SC's forum posts

#1 Posted by SC (12709 posts) - - Show Bio

@archizoom: @csg_cl: Hello. You both need to be less personal and hostile with each other. Its possible to disagree with other users and still be polite and respectful, and its actually generally preferred . The direct opposite though in conjunction with passive aggressive or direct insults? Isn't tolerated so please, if you can not address each other without resorting to discussing each others character, behavior negatively then avoid addressing each other. No swearing either. The alternative would be that you both get warnings. Questions or concerns can be sent via PM. Cheers.

Moderator
#2 Posted by SC (12709 posts) - - Show Bio

Guys, anything to do with DBZ, DB, DBGT, movies about DBZ characters or here, if this has to be about semantics, if the character shares a name with a DB on purpose even though its a different medium? Goku? Vegeta? They have chi and go super Saiyan? Then its banned. Its the very subject matter itself that causes people to argue. Not really the power levels, not really the inconsistency, really just the attitudes of users.

Personally I'd prefer DBZ be allowed, but I ain't a Battles mod nor do I participate in Battles often. Those that want these threads back? Maybe try more CAV;s and set an example. Please don't try to stretch rules or find exceptions to the rule, it might only result in harsher rules. Err on the side of caution. Thanks.

Moderator
#3 Posted by SC (12709 posts) - - Show Bio

@allaric said:

Your remark stating to one poster that "ruins the character for you" is a bold attempt to trivialize the posters concerns about the character as if they were the only person that had the same concerns when CLEARLY they are not. Also you are wrong on your remarks about feminism ,it is a clumsy attempt at feminism , in that they failed to fool people that the changes to Thor is Marvels intention to represent a female audience , but even Gloria Steinem would criticize such a lame move by Marvel. Ms. Steinem stated many times in interviews that the goal of feminist is not to replace men but to be treated as equals and given equal opportunity to use their skills and ideas , NOT to be piggy back onto or carried by a mans successes. The real truth underneath it all though is that it is all pretense and fake feminism if you take a more cynical point of view toward Marvels actions in which you understand the real motivation for the new Thor. Because of all of this and that Marvel under estimates the acuity of their audience the she Thor experiment is doomed to failure.

No, my statement is not, your insistence that its a "bold attempt to trivialize the posters concerns" doesn't automatically make it so anymore than if I were to claim that your "CLEARLY" "just upset about this decision and just looking to disagree with anyone that doesn't share your opinion" because using language like clearly doesn't automatically lend any credibility or validity to your claim. That and I don't know your intent or motivation just as you do not know mine, just like ultimately both if us are the ultimate authority on what we intend and mean aside from potentially being deceptive. If your at that state then you should not address myself or other posters you think are guilty of such.

Marvels intention is to sell comics and make money, thats not so much a cynical view as much as an understanding as where Marvel is as a company and comics industry being niche and slowly declining in overall sales. So we can wait a few months and see if they succeed with this particular venture. You assert this is going to be a big mistake on Marvels part? Okay well we can just what and see then. Will be interesting. I think Marvel knows their audience as far as this decision. A lot of people who criticize such moves tend to still support Marvel, and the influx of new readers generally tends to make up for loss of readers especially around big announcements/creative changes.

Moderator
#4 Posted by SC (12709 posts) - - Show Bio
@allaric said:

Frozen is correct in the observation that the changes to Thor are a clumsy attempt at feminism , but you are also correct in pointing out that its also being done in a way to stir curiosity for the Thor comic but sensationalism would be more accurate hence the dramatic changes but these are not the reasons behind the sensationalism and faux feminism.

Hello. Well if your going to start off a conversation by making assumptions about another individual and their behavior (as opposed to making assumptions about on topic subjects) how can you possibly hope to have a sincere conversation? So I do not find that I am not ignoring or trivializing valid points and but if you feel that way how about actually giving an example instead of making an easier short cut and just questioning my behavior and motivations? It would be just as easy as any poster to say that any other poster is ignoring something or trivializing something. I think its more than an individual being unhappy or about it ruining a character too, but I was being specific to that individual, hence specific questions and assertions, no biggie.

