcomics as a thing that has minority representation? You know the whole self publishing thing? But I guess people just ignore that. It's definitely not the same as having mainstream media representation, and if you can't understand that, there's no helping you.

For a bunch of people who, assumably, like super heroes you guys (and I'm pretty certain you're all guys, probably white guys) seem to miss the subtext of them. Hell, you seem to miss the text.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Those with power have a responsibility to use their power to help those without.

You know, like when you see white people sticking up for minorities?

So you could all try being a little less like Larfleeze and a little more like Saint Walker.

I stopped reading when you said "change ironfist to be asian."

you understand the ENTIRE point of ironfist being white is he was racially descriminated against while training. The asians trying to be the Iron Fist hated and had a lack of respect for him because he was white.

Iron Fist is literally defined by the fact that he is a white person in an Asian World.

You picked the 1 hero who loses 100% of their value if you make them asian and said it would be okay to make them asian.

Maybe you should do a little bit of research about comics, their characters, their past, and the industry before saying everyone but white people are being kept down.

Edit: and nearly all of these black and female heroes were invented by a group of white men.

Edit 2: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ethan-van-sciver-s-cyberfrog-bloodhoney-comic-book-fantasy#/
thats a link to an INDEPENDENT comic artist who raised half a million dollars in presales for their comic.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/jawbreakers-lost-souls-graphic-novel#/
thats a link to an Independent comic lover who raised almost $400,000 to get his comic idea made.... where 1 of the characters on the team is black, and another is gay.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/missingworldsmedia/the-phoenix-project-city-of-titans
here is a link to an indie game that raised $678,000 based on comic superheroes whose flagship hero is a black woman.

Oh shi... thats this game.... man we white people must all be a bunch of racists! supporting a game with a black lead hero, wtf...............

Project_Hero wrote:

Again. You can not marginalize the group that is in power.

And yet you pulled it off. Textbook definition. Feel free to look it up.

Brand X wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Whites have representation. Too much. I have never said, nor implied that whites should have no representation.

Saying that I assume you are white men is neither racist or sexist. Partially because I have never said there is anything inferior with being a white man. I assume you're white men because you're nerds, who are usually white men.

Again. You can not marginalize the group that is in power.

That's okay. I figured you were a white male too.

That said, still wrong.

None of the people here are against more black, asian, latino, gay, trans, whatever you want that is not a white male super hero.

They're against changing the already established characters.

That's the difference. Want a character to be something specific? Make a new one.

Obviously the new one will make it, because there's this huge group out there just waiting for representation.

The difference is everyone here knows why they're changing established ones. It's name recognition. It's not that a new hero can't get made, no one wants to take the time to get them popular. They want it now!

Not to mention, the side you speak on is so full of it, Hero.

"We want more representation for heroes!"

"Okay! Here's a woman replacing a man!"

"That character is supposed to be a man!"

That was the Ancient One. Changed a man into a woman. Complaints.

"We don't understand the idea of acting! We want want gay characters played by gay actors!"

"Okay! Here's a gay superhero played by a gay actor!"

"She's not gay!/She's not gay enough!"

There we have the recent Batwoman!

And talk about racism!

"He's a martial artist superhero! He should be asian because he knows martial arts!"

There's Iron Fist. Talk about racist. Just assuming all asian's are martial artists. Bruce Lee would be disappointed in all of you.

All coming from pretty much one side of things. :p

Brand X nailed it

And often they do make new characters in comics who merely take on the moniker of an older hero... And people complain.

Like, Peter Parker still exists and is still Spiderman but people still complain about Miles Morales existing and being Spiderman.

Lothic wrote:

I'll say it one more time and see if it sticks: This is [b]not[/b] a zero-sum game.

In order to have a popular minority-based superhero you do NOT have to destroy/remove an existing white superhero.

Anyone who thinks there's nothing wrong with doing that is just as RACIST, INTOLERANT and ANTI-DIVERSE as the people who are supposedly still out there preventing minority-based superheroes from existing/succeeding in the first place.

The idea that you can easily co-opt an existing character in order to "instantly" create a minority icon (i.e. flipping a well-known white character black or a man to a woman) is a terribly silly and ill-conceived notion. Not only do you piss off the original fans of the character but no -new- fans are really going to accept it either because they'll be smart enough to see that it was just done as a cheap trick to pander to them. It's one of the finest examples of an absolute "lose-lose" scenario I can think of.

Was it fair that the early comic books were dominated by white male characters? Of course not. But the "answer" to that is not by changing all those original characters into non-white ones. The answer is to step up, create NEW characters (of all different ethnicities, genders, etc.) and work like hell to make them accepted/popular on their OWN terms.

I wouldn't call it unfair either.

90% of the US was white in 1940 (Superman being created in 1938 is why I say 1940)

88% of the US was white in 1970. Mind you, this number includes white hispanics. If we take white hispanics out of the picture, it drops to 83%.

11% of the US was black in 1970.

That left 1% of the rest of the US being something other than White or Black.

No one complains about China/Japan not making anything for their white/black minority population, when it's a low number like that.

Project_Hero wrote:

Yes, Asians can be discriminatory to other Asians. There's quite a bit of discrimination in Japan, for example. Even against other Japanese people.

Same as years ago in the states Irish Immigrants and Irish Americans were discriminated against.

Seems no matter where you go the majority will discriminate against a minority. And that's terrible.

Also Iron Fist could easily be discriminated against in K'un-lun just by being an outsider.

A white guy who doesn't like change? How novel.

And RWBY and Overwatch have their own problems. They're better, for sure, than some things that came before it but are not by any means problem free.

As I've said before, things are getting better but slowly. But some people think because some progress has been made that no more needs to be.

I hope for a better future.

...

And often they do make new characters in comics who merely take on the moniker of an older hero... And people complain.

Like, Peter Parker still exists and is still Spiderman but people still complain about Miles Morales existing and being Spiderman.

First off. Miles didn't come into comics because Peter still existed.

Miles came into the Spider-Man title, because they killed Peter off.

