[QUOTE=Celgress;2350002]Poor baby, need a hug?[/QUOTE]
You hopefully will never have to deal with that sort of online harassment.
Printable View
[QUOTE=Celgress;2350002]Poor baby, need a hug?[/QUOTE]
You hopefully will never have to deal with that sort of online harassment.
[QUOTE=The Negative Zone;2350193]It's usually spiderman that messes up Peter parker's life.
Also why does this matter?[/QUOTE]
It's a discussion--you do know participation is voluntary?
[QUOTE=The Negative Zone;2350193]It's usually spiderman that messes up Peter parker's life.
Also why does this matter?[/QUOTE]
Negative Zone is right. I'm not the most greatest fan of Spider-man, but even me (casual reader) understand than if there is a "villian" in the dynamic Peter Parker/Spider-man, it would be Spider-man who screw on Peter's life. Parker life didn't improved since he got the spiderpowers,it became worse.
[QUOTE=Cheesedique;2350204]You hopefully will never have to deal with that sort of online harassment.[/QUOTE]
I thought he or she was joking. If that really happened to him or her I'm truly sorry.
[QUOTE=Celgress;2350379]I thought he or she was joking. If that really happened to him or her I'm truly sorry.[/QUOTE]
I'm a guy, and it really did happen. I would not joke about that sort of thing. Dan Slott linked to my profile in the tweet displayed at the beginning of this thread. In fairness, my tweet did have harsh language I should not reproduce here, though I did not tag him, meaning that he would have had to actively search his name on Twitter to find it (Which shouldn't be possible when he has me blocked, but I noticed that he did unblock me conveniently around the time this all happened), or someone sent the tweet to him. Cue several people appearing in my mentions calling me "kid", and saying that maybe *I* don't get Spider-Man, then when I asked them if they found me because of Slott, someone said it didn't matter how they found me, and that I was avoiding the question. So they can criticize me for avoiding a question, but when they avoid a question about Slott allowing his followers to go after me? I guess that's okay.
I rolled my eyes, trying to ignore them. I knew that more people could come after me, and sure enough, I see in the morning that more people were taunting me, and liking each other's posts because apparently they enjoyed seeing people dogpile on some random person that they didn't even know until Slott targeted me. I tried to ignore it, block people and report them whenever I could, and when the people finally stopped going after me, I tried to just leave it be, and that's when I started crying after trying to keep myself optimistic throughout this. I told my followers "I love you all. You're amazing. Thanks for standing by me all the time." I wanted to focus on the good people in my life, not just the bad. And yet, while no on picked up on it, I had to think about what would be the right thing to say because I didn't want anyone to think I was bidding them farewell and contemplating suicide. I wasn't, I want to keep going, but it still feels awful to think "Wait, people might think this is a suicide message." Why should I have to anticipate someone interpreting what I say that way after people targeted me solely because they follow Slott?
I'm seeing a therapist on Monday, and I hope to be able to talk about this.
[QUOTE=Phantom Roxas;2350032]
Back on topic, just because Slott [i]believes[/i] Stan Lee would have said it doesn't mean that Stan Lee actually would have said it. So yes, it is presumptuous to put words in Stan Lee's mouth like that.[/QUOTE]
He didn't.
He said, "This is the same kind of statement," not that Stan Lee actually said it. And Yes, I can easily see Stan saying something like this. I could just as easily see him saying that Marvel was Spider-man's worst enemy because of all the stuff they put him through or just as easdily picking one of the lamest villains he can think of and sticking an adjective in front of it.
... and why did this all of a sudden become a "Dan Slott is such a horrible person. he encourages people to pick on me just because I swear at him and say bad things about him him all the time." Can we leave your pity party out of this?
[QUOTE=electr1cgoblin;2349927]Slott seems to enjoy rattling cages. My guess is that a lot of what he says is in an effort to get reactions, which he does. It's hard to say how much of it he really believes.[/QUOTE]
I agree. I think he really does enjoy the trolling because it gets attention. Attention is the first step towards generating interest. Interest is the next step in getting people to buy or become invested in his books. It's marketing, plain and simple. Based on the sale of Amazing Spider-Man, it works pretty darn well so Slott has to be doing something right.
That said, it's hard to say how Stan Lee really feels about the current take on Peter Parker. Lee can't really come out and attack Marvel for how they're handling his characters. He has no control over them and hasn't for years. If he were to attack, that would damage his brand and Marvel's. Neither of them would benefit from it. They'd both look bad in the eyes of fans, investors, etc. So it's perfectly understandable that he would keep his opinions to himself. Personally, I can't see how he would be completely okay with the current take on Spider-Man. But that's just me.
