@EdBlank said:

@Manchine: You can't use the word "Confederate" in mixed company. It's like calling your group "Nazi Avengers" then being like "What?". Confederate means "Black people should still be slaves". Period. Don't fix your fingers to type a rebuttal. That's what it means and no decent Black person would grin and bear it. Lady Antebellum is another example. It's the most hateful thing you can say. The fact that 1) you don't get it and 2) once someone tells you you STILL defend it leads to my next point........ @MonkeyToe : you telling me what the "definition" of racism is is like telling a fish the "definition" of water. I have lived in and breathed racism from birth. My mother, her mother, all the way back half a MILLENIUM. If the dictionary says something different than we do then the dictionary needs to be changed. Like Manchine just illustrated: you guys are basically oblivious to racism for the most part unless someone is burning a cross. Open your mind and actually ponder these words, don't just deny and defend becuase "why are you guys still talking about racism. It's over". It's here. It's as American as apple pie.

The only person here with a closed mind is you. You think Racism is black and white when it has far more shades of gray than you care to admit.

I should have known better than to come in to a crazy american race thread

@Deranged Midget said:

I don't see anything racist with Cyborg.

Not racist. Racially insensitive. There's a difference.

The argument is that Cyborg's half face will keep him from being popular. It's important for him to be popular because he represents Blacks on the JL. If he's unpopular and unnecessary than he's token. And that's offensive to everyone.

@spiderbat87 said:

@Captain13 said:

@Deranged Midget said:

I don't see anything racist with Cyborg.

Not racist. Racially insensitive. There's a difference.

The argument is that Cyborg's half face will keep him from being popular. It's important for him to be popular because he represents Blacks on the JL. If he's unpopular and unnecessary than he's token. And that's offensive to everyone.

So was Oracle sexually insensitive for being a hero in a wheelchair?

Oh snap.

@spiderbat87 said:

@Captain13 said:

@Deranged Midget said:

I don't see anything racist with Cyborg.

Not racist. Racially insensitive. There's a difference.

The argument is that Cyborg's half face will keep him from being popular. It's important for him to be popular because he represents Blacks on the JL. If he's unpopular and unnecessary than he's token. And that's offensive to everyone.

So was Oracle sexually insensitive for being a hero in a wheelchair?

I think that the real issue with this thread is the assumption the OP makes that Cyborg is "Less than human" or "Sub-human" because he is half machine. But really, what makes us "Human"? Is it our hairy mammalian bodies that define humanity? Is it our two arms and two legs that define us? Or is it really our species advanced brains that separate us from any other bipedal species of primates on the Earth right now? I think the truth is pretty clear that it is our evolved brains that makes us "human", a brain that is still very much intact for Cyborg.

So what would make us "Less than Human"? Well, by stripping away that advanced rational thinking process of course, like the Lizard of Spiderman.

So I would argue that Cyborg is actually MORE than human, not less than, and I think the OP should give the readers a little more credit to know the difference.

Cyborg's critics fail to realize that many comic fans actually identify more with monsters than they do with the more typically shaped and costumed characters.

@Manchine: are you nine years old or something? The person doing the recieveing is the only person who can find something offensive. How would it even work for the person saying the slur to find it offensive when they say it? Forgive me, friend but that sounds plain stupid (and of course it's not offensive for me to say your logic sounds stupid cause I don't think it's offensive. Wether you do or not is immaterial.. *wink*). If you ever find a woman willing to spend alot of time with you you will learn quickly that the stuff you say that means nothing to you will piss her off and you will learn to keep your mouth shut. The reciever is who defines offensive. If you are a reasonable person you will be apologetic when you accidentally offend someone. If you are a close minded arrogant person you will keep blathering on cause you don't care if you offend people. I won't even unpack your defense of the Nazis. So you use the word Confederate for fun and games and you think the Nazis were just misunderstood. Dude you're sick.

@EdBlank said:

@Manchine: are you nine years old or something? The person doing the recieveing is the only person who can find something offensive. How would it even work for the person saying the slur to find it offensive when they say it? Forgive me, friend but that sounds plain stupid (and of course it's not offensive for me to say your logic sounds stupid cause I don't think it's offensive. Wether you do or not is immaterial.. *wink*). If you ever find a woman willing to spend alot of time with you you will learn quickly that the stuff you say that means nothing to you will piss her off and you will learn to keep your mouth shut. The reciever is who defines offensive. If you are a reasonable person you will be apologetic when you accidentally offend someone. If you are a close minded arrogant person you will keep blathering on cause you don't care if you offend people. I won't even unpack your defense of the Nazis. So you use the word Confederate for fun and games and you think the Nazis were just misunderstood. Dude you're sick.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore at this point. But you are right in that the receiver is who defines what is offensive. The point that you are missing is that just because a word or phrase is offensive, doesn't make it racist. The word Confederate offend YOU. Fine. You have every right to be offended. It shows an ignorance as to what the word truly means, what the confederate states were really about, and all the true intricacies of why the civil war was fought (hint: it wasn't just fought over slavery). A person can say, "Hell, I wish this was still the confederate south," and not be racist. This is a fact. Just because YOU think this statement is offensive doesn't mean it is racist. Unless the person believes that his race is superior to yours and that your race should be subjugated to his he IS NOT RACIST. This is the definition of racism. Just because something is offensive, does not make it racist. One black person may think the N word is offensive in any form while it is a fact that some black people use this word to address other black people. Just because black person A finds black person B offensive, does not make black person B a racist for using a word that offends black person A. Racism is specific and it involves maliciousness, hatred, and discrimination. A word can not be racist, only the person that uses the word can be racist.

