Am i the only person who agrees with Havok’s “M Word” sentiment?

[Zelena]

You are far from alone. There seem to be two competing schools of thought that are relevant. Following is a rough, imperfect summary of them:

1. The content of an individual's character is what matters most.
2. Membership in an identity group is what matters most.

The speech to which you refer was based upon the first, and it was considered offensive by those who tend towards the second. Obviously, the two concepts are far more complex than can be discussed on a message board.

In my view, content of character is the only sane, logical, moral, and ethical way to form an opinion about an person. I've seen first-hand the ugliness of judging based off of identity.

These two categories aren’t that separated:

- what is a individual without his relationships with other individuals. They help him to define him;
- thinking that a individal is just a part of a group denies him the possibilities to be a part of other groups and his individual freedom.

What is shocking is the use of real specificities for political purposes, the instrumentalization of individuals: “You have the X-gene, so you must a part of my group. See, the others hate you. You have no choice.”

[BroHomo]

These two categories aren’t that separated:

- what is a individual without his relationships with other individuals. They help him to define him;
- thinking that a individal is just a part of a group denies him the possibilities to be a part of other groups and his individual freedom.

What is shocking is the use of real specificities for political purposes, the instrumentalization of individuals: “You have the X-gene, so you must a part of my group. See, the others hate you. You have no choice.”

The Others?
When the new members of your group are young, likely rejected, impressionable teens would the better option not to encourage an automatic sense of family/belonging? As to not manipulate them from blindly going to the "other side where they use giant killer robots to keep folks like them I line, or dissect, mutilate to graph on their Mutant powers ?

[Ferro]

uncanny avengers was a mistake, change my mind.

[Zelena]

The Others?
When the new members of your group are young, likely rejected, impressionable teens would the better option not to encourage an automatic sense of family/belonging? As to not manipulate them from blindly going to the "other side where they use giant killer robots to keep folks like them I line, or dissect, mutilate to graph on their Mutant powers ?

There’s a difference if this young one is helped because he’s in danger or this young one is helped because he’s a mutant. In the first case, that means you believe that no one should be persecuted, you believe in values, in the second case, it’s because of a sense of tribe: “this one is one of my own, I help one of my own like I would help myself”. But with this sort of thinking, every group just think about their own, no law is above tribe laws… We go backwards in the history of humanity.

I suppose that, for a young one, “any port in the storm” is good… But the question is: the young one is manipulating the group or is he manipulated by it?

[ed2962]

This isn’t the first time mutants were apart of the avengers.

Sure. But the supposed purpose of this specific team was emphasize that they were half mutant and half human.

[ed2962]

uncanny avengers was a mistake, change my mind.

Well, it made sense in theory, the X-men and the Avengers were Marvel's biggest franchises. Why not combine them?

[Steel Inquisitor]

The Others?
When the new members of your group are young, likely rejected, impressionable teens would the better option not to encourage an automatic sense of family/belonging? As to not manipulate them from blindly going to the "other side where they use giant killer robots to keep folks like them I line, or dissect, mutilate to graph on their Mutant powers ?

That tactic has been weaponised by numerous mutant terrorist groups in Marvel, to divide them from greater society and keep them contained to their group so they don't have anyone to deprogram them from doing bad things. The X-gene is a thing they are, and they have a right to be proud to be a mutant - however, this turns badly for everyone and they reinforce the status quo of us vs them when they do things like blow up buildings.

People define identities for themselves, identities don't define people.

Not every human does the above, that's what the mutant terrorist groups use propaganda to cut off their members from questions their leaders and making it easier for them to harm those who aren't hurting them. Of course, the anti-mutant groups like the Purifiers love organisations like the Brotherhood since it makes their propaganda easier to market to the naive and desperate.

[Ferro]

Well, it made sense in theory, the X-men and the Avengers were Marvel's biggest franchises. Why not combine them?

yeah but it had 3 volumes, and only one worked, and said one was much more about general issues and parts of the marvel universe than mutants and humans and wasn't trying it's hardest to make it's readers upset, and then became avengers surrender wich TO ME is one of the only avengers story I ever enjoyed.
So for me it's original concept is tainted and im not sad to see it gone, Avengers "international" would be a better sucessor to uncanny vol 3, in my opinion

[Kaitou D. Kid]

You are far from alone. There seem to be two competing schools of thought that are relevant. Following is a rough, imperfect summary of them:

1. The content of an individual's character is what matters most.
2. Membership in an identity group is what matters most.

The speech to which you refer was based upon the first, and it was considered offensive by those who tend towards the second. Obviously, the two concepts are far more complex than can be discussed on a message board.

In my view, content of character is the only sane, logical, moral, and ethical way to form an opinion about an person. I've seen first-hand the ugliness of judging based off of identity.

If we look at the most successful diversity characters in the last 10 years, the first school of thought seems to be more common. I mean, just to go one by one...

Black Panther - At least post-MCU, T'Challa is the first King of Wakanda to reject essentialist thinking and view the whole world as one tribe. His sister Shuri is the same. Killmonger's words ("Didn't all life start right here in Africa? Aren't all people your people?") had an impact on him.