You obviously didn't read the very good Ultimate Spider-Man title (I'd say it was the best of the Ultimate Marvel Line myself), which was all about changing Marvel to a "What if we rebooted these people today, how would we do it"

Next, why not call him The Scarlet Spider? Hmmm...Miles as the Scarlet Spider or just a clone of Peter? Oh! Can't use the name of that established character, that would get less if not no complaints, because the name isn't as well known to the non comic going masses. :p

Now you say "Irish" being white, were and can be discriminated against. When you just said, you can't discriminate against the majority race, which was white back then.

Now we go with discrimination for being an outsider as justification for changing the race. :p

As for Overwatch and RWBY having their own problems. I'm curious as to what problems you speak of. Not that they don't have problems, but all fiction has problems in the story telling. The point is, they're popular, they're new, they don't have white males as the lead characters, and in fact, I'd say the masses would most likely pick out a female character over a male character in either of them.

Project_Hero wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

And often they do make new characters in comics who merely take on the moniker of an older hero... And people complain.

Like, Peter Parker still exists and is still Spiderman but people still complain about Miles Morales existing and being Spiderman.

I didn't say anything would be "complaint free". But if there are multiple ways to approach a problem and one way causes less "angst" than another wouldn't it be worth doing it the less angsty way?

Nerds will complain either way.

Like the sonic fandom. Game's either too much like the originals or not enough like the originals. Usually both at the same time from different fans.

Nerds just hate change and want things to remain the same but new forever.

And like I said earlier in the thread usually people cry out that "They should just make a new character for whatever" is usually so they can just ignore them. If the X-Men creative team made a character to be a closeted homosexual (ignoring the sheer amount of build up that would need to make it have any sort of impact when revealed) instead of having that be now part of Iceman's character (who often did act like someone attempting to overcompensate for their hidden homosexuality) then the "fans" would just be able to ignore that character. They can't ignore the change to Iceman.

They want them to have their own thing so they can just ignore that other new thing.

In short. Nerds are the worst.

Marvel did the closeted gay and it worked with Karma.

Never heard complaints about it.

Mystique shown to be bisexual. No complaints.

Where exactly is the complaints for the nerd community?

Northstar gay. No complaints!

While there may have been, I don't recall any complaints about Shatterstar being gay.

Brand X wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

And often they do make new characters in comics who merely take on the moniker of an older hero... And people complain.

Like, Peter Parker still exists and is still Spiderman but people still complain about Miles Morales existing and being Spiderman.

I didn't say anything would be "complaint free". But if there are multiple ways to approach a problem and one way causes less "angst" than another wouldn't it be worth doing it the less angsty way?

Nerds will complain either way.

Like the sonic fandom. Game's either too much like the originals or not enough like the originals. Usually both at the same time from different fans.

Nerds just hate change and want things to remain the same but new forever.

And like I said earlier in the thread usually people cry out that "They should just make a new character for whatever" is usually so they can just ignore them. If the X-Men creative team made a character to be a closeted homosexual (ignoring the sheer amount of build up that would need to make it have any sort of impact when revealed) instead of having that be now part of Iceman's character (who often did act like someone attempting to overcompensate for their hidden homosexuality) then the "fans" would just be able to ignore that character. They can't ignore the change to Iceman.

They want them to have their own thing so they can just ignore that other new thing.

In short. Nerds are the worst.

Marvel did the closeted gay and it worked with Karma.

Never heard complaints about it.

Mystique shown to be bisexual. No complaints.

Where exactly is the complaints for the nerd community?

Northstar gay. No complaints!

While there may have been, I don't recall any complaints about Shatterstar being gay.

Usually if a character or detail was made before they got into comics they don't complain about it.

But there was huge campaigns against like, Kyle Reyner. A bunch of fans formed a group called Hal's Emerald Attack Team and sent death threats to the writers of Green Lantern.

When Jason Todd was killed likewise people sent in death threats.

Probably when any minority character was introduced back in the day they probably had hundreds of angry letters sent in.

Like, these problems existed they're just not as well catalogued in the early days of the internet and before it.

I mean there's a reason Superboy Prime is like he is. He's what the creators think of some fans. Same as Kylo Ren is a reflection of parts of the Star Wars fanbase.

"Everything was better on MY earth!" Is essentially "everything was better when I was a kid."

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

And like I said earlier in the thread usually people cry out that "They should just make a new character for whatever" is usually so they can just ignore them. If the X-Men creative team made a character to be a closeted homosexual (ignoring the sheer amount of build up that would need to make it have any sort of impact when revealed) instead of having that be now part of Iceman's character (who often did act like someone attempting to overcompensate for their hidden homosexuality) then the "fans" would just be able to ignore that character. They can't ignore the change to Iceman.

You realize the fans couldn't "ignore" that kind of change to Iceman because in the greater scheme of things it would be GROSSLY UNFAIR and ANTI-DIVERSE to force that kind of change on an established character.

Once again you're conflating this idea that it's "perfectly fine and inconsequential" to destroy/tear down long established characters because you think somehow that would help minority fans instantly get their "own" characters. You'd rather co-opt an existing character's "importance/popularity" with some stupid notion that the "importance/popularity" would instantly translate directly to the Frankenstein'd hybrid you've created. Once again I can't think of anything more stupid than that.

You claim that it's only the "nerds" that get upset by this this kind of thing. Do you honestly think that it'd only a be random nerds who'd would notice if you changed Superman to be a black man? Really?

Again you're trying to take the easy way out and make "instantly famous/important" minority-based heroes by ripping down established ones. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY AND NEVER WILL. If people can't create brand new minority characters that can stand on their own (without having to glom onto the popularity and respect that it's taken other heroes decades to earn on their own) then those new character of yours DO NOT DESERVE TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

One more time please stop trying to bring up the silly notion that people could "easily ignore" brand new minority characters. If they are that "ignoreable" do they really deserve to exist?

So the fact that you can easily read Iceman as a closeted homosexual that's trying way too hard to act heterosexual and thus the "change" isn't "destroying" the character but is actually just character growth (that goes in a direction that some people dislike) and a natural evolution of the character means... What?

