Mutant Lives Matter: mutation as allegory

[Ricochet Rita]

Problem is, you DO choose to buy and carry a fire gun. You DO NOT choose to have shooting eyes.

I think a closer real situation would be a school in which there's children with infectious diseases, for example.

[Star_Jammer]

I can’t imagine how many times my sisters house would have been destroyed if my niece had destructive powers.

(They disagree a lot on what my niece is allowed and not allowed to do)

[Force de Phenix]

They are not. Mystique and Sabertooth had a child that was 100% human. Magneto's first daughter was human too. His grand-daughter Luna was considered human until her terragenesis, and her father was freakin' Quicksilver. Mutants are just humans with a lime twist.

They technically are. They are homo superior, not homo sapiens. They may or may not have their genes passed on. Mutants are the next step in evolution, which means they stem from humans, but are not. Human never devolop the X-Gene, and if they did, they'd be mutants. I don't get how Reed messed up with Luna, but it was a different time for Terrigen.

[yogaflame]

They technically are. They are homo superior, not homo sapiens. They may or may not have their genes passed on. Mutants are the next step in evolution, which means they stem from humans, but are not. Human never devolop the X-Gene, and if they did, they'd be mutants. I don't get how Reed messed up with Luna, but it was a different time for Terrigen.

They are homo sapiens superior instead of homo sapiens sapiens. They are a sub-species, not a completely different species(though to be fair, the whole notion of speciation is quite silly and quite arbitrary in actuality). One [active] gene does not separate species. Almost all mutants are born to baseline humans, and can and do successfully reproduce with baseline humans. And baseline humans carry the x-gene too, its just not manifest/active.

[Force de Phenix]

They are homo sapiens superior instead of homo sapiens sapiens. They are a sub-species, not a completely different species(though to be fair, the whole notion of speciation is quite silly and quite arbitrary in actuality). One [active] gene does not separate species. Almost all mutants are born to baseline humans, and can and do successfully reproduce with baseline humans. And baseline humans carry the x-gene too, its just not manifest/active.

I suppose it's like Homo Sapiens being the evolution of Homo Erectus. They are a subspecies, but are very different. It's comics, but still fun.

[Rover]

That cartoon, X-men Evolution, used pretty twisted logic in its first episode. In it, Scott Summers has his glasses knocked off during a scuffle and nearly kills an entire stadium filled with innocent people. Professor X then comes along, erases everyone's memories, then admonishes Scott to "be more careful," before cheerfully allowing him to continue on as a student at the school. (Which, to reiterate, he nearly BLEW UP.) As a kid, I thought this was cool. As an adult, I now think that Professor X in that show was an unhinged lunatic. At the very least, he was dangerously irresponsible, with no consideration for the public good. Which is why the mutant metaphor is soooo bad. Because unlike actual racism or homophobia, the bias against superpowered people is completely rational. If mutants were real, you would be the worst parent in the world to let your children attend school with one, and you would not feel secure in the slightest unless your neighborhood was routinely patrolled by a sentinel.

I 100% agree on Prof X making questionable choices in Evolution! That was a fun cartoon but it doesn't hold up if you start picking it apart

About anti-mutant bias being rational....in my experience, bias usually has a rational justification in the mind of biased people. Bias happens when there is a limited or skewed worldview, but it's something that a bigot will perceive as being facts. The cure against bias is education. The more you have access to information, different worldviews, and can empathize with these worldviews, the less biased you will become. Unfortunately, it's easy to spread bias by carefully choosing the statistics, news stories, etc that are being shared.

It's easy to see how you would become biased against mutants if there was an incident at the school your kid attends like in X-Men Evolution - but does the bias hold up once you consider that everyday thousands of mutants go about their business without any incidents? And that is precisely what Xavier's dream is. A world where there is cohabitation - I want to go further and say education, understanding and empathy, even though they never used these words in the comics as far as I know.

