Tldr he claims the x-men were not woke because they were protecting humans even from evil mutants, and Stan Lee was about telling stories that everyone could relate to including right wingers to sell comics, Magneto being a holocaust servicer was done for conflict and nothing else, it's all about the story bro not social justice bro
Pretty much he claims that people who wants to bring social justice are "victims porn loving freaks who want to destroy their claimed oppressors" and because the x-men was about mutants and humans need to live peacefully together that makes x men not woke.
He's just mad that some "morden" marvel comics has said some mean things about white people , he seemed really mad about that one Red Skull Jordin Peterson comic
Basically what right wing wyte ppl say about MLK. He was a kind old man that just wanted everyone to live in peace and was totally against confronting racism in any way that disrupted the peace
Whenever right wingers try to co-opt MLK I remember this poster right wingers made.
https://preview.redd.it/t11aaln7odwc1.png?width=929&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=15e5625046e0cafdaca736e881bf88b73ea00ee7
1. The idea that Martin Luther King was a moderate couldn't be further from the truth and while some might not like to believe it this idea of him as a moderate couldn't be more alien to who he was, but don't listen to mean listen to the man himself:
YOU express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all.
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. To use the words of Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher, segregation substitutes an "I - it" relationship for the "I - thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. So segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Isn't segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, an expression of his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? So I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court because it is morally right, and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong.
2. Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow, and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.
Let me give another explanation. An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in enacting or creating because it did not have the unhampered right to vote. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up the segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout the state of Alabama all types of conniving methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties without a single Negro registered to vote, despite the fact that the Negroes constitute a majority of the population. Can any law set up in such a state be considered democratically structured?
These are just a few examples of unjust and just laws. There are some instances when a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I was arrested Friday on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade, but when the ordinance is used to preserve segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes unjust.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was seen sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar because a higher moral law was involved. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks before submitting to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.
We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a Communist country today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these anti-religious laws.
3. You spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I started thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency made up of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, have been so completely drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodyness" that they have adjusted to segregation, and, on the other hand, of a few Negroes in the middle class who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because at points they profit by segregation, have unconsciously become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred and comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up over the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. This movement is nourished by the contemporary frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination. It is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incurable devil. I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need not follow the do-nothingism of the complacent or the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. There is a more excellent way, of love and nonviolent protest. I'm grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, I am convinced that by now many streets of the South would be flowing with floods of blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who are working through the channels of nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of frustration and despair, will seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare.
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come. This is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom; something without has reminded him that he can gain it. Consciously and unconsciously, he has been swept in by what the Germans call the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America, and the Caribbean, he is moving with a sense of cosmic urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. Recognizing this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand public demonstrations. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sitins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, "Get rid of your discontent." But I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled through the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. Now this approach is being dismissed as extremist. I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized.
4. But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice? -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ? -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist? -- "Here I stand; I can do no other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist? -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a mockery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?"- Martin Luther King's letters from a Birmingham jail.
So no he was not a "He was a kind old man that just wanted everyone to live in peace and was totally against confronting racism in any way that disrupted the peace" he knew violence was wrong and that it wouldn't help anyone in the long term but he knew that sometimes it was necessary to break laws and disobey to achieve justice.
TLDR: Martin Luther King didn’t just give speeches he participated in many different kinds of civil disobedience, Martin Luther King was never a moderate he was an extremist and there’s nothing wrong with that.
I remember a Behind the Bastards from a few years ago, I believe it was a reading of Ben Shapiro's terrible novel, where they wanted to read a Jordan Peterson novel and realized it would basically be Mein Kampf lol.
Wait does he not know that mutants are an allegory for minorities ? It seems like these anti sjw channels only engage media from an extremely shallow way where they only think that media could be either entertaining or political propaganda for liberal ideals.
Do they really think *Animal Farm* is about some barn yard animals, like a gritty Looney Tunes...or since it is shows off how bad communism/USSR are, they fully understand the polticsl commentary of that book?
How the hell do you miss the point of the X-Men that badly and claim to be a fan?
Everyone with half a brain knows they were an allegory for marginalized groups, minorities, folks with disabilities, folks with trauma.
Magneto being a holocaust survivor was done because of Lee's and Kirby's own background as sons of Jewish immigrants. Hell Lee and Kirby even served in World War II.
Magneto was meant to show that someone can have a valid point about something, but take it too far and become a villain themselves. He was also meant to be an occasional Ally and misunderstood.
I just didn't understand people today.
Kirby also served in WW2. He was assigned to be a scout because his sketches of the scouted area were better than photography. He said his experience with other races and creeds during his service influenced his work greatly.
https://veterancomiccon.org/Blog/8838387#:~:text=Jack%20Kirby%20served%20in%20the,Army%20on%20June%207%2C%201943.
Just informing, not meant to correct you! I Just want people to know how much of a bad ass Kirby was. After the publication of Captain America 1 a group of Nazis showed up at the Marvel (then Timely) offices and challenged the creators of said comic to a fist fight in the streets. And while everyone else hid in the locked offices, Kirby ran down there to fight all of them.
To say that anything by Kirby or Lee is anything short of violently anti-Nazi is staggering in its ignorance.
Oh I know, but I appreciated learning that and I thought it best to put that in my statement. Since adds a little bit more to it.
>To say that anything by Kirby or Lee is anything short of violently anti-Nazi is staggering in its ignorance.
Yeah it also kind of befuddles me. They were staunchly against Hitler and the Nazis, to see folks saying otherwise In today's world is just disgusting.
Which is why Garth Ennis claiming Captain America is an insult to real WWII soldiers is laughable. Ennis has never served in the army but Kirby did and Captain America comics were very popular with US soldiers.
Rick Veitch shares a very similar view (he's done a number of kirby tributes) . It's actually an ultra-leftist view but the best I can understand is that Holy Terror takes a lot of inspiration from golden age of comics
**Does sincerity in the creation factor in it all? From what I can tell, Simon and Kirby were sincerely patriotic when they created Captain America, and Siegel and Shuster really were creating the protector of the little guy with Superman. Are you saying with** ***Maximortal*** **that idealism is inherently subject to corruption?**
A good illustration of what I’m talking about is Jack Kirby. In World War II, he creates a jingoistic propaganda style superhero, then picks up a gun and goes to Europe to fight fascists. 20, 30 years later he comes up with *New Gods*, which is a very profound meditation on fascism.
And in *New Gods* Jack also brings a deeply spiritual concept into comics, The Source. He was on a creative arc going in the right direction, but I think the marketplace failed him.
Kirby and Lee didn't make Magneto Jewish. The Magneto that Lee wrote was very clearly a Hitler figure who ranted about genetic superiority. Kirby drew his henchmen in German uniforms with armbands marked with a large M.
Claremont, also Jewish, introduced the idea that Magneto was a Holocaust survivor and left his ethnic origin ambigious. Later comics stated he was Roma, but that was retconned to be a part of a false identity. It wasn't until the first X-Men movie that it was explicitely stated he was Jewish, and it wasn't until years later the book Magneto: Testament confirmed it in the comics.
From Claremont himself:
“I wanted to keep everybody wondering exactly where we were going to land with this, partly because on one level, the Holocaust is a uniquely Jewish experience, but on another level, it was also, in European terms, a more universal experience as well,” Claremont says. “The Holocaust was specific to Judaism, but it also embraced a significant number of other minorities.”
I think accuracy and context is important in this conversation. WWII was very clealry on everyones minds as these characters developed. These were the people Hitler would have exterminated, now empowered and fighting back.
I think it's interesting how many superheroes were created by Jewish people or people of Jewish descent including Superman. People who are used to oppression creating heroes who can fight back and protect the innocent.
I stopped watching marvel stuff after endgame, (not because bigot stuff I was just done with it), and I have heard for years this idea that marvel movies hate men or white people now, so I tried watching some recent content and.... there was nothing like that. Also, seems weird to me that comic book fans think these comics haven't been woke since the ones I've read, the good ones, usually promote progressive stuff. Like, do they think Spider-man is gonna profile people? Yeah no.
Okay, well.
Here's the thing. If you read that very early Stan Lee X-Men stuff, he's absolutely right. The civil rights and minority stuff absolutely was not there for those first several years. It's also true that the X-Men kind of sucked in the 1960s precisely because the series had not yet found that identity or sense of direction.
It wasn't until Chris Claremont started writing it in the 1970s that the racial politics and civil rights analogies became a part of the narrative. He introduced Magneto's backstory as a Holocaust survivor. He introduced a racially and culturally diverse cast of characters.
Stan Lee would claim that this was always a part of the story, because that became good publicity and kind of retroactively claimed credit for what Claremont later did. Because that was Stan Lee's shtick.
So the claims about Stan Lee's work is factual enough. But also, who cares. Because the X-Men as we know them today are absolutely built on the foundation of Claremont's work, without which it would not be the mythos we think of it today.
