politics in comics

[Spiderfang]

No offense but 'able-bodied neurotypical cishet white men' is the term you're going with? That phrase is practicality a crime against the English language, overly complicated and ugly to pronounce. Language is supposed to be about communication, to share ideas between people and persuade others towards a certain course of action. You've reduced language to a crude weapon, designed to bully your opponents into submission without fostering any greater understanding. Those words are stolen and rearranged into a macabre parody of their true meaning, like everything else that Identity Politics co-opts. This is why Identity politics is against progress and against the future, you can't create, only destroy.

It's being used to shut you down and the end the debate, the ultimate "I'm right, you're wrong!"

[Carabas]

I must say that I find it amusing how you've co-opted the rhetoric of industrialists and technologists, in regards to the endless march of progress. Identity Politics usually reeks of post-modernism, which despises the very idea of progress as they despise both history and the linear passage of time...

Time machines for everybody. That's where it's at.

[Red Robe Jaldari]

Oh, I don't know about that...

A lot of things that are settled today would seem to be utopian in the recent past.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

Though for the record, there is no "winner" of the "Culture Wars." Social justice isn't about victory. It's about the eternal march towards a better, more equitable future. That's the thing that the other side never seems to get. Like, they always ask "how much is enough" for things like diverse characters. The answer is, and always has been, "more." The question is wrong, because it presupposes an end goal that was never meant to exist.

The progressives haven't won. They've won some fights. There will always be more. And progressives will continue to win more than they lose, because that's how progress works. You can slow progress down. You can never stop it.

That is what you are going with. Chaotic constant demand for change that has no end in sight. if that is not a recipe for failure and authoritarianism i do not know what is.

How progress works. Tell taht to the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union.

It's being used to shut you down and the end the debate, the ultimate "I'm right, you're wrong!"

That would be...

It is 2017!!!

That is racist!!!

Phobic!!!

[Tiamatty]

That is what you are going with. Chaotic constant demand for change that has no end in sight. if that is not a recipe for failure and authoritarianism i do not know what is.

It's actually the opposite of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is all about keeping things fairly static. It's about a small group of people at the top decreeing how things are to be for the entire population. What I'm describing is society's constant march forward.

I'll grant it can be chaotic. Not always. Probably not even usually. But sometimes? Yeah, a little chaos is necessary. The Civil Rights Movement wasn't orderly. The Stonewall Riot was very chaotic. Chaos is not inherently bad. "Good trouble," as John Lewis puts it. Sometimes, you need a little madness to pave the way for deeper sanity.

How progress works. Tell taht to the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union.

Nations rise and fall. Progress continues. Even after the fall of the Roman Empire, in the so-called "Dark Ages," society continued to progress in small ways. And yeah, occasionally, there are backslides. Progress isn't a steady thing. There are setbacks. But it continues on.

[ed2962]

A lot of things that are settled today would seem to be utopian in the recent past.

While I'll admit that certain things are "better" in today's society for certain segments of the population than they were a generation ago, it's no where close to being utopian.

[Kintor]

It's being used to shut you down and the end the debate, the ultimate "I'm right, you're wrong!"

That would be...

It is 2017!!!

That is racist!!!

Phobic!!!

Pretty much, it's a rather annoying way for Identity Politics to silence all criticism. The funny thing is though, once you start questioning all their acronyms and pseudo-academic jargon Identity Politics just falls apart. It's a great big smoke and mirrors trick, all show and no substance.

It's actually the opposite of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is all about keeping things fairly static. It's about a small group of people at the top decreeing how things are to be for the entire population. What I'm describing is society's constant march forward.

Identity Politics, like any ideology, is inherently authoritarian. All you've got is just another mechanism for controlling people, using shame and guilt to hound people until that acquiesce to your demands, whatever those demands might be on a particular day. Hardly an original strategy but brutally effective, when you take advantage of the fact that most people don't like confrontations and would rather let you win to make it stop.

[Red Robe Jaldari]

While I'll admit that certain things are "better" in today's society for certain segments of the population than they were a generation ago, it's no where close to being utopian.

That is your goal? Utopia?

It's actually the opposite of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is all about keeping things fairly static. It's about a small group of people at the top decreeing how things are to be for the entire population. What I'm describing is society's constant march forward.