I agree I make an assumption about many giving the new Thor a chance. Sure, I don't mind. Its an assumption that eventually I'll be able to see the results of. I don't find that assumption is a dirty word or concept.

An individual would first have to establish that such changes are for a purpose before it can be asserted as accurate or correct. Every single Marvel creative is actually making a brilliant attempt to appeal to interstellar aliens… I mean I can't prove this factually but you can't prove me wrong either so I'll just assert that its correct over and over no matter what. Some claims can be affirmed naturally, like sensationalism wouldn't really be something Marvel or Marvel employees would necessarily deny and or if one wanted to spend the time, it could be actually easy to demonstrate. Comics industry has a history of hyping products to excite its fan base and appeal to a wider audience. Its usually what works as far as playing it safe. By the same token its actually possible to see how appeals to feminism are more about perception than actuality. If Marvel or DC really were pandering to a small minority its creators wouldn't be afraid of using the word feminism in articles, and they would be more careful about randomly employing a lot of its female characters as notches on the bedposts of many of its male super star characters, as well as plenty of other creative moves and decisions. So your right when you say fake feminism, fake in the sense its not a "clumsy" attempt by Marvel either, its just a very safe and predictable move by Marvel to generate publicity, talk and attention. A lot of the publicity around the new Captain America has generated around ethnicity and "race" as well. Iron Man had a bit of news as well, its almost as if these three creative moves were designed to hit in fast order to generate a lot of publicity and garner mainstream attention like rarely occurs.

Moderator
#5 Posted by SC (12709 posts) - - Show Bio

@wolverine08: Great points about a tricky ethical subject. Some of your replies in this thread have been very exceptional. I usually want to post in threads like this because I think it's an important subject but I really don't feel the need to after reading your posts. You do a great job being fair, reasonable and empathic.

Moderator
#6 Posted by SC (12709 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesomedude: No worries. If you want next time someone is a jerk to you, just send me a PM (as well as flagging them) and try not to retaliate please. That way I can just give them the warning and delete their posts and you can just ignore them and move on with more productive and positive ventures.

Moderator
#7 Posted by SC (12709 posts) - - Show Bio

…come on let me lock this thread? It'd be great, heh heh. Especially cause I'd wager more people might look. 0_0.

Though yeah Batman.

Moderator
#8 Edited by SC (12709 posts) - - Show Bio

Alternatively you could say that "you" were there just that "you" is a superficial way to distinguish yourself from everything else, since to your own perceptions you are solid and tangible and you feel that you have an individual and separate consciousness but on smaller scales you are just made up of the same stuff as everything else and basically as such blend into everything else, as everything else blends into you. So "you" have been replaced and continue to be replaced every moment as "you" always have save for perceptions and senses which are adapted for other purposes generally and its level of understanding. Both work.

Moderator
#9 Posted by SC (12709 posts) - - Show Bio

I think no… but for me thats a good thing because I have never been a fan of 95 percent of the relationships in X-Men. Even when my favorite characters have connected together I haven't been a fan of the way writers portrayed them and I felt most were actually harmed by the pairing. Even when I have liked a pairing I have still figured a temporary romance was better long term. Like I really enjoyed Emma and Cyclops as a short term thing but not a long term option. I don't think the writer that put them together and wrote them best intended for it to be long term either.

There are a few relationships I think could work out long term and therefore could invest in but even those are between what could be considered primary X-Men members and secondary. Beast and Agent Brand, Storm and Forge as examples. I don't find that team/group based comics are generally conductive for character relationships unless its a small team and those characters were basically designed for each other and or its a member of the team dating someone outside it (Fantastic Four, X-Factor for examples) - an exception might be Kitty and Colossus.

Moderator
#10 Posted by SC (12709 posts) - - Show Bio

Only if it was Devilsaurus.

Moderator