@MonkeyToe : I know exactly what you're arguing. The Confederate South was misunderstood. All the people wearing rebel flag tee shirts are really my friends I am just taking the whole "we wish black people were still slaves" thing the wrong way. Dude, you sound slow. Anyway - not that you're paying attention to what I am actually typing - here's the point: Racism is not some big huge 100 foot dinosaur destroying the landscape, it is like a smell that lingers in a person's house that they can no longer smell. Just because the person with 12 cats gets used to the smell of cat pee, that doesn't mean it doesn't stink. This comment about Cyborg not being the best choice for diversity's sake: is not an illustration of some blindingly obvious discrimination, it is an example of the small things which, in toto, add up to a barrier between minorities and larger society. A glass ceiling of sorts. We can have Black actors/characters but only in certain roles. It's really not a huge deal, just something of interest. By far the most alarming part is that a statement like that about Cyborg actually brought out TWO people who defended the Confederate South and one who even called the Nazis misunderstood. If that don't paint the picture of racism in America for you..

@Manchine: are you nine years old or something? The person doing the recieveing is the only person who can find something offensive. How would it even work for the person saying the slur to find it offensive when they say it? Forgive me, friend but that sounds plain stupid (and of course it's not offensive for me to say your logic sounds stupid cause I don't think it's offensive. Wether you do or not is immaterial.. *wink*). If you ever find a woman willing to spend alot of time with you you will learn quickly that the stuff you say that means nothing to you will piss her off and you will learn to keep your mouth shut. The reciever is who defines offensive. If you are a reasonable person you will be apologetic when you accidentally offend someone. If you are a close minded arrogant person you will keep blathering on cause you don't care if you offend people. I won't even unpack your defense of the Nazis. So you use the word Confederate for fun and games and you think the Nazis were just misunderstood. Dude you're sick.

@EdBlank said:

@MonkeyToe : I know exactly what you're arguing. The Confederate South was misunderstood. All the people wearing rebel flag tee shirts are really my friends I am just taking the whole "we wish black people were still slaves" thing the wrong way. Dude, you sound slow. Anyway - not that you're paying attention to what I am actually typing - here's the point: Racism is not some big huge 100 foot dinosaur destroying the landscape, it is like a smell that lingers in a person's house that they can no longer smell. Just because the person with 12 cats gets used to the smell of cat pee, that doesn't mean it doesn't stink. This comment about Cyborg not being the best choice for diversity's sake: is not an illustration of some blindingly obvious discrimination, it is an example of the small things which, in toto, add up to a barrier between minorities and larger society. A glass ceiling of sorts. We can have Black actors/characters but only in certain roles. It's really not a huge deal, just something of interest. By far the most alarming part is that a statement like that about Cyborg actually brought out TWO people who defended the Confederate South and one who even called the Nazis misunderstood. If that don't paint the picture of racism in America for you..

You really don't get it do you. See people like you are just as bad as people who are racist. Just because you think someone is saying something when they are not doesn't make it right. Yes you can be offended by it because YOU THINK its racist doesn't make it that way. You are just as bad as racist people because you can not get past your own racist thoughts.

Resorting to Name calling shows that you don't know what your talking about. You can argue till your blue in the face it still won't make you right as many people have said on here. According to your defination you have offended me so your racist.

@spiderbat87: Brits shouldn't criticize Americans when it comes to conversations about ethnic minorities considering you guys have UKIP and the BNP. Also, America ranks higher than the UK when it comes to tolerance of minorities. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/15/47570353.pdf

@spiderbat87: Brits shouldn't criticize Americans when it comes to conversations about ethnic minorities considering you guys have UKIP and the BNP. Also, America ranks higher than the UK when it comes to tolerance of minorities. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/15/47570353.pdf

@Superdork: Interesting topic!

I think the best way to handle this issue with Cyborg (rather than walking the character back or giving him a human appearance) is to use that comparison as a vehicle for telling important stories with the character. Not that I think Cyborg needs to be "about racism," mind you--it's actually another common problem when poc characters are introduced just to talk about racism because it implies that race is all poc can be "about"--but I believe it's the kind of issue that the character can address directly at least in a contained story.

On a broader scope, Batwing does not have this issue and arguably neither does Voodoo, whose monstrous alien form is the exception, not the rule.

Edit: Oh, and Mr. Terrific, although his biggest problem was his relaunch book was terrible.

@Manchine said:

You really don't get it do you. See people like you are just as bad as people who are racist.

Stop. You need to think about this. You are arguing--if you realize it or not--that someone who is offended by passive racism (or "racial insensitivity" or whatever you want to term it) is as bad as a racist. That is a ridiculous false equivalency and is offensive.

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

You really don't get it do you. See people like you are just as bad as people who are racist.

Stop. You need to think about this. You are arguing--if you realize it or not--that someone who is offended by passive racism (or "racial insensitivity" or whatever you want to term it) is as bad as a racist. That is a ridiculous false equivalency and is offensive.

Thats what you feel. Doesn't make it so. He is argueing over something that he thinks is racist. That doesn't make it racist and that makes him just as bad as a racist. Because he is making it racist.

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

You really don't get it do you. See people like you are just as bad as people who are racist.

Stop. You need to think about this. You are arguing--if you realize it or not--that someone who is offended by passive racism (or "racial insensitivity" or whatever you want to term it) is as bad as a racist. That is a ridiculous false equivalency and is offensive.

Thats what you feel. Doesn't make it so. He is argueing over something that he thinks is racist. That doesn't make it racist and that makes him just as bad as a racist. Because he is making it racist.

That's like taking someone's wallet and then getting mad at them for calling the cops because that "makes it" a mugging. You're essentially arguing that there's no such thing as racism, only people who call things racist.

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

You really don't get it do you. See people like you are just as bad as people who are racist.

Stop. You need to think about this. You are arguing--if you realize it or not--that someone who is offended by passive racism (or "racial insensitivity" or whatever you want to term it) is as bad as a racist. That is a ridiculous false equivalency and is offensive.

