X-Men #12 Spoilers/Review Thread

[BobbysWorld]

Okay, first of all, I said there was "potential for a good grey-vs-grey story", not that they are doing it. I explicitly said that they are under-using and wasting Orchis's potential...

And second:

Cassandra Nova wanted to genocide all mutants too, and she has been allowed in Krakoa.

Xorn wanted to throw all humans into cremation ovens alive, and he is walking freely and is treated like a good guy.

Sinister wanted to wipe both mutants and humans and replace them with his clones.

Apocalypse wanted humans, mutants and everybody else to butcher each other forever for the sake of his own ideals of "evolution".

Selene wanted to conquer the world with an army of mutant zombies and revert Humanity to Palelithic hunter-gatherers...

On the other side, there are plenty of non-genocidal characters who could have been used: Guardian and Gyrich, for example. The Indian scientist who helped Moira become a robot, and the survivors from Terra Verde could have joined too. And I don't think Brand and Feilong are genocidal...

There is potential there... it will probably go to waste, yes, and it is a pity, but it could be done.

You know what's interesting about all those examples?

They're still literally all INDIVIDUALS and thus my point, which you quoted, stands exactly as I stated it originally.

Just as the fact that Orchis explicitly has a genocidal agenda means that any of its members - whether or not, if left to their own devices, they would individually seek genocidal actions towards mutants - are still explicitly okay with the overall approach Orchis takes being, y'know, genocidal.

And thus. My point. Which you quoted. Stands exactly as I stated it originally.

An organization declaring war on an entire people can not be reciprocated unless the people they're targeting then declare war on an entire people in turn. Mutants wanting Orchis destroyed is one thing, but mutants wanting HUMANITY completely destroyed, based on the actions or threat posed by Orchis, THAT is what would literally make them the equivalent of Orchis wanting MUTANTS completely destroyed, based on the actions or threat posed by the individual mutants you named, and others.

Are mutants talking about declaring war on humanity, based on Orchis' existence or actions?

No.

Ergo: false equivalency is false, and even your hypothetical about how it COULD be made to be an equivalent exchange is STILL a false equivalency, because the only true equivalency would require the existence of even a group of mutants plotting the extermination of humanity, and no such group exists in ANY of the books, at this time. And even if such a group WERE present in the books, the only actual equivalency would at that point STILL only be between THAT genocidal anti-human organization, and Orchis' genocidal anti-mutant organization.

The mutant amnesty deal only covered PAST actions. No matter what mutants think about those actions individually, they explicitly did NOT include amnesty for FUTURE actions. So mutants even 'being okay' with the actions of mutant villains in the past, in order to allow for the universal inclusion deal that was the entire BASIS of the Krakoan experiment....is NOT the same thing as saying that mutants as a whole would condone mass murder of humans moving FORWARD....and the same can not be said to be true of Orchis personnel in reverse. And as one of the three initial laws of Krakoa is literally kill no human, and even mutants who have in the past attempted genocide all explicitly agreed to it, you categorically can not pretend that the mutant amnesty deal is the same thing as X-Men saying we'd have no problem with any Krakoans trying to wipe out humanity at some point in the future....which again....exact opposite of what Orchis members tacitly agree to by signing up with that organization.

Unless every mutant character on Krakoa at some point gets on board with the idea that Krakoa wiping out humanity on mutants' behalf is something they'd actually be okay with, there is no scenario in which Orchis vs Krakoa is an equivalent moral conflict. None. Nada. Zip. Kaput. Zero.

[Grinning Soul]

BobbysWorld, maybe I got it wrong, but I don't think Habis attempted to establish the equivalence between the nation and the organization. I understood they were talking exactly about individuals, who happen to belong to Krakoa and Orchis.

The context of their first message was about the depth of the antagonists and how some could be considered more grey than straight out evil and that could make an interesting story when you put them against protagonists who are morally grey as well. Sure, a writer could be tempted to make this false equivalency (which I very much doubt), but that would depend on their execution. I don't suppose Habis suggested that should be the angle for the story.

Nothing of this reflects my opinions, by the way. I'm just trying to help, because it seems to me you're misunderstanding each other.

[BobbysWorld]

BobbysWorld, maybe I got it wrong, but I don't think Habis attempted to establish the equivalence between the nation and the organization. I understood they were talking exactly about individuals, who happen to belong to Krakoa and Orchis.

