#to push a specific (usually conservative alt right) agenda

[shallowspocketdimension]

FYI just want people to know that the abbreviation of Omegaverse with and without the slashes is a very real world derogatory slur that has been hurled towards Indigenous Aboriginal Australians for centuries. I obviously understand not everyone is fully aware of Australia's history of institutionalized racism, genocide of traditional land owners and the stolen generation etc., but seeing the Omegaverse abbreviation everywhere is genuinely frustrating especially when people are ignorant to the actual serious implications of the word when put into a different cultural context.

EDIT: it should be noted that is also frustrating that people outside of Australia don't really know much about it's racist history (which is no fault of their own, hell even my education on Australian history back in primary school was abysmal and never mentioned the countless genocides the English settlers caused on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people during colonization), but that's a whole other wider conversation - and even then you should be looking for Indigenous Aboriginal Australian and Torres Strait Islander Voices if you want learn about Australia's history.

[luanna801]

Despite everything, does Birds of Prey #8 still hold up?

So the simple answer to that is that, for me (and I can't really speak for anyone else), yes, it does.

But because I'm me, I'm also going to go a bit deeper here. And for some reason, this got SUPER long, so I'm breaking it into multiple parts and putting this under a cut:

Part 1: Chuck Dixon and His Politics

To start with, I'm assuming that by "despite everything", you're referring to Chuck Dixon's frankly horrifying politics (as seen in his bizarre recent series Alt-Hero), and the understandable backlash against him as both a person and a writer as a result.

I get this, absolutely. It's honestly a very complicated thing for me to know that Dixon wrote some of my favorite comics in the late 90s and early 00s, and also know that he's someone whose beliefs I find repugnant in so many ways. And it isn't just BoP #8 - Dixon's runs on Birds of Prey, Nightwing, Robin and so on in that era were incredibly influential. He basically WAS the Batfam in that era. He created the Birds of Prey team. He co-created Stephanie Brown. He had a huge influence on shaping Tim Drake's character and the various relationships between the Batfamily members. In many ways, Dixon is responsible for the incarnation of the Batfam that I love.

Nor can you pretend that his politics have nothing to do with his writing, because Dixon's values have always informed what he writes, to good and bad (like his rather infamous statement that "superhero comics are, whether die-hard fans like it or not, ostensibly children’s comics and perhaps not the forum to be informing children of homosexuality, heterosexuality, or sexually transmitted disease", an obviously questionable statement since he wrote numerous heterosexual romances in his comics but disapproved of gay characters being included, or included in what he considered the "wrong" ways.)

I will argue that, from what I can tell, Dixon definitely wasn't always as extreme a conservative as he is now - current Chuck Dixon would never have written this scene, for example, and would probably criticize it as the kind of "pushing a SJW agenda scene" he now condemns if someone else had written it. Some of the values 90s/00s Chuck Dixon promoted in his comics were, in fact, things I agree with and enjoyed about them. You don't have to be a conservative to enjoy wholesome family dynamics or a subtler approach to sex and romance, even though I obviously disagree with certain things he excludes from his definition of "family friendly".

I also think that, overall, 90s/00s Dixon wrote female characters with respect and nuance, and while he may not have always gotten it right, he also clearly cared deeply about writing Babs as a badass, complex, lovable disabled character, and he wrote some of my favorite scenes with her in that era. And while his writing definitely had some issues with characters of color, I'd argue it was no worse than most comic writers of the time, and better than some who are avowedly liberal (like Devin Grayson).

None of this is me trying to be like "Well, twenty years ago Chuck Dixon was Good and Unproblematic Actually", but I do think that he seems to have become alarmingly radical over time, in a way that I think goes far beyond anything that was ever reflected in his classic comic runs. And when it comes to BoP #8 specifically, I think you don't really see much political subtext in it, even to the degree that this was already present in his writing then. So if you can appreciate any of his work in spite of his current politics, BoP #8 is a good bet. But to those who can't appreciate anything he wrote anymore, I obviously understand.

Part 2: "Holding Up":

I think when we ask if a work “holds up”, we’re usually talking about something that was popular when it first came out, but might be viewed differently now because of how society’s shifted over time, whether that’s with regard to serious social issues, or just our standards for what we consider good storytelling (for example, we might criticize the special effects in an older movie for not “holding up”, where the original audience might have thought they looked awesome.)

The thing is, though, I didn’t read Birds of Prey #8 when it first came out, or anywhere near it. It was published in August 1999, when I was only seven years old, and I didn’t even become a comic fan until long afterwards. At a guess, I think I first read it sometime in 2012, shortly after I started becoming a serious DC/Batfam fan (the first post about it on my old blog is from January 2012, but I’m not sure if I’d read the full comic yet or just seen certain scenes/pages posted.) So in a sense, the fact that I read it well over a decade after it was originally published and loved it in the first place is proof that it holds up, or at least did then.