Thats what you feel. Doesn't make it so. He is argueing over something that he thinks is racist. That doesn't make it racist and that makes him just as bad as a racist. Because he is making it racist.

That's like taking someone's wallet and then getting mad at them for calling the cops because that "makes it" a mugging. You're essentially arguing that there's no such thing as racism, only people who call things racist.

Thats something completely different not even close to the same thing. Now a correct example would be if some from Asia said F###. Which to them doesn't mean the word we say. People would be offended at it until they learned that it means something completely different in there language.

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

You really don't get it do you. See people like you are just as bad as people who are racist.

Stop. You need to think about this. You are arguing--if you realize it or not--that someone who is offended by passive racism (or "racial insensitivity" or whatever you want to term it) is as bad as a racist. That is a ridiculous false equivalency and is offensive.

Thats what you feel. Doesn't make it so. He is argueing over something that he thinks is racist. That doesn't make it racist and that makes him just as bad as a racist. Because he is making it racist.

That's like taking someone's wallet and then getting mad at them for calling the cops because that "makes it" a mugging. You're essentially arguing that there's no such thing as racism, only people who call things racist.

Thats something completely different not even close to the same thing. Now a correct example would be if some from Asia said F###. Which to them doesn't mean the word we say. People would be offended at it until they learned that it means something completely different in there language.

See, that right there, "from Asia," is a perfect example of passive racism. Because all of "Asia" is the same and ignorant of western culture, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's worth being offended over, but it is interesting to note and it is a form of cultural bias that is telling that could be perceived as a racist stereotype. See what I'm saying? Your language is framed by your perspective in ways others might find offensive and you don't even realize it.

A more appropriate comparison--since this thread has already brought up the specter of the Nazis--would be to go to Japan, or India, or any of the places where the swastika is a common icon in Buddhism and being offended by it being displayed. But even then, there's a specific cultural context that supports that as a misunderstanding. The argument you're making is that such context is irrelevant and that something simply is not offensive unless someone speaks up that they're offended by it. That there's no objective means of measuring or discussing racism, and that's just wrong.

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

You really don't get it do you. See people like you are just as bad as people who are racist.

Stop. You need to think about this. You are arguing--if you realize it or not--that someone who is offended by passive racism (or "racial insensitivity" or whatever you want to term it) is as bad as a racist. That is a ridiculous false equivalency and is offensive.

Thats what you feel. Doesn't make it so. He is argueing over something that he thinks is racist. That doesn't make it racist and that makes him just as bad as a racist. Because he is making it racist.

That's like taking someone's wallet and then getting mad at them for calling the cops because that "makes it" a mugging. You're essentially arguing that there's no such thing as racism, only people who call things racist.

Thats something completely different not even close to the same thing. Now a correct example would be if some from Asia said F###. Which to them doesn't mean the word we say. People would be offended at it until they learned that it means something completely different in there language.

See, that right there, "from Asia," is a perfect example of passive racism. Because all of "Asia" is the same and ignorant of western culture, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's worth being offended over, but it is interesting to note and it is a form of cultural bias that is telling that could be perceived as a racist stereotype. See what I'm saying? Your language is framed by your perspective in ways others might find offensive and you don't even realize it.

A more appropriate comparison--since this thread has already brought up the specter of the Nazis--would be to go to Japan, or India, or any of the places where the swastika is a common icon in Buddhism and being offended by it being displayed. But even then, there's a specific cultural context that supports that as a misunderstanding. The argument you're making is that such context is irrelevant and that something simply is not offensive unless someone speaks up that they're offended by it. That there's no objective means of measuring or discussing racism, and that's just wrong.

Asia is an area. Its like North America. Its not passice racism its an area. There are 7 areas, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, and Australia. Again someone thinking something and trying to put words in someone else mouth because thats what they feel.

Even if they are offended by it, it really doesn't matter if the person is or not. Because if the person didn't mean that way its not. That just means someone is limited his knowledge to his own experiences and thats all there is to it to the world. Which is the exact opposite of how it is. Which makes him just as bad as people being actual racist. Because that person is putting a label on that person group.

For one the original poster was entertained by bleedingcool's rant, which as far as I'm concerned is hardly newsworthy and typical of a blogger.

"Some people think that Cyborg can't work as a character unless he looks physically monstrous--unless he has a metal plate covering his face (even though White characters like Metallo constanstly have prosthetic skin). Cyborg needs something to stew over."

Of course, DCnU Metallo's overall changes makes this comparison obsolete. The new Metallo is raw, boxy, circuitry everywhere, although he still isn't an actual cyborg. The face plate was never an issue during the Teen Titans, although since he had grown into the Justice League and is playing with the big boys it's really more of a "take notice now" argument, just as I hate Steve Martin now for his recent choice of movie roles. I remember the Jerk, and now he is a jerk.

As far as making Cyborg's robotics internal like Smallville's Cyborg, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the character? When Smallville introduced Cyborg they were cutting their budget and the physicality of characters played more to the origin theme, although it was all a major mistake. Clark Kent wore two entirely different outfits, neither appearing to be Superboy or Superman just as you knew this mess were to be the eventual savior. Smallville Cyborg didn't appear to have anything special about him but a broken robot arm, nothing too high tech or remotely like the comic version. No EMPs, no rockets, lasers, et cetera.

What is the point of this thread except to anger and get a rise out of people?

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

...

See, that right there, "from Asia," is a perfect example of passive racism. Because all of "Asia" is the same and ignorant of western culture, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's worth being offended over, but it is interesting to note and it is a form of cultural bias that is telling that could be perceived as a racist stereotype. See what I'm saying? Your language is framed by your perspective in ways others might find offensive and you don't even realize it.