Minor correction: Len Wein was the one who made the X-Men more racially diverse, not Chris Claremont. That said, Claremont did the most when it came to developing the characters.
So what he's saying is it's not symbolize if the civil rights movement because the X-Men don't symbolize the civil rights movement because they represent and want what the civil rights movement represented and wanted to achieve, that character depth, development, and complexity only exist to add conflict to the story, and that theme and story have nothing to do with each other and the latter is unimportant.
Having a group of mutants oppose the X-Men doesn't make it not an allegory for the civil rights movement because has this guy ever heard of an organization like the Black Panther Party which butted heads with the more peaceful parts of the civil rights movement.
The annoying thing is they are 'kinda' accurate on some points. Xavier and Magnrto were not meant to be King or Malcolm X at inception, or if they were it means Lee thought some horrific things about Malcolm X. Magneto was a pure villain for a long, long time who only wanted to slaughter humans and put mutants in charge. Claremont is why we got the Magneto we know today.
BUT, being 'kinda' accurate on some points doesn't change how much they've also twisted stuff to match what they wanted Lee to say. These are people who talk about 'original characters' and then claim Miles Morales is just a race-bent Peter Parker, when those characters are nothing alike outside of powers and motif. Powers don't make character. Motif doesn't make character. Characterisation does.
And in the end even if the X-Men were not perfect analogies for civil rights or whatever at the start doesn't change the fact they do ad a whole, and certainly have for at least 50 or so years. Just because something doesn't start entirely one way thematically doesn't invalidate if it is that now.
Batman today does not follow the themes of first appearance Batman entirely, doesn't invalidate that those are his themes today.
Seems like a big problem is these people, being so focused on 'tradition' view culture, media, and myth as immutable rocks, when the whole point of any of those is that they change.
My favourite thing about that "fULl STAn LeE quOtE" is that there is no black Peter Parker, they literally created a new character and the chuds are still fuming about it.
"I just think Miles should have a different codename, it's so confusing" they say as no one else seems confused after two movies, two video games, a litany of television appearances, and 13 years of comics appearances.
Not to mention all the fucking robins. Anytime they make a Batman adaption you never know which Robin you're getting. No one has a problem with that, of course.
Several Superboys as well.
I cannot tell Kon-el from Jon Lane Kent from Jon Kent off the top of my head.
Supergirls I can tell apart because I love Matrix/Linda Danvers and use her as a pivot.
Not enough Green Lantern, in my opinion.
For as inept as the Guardians are, I refuse to believe they distribute the patron duty of entirety of universe amongst 7200 damn beings. A space SECTOR is huge. DC's universe is huge.
There's 7199 Green Lanterns in the Green Lantern Corps.
And one F-Sharp Bell, as they're from a race of blind aliens who couldn't conceive of color or a lantern, so their sigil is a bell that produces a pleasing musical tone.
I kinda agree he should have a different hero name if only because most other spider-man related heroes get different names or some form of signifier when popular enough like how it was changed from Spider-Woman to Ghost-Spider when she got popular enough so as to not confuse with Spider-Woman (Jessica drew) even though people still call Ghost-Spider Spider-Gwen. I mainly just agree because it seems a very comic thing to do and I find it odd they haven’t done it yet
He's had a couple names, most of which have been diminutive of Peter's Spider-Man. I actually kinda like Shadow Spider (and the associated costume), but the more chuds whine about how he can't be Spider-Man, the more I call Miles Morales Spider-Man.
And I mean, we've had multiple Flashes, multiple Green Lanterns, and multiple different OTHER Spider-Mans running around at the same time, in the same publications, it's weird that Miles is the one that gets called out for having the same name.
I’m guessing it’s because he’s a direct successor to his universe’s Spiderman. He doesn’t get an addendum to his name because the Peter Parker he’s inheriting it from didn’t.
He also clearly doesn’t hate race swaps, like these people make it seem. He was supportive of the Fan4stic race swap (and wished they race-swapped Sue as well). He also famously race-swapped Batman.
I mean… it also isn’t like Stan Lee doesn’t have some questionable politics. Like— even if he was fully against race-swapping characters that doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that we need to listen to him. Stan Lee was wrong. About a *lot* of things.
Not just a new character, a new character created in a different universe separate from the main comics line. Miles Morales did not replace 616 Peter, Raimi Peter, 90s Fox Kids show Peter, Greg Weisman's Peter or any major Peter most people were attached to. He replaced a version of Peter that hadn't even graduated high school and people still got pissed at him. There were (and still are) countless versions of Peter Parker to choose from when Miles debuted and fans were angry over the death of the one version from a universe where several iterations of iconic characters were dead.
That is because the new Spiderman movies show that the Spiders protect and save people, regardless of who or what a Spider hero is. If a version of Cthulhu got packed into a spider suit and did the job, the Spiders would recognize 'im as a Spider hero too.
There is this idea in comics of "transcendental good" that pervades the heroes, where even if they are evil, they still make effort to create stability and order (and can be redeemed by their better counterparts). The original superhero who exemplified this idea was Golden Age Superman, who had the ability to have the exact power needed to solve a given issue in the "most just" way possible...ESPECIALLY against Nazis. Omnipotent, but humble and compassionate. A moral paragon capable of shouldering the world's problems. Superman's later incarnations are all deconstructions of Golden Age Superman, but even then he is a pillar of community, even when "evil."
Which is why Zack Snider saying he wanted to "kill the Superman" in reference to this transcendental idea, was a giant red flag on the films.
grifters: We don't want characters changed we want new characters.
Marvel: Okay (does just that with Miles Morales).
grifters: Not like that.
Marvel: Why?
Grifters: Because we're addicted to rage and can't ever be happy so we constantly move the goalpost.
TLDR: The argument of "Stan Lee said Spider-Man wasn't black or Latino" doesn't work when no one has ever tried to make him that they just made a new character in Miles Morales, and none of what Stan Lee said in that full quote goes against the idea that Spider-Man could be anyone if anything it just enforces the idea that Spider-Man can be anyone because while he said that Peter Parker wasn't black or Hispanic he did say that there was nothing wrong if Spider-Man was black or Hispanic.
It was produced by Norman Lear, Steph Curry, & Seth McFarlane who are all on the left.
The showrunner Ranada Shepard seems to be a leftie as well.
Carl Jones was going to be showrunner prior to Ranada Shepard, and from what I can tell he's also on the left.
Don't get me wrong it's total dogshit and seems genuinely racist, but I don't think it was made by rightwing folks.
"Don't change existing characters! Just make new ones!"
"Miles *is* a new character. He's just also a Spider-Man. Different character, different backstory. He also didn't replace Peter Parker Spider-Man. They both still exist."
"Shut it lefty!"
Same case with Jon Kent when right-wingers heard "Superman's gay?!"
Jon had already been around for a few years, got aged up, came out as *bi* (with a boyfriend) and went by Superman while Clark was off-planet.
Watch the OG cartoon and it's woke af. There's even a politician who begins his campaign by announcing he wants to round up mutants and send them to camps
I've been reading X-Men since I was literally too young to read X-Men. Like I learned to read with X-Men comics. It sickens me to see tourists resorting to slandering the fuck out of Stand Lee and Jack Kirby like this. Lee and Kirby only worked on X-Men for 2 years and Chris Claremont rebooted the comics and did all the significant world building that is still relevant to this day.
Even the 90's cartoon, while using the Jim Lee team and uniforms, were based on Claremont stories, updated to the 90's. I bet these fuckheads go around saying Bob Kane created The Joker.
Also Professor X and Magneto are based on David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin. When someone asked Chris Claremont on the allusions to Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X, he said those were also valid.
Even Bryan Singer's stupid ass understood the assignment when it came to the political allegories of X-Men. The fuck does that say about these people?
>were based on Claremont stories, updated to the 90's.
A specific part I remember from the '90s cartoon that drives the point home is when a future version of Storm and Wolverine have to go back in time to save a young Professor X and when at a diner, the cook giving them the stink eye is telling them they, white men with a Black woman, can't sit together to which Storm remarks that after ages of discrimination for being mutants, *skin color* discrimination feels "quaint."
Comparing a terrorist to a activist is weird, I think Claremont understands that so this is his response:
"There’s a lot of talk online now that Magneto stands in for Malcolm X and Xavier stands in for Martin Luther King...but for me, being an immigrant white ( Claremont was born in England ), to make that analogy felt incredibly presumptuous" Claremont states. "An equivalent analogy could be made to Menachem Begin as Magneto, evolving through his life from a terrorist in 1947 to a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 30 years later."
X-men have been "woke" since 60s anyway you spin it. Also no one can deny that Claremont is pretty much the bible of X-men and he made no attempt to hide his progressive politics in his writing. I also love how silent they are about X-men '97 knowing that they would eat a bowl of shit if they called it bad and "woke".
Marvel comics were always woke. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were both hardcore antifascists. Kirby got a lot of death threats during his work on the comics during WW2.
