Superman Story In Truth & Justice #4

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I mean yes that's exactly the reason why he would be in favor. He probably believes that it's not just about equality of numbers but also equality of experiences. I disagree with this, but I totally think him growing up in a small town or a farm in Kansas would see his parents as at a disadvantage, regardless of his own status as a superhuman, and the electoral college as a way to compensate for that disadvantage.

Again, I don't think Clark is myopic enough that he would ignore the clear damage the electoral college has done towards undermining Americans faith in their electoral system that he would be in favor of something that virtually no other country on Earth uses. This is a guy who's travelled the entirety of the globe and travelled across the stars who views himself as a citizen of not only Earth, but the entire cosmos.

Yet he's going to be concerned with 2.9 million people not being arbitrarily given a disproportionate voice in choosing the leader of the free world because of lines drawn on a map hundreds of years ago?

[Alpha]

I see what you're saying, but it would be a betrayal of too much of who the character is for a good deal of his fans. Yeah, there's the contingent of Superman fans who are just into the idea of being a steroided-up muscle-bound sun god stronger than anyone else, but also able to fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes, but I think the overwhelming majority of Superman fans are most attracted to the idea that this is a guy who possesses a ludicrous degree of power, but only uses that power for the betterment of the people around him because he's motivated by a sense of empathy and altruism that is virtually unheard of in the real world.

Frankly, those qualities are pretty antithetical to the social conservatism you're talking about because it means that Clark is so unable to empathize with people who weren't raised in the same kind of family as he was that he would be okay with them to be treated as lesser than others for no other reason than their sexual orientation or any number of other factors. That's simply not who Superman is meant to represent.

I honestly think what I'm saying is quite evident. I've stated my arguments and your opinion is that despite how dependent as Clark was on the nuclear family, to the point that it was the only enviroment in which he fel safe, and growing up in a small town in rural Kansas, he would still somehow not have a bias towards traditional family structures. You think your personal values justify the nuance of Superman as a real human being with very indicative experiences that create a complex but rational and interesting picture of a fake but understandable human being.

But I will repeat once more, I don't think Clark would protest gay adoption. I just think he would still feel that a traditional family unit is more inherently supportive than the various alternatives. This wouldn't even be an always conscious thought by him, it would be an instinct. And at this point in time he certainly wouldn't see a point in arguing about it. Only in 2013.

[Alpha]

Again, I don't think Clark is myopic enough that he would ignore the clear damage the electoral college has done towards undermining Americans faith in their electoral system that he would be in favor of something that virtually no other country on Earth uses. This is a guy who's travelled the entirety of the globe and travelled across the stars who views himself as a citizen of not only Earth, but the entire cosmos.

Yet he's going to be concerned with 2.9 million people not being arbitrarily given a disproportionate voice in choosing the leader of the free world because of lines drawn on a map hundreds of years ago?

Are you trying to convince me that the electoral college is bad? I agree with you. Doesn't mean that someone from a small town and lower class parents (which feels to me like the case for Jonathan and Martha) would see his parents as being disproportionally affected by the decisions of a concentrated and homogenous majority. This isn't something that can be argued about, it's based on the fundamentals of your value system. Someone who believes in the rule of the majority wil never agree with someone who believes in the independence of the minority. No scientifical data would change your own fundamental moral system, and I think Clark's family situation would lead him to be bias towards the minority independence.

[lotchj]

Sorry but I just see that characterization as the kiss of death for the character. People aren’t going to pay money for a homophobic white conservative protagonist from Kansas (unless you’re Comicsgate). Hell the DKR took the piss out of “good ol’ farmboy Clark” way back in the 1980s. Could make for an interesting Elseworld, that’s a deconstruction of the character I would check out, but for the main guy? No.

What does that word mean?? Homophobic!! That's just a made up word. I wouldn't agree that it's the kiss of death. That just something show business people push. OH!! And the so called mainstream media. No!! It doesn't mean i support what they did in Washington DC.!! I don't support violence against people that don't believe what you believe. What you do in your home is your business!! But i don't have to agree!