A more appropriate comparison--since this thread has already brought up the specter of the Nazis--would be to go to Japan, or India, or any of the places where the swastika is a common icon in Buddhism and being offended by it being displayed. But even then, there's a specific cultural context that supports that as a misunderstanding. The argument you're making is that such context is irrelevant and that something simply is not offensive unless someone speaks up that they're offended by it. That there's no objective means of measuring or discussing racism, and that's just wrong.

Asia is an area. Its like North America. Its not passice racism its an area. There are 7 areas, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, and Australia. Again someone thinking something and trying to put words in someone else mouth because thats what they feel.

Even if they are offended by it, it really doesn't matter if the person is or not. Because if the person didn't mean that way its not. That just means someone is limited his knowledge to his own experiences and thats all there is to it to the world. Which is the exact opposite of how it is. Which makes him just as bad as people being actual racist. Because that person is putting a label on that person group.

Reducing the identity of a vast number of local cultures down to what continent they're a part of can definitely be considered racism, or at least ignorance.

No, no, no, that simply will not do. If the defining condition for racism is that the offender is trying to be racist, then we're back to "there is no racism." You're giving the offender a blanket pass by judging them by the most agreeable possible judge--themselves--and putting the blame on the victim of their active or passive racism, judging them by the dubious standard of "did they call racism racism?"

I'm not arguing that if someone says something is racist, they're always right, but racism exists and there are ways to evaluate it. The intentions of the offending party might be a mitigating factor as far as the feelings of the offended toward them, but it should not affect whether their actions, comments, or perspective was or was not racist.

Whos down for Milestone 2.0? Sounds like we can use one right now.

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

...

See, that right there, "from Asia," is a perfect example of passive racism. Because all of "Asia" is the same and ignorant of western culture, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's worth being offended over, but it is interesting to note and it is a form of cultural bias that is telling that could be perceived as a racist stereotype. See what I'm saying? Your language is framed by your perspective in ways others might find offensive and you don't even realize it.

A more appropriate comparison--since this thread has already brought up the specter of the Nazis--would be to go to Japan, or India, or any of the places where the swastika is a common icon in Buddhism and being offended by it being displayed. But even then, there's a specific cultural context that supports that as a misunderstanding. The argument you're making is that such context is irrelevant and that something simply is not offensive unless someone speaks up that they're offended by it. That there's no objective means of measuring or discussing racism, and that's just wrong.

Asia is an area. Its like North America. Its not passice racism its an area. There are 7 areas, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, and Australia. Again someone thinking something and trying to put words in someone else mouth because thats what they feel.

Even if they are offended by it, it really doesn't matter if the person is or not. Because if the person didn't mean that way its not. That just means someone is limited his knowledge to his own experiences and thats all there is to it to the world. Which is the exact opposite of how it is. Which makes him just as bad as people being actual racist. Because that person is putting a label on that person group.

Reducing the identity of a vast number of local cultures down to what continent they're a part of can definitely be considered racism, or at least ignorance.

No, no, no, that simply will not do. If the defining condition for racism is that the offender is trying to be racist, then we're back to "there is no racism." You're giving the offender a blanket pass by judging them by the most agreeable possible judge--themselves--and putting the blame on the victim of their active or passive racism, judging them by the dubious standard of "did they call racism racism?"

I'm not arguing that if someone says something is racist, they're always right, but racism exists and there are ways to evaluate it. The intentions of the offending party might be a mitigating factor as far as the feelings of the offended toward them, but it should not affect whether their actions, comments, or perspective was or was not racist.

See the difference is your not talking to some who hasn't seen a lot.

It is very easy. What it boils down to. If the person saying it or has something, that a person says its racist and its not, that means its not. The person implying someone being racist when they are not even after they find out the truth is just as bad as a person being racist. Plain and simple.

Racism will be around as long as there are racist and people who see racism when there is none.

I know there's an on-going discussion of racism here, but I kind of want to put my own specs on this.

From what I know of Cyborg, I did sort of feel like he was a poor representation of Blacks, as a Black character. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a lot of you comic-savvies can dig up plenty of respectable ones here and there, but I just feel there isn't enough diverse characters to balance this out. His name -is- Cyborg though, which reflects a character of technology and power parts [ or at least you'd think so ] to strip him of that would sort of change how he functions. In Teen Titans he had a more humoid mode and I can understand how it would be better if they got closer to that approach verse the face-mask. I've got a few friends in person who love him and the words 'badas$' leaves their mouths frequently. They grew up with characters like Blade [yey wisley snipes] who really put a black, male, action hero on the cover & such. So I think it just comes down to DC giving us more heroes! <3

I never saw Cyborg as a poor representation of black people, a better example would be early luke cage.

When Cyborg was on Teen Titans it was just becuase he was on Teen Titans. Seemingly no particular reason, just was. When he suddenly was bumped up to JL, there was - seemingly - a reason. If the reason was to make sure there was a black guy on the team, then a black guy who could go on to become a star would have been nice. There are 1631781 Batman and or Superman movies and TV shows cause their character is attractive a relatable. To give the one black guy on the new JL a chance to shine, he would kind of need a face. Not that a guy without a face can't be a star, but the best stars have them. The funny part is how long and hard people are fighting to deny the existence of subtle, even subconscious racism. I never said I am any better, that I am surprised by it, nor that we should fight against it. On the other hand: I expect it and the only remedy is for me to draw a picture of myself and draw it the way I want to be seen. DC is going to do what they do and I am sure they are trying.

@GundamHeavyarms said:

I never saw Cyborg as a poor representation of black people, a better example would be early luke cage.

No kidding. Even his latest form reminds me that Marvel found it to be good marketing to have him fight crime in Starter gear, whereas Hero for Hire Luke Cage looked more respectable with an edge.

@spiderbat87 said:

@fodigg: so you are saying Cyborg IS a form of racism?