Kamala Khan - Melting Pot baby like your average First-Gen American. Some would say she isn't because she's Muslim, but a melting pot doesn't mean rejecting everything about your parents' culture. Kamala has friends of all backgrounds and grew up influenced by both cultures. She isn't any less "assimilated" than John Byrne's Superman.

Miles Morales - Is similar to Peter in worldview and prefers to hang out in his melting pot community in Brooklyn than at his elitist school. I would say he is closer to the first school of thought than the second.

Miguel O'Hara - Hispanic atheist with a strong belief in Enlightenment values and isn't very close with his family. Miguel represents diversity of diversity, which kinda goes against the #2 school of thought.

Sam Wilson / Captain America - Embraces and is accepting of his identity as an African-American to the same extent that Steve is accepting of being Irish-American. If we were to include Steve in the first school of thought, it is fair to include Sam in there too.

The closest to the second school of thought are probably the modern-day X-Men. Ironically, they also dropped a bit in popularity this past decade compared to the names above. That would suggest the perception that everyone wants to divide themselves based on identity has more to do with social media and corporate propaganda than it has to do with anything real.

[JTHM]

X-Men are simply not suited to talk about allegorical racism anymore. Fantastic racism of their own? That's fine. But them being allegories for actual minorities is silly. Why would you need the X-Men to tell a story about racism and discrimination when you have characters like Luke Cage who can tackle a more real version of racism directly? Why can't you have actual LGBT heroes talking about their actual LGBT issues? The X-Men are just redundant in that scenario. They were created because you couldn't talk about that stuff, but now you can.

[Ptrvc]

X-Men are simply not suited to talk about allegorical racism anymore. Fantastic racism of their own? That's fine. But them being allegories for actual minorities is silly. Why would you need the X-Men to tell a story about racism and discrimination when you have characters like Luke Cage who can tackle a more real version of racism directly? Why can't you have actual LGBT heroes talking about their actual LGBT issues? The X-Men are just redundant in that scenario. They were created because you couldn't talk about that stuff, but now you can.

Honestly,they're never were. People like Professor X, Magneto, Storm, Ice-Man are inherently dangerous due to their powers, which bv they don't have perfect control of all the time.

Each of these characters are walking extinction level events. There is a justified fear of mutants because one can randomly manifest a power to blow up a city, or rip away you're free will, and there is no guarantee they can even control it, much less that they won't use it for less than moral purposes.

Even Cyclops is always one bump from getting those shades knocked off and knocking down an orphanage or something.

[Zelena]

Honestly,they're never were. People like Professor X, Magneto, Storm, Ice-Man are inherently dangerous due to their powers, which bv they don't have perfect control of all the time.

Each of these characters are walking extinction level events. There is a justified fear of mutants because one can randomly manifest a power to blow up a city, or rip away you're free will, and there is no guarantee they can even control it, much less that they won't use it for less than moral purposes.

Even Cyclops is always one bump from getting those shades knocked off and knocking down an orphanage or something.

It’s true for every super-being who has super/mega powers… not only mutants, this super/mega danger…

But, usually every super-being belongs either in the “good side” or in the “evil side”: they have been created this way, to be included in battles “good vs bad”.

Not the mutants. They are just like us… plus a power. Usually, not really good, not really bad. In the doubt, humans are as suspicious as they would about other humans whose morality is unknown, whose powers they don’t know the extent… Do the humans really want to re-evaluate their prejudices? Navigate in the complex map of who is good, who is bad, who is harmless, who is really very very dangerous and nasty… Isn’t that already dangerous to be close to them? I mean, I’m listening right now to the news on the radio and the humans can be really mean to each other. The mutants are humans with more capacities of destruction.

I understand Alex and his want not to be the mutant n°45789612537. He can say it and some people will be convinced but not everyone will.

[Ferro]

honestly no one would miss him had he turned into a human with super powers lol, missed oportunity we could have gotten a summer's sister to replace him.

[JTHM]

Honestly,they're never were. People like Professor X, Magneto, Storm, Ice-Man are inherently dangerous due to their powers, which bv they don't have perfect control of all the time.

Each of these characters are walking extinction level events. There is a justified fear of mutants because one can randomly manifest a power to blow up a city, or rip away you're free will, and there is no guarantee they can even control it, much less that they won't use it for less than moral purposes.

Even Cyclops is always one bump from getting those shades knocked off and knocking down an orphanage or something.

Originally the X-Men had less flashy and certainly less dangerous powers than what they have now. The stories of children awakening the nuclear bomb X-Gene and killing their whole village took a while to appear. Though now that can of worms is open, it can't be closed.

Regardless, I am not saying that X-Men cannot tackle their own brand of fantastic racism in their own way. That's fine and their trademark by now. What they can't do is to try to be allegories for actual minorities. Most X-Men are not (by and large) black people, so utilizing an allegory to something related to black racism in America like the "M-Word" is beyond dumb. And every time they are used for allegories for those minorities it just keeps looking sillier and sillier.

[Snoop Dogg]

the mutant metaphor works because readers connect to it that way as a general allegory for oppressed minority groups, as long as the audience feels it, and writers don't do dumb things like "the m-word," it works despite different in-universe logistics, it not being a 1-1 thing is a strength that lets it be more broadly relatable, not a weakness