For me the metaphor with bias holds up. And I love the message about the school - mutants benefit from having support and a structure where they learn to control their powers and that structure is a mean to build a better future for everyone. Backlash against mutants creates Magneto's ideology, or Bishop going on a mission to destroy the entire world to prevent his timeline from existing. I think that translates so well into how problems of race, immigration, socio-economic conditions, etc should be handled - even though it's kind of an overly optimistic solution that is definitely a product of the 60s. But that's why I always go to the X-Men when I need positivity in my life.

Problem is, you DO choose to buy and carry a fire gun. You DO NOT choose to have shooting eyes.

I think a closer real situation would be a school in which there's children with infectious diseases, for example.

Yes guns are definitely not the same as mutant powers. For me mutation is just an analogy for being seen as dangerous and/or not worthy of basic human rights and respect on the sole basis that you are different. A lot of people end up experiencing this for a wide range of reasons.

I love how you brought up choice, that is such an important aspect of what the X-Men is about. I've always seen the message as being something like you don't choose to have lasers that shoot out of your eyes but it's up to you how you use that.

[Star_Jammer]

Maybe I’m jaded or whatever choice word is appropriate, but I don’t think superhero comics gives the best context in a “what if people spontaneously develop super powers” type of world.

That is to say: I think the amount of people that would abuse such powers is greatly understated in stories developed to glorify heroic characters vs. a real life situation.

[BroHomo]

IMO the X-Men work as a metaphor for whatever minority group you wish to see them as because at the end of the day they're meant to be an allegory to reach kids and help teach them "Hey don't treat people bad because they're different than you" especially if the kids aren't being taught that home.

I thought so to buuuuut...

the bias against superpowered people is completely rational. If mutants were real, you would be the worst parent in the world to let your children attend school with one, and you would not feel secure in the slightest unless your neighborhood was routinely patrolled by a sentinel.

Uh Nah bro not really
I don't think I'd be cool with a clumsy robotic Gestapo hovering over my head not the heads of my loved ones

[Hizashi]

Uh Nah bro not really
I don't think I'd be cool with a clumsy robotic Gestapo hovering over my head not the heads of my loved ones

The Sentinel thing is too far, but the X-Men would benefit from an antagonist (not a villain, there’s a difference) who doesn’t want to kill mutants or “cure” them but still sees them as a threat and wants to control or regulate them in some way.

I think one of the reasons that Claremont’s God Loves, Man Kills still holds up today is that the central antagonists’ perspectives aren’t painted in black-and-white - Stryker’s people and those who were swept up in his craze were motivated by the fear of what they don’t understand and the changing world that they weren’t prepared for or couldn’t comprehend. Stryker himself started there but committed a horrific act that twisted his religious foundation so much that he used it to justify further atrocities.

What I’m getting at is that there’s nothing unreasonable about fearing mutants - it’s staying ignorant or allowing ignorance of their persecution to persist or actively oppressing them that’s the issue. Put the minority metaphor aside and any reasonable person would think twice about even approaching a guy who could seriously injure or kill people without meaning to.

[Hizashi]

Problem is, you DO choose to buy and carry a fire gun. You DO NOT choose to have shooting eyes.

I think a closer real situation would be a school in which there's children with infectious diseases, for example.

There’s certainly a factor of choice involved, but I think a firearms metaphor is plausible. Nightwing: The New Order wound up with a compelling firearms metaphor (that might not have been intended).

[Killerbee911]

That cartoon, X-men Evolution, used pretty twisted logic in its first episode. In it, Scott Summers has his glasses knocked off during a scuffle and nearly kills an entire stadium filled with innocent people. Professor X then comes along, erases everyone's memories, then admonishes Scott to "be more careful," before cheerfully allowing him to continue on as a student at the school. (Which, to reiterate, he nearly BLEW UP.) As a kid, I thought this was cool. As an adult, I now think that Professor X in that show was an unhinged lunatic. At the very least, he was dangerously irresponsible, with no consideration for the public good. Which is why the mutant metaphor is soooo bad. Because unlike actual racism or homophobia, the bias against superpowered people is completely rational. If mutants were real, you would be the worst parent in the world to let your children attend school with one, and you would not feel secure in the slightest unless your neighborhood was routinely patrolled by a sentinel.

