Did the Krakoa era unwittin give humans a legit excuse to hate and fear mutants?

[DragonsChi]

That's not comparable at all. Mafias largely exists to commit crimes. Their primary purpose is to be criminals. Krakoa largely exists to shelter mutants and help them rebuild. Their purpose is to be a country so they don't get killed. Krakoans are geared toward being good people, or at least being neutral and pro-mutant. Trouble-makers are punished. (Aside from Sinister, but he was a special case and even he got his comeuppance.)

Literally any group of people, if large enough, will have bad eggs. All countries have these issues. And like many countries, Krakoa has rules that protect others, even if they're foreigners. They try to punish mutants who hurt humans. Granted, Krakoa's laws weren't perfect. But we had a few books either addressing this, or making an effort to creating a healthier and kinder society. Many of Krakoa's critics were Krakoans themselves.

Actually, the X-Men in the Krakoa era operated more like the Mafia than you think. In fact there are direct comparisons. The origins of the Mafia consist of group of Sicilians who formed groups to protect themselves from persecutions and hostility. They then formed their own system of Justice and Retribution and often carried out both in secret. Eventually, this same group would use their power to take advantage of others and commit crimes.

You know sorta like how the X-Men just decided that Mutants didn't have to follow anyone else's laws. Sorta how they kept criminals buried under their clubhouse in some weird limbo. Sorta how individual members just decided who gets to live and who gets to die, without trials or due process.

The whole living on an island and keeping secrets speaks for itself.

This is an outdated ideal that ignores the reality of their situation. Because there ARE no other ways of dealing with things. The last 30 years, 9+ timelines and all of Krakoa show that trying to live to ideals will not work, no matter what they do. Not killing could be negligent at best, and criminal at worst; because letting their enemies survive allows them to harm more innocents in the future. Which is basically what happened with them allowing Orchis to fester for so long.

And if you don't like that? That's okay. I can see why one might be upset at the franchise abandoning more idealistic thoughts for something so harsh. I get feeling disconnected when so many non-killers kill without making it a bigger deal. But at the same time, the X-Men aren't villains for what they're doing. They're doing it out of necessity, are less cruel than the people they're fighting (who started the fight and have been infinitely worse.) They are unambiguously being written as sympathetic and justified in their actions during Fall of X. Because they are.

Even if they deviated away from the most idyllic image of a hero, doesn't mean they're not still heroes. Because they're still doing what's right, even if it is harsh. They're not going out of their way to be cruel or malicious - they do what has to be done in order to save the entire planet.


You compared them to Hitler. Genocide goes hand in hand with Hitler, dawg.

It's not an outdated ideal. The idea that it is outdated is excuse to wipe away what is going on. A Hero by definition is "a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities." . What exactly is noble about threating your friends of kidnapping their son? About killing your enemies when you really don't have to? About running and hiding in Space or on some orgy island? All questions are rhetorical here but the X-Men during this era have very little I would be willing to recommend of imitating.

During the Krakoa era there is very little difference between the X-Men and the people that they were fighting. As an organization they have become what they oppose. Sure they have their reasons and I am not even saying that those reasons are ill intent. But how they operate and conduct themselves they are also the bad guys. The X-Men, during the Krakoa era, are no different that the Suicided Squad.

As to not being cruel or malicious... did you read the books?

These are your "heroes" now

[DragonsChi]

Russian Roulette with your kids




I could fill this thread with what can only be described as moral ineptness of the X-Men's actions during this era. Even a character like Nightcrawler had a few wtf moments.

[mugen]

It's not an outdated ideal. The idea that it is outdated is excuse to wipe away what is going on. A Hero by definition is "a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities." . What exactly is noble about threating your friends of kidnapping their son? About killing your enemies when you really don't have to? About running and hiding in Space or on some orgy island? All questions are rhetorical here but the X-Men during this era have very little I would be willing to recommend of imitating.

During the Krakoa era there is very little difference between the X-Men and the people that they were fighting. As an organization they have become what they oppose. Sure they have their reasons and I am not even saying that those reasons are ill intent. But how they operate and conduct themselves they are also the bad guys. The X-Men, during the Krakoa era, are no different that the Suicided Squad.

As to not being cruel or malicious... did you read the books?

These are your "heroes" now

yes kitty should have left orchis alive so that they continue to exterminate her people because oue she's a heroine you shouldn't kill lol the last time kitty spared a genocidaire it was styker who thanked kitty for the having left alive by massacring fifty-two children from the Xavier school, I am convinced that the families of the children found Kitty and the X-Men heroic after that...

there is nothing more disgusting and absurd than making superhero stories based on genocide, nothing more absurd than using superhero codes when your enemy is a genocidal racist opposite, it should never have been done nor is it the norm for x-men it works with classic super villains like bank robber or apprentice master of the world but it should not apply to genocidal enemies who have already genocided mutants several times.

it makes no sense to see the mutants treat the genocidaires as simple super villains by refusing to kill them, that's what happened during krakoa they refused to kill orchis and the results? their nation was destroyed and many innocent mutants, men, women and children, were killed, deported and hunted.