Like it's nice that the "fans" get to decide what's character growth and what's "change for change's sake."

And no, probably not just nerds. But likely a huge number of white people (mostly men) would come out of the woodwork and claim that any change to a fictional character in a story is an attack on, I dunno, white people, their childhood, is an affront to whatever. Like take your pick.

Like how people are making a big stink again because Idris Elba might be the next James Bond.

Project_Hero wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

And like I said earlier in the thread usually people cry out that "They should just make a new character for whatever" is usually so they can just ignore them. If the X-Men creative team made a character to be a closeted homosexual (ignoring the sheer amount of build up that would need to make it have any sort of impact when revealed) instead of having that be now part of Iceman's character (who often did act like someone attempting to overcompensate for their hidden homosexuality) then the "fans" would just be able to ignore that character. They can't ignore the change to Iceman.

You realize the fans couldn't "ignore" that kind of change to Iceman because in the greater scheme of things it would be GROSSLY UNFAIR and ANTI-DIVERSE to force that kind of change on an established character.

Once again you're conflating this idea that it's "perfectly fine and inconsequential" to destroy/tear down long established characters because you think somehow that would help minority fans instantly get their "own" characters. You'd rather co-opt an existing character's "importance/popularity" with some stupid notion that the "importance/popularity" would instantly translate directly to the Frankenstein'd hybrid you've created. Once again I can't think of anything more stupid than that.

You claim that it's only the "nerds" that get upset by this this kind of thing. Do you honestly think that it'd only a be random nerds who'd would notice if you changed Superman to be a black man? Really?

Again you're trying to take the easy way out and make "instantly famous/important" minority-based heroes by ripping down established ones. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY AND NEVER WILL. If people can't create brand new minority characters that can stand on their own (without having to glom onto the popularity and respect that it's taken other heroes decades to earn on their own) then those new character of yours DO NOT DESERVE TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

One more time please stop trying to bring up the silly notion that people could "easily ignore" brand new minority characters. If they are that "ignoreable" do they really deserve to exist?

So the fact that you can easily read Iceman as a closeted homosexual that's trying way too hard to act heterosexual and thus the "change" isn't "destroying" the character but is actually just character growth (that goes in a direction that some people dislike) and a natural evolution of the character means... What?

Like it's nice that the "fans" get to decide what's character growth and what's "change for change's sake."

And no, probably not just nerds. But likely a huge number of white people (mostly men) would come out of the woodwork and claim that any change to a fictional character in a story is an attack on, I dunno, white people, their childhood, is an affront to whatever. Like take your pick.

Like how people are making a big stink again because Idris Elba might be the next James Bond.

You admit it's a bunch of white males who buy comics. Which is true, but it's not because of exclusion. Then complain about white male being the biggest complainers (even though it's not just white males)? Well duh. Do the math. Those not complaining aren't buying the comics.

Those bitching about the comics however, don't buy the comics, won't buy the comics with the change and complain about them, because they want to complain against white males. :p

As for Iceman, there's never been any hint in the direction that he was closeted gay, before they decided to make him gay. Slash fic doesn't count by the way, as slash fic has Logan and Scott getting together. There was never any hints dropped about Iceman being gay. Let's go to the movies! Ice Man with Rogue and something close with Kitty! Nothing with Pyro at all.

People made a big stink about James Bond possibly being played by an American. James Bond has it's own fan base, a majority of which, likely don't read comics. Is James Bond a nerd thing now? Is it just a nerd thing when it's majority white males liking it?

I ask, because a remember such comments from Harry Potter and Hunger Games casting. Let me guess, it was just the white male fans who came out and did the complaining?

Lets cover some of the earliest "minority" superheroes ....

Zorro - Spanish/Hispanic 1919
Lone Ranger + Tonto - White guy + Native American Guy 1933
The Green Hornet + Kato - White guy and Asian Guy 1930's
Conan The Barbarian - White-ish guy. But the black hair makes him clearly not a WASP 1932
Sheena - Female, white 1937
Zatara - white male... but father of Zatanna (Female) a far more known character.
Catwoman - woman 1940
Red Bee - woman 1950s
Red Tornado - Black Woman 1939
Hawkgirl - 1941
Miss America -1941
Phantom Lady - 1941
Nelvana of the Northern Lights (woman) 1941
Wonder Woman - 1941
Mary Marvel - 1942
Black Canary - 1947
Moon Girl - 1947
Batwoman - 1956
Super Girl - 1958
Lady BlackHawk - 1959
Flygirl - 1961
Wasp - 1963
X-men - 1963
Scarlet Witch - 1964
Black Widow - 1964
Zatanna - 1964
Black Panther - 1966
Batgirl - 1967
Carol Danvers - 1968
Polaris - 1968
Kaliman - Mexican - 1963
Valkyrie - 1970
Squadron Supreme - 1971
Forever People - 1971
New Gods - 1971
Big Barda - 1971
Luke Cage - 1972
Brother Voodoo -1973
Shang-Chi - 1973
Gamora - 1975
Power Girl - 1976
Spider-Woman - 1977
Black Lightning - 1977
Black Cat - 1979
El Chapulin Colorado - 1970
Kamen Rider - 1971
The Bionic Woman - 1975

Hope we are still reading...because I would hate to waste my post space pointing out how not racist or sexist the history of comics are... and how ... all of these characters if not 100% original are next gen characters not ret-cons.... I mean I would hate to think people could actually think up a character in the 19oo's that wasnt a white male that everyone knows today. Id feel Zorro about saying comic readers are racist who have supported all of these minority and female characters for generations.......

now for the 1980's..........
Kitty Pryde - 1980
Emma Frost - 1980
Dazzler - 1980
She-Hulk - 1980
Elektra - 1981
Rogue - (my personal favorite female character) 1981
Monica Rambeau - 1982
Femforce - 1984
Julia Carpenter - 1984
Watchmen - 1986
New Warriors - 1989
Thundercats - 1985
Silverhawks - 1986
TigerSharks - 1987

now the 1990s.... still going with pretty much original characters... good thing there seems to be room for just about any concept someone wants without destroying someone elses character so far.....

