politics in comics

[ed2962]

But we can blame conservatives for endorsing the most unqualified, unprofessional, man child with no filter as opposed to Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich.

I can't argue against that...

[millernumber1]

But Trump got all that air time because he was a celebrity who kept saying outrageous things. Kim Kardashian or Sean Puffy Combs would have gotten similar coverage if they acted the same I believe.

So? I would be against them getting the extra coverage as well as against them as candidates, just as I was against Trump's coverage and candidacy.

[CentralPower]

I really appreciate your perspective. And not as someone who probably agrees with you - you say you worked on a Green candidacy, whereas I could never bring myself to do that, since I'm really hardcore conservative. But your advocacy of trying to understand each other, and avoiding demonization of huge groups of people through entertainment media, really impresses me.

Thanks.

I was much more conservative as a younger man. (As I aged, and the fires of youth cooled, I drifted left. Draw what conclusions you might from that.) In real terms, that means that I am familiar with being demonized for a deviant political stance.

Even now, as I am a lefty, I recognize the need for political competition (hence my support for the Greens and Pirates). The left has a tendency to centralize control, and remove options from people's lives. The nanny state is a real problem in and of itself, even discounting the dangers of over-feeding Leviathan.

As much as I have been influenced by Hobbsian thought (and recognize the need for a state to allow for civilization), I also know that there is a danger in creating a necessary monopoly. (The poor quality of the area's mass transit system is testament to that.)

The best solution is to have competition between candidates and parties. Both the Democrats and Republicans hold too many issues "hostage". They do not have to be especially good on those issues, because they are the only ones taking specific stances on them.

And if you are excited by the idea of a civil war, you are making the world a worse place to live in.

I do not have the stomach to read that article now. (Not slighting it. But, I have read enough on that topic of late.) And, a friend of mine actually took the prospect of civil unrest (if not full-on war) seriously enough that he left the US a week before the elections last year.



Back to the original topic: Which creators in the industry are qualified to handled politics? My two picks are actually controversial. But, well....politics.

Nick Spencer and Nathan Edmondson. Both of them have been involved in politics outside of comics. I do not agree wholly with either of them. But, at least they have grounding in politics, rather than just piggy-backing on headlines.

[millernumber1]

Thanks.

I was much more conservative as a younger man. (As I aged, and the fires of youth cooled, I drifted left. Draw what conclusions you might from that.) In real terms, that means that I am familiar with being demonized for a deviant political stance.

Even now, as I am a lefty, I recognize the need for political competition (hence my support for the Greens and Pirates). The left has a tendency to centralize control, and remove options from people's lives. The nanny state is a real problem in and of itself, even discounting the dangers of over-feeding Leviathan.

As much as I have been influenced by Hobbsian thought (and recognize the need for a state to allow for civilization), I also know that there is a danger in creating a necessary monopoly. (The poor quality of the area's mass transit system is testament to that.)

The best solution is to have competition between candidates and parties. Both the Democrats and Republicans hold too many issues "hostage". They do not have to be especially good on those issues, because they are the only ones taking specific stances on them.

I do not have the stomach to read that article now. (Not slighting it. But, I have read enough on that topic of late.) And, a friend of mine actually took the prospect of civil unrest (if not full-on war) seriously enough that he left the US a week before the elections last year.

Back to the original topic: Which creators in the industry are qualified to handled politics? My two picks are actually controversial. But, well....politics.

Nick Spencer and Nathan Edmondson. Both of them have been involved in politics outside of comics. I do not agree wholly with either of them. But, at least they have grounding in politics, rather than just piggy-backing on headlines.

Your political path is amusing to me, since it's the opposite of the cliche - liberal as a youth, conservative as an elder. I agree that both sides are needed to counter for the blind spots of the other, even if I think the right tends to have better solutions. I'm much more Lockean, not surprisingly, I think, but I agree that human nature by itself cannot create a society that improves the lot of its citizens, thus leading to a necessary state.

Excellent point about the one-party issues. If Dems were more open on issues like religion and abortion, and Repubs more open on things like immigration, I think we'd have a lot less polarization. But instead, each party keeps building the walls higher.

