[QUOTE=Killerbee911;5513725]Since the campfire stories are deifying and villainizing certain things which will lead to certain attitude . It is on you whether or not you want to think it is insidious in nature, Military, Churches, Political Parties and even schools indoctrinate their members.[/QUOTE]
She reduced the Mutant population by 98%.....I don't think it's called vilifying when a people speak the truth about perpetrators of Genocide
[QUOTE=BroHomo;5513753]She reduced the Mutant population by 98%.....I don't think it's called vilifying when a people speak the truth about perpetrators of Genocide[/QUOTE]
Like Killerbee mentioned he’s not just vilifying Wanda he’s also spent time deifying Magneto. He’s teaching these very young children to accept his world views without any sort of critical lens, which is pretty problematic coming from a centuries old man with a history of extremism.
[QUOTE=Kingdom X;5513305]Magneto may not be treated as an antagonist but Mystique, Exodus, Shaw, and Sinister definitely still are. Some of their schemes are more behind the scenes but I like the tensions that’s building.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, their actions should be acknowledged as antagonistic, right? Behind the scenes isn't quite the same, especially if the characters still treat them all as allies.
[QUOTE=Rang10;5513384]That is true. Someone should really check if the idea is good or just destruction for the sake of it.It's hard to dedicate to comics when in one storyline everything is undone
i don't get the idea that they are antagonist. they are part of the government[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there should be more care involved with such drastic turns.
[QUOTE=Kingdom X;5513578]Antagonist: a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary.
Mystique is clearly planning to take her revenge and revive Destiny. Shaw murdered Kate and is a direct adversary for the protagonists in Marauders. Exodus is indoctrinating children every time we see him and he attacked Cypher during XoS. Sinister has already betrayed the Hellions and likely plans on betraying Krakoa as a whole. Just because they're part of the government doesn't mean that they're not adversaries against our heroes.[/QUOTE]
Oops, didn't see this earlier. This sounds good, but what's the pacing and how are the actions framed in story? That's more a rhetorical question, I'm not reading anything other than X-Men so I can't judge this in greater detail. Hopefully these all have proper follow-through.
[QUOTE=Killerbee911;5513598]Yup this type of answer I expected to get , So 10 years all those big names and you can't throw stories in my face and go look you are wrong. Why? because does big names have not done actually do anything for the story for years at times mentioning them is false premise. The last good Magneto story was Cullen Bunn series, The last good Mr. Sinister was Kieron Gillen story, The good Legion story was Si Spurrier, The last good Apocalypse story was AoA, Mystique and Exodus frankly are overrated from terms of quality story.
Saying we have from these amazing villains to well nothing is falsehood because the good villains are used so much in bad stories they have loss their kick. I didn't say the characters I mention are great villains I said they are off to good start but they will never match the past villains when Magneto, Apocalypse and others are always sitting in front of them always being used in the big but bad stories. From 2008 to 2019 think of new impactful X-men villain made, Genesis and original Horsemen are already more impactful than ANY villain made during that period(I would say the same about Orchis as well). The intended thing is happening with franchise with big X-villains sitting in grey area now, Orchis has chance to be use in big impact story ,Arakko has chance to be used in big impact story. Saturne was elevated into heavy hitter. The Children of the Vault is being elevated into a heavy hitters. But hey you guys want more Blood of the Apocalypse, Mojo Worldwide, X-men Blue Mothervine stuff with Magneto and Emma acting unexplainable different I guess.[/QUOTE]
Would you like to relax? This isn't a fight, no one is gonna win here.
[I]You[/I] wanted a list of stories, don't get an attitude because my point doesn't meet your expectations. Argue the point or don't. We agree there's been a decade of terrible stories, so that means the protagonists have also suffered. You said they were good villains but most are recently introduced and haven't been used extensively.
Ultimately this is all beside the point, and not what I was arguing originally so don't presume to tell me what I think or want just because I have an opinion you don't like.
[QUOTE=Killerbee911;5513598]Yup..Shaw, Apocalypse and Mr Sinister have been running shenanigans from day 1. Mystique is about to be doing the same. Exodus and Magneto have been indoctrinating children with a philosophy that is not what classic X-men are about. Selene and Emplate feed on mutants it is only a matter of time they do something . Amahl Farouk is running around supposedly helping. You can be on the same side but have different goals and different methods of achieving those goals which leads to conflict. The villains where put on krakoa to implode the situation.[/QUOTE]
Do you understand that if these characters return to form and succeed in destroying Krakoa from the inside the protagonists will look like idiots?
[QUOTE=BroHomo;5513753]She reduced the Mutant population by 98%.....I don't think it's called vilifying when a people speak the truth about perpetrators of Genocide[/QUOTE]
Unless those perpetrators are on the Council, then it's fine.
All these secret agendas are going on but we've barely seen hide or hair of them actually advancing in the story the past two years. If it takes the better part of a decade to pay off on all these threads it's not unreasonable to start getting bored.
