ValiantFans.com Board - Since 2004

Message Board Top Level | Main Website | Price Guide | Book Release History | Official Calendar |
It is currently Jan 17, 2019 7:03:57 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:24:43 am 
Personal shoe-shopper for Atom!
Personal shoe-shopper for Atom!

Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:50:49 pm
Posts: 268
Location: London
Valiant fan since: 1994
Favorite character: GIN-GR
Favorite title: Rai
Favorite writer: Matt Kindt
Favorite artist: Clayton Crain
I'm on the anti-Heather train...because she is younger than me and worked hard to achieve this position. (a.k.a I'm jealous) :oops: :lol:

In all seriousness, I hope that she will do a good job in the role.

Judging by the number of people in the industry congratulating her and saying that it was good to work under her, I think that she will.

_________________
This is what happens when you try to work...


Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+
Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:00:44 am 
innerSPACE does whatever I tell them
innerSPACE does whatever I tell them
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:51:43 am
Posts: 7445
Location: On the 7.5th floor of LesterCorp, headed through the back door to John Malkovich's brain.
Valiant fan since: 1991
Favorite character: Aric
Favorite title: Harbinger
GammaJosh wrote:
I have been seeing comments about this all over Facebook today and took the opportunity to educate myself.

Heather Antos was an assistant editor at Marvel and worked mostly on Star Wars books around the launch of their new titles in 2015-2016. I subscribed to all those books at my LCS and they were mostly great. She did not work on any of the flagship titles, nor did she work on any of the female-lead or legacy-replacment (ie. Sam Wilson Cap, Jane Foster Thor) titles that some people have complained about. As an assistant editor on licensed Star Wars titles, she would have had very little influence at Marvel, especially within the superhero universe.

Yet I have repeatedly seen Heather blamed for the "downfall of Marvel" or Marvel's "SJW direction". As far as I can tell this is because of the "milkshake incident". She posted a photo of female Marvel staff out at a restaurant getting milkshakes, and drew a torrent of harassment from fans who weren't happy with Marvel's then-current offerings. She didn't take it lying down, stood up for herself online, displaying her personal politics to a degree in her posts.

Blaming her for the direction of Marvel's books because of her personal tweets and opinions doesn't make any sense, because again, she would have had very limited influence as an assistant editor of Star Wars titles. However, she seems to have become inextricably linked with the stories and new characters that people don't like from recent Marvel, and that is where most of the hatred is coming from. Basically people who use the term "SJW" think Heather is an "SJW", hate her, and assume she was a big reason why they don't like what Marvel's been doing lately (which, one last time, doesn't make any logical sense based on her actual job at Marvel).

Here's a news story on the milkshake debacle: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/news/female-marvel-comics-editor-harassed-online-milkshake-selfie/

Personally, leaving my own politics out of it and just looking at her track record in comics, I think she is young, only moderately experienced, but worked on some great comics so I will remain optimistic.

For people who don't like her because of her politics, I would suggest that most of the industry is probably more in line with her than them. We're talking about young, creative types who live in big cities. Good luck finding comics made only by people who share their beliefs. If it's really that big a problem for them, they should probably also get rid of everything Stan Lee ever did, too, because that was comics #1 "SJW" right there. He may have had more tact online, but his stories make it pretty clear where he stood.

I say welcome and good luck, Heather!


A great post with an informed & healthy opinion, man! Love the Stan Lee comment especially. :high-five:

I also say welcome & good luck to Heather :clap:

_________________
I like to draw stuff... http://grendeljd.deviantart.com/

My wife likes to draw stuff too, and she is better than me! [I'm very proud of her]... https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sara-Dec ... ref=stream


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:12:58 am 
Especially "dude." And "balls." Those terms work in the tech industry.
Especially "dude." And "balls." Those terms work in the tech industry.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:38:36 am
Posts: 5637
Location: Seattle
Valiant fan since: Solar #1
Favorite character: Rai
Favorite title: Currently Ninjak
TheFerg714 wrote:
lorddunlow wrote:
Some guys around here are showing their misogyny...

Sjw alert.


I had to look up what that acronym meant, and now I know it means millennial.


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:17:10 am 
Especially "dude." And "balls." Those terms work in the tech industry.
Especially "dude." And "balls." Those terms work in the tech industry.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:38:36 am
Posts: 5637
Location: Seattle
Valiant fan since: Solar #1
Favorite character: Rai
Favorite title: Currently Ninjak
ilzuccone wrote:
lorddunlow wrote:
all the CGers


I haven't been around much either... what's a CGer?!


I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't understand the lingo, and I used to work at Twitter!


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:29:20 am 
I'm Chiclo. My strong Dongs paid off well.
I'm Chiclo.  My strong Dongs paid off well.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:09:11 am
Posts: 20005
Location: Texas
Favorite character: Kris
GammaJosh wrote:
I have been seeing comments about this all over Facebook today and took the opportunity to educate myself.

