Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[ed2962]

The onion rings from Sonics are too sweet.

[Agent Z]

I'm curious, and hold no real opinion, not having given it much thought before. Could you expand on your position?

The femme fatale character is essentially a demonization of the sexually active woman. It basically vilifies and, in many cases, punishes female characters for being sexual. A common argument against the push to make female characters more modest in design is that such actions are prudish, sexist and sex negative but that is far more true of constantly making female villains so associated with sexuality.


This article explains it way better than I could

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/sexual...mpression=true

[DrNewGod]

The femme fatale character is essentially a demonization of the sexually active woman. It basically villifies and, in many cases, punishes female characters for being sexual. A common argument against the push to make female characters more modest in design is that such actions are prudish, sexist and sex negative but that is far more true of constantly making female villains so associated with sexuality.


This article explains it way better than I could

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/sexual...mpression=true

You did pretty well on your own. Thanks.

[TheRay]

I, personally, think everybody deserves respect until they don’t. Respect isn’t earned, disrespect is.

[godisawesome]

The femme fatale character is essentially a demonization of the sexually active woman. It basically villifies and, in many cases, punishes female characters for being sexual. A common argument against the push to make female characters more modest in design is that such actions are prudish, sexist and sex negative but that is far more true of constantly making female villains so associated with sexuality.


This article explains it way better than I could

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/sexual...mpression=true

I agree: it’s basically an attempt to manipulate the Madonna-Whore complex for dramatic tension.

In comics, the way that “Evil outfits” pretty much always involve greater sexual option for girls ties perfectly into it. Peter David’s quietest Brick Joke in Young Justice, where Arrowette mentions fear that she’ll go evil, only to get freaked out at the idea that will mean she’ll also suddenly get cleavage... only for the final arcs of the book to feature “Dark Arrowette” with, you guessed it, cleavage.

...I think I’m allowed to see that as clever parody on his part, but I would have no problem admitting I’m wrong.

[Adam Allen]

I agree: it’s basically an attempt to manipulate the Madonna-Whore complex for dramatic tension.

In comics, the way that “Evil outfits” pretty much always involve greater sexual option for girls ties perfectly into it. Peter David’s quietest Brick Joke in Young Justice, where Arrowette mentions fear that she’ll go evil, only to get freaked out at the idea that will mean she’ll also suddenly get cleavage... only for the final arcs of the book to feature “Dark Arrowette” with, you guessed it, cleavage.

...I think I’m allowed to see that as clever parody on his part, but I would have no problem admitting I’m wrong.

Meh, I'm not going to say the "evil = scantily clad" thing does not have some merit, but you know really, consider the genre. It's not like comics have traditionally needed to have a female character be evil, to put her in a skimpy outfit. Any excuse or none, often enough.

[Jim Kelly]

We should never take down statues or try to ban flags. They are pieces of a past who did happen and trying to forget the past is the worst thing a people can do.

You really have to evaluate on a case by case basis. Some works of art are so culturally significant that they shouldn't be destroyed like the Buddhas of Bamyan--and as with them, they couldn't be taken from where they were to another location. Some statues can be moved--and that's what the United States and Canada should do--just move them into a facility where they can be preserved and evaluated. If the government was really interested in protecting them from vandals, that's a simple solution, rather than bringing in outside security to break the heads of real live human beings (human flesh should be more valued than artificial representations of humans).

A lot of the contentious statues were erected decades after the historical figures they memorialize. And they were put there in the U.S. by white supremacists who wanted to impose a revisionist history on the land. A way to re-educate white people into believing a fictional narrative and to terrorize black people. Moreover, a lot of them are just plain ugly--so they have no worth in any sense. If they were melted down, the metal could be put to better use. But throwing them into lakes and rivers is not a sound solution--just take them down and store them somewhere for further study.

[Kirby101]

Maybe the problem with statues of people like Lee and Columbus isn't people wanting to take them down, but maybe so many of them should not have been put up in the first place. Columbus in particular was because of a false historical narrative about him and his embrace by the Italian American community more for reasons of community identity than anything to do with Columbus himself.

[Gray Lensman]

Maybe the problem with statues of people like Lee and Columbus isn't people wanting to take them down, but maybe so many of them should not have been put up in the first place. Columbus in particular was because of a false historical narrative about him and his embrace by the Italian American community more for reasons of community identity than anything to do with Columbus himself.

Columbus was embraced by the founding fathers as a means to distance ourselves from England. They figured that an Italian (which wasn't even a country back then) couldn't be used by England to try and reinstate their claim to North America - the founding fathers even referred to themselves as Columbians rather than Americans (there was no nation on Columbia back then either) as there were plenty of other places in the landmass of the Americas.

After the War of 1812 when the U S Navy built a full on ship of the line they created a new class of naval gun between the cannon and the carronade and called it the columbiad. They had an odd idea that all three types of gun on the ship should fire the same weight of shot.

[Kirby101]

But it was really Wahington Irving's fantastical biography that formed the Columbus myth for America.

[Jack Dracula]

I'd be in favor of replacing the statues of Columbus with those of other prominent Italians who don't happen to be associated with genocide. Maybe Leonardo DaVinci or Galileo?

[Jim Kelly]

Given I live in British Columbia, I'm ambivalent about disparaging the names Columbus, Colombia, Colombo etc. just because of one guy. Colomba in Italian means dove--it comes from Latin. In the Comedie del Arte there's Columbine (Little Dove). I prefer to think that the name of my province refers to peace--even if that's not its true origin.

In Canada, people want to take down statues of John A. MacDonald and remove his name from buildings. John A. was the first prime minister of Canada and is one of the fathers of Confederation. I don't think anyone has ever had illusions about his character. He's always been portrayed as a flawed human being and someone that at least half the country hated. But his place in history is undeniable and I think it would be stupid to remove him from the historical record. Beyond that, are we really to shame every person and every street that happens to have the name MacDonald?

[babyblob]

I have no problem with people who want to display statues of flags on private land. I love the civil wars. I have all kinds of flag both union and confederate. I have figures of Great, Burnside, Lee and Stonewall Jackson. I would be mad as hell if someone came to my house and destroyed them. But I would never ask that public money be spent to build and maintain statues of Lee and Jackson. Museums or private land is where they belong if they are a part of history. But mobs tearing them down on their own is not the answer. I also dont think we should get rid of statues of founding fathers or rename building simply because they were slave owners.

[Agent Z]

Given I live in British Columbia, I'm ambivalent about disparaging the names Columbus, Colombia, Colombo etc. just because of one guy. Colomba in Italian means dove--it comes from Latin. In the Comedie del Arte there's Columbine (Little Dove). I prefer to think that the name of my province refers to peace--even if that's not its true origin.

In Canada, people want to take down statues of John A. MacDonald and remove his name from buildings. John A. was the first prime minister of Canada and is one of the fathers of Confederation. I don't think anyone has ever had illusions about his character. He's always been portrayed as a flawed human being and someone that at least half the country hated. But his place in history is undeniable and I think it would be stupid to remove him from the historical record. Beyond that, are we really to shame every person and every street that happens to have the name MacDonald?

Again, a statue is not a history book. Taking down a statue of a Confederate is not removing his place in history and it sure as hell is not comparable to shaming anyone with the name MacDonald.

I don't see anyone suggesting we build statues of the Americans who defected to the Soviet Union during the Cold War or the people behind 9/11 to "preserve their history". A statue is not a historical record. It's made for one thing and one thing only: glorification.

[Kirby101]

Funny, I remember the same people who say taking down the statues is an affront to history cheering when the statues of Saddam were being torn down.