[Robanker]

I honestly think what I'm saying is quite evident. I've stated my arguments and your opinion is that despite how dependent as Clark was on the nuclear family, to the point that it was the only enviroment in which he fel safe, and growing up in a small town in rural Kansas, he would still somehow not have a bias towards traditional family structures. You think your personal values justify the nuance of Superman as a real human being with very indicative experiences that create a complex but rational and interesting picture of a fake but understandable human being.

But I will repeat once more, I don't think Clark would protest gay adoption. I just think he would still feel that a traditional family unit is more inherently supportive than the various alternatives. This wouldn't even be an always conscious thought by him, it would be an instinct. And at this point in time he certainly wouldn't see a point in arguing about it. Only in 2013.

Like most GLs, I think whatever Clark may have thought on Earth (and depending on which era, the Kents may have instilled in him total belief in the traditional nuclear family), once he gets to space it's open season. I can't fathom Superman has seen hundreds of alien variations on the family construct and came back to Earth thinking "yeah, nothing here can be improved on and this is pretty much the best model." It may be the coziest and most familiar to him personally, but I think he'd return from Exile at least and have a more open mind to how people develop. Think of it like when a child leaves home to go to college and returns after a few years. They can be entirely different people. Hell, that happened to me. I had the most toxic beliefs when I was young and getting away from that environment, meeting new people and concepts and really diving deep and discovering what I believe was monumental for my development. As with all things, Clark's life reflects our own just on an exaggerated scale. Space was his college experience away from home. Once he gets back, he's going to be a different person and likely a much more open-minded one.

He's probably spent an afternoon trying to construct his pitch to sell the idea of letting children be raised by sentient dog gentlemen from Barkulon Galta V.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I honestly think what I'm saying is quite evident. I've stated my arguments and your opinion is that despite how dependent as Clark was on the nuclear family, to the point that it was the only enviroment in which he fel safe, and growing up in a small town in rural Kansas, he would still somehow not have a bias towards traditional family structures. You think your personal values justify the nuance of Superman as a real human being with very indicative experiences that create a complex but rational and interesting picture of a fake but understandable human being.

But I will repeat once more, I don't think Clark would protest gay adoption. I just think he would still feel that a traditional family unit is more inherently supportive than the various alternatives. This wouldn't even be an always conscious thought by him, it would be an instinct. And at this point in time he certainly wouldn't see a point in arguing about it. Only in 2013.

There's a big difference between Clark feeling safe and comfortable within a nuclear family and being unable to understand the value of different kinds of families, which is what would be required for Clark to be uncomfortable with gay marriage or any other kind of family that isn't defined by a father and a mother raising children.

Clark is able to view the world in a way unlike almost anyone else on the planet, why would he be so unable to appreciate other ways of living that are different that the one he was raised in?

[Prime]

Maybe lets not get into stereotypes that every conservative hates gay people and supported Jan. 6 events.

This. Clark has never been homophobic. Also while it's not relevant anymore. Wasn't there propaganda back in the 30 or 40 that had Superman making fun of the Japanese people? Stuff like that was product of the time. But Clark isn't like that. He is a person who will help out no matter race, background or sexual orientation.

[Robanker]

This. Clark has never been homophobic. Also while it's not relevant anymore. Wasn't there propaganda back in the 30 or 40 that had Superman making fun of the Japanese people? Stuff like that was product of the time. But Clark isn't like that. He is a person who will help out no matter race, background or sexual orientation.

You're right, he would save anyone, but I do believe he'd also slap the shit out of people storming a federal building because they didn't like the results of a fair election. The insistence on Clark hiding his politics and just being some fireman that gets you out of trouble and leaves afterward without trying to change the world is exactly why he's been stagnant for 40 years while other characters have surpassed him. Even if what they're saying is "I'm a fascist who hates clowns," at least they're standing for something. Clark's had to be chained to the center for fear of offending people for so damn long. He nebulously stands for being a good person-- the thing that all superheroes do. Look, he's my favorite character so it hurts saying this, but Clark will die a slow death sliding into obscurity unless he's allowed to matter again. Diana was long considered part of the Trinity mostly because of merch sales and being the most popular female. They certainly didn't respect her in print and she doesn't have big seminal works to reference like Bruce and Clark.

