Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I normally don't watch youtube videos but I watched them because it is important to listen to all sides as usually they are both wrong and incorrect in different ways. No matter what points they are discussing there is something about the social interaction that I find strange and doesn't make sense to me.

There is an event where there are speakers. It isn't mandatory, everyone makes their own choice to go to it. Why do people go with the intent to disrupt, over-shout under the guise of Freedom of Speech and claim that the other people are violating their rights by being there. I don't understand it. I get not agreeing with someones point of view, if you want to have input wait until the questions sections. Then again I also don't understand hecklers in comedian shows either, if you don't like it, then why stay?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
It kind of look like… something else than a mouth, too.

Isn't that a subjective view though? I mean it is clearly where the mouth position is.. eyes, nose, large gaping mouth if it looks like something else, then isn't that influenced by that persons tastes, feelings, opinions, etc?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
There are ways to appeal to women readers, like strong female characters who show good traits. Having Wonder Woman accuse a guy of "mansplaining" is not one.

Maybe the objective is to target a specific demographic that is not “all women”, just like most comics don't target “all men” either?

Cuz that'll make comics more accessible to the general populace. RIght

 jreilly89 wrote:
Second, I think it's funny how only women are sexualized in comics. Batman, Superman, and every single male superhero having nigh unattainable physique and muscles? Perfectly acceptable.

It is okay. I don't expect you to understand this.

Ah, stupidity insults. Glad to see this trotted out. Thanks.

 jreilly89 wrote:
See my reply above. Saying mansplaining is not heroic.

Neither is being an extreme-right nutjob, is it?
Is your point that Rorschach is allowed to do things that are heroics and also stuff that is unrelated to his heroism, while Wonder Woman has to be heroic all the time?

Please quote me some of Rorschach's extreme right-wing quotes. The main ones I can think of, detesting abortion, sex, etc., are not things I would equate with heroism, because Rorschach is not heroic. He is definitely an anti-hero. Remember when he chopped up that child molester with an axe?

That's the difference. Wonder Woman is a hero, Rorschach is a vigilante with heroic moments.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
dunno about you but the last model with the giant mouth is probably Gluttony since the mouth thing is kinda unique to that.

It kind of look like… something else than a mouth, too.

So do flowers. Look at Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings. Anything can be genitalia if you stare at it hard enough.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You were literally dismissing the deadly sins concept as stupid because it is a part of the Christian mythology. I ask you to expand, and you accuse me of misrepresentiation...

I was dismissing the concept, AND saying we are still using it despite it being no good because of Christianity. I was not saying that is was BECAUSE it came from Christianity that it was not good.

That's clearly a matter of opinion, as a reference for potential Slaanesh concepts and as a list of bad and destructive emotions it is still fairly relevant IMO. That you disagree with me isn't surprising, but perhaps, as you seem to be keen to see fewer boobs, you could outline your own ideas, because substituting the concepts for valid altenatives is far more likely to get traction than any sort of removal.

 Dark Severance wrote:
Isn't that a subjective view though?

Yes it is.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Cuz that'll make comics more accessible to the general populace. RIght

Having different comics catering to different tastes? Yes, I think so.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Ah, stupidity insults. Glad to see this trotted out. Thanks.

It's more about being tired to explain the same thing over and over and over again, for no discernible results. Let me ask you this question: do you think that after having talked with me about it, you could change your opinion on this? If not, I am sure you will agree to let this go without further debate…

 jreilly89 wrote:
That's the difference. Wonder Woman is a hero, Rorschach is a vigilante with heroic moments.

Maybe the author is deciding to portray Wonder Woman as a vigilante with heroic moments. Maybe the author has a different vision of what a hero is. Whatever.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Anything can be genitalia if you stare at it hard enough.

Especially after watching too much Giger artworks .

 =Angel= wrote:

Spoiler:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So, if I get it right, the terrible, terrible damage done by SJW which justify considering them a very, very real threat that needs to be dealt with is that… some students were protesting against three donkey-caves giving speeches at their university?

