Board Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mormont

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling
  • Location St Andrews, Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

20,941 profile views
  1. I'm not sure that listing your (mostly unverifiable) correct predictions is an answer to a question about your incorrect ones. It's typically the answer fortune tellers give, for example. As for Sanders, I think emotion is playing into this much more than he, or his supporters, are generally willing to admit. Having done better than anyone ever expected, having at one point perhaps thought he might actually win, it's got to be hard for him now to concede the fight. I suspect he's looking for reasons to stay in, to avoid that unpleasant moment when he has to admit it's over.
  2. Comics XII: All New, All Twelve

    Well, if you've actually read the reactions you're complaining about, I would assume you already know why people consider it inherently problematic? Because Cap was created by two Jewish writers as an explicitly anti-Nazi hero before the US was even officially at war, and because there are living people for whom that is emotionally important and it is therefore problematic to invert that just for shock value. But it's not fair to suggest that a thing cannot conceivably be ill-judged without that context, or that people are not allowed to react to a thing without context. (And actually, there is context available: there's a whole issue's worth, in fact. Your suggestion is that there isn't enough context, not that there is none.) That image exists, it was created, and the creators involved know - and so far as I'm aware, fully acknowledge - that people are going to react to it and it's their right to do so. Let me use another comparison: if a writer had created a picture of Steve Rogers-Cap made up in blackface, would people have a right to say 'that's a problematic idea' or should they wait for the next issue to see where the writer is going with this? I'm not suggesting the two are equally offensive, but I'm trying to illustrate that it's possible for someone to find an image offensive independent of its context, and that 'wait to see where the writer is going with this' isn't always going to be a way of invalidating that criticism. It's a point about how new media, or the spread of communication (in that case, literacy) is always portrayed as a vehicle for irrational 'hysteria'. Nothing to do with wealth except that in the time I'm talking about, literacy was restricted to the wealthy. Apologies if that's not clear. Oh, come on. The folk I've seen getting upset include not only comics fans, but comics writers, artists, editors and critics. They know full well how comics work. This is just a sillier variation on the 'wait and see' line. Ignorance or lack of understanding of the medium is not the root of the criticism here. The critics understand the field as well as anyone. They think this was a bad idea, even while knowing where it is likely to go and acknowledging that Spencer is a fine writer. I'm not saying I'm 100% in agreement with all of the criticism of the plotline, but these attempts to dismiss it out of hand are not on. Do you really want to go there? Because that's a valid argument about representation in comics being dismissed as the behaviour of spoiled children. Not a good look.
  3. Comics XII: All New, All Twelve

    And, again, that doesn't matter because the criticism is not about where it goes. It's not about making assumptions about what the context is going to be. It's about saying that some things are problematic in pretty much any context. It's absolutely legitimate to say that without having it dismissed as 'hysteria' or being told 'well then, don't buy it'. They said similar things about those newfangled printing presses and teaching the commoners to write.
  4. Comics XII: All New, All Twelve

    I get what you're saying, but think you're wrong. The vast majority of the criticism I have seen has fully acknowledged all of the directions the creators might be, and probably are, going with this plotline. The criticism is that no matter where this goes, the idea of using this as a starting point for any plotline is inherently a bad one. The closest analogy I can think of is if a writer were to 'fridge' a female character as a starting point. You don't need to wait to see where that goes to say it's problematic to start from there.
  5. Anyone else rooting against Dany?

    There are certainly people who take this view and they certainly are very vocal about it, but the idea that they comprise even 10% of those who use the forum, let alone 70%, is wildly inaccurate.
  6. [mod] A periodic reminder: we understand that people get passionate about this subject but there is a difference between passionate and just aggressive. The normal expectations apply. Remain civil, don't make things personal. [/mod]
  7. Deadpool v SkullpoopL: Dawn of Spoilers

    Yeah, but is Perlman much bigger than Hamm? A bit, perhaps, but not as much as you might think. Whoever they cast would likely have to either be bulked up artificially, or be greatly slimmed down from comics-Cable.
  8. Under the radar? Secret? TTIP's been public knowledge for ages. It's not in the papers every day, but trade deals never are, because even when they're important to the everyday lives of voters, they're hard to explain, a bit technical and dull, and their impact is difficult to correctly predict. The early negotiations were confidential, but that's normal for any international trade agreement. Short of David Cameron taking out newspaper ads about it, I'm not sure what else you think the government should be doing. I don't like a lot of the things that are in TTIP and I would probably vote against it, but I think this notion that 'it must be bad for people because they were trying to keep it secret!' is a pretty terrible argument. However, getting back to the point, I agree with Wert that it's not a reason to vote for Brexit. If you want a trade deal with either the EU or the US after an exit, guess what: that'll be on the same terms as TTIP, whether we get it immediately or in ten years' time.
  9. Deadpool v SkullpoopL: Dawn of Spoilers

    I think Hamm would be fine. I love Ron Perlman, but if you dyed Jon Hamm's hair, why would he not be a good fit?
  10. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    That's a hell of a big 'if'. Partisanship is pretty much inherent to any democracy in some form.
  11. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    The problem with that has been pointed out before, which is that it means Sanders is offering a false prospectus. It tarnishes his unique selling point, his integrity, if he's not actually being straight with voters about why he's still running. I'm actually not sure it is why he's still running, to be honest.
  12. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Well, I can see the temptation for Sanders: it's his only chance to take on Trump in a debate. But, anyone can see why Trump made the offer and what's in it for Trump. He's going to spend the whole time trying to get Sanders to agree with him, on policy issues to some extent, but mostly on attack lines against Clinton. This 'debate' will be no such thing: it'll be free anti-Clinton publicity for Trump. So, there's a reason why Sanders should consult Clinton. This 'debate' is going to be about her.
  13. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Nothing. I don't think RBPL is, either. Trump and Sanders are not currently experiencing any legal impediment to their free speech and will not do so whether they debate or not. RBPL has no power to 'suppress or prohibit said debate', but he surely has the right to criticise Sanders for agreeing to take part. That's as much an exercise of free speech as the debate itself would be. Disagreeing with people, criticising them, these things are the bastions of free speech, not a threat to them.
  14. It's bizzare to do so without in any way attempting to participate in that discussion, yes. Randomly posting links without any context doesn't facilitate or inform discussion, it's just spamming. Yeah, pretty much. That's one reason why the timing is poor: a lot of people just voted in various elections, and that may depress turnout a bit.
  15. US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant

    Did anyone claim they weren't partisan? The argument RBPL makes appears to me to be explicitly so: that's his whole point, that this decision is harmful to the party Sanders claims to be representing. And why is it that any criticism of a decision is somehow conflated with making that decision illegal? I mean, are you trying to outlaw RBPL's free speech now, by disagreeing with it? Am I trying to outlaw yours? This idea that criticising someone is anti-free speech is nonsense.