The context of their first message was about the depth of the antagonists and how some could be considered more grey than straight out evil and that could make an interesting story when you put them against protagonists who are morally grey as well. Sure, a writer could be tempted to make this false equivalency (which I very much doubt), but that would depend on their execution. I don't suppose Habis suggested that should be the angle for the story.

Nothing of this reflects my opinions, by the way. I'm just trying to help, because it seems to me you're misunderstanding each other.

No, I understand what they're saying, but there's simply no way to put 'agreeing to be a member of a nation that advertises itself to its citizens as being a refuge from oppression and puts forth NO agenda that involves or justifies mass murder of humans' on an equivalent level to 'agreeing to be a member of an organization that advertises itself to its members as being a vanguard/defense against the alleged mutant threat by putting forth an agenda that explicitly involves and justifies mass murder of mutants.'

That is what their comparison is ACTUALLY juxtaposing, and it simply does not work, and creates a false equivalency that is directly comparable to the way the worst actions of the worst members of various demographics is repeatedly upheld as justification for violence towards those demographics. I have no issue with Habis personally as I don't know them, but I am not about to just sit here and not say anything while they literally put forth 'the existence of bad actors can be used to justify actions against an entire group' arguments as though they're actually reasonable and not a foundational component of institutionalized oppression. Just like (doctored) statistics about criminals of color are used to justify or distract from issues of police brutality, the idea of 'gay panic' was for decades used (and still is in some places) to justify or distract from violence against gay people, solitary examples of LGBTQ+ predators or pedophiles have been held forth as justification for widespread views of LGBTQ+ people as inherently dangerous to children, etc.

It is a deeply flawed and objectionable train of thought, whether its presented in real life or in discussions about fiction, and sorry not sorry, but I'm damn well gonna point that out when its relevant to the conversation. And this conversation made that relevant.

(And before anyone raises the point, I'm aware I've taken part in frequent discussions involving readers or characters talking about humanity as though human characters are unilaterally responsible for various actions or views towards mutants. That is apples and oranges to this situation, because there is a distinct difference between ACTIONS taken towards a group and references made towards a group. Talking about humans in the Marvel universe in general terms when discussing persecution of mutants in abstract discussions of accountability is an entirely different thing from talking about Orchis' actions and stated goals towards mutants en masse as though they can be legitimized by the actions of views of specific individual mutants. Intentionally or not, Habis was not just broadly talking about mutant accountability in terms of actions taken against humans. Orchis has a specific agenda, which their point treated as legitimized by talking about KRAKOA as some kind of equal aggressor in an existential conflict that Orchis INITIATED.)

[Grinning Soul]

No, I understand what they're saying, but there's simply no way to put 'agreeing to be a member of a nation that advertises itself to its citizens as being a refuge from oppression and puts forth NO agenda that involves or justifies mass murder of humans' on an equivalent level to 'agreeing to be a member of an organization that advertises itself to its members as being a vanguard/defense against the alleged mutant threat by putting forth an agenda that explicitly involves and justifies mass murder of mutants.'

That is what their comparison is ACTUALLY juxtaposing, and it simply does not work, and creates a false equivalency that is directly comparable to the way the worst actions of the worst members of various demographics is repeatedly upheld as justification for bigotry towards those demographics. I have no issue with Habis personally as I don't know them, but I am not about to just sit here and not say anything while they literally put forth 'the existence of bad actors can be used to justify actions against an entire group' arguments as though they're actually reasonable and not a foundational component of institutionalized oppression, just like (doctored) statistics about criminals of color are used to justify or distract from issues of police brutality, the idea of 'gay panic' was for decades used (and still is in some places) to justify or distract from violence against gay people, solitary examples of LGBTQ+ predators or pedophiles have been held forth as justification for widespread views of LGBTQ+ people as inherently dangerous to children, etc.

It is a deeply flawed and objectionable train of thought, and sorry not sorry, but I'm damn well gonna point that out when its relevant to the conversation. And this conversation made that relevant.

Well, based on what they wrote, I don't think they tried to make any of those arguments, but I'm not a mind-reader: I can't talk about their intentions. Maybe they can clarify that if they feel like it. But maybe it won't matter anyway, right?