[QUOTE=Alan2099;2350452]He didn't.
He said, "This is the same kind of statement," not that Stan Lee actually said it. And Yes, I can easily see Stan saying something like this. I could just as easily see him saying that Marvel was Spider-man's worst enemy because of all the stuff they put him through or just as easdily picking one of the lamest villains he can think of and sticking an adjective in front of it.
... and why did this all of a sudden become a "Dan Slott is such a horrible person. he encourages people to pick on me just because I swear at him and say bad things about him him all the time." Can we leave your pity party out of this?[/QUOTE]
"The section you quoted is the same [B]kind of[/B] statement Stan would've made about Spidey in the 60's".
Uh, it's also [B]kind of[/B] exactly putting words in someone else's mouth.
It's an appeal to intent. Can Slott not have [I]his[/I] statements stand on their own? He has drag Stan Lee into it, as if that legitimizes [I]his[/I] opinion?
I can say "Stan wanted Peter and MJ married, and wouldn't have wanted them unmarried" too. Does that make it a true statement?
And unblocking someone you had blocked on Twitter, just to send a bunch of followers / minions to attack him? That's behavior more common to Donald Trump than the writer of Marvel / Disney's [I]Amazing Spider-Man[/I]. Slott can't be the bigger person?
I've often wondered what Stan Lee "really" thinks of todays comics
Stan Lee is a great story teller and perfect pitchman for Marvel and always with the political right thing to say
But , I wonder what he really thinks of all these changes
[QUOTE=Cheesedique;2350937]"The section you quoted is the same [B]kind of[/B] statement Stan would've made about Spidey in the 60's".
Uh, it's also [B]kind of[/B] exactly putting words in someone else's mouth.
It's an appeal to intent. Can Slott not have [I]his[/I] statements stand on their own? He has drag Stan Lee into it, as if that legitimizes [I]his[/I] opinion?
I can say "Stan wanted Peter and MJ married, and wouldn't have wanted them unmarried" too. Does that make it a true statement?
And unblocking someone you had blocked on Twitter, just to send a bunch of followers / minions to attack him? That's behavior more common to Donald Trump than the writer of Marvel / Disney's [I]Amazing Spider-Man[/I]. Slott can't be the bigger person?[/QUOTE]
Agreed with all of this. I brought up my Slott's harassment eletr1cgoblin and Celgress were discussing how Slott enjoys rattling cages and upsetting people, and I wanted to inform them that he accomplished exactly that. Plus, the tweet that serves as the basis of the thread directly involves me, since you can see my username in that screenshot. I thought I could offer more context.
[QUOTE=MarvelMaster616;2350660]I agree. I think he really does enjoy the trolling because it gets attention. Attention is the first step towards generating interest. Interest is the next step in getting people to buy or become invested in his books. It's marketing, plain and simple. Based on the sale of Amazing Spider-Man, it works pretty darn well so Slott has to be doing something right.[/QUOTE]
How many hoops did you have to jump through for rallying people to mob against one guy Slott has a grudge against to be the same as an elaborate marketing tactic?
The original tweet that was put up on Twitter:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]40849[/ATTACH]
My response:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]40850[/ATTACH]
One of the people who responded, Moisés Chiullán, had [I]just[/I] interviewed Stan, on stage in front of an enormous crowd at the Toronto Fan Expo last month.
In his tweet, Moisés said, "Stan gave that answer near verbatim at a recent con Q&A of his I hosted."
I'm not putting words in Stan's mouth. I'm reflecting statements he's regularly made. Sorry.
There. My 2nd CBR post in all of 2016.
Outside of this tweet, I have not mentioned or acknowledged any of that poster's other posts and/or tweets in all of 2016-- even when he has been equally rude or has made blatantly false accusations about my work including references to subjects as sensitive as rape culture. This one, mentioning me by name and telling me to "**** off" just struck me as a little hostile. And equally ludicrous, as I had read [I]and[/I] heard Stan Lee make practically the exact same comment as I had made. I'm sorry if the way I responded to this one-- of his many and frequent incendiary posts-- caused the original poster any distress.
[QUOTE=Dan Slott;2350987]The original tweet that was put up on Twitter:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]40849[/ATTACH]
My response:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]40850[/ATTACH]
One of the people who responded, Moisés Chiullán, had [I]just[/I] interviewed Stan, on stage in front of an enormous crowd at the Toronto Fan Expo last month.
In his tweet, Moisés said, "Stan gave that answer near verbatim at a recent con Q&A of his I hosted."
I'm not putting words in Stan's mouth. I'm reflecting statements he's regularly made. Sorry.
There. My 2nd CBR post in all of 2016.