Heather Antos was an assistant editor at Marvel and worked mostly on Star Wars books around the launch of their new titles in 2015-2016. I subscribed to all those books at my LCS and they were mostly great. She did not work on any of the flagship titles, nor did she work on any of the female-lead or legacy-replacment (ie. Sam Wilson Cap, Jane Foster Thor) titles that some people have complained about. As an assistant editor on licensed Star Wars titles, she would have had very little influence at Marvel, especially within the superhero universe.

Yet I have repeatedly seen Heather blamed for the "downfall of Marvel" or Marvel's "SJW direction". As far as I can tell this is because of the "milkshake incident". She posted a photo of female Marvel staff out at a restaurant getting milkshakes, and drew a torrent of harassment from fans who weren't happy with Marvel's then-current offerings. She didn't take it lying down, stood up for herself online, displaying her personal politics to a degree in her posts.

Blaming her for the direction of Marvel's books because of her personal tweets and opinions doesn't make any sense, because again, she would have had very limited influence as an assistant editor of Star Wars titles. However, she seems to have become inextricably linked with the stories and new characters that people don't like from recent Marvel, and that is where most of the hatred is coming from. Basically people who use the term "SJW" think Heather is an "SJW", hate her, and assume she was a big reason why they don't like what Marvel's been doing lately (which, one last time, doesn't make any logical sense based on her actual job at Marvel).

Here's a news story on the milkshake debacle: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/news/female-marvel-comics-editor-harassed-online-milkshake-selfie/

Personally, leaving my own politics out of it and just looking at her track record in comics, I think she is young, only moderately experienced, but worked on some great comics so I will remain optimistic.

For people who don't like her because of her politics, I would suggest that most of the industry is probably more in line with her than them. We're talking about young, creative types who live in big cities. Good luck finding comics made only by people who share their beliefs. If it's really that big a problem for them, they should probably also get rid of everything Stan Lee ever did, too, because that was comics #1 "SJW" right there. He may have had more tact online, but his stories make it pretty clear where he stood.

I say welcome and good luck, Heather!


This is why when the Valiant fans gather, we drink beer and not delicious milkshakes.


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:33:24 am 
I'm Chiclo. My strong Dongs paid off well.
I'm Chiclo.  My strong Dongs paid off well.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:09:11 am
Posts: 20005
Location: Texas
Favorite character: Kris
TheFerg714 wrote:
lorddunlow wrote:
Some guys around here are showing their misogyny...

Sjw alert.


I have talked politics on and off with Dunlow for years and I will vouch that while he is left-wing, he is not an sjw. He is a free-thinking left-winger who arrived to his own beliefs.

SJWs have a very shallow ideology and follow after personalities rather than ideas. The exact same is true of the alt-right, possibly even a shallower ideology, concerned with personality over thought, belief and ideas. It is not political discourse, it is an internet-wide game of hateful tic-tac-toe. Us vs. them at its very worst.


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:05:11 am 
Bradley is not unsupervised anymore.
Bradley is not unsupervised anymore.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:07:18 pm
Posts: 22295
Location: Adrift on the Seas of Fate
Valiant fan since: 1991
Favorite character: Aric
Favorite title: Shadowman
possumgrease wrote:
ilzuccone wrote:
lorddunlow wrote:
all the CGers


I haven't been around much either... what's a CGer?!
They’re sort of like opinions, except they’re actually *SQUEE*.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :clap: :clap: :clap:

_________________
I DO NOT EAT, DRINK OR ABSORB SOULS, DAMMIT!


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:06:56 am 
Bradley is not unsupervised anymore.
Bradley is not unsupervised anymore.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:07:18 pm
Posts: 22295
Location: Adrift on the Seas of Fate
Valiant fan since: 1991
Favorite character: Aric
Favorite title: Shadowman
Chiclo wrote:
TheFerg714 wrote:
lorddunlow wrote:
Some guys around here are showing their misogyny...

Sjw alert.


I have talked politics on and off with Dunlow for years and I will vouch that while he is left-wing, he is not an sjw. He is a free-thinking left-winger who arrived to his own beliefs.

SJWs have a very shallow ideology and follow after personalities rather than ideas. The exact same is true of the alt-right, possibly even a shallower ideology, concerned with personality over thought, belief and ideas. It is not political discourse, it is an internet-wide game of hateful tic-tac-toe. Us vs. them at its very worst.

:thumb:

_________________
I DO NOT EAT, DRINK OR ABSORB SOULS, DAMMIT!


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:25:36 pm 
Personal shoe-shopper for Atom!
Personal shoe-shopper for Atom!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:26:20 pm
Posts: 330
Location: Washington, DC
Valiant fan since: 1992
Favorite character: Shadowman
Favorite title: Harbinger
Favorite writer: Fred Van Lente
Favorite artist: Barry Kitson
X-O HoboJoe wrote:
Chiclo wrote:
TheFerg714 wrote:
lorddunlow wrote:
Some guys around here are showing their misogyny...