(hilariously, quoting you allows me to see what you wrote and Dakka Dakka filtered to 'donkey caves')

Donkey caves?
Foreigners?
Gays?
Mormons?
Jews?
People with different opinions?

It doesn't matter who is giving a speech and whether you have 'opinions' about them. The point of free speech and indeed, organised events is that they are allowed to occur- but you may hold your own speeches and refute their points.
What is happening here instead is a kind of bullying people into silence. Attempting to drown out or intimidate people into submission.
Milo, quite cleverly, allows even his detractors to ask questions at these events- so he can expose their lunacy and refute their arguments.
Without fail, most of the questions will be 'don't you find it hypocritical/problematic that...' - leading questions of the 'how often do you beat your wife?' variety.
Without fail, their concerns can be addressed with facts and logic.

I am pretty sure mentioning “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is exactly what you needed to do to make your concern irrelevant to people that are not into your very specific, very tiny political cult. I mean, “the deleterious effects of the SocJus movement in comic books” is not a problem for most people. They are happy enough with comics, and enjoy some of them but not all yet are fine with the idea that not all comics have to be written for them specifically. There is plenty of violence and plenty of sex (and plenty of cheap titillation masquerading as sexy too) to be found.

That's the thing about subjectivity. Perhaps some people have enjoyed the anvilicious, heavy handed rhetoric that slaps you inthe face when you open a Wonder Woman comic these days.

Like Wondy allowing a defenceless man who is bound and at her mercy to be assaulted. And saying 'mansplaining'

It's not been well received by everyone .

Ah but you missed such gems as Norse gods giving [unsolicited opinions on Israel] and 'Now we'll have Red Skull talk about immigrants';


This gets to my point about the SJWs denial of reality: so, apparently, these comics with their ever increasing exploration of the frontiers of SocJus pandering should be a big hit, right? Except... there are the articles talking about how sales data show these comics are tanking. It's so bad that the Mary Sue ran an article pointing out, among other things, that sales data doesn't capture "people [who] borrow comics from other people who bought comics, such as a friend or a library".

That's par for the course, but let's use an even bigger example: the other day I came across an opinion piece on MSNBC titled 'Conservative backlash to Mizzou protests may backfire'. That was written in November, it supports the protesters and notes (pointedly) that while the GOP candidates condemned what happened, the Dems were more sympathetic. So... what actually ended up happening?

As Bre Payton puts it, After Being Hijacked By SJWs, Mizzou Enrollment Plummets;


Let's also be honest here: my last post started with an exposition on the basic elements of the Judaeo-Christian moral framework. By the end of his reply to me, Peregrine has supplied this rationale for why a person would go to a public venue and scream obscenities at people they disagree with: "Because it's fun?" Oh, and that if you're "you're sitting here arguing on the internet" you don't have "any right to judge other people for engaging in protests of things they don't like". Wherein "protests" are screaming obscenities and trying to talk over people you don't like.

Just for funzies, let's ponder if a guy that quotes Maimonides and his Rabbi is...hmm, shall we say, likely to be persuaded by that 'logic'.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Ah, stupidity insults. Glad to see this trotted out. Thanks.

It's more about being tired to explain the same thing over and over and over again, for no discernible results. Let me ask you this question: do you think that after having talked with me about it, you could change your opinion on this? If not, I am sure you will agree to let this go without further debate…

No, and based on your responses, I doubt you'd change yours. Deuces.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Ah but you missed such gems as Norse gods giving [unsolicited opinions on Israel] and 'Now we'll have Red Skull talk about immigrants';

Spoiler:

Seems very much in-character for him, ain't it?
But I can see how that would infuriate you.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Ah, stupidity insults. Glad to see this trotted out. Thanks.

It's more about being tired to explain the same thing over and over and over again, for no discernible results. Let me ask you this question: do you think that after having talked with me about it, you could change your opinion on this? If not, I am sure you will agree to let this go without further debate…

No, and based on your responses, I doubt you'd change yours. Deuces.