Outside of this tweet, I have not mentioned or acknowledged any of that poster's other posts and/or tweets in all of 2016-- even when he has been equally rude or has made blatantly false accusations about my work including references to subjects as sensitive as rape culture. This one, mentioning me by name and telling me to "**** off" just struck me as rude. And equally ludicrous, as I had read [I]and[/I] heard Stan Lee make practically the exact same comment as I had made. I'm sorry if the way I responded to this one-- of his many and frequent incendiary posts-- caused the original poster any distress.[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm glad you dropped by to state your side of things. I wish we had video or something of that Toronto Fan Expo though, as I'd like to see Stan's actual response instead of someone's third-hand account.
I know it's something that may sound good to say in an interview, but it's something I personally don't agree with. I think over-emphasizing the Parker luck and construing it as "Peter is his worst enemy" is reductive. Peter has clearly helped more people than he's hurt, even if the losses he's taken have been severe. He's also CEO of his own tech company currently, so his life ain't that bad.
[QUOTE=Cheesedique;2351020]Peter has clearly helped more people than he's hurt, even if the losses he's taken have been severe.[/QUOTE]
Yes. That's his character. He helps people-- usually at a cost to himself. And many times, because of his double life, he hurts [I]himself[/I] even more. Peter often sets himself up for falls and can be self-destructive in SO many ways.
[QUOTE=Cheesedique;2351020]He's also CEO of his own tech company currently...[/QUOTE]
And, [I]because[/I] he's Peter, a lot of those resources/money/advantages are used in the charity he founded, The Uncle Ben Foundation.
Because he sees this position/situation as a "great power", he strives to use it with "great responsibility".
This is the Marvel Universe. Anything can happen. At any moment. And right now, that incredibly weird thing is-- WOW!-- Peter Parker is running a giant tech company? What?! How will [I]that[/I] change him, his life, and his secondary life as Spider-Man?
[QUOTE=Cheesedique;2351020]...so his life ain't that bad.[/QUOTE]
Depends. If you only look at his life through the lens of his finances, sure. It "ain't that bad".
But life isn't just about finances.
[QUOTE=Dan Slott;2351033]Yes. That's his character. He helps people-- usually at a cost to himself. And many times, because of his double life, he hurts [I]himself[/I] even more. Peter often sets himself up for falls and can be self-destructive in SO many ways.
And, [I]because[/I] he's Peter, a lot of those resources/money/advantages are used in the charity he founded, The Uncle Ben Foundation.
Because he sees this position/situation as a "great power", he strives to use it with "great responsibility".
This is the Marvel Universe. Anything can happen. At any moment. And right now, that incredibly weird thing is-- WOW!-- Peter Parker is running a giant tech company? What?! How will [I]that[/I] change him, his life, and his secondary life as Spider-Man?
Depends. If you only look at his life through the lens of his finances, sure. It "ain't that bad".
But life isn't just about finances.[/QUOTE]
I'm trying to think of many things from Vol 4 that have really centered around Peter out of costume. The company, yes. Lien / Lian trying to kill him? His rivalry with Stark?
What have been the costs to Peter at this point, in this volume? He's definitely sacrificed his personal anonymity, becoming the world's new Steve Jobs. But that had nothing to do with his other life as Spider-Man.
It's kind of the same thing since "Big Time"--if he has nigh-infinite resources, what does his struggle to do right as a hero mean for Peter Parker? Is it a struggle any longer?
Obviously, you know where you're going with this story and I don't.
Also, I hope that apology to "the original poster" was meant for Phantom and not me. I didn't need an apology, just saying.
[QUOTE=Dan Slott;2350987]The original tweet that was put up on Twitter:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]40849[/ATTACH]
My response:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]40850[/ATTACH]
One of the people who responded, Moisés Chiullán, had [I]just[/I] interviewed Stan, on stage in front of an enormous crowd at the Toronto Fan Expo last month.
In his tweet, Moisés said, "Stan gave that answer near verbatim at a recent con Q&A of his I hosted."
I'm not putting words in Stan's mouth. I'm reflecting statements he's regularly made. Sorry.
There. My 2nd CBR post in all of 2016.
Outside of this tweet, I have not mentioned or acknowledged any of that poster's other posts and/or tweets in all of 2016-- even when he has been equally rude or has made blatantly false accusations about my work including references to subjects as sensitive as rape culture. This one, mentioning me by name and telling me to "**** off" just struck me as a little hostile. And equally ludicrous, as I had read [I]and[/I] heard Stan Lee make practically the exact same comment as I had made. I'm sorry if the way I responded to this one-- of his many and frequent incendiary posts-- caused the original poster any distress.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for your apology.