Sjw alert.


I have talked politics on and off with Dunlow for years and I will vouch that while he is left-wing, he is not an sjw. He is a free-thinking left-winger who arrived to his own beliefs.

SJWs have a very shallow ideology and follow after personalities rather than ideas. The exact same is true of the alt-right, possibly even a shallower ideology, concerned with personality over thought, belief and ideas. It is not political discourse, it is an internet-wide game of hateful tic-tac-toe. Us vs. them at its very worst.

:thumb:



There is no set definition of "SJW", and I hope the personal bias in the answer above is obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out. I have never heard a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican use the term. It's an epithet used by the far right or alt-right against those on the far left, specifically against those who push for pro-diversity, anti-discrimination policies. If someone is using the term, it means they really do not like whoever it's directed at. It's a loaded term, to say the least.


Last edited by GammaJosh on Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:45:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:36:46 pm 
Personal shoe-shopper for Atom!
Personal shoe-shopper for Atom!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:26:20 pm
Posts: 330
Location: Washington, DC
Valiant fan since: 1992
Favorite character: Shadowman
Favorite title: Harbinger
Favorite writer: Fred Van Lente
Favorite artist: Barry Kitson
ilzuccone wrote:
lorddunlow wrote:
all the CGers


I haven't been around much either... what's a CGer?!


Boy are you in for a treat! Comicsgate is really quite relevant here since the harassment of Heather Antos was one of the more notable Comicsgate-related stories so far. Read and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comicsgate


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:26:22 pm 
I only beat my wife when I'm sober.
I only beat my wife when I'm sober.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:23:45 pm
Posts: 4417
Location: 619
GammaJosh wrote:
ilzuccone wrote:
lorddunlow wrote:
all the CGers


I haven't been around much either... what's a CGer?!


Boy are you in for a treat! Comicsgate is really quite relevant here since the harassment of Heather Antos was one of the more notable Comicsgate-related stories so far. Read and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comicsgate


Thank you for finally answering the question. :thumb:


I'm glad that I don't pay attention to, well, pretty much anything. :kidaround:


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:58:53 pm 
Harbinger rank: Shinia
Harbinger rank: Shinia
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 12:58:09 pm
Posts: 137
nycjadie wrote:
I had to look up what that acronym meant, and now I know it means millennial.


Do you even internet, bro? :)

Mike


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:03:02 am 
5318008
5318008
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:25:48 pm
Posts: 592
Valiant fan since: July 2014
Favorite character: Archer
Favorite title: Archer & Armstrong
Favorite writer: Joshua Dysart
Favorite artist: Juan Jose Ryp
So Dunlow can go ahead and call people misogynists for absolutely no reason, but I call him out for being a stereotypical lefty, and I'm the bad guy? Got it. :thumb:

jaden_sai wrote:

Kindly, please keep the bat signal for the CG crowd off of this Board

Sorry, I'll post where I please. I love Valiant (well... generally), so I'm going to keep coming to this board, whether you like my opinions or not.

On the topic of Antos, I'm neutral. I know she's an outspoken sjw, but if she can do a good job, while hopefully keeping her politics out of the books, I'm fine with it. I actually really loved Gwenpool, which Antos was intrumental in creating.


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:28:35 am 
I'm Chiclo. My strong Dongs paid off well.
I'm Chiclo.  My strong Dongs paid off well.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:09:11 am
Posts: 20005
Location: Texas
Favorite character: Kris
MGS wrote:
nycjadie wrote:
I had to look up what that acronym meant, and now I know it means millennial.


Do you even internet, bro? :)

Mike


Many of the old timers on this board pretty much don't. A few months ago, I realized that I pretty much cruise the internet today in the same way I did in 2006, except substitute Twitter for Myspace.


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:34:09 am 
I'm Chiclo. My strong Dongs paid off well.
I'm Chiclo.  My strong Dongs paid off well.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:09:11 am
Posts: 20005
Location: Texas
Favorite character: Kris
GammaJosh wrote:
X-O HoboJoe wrote:
Chiclo wrote:
TheFerg714 wrote:
lorddunlow wrote:
Some guys around here are showing their misogyny...

Sjw alert.


I have talked politics on and off with Dunlow for years and I will vouch that while he is left-wing, he is not an sjw. He is a free-thinking left-winger who arrived to his own beliefs.

SJWs have a very shallow ideology and follow after personalities rather than ideas. The exact same is true of the alt-right, possibly even a shallower ideology, concerned with personality over thought, belief and ideas. It is not political discourse, it is an internet-wide game of hateful tic-tac-toe. Us vs. them at its very worst.