Indeed. Hence why I though it unnecessary to further debate it. I heard all your arguments and you heard all mines already.

How is this thread still going? And how come none of us, it seems, can agree to differ?

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Ah but you missed such gems as Norse gods giving [unsolicited opinions on Israel] and 'Now we'll have Red Skull talk about immigrants';

Spoiler:

And now we get to your real argument. Your supposed moral high ground and outrage over "censorship" are just an attempt to fluff up the same old "a company is making products that I don't like" complaints. It's just another round of "the new tactical squad kit has too many purity seals, and I really wish we could have some Mk III armor bits included" except with "SJWs".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:
How is this thread still going?

Probably because the arguments would just happen elsewhere without this thread, and nobody wants that.

And how come none of us, it seems, can agree to differ?

Because this is a forum, a place for people to talk, not a place for people to say "I agree not to talk" and silently ignore each other. If you don't like the discussion you're free to stop opening the thread and read something else instead.

 master of ordinance wrote:
How is this thread still going? And how come none of us, it seems, can agree to differ?

I am afraid that train passed long ago.

And in an attempt to drag it back in the 40k fluff all chaos gods can manifest the seven deadly sins, its not a privilege of one or the other, remember that fundamentally in the GW fluff the warp is affected by the emotions of the living beings and likewise it affects the "real space", similar emotions attract and pool to bigger disturbances.

The 7 sins are not something that could be privilege to one god alone all chaos powers can manifest them because they are basic emotions, the key in understanding how to apply them to each power is what the power really stands for.

A basic question would be why Khorn and Tzeench are paired together while Nurgle and Slaanesh are together onfirst glance the brute and the magician the ugly and the beautiful should class, but this is not what they represent, Nurge is persistence against the odds Tzeench is the change to survive the odds both clash in their motives, Khorn is usually depicted in pride and Slaanesh on decadence, which conflict but for me Khorn and Slaanesh should conflict on restrain and been unrestrained.

The key to Slaanesh and Khorn really for me is this conflict and this is were they could go for direction and elevating both concepts from muscular brutes and sex and drugs that have tied them up for so long.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
How is this thread still going? And how come none of us, it seems, can agree to differ?

I am afraid that train passed long ago.

And in an attempt to drag it back in the 40k fluff all chaos gods can manifest the seven deadly sins, its not a privilege of one or the other, remember that fundamentally in the GW fluff the warp is affected by the emotions of the living beings and likewise it affects the "real space", similar emotions attract and pool to bigger disturbances.

The 7 sins are not something that could be privilege to one god alone all chaos powers can manifest them because they are basic emotions, the key in understanding how to apply them to each power is what the power really stands for.

A basic question would be why Khorn and Tzeench are paired together while Nurgle and Slaanesh are together onfirst glance the brute and the magician the ugly and the beautiful should class, but this is not what they represent, Nurge is persistence against the odds Tzeench is the change to survive the odds both clash in their motives, Khorn is usually depicted in pride and Slaanesh on decadence, which conflict but for me Khorn and Slaanesh should conflict on restrain and been unrestrained.

The key to Slaanesh and Khorn really for me is this conflict and this is were they could go for direction and elevating both concepts from muscular brutes and sex and drugs that have tied them up for so long.

And now I am just confused

The fluff discussion is an on topic discussion of one or two pages ago, mainly illustrating that the depiction of Slaanesh is a bad handling of its fluff and not as the article described an artefact of the past that should be better removed for the good of the IP.

The train thing? there are many sides entrenched in this thread many not willing to do what you said and many not even debating the same things on the same grounds.

And now I am just confused

Yeah, I understand what he's driving at and it still doesn't make a lot of sense!

Nurgle = Entropy, the absence of change, hence his ultimate long game is the complete antithesis of Tzeentch's.

Honestly, I think the writers then had to fabricate a rivalry between Khorne and Slaanesh for balance, but if IRC from my Realm Of Chaos days it's because Khorne despises Slaanesh's foppish and decadent nature. I also always felt there was a subtext where Khorne embodies very "male" traits whereas Slaanesh has many "female" characteristics.

