Fox Apologizes, Promises to Remove Controversial "X-Men: Apocalypse" Billboard

[Georgios3377]

Hello Boys and Girls.

Like you i am a lover of comic books and a collector. Currently i am holding a sizable collection of 1500 comic books which dates to Marvel Dimond age. Currently i am in another forum discussion with a few feminist extremists who believe that the billboard represented violence against women. You can see the whole discussion here https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/18133060-is-the-marvel-apocalypse-movie-poster-vaw?page=1" . My entry in discussing the issue is at the bottom of the first page. After that several people gang up on me for even daring to stand up to what i believe is wrong. This is ofcourse a forum that deals with feminism (a cause which i support without having any extremist views). However i believe that something that all here have in common in our cultures have been unfightefully assaulted. I would request the help of any of you who would like to support my arguments in that message board, because as i said i am currently being ganged up by unreasonable people. Thanks to all in advance, and please help a fellow marvel and comic book fan.

[Star_Jammer]

Rose shouldn't have to learn the context of the billboard. No one should have to learn the context of a promotional billboard.
Just because you are a fan, and you understand the context, doesn't mean it is the duty of all people who don't understand the context, to do so. For you.

It's like you don't even know how to step outside of being a fan long enough to see how non-fans would maybe view the billboard.
It's like you don't even want to try to see it from a non-fan perspective at all.

I saw this billboard where an animated female rabbit was hugging up on an animated male fox. The male fox looked pretty disgusted at the whole ordeal; perhaps the rabbit was fondling the fox? There was also a second billboard featuring these 2 animated creatures, one where the rabbit was pulling the fox by his tie. It doesn't look like he wanted to go where the rabbit was leading him, plus dragging someone by their tie is a choke hazard (kek).

Not to mention, I hardly think rabbits and foxes generally get along well with each other. Obviously the rabbit is taking advantage of the fox in some shape or form.

Should I be offended?

[Lax]

Because we just can't let a billboard go? Why are people seemingly FAR more concerned about and attached to this billboard than Fox was?

If you're tired, quit.

Correct but pointless. Using the term "women" to address depictions of violence against women is not meant to be a literal description of this one billboard.
Everyone knows that there is only one woman in the picture.

Not meant? This "one billboard" is the subject of Rose McGowan's ire and the focus of this entire thread. If "violence against women" is not meant to be a description of the subject in question then it shouldn't have be said. My argument criticizes what she's actually saying, your counter-argument is that she doesn't literally mean what she's saying.

Again, correct but pointless nitpick. Any depiction of individual men and women is literally about those individual men and women (or "woman," to make you happy). But they are also part of a collective whole. I don't think Fox indented for this image to be anything other than Mystique vs Apocalypse; but it is still an image of a man choking a woman. And, as such, it's merits are up for debate.

It's not a "pointless nitpick", the collectivist premise is far too often accepted without critical thought. If intent alone is a viable defense then we are officially lost in the land of subjectively where there is zero room for rational debate and no argument has any more "merit" than another.

It is entirely possible that Fox intended for the billboard to draw in more paying costumers while also serving as innocent women-beating propaganda.

It is entirely possible that Fox intended for the billboard to draw in more paying costumers.

It is entirely possible that Rose intended to bully Fox into submission because authoritarian's enjoy exercising power over others.

It is entirely possible that Rose intended to lessen violence against women in some abstract way via shutting down this billboard.

As neither of us are mind readers any "debate" we would have about other people's state of mind, Rose or Fox, is pure speculation. If any element of our discussion could be labeled "pointless", that would be it. Therefore, what we are left with as objective facts is the image on the billboard itself, what Rose McGowan is actually saying and Fox's apology.

You're correct that additional information is given. But, you make assumptions based on information not available in the image. To someone unfamiliar with the X-Men, how does s/he know the blue guy is the "villain," that the worldview expressed is his, and/or that said worldview is wrong? None of that context is available in this billboard.

As such, it becomes an image of a blue man choking a blue woman while advocating for the "strong" all as a means to entice viewers to buy a movie ticket.

I wasn't just right about the additional information provided, I was also right about that information translating into actual context for the image in question. Rose McGowan claimed "There is no context in the ad, just a woman getting strangled." That statement is categorically false. There is a meaningful difference between a billboard of "A random blue man strangling a random blue woman" and a billboard of "A random blue man strangling a random blue woman with a movie title, villainous phrase, and release date".