Jesse Quick - 1991
Parmanu - actual india, indian - 1991
Bishop - 1991
Spawn - 1992
War Machine 1992
Wild CATS - 1992
Doga -1992
Gen - 1993
Static 1993
Purgatori - 1994
The Thunderbolts - 1997
Power Rangers - 1993

On to the 2000's..... man all of these not white male characters... who havent replaced a white male character... a few relatives, or kids of them sure, but so far no erasing the original... lets continue

Night Eagle - 2000
Runaways - 2002
x-23 - 2003
Anya Corazon - 2004
Miss Martian - 2006
Anna Mercury - 2008
Blue Marvel - 2008
Frozone - 2004
The Incredibles - 2004
Sky High - 2005
Hancock - 2008
Captain China - 2012
Ms. marvel - 2014
Spider-Gwen - 2014
Gwenpool - 2016

Kinda seems to me the comic industry has a very long history of creating new fun characters of whatever background that writing/art team decides would be cool.

Brand X wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

And like I said earlier in the thread usually people cry out that "They should just make a new character for whatever" is usually so they can just ignore them. If the X-Men creative team made a character to be a closeted homosexual (ignoring the sheer amount of build up that would need to make it have any sort of impact when revealed) instead of having that be now part of Iceman's character (who often did act like someone attempting to overcompensate for their hidden homosexuality) then the "fans" would just be able to ignore that character. They can't ignore the change to Iceman.

You realize the fans couldn't "ignore" that kind of change to Iceman because in the greater scheme of things it would be GROSSLY UNFAIR and ANTI-DIVERSE to force that kind of change on an established character.

Once again you're conflating this idea that it's "perfectly fine and inconsequential" to destroy/tear down long established characters because you think somehow that would help minority fans instantly get their "own" characters. You'd rather co-opt an existing character's "importance/popularity" with some stupid notion that the "importance/popularity" would instantly translate directly to the Frankenstein'd hybrid you've created. Once again I can't think of anything more stupid than that.

You claim that it's only the "nerds" that get upset by this this kind of thing. Do you honestly think that it'd only a be random nerds who'd would notice if you changed Superman to be a black man? Really?

Again you're trying to take the easy way out and make "instantly famous/important" minority-based heroes by ripping down established ones. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY AND NEVER WILL. If people can't create brand new minority characters that can stand on their own (without having to glom onto the popularity and respect that it's taken other heroes decades to earn on their own) then those new character of yours DO NOT DESERVE TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

One more time please stop trying to bring up the silly notion that people could "easily ignore" brand new minority characters. If they are that "ignoreable" do they really deserve to exist?

So the fact that you can easily read Iceman as a closeted homosexual that's trying way too hard to act heterosexual and thus the "change" isn't "destroying" the character but is actually just character growth (that goes in a direction that some people dislike) and a natural evolution of the character means... What?

Like it's nice that the "fans" get to decide what's character growth and what's "change for change's sake."

And no, probably not just nerds. But likely a huge number of white people (mostly men) would come out of the woodwork and claim that any change to a fictional character in a story is an attack on, I dunno, white people, their childhood, is an affront to whatever. Like take your pick.

Like how people are making a big stink again because Idris Elba might be the next James Bond.

You admit it's a bunch of white males who buy comics. Which is true, but it's not because of exclusion. Then complain about white male being the biggest complainers (even though it's not just white males)? Well duh. Do the math. Those not complaining aren't buying the comics.

Those bitching about the comics however, don't buy the comics, won't buy the comics with the change and complain about them, because they want to complain against white males. :p

As for Iceman, there's never been any hint in the direction that he was closeted gay, before they decided to make him gay. Slash fic doesn't count by the way, as slash fic has Logan and Scott getting together. There was never any hints dropped about Iceman being gay. Let's go to the movies! Ice Man with Rogue and something close with Kitty! Nothing with Pyro at all.

People made a big stink about James Bond possibly being played by an American. James Bond has it's own fan base, a majority of which, likely don't read comics. Is James Bond a nerd thing now? Is it just a nerd thing when it's majority white males liking it?

I ask, because a remember such comments from Harry Potter and Hunger Games casting. Let me guess, it was just the white male fans who came out and did the complaining?

Issue 319 kind of hints towards it. That he more or less forces himself to act the way his biggoted dad wants him to. (Just read a thing on it)

Also acting as a playboy can also be a sign of a closeted homosexual man. Same as acting overly macho. I mean, there have been enough things that could be read that way that fans have been theorising that Iceman is gay for ages.

Project_Hero wrote:

Issue 319 kind of hints towards it. That he more or less forces himself to act the way his biggoted dad wants him to. (Just read a thing on it)

Also acting as a playboy can also be a sign of a closeted homosexual man. Same as acting overly macho. I mean, there have been enough things that could be read that way that fans have been theorising that Iceman is gay for ages.

Until Bobby came out, the closest I've heard of Bobby being gay, is fans and their slash fics. In dicussions with other X-Men fans.

Also, this seems to be one point in the comics that one can point to, with no others, that can be read that way, if one is looking for it.

I never saw Iceman as overly macho or a playboy either. Though, I could've easily read him wrong.

Project_Hero wrote:

As an art form it can have multiple interpretations so neither side are really wrong when reading it either way.

And there are likely comic fans that related to Bobby because his dealing with being a mutant and how he relates to his family resonates pretty closely with others having to deal with their sexuality.

X-Men was definitely great at being able to be relatable to anyone who has ever felt like they didn't belong and doubly so for those the world seems to hate and fear. Minorities, LGBT+ people, etc etc.

Not to mention those white nerds who got bullied. :o

warlocc wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Fictional characters can be changed and reinterpreted. That is what they're for.

This is the fundamental flaw in your position on all this. For fictional characters to MEAN ANYTHING their core purpose and identities MUST BE MAINTAINED. If you simply re-scramble their entire personas on a whim to blow around with your ever changing SJW ideals what consistent purpose do they actual serve?

Fictional characters are constantly updated to reflect the current society.

Fictional characters are constantly changed and adjusted.