Irrespective of any of that, Slaanesh has claim over the 7DS because they all represent behaviour taken to excess, which is Slaanesh's thing. Keep yourself clean and tidy? No problem. Spend vast quantities of time and money on your appearance? You're vain. Eat when you're hungry? No problem. Eat all the time, hungry or not? You're a glutton. Try to gain enough that you can support and protect yourself and your loved ones? Fine. Try and garner more than you need, even if it hurts others? You're greedy. Etc, etc.

That's a pretty neat take on Slaaneshes lore.
It would also mean that we could see a greater variety of Slaaneshi demons; glutton demons, lust demons (demonettes), wrath deaths, envy demons, sloth demons and greed demons.
Only Slaanesh can be pride though

Honestly they could of done the marvel thing and went tzeench (infinity) to nurgle (enthropy) corn(death) and slannesh (infinity)
or basically life/death

it doesnt fit well as chaos is mostly bad guys.

i dont really think 7ds really works completely with slannesh.

wrath is more a corn thing
and tzneench can come as a result of trying do some of them like greed and envy
sloth is a nurgle thing if anything
gluttony, lust pride works super well for slannesh though.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That's a pretty neat take on Slaaneshes lore.
It would also mean that we could see a greater variety of Slaaneshi demons; glutton demons, lust demons (demonettes), wrath deaths, envy demons, sloth demons and greed demons.
Only Slaanesh can be pride though

It doesn't even have to be all 7. Plus you then have the sensory elements sound, colours etc. Noise Marines are about the limit. There'd probably be overlap with Dark Eldar, but then it's fluffy and appropriate that it should.

I think, on the tangent of Slaanesh, the problem is that Chaos as a whole is all about excess so having Slaanesh be the god of excess is just redundant. For example, Tzeentch is not the god of mere making plans, it is the god of planning to excess such that your entire life becomes plots within plots within plots within plots and you can't really even remember what your end goal was supposed to be. The better way to frame it is that Slaanesh is the god of excess in physical sensation. And that sets up a more natural rivalry between Khorne and Slaanesh: Khorne demands dedication to the higher cause of slaughter, Slaanesh rewards living in the moment and only caring about the next bit of pleasure. Slaanesh is lazy and lacking in willpower, Khorne is a tyrant who shouldn't even call itself "Chaos" if it wants to demand so much order and discipline.

 Desubot wrote:

wrath is more a corn thing
and tzneench can come as a result of trying do some of them like greed and envy
sloth is a nurgle thing if anything
gluttony, lust pride works super well for slannesh though.

Sloth is laziness, there's no clear cut reason that should belong to Nurgle, his stuff might not move much, but that's not necessarily because it can't be arsed.

Tzeentch is change, his remit is the widest of all the gods, but I don't see how greed or envy fit specifically?

I'd agree Wrath is superficially a Khorne thing, but then plotting one's revenge could also be a Tzeentch thing. Some crossover is inevitable. A passing idea I had for a Slaanesh Wrath unit would be to forgo Furious Charge, that's very obviously Khorne, but give the unit Counter Attack and some sort of bonus when they do?

 Peregrine wrote:
I think, on the tangent of Slaanesh, the problem is that Chaos as a whole is all about excess so having Slaanesh be the god of excess is just redundant. For example, Tzeentch is not the god of mere making plans, it is the god of planning to excess such that your entire life becomes plots within plots within plots within plots and you can't really even remember what your end goal was supposed to be. The better way to frame it is that Slaanesh is the god of excess in physical sensation. And that sets up a more natural rivalry between Khorne and Slaanesh: Khorne demands dedication to the higher cause of slaughter, Slaanesh rewards living in the moment and only caring about the next bit of pleasure. Slaanesh is lazy and lacking in willpower, Khorne is a tyrant who shouldn't even call itself "Chaos" if it wants to demand so much order and discipline.

