Based on the reasons given by the OP no.

What..? They just survived the Purifiers attempt to purify their school, but you argument is "X-men didn't know"?

Guestlist is much more important for true elitists.

@ageofhurricane said:

Lol. But really, this is what happens when fans decide to indignantly reach. It cultivates nothing of logical substance while dichotomously enforcing this self-serving ideal of persistent dogmatism.

'Cause really and truly, Storm hasn't done anything wrong or contentious, and i base that on what i've actually read, inferred and subsequently deduced as opposed to the baseless extrapolation which sadly seems to be the OP's and its proponents' stock-in-trade.

Tis' been an interesting debacle of points, but at the end of the day...

That's what happens when fans selflessly defend their non-existing idols with such "baseless extrapolation".

Bystanders do nothing wrong and contentious when letting mobs and corrupt practicals disfigure our world and envenom our societies, they have their families to think about. Is your precious Storm a bystander?

In the end of the day Stormy wasn't there to ensure the better life for the X-men, only her own. Such responsibility! But right? Now, questionable. At least for those who have some self-respect.

Everything else is just a well-formed yet venomous demagogy.

Why most of you feel so determined to passionately defend symbolic yet silhouettes shaped by art and writers' decisions, both good and bad?

@adamtrmm: But your argument is steeped in unbridled, unilateral fallacy. Storm has always been about the bigger picture. It would have been geopolitically counterproductive to the situation at hand had she dropped all of her monarchical duties pertaining to her husband and kingdom to serve as collateral background support while everything was happening at Xavier's.

I'm actually really baffled as to why you think there needs to be an urgent calling to account.

Really and truly, would her presence have made that much of a difference? You speak as if she was indulging in the consummate luxuries that which being a beneficiary of royalty can garner, but she wasn't. She was, as she always has, right from introduction, being a hero to those who were in need of her (and no, the X-Men were not truly in dire need of Ororo).

But anywho, why are you so hell-bent on proving everyone else run that we may only see your POV or none at all? I can see things from your perspective and understand the points you convey, but seriously tho, you're wrong and have been proven wrong with substantiated evidence to boot. The equilibrium of elucidation has achieved sufficient peak.

A) Nimrod wasn't known for it's Purifier connection to begin with. The one the Purifiers partially dismembered flew off when it woke up.

B) Elitist? Ah yeah, I suppose Storm and the X-Men are people who are still bawling their eyes out weeks after the funeral service. /Endsarcasm

Besides, who does it reflect on the worst; Storm/Balck Panther for being wed not very long after a terrorist attack? Or the other X-Men for attending it?

@ageofhurricane:

But your argument is steeped in unbridled, unilateral fallacy. Storm has always been about the bigger picture. It would have been geopolitically counterproductive to the situation at hand had she dropped all of her monarchical duties pertaining to her husband and kingdom to serve as collateral background support while everything was happening at Xavier's.

Pretty sure, you haven't read most of this thread's posts, you would know my point wasn't about Storm's perspective, only those whom she's now supposed to lead.

I'm actually really baffled as to why you think there needs to be an urgent calling to account.

The ex-military boils in me, we always laughed at those big talk officers. But you know what's the difference? We were forcedto follow orders, for obvious reasons. No one is forced to be an X-man. Where's parallel you might ask - we didn't trust some of these officers unless they proved themselves, we didn't trust them if we knew they were avoiding the operative tasks. Reasons and justifying do not matter.

But most of you just prefer to defend your precious favorites instead of looking for the real reasons. They are just character, and sometimes they happen to be written without backups.

Really and truly, would her presence have made that much of a difference? You speak as if she was indulging in the consummate luxuries that which being a beneficiary of royalty can garner, but she wasn't. She was, as she always has, right from introduction, being a hero to those who were in need of her (and no, the X-Men were not truly in dire need of Ororo).

Really? And that's the counter argument of yours? New X-men, New Mutants (though there are not many of them at JGC right now) were facing multiple death threats, while they supposedly and understandably don't know what she was doing. What they do know she married a King while they clashed with Nimrod, then she joined FF and Avengers. That's enough to start question her as legitimate X-leader while X-men were loosing men at a survival war-time. But you don't see why they needed her, and God forbid, why NOW they should question her? Or you just refuse to see? I kinda feel closer to the second question.

But anywho, why are you so hell-bent on proving everyone else run that we may only see your POV or none at all? I can see things from your perspective and understand the points you convey, but seriously tho, you're wrong and have been proven wrong with substantiated evidence to boot. The equilibrium of elucidation has achieved sufficient peak.