Changing a character's race and/or sexuality doesn't change the character's personality.

Character's are constantly changed to appeal to other audiences. Like how they made Superboy comics, Superman when he was a kid, to appeal to a younger audience. They did the same for Wonder Woman.

It's almost as if as long as you keep the core of the character the same you can change pretty much anything about them.

You keep saying i"f their race and sexuality isn't important then they don't need to change" without understanding that by that same argument then there's also no reason for them to stay the same. Why change them? To appeal to someone else. Make that character resonate with even more people.

If you really don't care one way or the other if they change it then when someone says "hey, why don't we change this thing?" Why isn't the answer "Ok, that's not an important part of the character, so go nuts"?

Everything can be improved. But you won't find improvement by keeping everything the same. Let the past die.

At this point it just sounds like you're saying that minorities are incapable of doing/creating/being anything on their own, so we should make white people change everything for them because without the white man, they're helpless.

Right yeah... Like they should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, right? You know a phrase that was originally made to illustrate how difficult it can be to get something done without some additional help.

Minority creators are more than capable of doing things on their own. The point is that they shouldn't always have to. Which is almost always the case.

You know... Like why affirmative action is in place because some companies avoid hiring minorities (and in some cases women) due to unconscious biases or actual racism and/or xenophobia in some cases.

But you know. Maybe you're right. Why every good hero knows when you see someone in trouble or struggling you just let them handle it on their own and not get involved.

Edit: You know they should just do things all on their own... Like they have been... Since forever... Sure is working well.

Edit 2: like, just like... You ever like, talk to someone about a problem and they don't do anything about it? But then someone else brings up that exact same thing to them and only then they address the problem? It's sort of like that. A lot of the time minority voices don't get heard or people play it off as "some SJW whining" or whatever. Sometimes they need a signal boost. Sometimes they need help. Sometimes those without voices need someone else to say something for them. Power and responsibility, man.

"My friend talked about you today."

"Oh, what did they say?"

To quote the Oxford dictionaries site.
"Using them, they, or their is a way to avoid making an assumption of gender as there is no gender explicit in these pronouns."

And also
"The Oxford English Dictionary’s first citation for a sex-neutral, indefinite they is from about 1375"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

So... Like... You're wrong.

Huckleberry wrote:

I am not wrong about the way I feel. Using a plural pronoun to denote a singular is just wrong. Oxford Dictionary or otherwise! Besides Oxford's citation from 1375 is for a plural usage anyway, and its usage in the singular only dates to the 16th century. And even then a citation of usage is not approval. In fact, the Oxford Dictionary authors freely admit that although used, when used as a singular pronoun is still considered by many experts as ungrammatical. I am not an expert, but to my ears my opinion matters.

Well. Grammar doesn't care about your feelings.

It's grammatically fine and has been used that way since the 14th century.

It is most notably used when you don't know the gender of someone.

And insistence to call someone by a pronoun they don't like (see that sweet singular they usage?) is pretty much the same as someone calling you by a nickname you don't like.

Edit: "They with a singular antecedent goes back to the Middle English of the 14th century (slightly younger than they with a plural antecedent, which was borrowed from Old Norse in the 13th century), and has remained in common use for centuries in spite of its proscription by traditional grammarians beginning in the late 18th century."

Edit 2: Also language is constantly changing and constantly evolving. It's like a living breathing thing.

Also the English language is dumb because you can read read as read or you could have read read as read.

Huckleberry wrote:

Project Hero, your logic and debate skills are horrendous. This is not an insult, but just a declaration that we need to work on this.

Let me show you the contradiction in your own argument by first underlining two phrases which contradict each other.

Project_Hero wrote:

[u]It's grammatically fine[/u] and has been used that way since the 14th century.

Edit: "They with a singular antecedent goes back to the Middle English of the 14th century (slightly younger than they with a plural antecedent, which was borrowed from Old Norse in the 13th century), and has remained in common use for centuries in spite of its [u]proscription by traditional grammarians[/u] beginning in the late 18th century."

thus making one of those statements a fallacy. (that's a logical term for untrue, but less accusatory than saying untrue which can be implied to be calling someone a liar)

Second, I'm going to show you why grammarians don't like using a plural pronoun in place of a singular one:

You were apparently very proud of its use in the following sentence:

Project Hero wrote:

And insistence to call someone by a pronoun they don't like is pretty much the same as someone calling you by a nickname you don't like.

Who is they in this sentence? How much context is needed to answer my question? Do you see the confusion you caused? The average person reading that sentence would assume that "they" is referring to a group of people who don't like the pronoun you used to address someone.

And for the record I prefer not to be addressed as they, so please don't do it in the future.

We have enough trouble discriminating between singular and plural "you" we don't need any more when trying to distinguish between zhe and they.

The they in the sentence is referring to a hypothetical someone. Which is a singular. Someone refers to a singular person.

And I didn't call you a they. Least not that I can remember.

And I think the "traditional" part of "traditional grammarians" seperates them out from grammarians in general.

And again language is constantly changing. And there ain't anything wrong with that.

So stop hiding behind "grammatical correctness" you don't really give a shit about it you're just using it as a way to justify your outdated worldviews.

I'm personally just finding it funny that P_H is arguing that "its the way its supposed to be" when it comes to grammar....
but doesn't see how that's the exact stance most people in this thread have about the heroes and how people want to muck with their visuals.

Huckleberry wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

So stop hiding behind "grammatical correctness" you don't really give a shit about it you're just using it as a way to justify your outdated worldviews.

WHAT!? where the hell did this come from out of left field!? Damn, man. You just have to go there don't you.

Here I was promoting a very progressive idea which was brought about because of more modern worldviews, and you go accusing me of trying to justify outdated world views. I have tried to be patient, logical, and understanding. I will refrain from typing any more for fear of losing my friendly demeanor and I will go count to ten somewhere enjoyable.

Ok. What I said there was uncalled for, I apologize.

Dealing with certain kinds of people has left me rather exhausted and my patience for those kind of people has worn thin.

This doesn't excuse me snapping at you.