IIRC they are also gods of other aspects of humanity like tzeench was hope, khorne was honor, nurgle was acceptance, and i dont remember what slannesh was. i really liked that idea but it seems gw went all grim dark on all the things

the only thing i dont like about the whole live for the moment thing of slannesh is that the EC was really known for priding them selves in there martial skills and stuff as well there flawlessness i though. (honestly could be miss remembering this)

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

wrath is more a corn thing
and tzneench can come as a result of trying do some of them like greed and envy
sloth is a nurgle thing if anything
gluttony, lust pride works super well for slannesh though.

Sloth is laziness, there's no clear cut reason that should belong to Nurgle, his stuff might not move much, but that's not necessarily because it can't be arsed.

Tzeentch is change, his remit is the widest of all the gods, but I don't see how greed or envy fit specifically?

I'd agree Wrath is superficially a Khorne thing, but then plotting one's revenge could also be a Tzeentch thing. Some crossover is inevitable. A passing idea I had for a Slaanesh Wrath unit would be to forgo Furious Charge, that's very obviously Khorne, but give the unit Counter Attack and some sort of bonus when they do?

With tzeentch im saying that schemes and plots come from greed or envy. politicians making deals behind other politicians to make big moves for power, and other politicans doing to same to get the power from another. and such.

sloth was me be slothy as i couldn't be asred to make a good connection

Slaanesh was perfection and appreciation of beauty.
Remember Sander Cohen from Bioshock? He would be down with Slaanesh.

Slaanesh was love as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regardless, this is perhaps tangenting too far, but there are far more concepts available to Slaanesh than boob daemons, and while I have a largely "to each to their own" attitude towards the broader topic, I'm not a fan of lazy design, and making Slaanesh all about sex and boobs is mostly lazy design.

Yes and lazy design can be attributed to some of the depictions of women in this thread from both sides of the debate.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Please quote me some of Rorschach's extreme right-wing quotes. The main ones I can think of, detesting abortion, sex, etc., are not things I would equate with heroism, because Rorschach is not heroic. He is definitely an anti-hero. Remember when he chopped up that child molester with an axe?

Is this source okay (directly from the writer of the comic)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_(comics)#Publication_history

Ditko, who was inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand's personal philosophy of objectivism, created both the Question and Mr. A as followers of the ideology. Regarding Rand's philosophy, Moore said he personally found it "laughable". In spite of this, Moore had a healthy respect for Ditko despite having different views politically. Moore recalled that Ditko's very right-wing agenda was quite interesting to him at the time, and that "probably led to me portraying Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character".

The full interview: http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html

And some more here about his perception of the character (quote towards the bottom):
http://www.stevensurman.com/rorschach-from-alan-moores-watchmen-does-he-set-a-bad-example/

So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?'

I always felt Khorne - Tzeentch and Slaanesh - Nurgle made more sense.

The former two are extremes of sorcery and plotting versus martial combat and unsubtle brutality, whereas the latter two are extremes of beauty, ever seeking greater extremes and hidden corruption versus hideousness, stagnation and obvious corruption.

Mario wrote:
And some more here about his perception of the character (quote towards the bottom):
http://www.stevensurman.com/rorschach-from-alan-moores-watchmen-does-he-set-a-bad-example/

So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?'

That's quite an awesome quote .

Mario wrote:

Spoiler:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Please quote me some of Rorschach's extreme right-wing quotes. The main ones I can think of, detesting abortion, sex, etc., are not things I would equate with heroism, because Rorschach is not heroic. He is definitely an anti-hero. Remember when he chopped up that child molester with an axe?

Is this source okay (directly from the writer of the comic)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_(comics)#Publication_history

Ditko, who was inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand's personal philosophy of objectivism, created both the Question and Mr. A as followers of the ideology. Regarding Rand's philosophy, Moore said he personally found it "laughable". In spite of this, Moore had a healthy respect for Ditko despite having different views politically. Moore recalled that Ditko's very right-wing agenda was quite interesting to him at the time, and that "probably led to me portraying Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character".

The full interview: http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html

And some more here about his perception of the character (quote towards the bottom):
http://www.stevensurman.com/rorschach-from-alan-moores-watchmen-does-he-set-a-bad-example/

So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?'