[QUOTE=BroHomo;5513753]She reduced the Mutant population by 98%.....I don't think it's called vilifying when a people speak the truth about perpetrators of Genocide[/QUOTE]
Genocide is a problematic word to use for what Wanda did. Most of the mutants were still alive albeit changed.
“Forced conversion” is a bit better… except mutants never choose to be mutants to begin with like with a religion, and, with sexual orientation, forced conversion is a torture that doesn’t work.
I think it’s better to say there’s no analogy for Wanda did. She hurt most of the mutants, that’s true, but using the word “genocide” is a cheap use of this word.
[QUOTE=Zelena;5515554]Genocide is a problematic word to use for what Wanda did. Most of the mutants were still alive albeit changed.
“Forced conversion” is a bit better… except mutants never choose to be mutants to begin with like with a religion, and, with sexual orientation, forced conversion is a torture that doesn’t work.
I think it’s better to say there’s no analogy for Wanda did. She hurt most of the mutants, that’s true, but using the word “genocide” is a cheap use of this word.[/QUOTE]
That's the problem when an ethnicity metaphor is based entirely around laws of physics breaking purely fictional random super powers, with the people having these super powers still being (almost) entirely baseline human without them, since it's all related to just a single gene which for some shouldn't even work as they have no DNA anymore.
Because in the past when someone with an altered form was somehow affected by power damping over a longer time, their bodies would revert back to normal human appearance (in case of M-day this seemingly didn't always occur because the X-gene was removed entirely and suddently), meaning that for all the claim of being a full blown different species, their default form was still normal human, contradicting this claim and also showcasing just how fragile their source of power is.
There is no possible real world comparison to how to define it when these people lose their super powers, which are the sole thing by which they consider themself (or used to be by their enemies) a seperated species (not even ethnicity) from humans.
Which again makes no sense when they default to normal human form without their powers, are often born from humans and can still produce baseline human offsprings.
Something which is also logical problematic since with their powers being random, they have little to no cohesion and are better considered a massive number of small scale sub-groups or offshots of humanity if anything.
There are no force fields, spells, rayguns or super powers in real life which will make a person stop being of a certain ethnicity and make them default to appearing as another from it. You can't in one action remove a single gene from all black african people and they will suddently turn into white europeans. But by the mutant metaphor this is exactly what happend with M-Day.
So there is no fitting word for it, since there is no fitting real world comparision or logical to how to define such an act, because it's based around a purely fictional concept that was mainly created to give characters super powers without having to come up with multiple sources.
Once again, this showcases just how problematic it is to put so much direct focus on the mutant metaphor and why the whole "endangered species" narrative around M-Day and it's aftermath was such a load of dreck. Since it put focus on the thing which shouldn't be examined too much, because it breaks the logical comparision to real world situations it's supposed to reflect.
Before House of M mutants were implied to be a permanent thing, something that couldn't be simply removed or get rid of permanently (Days of Future Past downright showed that to get rid of mutants all of humanity would need to die), just like the people referenced by the mutant metaphor in real life, but lo and behold the comics suddently show it is entirely possible in the marvel universe and it's downright easy.
This was such a massive break of the narrative that it harms the applicability of the metaphor to a massive degree.
[QUOTE=Hizashi;5515238]Would you like to relax? This isn't a fight, no one is gonna win here.
[I]You[/I] wanted a list of stories, don't get an attitude because my point doesn't meet your expectations. Argue the point or don't. We agree there's been a decade of terrible stories, so that means the protagonists have also suffered. You said they were good villains but most are recently introduced and haven't been used extensively.
Ultimately this is all beside the point, and not what I was arguing originally so don't presume to tell me what I think or want just because I have an opinion you don't like.
[/QUOTE]
Relax? We are talking on the internet, If you are picking up some sort an attitude from what I typed that your assumption of what is happening, not me giving an attitude. Your point was X-men have all these big-time villains and look this era doesn't have anything comparable. My point was the X-men have all of these big-time villains and they have not produce amazing stories. AND the overuse of them has weakened the villain's mystique and prevent new big-time villains from popping up.
My point was to show that call out all those big names means nothing because have them around as pure villains didn't guarantee good stories. A ten-year period where hardcore fans can't call out a great story backs up my point. It ain't about winning or losing but I effectively prove my point. The point was Apocalypse was giving you stories at the level of HordeCulture.
We can see what the Hickman era is doing it removed old villains from being the direct antagonist and force every writer away from using them cheesy stories while making the X-line have to create new enemies. I am going to point out again the Casandra Nova is the only enemy in years to break through into the Classic mix of villains. If Genesis or Dr. Gregor maybe someone from Arrako breaks into the mix of classic villains the run has been successful. At worse the run has already elevated Saturne or Children of the Vault into threats to the X-men that fans take seriously.