Fortunately they at least reacted well afterwards, which is what they should have done years ago.

Since when wolverines are heroes the whole family has already killed bad guys and innocents alike even if they were programmed for that except Daken, they are more anti heroes than heroes.

[DragonsChi]

Ya know... I never said the Suicide Squad isn't a solid book. It's been around since the 50's it clearly has its place in the market. But that's basically what the X-Men has become.

Wolverine use to desperately want to resist his animalistic rage and tendencies, trying his best to live by the code of the Samurai. Now? He sits around the table playing Russian roulette with his 12-15 year old daughter. Thank Krakoa era creators.

[Deer God]

If death really didn’t matter then I could see a more callous approach. Put yourself in their position and you’d be way more experimental. Death is a laugh and have to fun with it

[DragonsChi]

If death really didn’t matter then I could see a more callous approach. Put yourself in their position and you’d be way more experimental. Death is a laugh and have to fun with it

No argument there. I would say it was their first step in become more villainess. If death no longer matters to you then soon after life no longer matters to you. Then other's lives do not matter to you. Therefore killing in mass means nothings.

What I just wrote is the logic of several recorded psychopaths and serial killers.

" I don't make the news. I just report it."

[mugen]

Ya know... I never said the Suicide Squad isn't a solid book. It's been around since the 50's it clearly has its place in the market. But that's basically what the X-Men has become.

Wolverine use to desperately want to resist his animalistic rage and tendencies, trying his best to live by the code of the Samurai. Now? He sits around the table playing Russian roulette with his 12-15 year old daughter. Thank Krakoa era creators.

I don't see the connection with suicide squad which is a team of criminals, even x-force is not comparable to them, otherwise what do you think about the fact that every time mutants play heroes with anti-mutants instead of killing them it ends in genocide, do you find them heroic? Would you have preferred that they did nothing to Orchis and let them kill innocent mutants?

gabby has already killed people, she likes hanging out with deadpool and it was before krakoa so it was Russian roulette...

[OG Storm]

Actually, the X-Men in the Krakoa era operated more like the Mafia than you think. In fact there are direct comparisons. The origins of the Mafia consist of group of Sicilians who formed groups to protect themselves from persecutions and hostility. They then formed their own system of Justice and Retribution and often carried out both in secret. Eventually, this same group would use their power to take advantage of others and commit crimes.

You know sorta like how the X-Men just decided that Mutants didn't have to follow anyone else's laws. Sorta how they kept criminals buried under their clubhouse in some weird limbo. Sorta how individual members just decided who gets to live and who gets to die, without trials or due process.

The whole living on an island and keeping secrets speaks for itself.




It's not an outdated ideal. The idea that it is outdated is excuse to wipe away what is going on. A Hero by definition is "a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities." . What exactly is noble about threating your friends of kidnapping their son? About killing your enemies when you really don't have to? About running and hiding in Space or on some orgy island? All questions are rhetorical here but the X-Men during this era have very little I would be willing to recommend of imitating.

During the Krakoa era there is very little difference between the X-Men and the people that they were fighting. As an organization they have become what they oppose. Sure they have their reasons and I am not even saying that those reasons are ill intent. But how they operate and conduct themselves they are also the bad guys. The X-Men, during the Krakoa era, are no different that the Suicided Squad.

As to not being cruel or malicious... did you read the books?

These are your "heroes" now

I couldn't be more proud of kitty. Orchis was trying to kill her in that moment and was trying to kill all mutants. I get that didn't really bother you and that restraint is your idea of being a hero. But this wasn't about being heroic and if you need people to show it in the face of extreme racism then I don't know what to tell you except stop reading comics.

Let's not pretend that judicial process is some magical perfect system that promotes fairness. We all know the system you are championing is corrupt and serves no purpose save to make money or protect the elite. That's the system you are defending. Why? I don't know.

Of you think kitty is now equal to orchis because she killed the people that were trying to kill her I have some land on the moon I am willing to sell you.

[DragonsChi]

I don't see the connection with suicide squad which is a team of criminals, even x-force is not comparable to them, otherwise what do you think about the fact that every time mutants play heroes with anti-mutants instead of killing them it ends in genocide, do you find them heroic? Would you have preferred that they did nothing to Orchis and let them kill innocent mutants?

Really? A squad of individuals with low morals sent out to do missions by the(ir) government at the threat of potential death. The X-Men just have the added twist of being able to come back after they die.

Also, the rest of this is similar to the question "If you could go back and time and kill Hitler as a baby, would you?" . The answer is doing so is ultimately unethical to kill a baby. Hitler or not. Again " I don't make the news. I just report it."

gabby has already killed people, she likes hanging out with deadpool and it was before krakoa so it was Russian roulette...

And this is sorta like saying..." My kid was already smoking meth when I caught him. What's the big deal that we now bond over it?"

[lefthanded]

I couldn't be more proud of kitty. Orchis was trying to kill her in that moment and was trying to kill all mutants. I get that didn't really bother you and that restraint is your idea of being a hero. But this wasn't about being heroic and if you need people to show it in the face of extreme racism then I don't know what to tell you except stop reading comics.