My POV is everything that you and most of the posters are trying to evade. Like I said, you didn't read all of the post here, because I, alone, facing like 3-5 defenders, had a counter argument for every statement, like I do now. Nothing of arrogance, just it was that easy. I'm not debating for Storm, I'm debating for everyone around her, well including the culmination of this thread where I realized that no senior X-men at the Circus can actually question Storm, that's why I use NXM and NM now. Aaron's abominations do not exist btw.

Before I started this thread I made a research to backup my feeling, and you can see the consequence.

And like always, the fanboyism will tarnish the reasoning process and you will defend favorite of yours at all cost, it's all have become repetitive already. Not the first, pretty sure not the last.

a. You missed the point, the school was attacked for extermination, but X-men were irresponsible enough to leave the school at such sensible time for the damn wedding.

b. The mass-funeral was very touching btw. Miss that run :(

The way I see it? Storm should've shifted the wedding date as an act of solidarity and compassion. But that's questionable me and my morals.

---------

Unlike most of you think, I didn't start this thread to troll fans, I made it discuss and weigh some points (you know, like civilized people do?), of what I consider, questionable and not bright writing.

@adamtrmm:

"Kitty was also most of the time in space, not that she can be blamed, but she wasn't really part of anything until Age of X. That's the problem with the whole Circus (though she isn't a part of it already). Most of them are not in the position to judge, only New X-men and New Mutants can, which would be more than enough, but the "non-senior" voicelessness in the JGC is overwhelming."

I don't totally agree or disagree with this, but I think it depends which books you're reading.

I agree that most of the senior X-men can't really judge each other on account of their own skeletons and hypocrisies, while most of the characters who could, like The New Mutants, Kitty, Prodigy, Elixer, etc, have all left the school.

Maybe the school would be more interesting with any of them in more central roles instead, but personally I'd rather see most of those characters doing things beyond the school at this point (even if it's not what any of them actually are doing at the moment). If anything, I'd rather see those characters come together as their own separate faction, really.

But, back to your point, while it does seem strange that we haven't heard more from characters like Surge or Hellion, I am liking that Latour and Wood are giving some focus to previously overlooked characters like Armor and Bling, both of whom were also around for all of the stuff that the New X-men were but never got as much focus. And while I like the new X-men in general, I don't necessarily enjoy them more than characters like Evan, Oya, or especially Quire, so I don't mind those characters being the voice of the students for now, especially since I'd rather see more of the New X-men do other things anyway.

"Sometimes for the sake of justifying you just overlooking the main point. The were supposed to CEASE TO EXIST because there was no mutant heirs, no mutant genome and no mutant future. You once asked me, why do I read X-men. Now, if you don't find these aspects important, I want to ask you the exact same question.

sure, but just because people wouldn't be born as mutants doesn't mean they wouldn't be born. The people themselves wouldn't cease to exist, only their powers. It wasn't like mutants could no longer have children, it would just mean that their children wouldn't be mutants themselves (which is just as likely anyway). But since most of the characters -and especially the main characters- didn't lose their powers, it's a pretty hyperbolic threat. Even if they actually meant for us to think that they were just going to stop coming up with new mutant characters (which they never would), almost all of the characters who were already around were essentially unchanged by the development, other than as a plot conceit.

But even from an in-universe perspective, the X-men's job is to protect and train mutants, and to fight threats to all of humanity in the pursuit of mutant equality. I don't see where in that it's an issue if people stop being born as mutants, since there still were more than enough mutants and threats for their mission to be relevant.

I mean, in the X-men's world, mutants are the product of evolutionary mutation; do the X-men actually believe that the powers granted by one mutation could permanently negate the effects of evolution itself? Because that just doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to think to me. But even if they honestly believed that there would never be anyone other humans born with a mutation, it still doesn't seem as relevant to their mission as protecting the mutants who were still around -and the rest of humanity- from the same threats that were already present.

The problem for me with the handling of the "decimation" was that it made it seem like the X-men regarded mutants as a separate race or species from the rest of humanity, which, besides being not true (since, even as a group, mutants are all really just individually mutated humans, of all races, clumped together because of their differences from other humans rather than their similarity to each other), it's more importantly a perspective that runs completely counter to what their ideals had been up until that point. I mean, wasn't it those ideals which had defined them from their enemies to begin with?

I mean, the way it was portrayed, it seemed like the decimation was an excuse for the X-men to separate themselves from the kinds of issues they should have been fighting. While they were establishing a base in SF and Utopia to keep mutants together for their own protection, they totally ignored that other super-powered people were being put in training camps by the government. How is that not a relevant issue for the X-men to be dealing with if the whole excuse for separating themselves from the issue is that they didn't want it to happen to them?