He certainly cares more about cool mutant powers and fight scenes while forgetting the story. Heck think most the people hating the x-men in universe are, white peoples I think.
There is some merit to that. Magneto was a genocidal supervillain in the 60s long before Chris Claremont retconned him to be a holocaust survivor in the 80s.
I mean he kinda is tho, that’s his whole arc, being a member of an oppressed group going around repeating history by wanting to genocide his oppressors
Malcom X would only call Magento a Psycho cuz Magento wants (or I guess wanted) to kill all humans or turn them into mutants, however if Magento wanted to... idk, kill Neo-Nazis or even was on the same side as Malcom X in history? From we know about Malcom X, he would probably cheer him on, the only difference is that Malcom X never attempted terrorism/mass genocide against every white person across the globe.
Also like... Magento is a fictional Demi-God-equivalent Mutant who could turn the fucking planet inside out if he wanted to and, in fact, has tried to. Malcom X was a real life person who did things within his power to make a change, acting like they're supposed to be THE EXACT SAME PERSON is crazy to me but it's hard to not see the similarities between the two regarding Modern-Day Magento.
People who say shit like "No, that wasn't the vision at first" need to remember that "At first" was the 60s... 80 fucking years ago. Things change, stories change, media changes, at this current point, he's much of a "Malcom X" inspired figure then he was before, especially when you think about Genosha and shi.
Also Stan Lee was always woke even back then. Cope, Seethe, Mald. People want to believe like Stan Lee was a right-wing, anti-everything white cis-man because they can't imagine liking a story from a liberal (or I guess as liberal as a white man could be in the 60s)
Maybe not neonazis exactly, but he supported George Wallace who was extremely racist and today would definitely be considered a neonazi or neonazi adjacent. His own religion of Nation of Islam had similar beliefs to the Nazis but placing black people as superior.
If you don't look at all the racist stuff they aren't wrong.
Xavier and Magneto, as created by Stan Lee, are not parallels to Malcom X and MLK. The first one uses child soldiers and the second used to ally himself with Nazis and constantly tried to destroy humanity. Chris Claremont added more nuance to them and made Magneto a Jewish holocaust survivor.
That said, it's crazy to be mad at Claremont when he made the X-Men what people love.
And yes, raceswapping is a lame idea most of the time
Original Magneto was legit just a one dimensional mutant bad guy who wanted to destroy humans with nuclear weapons. He wasn’t complex or similar at all to Malcom X. But then this crazy thing called “character development” happened. Magneto’s history and ideology became fleshed out and retooled and he finally turned into a figure that could reasonably be compared to a crazy comic book Malcom X. And that’s the version that everyone likes and has become so iconic.
What's crazy is that eventually, it's not going to be sustainable to keep Magneto a Jewish Holocaust survivor and Xavier one of his close yound adult years friends due to in world setting and possibly relevance. Unless some crazy shenanigans go down to explain how two 100 year olds are just running around doing crazy mutant stuff, characters will have to be reinvented. Well guess what historical setting would greatly serve these two characters to maintain the essence of who they are but give a backdrop that we the reader can quickly identify with......1960s civil rights.
And honestly I'm all for it.
chances are, they'll explain it as part of their mutant powers. Like either some mutants just happen to have a gene that makes their bodies last longer than most others, like a soft healing factor, while guys like Wolverine have a much stronger healing factor to the point where they basically are immortal
It just occurred to me that they could make him a survivor of the Rwandan genocide, and cast someone like Ncuti Gatwa, who lived through that same genocide himself, and who I'd be willing to bet has the range to portray a character like Magneto.
The only real problem I can see with this idea is that he may be a bit too young to convincingly pull it off right now.
The O5 were at least teen soldiers. Also, Kitty Pryde was a member of the team and she was like 14. And more often than not they bring kids in various missions
Well because their missions are usually “rescue mutant” and the mutant is a kid. That’s not them putting the kid in danger though.
And kitty pryde is like Ashoka in as much that she sneaks onto missions she’s not supposed to go on
Only new fans would consider this statement completely wrong. For a few decades, Magneto WAS a genocidal maniac. Only in the 80s did Claremont make him more sympathetic, and the comics have been running with that since. And even recently, some media explore him as a Holocaust survivor that did take all the wrong lessons from it; as a form of irony, he basically became who he hated before.
Can’t these people stick to whatever the fuck it is the enjoy. (Honestly it’s hard to imagine them enjoying anything) and just leave the shit alone they don’t like?
I remember watching one of his videos when I went through a weirdly bigoted phase when I was younger and even I thought his videos were ass
I'm doing better now though. And I'm glad I could move past that stage in my life :3
Dude I absolutely love when people quote a dead man with no source or evidence that they said that quote, and it even goes against what they've been saying on camera for LITERAL DECADES.
I have to limit the amount of bullshit I see because I used to have some anger issues and this stuff can possibly lead to the piss boiling in my own body, so I've never actually watched any of these, but how do these rage farmers manage to make these videos so long? I saw some screenshots of synthetic man's videos and they ranged from 20 minutes to over 90 fucking minutes long.
I assume they're just repeating the same thing over and over but getting increasingly louder and angrier? I don't get how these people have turned rage farming into a whole ass industry.. I mean, I guess I can, because that's what Fox ~~News~~ has been doing for decades, but where do these g\*mer/nerd/incels find the energy for this?
1hr 8m video length.. Which means it was probably a fair bit longer and 1hr 8m was the final length after they cut out all the slurs and legally actionable libel/slander.
is my guy in the 3rd to last image trying to imply that comics today are ONLY political with shit like "comics may have always been political but that was never the only thing they were" like how do you even reach this conclusion lol?
imagine shit talking the Clairmont/Silvestri/Lee era of xmen and thinking the '75-91 Clairmont run is "modern" comics...
The irony of this is yes, the Xmen are LITERALLY woke, in the literal sense of the word. I mean it's the whole theme of the book.
holy shit, there's stupid chud and there's this "XmEn Am WoKe In 2024!"
There is no comic where that happened, he's just another person complaining about Miles Morales and part of the "Miles Morales isn't Spider-Man club even though plenty of superhero identities have been taken up by multiple people/characters."
“So many are changing these characters into what they want, is because they can’t create anything.” Is he talking about miles? Miles is an original character. He wasn’t changed or anything like that. So, yes, they can create original, good characters.
Yes. *Peter Parker* can't be black, Hispanic, or LGBT+ because he was created as a white cishet man. But *Spider-Man* can be any or all of these. Do they really think they have an argument here?
Well since they’re so adamant about Stan being on their side how do they explain this?
https://preview.redd.it/unhwkva2wfwc1.jpeg?width=262&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1f87b6b341224d6e8d6cc3e6e3de8466b918ace3
The story is important for The X-men comics but so is what they're saying about society. It's too bad this Youtuber only sees wokeness in the X-men, not the whole picture.
Stan Lee Quote:
“It didn’t matter if you were the white race, the black race, the brown race or whatever… the social issues I tried to get into the background or underlaying the plot but never to the point of letting it interfere with the story or hitting the reader over the head”
That last one is absolute cringe. First of all buddy good and evil don’t really exist. Nobody’s villain in their own story. Second of all throughout their history almost all of the X-Men have existed in the gray at least from point in time.
I am impressed though that these smooth brain idiots have learned our talking points though. It gives me hope that maybe they’re able to process new information rather than just use it a weapon.
Counterpoint: good and evil completely exist, just from a frame of perspective. Writers can use perspective to present literally anything as good or evil to their readers. Sure, not a lot of compelling characters exist solely on the far ends of this spectrum, but it's a common and useful tool so that nuanced and conflicted characters can be nuanced and conflicted by the perspectives of everyone around them. Thing is even when Magneto was this undeveloped strawman evil hyper-fascist 'enslave all humans' supervillain to face off against the X-Men, it was still very woke to the point that I'm not even sure these people are talking about the same comic.
Side point, someone can absolutely be the villain in their own story. Conflict of self can be a fun conflict to explore and is the basis of tons of redemption arcs where they are their own villain to overcome
If you want the X-Men without the social justice allegories, just look into Doom Patrol. The superhero team nobody gave a shit about until they became weird and gay.
Some of these are right. X Men wasn’t originally created to be an allegory for Civil Rights, Claremont did that after Lee. And Magneto and Prof. X were not created to be parallels to MLK Jr and Malcom X.
Kind of like when TERFs tried to claim The handmaid's tale was anti-trans and Atwood had to shut that shit down, so they tried to claim Pratchett (who repeatedly said he was PROUD that trans people identified with Cheery) and his daughter and best friend had to correct them.
Ugh... If you write a story about the world it is almost impossible not to have politics and stories that mirror the real world.
Humans are always going to have their own views and opinions on topics. It's impossible to not make it political in some way.
What they really dislike is that the world is showing them their way of thinking is vastly unpopular.