So again, I apologize for that.

Gonna have to side with Hero. People have been using they in the form of the unknown singular long before we got into a big PC war in the US. I'm also gen x...so...got some time :p

Brand X wrote:

Gonna have to side with Hero. People have been using they in the form of the unknown singular long before we got into a big PC war in the US. I'm also gen x...so...got some time :p

Yep.

Same as people have been changing superheroes for decades. Like how Jay Garrick isn't the only flash any more, or Alan Scott isn't Green Lantern not to mention they completely rewrote their backstories. Same with Dan Garrett (just noticed how similar Dan and Jay's names are. Three letter first names and Garr in their last) Blue Beetle. Dick Grayson isn't Robin any more he took one of Superman's aliases, Tim Drake and Stephanie Brown aren't robins anymore, Barbara Gordan isn't the only bat girl. And Kathy Kane isn't Batwoman any more either.

Shit changes.

Project_Hero wrote:

Brand X wrote:

Gonna have to side with Hero. People have been using they in the form of the unknown singular long before we got into a big PC war in the US. I'm also gen x...so...got some time :p

Yep.

Same as people have been changing superheroes for decades. Like how Jay Garrick isn't the only flash any more, or Alan Scott isn't Green Lantern not to mention they completely rewrote their backstories. Same with Dan Garrett (just noticed how similar Dan and Jay's names are. Three letter first names and Garr in their last) Blue Beetle. Dick Grayson isn't Robin any more he took one of Superman's aliases, Tim Drake and Stephanie Brown aren't robins anymore, Barbara Gordan isn't the only bat girl. And Kathy Kane isn't Batwoman any more either.

Shit changes.

Yes. However, as I've said before, it's the reason behind the changes.

Jay lost popularity.

I'd argue Batwoman did as well. While, there was chatter on her being gay purely for the publicity/pc of it, it wasn't anything like today.

Spider-Man. Iceman. Iron Man. Thor. These characters did not lose popularity.

Project_Hero wrote:

Brand X wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Brand X wrote:

Gonna have to side with Hero. People have been using they in the form of the unknown singular long before we got into a big PC war in the US. I'm also gen x...so...got some time :p

Yep.

Same as people have been changing superheroes for decades. Like how Jay Garrick isn't the only flash any more, or Alan Scott isn't Green Lantern not to mention they completely rewrote their backstories. Same with Dan Garrett (just noticed how similar Dan and Jay's names are. Three letter first names and Garr in their last) Blue Beetle. Dick Grayson isn't Robin any more he took one of Superman's aliases, Tim Drake and Stephanie Brown aren't robins anymore, Barbara Gordan isn't the only bat girl. And Kathy Kane isn't Batwoman any more either.

Shit changes.

Yes. However, as I've said before, it's the reason behind the changes.

Jay lost popularity.

I'd argue Batwoman did as well. While, there was chatter on her being gay purely for the publicity/pc of it, it wasn't anything like today.

Spider-Man. Iceman. Iron Man. Thor. These characters did not lose popularity.

So it's ok when they do it for business reasons... But when they change it because of "SJWs" (you know... For business reasons) that's not ok?

So in other words it seems like it's ok for them to change things only when you agree with the changes and not when you don't.

Actually, not what I said at all.

I said changes for PC reasons was crap. Changes because something wasn't selling at all? Different. If you can't see that, then you're blind.

You like to change things, to just change things. You say, changing white to black doesn't change anything. Well, let's go with that. We'll go with something possibly doing that now and why you're wrong.

James Bond.

White European, spying everywhere, pretending to be rich (which James has done).

Think the world won't go "You're black and rich? How have I never heard of you?" "Oh? A sport star?" "Oh? A rap star?" "Oh? What African nation do you rule?"

You really don't think, a black british man, wouldn't stand out in a room full of European big shots?

I went looking for images of European royals, business men, and I didn't really see any blacks. When the population makes up only 2% of Europe's population...could be why.

Rich white European business man comes out of no where and things are going fishy. Well, they're all over.

However, let's go back to that.

So, something isn't selling, change it up to a different race, now seem's okay right?

Tell me. If Black Panther isn't selling, so they change him to a white man. Think it's okay?

Project_Hero wrote:

Brand X wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Brand X wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Brand X wrote:

Gonna have to side with Hero. People have been using they in the form of the unknown singular long before we got into a big PC war in the US. I'm also gen x...so...got some time :p

Yep.

Same as people have been changing superheroes for decades. Like how Jay Garrick isn't the only flash any more, or Alan Scott isn't Green Lantern not to mention they completely rewrote their backstories. Same with Dan Garrett (just noticed how similar Dan and Jay's names are. Three letter first names and Garr in their last) Blue Beetle. Dick Grayson isn't Robin any more he took one of Superman's aliases, Tim Drake and Stephanie Brown aren't robins anymore, Barbara Gordan isn't the only bat girl. And Kathy Kane isn't Batwoman any more either.

Shit changes.

Yes. However, as I've said before, it's the reason behind the changes.

Jay lost popularity.

I'd argue Batwoman did as well. While, there was chatter on her being gay purely for the publicity/pc of it, it wasn't anything like today.

Spider-Man. Iceman. Iron Man. Thor. These characters did not lose popularity.

So it's ok when they do it for business reasons... But when they change it because of "SJWs" (you know... For business reasons) that's not ok?

So in other words it seems like it's ok for them to change things only when you agree with the changes and not when you don't.

Actually, not what I said at all.

I said changes for PC reasons was crap. Changes because something wasn't selling at all? Different. If you can't see that, then you're blind.

You like to change things, to just change things. You say, changing white to black doesn't change anything. Well, let's go with that. We'll go with something possibly doing that now and why you're wrong.

James Bond.

White European, spying everywhere, pretending to be rich (which James has done).

Think the world won't go "You're black and rich? How have I never heard of you?" "Oh? A sport star?" "Oh? A rap star?" "Oh? What African nation do you rule?"

You really don't think, a black british man, wouldn't stand out in a room full of European big shots?

