*****

LouReedRichards:
Oddly though, it’s one of Cockrum’s least “kinky” outfits.

*****

Okay, I admit it's quite possible that among all this insanely intolerant gay-bashing (really, guys? In the year 2009? You've got to be f***ing kidding me), I missed a reply adressing the inappropriateness of the costume.

But he's got a huge green phallic symbol extending from his crotch to his chest!!! I mean, look at the bottom left panel:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/arrow.jpg

Or were you complaining about it being *gay* stuff, and thus "icky"?

If true, that adds an extra layer to the Shvaughn/Sean switch, making it ironically appropriate to switch the gender. "Anything you can undo, I can undo better", as the song doesn't quite go.

Gays and blacks should fight alone! Yeah! And apart from each other! Double yeah! And women... they should get their own club too!

This is not a struggle of every men and women! This is a struggle of some men, and if you´re not one of them... well, actually, luck you, it must be nice to have all those rights and stuff... But I digress! Let´s stand apart for what is right!

(Not) Together!

Some? Try "all". Heterosexuality is just as defined by what happens in the bedroom as homosexuality is. This is pretty much the entire problem- straight is normative (which is not the same as "normal", btw) and doesn't have to justify itself, argue it's right to exist, debate it's origins, or put up with people treating it like it's a freak show.

(as an aside, I'm not ignoring bisexuality, I'm just keeping the comment simple)

The following is not necessarily in response to Boatman, but to the general "I don't want gays in my comics" mentality, and an extension of my response.

Where comics are concerned, the trouble is compounded in that we do expect to see the private lives of our heroes. It's part-and-parcel of a secret identity. Reading about Peter Parker's relationship with Mary Jane, Clark Kent's with Lois Lane, Reed Richards and Sue Storm... the list goes on, and while we may not get comics that graphically show what goes on in the bedroom (although Luke Cage/Jessica Jones comes to mind), we certainly get close enough to it that it's all but transparent. To say that it's okay for the sex lives of healthy straight couples to be a part of the storytelling (not to mention all the random hook-ups that go on), but that GLBT (etc) characters can't get that same treatment, or even acknowledge that they ARE part of the gay and lesbian alphabet soup, is quite simply a double standard.

Sure, I can understand that it might make some straight readers uncomfortable, but I'd argue it's more uncomfortable for gay readers to see straight relationships flaunted while they have little to no representation (and more, have to hear straight people saying that whatever representation is present shouldn't be there). Frankly, if gay readers can adjust their thinking and accept relationships they can't identify with, so can straight readers.

There's a side to the argument that says that comics are for escapism, and shouldn't deal with real-world issues. That's a great thought, but it doesn't really hold up. If there were no element of the "real world" in our comics, secret identities simply wouldn't exist. The fact is that readers love seeing Spider-Man clobber Rhino, then go home to his wife and worry about how to pay the bills. They love seeing Superman save the world, then turn in his article to Perry White and go to bed next to Lois. But let Northstar beat on a villain, then go on a date with another man, and suddenly it's the intrusion of the "real world" or the forcing of an "agenda" on the readers. The real world is in our comics whether we acknowledge it or not, and it forms the backbone of the superhero comics we know and love. The outright exclusion of a portion of the population from the media isn't consistent with that, and in fact is a fantasy of a much different sort than the comics themselves.

If you know anyone who hasn't learned that yet, please send me their phone number.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had told anyone to "shut up". I agree, that it's better to have a bigot speak their mind, then you can know for sure the kind of person you're dealing with and either engage them or just let them be. I find the older I get, the less inclined I am to try and change their minds on these issues. It's just not worth the time and effort, and I've never had any real success taking that approach anyway.

I also agree about the issue of censorship. An individual or a private company certainly has the right to refuse to publish any material they deem unworthy. When the government actively blocks or tries to subvert an individuals right to freedom of expression (as long as that expression is within the legal parameters) then it's censorship. BTW: I'm no legal scholar, so forgive me if I have mangled the terminology and definitions.

You raise good points about the funeral bit. I'll have to ponder that issue more. I'm torn between the issue of
protecting Rev. Phelps' rights (as I see it) and the issue of "crashing " a private event. Ok as I write this, I guess I'll concede the point about the funeral bit. As long as Phelps stays within the mandated distance, then let him exercise his right to free speech, which admittedly pretty much makes me want to vomit/punch somebody in the face (I know, I know, not very tolerant : ) ... I get the irony).

I may not have used the best language for the tolerant/normal, intolerant/abnormal. That's what I get for trying to jot of a quick comment when I should be doing my actual work. I was just trying to get across the idea that people in the majority/ in power usually see themselves as being the tolerant ones and view the people out of power as abnormal and threatening/intolerant to the status quo. The slippery slope argument was the point I was trying to make. I see we pretty much agree on that point. Sorry, I realize my language was confusing.

I feel the same way as you and Omar about "hate crimes", it smacks too much of thought policing.
The slippery slope all over again.