[BobbysWorld]

Well, based on what they wrote, I don't think they tried to make any of those arguments, but I'm not a mind-reader: I can't talk about their intentions. Maybe they can clarify that if they feel like it. But maybe it won't matter anyway, right?

No, it matters. For what its worth, I only object to the argument. I'm not offended or worked up, I'm just attempting to be extremely clear here. I'm not a mind-reader either, I don't know how Habis intended the argument, or how they really feel about it or anything of the sort. But I'm not trying to either. I'm simply responding to the argument as presented, and saying why its flawed and should be regarded as such, in its present form. What people do with that is entirely up to them.

[Grinning Soul]

No, it matters. For what its worth, I only object to the argument. I'm not offended or worked up, I'm just attempting to be extremely clear here. I'm not a mind-reader either, I don't know how Habis intended the argument, or how they really feel about it or anything of the sort. But I'm not trying to either. I'm simply responding to the argument as presented, and saying why its flawed and should be regarded as such, in its present form. What people do with that is entirely up to them.

Okay, but my point is that I don't think any argument was presented the way you read it. Maybe you are right and they intended it to be an argument exactly as you're reading.

But what is actually written, in the context of their first message, is simply putting characters who are morally grey to oppose each other. The protagonists happen to be from Krakoa, because that's the point of view of the story. The antagonists happen to be from Orchis, for the same reason.

And I think that's the source of the misunderstandings between you.

[BobbysWorld]

Okay, but my point is that I don't think any argument was presented the way you read it. Maybe you are right and they intended it to be an argument exactly as you're reading.

But what is actually written, in the context of their first message, is simply putting characters who are morally grey to oppose each other. The protagonists happen to be from Krakoa, because that's the point of view of the story. The antagonists happen to be from Orchis, for the same reason.

And I think that's the source of the misunderstandings between you.

And I think you're misunderstanding the issue that I'm raising here. Because the issue isn't that characters who are morally grey are put in opposition to each other. The issue is that the Krakoan side of things still inherently includes innocents, who have taken no aggressive actions towards humanity nor do they have any desire to. No matter what the personal agendas, sentiments or morality of various individuals acting in defense of Krakoa - at least so long as their actions don't include any targeting of human innocents while citing Orchis and their actions as a justification.

The Orchis side of things however inherently does not include innocents. Because Orchis is explicitly an anti-mutant organization with a clear and present agenda of violence towards mutants as a whole - not just specific individuals, but all mutants, all of Krakoa, including any innocents present there.

Orchis by its very nature, exists purely to wage violence against mutants in a way that Krakoa, by its very nature, does NOT exist purely to wage violence against humans.

Orchis personnel signing up to join Orchis, while knowing its agenda and reason for existing, its clearly stated goals of violence towards mutants - is inherently a violent act in and of itself. It is comprised of the willing and intentional agreement to participate in violence against mutants, just like any person who joined up with any real life hate group, like the KKK, the Proud Boys, any group that exists with the explicit intent to wage violence on another demographic.

And you simply can not pit a group comprised COMPLETELY of individuals who implicitly agree to violence towards an entire demographic by their very participation in that group.......against another group of individuals like those Quiet Council members named by Habis, who no matter their individual beliefs or actions are still ONLY directing violence towards the former GROUP (Orchis), and not the entire demographic Orchis claims to be working in defense of, aka humanity as a whole.

Because to do so inherently treats the two groups as equivalent aggressors, and attempts to treat any conflict between the two as one between equals, with equivalent stakes and purposes.

And that's simply undeniably NOT true in this instance. Because no matter the individuals in question, on Krakoa's side, they're still acting on behalf of an entire population, including innocents, while restricting their violent intents and acts towards not human populations as a whole, but humans who have voluntarily named themselves participants in this conflict by signing up to join an organization that exists to aim violence towards mutants, no matter who they might be or the threat they might pose individually.

Orchis is a hate group. A fictional one, true, but it literally exists because it deems mutants as a whole to be justifiable targets of violence and attempted genocide.

Krakoa, no matter how many hateful individuals it might have working for it or on its behalf, does NOT exist because it deems humans as a whole to be justifiable targets of violence and attempted genocide, nor are even its worst members actually treating that as the situation in question. They do not exist on the same axis, and trying to treat them as such can ONLY ever serve to legitimize or justify Orchis' actions as being the (earned) equivalent of anything Krakoans direct Orchis' way.