I can totally understand not wanting to read super long articles - but I do really recommend Scott Alexander. He's definitely left-leaning, but he is actually interested in living in a country where people disagree with him. Has your friend returned to the states?

I kind of wish Spencer would just write full on politics, instead of playing with other people's toys. I was really unimpressed with all the narration and emotive nonsense in Secret Empire - which I think could have had some interesting things to say, but the execution really didn't work for me. I enjoyed Edmondson's run on Black Widow and the Jake Ellis books, but he doesn't seem to be writing anymore.

[Red Robe Jaldari]

The conservatives have won "The Culture Wars"? Or are you saying the liberals have?

I do not think of them as liberals anymore. The progressives have clearly won.

[Tupiaz]

Sounds like you only read the first sentence of my post and missed the point completely. No offense but from the outside it really does look like American liberals have a one-track mind, here we are over a year since the end of the election and you're still collectively throwing a tantrum about the electoral college. That is when you're not promoting wild conspiracy theories about how Russia has seemingly infiltrated every aspect of your society, it wasn't funny during the Cold War and that same paranoia is even more out of place now.

The truth is that America's electoral college isn't particularly different to how the rest of the Western democracies operate, both in mainland Europe and anything based on the Westminster system. Deliberately undermining the integrity of your own democratic process like this just makes you look bad, in the eyes of the world the American Liberals have already done more to damage the ideals of Democracy then Trump ever could. I don’t need to keep hearing the same identity politics talking points from you across every media that you touch, least of all in entertainment like comic books.

That depends of which European country you are thinking of.
First of in many European countries there is no president with power. France has a president with political power many other countries have a royal family and a democrat parlament. In the parlament you vote for the candidate. Based on the outcome of the election in the parlament (some will one have one house other will have two) they will pick a Prime Minister. In some countries you need as little as 2% of the voters to be represented in the parlament it is for instance 5% in Germany which means you have a socialist party and a green party in parlament. The country will be divided in certain sections and get representation based on the population (like in the house of representative). In addition to this some countries will have a few additional seats. Meaning if you score a certain average of votes on a nationallevel you will get a extra seat. This is done to try and make it fair and balanced. This means the political spectrum is much larger than it is the US which is lean heavily towards the right side of the political spectrum. England does have an electoral college however in many small countries like the Northeuropean countries doesn't have an electoral college.

One of the downsides you can argue is that some political are not directly voted in by voters but how they are ranked by the party. Politicians are often also bound to vote with the party on most laws (like tax blinds and so on) and are only allowed to vote against the party on moral issue (same sex marriage for instance). Some parties will be very top manage and expelled from the parties if the say outrages things/vote against the party. While others have a longer tradition for an open debate.

[ed2962]

So? I would be against them getting the extra coverage as well as against them as candidates, just as I was against Trump's coverage and candidacy.

Well, my point was that he got that coverage because a famous celebrity will bring ratings and clicks. The media is still a business (several businesses) before anything else.

[ed2962]

I do not think of them as liberals anymore. The progressives have clearly won.

Oh, I don't know about that...

[Tiamatty]

But, he earned those states.

The Republicans put in a lot of hard work suppressing the votes of minorities.

Voter suppression is still the biggest under-reported story from the 2016 election. The Republican Party are cheaters. They know they can't win on ideas, so they cheat. They cheat and they cheat and they cheat, using the absolute lie of voting fraud - something which simply does not happen - to bring in all sorts of voting restrictions which are specifically (and in an increasing basis, explicitly) designed to make it more difficult for minorities to vote.



Also, I'm unsure why this thread hasn't been locked, considering how far it's drifted from talk of comics.

[Tiamatty]

I do not think of them as liberals anymore. The progressives have clearly won.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

Though for the record, there is no "winner" of the "Culture Wars." Social justice isn't about victory. It's about the eternal march towards a better, more equitable future. That's the thing that the other side never seems to get. Like, they always ask "how much is enough" for things like diverse characters. The answer is, and always has been, "more." The question is wrong, because it presupposes an end goal that was never meant to exist.