:thumb:



There is no set definition of "SJW", and I hope the personal bias in the answer above is obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out. I have never heard a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican use the term. It's an epithet used by the far right or alt-right against those on the far left, specifically against those who push for pro-diversity, anti-discrimination policies. If someone is using the term, it means they really do not like whoever it's directed at. It's a loaded term, to say the least.


True believers - left and right wing - are uncomfortable with party labels. I am pretty extreme in my right-wing beliefs but I chafe under the label Republican, as many of my hard left-wing counterparts dislike the Democrat label. Ideologies are about belief and how you think the world should be; political parties are about surrender, compromise and playing an unending game that is designed to never be won. The Republicans are most of the time the lesser of two evils. The Democrats are always the bad guys to me, like the Dallas Cowboys, and the Republicans are like the team playing the Dallas Cowboys. I may dislike that other team but I just hope the Cowboys (Democrats) lose.


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:15:20 pm 
The admin around here must be getting old and soft.
The admin around here must be getting old and soft.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:39:27 am
Posts: 21544
Location: Indoors
Valiant fan since: Rai #0
Favorite character: Depends on title
Favorite title: Depends on writer
Favorite writer: Depends on artist
Favorite artist: Depends on character
Chiclo wrote:
The Republicans are most of the time the lesser of two evils. The Democrats are always the bad guys to me, like the Dallas Cowboys, and the Republicans are like the team playing the Dallas Cowboys. I may dislike that other team but I just hope the Cowboys (Democrats) lose.

That's a funny thing to say because we learn in elementary school human beings only need food, clothing, and shelter... and it's the Democrats who want to make sure everyone has those, and that seems to really make Republicans mad!

If people die of hunger, can't afford decent clothes, or don't have a place to live they shouldn't have been born into poverty, right? They should just get a job, right? Never mind the widows and orphans, leave my tax dollars alone! Churches are the answer for widows and orphans! If churches were the answer, we wouldn't have needed welfare in the first place.

The reasons vary for Republican distate for basic humanity. Sometimes it's racism, but it's generally described as believing lazy people deserve nothing, not wanting MY taxes to pay for basic human needs, belief that any suffering or poverty is deserved, etc. On the other hand, Democrats just protect lazy voters so they can stay in power. Assuming that is true, what's the alternative? Let people die of basic human needs but keep buying faster smart missiles?

Anytime it is pointed out that taxes barely pay anything for too-lazy-or-pregnant-to-work people welfare (because our grandmas are the real welfare recipients) and the biggest chunk of a tax dollar goes to the military, Republicans can't wait to CHEER about buying more global collateral damage killing machines. Because... they're the good guys?

It's sometime after elementary school when people decide everything they choose to believe is good and, consequently and unspoken, some people aren't really people.

Republicans may have convinced themselves that some policy about deciding what other people should be doing first in order to "earn" their basic human rights is the right way to govern, but it's hard to convince anyone outside the echo chamber.

Simple humanity should win, but that would mean the "bad guys" on the other side of the political aisle are human. Only a child would think that.


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:34:21 pm 
Clinkin' bottles with Aram
Clinkin' bottles with Aram
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:08:01 am
Posts: 2527
Location: England
Valiant fan since: 2012
Favorite title: XO Manowar
Favorite artist: Clayton Crain
:rant: alert

To be honest, I couldn't really care less for any announcement regarding a hiring or firing at Valiant. I don't really care who works there - I just want to read great comics, so I want announcements pertinent to the comics themselves: that's proper product marketing. These staff change announcements are frankly a waste of time imo, and a sign that Valiant's having a slow day in terms of having any kind of interesting news to report on.

As far as this 'milkshake incident' (etc.) goes, I think it's all incredibly weak. A bunch of guys have interpreted a photo of some women chilling out at a cafe as something it simply was never meant to be, and/or used the opportunity to try to deliver their hateful messages across the net to anyone that'll listen.

And all this bickering on the board: you've got some people that have different opinions than others and everyone's losing their *SQUEE* when others aren't agreeing with them. Calling people out as bigots and 'social justice warriors'... Whatever your perspective, all you're doing is making it clear that you disagree with the person you think you're calling out.

Call out the SJW for standing up for their beliefs, go on.
Call out the bigot for standing up for their beliefs, go on.

What did we achieve there? Only the perpetuation of hate, so job well done everyone.

And this notion that comics should all be politic-free comes from the fear that a story you want to enjoy will promote themes or perspectives that you're unfamiliar or uncomfortable with is idiotic: comics have been pushing agendas for as long as they've existed, and all you can do by spouting "Don't put politics into my comics" is demonstrating that you can't open your mind to at the very least considering another perspective, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Remember Captain America punching Hitler square on the jaw back in the day? Tell me that's not politics in comics, yet I doubt anyone here would be comfortable calling *SQUEE* on that one. But stick an overweight ethnic lesbian hero in a comic bashing up a white male villain and you'll have yourself a *SQUEE* right there.

Someone pointed out that the people creating comics aren't the same as those reading them, and they're right: A generational shift is mid-occurrence, and comics aren't going to be being largely created by middle-aged white males for much longer. The number of comics created by much younger male and female creators of a variety of different nations, ethnicities and religions is increasing, and if the middle-aged white right-wing comic reader can't handle that, then it's time for a new hobby.

_________________
Kurt Busiek wrote:
Bull$#!t


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:36:56 pm 
Clinkin' bottles with Aram
Clinkin' bottles with Aram
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:08:01 am
Posts: 2527
Location: England
Valiant fan since: 2012
Favorite title: XO Manowar
Favorite artist: Clayton Crain
You know, my only problem with the way Heather handled the 'milkshake incident' is that she followed up the next day by stating her disappointment at the level of hatred on the internet. She kind of missed the point there. That hatred doesn't stem from 'the internet' spontaneously: that's a direct link to the psyche of humanity right there - that hatred comes from PEOPLE.

That's very saddening.

_________________
Kurt Busiek wrote:
Bull$#!t


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:53:09 pm 
Especially "dude." And "balls." Those terms work in the tech industry.
Especially "dude." And "balls." Those terms work in the tech industry.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:38:36 am
Posts: 5637
Location: Seattle
Valiant fan since: Solar #1
Favorite character: Rai
Favorite title: Currently Ninjak
greg wrote:
Chiclo wrote:
The Republicans are most of the time the lesser of two evils. The Democrats are always the bad guys to me, like the Dallas Cowboys, and the Republicans are like the team playing the Dallas Cowboys. I may dislike that other team but I just hope the Cowboys (Democrats) lose.

That's a funny thing to say because we learn in elementary school human beings only need food, clothing, and shelter... and it's the Democrats who want to make sure everyone has those, and seems to really make Republicans mad!

If people die of hunger, can't afford decent clothes, or don't have a place to live they shouldn't have been born into poverty, right? They should just get a job, right? Never mind the widows and orphans, leave my tax dollars alone! Churches are the answer for widows and orphans! If churches were the answer, we wouldn't have needed welfare in the first place.

The reasons vary for Republican distate for basic humanity. Sometimes it's racism, but it's generally described as believing lazy people deserve nothing, not wanting MY taxes to pay for basic human needs, belief that any suffering or poverty is deserved, etc. On the other hand, Democrats just protect lazy voters so they can stay in power. Assuming that is true, what's the alternative? Let people die of basic human needs but keep buying faster smart missiles?

Anytime it is pointed out that taxes barely pay anything for too-lazy-or-pregnant-to-work people welfare (because our grandmas are the real welfare recipients) and the biggest chunk of a tax dollar goes to the military, Republicans can't wait to CHEER about buying more global collateral damage killing machines. Because... they're the good guys?

It's sometime after elementary school when people decide everything they choose to believe is good and, consequently and unspoken, some people aren't really people.

Republicans may have convinced themselves that some policy about deciding what other people should be doing first in order to "earn" their basic human rights is the right way to govern, but it's hard to convince anyone outside the echo chamber.

Simple humanity should win, but that would mean the "bad guys" on the other side of the political aisle are human. Only a child would think that.


I think humanity should win, but I'd like to see more resourcefulness - government, families, rich people. Many, many people are lazy, unless they are forced to be resourceful. I think many folks confuse those two concepts - laziness and lack of resourcefulness. Roosevelt gave people jobs. Today, we tend to give out handouts. I imagine we'd have a better infrastructure, sense of pride, and cultural legacy if we gave jobs. And instead of building walls, let's repair bridges.


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:12:52 pm 
I'm Chiclo. My strong Dongs paid off well.
I'm Chiclo.  My strong Dongs paid off well.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:09:11 am
Posts: 20005
Location: Texas
Favorite character: Kris
greg wrote:
Chiclo wrote:
The Republicans are most of the time the lesser of two evils. The Democrats are always the bad guys to me, like the Dallas Cowboys, and the Republicans are like the team playing the Dallas Cowboys. I may dislike that other team but I just hope the Cowboys (Democrats) lose.

That's a funny thing to say because we learn in elementary school human beings only need food, clothing, and shelter... and it's the Democrats who want to make sure everyone has those, and that seems to really make Republicans mad!

If people die of hunger, can't afford decent clothes, or don't have a place to live they shouldn't have been born into poverty, right? They should just get a job, right? Never mind the widows and orphans, leave my tax dollars alone! Churches are the answer for widows and orphans! If churches were the answer, we wouldn't have needed welfare in the first place.

The reasons vary for Republican distate for basic humanity. Sometimes it's racism, but it's generally described as believing lazy people deserve nothing, not wanting MY taxes to pay for basic human needs, belief that any suffering or poverty is deserved, etc. On the other hand, Democrats just protect lazy voters so they can stay in power. Assuming that is true, what's the alternative? Let people die of basic human needs but keep buying faster smart missiles?

Anytime it is pointed out that taxes barely pay anything for too-lazy-or-pregnant-to-work people welfare (because our grandmas are the real welfare recipients) and the biggest chunk of a tax dollar goes to the military, Republicans can't wait to CHEER about buying more global collateral damage killing machines. Because... they're the good guys?

It's sometime after elementary school when people decide everything they choose to believe is good and, consequently and unspoken, some people aren't really people.

Republicans may have convinced themselves that some policy about deciding what other people should be doing first in order to "earn" their basic human rights is the right way to govern, but it's hard to convince anyone outside the echo chamber.

Simple humanity should win, but that would mean the "bad guys" on the other side of the political aisle are human. Only a child would think that.


See, Greg gets it. :thumb:

In all seriousness, I am not for abolishing all these social welfare programs as I used to be. They serve a good purpose to some people and then are abused by just as many as who are being genuinely helped by them. What we need to do is work on reforming these programs so those that need the help get it and those who are abusing the system get purged from that same system. These social programs are as much of a game as the tax code is and like the tax code, there are those that play the game much to their benefit in ways that it was not intended.

So, don't abolish, just reform. :thumb:


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:14:39 pm 
The admin around here must be getting old and soft.
The admin around here must be getting old and soft.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:39:27 am
Posts: 21544
Location: Indoors
Valiant fan since: Rai #0
Favorite character: Depends on title
Favorite title: Depends on writer
Favorite writer: Depends on artist
Favorite artist: Depends on character
Chiclo wrote:
greg wrote:
Chiclo wrote:
The Republicans are most of the time the lesser of two evils. The Democrats are always the bad guys to me, like the Dallas Cowboys, and the Republicans are like the team playing the Dallas Cowboys. I may dislike that other team but I just hope the Cowboys (Democrats) lose.

That's a funny thing to say because we learn in elementary school human beings only need food, clothing, and shelter... and it's the Democrats who want to make sure everyone has those, and that seems to really make Republicans mad!

If people die of hunger, can't afford decent clothes, or don't have a place to live they shouldn't have been born into poverty, right? They should just get a job, right? Never mind the widows and orphans, leave my tax dollars alone! Churches are the answer for widows and orphans! If churches were the answer, we wouldn't have needed welfare in the first place.

The reasons vary for Republican distate for basic humanity. Sometimes it's racism, but it's generally described as believing lazy people deserve nothing, not wanting MY taxes to pay for basic human needs, belief that any suffering or poverty is deserved, etc. On the other hand, Democrats just protect lazy voters so they can stay in power. Assuming that is true, what's the alternative? Let people die of basic human needs but keep buying faster smart missiles?

Anytime it is pointed out that taxes barely pay anything for too-lazy-or-pregnant-to-work people welfare (because our grandmas are the real welfare recipients) and the biggest chunk of a tax dollar goes to the military, Republicans can't wait to CHEER about buying more global collateral damage killing machines. Because... they're the good guys?

It's sometime after elementary school when people decide everything they choose to believe is good and, consequently and unspoken, some people aren't really people.

Republicans may have convinced themselves that some policy about deciding what other people should be doing first in order to "earn" their basic human rights is the right way to govern, but it's hard to convince anyone outside the echo chamber.

Simple humanity should win, but that would mean the "bad guys" on the other side of the political aisle are human. Only a child would think that.


See, Greg gets it. :thumb:

In all seriousness, I am not for abolishing all these social welfare programs as I used to be. They serve a good purpose to some people and then are abused by just as many as who are being genuinely helped by them. What we need to do is work on reforming these programs so those that need the help get it and those who are abusing the system get purged from that same system. These social programs are as much of a game as the tax code is and like the tax code, there are those that play the game much to their benefit in ways that it was not intended.

So, don't abolish, just reform. :thumb:
I'm seriously going to freak out if Chiclo and I keep agreeing. :D


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:58:25 pm 
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
I think you might be a closeted Canadian.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:51:31 pm
Posts: 12963
greg wrote:
Chiclo wrote:
greg wrote:
Chiclo wrote:
The Republicans are most of the time the lesser of two evils. The Democrats are always the bad guys to me, like the Dallas Cowboys, and the Republicans are like the team playing the Dallas Cowboys. I may dislike that other team but I just hope the Cowboys (Democrats) lose.

That's a funny thing to say because we learn in elementary school human beings only need food, clothing, and shelter... and it's the Democrats who want to make sure everyone has those, and that seems to really make Republicans mad!

If people die of hunger, can't afford decent clothes, or don't have a place to live they shouldn't have been born into poverty, right? They should just get a job, right? Never mind the widows and orphans, leave my tax dollars alone! Churches are the answer for widows and orphans! If churches were the answer, we wouldn't have needed welfare in the first place.

The reasons vary for Republican distate for basic humanity. Sometimes it's racism, but it's generally described as believing lazy people deserve nothing, not wanting MY taxes to pay for basic human needs, belief that any suffering or poverty is deserved, etc. On the other hand, Democrats just protect lazy voters so they can stay in power. Assuming that is true, what's the alternative? Let people die of basic human needs but keep buying faster smart missiles?

Anytime it is pointed out that taxes barely pay anything for too-lazy-or-pregnant-to-work people welfare (because our grandmas are the real welfare recipients) and the biggest chunk of a tax dollar goes to the military, Republicans can't wait to CHEER about buying more global collateral damage killing machines. Because... they're the good guys?

It's sometime after elementary school when people decide everything they choose to believe is good and, consequently and unspoken, some people aren't really people.

Republicans may have convinced themselves that some policy about deciding what other people should be doing first in order to "earn" their basic human rights is the right way to govern, but it's hard to convince anyone outside the echo chamber.

Simple humanity should win, but that would mean the "bad guys" on the other side of the political aisle are human. Only a child would think that.


See, Greg gets it. :thumb:

In all seriousness, I am not for abolishing all these social welfare programs as I used to be. They serve a good purpose to some people and then are abused by just as many as who are being genuinely helped by them. What we need to do is work on reforming these programs so those that need the help get it and those who are abusing the system get purged from that same system. These social programs are as much of a game as the tax code is and like the tax code, there are those that play the game much to their benefit in ways that it was not intended.

So, don't abolish, just reform. :thumb:
I'm seriously going to freak out if Chiclo and I keep agreeing. :D
Well, you both have brains and logic and think for yourselves. You're bound to agree on some things.

I disagree with each of you pretty equally.

To the comments on here Re: sjw - the fact that anyone thinks calling someone a warrior who fights for social justice is an insult pretty much tells me everything I need to know about them. I know you're using it as a parroting phrase that links you to a common cause (those who want bigotry to be more common and accepted as it once was whether that be misogyny, racism, homophobia, or all of the above - either way, only people who think some people are less deserving of respect would use that term).

As far as me calling people misogynists, I merely said some here were letting their misogyny show. That's a general opinion I stated not calling anyone in particular out. If you feel I was calling you out specifically, then perhaps you feel that way because you were guilty of misogyny. Maybe you're just really vain and think my comment was about you.

As for the off-topic conversation about social justice, I would like my tax dollars to fund programs that provide food and shelter for the poor (lazy or not) because I'm not okay with letting someone starve when we have surplus of food and shelter. I don't think we should pay for their cable subscription or smart phone with service or internet. I don't think we should spend the majority of tax dollars on defense. It's honestly not needed. I'm not saying abolish the military, but maybe we don't bomb hospitals all over the world and get into every country's business in a violent (sorry, peacekeeping) way.

We really need universal health care. It's ridiculous that we don't. We're literally the only developed country that doesn't. There are no good arguments against it. The worry about those gaming the system to get benefits they don't deserve? Newsflash - all the people who would game any universal system (healthcare, welfare, food stamps, whatever) are already scamming the system. We're already paying for those people. Might as well help those that actually contribute to society as well. Universal healthcare hurts a very few people: insurance companies, hospital administrators, pharmaceutical companies/medical device manufacturers, and the politicians who get lots of money from the above. Doctors would make slightly less, nurses slightly more. Everyone is healthier and no one is punished for having the bad luck of being unhealthy. I can't understand how anyone can object.

The problem with the idea of everyone working is we're closely approaching a time where unskilled labor like fast food and such is all automated. Most factory work is already automated.

We're not far off from the unspoken problem of Roddenberry's utopia - if no one has to work for a living and everything is provided because there is no scarcity, why would anyone be a busboy at a restaurant or work as a bank teller? Not everyone can be a specialized/skilled worker and there isn't enough demand for the number of humans on the planet anyway. What do we do then? Starve those for whom there is no work just because we replaced them due to technological efficiency? That seems a little cruel.

Sent from my HTC U Ultra using Tapatalk

_________________
*SQUEE* your science, I have a machine gun.


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:18:22 pm 
The admin around here must be getting old and soft.
The admin around here must be getting old and soft.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:39:27 am
Posts: 21544
Location: Indoors
Valiant fan since: Rai #0
Favorite character: Depends on title
Favorite title: Depends on writer
Favorite writer: Depends on artist
Favorite artist: Depends on character
lorddunlow wrote:
greg wrote:
I'm seriously going to freak out if Chiclo and I keep agreeing. :D
Well, you both have brains and logic and think for yourselves. You're bound to agree on some things.

I disagree with each of you pretty equally.

I read everything you wrote and I don't think you are disagreeing equally... unless you mean "not at all". :D


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:34:56 pm 
Personal shoe-shopper for Atom!
Personal shoe-shopper for Atom!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:26:20 pm
Posts: 330
Location: Washington, DC
Valiant fan since: 1992
Favorite character: Shadowman
Favorite title: Harbinger
Favorite writer: Fred Van Lente
Favorite artist: Barry Kitson
Chiclo wrote:
The Democrats are always the bad guys to me...


[Yoda voice] This is why you fail. We're all Americans. If you're looking at your fellow countrymen as good guys and bad guys, perhaps you're part of the problem.


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:04:55 pm 
Is it Dee-no or Die-no? Dunno.
Is it Dee-no or Die-no? Dunno.
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 5:20:12 pm
Posts: 438
Location: Southwest Desert
Valiant fan since: 2016
Favorite character: Gilad
Favorite title: Wrath
Favorite writer: Venditti
Favorite artist: CAFU
greg wrote:
Chiclo wrote:
The Republicans are most of the time the lesser of two evils. The Democrats are always the bad guys to me, like the Dallas Cowboys, and the Republicans are like the team playing the Dallas Cowboys. I may dislike that other team but I just hope the Cowboys (Democrats) lose.

That's a funny thing to say because we learn in elementary school human beings only need food, clothing, and shelter... and it's the Democrats who want to make sure everyone has those, and that seems to really make Republicans mad!

If people die of hunger, can't afford decent clothes, or don't have a place to live they shouldn't have been born into poverty, right? They should just get a job, right? Never mind the widows and orphans, leave my tax dollars alone! Churches are the answer for widows and orphans! If churches were the answer, we wouldn't have needed welfare in the first place.

The reasons vary for Republican distate for basic humanity. Sometimes it's racism, but it's generally described as believing lazy people deserve nothing, not wanting MY taxes to pay for basic human needs, belief that any suffering or poverty is deserved, etc. On the other hand, Democrats just protect lazy voters so they can stay in power. Assuming that is true, what's the alternative? Let people die of basic human needs but keep buying faster smart missiles?

Anytime it is pointed out that taxes barely pay anything for too-lazy-or-pregnant-to-work people welfare (because our grandmas are the real welfare recipients) and the biggest chunk of a tax dollar goes to the military, Republicans can't wait to CHEER about buying more global collateral damage killing machines. Because... they're the good guys?

It's sometime after elementary school when people decide everything they choose to believe is good and, consequently and unspoken, some people aren't really people.

Republicans may have convinced themselves that some policy about deciding what other people should be doing first in order to "earn" their basic human rights is the right way to govern, but it's hard to convince anyone outside the echo chamber.

Simple humanity should win, but that would mean the "bad guys" on the other side of the political aisle are human. Only a child would think that.

I would marry this post if I could.

Republicans can only offer is criticisms, not solutions. "You should have been born rich like ME. Should have been born a white man like ME." They believe rich people work harder than poor people ignoring that most rich people inherited their wealth. They ignore facts, science and history. Slavery? "That was a loooong time ago. Stop playing the race card." But that's the game they continue to deal. Claiming Barack wasn't born in the USA was THE singular racist claim they will all be remembered by. History will not be kind that nonsense. They claim to be against welfare for individuals but LOVE corporate welfare and will defend rich people until their dying breath, especially the poor republicans. They are naive and gullible. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't all religious zealots who claim moral superiority so often times their hypocrisy and lack of empathy is quite breathtaking.

To play devil's advocate I will say the dems aren't doing themselves any favors shoving identity politics down everyone's throat. In the '70s the big liberal push was for freedom of speech. We are the opposite of that now and I am not a fan of it. Nor am I alone. You can't force people how to think about other people. You can't attack freedom of speech in the arts, especially comedy! Good lord when did everyone lose their sense of humor?! Liberals need to grow up and realize not everything is for everyone, and that's ok. This however doesn't mean that there shouldn't be more representation and more voices heard. But that's really peanuts compared to the hate and vitrol that comes from the right.

I think my earlier post was taken the wrong way. My previous comment about immaturity had to do with the link to the video that was posted. It was a female comic journalist hating on Heather Antos. She had no points to make. She just hated her, ... because? It felt very immature and catty. My response would have been the same if it were two guys. My comment was referring to the lack of decent journalism and that the industry as a whole has adopted more of a past time hobby feel. The fact that we are even talking about this is what I was bothered by. We should be discussing how awesome the latest Valiant books are and excited about all the great stuff that's upcoming. But that remains to be seen because they post more news about internal non-creative hires than the books themselves. I realize that's an exaggeration but it just feels that way and it's disheartening.


Top
  Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group