"They want to make Storm that dominant leader again? That's OK, make an arc to clear everything, with questions and accusations and her proving herself again, while gaining trust"

Even though I personally think Storm's leadership is justified already, I don't disagree with this at all; I just feel like that's a direction Storm's story has been going in anyway.

@adamtrmm:

Pretty sure, you haven't read most of this thread's posts, you would know my point wasn't about Storm's perspective, only those whom she's now supposed to lead.

I've read all of the posts within this thread and i was all like "lol wat?" when i first read this sentiment. How, pray tell, do you propose to impartially answer the original question with valid conclusiveness if you only want the perspective of those on the peripheral? From an argumentative stand-point, that makes no sense. You're asking about Storm...yet, you don't want her perspective...? No, seriously. Genuine question--the postulated supposition is that we're all mature adults here, so: how does that make any sense to you?

The ex-military boils in me, we always laughed at those big talk officers. But you know what's the difference? We were forcedto follow orders, for obvious reasons. No one is forced to be an X-man. Where's parallel you might ask - we didn't trust some of these officers unless they proved themselves, we didn't trust them if we knew they were avoiding the operative tasks. Reasons and justifying do not matter.

But most of you just prefer to defend your precious favorites instead of looking for the real reasons. They are just character, and sometimes they happen to be written without backups.

In this case, Storm has nothing to be tried for. Nor does she have anything to prove. While she has obligatory responsibilities to the X-Men, at that point in time she was no longer its primary leader and i highly doubt its primary leader would have allowed that much of a say so from her part anyways. She had existential tasks as newly appointed Queen. Why would she need to prove herself after leading the X-Men through their toughest bouts just as much as Scott has? You question her fidelity yet fail to provide palpable instances to support and can only resort to this shady thing of becoming a queen. That's just tautological.

Really? And that's the counter argument of yours? New X-men, New Mutants (though there are not many of them at JGC right now) were facing multiple death threats, while they supposedly and understandably don't know what she was doing. What they do know she married a King while they clashed with Nimrod, then she joined FF and Avengers. That's enough to start question her as legitimate X-leader while X-men were loosing men at a survival war-time. But you don't see why they needed her, and God forbid, why NOW they should question her? Or you just refuse to see? I kinda feel closer to the second question.

Not a counterargument, so much as a realistic suggestion. They had Scott and Emma. The self-appointed leaders of mutantkind (along with a handful of others). Since you think her presence would have been integral to the tides turning, please, tell, what would have happened had Storm postponed her wedding and stood by the X-Men during the M-Day happenings? What would she have done and how would things have been different had she been present?

My POV is everything that you and most of the posters are trying to evade. Like I said, you didn't read all of the post here, because I, alone, facing like 3-5 defenders, had a counter argument for every statement, like I do now. Nothing of arrogance, just it was that easy. I'm not debating for Storm, I'm debating for everyone around her, well including the culmination of this thread where I realized that no senior X-men at the Circus can actually question Storm, that's why I use NXM and NM now. Aaron's abominations do not exist btw.

Before I started this thread I made a research to backup my feeling, and you can see the consequence.

And like always, the fanboyism will tarnish the reasoning process and you will defend favorite of yours at all cost, it's all have become repetitive already. Not the first, pretty sure not the last.

Well, no offense or anything, but it's pretty easy to formulate a shoddy counterargument when hyperbolic snark and clear attempts at grasping for those out of reach straws constitute the majority of each remark. Despite the fact that your opponents have provided logical, unbiased and founded grounds for you to stand on with them, you have automatically refused and disregarded each try. Why? I suppose we'll never know.

See, I totally have to agree with this. Especially this question.

What adamtrmm refuses to acknowledge is that all of the X-men's leaders have lead the team through dark times, and all of them have been absent through others; and despite that Storm has been there to lead the team at virtually every point when Xavier and Cyclops were not, those credentials are for whatever reason being completely ignored as irrelevant, which just seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the question more about why is she automatically accepted as the leader as opposed to some of the others questioning it? With that in mind I can see how Storm's perspective is irrelevant because it's a question for all of those that are following her, not for her. Her position and point of view are valid in the discussion, if she were to have one with the rest of the team, but not in regards to whether any of them should pose the question in the first place. That should only depend on how they see things, not how she sees things, right?

Even in the world of the X-Men, they aren't living in a state of constant siege even if that's how it looks on the pages. And they just reformed a primary teen defensive unit that was one day supposed to become the prime X-Men, so leaving security for them to handle wasn't taken entirely out of the blue.