I'll grant it can be chaotic. Not always. Probably not even usually. But sometimes? Yeah, a little chaos is necessary. The Civil Rights Movement wasn't orderly. The Stonewall Riot was very chaotic. Chaos is not inherently bad. "Good trouble," as John Lewis puts it. Sometimes, you need a little madness to pave the way for deeper sanity.


Nations rise and fall. Progress continues. Even after the fall of the Roman Empire, in the so-called "Dark Ages," society continued to progress in small ways. And yeah, occasionally, there are backslides. Progress isn't a steady thing. There are setbacks. But it continues on.

A constant march directed by a small number of influencers to be precise. it can only be achieved trough authoritarian means beyond a certain point.

In that case they had very specific goals since the MLK brand won. I fail to see how the Stonewal Riot has anything to do with current progressivism.

You mean redo progress in crucial fields of or organising armies, architecture, road paving that define civilizations.

I doubt the US would see such radical changes as between the heyday of the Roman Empire and 900 AD as a small setback.

[Jokerz79]

It's actually the opposite of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is all about keeping things fairly static. It's about a small group of people at the top decreeing how things are to be for the entire population. What I'm describing is society's constant march forward.

I'll grant it can be chaotic. Not always. Probably not even usually. But sometimes? Yeah, a little chaos is necessary. The Civil Rights Movement wasn't orderly. The Stonewall Riot was very chaotic. Chaos is not inherently bad. "Good trouble," as John Lewis puts it. Sometimes, you need a little madness to pave the way for deeper sanity.


Nations rise and fall. Progress continues. Even after the fall of the Roman Empire, in the so-called "Dark Ages," society continued to progress in small ways. And yeah, occasionally, there are backslides. Progress isn't a steady thing. There are setbacks. But it continues on.

The "Fall" of the Roman Empire and "Dark Ages" are such misunderstood things Roman really never fell during the "Dark Ages" it simply relocated to the Eastern Empire which we now call the Byzantine Empire and that was a major factor in the Fall of the older Western Empire. But a part of the Roman Empire was thriving during the Dark Ages and until 1453 when the Ottoman Turks conquered them. By then the "lost" knowledge of antiquity was back in Europe and many renaissances had taken place. So in reality in the East and Middle East Progress continued and eventually came to Europe with the renaissances and eventually periods of enlightenment. Sorry it always bothers me the idea progress ended in the Dark Ages when it didn't it'd be like saying progress stopped now because North Korea was stagnant IMO.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Personal politics aside, you should research a political viewpoint you don't know or even like. A lot of writing a story is researching a topic and outlining before even starting so it becomes no different than researching time travel or ghosts or superheroes.

[ed2962]

That is your goal? Utopia?



A constant march directed by a small number of influencers to be precise. it can only be achieved trough authoritarian means beyond a certain point.

In that case they had very specific goals since the MLK brand won. I fail to see how the Stonewal Riot has anything to do with current progressivism.

You mean redo progress in crucial fields of or organising armies, architecture, road paving that define civilizations.

I doubt the US would see such radical changes as between the heyday of the Roman Empire and 900 AD as a small setback.

Well, my opinion is that human nature needs to probably evolve a little bit more before we can get even close to a uptopia. I just sorta disagree that things are great for people who consider themselves "progressive".

[millernumber1]

Well, my opinion is that human nature needs to probably evolve a little bit more before we can get even close to a uptopia. I just sorta disagree that things are great for people who consider themselves "progressive".

I think it really depends on where those people are. State and profession. It works pretty well if you're an academic or media professional, or in California or New England. Though it is getting hard for even progressives like Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College. But that's not conservatives making it hard for him.

[CentralPower]

Your political path is amusing to me, since it's the opposite of the cliche - liberal as a youth, conservative as an elder.

Call it youthful rebellion. I live in a left-ward area, so the fiery conservatism of my youth was not unlike a young man who lets his hair grow long while he listens to Jimmy Hendrix.

Of course, by the standards of where I live, I am seen as being very conservative. This is mostly a function of me not simply going along with every push made from the left.

I'm much more Lockean, not surprisingly, I think, but I agree that human nature by itself cannot create a society that improves the lot of its citizens, thus leading to a necessary state.