The progressives haven't won. They've won some fights. There will always be more. And progressives will continue to win more than they lose, because that's how progress works. You can slow progress down. You can never stop it.

[Kintor]

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

Though for the record, there is no "winner" of the "Culture Wars." Social justice isn't about victory. It's about the eternal march towards a better, more equitable future. That's the thing that the other side never seems to get. Like, they always ask "how much is enough" for things like diverse characters. The answer is, and always has been, "more." The question is wrong, because it presupposes an end goal that was never meant to exist.

The progressives haven't won. They've won some fights. There will always be more. And progressives will continue to win more than they lose, because that's how progress works. You can slow progress down. You can never stop it.

I must say that I find it amusing how you've co-opted the rhetoric of industrialists and technologists, in regards to the endless march of progress. Identity Politics usually reeks of post-modernism, which despises the very idea of progress as they despise both history and the linear passage of time, for that would imply that post-modernism could one day be replaced by a newer movement. Must be the influence of all those Silicon Valley liberals, sharing that same Californian ideology but never quite able to deny the imperatives of technological advancement.

However, since you're suddenly so enamoured with the idea of 'progress', perhaps you should take heed about what the future might bring and what it will really mean for your brand of identity politics. As a species our technology has improved by leaps and bounds but the human form has always remained the same. Yet we stand on the precipice of a new era; through the convergence of brain-computer interfaces, artificial limbs and exponentially increasing digital processing power; when people will have the capacity to augment their physical capabilities beyond that of any human who has ever lived before. This era would render Identity Politics null and void, when power isn't defined by race or sexuality but rather one's willingness to embrace these new technologies.

I wonder, Tiamatty, if you will still cling to Identity Politics and oppose progress when you risk being rendered quite literally obsolete?

[Tiamatty]

I must say that I find it amusing how you've co-opted the rhetoric of industrialists and technologists, in regards to the endless march of progress. Identity Politics usually reeks of post-modernism, which despises the very idea of progress as they despise both history and the linear passage of time, for that would imply that post-modernism could one day be replaced by a newer movement. Must be the influence of all those Silicon Valley liberals, sharing that same Californian ideology but never quite able to deny the imperatives of technological advancement.

However, since you're suddenly so enamoured with the idea of 'progress', perhaps you should take heed about what the future might bring and what it will really mean for your brand of identity politics. As a species our technology has improved by leaps and bounds but the human form has always remained the same. Yet we stand on the precipice of a new era; through the convergence of brain-computer interfaces, artificial limbs and exponentially increasing digital processing power; when people will have the capacity to augment their physical capabilities beyond that of any human who has ever lived before. This era would render Identity Politics null and void, when power isn't defined by race or sexuality but rather one's willingness to embrace these new technologies.

I wonder, Tiamatty, if you will still cling to Identity Politics and oppose progress when you risk being rendered quite literally obsolete?

Uh, progressives don't despise history. Quite the contrary, acknowledging and learning from history is crucial. We generally don't go in for romanticizing history, but we still study it. In fact, a study of history is what demonstrates the inevitability of progress.

I'm quite fascinated by what the future will bring. It's going to be a long, long time before the sorts of augmentations you're talking about are widely available. They'll mostly be reserved for the wealthy, first, which means mostly white people. So technological progress, which already has a major effect on the sort of identity politics you hate, will continue to be a major issue in regards to social justice.

It's going to be a long, long, looooong time before "identity politics" becomes irrelevant. Very much unlikely in our lifetimes. If a day does come where being, say, a trans woman of colour presents no obstacles in society and they have the same opportunities and acceptance as cishet white men? Cool. That's a day worth looking forward to. That day is not today, and anyone who does think trans women of colour have the same opportunities and acceptance as cishet white men is a delusional, self-centred jackass who is not worth talking to, because they've made a conscious decision to not make the tiniest effort to listen to the experiences of people who aren't them.

[Kintor]

Uh, progressives don't despise history. Quite the contrary, acknowledging and learning from history is crucial. We generally don't go in for romanticizing history, but we still study it. In fact, a study of history is what demonstrates the inevitability of progress.