Storms wedding that been in the calendar for months, a week before it the X-Men had to attend a big funeral, that week is enough, there's no reason for Storm to move it.

Thats actually very valid. But i think both the Storm critics and supporters (myself included) got more into a dispute over the quality of her leadership and natural abilities then whether the characters under her should follow her.

With a clearer head i can say that Storm needs to be questioned by the characters if only so we know why they weren't questioning her before. Her relationship with her subordinates and the leadership position needs to be expanded on to eliminate the questioning of her status.

My video card crashed yesterday while I almost finished responding, it was kinda "unpleasant". Anyways finally have some time to rewrite it all now:

@oldnightcrawler:

I don't totally agree or disagree with this, but I think it depends which books you're reading.

I agree that most of the senior X-men can't really judge each other on account of their own skeletons and hypocrisies, while most of the characters who could, like The New Mutants, Kitty, Prodigy, Elixer, etc, have all left the school.

Maybe the school would be more interesting with any of them in more central roles instead, but personally I'd rather see most of those characters doing things beyond the school at this point (even if it's not what any of them actually are doing at the moment). If anything, I'd rather see those characters come together as their own separate faction, really.

But, back to your point, while it does seem strange that we haven't heard more from characters like Surge or Hellion, I am liking that Latour and Wood are giving some focus to previously overlooked characters like Armor and Bling, both of whom were also around for all of the stuff that the New X-men were but never got as much focus. And while I like the new X-men in general, I don't necessarily enjoy them more than characters like Evan, Oya, or especially Quire, so I don't mind those characters being the voice of the students for now, especially since I'd rather see more of the New X-men do other things anyway.

Good to see we're moving towards some understanding.

For me, all flagship books are disappointing.

Hellion and Surge, yes! Totally see them telling Storm to go find some friends elsewhere lol (hopefully, they'll send themselves instead *fingers crossed*)

The problem with that characters you say you like is unlike NXM, they are not "almost veterans", they did not have to survive some hardcore times, they are not in position to question anybody and more than this - they just lack toughness, personalities and gravitas to do that, if you ask me.

sure, but just because people wouldn't be born as mutants doesn't mean they wouldn't be born. The people themselves wouldn't cease to exist, only their powers. It wasn't like mutants could no longer have children, it would just mean that their children wouldn't be mutants themselves (which is just as likely anyway). But since most of the characters -and especially the main characters- didn't lose their powers, it's a pretty hyperbolic threat. Even if they actually meant for us to think that they were just going to stop coming up with new mutant characters (which they never would), almost all of the characters who were already around were essentially unchanged by the development, other than as a plot conceit.

But even from an in-universe perspective, the X-men's job is to protect and train mutants, and to fight threats to all of humanity in the pursuit of mutant equality. I don't see where in that it's an issue if people stop being born as mutants, since there still were more than enough mutants and threats for their mission to be relevant.

I mean, in the X-men's world, mutants are the product of evolutionary mutation; do the X-men actually believe that the powers granted by one mutation could permanently negate the effects of evolution itself? Because that just doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to think to me. But even if they honestly believed that there would never be anyone other humans born with a mutation, it still doesn't seem as relevant to their mission as protecting the mutants who were still around -and the rest of humanity- from the same threats that were already present.

The problem for me with the handling of the "decimation" was that it made it seem like the X-men regarded mutants as a separate race or species from the rest of humanity, which, besides being not true (since, even as a group, mutants are all really just individually mutated humans, of all races, clumped together because of their differences from other humans rather than their similarity to each other), it's more importantly a perspective that runs completely counter to what their ideals had been up until that point. I mean, wasn't it those ideals which had defined them from their enemies to begin with?

I mean, the way it was portrayed, it seemed like the decimation was an excuse for the X-men to separate themselves from the kinds of issues they should have been fighting. While they were establishing a base in SF and Utopia to keep mutants together for their own protection, they totally ignored that other super-powered people were being put in training camps by the government. How is that not a relevant issue for the X-men to be dealing with if the whole excuse for separating themselves from the issue is that they didn't want it to happen to them?

You do realize (I hope not) how offensive it could be if I'd apply your first statement on real life parallels? You just paraphrased Remender's mistake with his infamous speech, only much worse. The first time when I replied I was so much more overreacting than now, like three paragraphs more, but now I won't write down the same response with a very harsh historical conformity, you'll just have to believe me on that. Replace "mutant" with any other "race" in your first sentence, pretty sure you will understand. No? Forced and for some, lethal, assimilation? Inquisition?