I am not uniformly pessimistic about human nature. But, our capacity for greatness is a question of scale, not morals or utility. At the very least, a state is necessary to mediate between, and protect us from, each other. I would argue that a key mechanism for that is to provide basic stability, including safety nets, that allow people to survive and pursue their interests with security and dignity.

A key problem with the left is that too many people cannot recognize the difference between protecting us from eachother and protecting us from ourselves. Similarly, there is an unwilingness to punish deliberately bad behavior, mixed with a need to restrict potentially dangerous (to the individual) choices.

Excellent point about the one-party issues. If Dems were more open on issues like religion and abortion, and Repubs more open on things like immigration, I think we'd have a lot less polarization. But instead, each party keeps building the walls higher.

Some issues are difficult to compromise on. (If somebody believes that a fetus is a person, they are not likely to agree that abortion is permissible.) The problem is that too many people base all of their political decisions on issues that cannot be negotiated, while ignoring important questions (relating to infrastructure) or refusing to work with the other side on less controversial topics.

I can totally understand not wanting to read super long articles - but I do really recommend Scott Alexander. He's definitely left-leaning, but he is actually interested in living in a country where people disagree with him. Has your friend returned to the states?

It is less a question of the article's length than it is a question of me having seen the problem up close. I may likely agree with the writer. But, I am not the one who needs to be sold on the idea.

My friend was never a US citizen. He lived in the US because it made sense. At some point last year, he decided that it did not make much sense to stick around an increasingly polarized country. The prospect of political violence and disorder was enough to make him seek more stable pastures.

I kind of wish Spencer would just write full on politics, instead of playing with other people's toys. I was really unimpressed with all the narration and emotive nonsense in Secret Empire - which I think could have had some interesting things to say, but the execution really didn't work for me. I enjoyed Edmondson's run on Black Widow and the Jake Ellis books, but he doesn't seem to be writing anymore.

"Secret Empire" was a good idea. But, the execution failed on multiple levels, in part because of Spencer's politics. I know that there were accusations (never substantiated about Edmondsom. That might be why he is not writing any more. (I just finished his "Punisher" run. And, "Red Wolf" was excellent,.)

Meaning if you score a certain average of votes on a nationallevel you will get a extra seat. This is done to try and make it fair and balanced. This means the political spectrum is much larger than it is the US which is lean heavily towards the right side of the political spectrum.

I am not against mechanisms to expand the political spectrum (and create more options at the polls). But, one problem that I have noticed in the US is a lack of viable candidates outside of the big two. This might be a function of viable candidates joining the major parties. But, even when a third party candidate (such as a Johnson or a Stein) manifests, it is difficult to justify a vote for them as more than a vote for the sake of fostering competition.

The Republicans put in a lot of hard work suppressing the votes of minorities.

At least the Republicans expended effort in PA and other states. Clinton's campaign just assumed they were winning those states, just like they assumed a national victory.

As a species our technology has improved by leaps and bounds but the human form has always remained the same. Yet we stand on the precipice of a new era; through the convergence of brain-computer interfaces, artificial limbs and exponentially increasing digital processing power; when people will have the capacity to augment their physical capabilities beyond that of any human who has ever lived before. This era would render Identity Politics null and void, when power isn't defined by race or sexuality but rather one's willingness to embrace these new technologies.

If anything, this will feed in to identity politics even more. The lines may shift, but they will become even harder to cross, because the identity-metric will be even more defining and (more critically) self-selected.

[millernumber1]

I am not uniformly pessimistic about human nature. But, our capacity for greatness is a question of scale, not morals or utility. At the very least, a state is necessary to mediate between, and protect us from, each other. I would argue that a key mechanism for that is to provide basic stability, including safety nets, that allow people to survive and pursue their interests with security and dignity.

Some issues are difficult to compromise on. (If somebody believes that a fetus is a person, they are not likely to agree that abortion is permissible.) The problem is that too many people base all of their political decisions on issues that cannot be negotiated, while ignoring important questions (relating to infrastructure) or refusing to work with the other side on less controversial topics.

"Secret Empire" was a good idea. But, the execution failed on multiple levels, in part because of Spencer's politics. I know that there were accusations (never substantiated about Edmondsom. That might be why he is not writing any more. (I just finished his "Punisher" run. And, "Red Wolf" was excellent,.)