[QUOTE=Zelena;5515554]Genocide is a problematic word to use for what Wanda did. Most of the mutants were still alive albeit changed.[/QUOTE]
Genocide also refers to remove culture and traits from existence. If there was something to remove pigmentation from Skin it would be genocide if you force people to take it you are literally trying to remove a race of people. Going well they didn't die hey is not genocide means you don't fully understand genocide. If America decides to invade Sweden and removes all trace of their culture and force them to intermingle what do you think is happening? Death isn't the only way to wipe out a group. Anyways a definition of Genocide
[QUOTE]The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a [B]national[/B], ethnic, racial or [B]religious[/B] group, as such" including the killing of its members, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately imposing living conditions that seek to "bring about its physical destruction in whole or[B] in part", preventing births, or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BroHomo;5513753]She reduced the Mutant population by 98%.....I don't think it's called vilifying when a people speak the truth about perpetrators of Genocide[/QUOTE]
Wanda stans are like Monica at the end of WandaVision when she's all like "I guess I'd probably have tortured a town full of people because I was a bit sad too! We're cool!".
Wait, is this thread the Wanda Thread too now?
[QUOTE=Killerbee911;5515620]Relax? We are talking on the internet, If you are picking up some sort an attitude from what I typed that your assumption of what is happening, not me giving an attitude. Your point was X-men have all these big-time villains and look this era doesn't have anything comparable. My point was the X-men have all of these big-time villains and they have not produce amazing stories. AND the overuse of them has weakened the villain's mystique and prevent new big-time villains from popping up.
My point was to show that call out all those big names means nothing because have them around as pure villains didn't guarantee good stories. A ten-year period where hardcore fans can't call out a great story backs up my point. It ain't about winning or losing but I effectively prove my point. The point was Apocalypse was giving you stories at the level of HordeCulture.
We can see what the Hickman era is doing it removed old villains from being the direct antagonist and force every writer away from using them cheesy stories while making the X-line have to create new enemies. I am going to point out again the Casandra Nova is the only enemy in years to break through into the Classic mix of villains. If Genesis or Dr. Gregor maybe someone from Arrako breaks into the mix of classic villains the run has been successful. At worse the run has already elevated Saturne or Children of the Vault into threats to the X-men that fans take seriously.
Genocide also refers to remove culture and traits from existence. If there was something to remove pigmentation from Skin it would be genocide if you force people to take it you are literally trying to remove a race of people. Going well they didn't die hey is not genocide means you don't fully understand genocide. If America decides to invade Sweden and removes all trace of their culture and force them to intermingle what do you think is happening? Death isn't the only way to wipe out a group. Anyways a definition of Genocide[/QUOTE]
The targeted group can defined by a different ethicity, race, religion but genocide is about a physical destruction of this group.
For the disappearance of the culture, I rather call that “forced assimilation”. But then before Hickman, did the mutants have any common culture?
Analogy is difficult. There was loss and hurt, that was true.
[QUOTE=Zelena;5515703]
For the disappearance of the culture, I rather call that “forced assimilation”. But then before Hickman, did the mutants have any common culture?
Analogy is difficult. There was loss and hurt, that was true.[/QUOTE]
Forced assimilation is genocide.
As for the culture thing,They did in Genosha but that was destroyed, They did in District X but that was destroyed. It is kinda hard to have a sustained common culture when every there is a large group of you they try to kill you. When you are thriving they want to destroy you for some of us this hit home. ala Tusla and Rosewood.
[QUOTE=Hizashi;5513206]Krakoa was [I]invited[/I] to join the UN? I haven't read or reread HoX/PoX in a long while, I guess I forgot that. I genuinely thought that the drugs were being used as leverage on the world stage.
[/QUOTE]
I'll have to re-read but Charles made a bid for Krakoa to be recognized as an independent country. I'm not sure how that process works in real life tho.
Some UN ambassadors visit one of the Krakoan embassies which was the #1 issue (either Houses or Powers) where we first see Magneto in his white costume.
[QUOTE=Killerbee911;5515727]Forced assimilation is genocide.
[/QUOTE]
I think you're right there. Below is the definition of genocide from the UN convention, and even though it sounds like it's about killing it isn't necessarily the case with genocide because it's about stopping a group from existing. So I completely agree with you here.
The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such" including the killing of its members, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately imposing living conditions that seek to "bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", preventing births, or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. Victims have to be deliberately, not randomly, targeted because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups outlined in the above definition.
[QUOTE=Big Joe;5516132]I think you're right there. Below is the definition of genocide from the UN convention, and even though it sounds like it's about killing it isn't necessarily the case with genocide because it's about stopping a group from existing. So I completely agree with you here.
The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such" including the killing of its members, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately imposing living conditions that seek to "bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part", preventing births, or forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. Victims have to be deliberately, not randomly, targeted because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups outlined in the above definition.[/QUOTE]
Whatever acception you give to the word, what Wanda did is not the usual meaning of the word. Without reaching agreement on the meaning of words, there’s no point using it to communicate… or only in a restricted group.
[QUOTE=Zelena;5516464]Whatever acception you give to the word, what Wanda did is not the usual meaning of the word. Without reaching agreement on the meaning of words, there’s no point using it to communicate… or only in a restricted group.[/QUOTE]
Fascinating.
The UN Genocide Convention definition of genocide is wrong. Okay, well I guess I learned something today.