And X-men never faced anything like this.

Shortly, it doesn't matter what similarities mutants bear, what really unites them is how humanity push them away, yes. But, that's avoiding the X-gene that makes them separate sub-species on a genetic level, which is more than enough to proclaim their community based on a new origin. So while I partially agree with what you say about mutant identity and how I see it much more complicated than the same convenient metaphor exploited by writers time and time again in absolutely same way, because it's sells, still the core of your statement isn't correct.

It was very big editorial mistake letting like 95% of the main cast remain mutants, and were continuing the same path with refusing to allow to kill off more important characters like some writers intended to. That's why the concepts of Endangered Species and Decimation started to lose it's charm and of course, with many other reasons. But still taking the same in-universe perspective, they were endangered, they were at the brink of extinction.

No, there was more to it. The part of their identity, which was just as important and definitive to them as any other aspect of their personality was wiped out from existence by a self-hating, weak-willed pathetic mutie, it was offensive and their reaction was just.

That is a discussion on itself how you view the mutant metaphor, too bad most of writers do not try to expand it to new levels, because in the end of the day seeing "new species" perspective upon humanity - isn't it what was supposed to be the core of the concept? Yet they just turned into another "civil rights" movement, which isn't covering the whole view on what flawed humanity looks like from the outside, it is just a small fraction of it. Without talking about how even this part supposed to be much more complicated then it is shown already. I mean, considering a telepath (and what not) as an equal? Really?!

Decimation and what Cyclops has become (I always hated the boy-scout before) made me curious enough to check out comics again being close to the end of my service. I liked how X-men have changed, accepted the more realistically applicable ways of dealing with threats, when they were forced to make most, what many of you call controversial, I call natural, acts of survival. And now Bendis disfiguring the beauty, it was my mistake to believe that simple superhero comic books (editorially) can handle such meaningful aspects. =(

What can I say, for some reason X-comics are "segregated" from other books, it would be really interesting to see how mutants could play their role in Civil War, but then.. The idea of this event was good, was it handled the same way?

@ageofhurricane:

I've read all of the posts within this thread and i was all like "lol wat?" when i first read this sentiment. How, pray tell, do you propose to impartially answer the original question with valid conclusiveness if you only want the perspective of those on the peripheral? From an argumentative stand-point, that makes no sense. You're asking about Storm...yet, you don't want her perspective...? No, seriously. Genuine question--the postulated supposition is that we're all mature adults here, so: how does that make any sense to you?

No, tell me please how her perspective is relevant when people, by what I say, should accuse her with what she wasn't in their vision, not what she was in hers. How her POV is even relevant to begin with, X-men are not supposed to be some voiceless or spineless "sissies", each and everyone is a personality (besides the abominations), yet you refuse to acknowledge their own temper and voice?

Would you consider either Hellion or Surge telling Storm "I don't care when and how important you was, while the X-men were attending your inauguration, we had to face Nimrod all by ourselves, when we were loosing our friends on a war for survival, you preferred to join either FF and Avengers instead of fighting at our side full-time!" as something unconventional?

In this case, Storm has nothing to be tried for. Nor does she have anything to prove. While she has obligatory responsibilities to the X-Men, at that point in time she was no longer its primary leader and i highly doubt its primary leader would have allowed that much of a say so from her part anyways. She had existential tasks as newly appointed Queen. Why would she need to prove herself after leading the X-Men through their toughest bouts just as much as Scott has? You question her fidelity yet fail to provide palpable instances to support and can only resort to this shady thing of becoming a queen. That's just tautological.

So her being like 25% X-man in a wartime isn't enough? I would agree, but it felt like "she wasn't really suffering", unlike most of the X-men. The point isn't concealed in pain, more in priorities and how one could interpret such decisions.

Not a counterargument, so much as a realistic suggestion. They had Scott and Emma. The self-appointed leaders of mutantkind (along with a handful of others). Since you think her presence would have been integral to the tides turning, please, tell, what would have happened had Storm postponed her wedding and stood by the X-Men during the M-Day happenings? What would she have done and how would things have been different had she been present?

She could've become an unquestioned, valued and logically authorized leader as the result. Automatically. Unlike now, without any needed clarifications.

Well, no offense or anything, but it's pretty easy to formulate a shoddy counterargument when hyperbolic snark and clear attempts at grasping for those out of reach straws constitute the majority of each remark. Despite the fact that your opponents have provided logical, unbiased and founded grounds for you to stand on with them, you have automatically refused and disregarded each try. Why? I suppose we'll never know.