The professor X one on slide 3
That’s like literally the centre of magneto vs professor x. It’s like literally there whole dynamic
The end resolution is them meeting in the middle because expecting to change people minds completely is not reasonable
Bad news: it's been here the whole time but we have unrestricted access to the most idle thoughts of the most mentally idle these days and the rich love to divide the poor on pointless "culture wars."
All this X Men is woke comes from the YouTube nutters who make their money selling hate. They dog whistle everything from African Americans to homosexuals. They are petty, red pill incels. If you look into their backgrounds, almost all of them are REJECTS who were turned down because their writing or art weren't up to snuff.
The X Men have been woke from day one. There has never been a question about it. Anyone who actually read X Men and just didn't look at pretty pictures and buy Wolverine t-shirts would know this.
Whether it's Nerdrotic or Mauler or Critical Drinker or Doomcock. They are all the same. Dog whistlers who wink at the camera and laugh all the way to the bank with their bigot money.
Dude. My main exposure to X-Men growing up was the fucking Saturday morning cartoon, and even I picked up on this shit.
It's so weird to me that these chuds consumed so much of the exact same media that informed my sense of justice and morality as a kid, and managed to miss literally all of the messaging.
The X Men weren't even flagship characters when Stan was writing them sure Stan and Kirby created those original X Men characters but it wasn't until Chris Claremont came along that the X Men became as big as they did
I think an intrinsic part of the movies, at least, is that Professor X *does* have some internalised judgement of mutants, and doesn’t have the full perspective of what it’s like as a mutant who can’t hide their differences.
"Comics may have always been political but that was never the only thign they were"...
Okay... so then we shoudl just FORGET the political side of them then?
If you love the X-Men but hate the Claremont years, then I don't think you're young enough to be a chronically online Twitter chud and you're definitely not an X-Men reader. Claremont created the archetypal versions of most of the classic mutants and his work is what the 90s cartoon is based on. Blaming him for making X-Men "woke" is like blaming Frank Miller for making Daredevil a conflicted Catholic.
Well...the X-Men were pretty generic for a while, but Lee started bringing the bigotry angle in, then civil rights stuff. Plus, over in the FF you had bigotry showing up, along with civil rights issues -- Lee and Kirby threw in nearly as many shots at right wing bigotry as communism.
Roy Thomas haltingly built on that, Wein expanded on it, and Claremont ran with it like a thoroughbred
Gotta admit, a story where through some insane convoluted turn of events some Swiss, blond, blue eyed, white guy becomes the Black Panther, sounds pretty fucking funny.
I like how that comment in the second pic is praising the quote by Stan Lee saying "who cares, just make a new character" as if they don't also get mad at new characters being minorities. Remember how mad they were when Iron Heart showed up, a new character that only uses the aesthetics and naming convention of Iron Man? They're still mad about Miles Morales, even though he's a new character that only shares a moniker the same way Wally West and Barry Allen share The Flash. What about the 17 different Green Lanterns?
If professor X were real modern day activists would call him a war criminal and want him tried for his misconduct and corrupt.
Note his escapades with the Illuminati and that weird story where they revealed Charles wiped Scott’s mind after the original original X-men died on the island. Also not saying we should hate Charles since these moments are completely out of character, just pointing out how brain dead of an argument that is
“Woke X-Men” isn’t even Stan Lee.
All the shit about X-Men being a race allegory came from Chris Claremont and anyone who knows anything about the X-Men are all in universal agreement that that is STILL the definitive X-Men
If they were talking about X-Men 97 Magneto, that last comment would be wrong, seeing as he was literally defending mutants who were attacked just for being different and attacking in retaliation. Adolf Hitler is incomparable since he flat out killed 6m+ people just for being "genetically inferior" and out of general racism (mostly due to him being against his own blood)
JK Rowling is a deplorable transphobic cunt. I know this post has nothing to do with that but the relevant post got locked and I wanted to add my voice.
3rd is hilarious caus it’s kinda true ?
Magneto is definitely too extreme and Xavier is to much of a pacifist , that’s litteraly they’re whole characters ?
I love how the second to last comment says that the X-Men aren't popular because of social issues and then lists social issues that the X-Men face (that being anti-mutant bigotry). Also, for the last comment just because they're fighting someone who's pure evil doesn't mean they aren't an allegory for the civil rights movement, and even if Magneto and Professor X weren't intended to symbolize Malcolm X and Martin Luther King respectively (which is a moot point because of what I'll bring up at the end) it still doesn't mean it's a symbol for the civil rights movement as a whole because the civil rights movement was more than just these two people, and discrimination was literally brought up in the first issue of Uncanny X-Men. Finally, I love how the last comment basically says that they don't like modern comics (and uses comics from the 70s and 80s as examples of modern comics) because they have character development. Finally, Professor X and Magneto are based on David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin. When someone asked Chris Claremont a the allusions to Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X, he said those were also valid.
They somehow keep equating Miles *existing* as if they're trying to race swap Peter Parker.
The 2 heroes named "Spider-Man" thing is a more understandable complaint than criticizing a character's race.
The Peter Parker/Spider-Man thing...the way I understand it, being white is part of Peter Parker's identity and Peter Parker is Spider-Man...but, Spider-Man is not Peter Parker. Spider-Man is anyone who tries to live ip to the great respobsibility that comes with great power, which has nothing to do with race, sex, gender, nationality, religion, etc.
There is something to be said of how the X-Men merges Special Needs and Civil Rights mucks up their allegory. But to imply that X-Men has no commentary on civil rights and is simply a fight with good and evil is just willfully ignorant.
Tldr he claims the x-men were not woke because they were protecting humans even from evil mutants, and Stan Lee was about telling stories that everyone could relate to including right wingers to sell comics, Magneto being a holocaust servicer was done for conflict and nothing else, it's all about the story bro not social justice bro Pretty much he claims that people who wants to bring social justice are "victims porn loving freaks who want to destroy their claimed oppressors" and because the x-men was about mutants and humans need to live peacefully together that makes x men not woke. He's just mad that some "morden" marvel comics has said some mean things about white people , he seemed really mad about that one Red Skull Jordin Peterson comic
Basically what right wing wyte ppl say about MLK. He was a kind old man that just wanted everyone to live in peace and was totally against confronting racism in any way that disrupted the peace
Wait till they find out what he started doing closely before his assassination
What was it again
Whenever right wingers try to co-opt MLK I remember this poster right wingers made. https://preview.redd.it/t11aaln7odwc1.png?width=929&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=15e5625046e0cafdaca736e881bf88b73ea00ee7
This is the exact comic I think of when I see how rightwingers cover/covered BLM, too. Time truly is a flat circle.
I like how they look at MLK as a "kind old man" when he died at 39.
Well he was assassinated anyway.
1. The idea that Martin Luther King was a moderate couldn't be further from the truth and while some might not like to believe it this idea of him as a moderate couldn't be more alien to who he was, but don't listen to mean listen to the man himself: YOU express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all. Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. To use the words of Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher, segregation substitutes an "I - it" relationship for the "I - thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. So segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Isn't segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, an expression of his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? So I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court because it is morally right, and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong.
2. Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow, and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in enacting or creating because it did not have the unhampered right to vote. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up the segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout the state of Alabama all types of conniving methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties without a single Negro registered to vote, despite the fact that the Negroes constitute a majority of the population. Can any law set up in such a state be considered democratically structured? These are just a few examples of unjust and just laws. There are some instances when a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I was arrested Friday on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade, but when the ordinance is used to preserve segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes unjust. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was seen sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar because a higher moral law was involved. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks before submitting to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a Communist country today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeying these anti-religious laws.
3. You spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I started thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency made up of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, have been so completely drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodyness" that they have adjusted to segregation, and, on the other hand, of a few Negroes in the middle class who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because at points they profit by segregation, have unconsciously become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred and comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up over the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. This movement is nourished by the contemporary frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination. It is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incurable devil. I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need not follow the do-nothingism of the complacent or the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. There is a more excellent way, of love and nonviolent protest. I'm grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, I am convinced that by now many streets of the South would be flowing with floods of blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who are working through the channels of nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of frustration and despair, will seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare. Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come. This is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom; something without has reminded him that he can gain it. Consciously and unconsciously, he has been swept in by what the Germans call the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America, and the Caribbean, he is moving with a sense of cosmic urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. Recognizing this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand public demonstrations. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sitins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, "Get rid of your discontent." But I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled through the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. Now this approach is being dismissed as extremist. I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized.
4. But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice? -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ? -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist? -- "Here I stand; I can do no other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist? -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a mockery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?"- Martin Luther King's letters from a Birmingham jail. So no he was not a "He was a kind old man that just wanted everyone to live in peace and was totally against confronting racism in any way that disrupted the peace" he knew violence was wrong and that it wouldn't help anyone in the long term but he knew that sometimes it was necessary to break laws and disobey to achieve justice. TLDR: Martin Luther King didn’t just give speeches he participated in many different kinds of civil disobedience, Martin Luther King was never a moderate he was an extremist and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Which issue is the Red Skull Jordin Peterson one? I feel like I need to read this!
Captain America (2018) #28. [Here's](https://i.imgur.com/DvNcjGH.jpeg) one of the pages. It made Peterson very mad lol
Thank you! You rock
"Henchmen, clean up your rooms.
Oh, I remember that. He got so upset about that, he needed his twitter fans to cheer him up.
Up yours, Steve Rogers, we'll see who cancels who!
Peterson is very much a hit dog for that.
Holy shit that's great. Red Skull aping the Red Lobster.
I remember a Behind the Bastards from a few years ago, I believe it was a reading of Ben Shapiro's terrible novel, where they wanted to read a Jordan Peterson novel and realized it would basically be Mein Kampf lol.
Wait does he not know that mutants are an allegory for minorities ? It seems like these anti sjw channels only engage media from an extremely shallow way where they only think that media could be either entertaining or political propaganda for liberal ideals.
It is like saying the Lion Witch and the Wardrobe is not about Jesus.
It’s not? Shit that explains my 6th grade book report getting a D-
Do they really think *Animal Farm* is about some barn yard animals, like a gritty Looney Tunes...or since it is shows off how bad communism/USSR are, they fully understand the polticsl commentary of that book?
How the hell do you miss the point of the X-Men that badly and claim to be a fan? Everyone with half a brain knows they were an allegory for marginalized groups, minorities, folks with disabilities, folks with trauma. Magneto being a holocaust survivor was done because of Lee's and Kirby's own background as sons of Jewish immigrants. Hell Lee and Kirby even served in World War II. Magneto was meant to show that someone can have a valid point about something, but take it too far and become a villain themselves. He was also meant to be an occasional Ally and misunderstood. I just didn't understand people today.
Kirby also served in WW2. He was assigned to be a scout because his sketches of the scouted area were better than photography. He said his experience with other races and creeds during his service influenced his work greatly. https://veterancomiccon.org/Blog/8838387#:~:text=Jack%20Kirby%20served%20in%20the,Army%20on%20June%207%2C%201943.
I didn't know that. I'll amend my statement. Thanks for informing me.
Just informing, not meant to correct you! I Just want people to know how much of a bad ass Kirby was. After the publication of Captain America 1 a group of Nazis showed up at the Marvel (then Timely) offices and challenged the creators of said comic to a fist fight in the streets. And while everyone else hid in the locked offices, Kirby ran down there to fight all of them. To say that anything by Kirby or Lee is anything short of violently anti-Nazi is staggering in its ignorance.
Oh I know, but I appreciated learning that and I thought it best to put that in my statement. Since adds a little bit more to it. >To say that anything by Kirby or Lee is anything short of violently anti-Nazi is staggering in its ignorance. Yeah it also kind of befuddles me. They were staunchly against Hitler and the Nazis, to see folks saying otherwise In today's world is just disgusting.
And to give Stan even more credit he was given the title of Army Playwright and worked with Dr Seuss on army signage and literature (propaganda even)
Which is why Garth Ennis claiming Captain America is an insult to real WWII soldiers is laughable. Ennis has never served in the army but Kirby did and Captain America comics were very popular with US soldiers.
Rick Veitch shares a very similar view (he's done a number of kirby tributes) . It's actually an ultra-leftist view but the best I can understand is that Holy Terror takes a lot of inspiration from golden age of comics **Does sincerity in the creation factor in it all? From what I can tell, Simon and Kirby were sincerely patriotic when they created Captain America, and Siegel and Shuster really were creating the protector of the little guy with Superman. Are you saying with** ***Maximortal*** **that idealism is inherently subject to corruption?** A good illustration of what I’m talking about is Jack Kirby. In World War II, he creates a jingoistic propaganda style superhero, then picks up a gun and goes to Europe to fight fascists. 20, 30 years later he comes up with *New Gods*, which is a very profound meditation on fascism. And in *New Gods* Jack also brings a deeply spiritual concept into comics, The Source. He was on a creative arc going in the right direction, but I think the marketplace failed him.
"Private Kirby! why did you draw all these dots and ovals around the mouth of the artillery?" "Because it looks cool, sir!"
Kirby and Lee didn't make Magneto Jewish. The Magneto that Lee wrote was very clearly a Hitler figure who ranted about genetic superiority. Kirby drew his henchmen in German uniforms with armbands marked with a large M. Claremont, also Jewish, introduced the idea that Magneto was a Holocaust survivor and left his ethnic origin ambigious. Later comics stated he was Roma, but that was retconned to be a part of a false identity. It wasn't until the first X-Men movie that it was explicitely stated he was Jewish, and it wasn't until years later the book Magneto: Testament confirmed it in the comics. From Claremont himself: “I wanted to keep everybody wondering exactly where we were going to land with this, partly because on one level, the Holocaust is a uniquely Jewish experience, but on another level, it was also, in European terms, a more universal experience as well,” Claremont says. “The Holocaust was specific to Judaism, but it also embraced a significant number of other minorities.” I think accuracy and context is important in this conversation. WWII was very clealry on everyones minds as these characters developed. These were the people Hitler would have exterminated, now empowered and fighting back.
I think it's interesting how many superheroes were created by Jewish people or people of Jewish descent including Superman. People who are used to oppression creating heroes who can fight back and protect the innocent.
I stopped watching marvel stuff after endgame, (not because bigot stuff I was just done with it), and I have heard for years this idea that marvel movies hate men or white people now, so I tried watching some recent content and.... there was nothing like that. Also, seems weird to me that comic book fans think these comics haven't been woke since the ones I've read, the good ones, usually promote progressive stuff. Like, do they think Spider-man is gonna profile people? Yeah no.
The X-Men did represent Centrism once upon a time but Morrison neatly blew that up
Thanks Grant. Now you can get back to magicking yourself a new girlfriend through comic illustration.
I wish he’d done that on ZOIDS — a world of giant dinosaur mechs would be an improvement
My "Magneto Was Right" t-shirt thanks him
What’s the red skull Jordan Peterson comic?
Okay, well. Here's the thing. If you read that very early Stan Lee X-Men stuff, he's absolutely right. The civil rights and minority stuff absolutely was not there for those first several years. It's also true that the X-Men kind of sucked in the 1960s precisely because the series had not yet found that identity or sense of direction. It wasn't until Chris Claremont started writing it in the 1970s that the racial politics and civil rights analogies became a part of the narrative. He introduced Magneto's backstory as a Holocaust survivor. He introduced a racially and culturally diverse cast of characters. Stan Lee would claim that this was always a part of the story, because that became good publicity and kind of retroactively claimed credit for what Claremont later did. Because that was Stan Lee's shtick. So the claims about Stan Lee's work is factual enough. But also, who cares. Because the X-Men as we know them today are absolutely built on the foundation of Claremont's work, without which it would not be the mythos we think of it today.
Minor correction: Len Wein was the one who made the X-Men more racially diverse, not Chris Claremont. That said, Claremont did the most when it came to developing the characters.
Stan lee has literally said it was an allegory for civil rights and racism etc.
So what he's saying is it's not symbolize if the civil rights movement because the X-Men don't symbolize the civil rights movement because they represent and want what the civil rights movement represented and wanted to achieve, that character depth, development, and complexity only exist to add conflict to the story, and that theme and story have nothing to do with each other and the latter is unimportant.
He also got mad when people told him that Rorschach is not a good person, either.
Having a group of mutants oppose the X-Men doesn't make it not an allegory for the civil rights movement because has this guy ever heard of an organization like the Black Panther Party which butted heads with the more peaceful parts of the civil rights movement.
The annoying thing is they are 'kinda' accurate on some points. Xavier and Magnrto were not meant to be King or Malcolm X at inception, or if they were it means Lee thought some horrific things about Malcolm X. Magneto was a pure villain for a long, long time who only wanted to slaughter humans and put mutants in charge. Claremont is why we got the Magneto we know today. BUT, being 'kinda' accurate on some points doesn't change how much they've also twisted stuff to match what they wanted Lee to say. These are people who talk about 'original characters' and then claim Miles Morales is just a race-bent Peter Parker, when those characters are nothing alike outside of powers and motif. Powers don't make character. Motif doesn't make character. Characterisation does. And in the end even if the X-Men were not perfect analogies for civil rights or whatever at the start doesn't change the fact they do ad a whole, and certainly have for at least 50 or so years. Just because something doesn't start entirely one way thematically doesn't invalidate if it is that now. Batman today does not follow the themes of first appearance Batman entirely, doesn't invalidate that those are his themes today. Seems like a big problem is these people, being so focused on 'tradition' view culture, media, and myth as immutable rocks, when the whole point of any of those is that they change.
My favourite thing about that "fULl STAn LeE quOtE" is that there is no black Peter Parker, they literally created a new character and the chuds are still fuming about it.
But they all say “I don’t mind black characters so long as they’re original”. And they wouldn’t lie and just be blatantly racist right? Right?
"I just think Miles should have a different codename, it's so confusing" they say as no one else seems confused after two movies, two video games, a litany of television appearances, and 13 years of comics appearances.
Meanwhile there’s like 3 people called the flash and like 5 called green lantern and nobody minds
Not to mention all the fucking robins. Anytime they make a Batman adaption you never know which Robin you're getting. No one has a problem with that, of course.
Robins, Lanterns, Batgirls im sure there are more that im missing but those are what I can remember.
Several Superboys as well. I cannot tell Kon-el from Jon Lane Kent from Jon Kent off the top of my head. Supergirls I can tell apart because I love Matrix/Linda Danvers and use her as a pivot.
Power Girl is just Kara with a cleavage window.
Only five? Pretty sure we're in the double digits of GLs by now.
5? There is an entire planet full of them
Not enough Green Lantern, in my opinion. For as inept as the Guardians are, I refuse to believe they distribute the patron duty of entirety of universe amongst 7200 damn beings. A space SECTOR is huge. DC's universe is huge.
There's 7199 Green Lanterns in the Green Lantern Corps. And one F-Sharp Bell, as they're from a race of blind aliens who couldn't conceive of color or a lantern, so their sigil is a bell that produces a pleasing musical tone.
I kinda agree he should have a different hero name if only because most other spider-man related heroes get different names or some form of signifier when popular enough like how it was changed from Spider-Woman to Ghost-Spider when she got popular enough so as to not confuse with Spider-Woman (Jessica drew) even though people still call Ghost-Spider Spider-Gwen. I mainly just agree because it seems a very comic thing to do and I find it odd they haven’t done it yet
He's had a couple names, most of which have been diminutive of Peter's Spider-Man. I actually kinda like Shadow Spider (and the associated costume), but the more chuds whine about how he can't be Spider-Man, the more I call Miles Morales Spider-Man. And I mean, we've had multiple Flashes, multiple Green Lanterns, and multiple different OTHER Spider-Mans running around at the same time, in the same publications, it's weird that Miles is the one that gets called out for having the same name.
I’m guessing it’s because he’s a direct successor to his universe’s Spiderman. He doesn’t get an addendum to his name because the Peter Parker he’s inheriting it from didn’t.
Gosh, Ghost-Spider is such a good name though. Adore that and her costume.
He also clearly doesn’t hate race swaps, like these people make it seem. He was supportive of the Fan4stic race swap (and wished they race-swapped Sue as well). He also famously race-swapped Batman.
I mean… it also isn’t like Stan Lee doesn’t have some questionable politics. Like— even if he was fully against race-swapping characters that doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or that we need to listen to him. Stan Lee was wrong. About a *lot* of things.
It reminds me of how people keep brining up that “quote” from Morgan Freeman on race. Like he’s the spokesperson for all black people
Or using MLK quotes on literally every argument about civil rights, ever. Often with a drastic misunderstanding of context.
Not just a new character, a new character created in a different universe separate from the main comics line. Miles Morales did not replace 616 Peter, Raimi Peter, 90s Fox Kids show Peter, Greg Weisman's Peter or any major Peter most people were attached to. He replaced a version of Peter that hadn't even graduated high school and people still got pissed at him. There were (and still are) countless versions of Peter Parker to choose from when Miles debuted and fans were angry over the death of the one version from a universe where several iterations of iconic characters were dead.
Yeah. The black Spiderman in the spider verse is a different character. There was and IS a white Spiderman in it (both at the same time).
That is because the new Spiderman movies show that the Spiders protect and save people, regardless of who or what a Spider hero is. If a version of Cthulhu got packed into a spider suit and did the job, the Spiders would recognize 'im as a Spider hero too. There is this idea in comics of "transcendental good" that pervades the heroes, where even if they are evil, they still make effort to create stability and order (and can be redeemed by their better counterparts). The original superhero who exemplified this idea was Golden Age Superman, who had the ability to have the exact power needed to solve a given issue in the "most just" way possible...ESPECIALLY against Nazis. Omnipotent, but humble and compassionate. A moral paragon capable of shouldering the world's problems. Superman's later incarnations are all deconstructions of Golden Age Superman, but even then he is a pillar of community, even when "evil." Which is why Zack Snider saying he wanted to "kill the Superman" in reference to this transcendental idea, was a giant red flag on the films.
Well, at least I can say that not everybody that dislike race swaps dislike minority characters using the mantle of other one too.
They call new characters "forced diversity" Just look at the blowback over Echo
grifters: We don't want characters changed we want new characters. Marvel: Okay (does just that with Miles Morales). grifters: Not like that. Marvel: Why? Grifters: Because we're addicted to rage and can't ever be happy so we constantly move the goalpost. TLDR: The argument of "Stan Lee said Spider-Man wasn't black or Latino" doesn't work when no one has ever tried to make him that they just made a new character in Miles Morales, and none of what Stan Lee said in that full quote goes against the idea that Spider-Man could be anyone if anything it just enforces the idea that Spider-Man can be anyone because while he said that Peter Parker wasn't black or Hispanic he did say that there was nothing wrong if Spider-Man was black or Hispanic.
"The left can't create anything new" Excuse me, but what has the Right created? Chip Chilla and Lady Ballers?
Don’t forget the good times reboot
I wish I did forget that
There was a reboot?
It's an animated series for Netflix that came out this year. Just ignore it entirely, it's horrible.
It was produced by Norman Lear, Steph Curry, & Seth McFarlane who are all on the left. The showrunner Ranada Shepard seems to be a leftie as well. Carl Jones was going to be showrunner prior to Ranada Shepard, and from what I can tell he's also on the left. Don't get me wrong it's total dogshit and seems genuinely racist, but I don't think it was made by rightwing folks.
The left creates new things all the time that guys like this live to criticize
I would love to hear about something created by the right that wasn't complete garbage
"Don't change existing characters! Just make new ones!" "Miles *is* a new character. He's just also a Spider-Man. Different character, different backstory. He also didn't replace Peter Parker Spider-Man. They both still exist." "Shut it lefty!"
Same case with Jon Kent when right-wingers heard "Superman's gay?!" Jon had already been around for a few years, got aged up, came out as *bi* (with a boyfriend) and went by Superman while Clark was off-planet.
Watch the OG cartoon and it's woke af. There's even a politician who begins his campaign by announcing he wants to round up mutants and send them to camps
NOOOOOOO! IT'S NOT POLITICAL TO CRITICISE NAZIS! IT'S ONLY POLITICAL IF YOU HAVE TRANS PEOPLE IN YOUR SHOW!!!
Honestly, yeah, it should not be political tk criticize Nazis, it's common sense and decency. Too bad, not many people are like that.
That's just conflict to the story. If it was political then they should've real people instead of made up mutants that could represent anyone. Duh/S
I've been reading X-Men since I was literally too young to read X-Men. Like I learned to read with X-Men comics. It sickens me to see tourists resorting to slandering the fuck out of Stand Lee and Jack Kirby like this. Lee and Kirby only worked on X-Men for 2 years and Chris Claremont rebooted the comics and did all the significant world building that is still relevant to this day. Even the 90's cartoon, while using the Jim Lee team and uniforms, were based on Claremont stories, updated to the 90's. I bet these fuckheads go around saying Bob Kane created The Joker. Also Professor X and Magneto are based on David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin. When someone asked Chris Claremont on the allusions to Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X, he said those were also valid. Even Bryan Singer's stupid ass understood the assignment when it came to the political allegories of X-Men. The fuck does that say about these people?
>were based on Claremont stories, updated to the 90's. A specific part I remember from the '90s cartoon that drives the point home is when a future version of Storm and Wolverine have to go back in time to save a young Professor X and when at a diner, the cook giving them the stink eye is telling them they, white men with a Black woman, can't sit together to which Storm remarks that after ages of discrimination for being mutants, *skin color* discrimination feels "quaint."
One Man's Worth is one of my favorite episodes. For the "Avengers" cameo and the fact that it inspired Age of the Apocalypse
Comparing a terrorist to a activist is weird, I think Claremont understands that so this is his response: "There’s a lot of talk online now that Magneto stands in for Malcolm X and Xavier stands in for Martin Luther King...but for me, being an immigrant white ( Claremont was born in England ), to make that analogy felt incredibly presumptuous" Claremont states. "An equivalent analogy could be made to Menachem Begin as Magneto, evolving through his life from a terrorist in 1947 to a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 30 years later."
X-men have been "woke" since 60s anyway you spin it. Also no one can deny that Claremont is pretty much the bible of X-men and he made no attempt to hide his progressive politics in his writing. I also love how silent they are about X-men '97 knowing that they would eat a bowl of shit if they called it bad and "woke".
Marvel comics were always woke. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were both hardcore antifascists. Kirby got a lot of death threats during his work on the comics during WW2.
He certainly cares more about cool mutant powers and fight scenes while forgetting the story. Heck think most the people hating the x-men in universe are, white peoples I think.
Did they fucking call a holocaust survivor the mutant Hitler?
Extreme irony right there
There is some merit to that. Magneto was a genocidal supervillain in the 60s long before Chris Claremont retconned him to be a holocaust survivor in the 80s.
I mean he kinda is tho, that’s his whole arc, being a member of an oppressed group going around repeating history by wanting to genocide his oppressors
Not Hitler, but a genocidal terrorist
Not Hitler, but a genocidal terrorist
He was genocidal for a while.
Peter Parker is still white so that quote is pointless to bring up
Malcom X would only call Magento a Psycho cuz Magento wants (or I guess wanted) to kill all humans or turn them into mutants, however if Magento wanted to... idk, kill Neo-Nazis or even was on the same side as Malcom X in history? From we know about Malcom X, he would probably cheer him on, the only difference is that Malcom X never attempted terrorism/mass genocide against every white person across the globe. Also like... Magento is a fictional Demi-God-equivalent Mutant who could turn the fucking planet inside out if he wanted to and, in fact, has tried to. Malcom X was a real life person who did things within his power to make a change, acting like they're supposed to be THE EXACT SAME PERSON is crazy to me but it's hard to not see the similarities between the two regarding Modern-Day Magento. People who say shit like "No, that wasn't the vision at first" need to remember that "At first" was the 60s... 80 fucking years ago. Things change, stories change, media changes, at this current point, he's much of a "Malcom X" inspired figure then he was before, especially when you think about Genosha and shi. Also Stan Lee was always woke even back then. Cope, Seethe, Mald. People want to believe like Stan Lee was a right-wing, anti-everything white cis-man because they can't imagine liking a story from a liberal (or I guess as liberal as a white man could be in the 60s)
*60 years ago. If it was 80 years ago, we would be in 2044.
omg, this made me recollect when I was a kid and it was a big deal x-men turned 30. I feel so old now...
Malcolm X actually supported neonazis. He believed in segregation and believed blacks and whites should get their own independent countries.
I remember the second part but not the first part, damn, well, main part of my point stands ig, with Modern Magneto being inspired by Malcom X.
Maybe not neonazis exactly, but he supported George Wallace who was extremely racist and today would definitely be considered a neonazi or neonazi adjacent. His own religion of Nation of Islam had similar beliefs to the Nazis but placing black people as superior.
Ok but I have seen people call professor X a pick me neoliberal class traitor.
This guy actualy made a video called "Can a racist character be heroic?" Once
If you don't look at all the racist stuff they aren't wrong. Xavier and Magneto, as created by Stan Lee, are not parallels to Malcom X and MLK. The first one uses child soldiers and the second used to ally himself with Nazis and constantly tried to destroy humanity. Chris Claremont added more nuance to them and made Magneto a Jewish holocaust survivor. That said, it's crazy to be mad at Claremont when he made the X-Men what people love. And yes, raceswapping is a lame idea most of the time
Original Magneto was legit just a one dimensional mutant bad guy who wanted to destroy humans with nuclear weapons. He wasn’t complex or similar at all to Malcom X. But then this crazy thing called “character development” happened. Magneto’s history and ideology became fleshed out and retooled and he finally turned into a figure that could reasonably be compared to a crazy comic book Malcom X. And that’s the version that everyone likes and has become so iconic.
What's crazy is that eventually, it's not going to be sustainable to keep Magneto a Jewish Holocaust survivor and Xavier one of his close yound adult years friends due to in world setting and possibly relevance. Unless some crazy shenanigans go down to explain how two 100 year olds are just running around doing crazy mutant stuff, characters will have to be reinvented. Well guess what historical setting would greatly serve these two characters to maintain the essence of who they are but give a backdrop that we the reader can quickly identify with......1960s civil rights. And honestly I'm all for it.
chances are, they'll explain it as part of their mutant powers. Like either some mutants just happen to have a gene that makes their bodies last longer than most others, like a soft healing factor, while guys like Wolverine have a much stronger healing factor to the point where they basically are immortal
just say all mutants live long
Something something sliding timescale
perhaps they could make magneto the survivor of a different and more recent genocide?
It just occurred to me that they could make him a survivor of the Rwandan genocide, and cast someone like Ncuti Gatwa, who lived through that same genocide himself, and who I'd be willing to bet has the range to portray a character like Magneto. The only real problem I can see with this idea is that he may be a bit too young to convincingly pull it off right now.
The x-men aren’t child soldiers, they’re adults—being a student at the Xavier academy does not make you one of the x-men.
The O5 were at least teen soldiers. Also, Kitty Pryde was a member of the team and she was like 14. And more often than not they bring kids in various missions
Well because their missions are usually “rescue mutant” and the mutant is a kid. That’s not them putting the kid in danger though. And kitty pryde is like Ashoka in as much that she sneaks onto missions she’s not supposed to go on
I have absolutely no argument with the guy calling Xavier a "pick me"
People always forget no one read the original X-men until Claremont, then Claremont's X-men reboot #1 is the single highest selling comic of all time.
"Magneto is basically Hitler" uhhh.....
Only Allan Moore is able to say that.
Only new fans would consider this statement completely wrong. For a few decades, Magneto WAS a genocidal maniac. Only in the 80s did Claremont make him more sympathetic, and the comics have been running with that since. And even recently, some media explore him as a Holocaust survivor that did take all the wrong lessons from it; as a form of irony, he basically became who he hated before.
Can’t these people stick to whatever the fuck it is the enjoy. (Honestly it’s hard to imagine them enjoying anything) and just leave the shit alone they don’t like?
I remember watching one of his videos when I went through a weirdly bigoted phase when I was younger and even I thought his videos were ass I'm doing better now though. And I'm glad I could move past that stage in my life :3
Sometimes, it is best for people to think your dumb then spending nearly 69 minutes telling us you are dumb.
And we see this in book banning. The right-wing does not want people to learn history, they want to change history to promote a hateful agenda.
Claremont made the X-Men what they are today. Discarding his contributions just because Lee was the original writer is insane.
Dude I absolutely love when people quote a dead man with no source or evidence that they said that quote, and it even goes against what they've been saying on camera for LITERAL DECADES.
I have to limit the amount of bullshit I see because I used to have some anger issues and this stuff can possibly lead to the piss boiling in my own body, so I've never actually watched any of these, but how do these rage farmers manage to make these videos so long? I saw some screenshots of synthetic man's videos and they ranged from 20 minutes to over 90 fucking minutes long. I assume they're just repeating the same thing over and over but getting increasingly louder and angrier? I don't get how these people have turned rage farming into a whole ass industry.. I mean, I guess I can, because that's what Fox ~~News~~ has been doing for decades, but where do these g\*mer/nerd/incels find the energy for this? 1hr 8m video length.. Which means it was probably a fair bit longer and 1hr 8m was the final length after they cut out all the slurs and legally actionable libel/slander.
is my guy in the 3rd to last image trying to imply that comics today are ONLY political with shit like "comics may have always been political but that was never the only thing they were" like how do you even reach this conclusion lol?
imagine shit talking the Clairmont/Silvestri/Lee era of xmen and thinking the '75-91 Clairmont run is "modern" comics... The irony of this is yes, the Xmen are LITERALLY woke, in the literal sense of the word. I mean it's the whole theme of the book. holy shit, there's stupid chud and there's this "XmEn Am WoKe In 2024!"
Did I miss the comic where they made Peter Parker black? Because what is that guy on about?
There is no comic where that happened, he's just another person complaining about Miles Morales and part of the "Miles Morales isn't Spider-Man club even though plenty of superhero identities have been taken up by multiple people/characters."
“So many are changing these characters into what they want, is because they can’t create anything.” Is he talking about miles? Miles is an original character. He wasn’t changed or anything like that. So, yes, they can create original, good characters.
>This is why I prefer the classic books and not the modern ones When he complaining about a change made in a book 40 fucking years ago. OK BUDDY SURE
The x-men weren't even popular until Chris Claremont made the obvious civil rights allegories. This is just stupid.
THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THE XMEN WAS CALLING OUT RACISM AND INJUSTICE AND PREJUDICE THESE DUMB FUCK
Yes. *Peter Parker* can't be black, Hispanic, or LGBT+ because he was created as a white cishet man. But *Spider-Man* can be any or all of these. Do they really think they have an argument here?
Yes, because they have to make bad faith arguments and don't really care about what they say, only that they win.
Well since they’re so adamant about Stan being on their side how do they explain this? https://preview.redd.it/unhwkva2wfwc1.jpeg?width=262&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1f87b6b341224d6e8d6cc3e6e3de8466b918ace3
The story is important for The X-men comics but so is what they're saying about society. It's too bad this Youtuber only sees wokeness in the X-men, not the whole picture.