Let's not pretend that judicial process is some magical perfect system that promotes fairness. We all know the system you are championing is corrupt and serves no purpose save to make money or protect the elite. That's the system you are defending. Why? I don't know.

Of you think kitty is now equal to orchis because she killed the people that were trying to kill her I have some land on the moon I am willing to sell you.

That is no different than any other point in Mutant history, and yet other writers have not relished so much in having the 'heroes' kill the 'villains'.

For example, X-men Second Coming presumably had the same stakes that you are saying is justification for Kitty killing Orchis soldiers - Bastion's troops are trying to kill (Insert name) Mutant in that moment, and are trying to kill all mutants. Why do you think Sentinels have been the villain dujour? So that writers can show heroes 'killing' robots without there being any moral questions by the reader.

Why is there an X-Force book, if all mutants are now doing X-Force type actions because of 'logic'?
X-Force made a meal out of the dilemma of killing an Apocalypse baby, when the same justifications for killing could be used.


Yes, the logic works - it is war, and in war killing is allowed. But the difference is that the logic is being used now, when the same logic didn't apply to similar situations by other writers. Other writers went out of their way to prevent their heroes from killing (ie. using robots as the enemies), having X-Force type mutants be the ones doing the killing, or having it be off panel or just implied.

Duggan's X-men are explicitly being shown doing the killing. While you may argue that it is just pearl clutching to not want to show that the mutants are killing, there is a difference between what is shown on page (commonly accepted as canon), and things that are implied or occur off panel (debated whether it is canon or not).

As a thought experiment: There is a difference between Hickman's narration and how Cyclops/Jean/Emma/Wolverine are shown (implied), versus if they instead drew up scenes showing Logan and Cyclops post-coitus sharing a cigarette.

[OG Storm]

That is no different than any other point in Mutant history, and yet other writers have not relished so much in having the 'heroes' kill the 'villains'.

For example, X-men Second Coming presumably had the same stakes that you are saying is justification for Kitty killing Orchis soldiers - Bastion's troops are trying to kill (Insert name) Mutant in that moment, and are trying to kill all mutants. Why do you think Sentinels have been the villain dujour? So that writers can show heroes 'killing' robots without there being any moral questions by the reader.

Why is there an X-Force book, if all mutants are now doing X-Force type actions because of 'logic'?
X-Force made a meal out of the dilemma of killing an Apocalypse baby, when the same justifications for killing could be used.


Yes, the logic works - it is war, and in war killing is allowed. But the difference is that the logic is being used now, when the same logic didn't apply to similar situations by other writers. Other writers went out of their way to prevent their heroes from killing (ie. using robots as the enemies), having X-Force type mutants be the ones doing the killing, or having it be off panel or just implied.

Duggan's X-men are explicitly being shown doing the killing. While you may argue that it is just pearl clutching to not want to show that the mutants are killing, there is a difference between what is shown on page (commonly accepted as canon), and things that are implied or occur off panel (debated whether it is canon or not).

As a thought experiment: There is a difference between Hickman's narration and how Cyclops/Jean/Emma/Wolverine are shown (implied), versus if they instead drew up scenes showing Logan and Cyclops post-coitus sharing a cigarette.

This is simply not true. The outback era exists, cyclops fake revolutionary era exists. How long do you think the mutants should always be so passive?

Trauma accumulates. They aren't trying to take over the world or starve the families of orchis members. They are willfully killing people that want to wipe them out. It's not pearl clutching it's basic survival and judgement. They just had their nation ethnically cleansed exiled to another dimension that was actively trying to kill them or shipped to arakko during a civil war or scattered across the multiverse with furies hunting them in otherworld. I don't know if people understand the scope of this threat and why the x-men have chosen to kill like they did in the past.

[Gray Lensman]

There's a difference between fighting crime, and fighting a war, especially a war where the other side is open about the end goal of extermination.

Audie Murphy is counted as a hero, and he has an impressive body count. But then, the morality of fighting war isn't the same as fighting crime.

[Zoks]

Just to remind everyone it depends on the mutant. Not all of them have been wantonly killing people in this war. Gambit for example hasn't been killing any the humans, the only confirmed kill he has so far is Angel (lol).

Edit: I double-checked, Rogue is clean too.

[LordUltimus]

The fact that white people will get significantly outnumbered in the future is also an objective fact at this point, just look at current birth rates in the western countries and all around the world. The problem is how much people are freaking out over something that will happen when they and their grandchildren are long gone, versus some real problems that we will face soon like effects of climate change.

It's just that some people are so used to being the majority that they can't face the idea of becoming a minority, even in the abstract sense (as it won't happen to them personally).

Not within the next 10-20 years, which is what HoX/PoX established.

[LordUltimus]

Mutants being "better" than baseline Humans enh, sure, but is it the ONLY next step?

I mean, yeah, Hickman established that mutants would totally replace humans within a few decades, and the only other options was to be replaced by soulless robots.

(Speaking of, shouldn't the whole anti-AI thing make all the non-Sentinel AI hate mutants too?)