While I am illogical and heavily biased? I give you points to weigh and consider, all I've seen till now is you trying to convince me how actually I don't have any. You refuse to even acknowledge what I say, yet I am the one who overlooks everything?

They weren't supposed to face it, they weren't ready by training, but they still took the initiative.

Well, that's what you think.

Yes to all of this.

So you think the grown up X-Men and Storm in particular knew for certain about Nimrod being around again and thought it was just good training for the kids to face a machine they themselves have struggled with? Right...

Lets not forget the reason Forge is coaxed into repairing it is by aiming at Storm's head and that the X-Men left almost immediately when they heard about it.

It was that dangerous times right after Decimation and Purifiers attack, they should've realized how irresponsible it was to leave them like this. Cyclops admitted in the end they conjectured that it could be actual Nimrod.

@adamtrmm:

"The problem with that characters you say you like is unlike NXM, they are not "almost veterans", they did not have to survive some hardcore times, they are not in position to question anybody and more than this - they just lack toughness, personalities and gravitas to do that, if you ask me"

Armor andBling have been around just as long as the New X-men and have had to face just as "hardcore" situations. If they lack personality at all it's only because there was less attention paid to them than the cool kids in the NXM. And you're not going to convince me thatQuire has less personality than any of the NXM; you're just not.

"You do realize (I hope not) how offensive it could be if I'd apply your first statement on real life parallels? You just paraphrased Remender's mistake with his infamous speech, only much worse. The first time when I replied I was so much more overreacting than now, like three paragraphs more, but now I won't write down the same response with a very harsh historical conformity, you'll just have to believe me on that. Replace "mutant" with any other "race" in your first sentence, pretty sure you will understand. No? Forced and for some, lethal, assimilation? Inquisition?

Shortly, it doesn't matter what similarities mutants bear, what really unites them is how humanity push them away, yes. But, that's avoiding the X-gene that makes them separate sub-species on a genetic level, which is more than enough to proclaim their community based on a new origin. So while I partially agree with what you say about mutant identity and how I see it much more complicated than the same convenient metaphor exploited by writers time and time again in absolutely same way, because it's sells, still the core of your statement isn't correct."

it's only incorrect if you think that mutants are a race in themselves, which they are not. They are humans -of all races- who've been born with the privilege of super-powers; that some of them lost this privilege is not a tragedy in itself, and is certainly not comparable to them somehow losing their actual ethnic identity.

While the presence of the X-gene may be enough of a distinction for mutants to have their own scientific classification as a subspecies of humanity, it doesn't make them a separate race. Firstly, it doesn't negate whichever race they actually are; their race is what they individually inherit from their parents, while their mutations, by definition, are what they develop themselves as individuals. For example, despite both being mutants, Cyclops and Storm are not the same race.

Also, if what really unites them is how they are treated as a group by the rest of humanity (which I don't disagree with either), then why is it okay for them to disregard the mistreatment of other super-powered humans like the ones being arrested and detained during and following the civil war?

"No, there was more to it. The part of their identity, which was just as important and definitive to them as any other aspect of their personality was wiped out from existence by a self-hating, weak-willed pathetic mutie, it was offensive and their reaction was just.

That is a discussion on itself how you view the mutant metaphor, too bad most of writers do not try to expand it to new levels, because in the end of the day seeing "new species" perspective upon humanity - isn't it what was supposed to be the core of the concept? Yet they just turned into another "civil rights" movement, which isn't covering the whole view on what flawed humanity looks like from the outside, it is just a small fraction of it. Without talking about how even this part supposed to be much more complicated then it is shown already. I mean, considering a telepath (and what not) as an equal? Really?"

mutants segregating themselves from the rest of humanity was never what the X-men was supposed to be about, if anything it's the opposite. It's what Magneto would do.

That they did it to protect mutants makes it justifiable in this case, but it doesn't justify Cyclops endangering the entire planet just so there would be more people who had the same problems as him.

But evidently what they all saw was so vague it could have been anything, and Nimrod.

@oldnightcrawler: You have an interesting take on M-day. Do you see it as a catastrophic event or as being blown a little out of proportion since at least to my knowledge it resulted in little loss of life?

being blown a little out of proportion since it resulted in little loss of life.

I can understand why it would have been pretty crappy from the perspective of those that lost their powers, and even more so from the perspective of those who lost friends because of it. And I can see why the X-men would take it as such an unforgivable insult.

But it ultimately was more an act of theft than of violence, and certainly nowhere near as tragic as the Mutant Massacre, the bus bombings, or virtually any story involving Genosha.