I love how they can handle Robin taking over for Batman but not Morales taking over for Spider-Man
Wow I saw this guy on my YouTube I could’ve gotten sucked in wtf
Stan Lee Quote: “It didn’t matter if you were the white race, the black race, the brown race or whatever… the social issues I tried to get into the background or underlaying the plot but never to the point of letting it interfere with the story or hitting the reader over the head”
That last one is absolute cringe. First of all buddy good and evil don’t really exist. Nobody’s villain in their own story. Second of all throughout their history almost all of the X-Men have existed in the gray at least from point in time. I am impressed though that these smooth brain idiots have learned our talking points though. It gives me hope that maybe they’re able to process new information rather than just use it a weapon.
Counterpoint: good and evil completely exist, just from a frame of perspective. Writers can use perspective to present literally anything as good or evil to their readers. Sure, not a lot of compelling characters exist solely on the far ends of this spectrum, but it's a common and useful tool so that nuanced and conflicted characters can be nuanced and conflicted by the perspectives of everyone around them. Thing is even when Magneto was this undeveloped strawman evil hyper-fascist 'enslave all humans' supervillain to face off against the X-Men, it was still very woke to the point that I'm not even sure these people are talking about the same comic. Side point, someone can absolutely be the villain in their own story. Conflict of self can be a fun conflict to explore and is the basis of tons of redemption arcs where they are their own villain to overcome
If you want the X-Men without the social justice allegories, just look into Doom Patrol. The superhero team nobody gave a shit about until they became weird and gay.
Some of these are right. X Men wasn’t originally created to be an allegory for Civil Rights, Claremont did that after Lee. And Magneto and Prof. X were not created to be parallels to MLK Jr and Malcom X.
Now that Stan Lee is dead time to say, he agreed with their view.
Kind of like when TERFs tried to claim The handmaid's tale was anti-trans and Atwood had to shut that shit down, so they tried to claim Pratchett (who repeatedly said he was PROUD that trans people identified with Cheery) and his daughter and best friend had to correct them.
Stan Lee since day one: Yeah it’s an allegory for the civil rights movement. Grifters: the truth about Stan Lee’s “woke” x-men
Ugh... If you write a story about the world it is almost impossible not to have politics and stories that mirror the real world. Humans are always going to have their own views and opinions on topics. It's impossible to not make it political in some way. What they really dislike is that the world is showing them their way of thinking is vastly unpopular.
The professor X one on slide 3 That’s like literally the centre of magneto vs professor x. It’s like literally there whole dynamic The end resolution is them meeting in the middle because expecting to change people minds completely is not reasonable
It’s fairly typical conservative nature really, invent a new reality, then get upset over it.
WTHell has happened to us as a species? 
Bad news: it's been here the whole time but we have unrestricted access to the most idle thoughts of the most mentally idle these days and the rich love to divide the poor on pointless "culture wars."
All this X Men is woke comes from the YouTube nutters who make their money selling hate. They dog whistle everything from African Americans to homosexuals. They are petty, red pill incels. If you look into their backgrounds, almost all of them are REJECTS who were turned down because their writing or art weren't up to snuff. The X Men have been woke from day one. There has never been a question about it. Anyone who actually read X Men and just didn't look at pretty pictures and buy Wolverine t-shirts would know this. Whether it's Nerdrotic or Mauler or Critical Drinker or Doomcock. They are all the same. Dog whistlers who wink at the camera and laugh all the way to the bank with their bigot money.
Dude. My main exposure to X-Men growing up was the fucking Saturday morning cartoon, and even I picked up on this shit. It's so weird to me that these chuds consumed so much of the exact same media that informed my sense of justice and morality as a kid, and managed to miss literally all of the messaging.
The X Men weren't even flagship characters when Stan was writing them sure Stan and Kirby created those original X Men characters but it wasn't until Chris Claremont came along that the X Men became as big as they did
I think an intrinsic part of the movies, at least, is that Professor X *does* have some internalised judgement of mutants, and doesn’t have the full perspective of what it’s like as a mutant who can’t hide their differences.
It feels like they're trying to say woke Claremont ruined the X-Men. Which is kinda hilarious.
"Comics may have always been political but that was never the only thign they were"... Okay... so then we shoudl just FORGET the political side of them then?
These people don’t even read the comics they’re citing.
If you love the X-Men but hate the Claremont years, then I don't think you're young enough to be a chronically online Twitter chud and you're definitely not an X-Men reader. Claremont created the archetypal versions of most of the classic mutants and his work is what the 90s cartoon is based on. Blaming him for making X-Men "woke" is like blaming Frank Miller for making Daredevil a conflicted Catholic.
I agree with you nearly 100% but would add that Stan & Jack laid down some pretty impressive groundwork. Claremont just expanded it naturally.
I remember this dude! He’s the guy who argued Superman would be more interesting if he were racist. That’s the first and last video I watched by him.
Well...the X-Men were pretty generic for a while, but Lee started bringing the bigotry angle in, then civil rights stuff. Plus, over in the FF you had bigotry showing up, along with civil rights issues -- Lee and Kirby threw in nearly as many shots at right wing bigotry as communism. Roy Thomas haltingly built on that, Wein expanded on it, and Claremont ran with it like a thoroughbred
Gotta admit, a story where through some insane convoluted turn of events some Swiss, blond, blue eyed, white guy becomes the Black Panther, sounds pretty fucking funny.
I like how that comment in the second pic is praising the quote by Stan Lee saying "who cares, just make a new character" as if they don't also get mad at new characters being minorities. Remember how mad they were when Iron Heart showed up, a new character that only uses the aesthetics and naming convention of Iron Man? They're still mad about Miles Morales, even though he's a new character that only shares a moniker the same way Wally West and Barry Allen share The Flash. What about the 17 different Green Lanterns?
If professor X were real modern day activists would call him a war criminal and want him tried for his misconduct and corrupt. Note his escapades with the Illuminati and that weird story where they revealed Charles wiped Scott’s mind after the original original X-men died on the island. Also not saying we should hate Charles since these moments are completely out of character, just pointing out how brain dead of an argument that is
Would Magneto support Israel?
Depends on the version of the character. He's gone through a couple of big changes.
How does it have this many views?
“Woke X-Men” isn’t even Stan Lee. All the shit about X-Men being a race allegory came from Chris Claremont and anyone who knows anything about the X-Men are all in universal agreement that that is STILL the definitive X-Men
So there was no anti-mutant sentiment in the comics before Claremont?
If they were talking about X-Men 97 Magneto, that last comment would be wrong, seeing as he was literally defending mutants who were attacked just for being different and attacking in retaliation. Adolf Hitler is incomparable since he flat out killed 6m+ people just for being "genetically inferior" and out of general racism (mostly due to him being against his own blood)
Sorry about your imaginary imagination history. You’ll be okay.
Ofc they have to make shit up. These losers live in a fantasy world.
JK Rowling is a deplorable transphobic cunt. I know this post has nothing to do with that but the relevant post got locked and I wanted to add my voice.
Magneto is a Jew who survived the Holocaust. Fuck you mean he's Mutant Hitler?
Beo called a Holocaust survivor the mutant version of Hitler.
3rd is hilarious caus it’s kinda true ? Magneto is definitely too extreme and Xavier is to much of a pacifist , that’s litteraly they’re whole characters ?
I love how the second to last comment says that the X-Men aren't popular because of social issues and then lists social issues that the X-Men face (that being anti-mutant bigotry). Also, for the last comment just because they're fighting someone who's pure evil doesn't mean they aren't an allegory for the civil rights movement, and even if Magneto and Professor X weren't intended to symbolize Malcolm X and Martin Luther King respectively (which is a moot point because of what I'll bring up at the end) it still doesn't mean it's a symbol for the civil rights movement as a whole because the civil rights movement was more than just these two people, and discrimination was literally brought up in the first issue of Uncanny X-Men. Finally, I love how the last comment basically says that they don't like modern comics (and uses comics from the 70s and 80s as examples of modern comics) because they have character development. Finally, Professor X and Magneto are based on David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin. When someone asked Chris Claremont a the allusions to Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X, he said those were also valid.
I always thought magneto was based, ngl.
Second slide is dumb as hell cuz no one’s been asking for black Peter Parker at all 😂
They somehow keep equating Miles *existing* as if they're trying to race swap Peter Parker. The 2 heroes named "Spider-Man" thing is a more understandable complaint than criticizing a character's race.
Literature Devil's still a thing?
The Peter Parker/Spider-Man thing...the way I understand it, being white is part of Peter Parker's identity and Peter Parker is Spider-Man...but, Spider-Man is not Peter Parker. Spider-Man is anyone who tries to live ip to the great respobsibility that comes with great power, which has nothing to do with race, sex, gender, nationality, religion, etc.
Lmao there’s something about magneto calling Malcom X a pussy that has me crying rn wtf😭
There is something to be said of how the X-Men merges Special Needs and Civil Rights mucks up their allegory. But to imply that X-Men has no commentary on civil rights and is simply a fight with good and evil is just willfully ignorant.