First, a minor point in that I'm not completely sure about the back and forth between Mario and jreilly; perhaps I am misunderstanding their respective points, but it would seem that Mario is amplifying J's points rather then refuting them.

The large point, however, is that this is a fantastic example of what I talked about in one of my first posts in this thread (way back on page 8);


I argued that the intent and character of the creator does not transfer to the creation. What better example of this disconnect can there be then Alan Moore and the character of Rorschach? Here there is a wide consensus based on many interviews and his own biography that Alan Moore was not sympathetic to either the character of Rorschach or his moral code.

In the simplest statement Moore ran face first into the reality that you are not your audience, a useful maxim for any aspiring artist in any medium. The broader point is more important though: characteristics like 'Heroism', and even, yes, things like 'sexy', are not universal, but lie not just in the eye of he beholder, but even more so in their morality, world view and principles.

Alan Moore's problem was a microcosm of the problem discussed in this thread: his concept of a 'Hero' wasn't what (some of) his audience conceived of as a "Hero". Moore conveyed, with great depth and power, what he considered a repellent pastiche of the 'right-wing', Randian vigilante ideal.

Yet for all that he created a character that vast numbers of people love and consider very much a hero, an "Objectivist saint".

 Buzzsaw wrote:

In the simplest statement Moore ran face first into the reality that you are not your audience, a useful maxim for any aspiring artist in any medium. The broader point is more important though: characteristics like 'Heroism', and even, yes, things like 'sexy', are not universal, but lie not just in the eye of he beholder, but even more so in their morality, world view and principles.

Which is why, in my opinion, you should always create something first and foremost for yourself. You can try to predict how most people will probably see your work, but in the end, you can never know how your readers, listeners or watchers will experience it. Some may perceive it as flat and devoid of meaning, while others will search the secrets of the universe within it.

 Korraz wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

In the simplest statement Moore ran face first into the reality that you are not your audience, a useful maxim for any aspiring artist in any medium. The broader point is more important though: characteristics like 'Heroism', and even, yes, things like 'sexy', are not universal, but lie not just in the eye of he beholder, but even more so in their morality, world view and principles.

Which is why, in my opinion, you should always create something first and foremost for yourself. You can try to predict how most people will probably see your work, but in the end, you can never know how your readers, listeners or watchers will experience it. Some may perceive it as flat and devoid of meaning, while others will search the secrets of the universe within it.

That also feeds into these incessant cries of censorship (read this for a recent example). Companies hire people to produce work and these creators are technically censored. They create what the company pays for and not what they want. There is this pedantic definition of censorship that gets thrown around at the tiniest of changes (that might have been done to expand the customer base and include a different group of people) and some people are outraged at any criticism or change that a company makes. These companies do what they they think will sell, and are not just living their bohemian art lives free from the obligations of society (like paying for food and shelter).

Creating 100% what you want works better if you have no economic consideration to think about (or chose to ignore the economic viability of your art) but companies usually make stuff they think they can sell. Technically, in some quibbling way, all these cries of censorship are, of course, true but they just willfully ignore that this art (be it miniatures, comics, books, video games, movies, or anything pop cultural relevant) is created as a product first and its artistic value comes second (at best).

But of course the censorship crowd also manages to throw around the "target audience" argument to explain why something shouldn't change at all but throw a fit when a company actually tries to expand their customer base by changing stuff and not only targeting them (female Thor, non white Peter Parker, localize a game to fit whatever they think their target audience on a certain continent is). And it's only "a company pandering to demographic X" or "an X agenda" when it's not about them.

I still remember a discussion by concept artists working in the video game industry (visdev outsourcing) where they talked about the bland and seasonal protagonists (short hair/shaved hair but stubble/emo-ish haircut, the hoodie or the backpack year, and so on) they have to create for the game publishers (they could look at a video game cover and tell you for which year that was made from the protagonist alone). The creator that the anti-censorship crowd so vehemently wants to protect is actually the publisher with the money (and influence, who usually just ignores all the criticism the anti-censorship crowds thinks is so damaging) who just goes for whatever they think will be acceptable for the biggest possible audience and that means it's often just a variation of the doomguy: white, male, varying degrees of athletic, brownish hair (often relatively short) because that's what they think works.