Poppers statements make much more sense to me know that I know that he was willing to engage in dialogue until a point that it becomes impossible and force must be taken to ensure self preservation.
That point wasn't clear to me to start with, thanks for the clarification.

Ok, I've rambled on long enough...

Thanks for taking the time to respond and clarify your points, and yes Omar has been hitting them out of the park with his comments quite a bit.

Like I said, it's been a very interesting and thought provoking thread.
I know I've learned a thing or two, esp. don't go skinny dipping with Omar, it just leads to trouble, and avoid trespassing on Bill Reed's property, that guy's got a wicked aim.

"Doesn't the 1st amendment kinda guarantee peoples right to be "intolerant", saying that gays should stay I the closet isn't harming anyone overtly, it may not be an opinion that you (or I) agree with, but does that give us the right to "shut them up"?"

There are a few separate things to address there. First of all, to clarify the law- the Constitution gives us the right to say despicable things, but the First Amendment specifically refers to the conduct of the government, which is not allowed to deny the rights of freedom of speech and a free press. However, it doesn't force Brian, for example, to publish anyone's views on his website, nor is it censorship if, say, Random House decides it doesn't want to publish "Mein Kampf: The Return." That said, looking through my own comments, I don't see where I've asked for anyone to be censored or banished. I prefer an open discussion like the one we're having, frankly, and looking through my own posts I can't find any instance where I told anyone to shut up or go away. in fact, the last thing I said to someone I disagreed with was, "give me an example." I'd rather people's noxious views be out in the open where they can be confronted.

But the point I was making was not that a person has no right to be "intolerant"- on the contrary, I was specifically defending MY right not to "tolerate" the ignorant things that people say. Whether you think it's a First Amendment issue or not, we were clearly in agreement from the beginning. I have just as much right not to tolerate public bigotry as the bigots have not to tolerate private emotions.

"The cross burning thing is different because there would generally be laws broken in the process of that action (trespassing, fire codes, etc..) Showing up at the funeral with "God Hates Fags" may be a deplorable, despicable thing to do, but aren't the rights of individuals to be able to freely express their constitutional rights matter as much as the rights for homosexuals to find equality under the law?"

You and I have to agree to disagree on this one. Just as there are exceptions made to the First Amendment for libel, slander, copyright infringement, and, most pertinently, incitement to riot, I have NO problem with restricting people's right to go to a private event that they were not invited to and disrupting others' ability to mourn. Laws that force activists to stay a certain distance away from private property that they are protesting set that precedent a long time ago. If the good Reverend Phelps wants to abuse his freedom of speech, he can do it far enough away from the cemetery that families of murdered gay people don't have to walk past him. Just using your own example, I would call "crashing" a funeral a form of obvious trespass.

"That's just a really scary statement to me. I think I get the sentiment behind the statement, but that sounds extremely intolerant to criminalize a persons right to express opinions that others find intolerant?
Who defines the norms by which we deem what is normal (tolerant) and abnormal (intolerant)? It seems that Poppers statement could be used just a easily by the "gays are unnatural" group as it is by the "tolerant majority", strikes me as a bit of a herd mentality statement. Whatever group is currently in power will use that power to paint the other group as intolerant - either intolerant to the rights of gays or intolerant to whatever religious or social ideal that the party in power holds.

First- normal/abnormal and tolerant/intolerant are not synonymous nor even generally related (I would say it's more "normal" in many societies to be INTOLERANT than it is to be tolerant, for example). Tolerance is a relatively definable thing. People who leave each other alone are tolerant. People who seek to limit the rights of others aren't. It's as laughable to call someone fighting for the right to bedside visitation of a dying lover "intolerant" as it is to call bus boycotters "racicst" for wanting to sit in the front. When some idiots in the gay rights movement allegedly vandalized a Mormon Temple- that was intolerant. It wasn't intolerant when they marched for their rights. That's just by way of clarification of the language, by the way- I don't disagree that leaving it up to people to make those distinctions in a legal sense can lead down a slippery slope- but I take issue with the comparison you're using. It should also be noted we already have "hate crimes legislation" that specifically takes the issue of tolerance into account. (Incidentally, I'm not in favor of hate crimes laws because I think it's impossibile to police thoughts and because I'm not in favor of special, "protected classes"- but that puts me in the minority of Americans, and the point is that the precedent is there.)

With regards to Popper, you may note that I used ellipses once or twice, because he goes into a lot of contextualizing detail that would have ended up making my own post too long to read or take seriously at all. Popper, first of all, was a philosopher- not a lawmaker or a politician- and much of what he says is rhetorical. He is basically telling liberals and Constitutionalists, like myself, to not be wishy-washy when it comes to moral relativity- that tolerance is a high ideal, but we shouldn't sit idly by while others seek to destroy a tolerant society. Importantly, (and it may have been a mistake to omit this), he stresses that, as long as dialogue is possible, it is important to engage those we disagree with in that way. However, when dialogue is IMPOSSIBLE- when it has become clear that movements are being incited beyond their ability or interest to actually care about facts, when Orwellian linguistic tricks, false information, and circular reasoning are the only reason those movements accept- then we seriously need to start looking at what is being incited, and what the inciters are doing to make their own goals come true. Should Middle Class Afghans have been "tolerant" of the Taliban, which, when left alone, soon took over their country and removed rights that were already in place? Should Jews in Germany have "tolerated" the incitements to violence that were coming from the Reichstag in the period of Hitler's rise?