I went looking for images of European royals, business men, and I didn't really see any blacks. When the population makes up only 2% of Europe's population...could be why.

Rich white European business man comes out of no where and things are going fishy. Well, they're all over.

However, let's go back to that.

So, something isn't selling, change it up to a different race, now seem's okay right?

Tell me. If Black Panther isn't selling, so they change him to a white man. Think it's okay?

Black Panther movie did great. Comics might not be, but the movie did well. Proves there's a market for the character. Now, if the movie of the guy does well you have to wonder why the comics aren't. Maybe they're not advertised well, maybe they places to get them make new fans uncomfortable, maybe they got a comic book app and are buying old issues, or searched online for the best run, or perhaps they don't even know he's a character in an ongoing comic series. Could be any number of reasons. And yeah, if it's not doing well they'll probably try something to bring in readers. Probably won't change his race as shrinking an already small amount of black heroes in marvel is probably not a good PR move, but they could definitely have someone who's not T'challa take up the mantle. Like his sister? Or anyone else. Could be some black teenager from Detroit then it could be all about him exploring his African heritage. Like there's tons of ways to spin it and change it to try and drum up interest.

Again most changes in comics are spawned by business decisions. Even a lot of "PC" reasons are business decisions. But sometimes it's one of the creators on the project, who's probably a long time fan, thinks that whatever is an interesting move for the character.

How come they haven't heard of rich black James Bond? He keeps to himself. Made his money on the stock market. Done. Or don't have him pretend to be a rich guy? Like he could just do cool suave spy stuff.

But like whatever guy asking those questions seems like he's stereotyping more than a little.

Why not make James Bond a young black man from Detroit, orphaned, he immigrated to England, went to Oxford and joined MI6! Why keep him British?

Project_Hero wrote:

If you don't fit the criteria you are not who the generalization is referring to. Simple as that.

Companies are (in general) greedy institutions that care only about making money. There can be exceptions to this but in general it is true.

I often use the generalization of "Nerds are the worst" even though I myself am a nerd and all my friends are too. They likewise say that nerds are the worst. To defend the group that is being generalized by pointing out that exceptions exist is more or less trying to ignore the problem altogether, see the "not all men" thing men do when people bad talk men.

It's sort of like if someone went "I like apples they're tasty." And someone else goes "Oh, even rotten apples?" And the first person goes "Well, no, obviously." Then the second goes "Ah-ha! So you don't like ALL apples and ALL of them aren't tasty!" Like... It's just stupid to point out the exceptions. Exceptions exist and any generalization about people or almost anything will have exceptions that is assumed in the generalization.

I think that's the point. The exception is, that nerds are the worst.

It's easy to be a loud minority. :p So, the nerds you say "Are just the worst" is a minority within the nerd community.

Project_Hero wrote:

Then it is up to the rest in the "nerd community" to condemn the actions of those that give them a bad name. You root out the toxic elements.

Oh my... this is the worst possible answer you could give.

It is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. It would be like telling blacks they are responsible for other blacks. Or Muslims that they are responsible for other Muslims, or white people they are responsible for other white people.

When I see someone behave badly, I don't put the responsibility of their bad behavior on my friend who has some common characteristic with them. No, I blame the person behaving badly. Because that person is an individual. It is no more up to my friend to police the behavior of other people who share a coimmon characteristic with him or her than it is [u]up to every person who witnesses such behavior.[/u]

Huckleberry wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Then it is up to the rest in the "nerd community" to condemn the actions of those that give them a bad name. You root out the toxic elements.

Oh my... this is the worst possible answer you could give.

It is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. It would be like telling blacks they are responsible for other blacks. Or Muslims that they are responsible for other Muslims, or white people they are responsible for other white people.

When I see someone behave badly, I don't put the responsibility of their bad behavior on my friend who has some common characteristic with them. No, I blame the person behaving badly. Because that person is an individual. It is no more up to my friend to police the behavior of other people who share a coimmon characteristic with him or her than it is [u]up to every person who witnesses such behavior.[/u]

When the furry community found there were Nazis within their community they got rid of the Nazis within their community. Made sure they were unwelcome anywhere.

You find other nerds being toxic, you call them out on it. If you run a game store or comic shop and you witness toxic behavior you tell them if it continues they won't be welcome there. Hell, apparently even posting some rules up at cons or other various gatherings makes a difference.

Ignoring it or letting them get away with toxic behavior will only let them think that it's ok for them to continue their toxic behaviour.

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Ignoring it or letting them get away with toxic behavior will only let them think that it's ok for them to continue their toxic behaviour.

Like how we're supposed to "ignore" over-zealous SJWs who think it's OK to totally destroy existing heroes in favor of new ones? Where do I post some rules against doing stupid things like that?

A new version doesn't destroy the old version.

They made a new DOOM. You can still play the old DOOM.

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Ignoring it or letting them get away with toxic behavior will only let them think that it's ok for them to continue their toxic behaviour.

Like how we're supposed to "ignore" over-zealous SJWs who think it's OK to totally destroy existing heroes in favor of new ones? Where do I post some rules against doing stupid things like that?

A new version doesn't destroy the old version.

They made a new DOOM. You can still play the old DOOM.

Then I'll ask you why there has to be an "either/or" choice here? Why can't you have two existing characters when there was originally only one? Isn't the "goal" of diversity to have as many choices as possible?

You can. See Miles Morales Spiderman.

He was The Spiderman (well, the Ultimate Spiderman) and now he's A Spiderman.

And it's not really a blow against diversity if you have umpteen white guys and replace one of them with someone who's not a white guy.

If you have ten heroes and seven of them are white men, one's a white woman, one's a black guy, and the last is an Asian woman, replacing a white guy for say, a black woman doesn't decrease the diversity of the group. It increases it.

And no one is asking for every version of a character to be diverse, but having A version of the character that is could make a world of difference to someone.

I mean Elseworlds and what if comics exist and you're telling me that we can have a vampire Batman and a Russian communist Superman but having either one of them be black is a step too far?

Like, didn't Spider-Gwen start off as a what if story? Or at least from an alternate timeline.