I think it's a valid perspective, but it is mitigated by the facts that:

• There are a number of non-monstrous black characters that DC puts forward, any of which could have been tapped (or have been tapped) as JL material (e.g., John Stewart, Steel, Mr. Terrific, and now Batwing)
• Cyborg is written as a very dynamic and rounded character--he doesn't act like a robot
• Even with the cybernetics, he's frequently drawn as an attractive male (showing more skin than many other characters even)

I don't think that Cyborg's appearance should bar him from being DC's new "flagship black character," a legacy he inherited from John Stewart who in turn inherited it from Steel who I guess inherited it from, well, John Stewart. Cyborg has a strong following from years of solid character work done on him, he's had a lot of exposure from the Teen Titans cartoons, and his technological bent makes him a natural choice for a modern addition to the Justice League. That said, I think it's worth discussing him as an example of the latent "sub-human" charge against black characters.

This is why I feel he's a good choice for the Justice League but that it might be interesting to play with those themes in a story. At least that way the comparison is addressed, although I think the most important point is my second one above, write his personality well and none of this will matter. But I don't think the charge should be dismissed outright and I certainly don't think those who feel it's valid should be dragged across the coals for "bringing up race" or something.

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

Reducing the identity of a vast number of local cultures down to what continent they're a part of can definitely be considered racism, or at least ignorance.

No, no, no, that simply will not do. If the defining condition for racism is that the offender is trying to be racist, then we're back to "there is no racism." You're giving the offender a blanket pass by judging them by the most agreeable possible judge--themselves--and putting the blame on the victim of their active or passive racism, judging them by the dubious standard of "did they call racism racism?"

I'm not arguing that if someone says something is racist, they're always right, but racism exists and there are ways to evaluate it. The intentions of the offending party might be a mitigating factor as far as the feelings of the offended toward them, but it should not affect whether their actions, comments, or perspective was or was not racist.

See the difference is your not talking to some who hasn't seen a lot.

It is very easy. What it boils down to. If the person saying it or has something, that a person says its racist and its not, that means its not. The person implying someone being racist when they are not even after they find out the truth is just as bad as a person being racist. Plain and simple.

Racism will be around as long as there are racist and people who see racism when there is none.

So what you're saying is, that if there's a disagreement over if something is racist or not, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the supposed offender. I don't agree with that--people who make racist comments frequently deny it, even if it's obviously racist (see American politics)--but I can at least understand the spirit of an "innocent until guilty" mentality.

But what I strongly disagree with is the notion that the offended person is as bad as a racist, simply for being offended. And what reason do you give for this? Because they're calling someone racist who doesn't want to be called racist, regardless of validity of that label. That strikes me very much as a form of the "don't discriminate against me for being discriminatory" argument, which is another bogus equivalency. I reject the notion that someone's intentions entirely define if their actions and words are racist or not. By definition, subliminal racism is not overt (although some forms of covert racism can be intentional, with coded language).

Again, if somebody is calling out racism where there's really no objective evidence to support that claim, that's wrong, but to reject objectivity entirely in favor of potential offenders is very wrongheaded.

@EdBlank said:

When Cyborg was on Teen Titans it was just becuase he was on Teen Titans. Seemingly no particular reason, just was. When he suddenly was bumped up to JL, there was - seemingly - a reason. If the reason was to make sure there was a black guy on the team, then a black guy who could go on to become a star would have been nice. There are 1631781 Batman and or Superman movies and TV shows cause their character is attractive a relatable. To give the one black guy on the new JL a chance to shine, he would kind of need a face. Not that a guy without a face can't be a star, but the best stars have them. The funny part is how long and hard people are fighting to deny the existence of subtle, even subconscious racism. I never said I am any better, that I am surprised by it, nor that we should fight against it. On the other hand: I expect it and the only remedy is for me to draw a picture of myself and draw it the way I want to be seen. DC is going to do what they do and I am sure they are trying.

It definitely has some unfortunate implications. However, it should be pointed out that it also serves to make him more easily identifiable and therefore marketable. Compare the ease of recognizing Batman (mask on) to Superman. Without the spit curl, it's hard to tell who Superman is depending on the artist.

Now, Cyborg can't take his mask off, and while that's potentially subtle racism (not that such a character exists, but that such a character would--of course--be the company's ICONIC BLACK CHARACTER™), it's also potentially interesting (especially with so many disabled vets in the States these days). This is why I don't mind him being "promoted" ahead of someone like Steel, who could basically be the exact same character except he can take his mask off.

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

Reducing the identity of a vast number of local cultures down to what continent they're a part of can definitely be considered racism, or at least ignorance.

No, no, no, that simply will not do. If the defining condition for racism is that the offender is trying to be racist, then we're back to "there is no racism." You're giving the offender a blanket pass by judging them by the most agreeable possible judge--themselves--and putting the blame on the victim of their active or passive racism, judging them by the dubious standard of "did they call racism racism?"

I'm not arguing that if someone says something is racist, they're always right, but racism exists and there are ways to evaluate it. The intentions of the offending party might be a mitigating factor as far as the feelings of the offended toward them, but it should not affect whether their actions, comments, or perspective was or was not racist.

See the difference is your not talking to some who hasn't seen a lot.

It is very easy. What it boils down to. If the person saying it or has something, that a person says its racist and its not, that means its not. The person implying someone being racist when they are not even after they find out the truth is just as bad as a person being racist. Plain and simple.

Racism will be around as long as there are racist and people who see racism when there is none.

So what you're saying is, that if there's a disagreement over if something is racist or not, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the supposed offender. I don't agree with that--people who make racist comments frequently deny it, even if it's obviously racist (see American politics)--but I can at least understand the spirit of an "innocent until guilty" mentality.