And that is a bad take.

[Grinning Soul]

And I think you're misunderstanding the issue that I'm raising here. Because the issue isn't that characters who are morally grey are put in opposition to each other. The issue is that the Krakoan side of things still inherently includes innocents, who have taken no aggressive actions towards humanity nor do they have any desire to. No matter what the personal agendas, sentiments or morality of various individuals acting in defense of Krakoa - at least so long as their actions don't include any targeting of human innocents while citing Orchis and their actions as a justification.

The Orchis side of things however inherently does not include innocents. Because Orchis is explicitly an anti-mutant organization with a clear and present agenda of violence towards mutants as a whole - not just specific individuals, but all mutants, all of Krakoa, including any innocents present there.

Orchis by its very nature, exists purely to wage violence against mutants in a way that Krakoa, by its very nature, does NOT exist purely to wage violence against humans.

Orchis personnel signing up to join Orchis, while knowing its agenda and reason for existing, its clearly stated goals of violence towards mutants - is inherently a violent act in and of itself. It is comprised of the willing and intentional agreement to participate in violence against mutants, just like any person who joined up with any real life hate group, like the KKK, the Proud Boys, any group that exists with the explicit intent to wage violence on another demographic.

I get of all this. I even agree with it in about 99.9999999% of the cases (because I allow the for existence of people within Orchis who are brainwashed, mind-controlled, misled by grief, mental illness or even mental deficiency who are not necessarily evil).

The rest of your post is the actual issue. You don't seem to be able to see any possibility for things to be executed differently and therefore you must defend your position. It's all right. I get it and I respect it. But I don't see the point in presenting a different argument. It was never my intention anyway. I just understood by your exchange with Habis that you both were talking about different things and I tried to help. That's all. But perhaps it didn't do any good...

I'm logging off now. Have a good one.

[Exodus]

I share that reading with you in part: Jean and Cyclops have decided not to get involved with the government of Krakoa and in a way, they are avoiding some moral responsibility.

Another argument is: Internal reform rarely works and you may end up complicit instead of fixing things from within.

And both readings fit me with the characters. Cyclops knows better than anyone how much you have to dirty your hands leading a mutant nation, it seems natural for him to say "No, this time I won't be the one to carry that weight". Jean has seen the worst of Krakoa in X-Force.

very great points. I just wished the authors would have pointed out more clearly that Jean followed a different political imaginary what a nation could be. Because just a comic series earlier (X-Men: Red) she started to develop a new concept for it. She had a contrasting vision what Krakoa could be beyond a nation state that is geographically defined. Hence, because of the lack of arguments it feels more like argument 1 for me: "Honey, let's just return to some old status-quo where the world was still a little simpler."

Cyclops as well could have given a clear voice what he wants to see and what he learned from his own mistakes. Jean and Cyclops are clearly in opposition but we never really understand why.

Krakoa and its government is barely formed. I think "internal reforms from within" is definitely still a possibility because the institution is not a historically grown one. The government was simply implemented by its leaders a year earlier...

[BobbysWorld]

I'm not unable to see any way it could be executed differently because I'm just being stubborn for the hell of it, but because sometimes there is no such thing as middle ground.

If the options are a group defending against genocide of mutants, and a group wishing to initiate genocide against mutants, you literally have to pick one or the other. There is no compromise to be had there. There is no 'well both sides make points, actually.' There is no middle ground.

The middle point between defending against the complete extermination of mutants and the active attempt to completely exterminate all mutants?

Is still a lot of dead mutants.

And with that, I'm done too. Night folks.

[Grinning Soul]

I'm not unable to see any way it could be executed differently because I'm just being stubborn for the hell of it, but because sometimes there is no such thing as middle ground.

If the options are a group defending against genocide of mutants, and a group wishing to initiate genocide against mutants, you literally have to pick one or the other. There is no compromise to be had there. There is no 'well both sides make points, actually.' There is no middle ground.

The middle point between defending against the complete extermination of mutants and the active attempt to completely exterminate all mutants?

Is still a lot of dead mutants.

And with that, I'm done too. Night folks.

