America #5

[lordultimus]

Comments

[laughing_tree]

Well, I appreciate you taking the time to respond even when you were dead tired. No need to feel any such obligation to in the future, though. We're all talking in our leisure time here, and there's no need to turn it into work.

And, likewise, thank you for taking me seriously.

***

I'll point out I never used the term 'white supremacist.' There are plenty of lesser shades of racism than that, shades that I find much of CG to be guilty of, for reasons that I'm sure can be inferred from my previous comments. Might some of the people involved be otherwise decent people who've been swept up by some misleading rhetoric? Sure, and maybe those you listed, who I'm not familiar with, are examples of that.

But at the end of the day, a person's responsible for what banner they've chosen to fly under. So even if someone's not guilty of the same kind of toxic behavior as Ethan van Sciver or D&C, their *support* for them still means something. That support, that lack of condemnation, is in essence giving the okay to that kind of toxic behavior, and that *does* reflect on the person.

You bring up the behavior of a few pros as a 'both sides' sort of argument, but there aren't two sides, not as you're framing it. CGers are flying under a banner; it's an actual movement, with a name and everything. *Not* supporting CG isn't any of those things, it's just not supporting something. The Bordertown guy's behavior is plain evil, but people against CG aren't in any way choosing to fly his banner. You might as well go "well, look at what your side does" to a Libertarian by pointing to what a Green Party member is doing, just because both of them are proudly anti-Trump. (Moreover, you can see plenty of anti-CG people condemning the guy now that they know what he's done. I've yet to see that kind of widespread condemnation on CG's part for its member's more extreme actions.)

On top of all this, there's also the whole thing of nice vs. good. If someone is defending or supporting toxic ideology, it really doesn't matter how polite or nice or non-confrontational they are in doing so, they're still behaving awfully. They might be 'nice' about it, but nevertheless they're behaving awfully.

What the Spider-Gwen's artist did is indefensible, as is the Bordertown guy's actions (though the latter's obviously much worse than the former), but the other examples you mentioned? Well, guys like Waid are not being 'nice' but, as I see it, no way are their harsh words anywhere near the equivalent of the transphobia, racism, homophobia, or sexism I've seen on display all too often from CG. There's no comparison, in my opinion. And that's especially so when the harsh words are directed at those perpetrating or silently complicit with said transphobia, racism, homophobia, and sexism.

[velacron]

"On top of all this, there's also the whole thing of nice vs. good. If someone is defending or supporting toxic ideology, it really doesn't matter how polite or nice or non-confrontational they are in doing so, they're still behaving awfully."

While there is some truth to this, I hope you are aware how incredibly easily this can be twisted to argue "it's different when WE do it".

[laughing_tree]

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow.