Flex and Wolter's Den of Nerdly Awesomeness

[Dr. Medulla]

I knew there was a weird double vowel at the end, but guessed wrong—it's a double e, not i.

I went with "wookie" originally, and then tortured myself over whether to revise it. After you replied with "wookiie", I knew my edit would have the dreaded "edited" tag. I was then relieved to have looked it up and to have found out that we were both wrong.

Being wrong loves company.

[Kimmelweck]

I knew there was a weird double vowel at the end, but guessed wrong—it's a double e, not i.

I went with "wookie" originally, and then tortured myself over whether to revise it. After you replied with "wookiie", I knew my edit would have the dreaded "edited" tag. I was then relieved to have looked it up and to have found out that we were both wrong.

Being wrong loves company.

Den of nerdly awesomeness indeed.

[Kory]

Recently in X-Men, Nightcrawler's parentage has been retconned to something Claremont wanted to do but wasn't allowed. I never thought I'd ever in my life see people defending Chuck Austen's Azazel retcon, but people certainly hate trans issues more than they hate terrible writing.

[Flex]

Recently in X-Men, Nightcrawler's parentage has been retconned to something Claremont wanted to do but wasn't allowed. I never thought I'd ever in my life see people defending Chuck Austen's Azazel retcon, but people certainly hate trans issues more than they hate terrible writing.

What's the deal? My x men knowledge is limited.

[Kory]

Recently in X-Men, Nightcrawler's parentage has been retconned to something Claremont wanted to do but wasn't allowed. I never thought I'd ever in my life see people defending Chuck Austen's Azazel retcon, but people certainly hate trans issues more than they hate terrible writing.

What's the deal? My x men knowledge is limited.

I'll try to make this as concise as possible. The original story is that Mystique, a metamorph, gave birth to Nightcrawler by Baron Wagner, some rich Bavarian she was conning. Chuck Austen later retconned this, and it turned out that Nightcrawler's father was Azazel, an actual demon from the dimension that Nightcrawler teleports through. This was HIGHLY unpopular at the time (largely because it strips Nightcrawler of some of the oppression/racism metaphor storytelling you can do with him being fully human but looking strange, rather than being, you know, half-actual demon).

The new retcon, which is based on something Chris Claremont wanted to do during his 17-year title-defining run, but Marvel wouldn't let him at the time, is that Mystique is not just a metamorph but a genetic-morph (or whatever word they'll come up with for it, basically she can reconstruct herself at the genetic level and actually become a man or whatever else), and she was able to impregnate her longtime partner Destiny (who's been around a long time with a lot of queer subtext from the Claremont era that has only recently been made explicit). All this meaning that the internet is currently in an uproar that a blue fuzzy elf-like person with a tail who can walk on walls and teleport has either two mothers OR one mother and one non-binary parent. IT'S TOO WOKE and unbelievable, although of course nobody who's pissed is even going to actually read the damn issue it is revealed in, which is well written and not cynical trans representation/pandering.

[Flex]

Recently in X-Men, Nightcrawler's parentage has been retconned to something Claremont wanted to do but wasn't allowed. I never thought I'd ever in my life see people defending Chuck Austen's Azazel retcon, but people certainly hate trans issues more than they hate terrible writing.

What's the deal? My x men knowledge is limited.

I'll try to make this as concise as possible. The original story is that Mystique, a metamorph, gave birth to Nightcrawler by Baron Wagner, some rich Bavarian she was conning. Chuck Austen later retconned this, and it turned out that Nightcrawler's father was Azazel, an actual demon from the dimension that Nightcrawler teleports through. This was HIGHLY unpopular at the time (largely because it strips Nightcrawler of some of the oppression/racism metaphor storytelling you can do with him being fully human but looking strange, rather than being, you know, half-actual demon).

The new retcon, which is based on something Chris Claremont wanted to do during his 17-year title-defining run, but Marvel wouldn't let him at the time, is that Mystique is not just a metamorph but a genetic-morph (or whatever word they'll come up with for it, basically she can reconstruct herself at the genetic level and actually become a man or whatever else), and she was able to impregnate her longtime partner Destiny (who's been around a long time with a lot of queer subtext from the Claremont era that has only recently been made explicit). All this meaning that the internet is currently in an uproar that a blue fuzzy elf-like person with a tail who can walk on walls and teleport has either two mothers OR one mother and one non-binary parent. IT'S TOO WOKE and unbelievable, although of course nobody who's pissed is even going to actually read the damn issue it is revealed in, which is well written and not cynical trans representation/pandering.

Got it. Yeah, that seems perfectly calibrated to enrage the lunatics. They should depict Mystique drinking a bud light next.

[Kory]

Recently in X-Men, Nightcrawler's parentage has been retconned to something Claremont wanted to do but wasn't allowed. I never thought I'd ever in my life see people defending Chuck Austen's Azazel retcon, but people certainly hate trans issues more than they hate terrible writing.

What's the deal? My x men knowledge is limited.

I'll try to make this as concise as possible. The original story is that Mystique, a metamorph, gave birth to Nightcrawler by Baron Wagner, some rich Bavarian she was conning. Chuck Austen later retconned this, and it turned out that Nightcrawler's father was Azazel, an actual demon from the dimension that Nightcrawler teleports through. This was HIGHLY unpopular at the time (largely because it strips Nightcrawler of some of the oppression/racism metaphor storytelling you can do with him being fully human but looking strange, rather than being, you know, half-actual demon).

The new retcon, which is based on something Chris Claremont wanted to do during his 17-year title-defining run, but Marvel wouldn't let him at the time, is that Mystique is not just a metamorph but a genetic-morph (or whatever word they'll come up with for it, basically she can reconstruct herself at the genetic level and actually become a man or whatever else), and she was able to impregnate her longtime partner Destiny (who's been around a long time with a lot of queer subtext from the Claremont era that has only recently been made explicit). All this meaning that the internet is currently in an uproar that a blue fuzzy elf-like person with a tail who can walk on walls and teleport has either two mothers OR one mother and one non-binary parent. IT'S TOO WOKE and unbelievable, although of course nobody who's pissed is even going to actually read the damn issue it is revealed in, which is well written and not cynical trans representation/pandering.

Got it. Yeah, that seems perfectly calibrated to enrage the lunatics. They should depict Mystique drinking a bud light next.

I just get so incensed by the "comics are too woke these days" brigade, who haven't been paying attention to what X-Men has actually been about this entire time. And on this particular score because it's something Claremont had wanted to do in the 80s.

[Dr. Medulla]

Recently in X-Men, Nightcrawler's parentage has been retconned to something Claremont wanted to do but wasn't allowed. I never thought I'd ever in my life see people defending Chuck Austen's Azazel retcon, but people certainly hate trans issues more than they hate terrible writing.

What's the deal? My x men knowledge is limited.

I'll try to make this as concise as possible. The original story is that Mystique, a metamorph, gave birth to Nightcrawler by Baron Wagner, some rich Bavarian she was conning. Chuck Austen later retconned this, and it turned out that Nightcrawler's father was Azazel, an actual demon from the dimension that Nightcrawler teleports through. This was HIGHLY unpopular at the time (largely because it strips Nightcrawler of some of the oppression/racism metaphor storytelling you can do with him being fully human but looking strange, rather than being, you know, half-actual demon).

The new retcon, which is based on something Chris Claremont wanted to do during his 17-year title-defining run, but Marvel wouldn't let him at the time, is that Mystique is not just a metamorph but a genetic-morph (or whatever word they'll come up with for it, basically she can reconstruct herself at the genetic level and actually become a man or whatever else), and she was able to impregnate her longtime partner Destiny (who's been around a long time with a lot of queer subtext from the Claremont era that has only recently been made explicit). All this meaning that the internet is currently in an uproar that a blue fuzzy elf-like person with a tail who can walk on walls and teleport has either two mothers OR one mother and one non-binary parent. IT'S TOO WOKE and unbelievable, although of course nobody who's pissed is even going to actually read the damn issue it is revealed in, which is well written and not cynical trans representation/pandering.

Between this and Ms. Marvel as a Muslim female teen, I'm kinda curious whether Marvel knows their core audience or doesn't care. Or maybe the audience is more diverse than is normally assumed?

[Kory]

Recently in X-Men, Nightcrawler's parentage has been retconned to something Claremont wanted to do but wasn't allowed. I never thought I'd ever in my life see people defending Chuck Austen's Azazel retcon, but people certainly hate trans issues more than they hate terrible writing.

What's the deal? My x men knowledge is limited.

I'll try to make this as concise as possible. The original story is that Mystique, a metamorph, gave birth to Nightcrawler by Baron Wagner, some rich Bavarian she was conning. Chuck Austen later retconned this, and it turned out that Nightcrawler's father was Azazel, an actual demon from the dimension that Nightcrawler teleports through. This was HIGHLY unpopular at the time (largely because it strips Nightcrawler of some of the oppression/racism metaphor storytelling you can do with him being fully human but looking strange, rather than being, you know, half-actual demon).

The new retcon, which is based on something Chris Claremont wanted to do during his 17-year title-defining run, but Marvel wouldn't let him at the time, is that Mystique is not just a metamorph but a genetic-morph (or whatever word they'll come up with for it, basically she can reconstruct herself at the genetic level and actually become a man or whatever else), and she was able to impregnate her longtime partner Destiny (who's been around a long time with a lot of queer subtext from the Claremont era that has only recently been made explicit). All this meaning that the internet is currently in an uproar that a blue fuzzy elf-like person with a tail who can walk on walls and teleport has either two mothers OR one mother and one non-binary parent. IT'S TOO WOKE and unbelievable, although of course nobody who's pissed is even going to actually read the damn issue it is revealed in, which is well written and not cynical trans representation/pandering.

Between this and Ms. Marvel as a Muslim female teen, I'm kinda curious whether Marvel knows their core audience or doesn't care. Or maybe the audience is more diverse than is normally assumed?

You've hit on something I think about excessively. If internet comment threads are to be believed, all this wokeness is the source of low sales from the Big Two. But what percentage of potential or actual readers are these incels? I have no way of knowing. I'm a lot more inclined to believe that much bigger sources of low sales aren't any single thing (the black and white thinking is high among this bunch) are high cover prices, and the fact that people simply don't like to read when they have TV and video games at hand. And if they do, they're reading manga (which is outselling American comics by a lot) because multiple generations have now grown up on more accessible anime, and the pipeline from that to manga is a lot stronger than the pipeline from Iron Man movies to Iron Man comics.

I'd also maybe think that publishers are businesspeople before anything else, and wouldn't be publishing stuff that was causing them to lose money, but then again we all remember what happened to comics in the 90s. Marvel (I don't know a lot about DC but I understand they are also now "woke") may have noticed that people weren't buying comics anyway and are in the middle of growing pain in trying to expand their readership with different kinds of communities. If white beardos don't want to read comics anymore, we'll see if anyone else does...

Also, these idiots hate Captain/Ms. Marvel anyway, why would they care if the new one is Muslim? It's not like they feel betrayed that their beloved Carol Danvers has been sullied. They're the ones that are always saying to create new diverse characters instead of changing existing ones. Which is it, nerds?

[Dr. Medulla]

Recently in X-Men, Nightcrawler's parentage has been retconned to something Claremont wanted to do but wasn't allowed. I never thought I'd ever in my life see people defending Chuck Austen's Azazel retcon, but people certainly hate trans issues more than they hate terrible writing.

What's the deal? My x men knowledge is limited.

I'll try to make this as concise as possible. The original story is that Mystique, a metamorph, gave birth to Nightcrawler by Baron Wagner, some rich Bavarian she was conning. Chuck Austen later retconned this, and it turned out that Nightcrawler's father was Azazel, an actual demon from the dimension that Nightcrawler teleports through. This was HIGHLY unpopular at the time (largely because it strips Nightcrawler of some of the oppression/racism metaphor storytelling you can do with him being fully human but looking strange, rather than being, you know, half-actual demon).

The new retcon, which is based on something Chris Claremont wanted to do during his 17-year title-defining run, but Marvel wouldn't let him at the time, is that Mystique is not just a metamorph but a genetic-morph (or whatever word they'll come up with for it, basically she can reconstruct herself at the genetic level and actually become a man or whatever else), and she was able to impregnate her longtime partner Destiny (who's been around a long time with a lot of queer subtext from the Claremont era that has only recently been made explicit). All this meaning that the internet is currently in an uproar that a blue fuzzy elf-like person with a tail who can walk on walls and teleport has either two mothers OR one mother and one non-binary parent. IT'S TOO WOKE and unbelievable, although of course nobody who's pissed is even going to actually read the damn issue it is revealed in, which is well written and not cynical trans representation/pandering.

Between this and Ms. Marvel as a Muslim female teen, I'm kinda curious whether Marvel knows their core audience or doesn't care. Or maybe the audience is more diverse than is normally assumed?

You've hit on something I think about excessively. If internet comment threads are to be believed, all this wokeness is the source of low sales from the Big Two. But what percentage of potential or actual readers are these incels? I have no way of knowing. I'm a lot more inclined to believe that much bigger sources of low sales aren't any single thing (the black and white thinking is high among this bunch) are high cover prices, and the fact that people simply don't like to read when they have TV and video games at hand. And if they do, they're reading manga (which is outselling American comics by a lot) because multiple generations have now grown up on more accessible anime, and the pipeline from that to manga is a lot stronger than the pipeline from Iron Man movies to Iron Man comics.

I'd also maybe think that publishers are businesspeople before anything else, and wouldn't be publishing stuff that was causing them to lose money, but then again we all remember what happened to comics in the 90s. Marvel (I don't know a lot about DC but I understand they are also now "woke") may have noticed that people weren't buying comics anyway and are in the middle of growing pain in trying to expand their readership with different kinds of communities. If white beardos don't want to read comics anymore, we'll see if anyone else does...

Also, these idiots hate Captain/Ms. Marvel anyway, why would they care if the new one is Muslim? It's not like they feel betrayed that their beloved Carol Danvers has been sullied. They're the ones that are always saying to create new diverse characters instead of changing existing ones. Which is it, nerds?

Your middle paragraph is where my thinking lies. Commercial publishers seek to make money, satisfying current audiences and/or creating new ones. So they think that appealing to incel nerds is increasing a losing bet for whatever reason or they're analyzing movie audiences and the like and seeing diversity is a smarter option. Plus, whatever the angry twitter/reddit dorks are saying, maybe the actual letters/emails to Marvel/DC are more supportive of diversity. Whatever the case, while the artists and writers may be more sincere in these explorations and expansion of possibility, the business side is tolerant only to the degree that it makes sense on the ledger. The weird thing is that the right, which is supposed to be rah rah capitalism, flat out doesn't understand that.

[Kory]

What's the deal? My x men knowledge is limited.

I'll try to make this as concise as possible. The original story is that Mystique, a metamorph, gave birth to Nightcrawler by Baron Wagner, some rich Bavarian she was conning. Chuck Austen later retconned this, and it turned out that Nightcrawler's father was Azazel, an actual demon from the dimension that Nightcrawler teleports through. This was HIGHLY unpopular at the time (largely because it strips Nightcrawler of some of the oppression/racism metaphor storytelling you can do with him being fully human but looking strange, rather than being, you know, half-actual demon).

The new retcon, which is based on something Chris Claremont wanted to do during his 17-year title-defining run, but Marvel wouldn't let him at the time, is that Mystique is not just a metamorph but a genetic-morph (or whatever word they'll come up with for it, basically she can reconstruct herself at the genetic level and actually become a man or whatever else), and she was able to impregnate her longtime partner Destiny (who's been around a long time with a lot of queer subtext from the Claremont era that has only recently been made explicit). All this meaning that the internet is currently in an uproar that a blue fuzzy elf-like person with a tail who can walk on walls and teleport has either two mothers OR one mother and one non-binary parent. IT'S TOO WOKE and unbelievable, although of course nobody who's pissed is even going to actually read the damn issue it is revealed in, which is well written and not cynical trans representation/pandering.

Between this and Ms. Marvel as a Muslim female teen, I'm kinda curious whether Marvel knows their core audience or doesn't care. Or maybe the audience is more diverse than is normally assumed?

You've hit on something I think about excessively. If internet comment threads are to be believed, all this wokeness is the source of low sales from the Big Two. But what percentage of potential or actual readers are these incels? I have no way of knowing. I'm a lot more inclined to believe that much bigger sources of low sales aren't any single thing (the black and white thinking is high among this bunch) are high cover prices, and the fact that people simply don't like to read when they have TV and video games at hand. And if they do, they're reading manga (which is outselling American comics by a lot) because multiple generations have now grown up on more accessible anime, and the pipeline from that to manga is a lot stronger than the pipeline from Iron Man movies to Iron Man comics.

I'd also maybe think that publishers are businesspeople before anything else, and wouldn't be publishing stuff that was causing them to lose money, but then again we all remember what happened to comics in the 90s. Marvel (I don't know a lot about DC but I understand they are also now "woke") may have noticed that people weren't buying comics anyway and are in the middle of growing pain in trying to expand their readership with different kinds of communities. If white beardos don't want to read comics anymore, we'll see if anyone else does...

Also, these idiots hate Captain/Ms. Marvel anyway, why would they care if the new one is Muslim? It's not like they feel betrayed that their beloved Carol Danvers has been sullied. They're the ones that are always saying to create new diverse characters instead of changing existing ones. Which is it, nerds?

Your middle paragraph is where my thinking lies. Commercial publishers seek to make money, satisfying current audiences and/or creating new ones. So they think that appealing to incel nerds is increasing a losing bet for whatever reason or they're analyzing movie audiences and the like and seeing diversity is a smarter option. Plus, whatever the angry twitter/reddit dorks are saying, maybe the actual letters/emails to Marvel/DC are more supportive of diversity. Whatever the case, while the artists and writers may be more sincere in these explorations and expansion of possibility, the business side is tolerant only to the degree that it makes sense on the ledger. The weird thing is that the right, which is supposed to be rah rah capitalism, flat out doesn't understand that.

On this last note at least, what I've learned from the complainers is that THEY are the majority and that publishers should be catering to them and not to the woke mob, and witholding their money is the reason that the big two are "failing" (also that manga is killing comics). There's evidence to suggest otherwise—reporting on sales is apparently ridiculously inaccurate.

[Dr. Medulla]

I'll try to make this as concise as possible. The original story is that Mystique, a metamorph, gave birth to Nightcrawler by Baron Wagner, some rich Bavarian she was conning. Chuck Austen later retconned this, and it turned out that Nightcrawler's father was Azazel, an actual demon from the dimension that Nightcrawler teleports through. This was HIGHLY unpopular at the time (largely because it strips Nightcrawler of some of the oppression/racism metaphor storytelling you can do with him being fully human but looking strange, rather than being, you know, half-actual demon).

The new retcon, which is based on something Chris Claremont wanted to do during his 17-year title-defining run, but Marvel wouldn't let him at the time, is that Mystique is not just a metamorph but a genetic-morph (or whatever word they'll come up with for it, basically she can reconstruct herself at the genetic level and actually become a man or whatever else), and she was able to impregnate her longtime partner Destiny (who's been around a long time with a lot of queer subtext from the Claremont era that has only recently been made explicit). All this meaning that the internet is currently in an uproar that a blue fuzzy elf-like person with a tail who can walk on walls and teleport has either two mothers OR one mother and one non-binary parent. IT'S TOO WOKE and unbelievable, although of course nobody who's pissed is even going to actually read the damn issue it is revealed in, which is well written and not cynical trans representation/pandering.

Between this and Ms. Marvel as a Muslim female teen, I'm kinda curious whether Marvel knows their core audience or doesn't care. Or maybe the audience is more diverse than is normally assumed?

You've hit on something I think about excessively. If internet comment threads are to be believed, all this wokeness is the source of low sales from the Big Two. But what percentage of potential or actual readers are these incels? I have no way of knowing. I'm a lot more inclined to believe that much bigger sources of low sales aren't any single thing (the black and white thinking is high among this bunch) are high cover prices, and the fact that people simply don't like to read when they have TV and video games at hand. And if they do, they're reading manga (which is outselling American comics by a lot) because multiple generations have now grown up on more accessible anime, and the pipeline from that to manga is a lot stronger than the pipeline from Iron Man movies to Iron Man comics.

I'd also maybe think that publishers are businesspeople before anything else, and wouldn't be publishing stuff that was causing them to lose money, but then again we all remember what happened to comics in the 90s. Marvel (I don't know a lot about DC but I understand they are also now "woke") may have noticed that people weren't buying comics anyway and are in the middle of growing pain in trying to expand their readership with different kinds of communities. If white beardos don't want to read comics anymore, we'll see if anyone else does...

Also, these idiots hate Captain/Ms. Marvel anyway, why would they care if the new one is Muslim? It's not like they feel betrayed that their beloved Carol Danvers has been sullied. They're the ones that are always saying to create new diverse characters instead of changing existing ones. Which is it, nerds?

Your middle paragraph is where my thinking lies. Commercial publishers seek to make money, satisfying current audiences and/or creating new ones. So they think that appealing to incel nerds is increasing a losing bet for whatever reason or they're analyzing movie audiences and the like and seeing diversity is a smarter option. Plus, whatever the angry twitter/reddit dorks are saying, maybe the actual letters/emails to Marvel/DC are more supportive of diversity. Whatever the case, while the artists and writers may be more sincere in these explorations and expansion of possibility, the business side is tolerant only to the degree that it makes sense on the ledger. The weird thing is that the right, which is supposed to be rah rah capitalism, flat out doesn't understand that.

On this last note at least, what I've learned from the complainers is that THEY are the majority and that publishers should be catering to them and not to the woke mob, and witholding their money is the reason that the big two are "failing" (also that manga is killing comics). There's evidence to suggest otherwise—reporting on sales is apparently ridiculously inaccurate.

Ah, the True Fans argument. Which relies on not understanding the profit motive of commercial operations. Small publishers, like indie labels, required satisfying a small but ardent base. But big publishers seek out a mass audience, and aging incels are anything but a mass audience. Maybe there is no longer a sufficiently large mass audience for Marvel or DC, but bitter mouthbreathers certainly aren't the answer.

[Kory]

Between this and Ms. Marvel as a Muslim female teen, I'm kinda curious whether Marvel knows their core audience or doesn't care. Or maybe the audience is more diverse than is normally assumed?

You've hit on something I think about excessively. If internet comment threads are to be believed, all this wokeness is the source of low sales from the Big Two. But what percentage of potential or actual readers are these incels? I have no way of knowing. I'm a lot more inclined to believe that much bigger sources of low sales aren't any single thing (the black and white thinking is high among this bunch) are high cover prices, and the fact that people simply don't like to read when they have TV and video games at hand. And if they do, they're reading manga (which is outselling American comics by a lot) because multiple generations have now grown up on more accessible anime, and the pipeline from that to manga is a lot stronger than the pipeline from Iron Man movies to Iron Man comics.

I'd also maybe think that publishers are businesspeople before anything else, and wouldn't be publishing stuff that was causing them to lose money, but then again we all remember what happened to comics in the 90s. Marvel (I don't know a lot about DC but I understand they are also now "woke") may have noticed that people weren't buying comics anyway and are in the middle of growing pain in trying to expand their readership with different kinds of communities. If white beardos don't want to read comics anymore, we'll see if anyone else does...

Also, these idiots hate Captain/Ms. Marvel anyway, why would they care if the new one is Muslim? It's not like they feel betrayed that their beloved Carol Danvers has been sullied. They're the ones that are always saying to create new diverse characters instead of changing existing ones. Which is it, nerds?

Your middle paragraph is where my thinking lies. Commercial publishers seek to make money, satisfying current audiences and/or creating new ones. So they think that appealing to incel nerds is increasing a losing bet for whatever reason or they're analyzing movie audiences and the like and seeing diversity is a smarter option. Plus, whatever the angry twitter/reddit dorks are saying, maybe the actual letters/emails to Marvel/DC are more supportive of diversity. Whatever the case, while the artists and writers may be more sincere in these explorations and expansion of possibility, the business side is tolerant only to the degree that it makes sense on the ledger. The weird thing is that the right, which is supposed to be rah rah capitalism, flat out doesn't understand that.

On this last note at least, what I've learned from the complainers is that THEY are the majority and that publishers should be catering to them and not to the woke mob, and witholding their money is the reason that the big two are "failing" (also that manga is killing comics). There's evidence to suggest otherwise—reporting on sales is apparently ridiculously inaccurate.

Ah, the True Fans argument. Which relies on not understanding the profit motive of commercial operations. Small publishers, like indie labels, required satisfying a small but ardent base. But big publishers seek out a mass audience, and aging incels are anything but a mass audience. Maybe there is no longer a sufficiently large mass audience for Marvel or DC, but bitter mouthbreathers certainly aren't the answer.

I actually finally quit twitter yesterday because of it. Ethan van Sciver (the shit van Sciver), defended by Mark Millar, was on a fucking rampage, claiming that women can't write comic books, challenging people to list women who HAVEN'T destroyed the comic industry, and both of them (and all their followers) calling anyone who disagreed "cancel pigs." Millar was particularly interesting because he was publicly bristling at being associated with Comicsgate, but had no problem using that cult's proprietary language that's used to dehumanize people that aren't misogynist. Their whole group are just a bunch of goalpost-movers. They just want a reason to be a victim—you can't give them any answer that will satisfy them.

[Dr. Medulla]

I actually finally quit twitter yesterday because of it. Ethan van Sciver (the shit van Sciver), defended by Mark Millar, was on a fucking rampage, claiming that women can't write comic books, challenging people to list women who HAVEN'T destroyed the comic industry, and both of them (and all their followers) calling anyone who disagreed "cancel pigs." Millar was particularly interesting because he was publicly bristling at being associated with Comicsgate, but had no problem using that cult's proprietary language that's used to dehumanize people that aren't misogynist. Their whole group are just a bunch of goalpost-movers. They just want a reason to be a victim—you can't give them any answer that will satisfy them.

Back in the 80s, when the right sought to roll back the gains of the previous three or four decades, one of the common arguments was for [pick a marginalized group] to stop being a victim, blaming society/the system, and taking responsibility for their own fate. As these things often happen, the dominant group on the right—white men—have fully embraced the victim, blame the system, and shirking any kind of responsibility. (That said, even in the 80s, that position was present, but less clearly enunciated. Now it's full-on, loud and proud identity.)

[revbob]