Comics Debate & Discourse: How To Be a Hero By Being An Ally

[Scarlet Frost]

Anger is mostly bad. Passion, and anger that drives that passion, a hope, a sympathy, a pain, yes.

But, not just anger, more positive emotions then that.

And, it shouldn't just be all around, and directed more at the right times, places, people.

Certainly not at me.

Anger is not negative but the actions that can come from it can be. If it wasn't for anger, a lot of positive changes would not have happened.

[Matt A]

Not me. I've never been a fan of nothing but white guys in my books but whenever I say something that is what gets thrown back at me. All I ask is that when I am seeing your point of view you do the same. There is a very loud voice dominating this discussion that says my point of view is irrelevant and that trying to understand it won't benefit the discussion. Well, that is not a discussion is it?

Minority persons understand the point of view of people in the majority. They're intimately familiar with it. They have to be to survive. That point of view is the basis of most interactions people have in daily life.

Your point of view isn't irrelevant, it's taken as read. We'd like to stop getting bogged down in what we all know and actually make some headway, that's all.

[the4thpip]

Anger is mostly bad. Passion, and anger that drives that passion, a hope, a sympathy, a pain, yes.

But, not just anger, more positive emotions then that.

And, it shouldn't just be all around, and directed more at the right times, places, people.

Certainly not at me.

Don't confuse anger with hate.
I hate hate, but I'll defend anger till the day I die.

[Ed Cunard]

As it says in the column itself:

Even if you are worried that your race, gender, political alignment or orientation is part of the group that's part of the problem, it doesn't mean anyone is accusing you, personally.

I cannot figure out how this aspect of the discussion always gets missed. I mean, if we're sticking our discussion on "rationality" and "objectivity" (which, in most cases, is total horse-pucky anyway), the upset reaction to pointing out that, well, yeah, there tends to be a certain group of people whose members are the ones vocally protesting any kind of change to either character or reader demographics is... well, an upset, emotional reaction lacking dispassionate objectivity, innit?

[cranger]

Minority persons understand the point of view of people in the majority. They're intimately familiar with it. They have to be to survive. That point of view is the basis of most interactions people have in daily life.

Your point of view isn't irrelevant, it's taken as read. We'd like to stop getting bogged down in what we all know and actually make some headway, that's all.

So, you think the post I quoted showed any understanding of my point of view? I agree with the premise of what you are saying but I am talking about specifics that are happening in communities like this where I could point out a number of examples just in this thread and it is those examples I am pointing out do not help with what this topic was trying to achieve.

[Double 0]

What you're talking about is an ally of convenience. That person is an ally because others will think better of them for it, not because they actually care. They attempt to dominate the discussion and are generally worthless when it's time for the real work.

An actual ally is less concerned with their feelings of comfort and much more interested in the people they're an ally of. It would never occur to an ally that they'll leave if the person they're an ally of doesn't preface every recognition of injustice with a caveat that #notallwhatever.

Minority persons understand the point of view of people in the majority. They're intimately familiar with it. They have to be to survive. That point of view is the basis of most interactions people have in daily life.

Your point of view isn't irrelevant, it's taken as read. We'd like to stop getting bogged down in what we all know and actually make some headway, that's all.

As it says in the column itself:



I cannot figure out how this aspect of the discussion always gets missed. I mean, if we're sticking our discussion on "rationality" and "objectivity" (which, in most cases, is total horse-pucky anyway), the upset reaction to pointing out that, well, yeah, there tends to be a certain group of people whose members are the ones vocally protesting any kind of change to either character or reader demographics is... well, an upset, emotional reaction lacking dispassionate objectivity, innit?

All of these quotes. Fantastic. This thread is picking up for the better. Great to see the discourse moving forward for once instead of in circles.

[PretenderNX01]

I don't think depression, gay suicides and drugs had a whole lot to do with the lack of fictional representation. when more acceptance those things came to.

Well, I walked in those shoes and I can tell you it does.

Definitely, it helps to see people like yourself as equals. And also there was more acceptance after Ellen came out and even after Will&Grace were on TV (maybe not the greatest showing but it was a gay guy in people's home's each week)

So if someone grows up in a family and enviroement way ahead of the curve on gay issues won't have a better life than on that grows up in a place that is behind the curve but there are way more good gay characters on tv?