Time again to talk about the beauty of what Stan Lee set up with the X-men. The X-men is flexible to be a metaphor/analogy/Stand in for many things with big overall message of tolerance. Trying to one for one compare mutants to anything in real life doesn't work as well it could because X-men is built to be a action/entertainment as well. Anyways on to the point "If mutants were real, you would be the worst parent in the world to let your children attend school with one" .Sadly they are examples of what you are saying in real life

1. Would you let your child be a class with someone with Aids?

2. It has happen with minorities for irrational reason but more "rational" reasons during World War 2 with Japanese people and after 911 people of middle eastern descent, or even today immigrants from certain countries that have had terrorist organizations or ties

How people justify their lack of tolerance in the face of "danger" is sad. What you typed out imo is dangerously close to what some people said after 9/11 stuff like "These people are dangerous they shouldn't be living in our neighborhoods or schools". Now is person who feels that way 100% percent wrong? No but here is why your point is wrong and why we aren't living in police state and every person of middle eastern decent or who is muslim monitored because blanketing everyone in to one category based on skin color or background is always wrong every individual person is different. And there is not a neat little bow you can put on a subject like this because the danger does exist someone could infiltrate and do harm others or an incident could happen where a disease could be an issue but history taught us logically look at these things there is alway middle ground between do nothing and extreme other side of the coin If mutants were real we would send kids to school with them and you wouldn't be a bad parent. (Disclaimer this isn't one for one comparison I am only use it to explain tolerance) Just like in real if a kid had aids you would send child to school with them.

Final note- Of course this is not a perfect example real life example is a way smaller risk and mutant example is obviously more large scale bad BUT on that same note X-men and world governments have mutant suppression tech and more logical story for the X-men should be happening . X-men universe plays out is nowhere close to what would happen in real life. A non stupid mutant registration act would be place and system in place monitor mutants them until they can control their power. The Cyclops style incidents wouldn't occur because you track mutants from birth but anyways that is topic for another day.

[Ricochet Rita]

About anti-mutant bias being rational....in my experience, bias usually has a rational justification in the mind of biased people. Bias happens when there is a limited or skewed worldview, but it's something that a bigot will perceive as being facts. The cure against bias is education. The more you have access to information, different worldviews, and can empathize with these worldviews, the less biased you will become. Unfortunately, it's easy to spread bias by carefully choosing the statistics, news stories, etc that are being shared.

It's easy to see how you would become biased against mutants if there was an incident at the school your kid attends like in X-Men Evolution - but does the bias hold up once you consider that everyday thousands of mutants go about their business without any incidents? And that is precisely what Xavier's dream is. A world where there is cohabitation - I want to go further and say education, understanding and empathy, even though they never used these words in the comics as far as I know.

For me the metaphor with bias holds up. And I love the message about the school - mutants benefit from having support and a structure where they learn to control their powers and that structure is a mean to build a better future for everyone. Backlash against mutants creates Magneto's ideology, or Bishop going on a mission to destroy the entire world to prevent his timeline from existing. I think that translates so well into how problems of race, immigration, socio-economic conditions, etc should be handled - even though it's kind of an overly optimistic solution that is definitely a product of the 60s. But that's why I always go to the X-Men when I need positivity in my life.

For me mutation is just an analogy for being seen as dangerous and/or not worthy of basic human rights and respect on the sole basis that you are different. A lot of people end up experiencing this for a wide range of reasons.

Agreed.

The Sentinel thing is too far, but the X-Men would benefit from an antagonist (not a villain, there’s a difference) who doesn’t want to kill mutants or “cure” them but still sees them as a threat and wants to control or regulate them in some way.

I think one of the reasons that Claremont’s God Loves, Man Kills still holds up today is that the central antagonists’ perspectives aren’t painted in black-and-white - Stryker’s people and those who were swept up in his craze were motivated by the fear of what they don’t understand and the changing world that they weren’t prepared for or couldn’t comprehend. Stryker himself started there but committed a horrific act that twisted his religious foundation so much that he used it to justify further atrocities.

What I’m getting at is that there’s nothing unreasonable about fearing mutants - it’s staying ignorant or allowing ignorance of their persecution to persist or actively oppressing them that’s the issue. Put the minority metaphor aside and any reasonable person would think twice about even approaching a guy who could seriously injure or kill people without meaning to.