[I don't have much time, so I'll type this quickly and I hope it will be clear. Fingers crossed. :D]

But here is the problem: you're the one who is making a point of basing the centre of gravity of the narrative in the ideological merit of Orchis against Krakoa. I don't think any current writer in the Krakoa era would do that. And I don't think Habis implied that.

Habis was talking about individuals, as you pointed out yourself.

Here's an idea: Orchis is presented as the evil group they are. The antagonist is presented as the evil person they are, who happen to have a personal motivation beyond they're hateful and that's it. Okay?

After this is established, evil villain does something despicable that you'd expect them to do. But because the protagonists aren't heroes they respond in a less-than-moral way.

Orchis continues to be the big evil. Protagonist continues to be morally-grey, defending Krakoa.

Can you see that scenario happening without comparing Orchis and Krakoa's missions? Can you see how this would have a different flavour than if Orchis was opposed by protagonists who are heroes and who wouldn't resort to less-than-moral options?

Because that's what I suppose Habis imagined would be interesting and what they would like to see.

[Habis]

All I have said is:

1.-I like that Marvel has bothered giving villains/antagonists actual motivations this time, instead of just making them evil for the sake of being evil and racist for the sake of being racist.

2.-I think there is POTENTIAL for a more nuanced and morally grey conflict than usual (even if Marvel doesn't seem to be heading in that direction right now), rather than presenting it as a clash between absolute evil and absolute good.

But @BobbysWorld seem uninterested in a narrative beyond absolute evil vs absolute good, which is weird because, if you like that the X-Men are rubbing shoulders with Mr. Sinister and Cassandra Nova in Krakoa, I would expect to have some interest in a story beyond goodies vs baddies... otherwise, what's the point...?

[Frobisher]

I agree with you on this. But I also disagree that the X-team has been depicted as absolutely morally righteous. Synch has used Jean's powers to mind-wipe a journalist, Jean is still struggling from the fact that a version of herself has destroyed an entire planet's population, Laura likes to stab things, Polaris drinks too much coffee, etc.

what separates them from the Council is the desire to do good on a simpler stage and not governing a nation through scheming. I would still prefer if the X-Men are somehow more directly framed as a political opposition. It feels like Jean and Scott rejecting responsibility and to get their hands dirty through politics.

Heh, Synch wiping a journalist's memories for a couple of days before putting them back reminds me of the time British Prime Minister Theresa May was asked what the naughtiest thing she'd done was, and all she could think of was running through a field of wheat as a child. I mean, she almost certainly had actual blood on her hands as Premier of a country!

[Grinning Soul]

2.-I think there is POTENTIAL for a more nuanced and morally grey conflict than usual (even if Marvel doesn't seem to be heading in that direction right now), rather than presenting it as a clash between absolute evil and absolute good.

Interesting. But, please, allow me to play devil's advocate here.

I can imagine possibilities in which *individual* antagonists (or a sub-section of Orchis) could drive a smaller conflict against Krakoa that could be presented as nuanced and morally grey. But I can't see how Orchis, as an organization, could possibly be presented that way without making some changes to its core first.

So if you forget about Krakoa and its citizens and focus on Orchis only, would you answer those two questions?

1) Can you imagine a way to present current Orchis, as an organization, that could be understood as nuanced and morally grey?

2) And if so, how would you describe it?

Even though I can't see it, I'm really open-minded on this issue. I'm genuinely curious. :)

[Gray Lensman]

Interesting. But, please, allow me to play devil's advocate here.

I can imagine possibilities in which *individual* antagonists (or a sub-section of Orchis) could drive a smaller conflict against Krakoa that could be presented as nuanced and morally grey. But I can't see how Orchis, as an organization, could possibly be presented that way without making some changes to its core first.

So if you forget about Krakoa and its citizens and focus on Orchis only, would you answer those two questions?

1) Can you imagine a way to present current Orchis, as an organization, that could be understood as nuanced and morally grey?

2) And if so, how would you describe it?

Even though I can't see it, I'm really open-minded on this issue. I'm genuinely curious.

The only potential person I see working with Orchis that could be morally grey is Abigail Brand, because her motivations are to protect much more than any single group. She is still going down a very, very dark and slippery slope, and I think her story currently fits better with watching a character fall from grey to black than maintaining one's position, but it could be done.

Orchis as a whole though? There is no grey when your goal is "Kill them! All of them! For the crime of merely being born!".