Having a movie version of a character being a person of color is sort of the same as having an Elseworlds or What if story. I mean MJ in homecoming is non-white and that's fine as people, especially comics fans, know that it's a seperate universe from the comics.

Huckleberry wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Huckleberry wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Then it is up to the rest in the "nerd community" to condemn the actions of those that give them a bad name. You root out the toxic elements.

Oh my... this is the worst possible answer you could give.

It is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. It would be like telling blacks they are responsible for other blacks. Or Muslims that they are responsible for other Muslims, or white people they are responsible for other white people.

When I see someone behave badly, I don't put the responsibility of their bad behavior on my friend who has some common characteristic with them. No, I blame the person behaving badly. Because that person is an individual. It is no more up to my friend to police the behavior of other people who share a coimmon characteristic with him or her than it is [u]up to every person who witnesses such behavior.[/u]

When the furry community found there were Nazis within their community they got rid of the Nazis within their community. Made sure they were unwelcome anywhere.

Only because at that point the Furries had something to lose. Their own image was at stake. So it was a matter of self-interest, not altruism that caused them to act. Otherwise they would have been there to protest the presence of Nazi's in other organizations as well.

Project_Hero wrote:

You find other nerds being toxic, you call them out on it. If you run a game store or comic shop and you witness toxic behavior you tell them if it continues they won't be welcome there. Hell, apparently even posting some rules up at cons or other various gatherings makes a difference.

Ignoring it or letting them get away with toxic behavior will only let them think that it's ok for them to continue their toxic behaviour.

I couldn't agree more. Thank you for agreeing with my point.

When it comes to Nazis everyone has something to lose. And I'm pretty sure furries, like most people, would protest Nazis being anywhere.

That's exactly the point.

Miles Morales isn't standing on his own two feet, as he's standing on Peter Parker's. Always will be. It'll never be known if Miles could've been popular as a spider hero with a new name. He'll forever be that wanna be hero who couldn't make it to fame without his name.

Project_Hero wrote:

Also people like seeing people like them in media. So even if any sort of racial issues are sorted out in the US people will still like seeing those they resemble in media.

This is the funny part of your statement.

People like to see people like them.

First, I proved that there is less light skinned, blue eyed, blonde hair than dark skin, brown eyes, brown hair. :p

Second, you're willing to take away from others, their established media heroes for others for which there are already or could be created.

rookslide wrote:

Brand X wrote:

Project_Hero wrote:

Also people like seeing people like them in media. So even if any sort of racial issues are sorted out in the US people will still like seeing those they resemble in media.

This is the funny part of your statement.

People like to see people like them.

First, I proved that there is less light skinned, blue eyed, blonde hair than dark skin, brown eyes, brown hair. :p

Second, you're willing to take away from others, their established media heroes for others for which there are already or could be created.

But aside from what Brand points out everything else wasn’t funny particularly your argument with PlanetaryWarfareBot, that was just inaccurate and you should feel bad for being so very racist yourself while telling everyone born white how they are racists just for being born white.

Everyone gets the talk about how to react to police from their parents. By your statements we should be blaming the parents of everyone that gets shot after a cop tells them “stop you are under arrest” for telling their kids, that means run. This is what I infer from your opinions.

I don’t know what ever happened to you (project hero) to make you so hateful to white people particularly straight white adult American males but could you please discontinue adding to the hate war with all this opinion speak that you espouse as factual, it isn’t true but it is very offensive, and frankly draws out anger and hostility. The fact that you just keep doing it in defense of your opinions is also offensive because it (your generalizations about race) isn’t true. You want to believe it fine but quit spreading it like it’s all facts. My life experience is far more accurate than your googled beliefs every day.

Spend a decade or more as a below poverty level adult white male in America and then tell me how everything is designed with white privilege in mind. You have no idea what you are talking about and I as someone who did do this, as well as got discriminated against for jobs, school acceptance criteria (just to name a couple of examples), and has been told by police officers with guns drawn to “freeze” (understanding the alternative was literally a life or death choice I was making) have been marginalized by American media and the “journalism” as it exists here in America. I don’t really care about anything I see in media because I know first hand very little of it is real. I’m everything you seem to think is privileged to be. Boy howdy do we define privileged differently.

So I ask you as politely as I know how please stop generalizing people you know nothing about. Maybe you never got any talks from loving parents that didn’t want you to make a fool of yourself but let me tell you what you push as some racial agenda is both rude and insulting. In fact, it is a large part of why you draw so many “haters” on these forums.
Again please stop this behavior.

I might add that although I have had some pretty messed up experiences I don’t go blaming anyone for it. No race, no culture, no group. Bad things happen to all of us and it isn’t all about race or sex which seems to be what you like to blame just about everything on.

I wish I could block just your posts because there is a lot of good stuff on these forums even some of your posts are just clear cut good ideas and perceptions but then you taint all of that with this crap you feel you have to post in the most offensive ways and then act like it’s the readers that are all being out of line. Honestly you’re doing your cause an injustice because where I might have given you a lil credit for some of these things once I no longer believe most of what you say just because of this hate war you have with us (straight adult white American males).

We aren’t all what you think us to be. Sad, sad, sad...

Never said that everyone born white is racist. So good job there. I did say that EVERYONE has unconscious racial biases though.

Really? Everyone does? All I was told, that I can remember and probably not from my parents, was to be helpful. I wasn't told to have to swallow my pride and to make no sudden moves. Probably because I don't live in the states and am at risk of being shot by the police when innocent. And I have no idea how you got that the parents should be blamed when the police murder someone. Blame your system.

It's easy to say that things are too racially charged when you're in a position of privilege and don't have to deal with the outcomes of racism every day.

And the fact that the police didn't just straight up shoot you is a part of your privilege. It's nice that you got the choice.

And you devolved into Trump style posting at the end. Cool.

Yes, the poor of America are suffering poor minorities suffer more. They have to deal with all the shit a poor white person deals with and then on top of that deal with a whole host of racism and the aftermath of systems and government programs that were designed to bring them down and keep them there. Just because something like the Jim Crow Laws are abolished doesn't mean their effects are.