But what I strongly disagree with is the notion that the offended person is as bad as a racist, simply for being offended. And what reason do you give for this? Because they're calling someone racist who doesn't want to be called racist, regardless of validity of that label. That strikes me very much as a form of the "don't discriminate against me for being discriminatory" argument, which is another bogus equivalency. I reject the notion that someone's intentions entirely define if their actions and words are racist or not. By definition, subliminal racism is not overt (although some forms of covert racism can be intentional, with coded language).

Again, if somebody is calling out racism where there's really no objective evidence to support that claim, that's wrong, but to reject objectivity entirely in favor of potential offenders is very wrongheaded.

The exact opposite just as bad if someone says something is racist when its not we should just say its racist. Even in politics a lot of things people say its racist and its not but thats a different discussion. If the person is being racist its bad I don't care they should be reprimanded in some form. If they are not then the person saying there being racist is at fault. For this there is no inbetween its either wrong or not wrong. The benefit of doubt should always be given. Personally I give a damn about others and what they mean thats between them and whoever. The people who don't give a damn if your black, white, yellow, green whatever and are accused of being racist when they are not thats when it becomes a problem. If you went by the extreme examples of either of our ways bad things can happen. For the majority "Innocent until guilty" should be the way it is.

I am sorry you feel that way but thats the difference of opinions. Everyone has a different opinion. You have your logic for feeling that way and I have my logic for it.

@Manchine said:

If the person is being racist its bad I don't care they should be reprimanded in some form. If they are not then the person saying there being racist is at fault. For this there is no inbetween its either wrong or not wrong.

My concern with the above is that racism is rarely confined to clear-cut overt methods. Covert or subliminal racism is often seen only through examination of trends, and then often people who don't hold to racist beliefs can display racist behavior because they're steeped in a society that ignores or just accepts certain kinds of racism. If you point out to such a person that what they're saying/doing plays into racism, you're not doing them a disservice, you're doing them a favor. Especially if you're respectful while doing so.

You're trying to lay down fast and hard rules about what is and isn't racist and who is or isn't to blame and that doesn't work. Sometimes there's no racism but blame on both sides and sometimes there's racism but no blame on any side but on society generally and every combination in-between. Context is important, discussion is important, consistency and intellectual honesty are important. But refusing to discuss the topic at all because it's complicated or ambiguous or feelings might get hurt does nobody (and no fictional character) any good.

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

If the person is being racist its bad I don't care they should be reprimanded in some form. If they are not then the person saying there being racist is at fault. For this there is no inbetween its either wrong or not wrong.

My concern with the above is that racism is rarely confined to clear-cut overt methods. Covert or subliminal racism is often seen only through examination of trends, and then often people who don't hold to racist beliefs can display racist behavior because they're steeped in a society that ignores or just accepts certain kinds of racism. If you point out to such a person that what they're saying/doing plays into racism, you're not doing them a disservice, you're doing them a favor. Especially if you're respectful while doing so.

You're trying to lay down fast and hard rules about what is and isn't racist and who is or isn't to blame and that doesn't work. Sometimes there's no racism but blame on both sides and sometimes there's racism but no blame on any side but on society generally and every combination in-between. Context is important, discussion is important, consistency and intellectual honesty are important. But refusing to discuss the topic at all because it's complicated or ambiguous or feelings might get hurt does nobody (and no fictional character) any good.

Sometimes there's no racism but blame on the person claiming. Thats the problem there is no set way to do this. Would I feel comfortable if I said someone was being racist and found out they weren't. Because of that something bad happened. I would feel horrible about it.

As Human Beings we don't know everything we can only make decisions on by what we know or can prove (this can be good and bad on both sides). Having something racist is black and white. Unfortunately the world is not black and white there are many shades of grey. We could debate all day about the extremes of each side. Neither way is 100% right.

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

If the person is being racist its bad I don't care they should be reprimanded in some form. If they are not then the person saying there being racist is at fault. For this there is no inbetween its either wrong or not wrong.

My concern with the above is that racism is rarely confined to clear-cut overt methods. Covert or subliminal racism is often seen only through examination of trends, and then often people who don't hold to racist beliefs can display racist behavior because they're steeped in a society that ignores or just accepts certain kinds of racism. If you point out to such a person that what they're saying/doing plays into racism, you're not doing them a disservice, you're doing them a favor. Especially if you're respectful while doing so.

You're trying to lay down fast and hard rules about what is and isn't racist and who is or isn't to blame and that doesn't work. Sometimes there's no racism but blame on both sides and sometimes there's racism but no blame on any side but on society generally and every combination in-between. Context is important, discussion is important, consistency and intellectual honesty are important. But refusing to discuss the topic at all because it's complicated or ambiguous or feelings might get hurt does nobody (and no fictional character) any good.

Sometimes there's no racism but blame on the person claiming. Thats the problem there is no set way to do this. Would I feel comfortable if I said someone was being racist and found out they weren't. Because of that something bad happened. I would feel horrible about it.

As Human Beings we don't know everything we can only make decisions on by what we know or can prove (this can be good and bad on both sides). Having something racist is black and white. Unfortunately the world is not black and white there are many shades of grey. We could debate all day about the extremes of each side. Neither way is 100% right.

But why are you so cautious when concluding if someone is racist yet quick to label the offended as just as bad as a racist for speaking up? That's what doesn't make sense. It's "gray" for the offender, and a stern denunciation of the person who spoke up. That's a clear attempt to stifle discussion about racism. You can't stop racism by stopping accusations of racism. That just hides it.

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

If the person is being racist its bad I don't care they should be reprimanded in some form. If they are not then the person saying there being racist is at fault. For this there is no inbetween its either wrong or not wrong.