It would be assumed that the blue guy is the villain because if he were the hero the movie wouldn't seem very exciting, which is counter-productive for a billboard that is designed to draw in paying customers. It would be assumed that the worldview is his because he's the "strong" one of the image, people intuitively understand that losing a fight is not a sign of strength. It would be assumed that his world view is wrong because taken to it's logical conclusion, babies are doomed, as they're by far the weakest members of society.

Trying to insult and shame Rose as a "bully" isn't an argument either; it's just the type of "bullying" you seem to say your are against.

Wrong origin point.

Fox in no way, shape, or form, insulted or shamed Rose McGowan. However, McGowan decided it was appropriate to insult and shame Fox with her "stupid" and "look in the mirror" nonsense.

In response to her unprovoked verbal abuse toward Fox I called her a "bully" and rightfully so. That label is not an "insult", it is an accurate description of the woman's behavior toward people who have done her no harm.

Goes both ways.

Not when my argument is superior to her argument, the burden of proof is on her.

You're right that the two are unrelated criticisms.

But, then you make-up and assign a conclusion not supported by any evidence as a means to create "sexism" for you to be against.

Except I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to her. You may accept that the two criticisms are unrelated but she presented them as if they weren't.

I explained the consequences of her treating those criticisms as if they were related to show why it was a problem. Correcting that flawed line of reasoning has significance beyond this article or billboard.

Ah, yes, it's just not complete without the mandatory 'the world is crumbling, and I am here to save us all' trope.

And now you're mocking me which is... expected.

When a set of behavior is proven successful, that success encourages more of the behavior.


When insults and shaming tactics devoid of a valid argument are proven successful, that success encourages more insults and shaming tactics devoid of a valid argument. Once that behavior becomes the norm, escalation will ensure.

How is speaking out against casual attitudes regarding violence against women "cowardice," especially given that so many have been verbally attacking her in response?

Fox are cowards because instead of standing by their own product, which they poured time, thought and money into, they choose to submit to the whim of a bully who's argument amounts to projecting "women's" vulnerability on a billboard.

"Lacking in sound reasoning" according to whom? Do you speak for everyone as the Grand Judge of All That's Sound?

According to the superior argument, which, so far, is mine, until proven otherwise. I speak for myself, which is enough, the number of people who agree is irrelevant to the validity of my argument.

Everyone else in this thread agreeing with me wouldn't make me right.

Everyone else in this thread disagreeing with me wouldn't make me wrong.

"Perfectly fine" according to you?

It's not about me, it's about my argument.

Are you all knowing?

No, nor do I have to be all knowing to be right about this specific issue.

Have you had every life experience?

No, nor do I have to experience every possible life experience to be right about this specific issue.

Isn't it "sound" to think it's possible that people can have different views on things like billboards?

Rose McGowan's argument is the sword and your argument is the shield.

Rose McGowan isn't talking about some personal preference for billboards. She's talking about morality, which every person aspiring to be virtuous must follow in order to qualify. I called her an authoritarian for a reason, the moment she started bringing morality into the discussion the fun and games were over and her argument needed to be appropriately bullet proof. Her argument failed to meet that necessary standard.

As for "freedom," aren't Rose and others free to express criticism of a image she/they finds troubling, and isn't Fox free to choose to take down a billboard even though they meant no offense? Yet, your comments here only seem concerned about the freedoms of those you agree with.

Two different situations in relation to how "free" their choices are in terms of career risk.

Rose McGowan's criticisms has the advantage of taking place in a society that is so passionate it's borderline fanatical about protecting women. That people will, in general, accept even the weakest argument as if it were the stronger as long as it's in the name of protecting "women". Any resistance to this borderline fanaticism is perceived not as attacking the argument, but rather, attacking the women the argument is supposedly designed to protect.

Careers can get ruined over this kind of nonsense. The one's responsible for the billboard at Fox have something to lose, Rose McGowan does not.

[Tazirai]

I don't know. Apparently, Rose doesn't according to Tazirai since he is the one that said she should learn it.
I mean, *I* get it because I read comics, and I know Mystique, but to me, that doesn't mean that all people should know about how these things work or that all should be okay with it.

Apparently not. The average non comic book fan can understand what's actually happening in that image. Rose, I fear seeks relevance, she is going to lose more than gain. Because she comes across as a fanatic, defending the poor woman from the bad man, in a movie series even the average bear knows about.

She succeeded and failed. Because the more people like her do stuff like this, actual issues get swept under the rug.