Naughty Dog literary had to fight to get Ellie on the cover of The Last Of Us and BioShock Infinite literary went with the blandest cover possible (instead of using something they actually liked) to pander to the FPS crowd.

I felt this week's Oglaf comic was particularly relevant (and amusing).

Not entirely NSFW, but spoilered for being a little risqué. Hope it's not too inappropriate to be posted here.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Mario wrote:

Spoiler:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Please quote me some of Rorschach's extreme right-wing quotes. The main ones I can think of, detesting abortion, sex, etc., are not things I would equate with heroism, because Rorschach is not heroic. He is definitely an anti-hero. Remember when he chopped up that child molester with an axe?

Is this source okay (directly from the writer of the comic)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_(comics)#Publication_history

Ditko, who was inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand's personal philosophy of objectivism, created both the Question and Mr. A as followers of the ideology. Regarding Rand's philosophy, Moore said he personally found it "laughable". In spite of this, Moore had a healthy respect for Ditko despite having different views politically. Moore recalled that Ditko's very right-wing agenda was quite interesting to him at the time, and that "probably led to me portraying Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character".

The full interview: http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html

And some more here about his perception of the character (quote towards the bottom):
http://www.stevensurman.com/rorschach-from-alan-moores-watchmen-does-he-set-a-bad-example/

So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example, but I have people come up to me in the street saying, ‘I am Rorschach! That is my story!’ And I’ll be thinking, ‘Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me and never come anywhere near me again for as long as I live?'

First, a minor point in that I'm not completely sure about the back and forth between Mario and jreilly; perhaps I am misunderstanding their respective points, but it would seem that Mario is amplifying J's points rather then refuting them.

The large point, however, is that this is a fantastic example of what I talked about in one of my first posts in this thread (way back on page 8);

Spoiler:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
...Of course, we can all agree that an inanimate object cannot hold bigoted views. Your point is therefore that an object, or any other work of creativity, is intrinsically marked by the attitude of the creator, and that this mark carries with it their bigotry, yes? As an aside, I think it's clear we should be using the term bigotry, as sexism is simply a sub-type of bigotry, and it makes it a bit clearer what we are talking about.

Now, assuming I have correctly understood your point, I must state that I fundamentally disagree: I do not and cannot agree to the idea that an artistic work must be interpreted, or indeed should be interpreted or appreciated, by the characteristics of its creator. This is, of course, not to say that one cannot recognize the individual style of a given artist, given genre or artistic tradition. Rather I am saying that a work stands on its own: it is improper to either impute to a work the sexism of its creator, or conversely to impute to a creator a bigotry on the basis of objection to his work....

I argued that the intent and character of the creator does not transfer to the creation. What better example of this disconnect can there be then Alan Moore and the character of Rorschach? Here there is a wide consensus based on many interviews and his own biography that Alan Moore was not sympathetic to either the character of Rorschach or his moral code.

In the simplest statement Moore ran face first into the reality that you are not your audience, a useful maxim for any aspiring artist in any medium. The broader point is more important though: characteristics like 'Heroism', and even, yes, things like 'sexy', are not universal, but lie not just in the eye of he beholder, but even more so in their morality, world view and principles.

Alan Moore's problem was a microcosm of the problem discussed in this thread: his concept of a 'Hero' wasn't what (some of) his audience conceived of as a "Hero". Moore conveyed, with great depth and power, what he considered a repellent pastiche of the 'right-wing', Randian vigilante ideal.

Yet for all that he created a character that vast numbers of people love and consider very much a hero, an "Objectivist saint".

Thank you. This is why I consider Rorschach a lot like an even darker Punisher. Does he affect some good? Sure, but he himself is not good. He's a murderer and a vigilante, possibly psychotic.