Again, agreed.

The X-men is flexible to be a metaphor/analogy/Stand in for many things with big overall message of tolerance. Trying to one for one compare mutants to anything in real life doesn't work as well it could because X-men is built to be a action/entertainment as well. Anyways on to the point "If mutants were real, you would be the worst parent in the world to let your children attend school with one" .Sadly they are examples of what you are saying in real life

1. Would you let your child be a class with someone with Aids?

2. It has happen with minorities for irrational reason but more "rational" reasons during World War 2 with Japanese people and after 911 people of middle eastern descent, or even today immigrants from certain countries that have had terrorist organizations or ties

How people justify their lack of tolerance in the face of "danger" is sad. What you typed out imo is dangerously close to what some people said after 9/11 stuff like "These people are dangerous they shouldn't be living in our neighborhoods or schools". Now is person who feels that way 100% percent wrong? No but here is why your point is wrong and why we aren't living in police state and every person of middle eastern decent or who is muslim monitored because blanketing everyone in to one category based on skin color or background is always wrong every individual person is different. And there is not a neat little bow you can put on a subject like this because the danger does exist someone could infiltrate and do harm others or an incident could happen where a disease could be an issue but history taught us logically look at these things there is alway middle ground between do nothing and extreme other side of the coin If mutants were real we would send kids to school with them and you wouldn't be a bad parent. (Disclaimer this isn't one for one comparison I am only use it to explain tolerance) Just like in real if a kid had aids you would send child to school with them.

Agreed, too.

I remember once I was discussing with a workmate. She was complaining because she lived in a suburb and she was worried because she thought her babychild was not completely safe in the nursery school. There were poor means, many children were from different cultures than ours, their families or homes were often broken, so she thought they were 'troublesome' and she wanted to take off her baby to another school. Another workmate and me were trying to dissuade her and make her understand that her point of view was biased, until she burst and yell us that it was so easy for us to talk that way without being in her shoes. I felt bad because she was right about it, we were being overbearing and not helping her at all.

[BroHomo]

I remember once I was discussing with a workmate. She was complaining because she lived in a suburb and she was worried because she thought her babychild was not completely safe in the nursery school. There were poor means, many children were from different cultures than ours, their families or homes were often broken, so she thought they were 'troublesome' and she wanted to take off her baby to another school. Another workmate and me were trying to dissuade her and make her understand that her point of view was biased, until she burst and yell us that it was so easy for us to talk that way without being in her shoes. I felt bad because she was right about it, we were being overbearing and not helping her at all.

like in what way?
The future financial success of the preschoolers?
That it turned her Angel into a chump?

[Ricochet Rita]

like in what way?
The future financial success of the preschoolers?
That it turned her Angel into a chump?

No. That we were talking from an ivory tower.

[G0RM]

No. That we were talking from an ivory tower.

I've been very, very seriously examining a proposition lately, regarding the absolute limitations of speech to describe human beings.

Among other things, this viewpoint suggests that any time person A tells person B what is true for person B (gaslighting), or person A tells person B what is true for person C (gossip/"let's you and him fight"), real human beings are being confused with the *story* of human beings: their agency and subjectivity are being removed, 'objectification' in other words.

A telling person B what is true for person A (non-accusatory I statements), and person A *asking* person B what is true for person B (open-ended you-questions) work much better in this theory, maintaining interpersonal boundaries with subjectivity and diverse perspectives.

The really radical part of the theory is that any statement of the form "They are X", "We are Y", "You are Z", or even "I am Q" are considered to be problematic because words fit inside of people, and therefore, by inspection, it is intrinsically impossible for people to fit inside of words.

I'm struggling with this concept, though, because it is so utterly beyond everything I have experienced as "the way things are" in this society, this American experiment that has inherited a vast cultural karmic burden from two successful genocides, against the First Nations people, and the Middle Passage of abducted Africans.

But I'm trying.

[Studies of Violent and Non-Violent Communication (NVC) have progressed to concepts of Compassionate Communication, all the way to these speculations about Subjective and Objective Communication.]