Right now they're pushing Diana so much harder than Clark. I'm not saying it's bad that Diana is doing so well, but she's traditionally a character they just let passively generate revenue. Clark was one of their golden boys and they don't care that much anymore compared to Batman or Wonder Woman because, well, nobody knows what to do with Superman. They're afraid to let him do much of anything because you might make people mad that the champion of the oppressed is saying cops shouldn't assault kids or that Lex Luthor is a business man and maligned so therefor he's Donald Trump and why are my spandex people political? Can you turn this off and give me more Batman please?

And yes, not every conservative is a homophobe or insurgent, but the core tenants of the conservative platform and the lines that the Republican party tend to draw in the sand really do not match Clark's history at all. I don't see him ever truly embracing conservative ideology. He may respect that others have different views than him, but those radicals on the 6th? He'd give them the slap. They certainly deserve one. For what it's worth, I think Clark would support BLM but also stop violently sacking a UPS truck, scaring the shit out of the driver and setting his cargo on fire in a dumpster (I went to one protest and sadly some of the protestors did exactly this, though after the police started gassing us. That poor driver was terrified and just doing his job.).

But no matter what violence Clark gets in the way of to save people, his mission's always been to the left. Yes, he believes in human decency and respecting others. He also believes that if you're not on the up-and-up that you get the slap.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

To be fair I think there’s definitely an argument to be made for how different incarnations of Superman would view certain hot button issues of their day. Honestly, I think Alpha is right about how Clark would view gay marriage if we’re talking about the Post-Crisis Superman, who was essentially a centrist Republican. I can absolutely see him being a little uncomfortable with progressive ideas that are now much more mainstream. That Clark wasn’t exactly at the cutting edge of anything. I mean, he sported a *$#&ing mullet started listening to Van Halen in ‘94 and acted like he was suddenly Mr. Cool. So, yeah, that Clark was absolutely a bland middle of the road kind of guy.

Morrison’s Superman? Hell no. That guy had, for the first time in ages, the political convictions that fueled the wizzbang pulpy exploits of Siegel & Shuster’s creation.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Are you trying to convince me that the electoral college is bad? I agree with you. Doesn't mean that someone from a small town and lower class parents (which feels to me like the case for Jonathan and Martha) would see his parents as being disproportionally affected by the decisions of a concentrated and homogenous majority. This isn't something that can be argued about, it's based on the fundamentals of your value system. Someone who believes in the rule of the majority wil never agree with someone who believes in the independence of the minority. No scientifical data would change your own fundamental moral system, and I think Clark's family situation would lead him to be bias towards the minority independence.

No, I am trying to convince you that the argument for the electoral college is so weak that no one is seriously making it anymore. Since Clark isn’t a partisan hack trying to shill for the Republican Party, he wouldn’t believe in such a flimsy argument simply because it would benefit his parents.

[Alpha]

No, I am trying to convince you that the argument for the electoral college is so weak that no one is seriously making it anymore. Since Clark isn’t a partisan hack trying to shill for the Republican Party, he wouldn’t believe in such a flimsy argument simply because it would benefit his parents.

I don't know man, I saw polling that said 61% approve ending the electoral college. 89% democrats 23% Republicans. It's not a bad number, but there are still a lot of people who support it's existence

[Prime]

You're right, he would save anyone, but I do believe he'd also slap the shit out of people storming a federal building because they didn't like the results of a fair election. The insistence on Clark hiding his politics and just being some fireman that gets you out of trouble and leaves afterward without trying to change the world is exactly why he's been stagnant for 40 years while other characters have surpassed him. Even if what they're saying is "I'm a fascist who hates clowns," at least they're standing for something. Clark's had to be chained to the center for fear of offending people for so damn long. He nebulously stands for being a good person-- the thing that all superheroes do. Look, he's my favorite character so it hurts saying this, but Clark will die a slow death sliding into obscurity unless he's allowed to matter again. Diana was long considered part of the Trinity mostly because of merch sales and being the most popular female. They certainly didn't respect her in print and she doesn't have big seminal works to reference like Bruce and Clark.