Certainly both are better than the person who grows up with a family behind the curve and doesn't see themselves in anything. But there's more: part of representation also isn't just for the people in it, it's for normalizing other groups for the viewer. People who only see one depiction of black people begin to think that's the only kind of black people. People who only see one depiction of LGBT think that's the only way LGBT exist.

If a kid sees women as scientists in a TV show, he might not be so surprised to see on in a college class. If he sees black superheroes he might not think all black people are thugs. If he sees LGBT at all he might realize we are real.

I don't remember the last movie i saw that actually vilified gay people.

Well there's an argument about how many villains are "queer coded" just as how many criminals in TV/Film just happen to be brown. Bigotry is't always so obvious but then you realize the only brown people in that are villains and the only gender non-conforming are creepy and the team is led but a white male.

It won't ever be perfect. So what? That does not mean that there is not plenty of room for improvement but if you are aiming for perfection you won't ever enjoy the fruits of anything.

You got to aim high to reach high.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

As it says in the column itself:



I cannot figure out how this aspect of the discussion always gets missed. I mean, if we're sticking our discussion on "rationality" and "objectivity" (which, in most cases, is total horse-pucky anyway), the upset reaction to pointing out that, well, yeah, there tends to be a certain group of people whose members are the ones vocally protesting any kind of change to either character or reader demographics is... well, an upset, emotional reaction lacking dispassionate objectivity, innit?

Are there people having problems with original minority characters built from the ground up having success? Do white people try to exclude everyone else from comic conventions?

[Shawn Hopkins]

As it says in the column itself:



I cannot figure out how this aspect of the discussion always gets missed. I mean, if we're sticking our discussion on "rationality" and "objectivity" (which, in most cases, is total horse-pucky anyway), the upset reaction to pointing out that, well, yeah, there tends to be a certain group of people whose members are the ones vocally protesting any kind of change to either character or reader demographics is... well, an upset, emotional reaction lacking dispassionate objectivity, innit?

Oh yeah. Rational, objective and reason are abused in these debates. Some people seem to define them as "truths handed down by me from atop white guy mountain, where I can see the issues affecting your minority group better than you."

Are there people having problems with original minority characters built from the ground up having success? Do white people try to exclude everyone else from comic conventions?

Uh, you don't remember the "fake geek girl" controversy or the attractive cosplayers witch hunts? It's not just white males, but male fans routinely play gatekeeper at cons.

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

Oh yeah. Rational, objective and reason are abused in these debates. Some people seem to define them as "truths handed down by me from atop white guy mountain, where I can see the issues affecting your minority group better than you."

Ain't that the frelling truth.

[toysoldier]

What you're talking about is an ally of convenience. That person is an ally because others will think better of them for it, not because they actually care. They attempt to dominate the discussion and are generally worthless when it's time for the real work.

An actual ally is less concerned with their feelings of comfort and much more interested in the people they're an ally of. It would never occur to an ally that they'll leave if the person they're an ally of doesn't preface every recognition of injustice with a caveat that #notallwhatever.

I do not think supporting someone means you ought to accept vitriol and abuse. I also do not think that having a valid complaint means you get a pass on being abusive. If a group spends a great deal of time attacking its supporters, I do not see why those supporters should stick around. The group makes it clear that what is wanted is not their support, just the appearance of it.

[Scarlet Frost]

Are there people having problems with original minority characters built from the ground up having success? Do white people try to exclude everyone else from comic conventions?

Is there a way for you to rephrase your questions that do not require the person answering to do the catch 22 dance?

Asking if "white people try to exclude everyone else from comic conventions" means you want those to lump all white people together when everyone knows that's not true.

[Scarlet Frost]

I do not think supporting someone means you ought to accept vitriol and abuse. I also do not think that having a valid complaint means you get a pass on being abusive. If a group spends a great deal of time attacking its supporters, I do not see why those supporters should stick around. The group makes it clear that what is wanted is not their support, just the appearance of it.

A group that attacks its supporters doesn't have supporters nor do they want them. I can't see why any group would want to attack its supporters.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

Is there a way for you to rephrase your questions that do not require the person answering to do the catch 22 dance?

Asking if "white people try to exclude everyone else from comic conventions" means you want those to lump all white people together when everyone knows that's not true.

Are there significant pockets of white people that want to exclude minorities, wish no original minority characters would take off?

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

Ain't that the frelling truth.

People here have no problem telling Iran or Russia what to do.