The First Amendment protects my right to say "I hate fags." It doesn't protect my right to say "You should all go out and kill fags." Again, there is plenty of precedent that makes incitement to violence, riot, murder, etc, illegal, and I don't think it's any more unfair an infringement on the constitution than stopping someone from yelling "Fire" in a movie theater is.

"As I said, I'm curious about those points. I in no way align my self with "JoeSchmoe2" or "Fred2", but I am troubled by those statements. - Am I missing something?"

Thanks for allowing me to clarify. I don't know if you're missing anything, or if I've swayed any opinions, but I do appreciate your ability to argue and ask questions in a rational manner.
-CS
P.S. Of course, while I was writing out my response, Omar did a pretty good job himself of making my points.

I would never stop a person from using a racist slur or uttering a bigoted opinion; I would also not avoid challenging said opinion. Bigots often seem to think being shunned, being subjected to non-legal modes of intolerance for their opinions, is tantamount somehow to the very real institutionalized mistreatments and harm done in the name of racism, sexism, and so forth. To say a woman is inherently inferior to a man is one thing; to say that such a sexist statement is idiotic and offensive, and that the speaker should be ignored or deserves ridicule is another; and to jail someone making sexist statements or to refuse to hire women or deny women the vote is still another.

I am not fond of hate speech legislation or hate speech rules, except in cases where violence is being advocated -- and in those cases, I tend to think hate-based calls for violence are more criminally and civilly liable because they open up entire groups of people to being targeted. A direct threat against a single person is quantitatively less awful; a death threat to a single person because they're black or gay or whatever is a threat that effectively applies to many or all others who share the named trait. More, the motivation is utterly irrational; I can understand extortion even as I condemn it, because the extortionist wants money. A racist wants extermination or institutionalized bigotry, in short they do not want a material or personal satisfaction so much as they want to transform a society into a machine of targeted and fundamentally arbitrarily-justified repression and potentially genocide.

And that's where the difficulty of tolerating intolerance arrives: what reasonable means or set of actions virulent intolerance could conceivably be calling for? Can one promulgate intolerance without, in essence, demanding violence either directly or by means of political institutions against persons merely because of how they were born, or because of beliefs they hold that are not in themselves intolerant or harmful?

This kind of stuff is too tiring.

I'm not trying to start a pissing match, as I generally agree with a lot that you've said, but I have a few questions about some of the statements you've made.

""Note the first two words- “fair” and “objective.” It is no more necessary to be tolerant of someone calling for gays to stay in the closet to be a tolerant person than it is to “tolerate” someone burning a cross on a lawn or showing up to someone’s funeral with a sign that says “God hates fags.”"

Doesn't the 1rst amendment kinda guarantee peoples right to be "intolerant", saying that gays should stay I the closet isn't harming anyone overtly, it may not be an opinion that you (or I) agree with, but does that give us the right to "shut them up"? The cross burning thing is different because there would generally be laws broken in the process of that action (trespassing, fire codes, etc..) Showing up at the funeral with "God Hates Fags" may be a deplorable, despicable thing to do, but aren't the rights of individuals to be able to freely express their constitutional rights matter as much as the rights for homosexuals to find equality under the law?

"Karl Popper: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them…We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”"

That's just a really scary statement to me. I think I get the sentiment behind the statement, but that sounds extremely intolerant to criminalize a persons right to express opinions that others find intolerant?
Who defines the norms by which we deem what is normal (tolerant) and abnormal (intolerant)? It seems that Poppers statement could be used just a easily by the "gays are unnatural" group as it is by the "tolerant majority", strikes me as a bit of a herd mentality statement. Whatever group is currently in power will use that power to paint the other group as intolerant - either intolerant to the rights of gays or intolerant to whatever religious or social ideal that the party in power holds.

As I said, I'm curious about those points. I in no way align my self with "JoeSchmoe2" or "Fred2", but I am troubled by those statements. - Am I missing something?

Wow! - this thread has been one of the most interesting ones I've read in quite a long time.

Thanks Brian!

Like THE TRUTH mini series, the MAX RAWHIDE KID mini series was nothing more then a “controversial” stunt done to grab mainstream media attention (which it succeeded in doing) and to sell lots of comics (which it DID NOT succeed in doing).

The big difference there is that Rawhide Kid was an (apparently - though I haven't read it) offensive story playing off gay stereotypes and The Truth was a very good story which made use of historical precedent to add what is quite a logical (and all the more horrifying for it) extension to the Captain America story.