I'm quite fascinated by what the future will bring. It's going to be a long, long time before the sorts of augmentations you're talking about are widely available. They'll mostly be reserved for the wealthy, first, which means mostly white people. So technological progress, which already has a major effect on the sort of identity politics you hate, will continue to be a major issue in regards to social justice.

It's going to be a long, long, looooong time before "identity politics" becomes irrelevant. Very much unlikely in our lifetimes. If a day does come where being, say, a trans woman of colour presents no obstacles in society and they have the same opportunities and acceptance as cishet white men? Cool. That's a day worth looking forward to. That day is not today, and anyone who does think trans women of colour have the same opportunities and acceptance as cishet white men is a delusional, self-centred jackass who is not worth talking to, because they've made a conscious decision to not make the tiniest effort to listen to the experiences of people who aren't them.

You don't care about the future at all, Identity Politics is about holding society back and keeping things in a permanent state of now with no hope for a better life. That's the key thing here, 'hope'. Identity Politics doesn't want things to get better, when the only meaning you have is by dividing society into smaller and smaller groups of those deemed the most oppressed. Without a perceived enemy to fight your life would have no purpose.

Getting what you claim to want would mean you would lose all the power you currently hold over society. That's why you're scared of technology and scared of the future, trying to hand wave away what I say as being impossibly out of reach. But the future is coming, sooner than you think. The technologies I describe already exist and even now are being readied for consumer release, it will mean the end of your Identity Politics.

[Tiamatty]

You don't care about the future at all, Identity Politics is about holding society back and keeping things in a permanent state of now with no hope for a better life. That's the key thing here, 'hope'. Identity Politics doesn't want things to get better, when the only meaning you have is by dividing society into smaller and smaller groups of those deemed the most oppressed. Without a perceived enemy to fight your life would have no purpose.

Getting what you claim to want would mean you would lose all the power you currently hold over society. That's why you're scared of technology and scared of the future, trying to hand wave away what I say as being impossibly out of reach. But the future is coming, sooner than you think. The technologies I describe already exist and even now are being readied for consumer release, it will mean the end of your Identity Politics.

Uh-huh.

And your position is about rejecting the fact that society is not equal, is nowhere near equal, and that able-bodied neurotypical cishet white men enjoy a great deal of privilege and power via power structures designed to entrench that power and to create massive obstacles to anyone who wants to gain access to those power structures.

In the short term, I have concerns about the ways in which technology will be used to further the divide between those with money and power and those without. In the long term, I believe in the power of technology to make a better world for everyone.

Regardless, you don't actually understand a damned thing about progressivism. Progressivism is why slavery is illegal. It's how Apartheid ended. It's why same-sex marriage is becoming legal in more and more places, and why more trans people are feeling comfortable being who they are. It's why accessibility laws exist to benefit the disabled. It's why the neuroatypical aren't subjected to shock therapy any more.

Progressivism is why the world is a better place today than it was a thousand years ago, or a hundred years ago, or a decade ago. And, frankly, progressivism is also more supportive of technology than conservatism. Which is why progressives are the ones who are fighting to preserve net neutrality while conservatives stand by and do nothing. (Reminder: Every single Trump supporter owns the FCC's vote to eliminate net neutrality, and when Internet providers start charging more for different site, throttling speeds and putting barriers in place to prevent online innovation, every single Trump supporter is going to own that, too.)

[Kintor]

And your position is about rejecting the fact that society is not equal, is nowhere near equal, and that able-bodied neurotypical cishet white men enjoy a great deal of privilege and power via power structures designed to entrench that power and to create massive obstacles to anyone who wants to gain access to those power structures.

No offense but 'able-bodied neurotypical cishet white men' is the term you're going with? That phrase is practicality a crime against the English language, overly complicated and ugly to pronounce. Language is supposed to be about communication, to share ideas between people and persuade others towards a certain course of action. You've reduced language to a crude weapon, designed to bully your opponents into submission without fostering any greater understanding. Those words are stolen and rearranged into a macabre parody of their true meaning, like everything else that Identity Politics co-opts. This is why Identity politics is against progress and against the future, you can't create, only destroy.