@oldnightcrawler:

Armor and Bling have been around just as long as the New X-men and have had to face just as "hardcore" situations. If they lack personality at all it's only because there was less attention paid to them than the cool kids in the NXM. And you're not going to convince me that Quire has less personality than any of the NXM; you're just not.

I was talking about Aaron's cast, Quire does lack gravitas of at least near-veteran to be acknowledged as definitive viewer. What X-community hardships had he been through?

it's only incorrect if you think that mutants are a race in themselves, which they are not. They are humans -of all races- who've been born with the privilege of super-powers; that some of them lost this privilege is not a tragedy in itself, and is certainly not comparable to them somehow losing their actual ethnic identity.

While the presence of the X-gene may be enough of a distinction for mutants to have their own scientific classification as a subspecies of humanity, it doesn't make them a separate race. Firstly, it doesn't negate whichever race they actually are; their race is what they individually inherit from their parents, while their mutations, by definition, are what they develop themselves as individuals. For example, despite both being mutants, Cyclops and Storm are not the same race.

Race, religion, does it matter? It's about the differences and specialities as much as similarities and uniformity. While I'm NOT the defender of these aspects in X-mythos, even I feel kinda bothered now lol I do consider mutants human, yet something else at the same time. I wouldn't stop at "race" as the expression that covers what they are, but that's the closest I've got with my vocabulary, since we haven't faced anything like this, we don't possess the right terminology. Or not, in that part I'd like to be enlighten.

In comics? What they are exactly is what X-men comics have to deal with. What do we know? Is that humans remind mutants what kind of strangers they are to them, that the laws are not applicable on them since they are not humans. But whatever they are, they are united in it. Like I said already, this is enough to make a community basement.

Upon this, they share a genetic signature that is only significant among them, yet it isn't part of their identity? So if artists will lose their ability to create art, orators their ability to speak, surgeons their control over scalpel, it won't be a tragedy to them? And last time I checked these people weren't united by the same whatever-gene that if removed could make them stripped of these gifts automatically. See what I mean?

It's a good conversation of what X-mythos parts are and what in-universe questions must be raised, that's what I'm always proclaiming :)

Exactly, and they still left.

@adamtrmm:

"I was talking about Aaron's cast, Quire does lack gravitas of at least near-veteran to be acknowledged as definitive viewer. What X-community hardships had he been through?"

mostly just the ones he himself instigated, I suppose, but in that he's certainly no less interesting.

And, despite that, Quire has always been a point of view character, by design. I mean, Kitty hadn't faced threats like Proteus or the Dark Phoenix when she first became the POV character, but that made her no less a member of the team.

"Race, religion, does it matter? It's about the differences and specialities as much as similarities and uniformity. While I'm NOT the defender of these aspects in X-mythos, even I feel kinda bothered now lol I do consider mutants human, yet something else at the same time. I wouldn't stop at "race" as the expression that covers what they are, but that's the closest I've got with my vocabulary, since we haven't faced anything like this, we don't possess the right terminology. Or not, in that part I'd like to be enlighten.

In comics? What they are exactly is what X-men comics have to deal with. What do we know? Is that humans remind mutants what kind of strangers they are to them, that the laws are not applicable on them since they are not humans. But whatever they are, they are united in it. Like I said already, this is enough to make a community basement.

Upon this, they share a genetic signature that is only significant among them, yet it isn't part of their identity? So if artists will lose their ability to create art, orators their ability to speak, surgeons their control over scalpel, it won't be a tragedy to them? And last time I checked these people weren't united by the same whatever-gene that if removed could make them stripped of these gifts automatically. See what I mean?"

oh, I do see what you mean, and I never meant to imply that it wasn't part of their identity, as individuals or as a group, I just don't think it was as literally tragic as lots of other things that have happened to mutants.

Storm, Moonstar, Richter, and lots of other mutants have lost their powers and it actually helped strengthen their identities. To use your surgeon analogy, well, that's actually Doctor Strange's origin story, isn't it? The X-men talked about it like the Scarlet Witch had wiped mutants out, when really what she did was more like creating more adversity for them. Not that that's not also bad, but it's not as bad as people made it out to be.

If what they were worried about was that there would be no more mutants born in the future (which, really they should have had no way of knowing), why didn't they try having kids? I mean, the X-gene can be passed on that way, right? Did they even try that?

not sure how I'd feel about a whole generation of X-men who are the children of the classics, but the stories that could come out of having half of the team pregnant at the same time could probably have been amazing.. or, y'know, more interesting and character-driven than most of what happened in the Utopia era anyway.