My concern with the above is that racism is rarely confined to clear-cut overt methods. Covert or subliminal racism is often seen only through examination of trends, and then often people who don't hold to racist beliefs can display racist behavior because they're steeped in a society that ignores or just accepts certain kinds of racism. If you point out to such a person that what they're saying/doing plays into racism, you're not doing them a disservice, you're doing them a favor. Especially if you're respectful while doing so.

You're trying to lay down fast and hard rules about what is and isn't racist and who is or isn't to blame and that doesn't work. Sometimes there's no racism but blame on both sides and sometimes there's racism but no blame on any side but on society generally and every combination in-between. Context is important, discussion is important, consistency and intellectual honesty are important. But refusing to discuss the topic at all because it's complicated or ambiguous or feelings might get hurt does nobody (and no fictional character) any good.

Sometimes there's no racism but blame on the person claiming. Thats the problem there is no set way to do this. Would I feel comfortable if I said someone was being racist and found out they weren't. Because of that something bad happened. I would feel horrible about it.

As Human Beings we don't know everything we can only make decisions on by what we know or can prove (this can be good and bad on both sides). Having something racist is black and white. Unfortunately the world is not black and white there are many shades of grey. We could debate all day about the extremes of each side. Neither way is 100% right.

But why are you so cautious when concluding if someone is racist yet quick to label the offended as just as bad as a racist for speaking up? That's what doesn't make sense. It's "gray" for the offender, and a stern denunciation of the person who spoke up. That's a clear attempt to stifle discussion about racism. You can't stop racism by stopping accusations of racism. That just hides it.

When its wrong its wrong it doesn't matter. There is no quick to label. Again its putting words in my mouth. If there racist I have said its racist. If they are not and someone says they are they are just as bad. Its gray for anyone. Thats just how you feel. Doesn't make it true. If someone says there racist and there not nothing happens to the person that accuses thats a gray area also. I don't understand why you keep argueing it. Its not hard to understand. Its clear that you think its ok to call some racist when they are not being racist. Thats your opinion.

Racism won't stop until people stop being racist and people claiming racist when there is not racism. To many people use it as an excuse.

All we keep doing is going around in a circle. I think its time to drop it and opinions be opinions.

@Manchine said:

When its wrong its wrong it doesn't matter. There is no quick to label. Again its putting words in my mouth. If there racist I have said its racist. If they are not and someone says they are they are just as bad. Its gray for anyone. Thats just how you feel. Doesn't make it true. If someone says there racist and there not nothing happens to the person that accuses thats a gray area also. I don't understand why you keep argueing it. Its not hard to understand. Its clear that you think its ok to call some racist when they are not being racist. Thats your opinion.

That's a gross misrepresentation of my position. I've said and implied nothing of the sort. In fact, I've said quite the opposite more than once in this thread.

Racism won't stop until people stop being racist and people claiming racist when there is not racism. To many people use it as an excuse.

All we keep doing is going around in a circle. I think its time to drop it and opinions be opinions.

And so we're back to "racism doesn't exist and people shouldn't talk about it." Yeah, I guess we're just not gonna find any common ground on this.

@Manchine said:

When its wrong its wrong it doesn't matter. There is no quick to label. Again its putting words in my mouth. If there racist I have said its racist. If they are not and someone says they are they are just as bad. Its gray for anyone. Thats just how you feel. Doesn't make it true. If someone says there racist and there not nothing happens to the person that accuses thats a gray area also. I don't understand why you keep argueing it. Its not hard to understand. Its clear that you think its ok to call some racist when they are not being racist. Thats your opinion.

That's a gross misrepresentation of my position. I've said and implied nothing of the sort. In fact, I've said quite the opposite more than once in this thread.

Racism won't stop until people stop being racist and people claiming racist when there is not racism. To many people use it as an excuse.

All we keep doing is going around in a circle. I think its time to drop it and opinions be opinions.

And so we're back to "racism doesn't exist and people shouldn't talk about it." Yeah, I guess we're just not gonna find any common ground on this.

• some times people call racism when there is none
• some times people call racism when nobody else see's it but that doesn't mean it's not there

@spiderbat87 said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

When its wrong its wrong it doesn't matter. There is no quick to label. Again its putting words in my mouth. If there racist I have said its racist. If they are not and someone says they are they are just as bad. Its gray for anyone. Thats just how you feel. Doesn't make it true. If someone says there racist and there not nothing happens to the person that accuses thats a gray area also. I don't understand why you keep argueing it. Its not hard to understand. Its clear that you think its ok to call some racist when they are not being racist. Thats your opinion.

That's a gross misrepresentation of my position. I've said and implied nothing of the sort. In fact, I've said quite the opposite more than once in this thread.

Racism won't stop until people stop being racist and people claiming racist when there is not racism. To many people use it as an excuse.

All we keep doing is going around in a circle. I think its time to drop it and opinions be opinions.

And so we're back to "racism doesn't exist and people shouldn't talk about it." Yeah, I guess we're just not gonna find any common ground on this.

You are both over generalising what each other is saying:

• some times people call racism when there is none
• some times people call racism when nobody else see's it but that doesn't mean it's not there

both are true yet some times neither are, so let's move on, eh?

That's actually my exact position. I've made the first of your bulleted points at least twice on this thread.

@spiderbat87 said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

When its wrong its wrong it doesn't matter. There is no quick to label. Again its putting words in my mouth. If there racist I have said its racist. If they are not and someone says they are they are just as bad. Its gray for anyone. Thats just how you feel. Doesn't make it true. If someone says there racist and there not nothing happens to the person that accuses thats a gray area also. I don't understand why you keep argueing it. Its not hard to understand. Its clear that you think its ok to call some racist when they are not being racist. Thats your opinion.

That's a gross misrepresentation of my position. I've said and implied nothing of the sort. In fact, I've said quite the opposite more than once in this thread.