I am not against mechanisms to expand the political spectrum (and create more options at the polls). But, one problem that I have noticed in the US is a lack of viable candidates outside of the big two. This might be a function of viable candidates joining the major parties. But, even when a third party candidate (such as a Johnson or a Stein) manifests, it is difficult to justify a vote for them as more than a vote for the sake of fostering competition.

Funny you should mention pessimism about human nature - I'm actually extremely pessimistic about human nature, as a Calvinist. But I think Locke tends to allow for the internal reform and increasing virtue that strengthens society from social movements like religion more than Hobbes, since Hobbes seems to think that the state is more necessary than growing virtue in the citizenry.

I would agree that issues can be difficult to compromise on. But I agree - the parties are increasingly playing to the (random low percentage) 30% of issues where compromise is impossible, instead of the larger area where we could find compromise to make the world better.

I don't know if I would agree that Secret Empire was a good idea. It was certainly not a popular one in the fandom commentary. I personally think it's dumb to keep structuring stories about heroes fighting heroes, even if those heros are controlled by reality-warping powers to be evil. I've heard about the Edmondson accusations, but I do not trust the source of them one bit. Not to say he's necessarily a good guy, but the people accusing him are bad, so it's hard to find them credible. It's also possible that he found a more lucrative line of work - comics really don't pay well, especially for writers with families. (I know at least one writer who started in TV, did a bunch of comics, then jumped ship back to TV and seems to be doing pretty well there.)

I usually think a third party candidate is only worth voting for in our current system when you truly find both major party options completely unacceptable, as I did in 2016. But I call it a "protest vote," and hope that it gives people who shape policy some idea of the tolerance points of some margin of voters, rather than any hope that my candidate will win.

[Tiamatty]

Identity Politics, like any ideology, is inherently authoritarian. All you've got is just another mechanism for controlling people, using shame and guilt to hound people until that acquiesce to your demands, whatever those demands might be on a particular day. Hardly an original strategy but brutally effective, when you take advantage of the fact that most people don't like confrontations and would rather let you win to make it stop.

You still understand nothing about progressivism. It's not about control. It is, in fact, a battle against control.

That is your goal? Utopia?



A constant march directed by a small number of influencers to be precise. it can only be achieved trough authoritarian means beyond a certain point.

In that case they had very specific goals since the MLK brand won. I fail to see how the Stonewal Riot has anything to do with current progressivism.

You mean redo progress in crucial fields of or organising armies, architecture, road paving that define civilizations.

I doubt the US would see such radical changes as between the heyday of the Roman Empire and 900 AD as a small setback.

The Stonewall Riot is why same-sex marriage is legal. The MLK "brand" didn't win. The Civil Rights Movement needed MLK and Malcolm X. MLK's non-violence was backed by Malcolm X's threats of violence (and some instances of actual violence). And even MLK's approach is horrifically misrepresented by people today.

In the overall scheme of things, even the Fall of the Roman Empire was a small thing. Yeah, a lot was lost. Even then, there was progress in other fields.

The "Fall" of the Roman Empire and "Dark Ages" are such misunderstood things Roman really never fell during the "Dark Ages" it simply relocated to the Eastern Empire which we now call the Byzantine Empire and that was a major factor in the Fall of the older Western Empire. But a part of the Roman Empire was thriving during the Dark Ages and until 1453 when the Ottoman Turks conquered them. By then the "lost" knowledge of antiquity was back in Europe and many renaissances had taken place. So in reality in the East and Middle East Progress continued and eventually came to Europe with the renaissances and eventually periods of enlightenment. Sorry it always bothers me the idea progress ended in the Dark Ages when it didn't it'd be like saying progress stopped now because North Korea was stagnant IMO.

Even for Western Europe, "Dark Ages" is a misnomer. Even there and then, things were happening that moved civilization forward.

[Chaos Reigns]

No offense but 'able-bodied neurotypical cishet white men' is the term you're going with? That phrase is practicality a crime against the English language, overly complicated and ugly to pronounce. Language is supposed to be about communication, to share ideas between people and persuade others towards a certain course of action. You've reduced language to a crude weapon, designed to bully your opponents into submission without fostering any greater understanding. Those words are stolen and rearranged into a macabre parody of their true meaning, like everything else that Identity Politics co-opts. This is why Identity politics is against progress and against the future, you can't create, only destroy.

What was destroyed? The language stands as a testament against privilege. Why does that bother you so?