@oldnightcrawler:

oh, I do see what you mean, and I never meant to imply that it wasn't part of their identity, as individuals or as a group, I just don't think it was as literally tragic as lots of other things that have happened to mutants.

It does make their every fight, sacrifices and losses meaningless now. I like characters like Warpath, Kitty, Nightcrawler and some others to whom them being mutants is not the only definition of their identity, unlike let's say Cyclops, Jean, Emma. These polarizations turn this concept into even more complicated one, which is more than fine by me. But, in their world? Being mutant overshadows everything else even when they don't like it to, saying it isn't tragic would be the same if I'd tell you tomorrow you'll wake up without your nose, though you would be able to breath, unlike some of those mutants to whom stripping of their powers was lethal =P

Storm, Moonstar, Richter, and lots of other mutants have lost their powers and it actually helped strengthen their identities. To use your surgeon analogy, well, that's actually Doctor Strange's origin story, isn't it? The X-men talked about it like the Scarlet Witch had wiped mutants out, when really what she did was more like creating more adversity for them. Not that that's not also bad, but it's not as bad as people made it out to be.

No, I just used some real life hypothetical conditions that I know would shatter people if they'd happen. But you call a loss of the definition of who you are an "adversity", that because you know that eventually it will be solved because it's comics, but what the metaphor of self-respect and pride (or vice versa) people bear through their lives is what such struggle represents.

If what they were worried about was that there would be no more mutants born in the future (which, really they should have had no way of knowing), why didn't they try having kids? I mean, the X-gene can be passed on that way, right? Did they even try that?

I asked myself the same question, but my guess they would be born human.

not sure how I'd feel about a whole generation of X-men who are the children of the classics, but the stories that could come out of having half of the team pregnant at the same time could probably have been amazing.. or, y'know, more interesting and character-driven than most of what happened in the Utopia era anyway.

They weren't really in condition to care for their pregnant women, you know they were busy with survival. But applying real life logic there should be a lot of X-kids, one of the most statistically common post-war consequences are multiple pregnancies.

not really.

And because it has such an effect on people's lives, there's plenty of mutants who would rather not be; they're just mostly not on the X-men. And, besides there being lots of characters who would rather define their own identities without being mutants, people's identities change through adversity over time anyway.

like I say, I'm not trying to argue that it wasn't personally traumatic for the characters, only that it wasn't as literally tragic as many of the other things that have happened to mutants.

I think that might have been a going hypothesis, but they couldn't actually know that if they didn't try; that's not how science works. it was kind of really, really stupid if they didn't at least try.

I considered that, but they had doctors, and they probably could have had more. Maybe not have every female X-man be pregnant at the same time, but most of them would have been kind of too young at the time anyway. But even if just the senior X-men tried, the pregnant ones could look after each other. I mean, someone always had to be holding down the fort anyway, right?

So have, I dunno, Emma, Storm, Psylocke, uh.. Husk? ..have them try first, and then if even one of them has a kid with an X-gene, they can at least stop worrying about it.. man, I really wish they had done that now..

The answer for the question is yes. Now pls don't ask me why rather ask yourself why not?

@oldnightcrawler:

And because it has such an effect on people's lives, there's plenty of mutants who would rather not be; they're just mostly not on the X-men. And, besides there being lots of characters who would rather define their own identities without being mutants, people's identities change through adversity over time anyway.

And they still remain a separate group of people.

like I say, I'm not trying to argue that it wasn't personally traumatic for the characters, only that it wasn't as literally tragic as many of the other things that have happened to mutants.

No one says it was "less tragic", but it was unparalleled and their reaction and right for self-determination is what makes this struggle so... "inspiring". Unlike sh!tty E is for Extinction.

I think that might have been a going hypothesis, but they couldn't actually know that if they didn't try; that's not how science works. it was kind of really, really stupid if they didn't at least try.

I considered that, but they had doctors, and they probably could have had more. Maybe not have every female X-man be pregnant at the same time, but most of them would have been kind of too young at the time anyway. But even if just the senior X-men tried, the pregnant ones could look after each other. I mean, someone always had to be holding down the fort anyway, right?

So have, I dunno, Emma, Storm, Psylocke, uh.. Husk? ..have them try first, and then if even one of them has a kid with an X-gene, they can at least stop worrying about it.. man, I really wish they had done that now..

X-comics and their missed opportunities, and yet another one.

I don't think so because she's a good leader.

I don't C why she should be interrogate just for being the best leader. Rather question those like Cyclops or Wolverine. R they truly being the best leader (especially Cyclops)?