Racism won't stop until people stop being racist and people claiming racist when there is not racism. To many people use it as an excuse.

All we keep doing is going around in a circle. I think its time to drop it and opinions be opinions.

And so we're back to "racism doesn't exist and people shouldn't talk about it." Yeah, I guess we're just not gonna find any common ground on this.

You are both over generalising what each other is saying:

• some times people call racism when there is none
• some times people call racism when nobody else see's it but that doesn't mean it's not there

both are true yet some times neither are, so let's move on, eh?

That's actually my exact position. I've made the first of your bulleted points at least twice on this thread.

@spiderbat87 said:

@fodigg said:

That's actually my exact position. I've made the first of your bulleted points at least twice on this thread.

cool, then we are on the same page but I don't think the other duder has seen them

That's possible. I do get long-winded. I'll track those down.

@fodigg said:

I'm not arguing that if someone says something is racist, they're always right,

@fodigg said:

Again, if somebody is calling out racism where there's really no objective evidence to support that claim, that's wrong,

Both from last page.

To be even-handed about this, @Manchine: did say at one point "If the person is being racist … they should be reprimanded in some form," so I thought we were finding some common ground, but this was quickly followed by more of what I disagreed with. I'm not trying to turn this into a he-said, she-said, just trying to say I think Manch and I have covered every angle here. I don't think it's a matter of misunderstanding at this point, I think we just plain disagree. Which, hey, it happens.

@spiderbat87 said:

@fodigg said:

@Manchine said:

When its wrong its wrong it doesn't matter. There is no quick to label. Again its putting words in my mouth. If there racist I have said its racist. If they are not and someone says they are they are just as bad. Its gray for anyone. Thats just how you feel. Doesn't make it true. If someone says there racist and there not nothing happens to the person that accuses thats a gray area also. I don't understand why you keep argueing it. Its not hard to understand. Its clear that you think its ok to call some racist when they are not being racist. Thats your opinion.

That's a gross misrepresentation of my position. I've said and implied nothing of the sort. In fact, I've said quite the opposite more than once in this thread.

Racism won't stop until people stop being racist and people claiming racist when there is not racism. To many people use it as an excuse.

All we keep doing is going around in a circle. I think its time to drop it and opinions be opinions.

And so we're back to "racism doesn't exist and people shouldn't talk about it." Yeah, I guess we're just not gonna find any common ground on this.

You are both over generalising what each other is saying:

• some times people call racism when there is none
• some times people call racism when nobody else see's it but that doesn't mean it's not there

both are true yet some times neither are, so let's move on, eh?

I have been saying that since the start. ...... AND I won't any more comments about the extra info..... I had more but it won't do any good.

@fodigg said:

@spiderbat87 said:

@fodigg said:

That's actually my exact position. I've made the first of your bulleted points at least twice on this thread.

cool, then we are on the same page but I don't think the other duder has seen them

That's possible. I do get long-winded. I'll track those down.

@fodigg said:

I'm not arguing that if someone says something is racist, they're always right,

@fodigg said:

Again, if somebody is calling out racism where there's really no objective evidence to support that claim, that's wrong,

Both from last page.

To be even-handed about this, @Manchine: did say at one point "If the person is being racist … they should be reprimanded in some form," so I thought we were finding some common ground, but this was quickly followed by more of what I disagreed with. I'm not trying to turn this into a he-said, she-said, just trying to say I think Manch and I have covered every angle here. I don't think it's a matter of misunderstanding at this point, I think we just plain disagree. Which, hey, it happens.

I am perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree. I know whats right and I know what is wrong and thats all that really matters.

@Manchine said:

I am not saying there isn't any racism. Saying there isn't is stupid cause there is. Although People using it as a crutch saying there is racism when there isn't any is just as stupid.

Racism = Stand Up Comedy

I don't think that Cyborg's physical appearance is intended to portray him as somehow less than human. Nor do I think that a single black comic book superhero should be considered representative of black people in general; such general representation is unobtainable due to the great diversity of characteristics within any group of people.

He could look like this ... This is monstrous

This is cool, and it is a lot better than MMH who is an alien who takes on an African American "form" ... maybe they could allow him to go "more human like" when not in combat, like extremis using tech from Superman's armor ...

Odd that Steel, Batwing, cyborg and possibly the engineer are members for prominent DC families/teams that fall under the robotic class while being Black ... but I can't tell what race the engineer is 100%

@MonkeyToe:Sorry I know its old but felt the need to tell you.The Black Panthers were not racist.If they were then the FBI would not had used illegal tactics to bring them down.Read up on them and their leaders and you'll know for yourself.

I enjoyed this topic.

As a black male I don't find him monsterous or racially insensitive. He is a cyborg and his look defines that. The problem with cyborg is that he was created 30-40 years ago. The faceplate and exposed metal showed he was a cyborg. Now we are in the era of nanomachines and Liquid metal. If Iron-man can find a way to do it then DC's greatest engineers whether it be CYborg or Steel should be able to have a similar suit. Cyborg's Body should go through an upgrade where the nanites already present see his current form as obsolete and somewhat of an obstacle. A metamorphosis should take place in which he awakens to find himself having his "human" body. Instead he is more like a beast machine. Organic metal. He is now looks normal but is probably psychologically even further removed from his humanity because he is both man and machine wholly. Is he a meta human or some different category now?

So to sum up my point. CYborg is in an age where nanomachines can rewrite DNA and transform beings. Why is he stuck looking like something from a different era. It would be easy to just rip off Tony;s Bleeding Edge armor. Cyborg already has the make weapons part. Now all he needs to do is have a way to Armor up and armor down. While he would appear human, x-rays would show something robotic and organic.

@KingAres109: Sorry. I meant the New Black Panther Party.

i think john stewart as green lantern or Icon would have been much better choices dc's effort to promote diversity