Right now they're pushing Diana so much harder than Clark. I'm not saying it's bad that Diana is doing so well, but she's traditionally a character they just let passively generate revenue. Clark was one of their golden boys and they don't care that much anymore compared to Batman or Wonder Woman because, well, nobody knows what to do with Superman. They're afraid to let him do much of anything because you might make people mad that the champion of the oppressed is saying cops shouldn't assault kids or that Lex Luthor is a business man and maligned so therefor he's Donald Trump and why are my spandex people political? Can you turn this off and give me more Batman please?

And yes, not every conservative is a homophobe or insurgent, but the core tenants of the conservative platform and the lines that the Republican party tend to draw in the sand really do not match Clark's history at all. I don't see him ever truly embracing conservative ideology. He may respect that others have different views than him, but those radicals on the 6th? He'd give them the slap. They certainly deserve one. For what it's worth, I think Clark would support BLM but also stop violently sacking a UPS truck, scaring the shit out of the driver and setting his cargo on fire in a dumpster (I went to one protest and sadly some of the protestors did exactly this, though after the police started gassing us. That poor driver was terrified and just doing his job.).

But no matter what violence Clark gets in the way of to save people, his mission's always been to the left. Yes, he believes in human decency and respecting others. He also believes that if you're not on the up-and-up that you get the slap.

You literally described what Superbro was supposed to be. Goddamn I miss him or how Morrison did him. But yeah, Clark would slap pretty much anyone from both sides causing trouble.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I don't know man, I saw polling that said 61% approve ending the electoral college. 89% democrats 23% Republicans. It's not a bad number, but there are still a lot of people who support it's existence

Yes, there are a lot of people who believe in flimsy unconvincing arguments in America. There are still people who think national health care isn't a good idea either, despite virtually every 1st World Nation having it.

Just because some Americans believe dumb shit doesn't mean I think Superman should, too, particularly when he is generally depicted as a pretty smart not prone to believing in terrible unpopular and discredited ideas because it might benefit his parents while disenfranchising millions more.

I am sorry, there's just no getting around this. Find me someone in 2021 who isn't a partisan hack making the argument that the electoral college is good for America and I might find this idea more convincing, but I seriously doubt you'll be able to do so.

[Alpha]

Just because some Americans believe dumb shit doesn't mean I think Superman should, too, particularly when he is generally depicted as a pretty smart not prone to believing in terrible unpopular and discredited ideas because it might benefit his parents while disenfranchising millions more.

Oh cmon. The electoral college isn't a matter of intelligence. It's about fundamental difference in values. I'm sure Clark would oppose the system of electors, but the state by state basis is something he might very well support because it isn't something that can be argued through logic. One would have to believe the numerical value is more important than equal representation of different areas with different economic conditions.

Once again, I agree with you in actual life, but your argument for Clark's beliefs shouldn't (in my opinion) be that he is a "good" person and he would believe in "good" things, considering the fact that that criteria for those good beliefs is your own inherent values irregardless of his fictional background and experiences. I can't think of any experience he would go through that would convince him that the a state by state election (with proportional votes) would be wrong.

[Jcogginsa]

Oh cmon. The electoral college isn't a matter of intelligence. It's about fundamental difference in values. I'm sure Clark would oppose the system of electors, but the state by state basis is something he might very well support because it isn't something that can be argued through logic. One would have to believe the numerical value is more important than equal representation of different areas with different economic conditions.

Once again, I agree with you in actual life, but your argument for Clark's beliefs shouldn't (in my opinion) be that he is a "good" person and he would believe in "good" things, considering the fact that that criteria for those good beliefs is your own inherent values irregardless of his fictional background and experiences. I can't think of any experience he would go through that would convince him that the a state by state election (with proportional votes) would be wrong.

I can't imagine Clark holding a position that hurts people.