I can only imagine how much more exciting it must’ve been to read it when it first came out, honestly - Dick and Babs weren’t a couple yet then, nor had they ever been despite some flirting, and unless I’m mistaken it’s the first time an entire issue had been devoted to their relationship and their potential romance like that. It must’ve been incredibly exciting for shippers to read it and realize DC was actually serious about those two, and watch the relationship continue developing over the next several years.

But that wasn’t my reading experience. By the time I came along, nothing in that issue was remotely new or groundbreaking, and yet I loved the heck out of it and still do.

On the flipside, I’m sure there are people who read it at the time who absolutely hated it, and would say to this day that it can’t possibly “hold up” because it was never good to begin with. I got into a debate a while back (seven years ago, if you can believe it!) with a fan who clearly feels that way, and while I still think a lot of the points they raised don’t hold much water, I’m sure there are plenty of people who share their opinion.

Part 3: Disability Representation

Obviously, one of the biggest questions in whether BoP #8 “holds up” - and a far more loaded one than whether it holds up as a good romance issue (which I think most Dick/Babs shippers at any rate would agree it does) - is whether it holds up as good representation of a disabled character, and specifically of a disabled character finding romance.

I certainly see fans, to this day, using some of the panels from this comic as an example of the strength and confidence Babs had in her role as Oracle, and what was lost when DC took that away:

Babs: Y'know, a lot of the time it's like you Batguys want me to hold onto the past because you can't get over it. Understand -- I have. I have a new life now, one I like -- one that fulfills me. It's not the same one I had before, but it's good. Maybe even better.

But she also talks about how difficult the healing process was and that to some degree she’s still not “over it”, which I suppose could make the representation either better or worse, depending on your perspective:

Babs: Everyone talks about 'closure' now. When tragedy strikes they say you need 'closure'. What a crock. I wanted revenge. Swear you won't tell anybody... part of me still does. I remember that night every time I answer the door. And I think about what was taken from me.

Personally, I like the complexity! That she’s not just some perfect aspirational figure, but feels like a real person with messy and conflicting feelings about what happened to her. She’s allowed to be proud and confident in her new role, and yet a part of her is still angry and bitter and in mourning about what she went through. That feels real, to me.

Then there’s the romance angle: I’ve certainly seen this issue (and more largely, this arc) praised for how it defies stereotypes by giving a disabled character a fulfilling love life, and showing a disabled woman as unambiguously romantic and desirable. At the same time, some people might not appreciate how Barbara’s insecurities, which at least partly stem from her disability, are treated as an obstacle to the relationship (“I don’t like to be pushed around”). They might find that stereotypical or demeaning. Similarly, I’ve certainly seen people who find Dick’s attitude pushy or condescending, and feel he should just be listening to Babs rather than pushing her to heal on his terms:

Dick: You know better than that, Babs.

Babs: Does that mean you'll get me down?

Dick: That means you have to trust me.

Ultimately, I’m not a member of the disabled community and I’m definitely not paraplegic or a wheelchair user, so it’s not really for me to say how this issue holds up as disabled representation. I’ve pointed out some elements I think are strengths and some possible criticisms, but that’s all I can really say. Ultimately, it’s for the people actually being represented here to decide if they think this still holds up in that regard.

So those are my overly-long thoughts! The tl;dr is yes, I definitely think it holds up and I still love it. But there are a lot of factors to consider, and I certainly know there are others who would feel differently. I’d welcome other people adding their thoughts, if anyone thinks I missed something relevant or has more to contribute to the conversation!

[awhalenamedjonah]

On Punching Nazis

I'm probably gonna regret making this post as soon as a bunch of random tumblr blogs I've never interacted with suddenly fill my inbox with some great arguments about how I should kill myself (which is reason #1 why I don't get involved in stupid tumblr discourse) but this is something that's almost definitely going to have an effect on me and/or the people around me soon regardless, so I might as well get my stupid opinion out there.

Somehow this is a controversial opinion but...maybe...punching Nazis...is bad sometimes.

I'm sure everyone stopped reading already to unfollow me and tell their friends what a fucking idiot this guy on tumblr is for being a Nazi Sympathizer™ and an Alt-Right Neo-Nazi™, and a Hyper-Conservative Trump Supporter™ (I am none of those things). In my opinion Richard Spencer did deserve a solid punch in the face or fifty, but that's not the problem I have here. Encouraging everyone to Go Punch a Nazi in order to Keep Racists Afraid is a bad idea for everyone on all sides of this situation. So, begin rant proper.

In my experience with the internet, I've been told that everyone with a political opinion (read: everyone on earth) is somehow in support of a mass genocide or something nearly as sinister. Westboro Baptist Church types yelling about how The Gays are trying to destroy society with their wretched sinfulness, for instance. Recently, I learned from the ever-wise internet that all police officers (and those that support them) are pushing an agenda of inner-city racial extermination. I was told around the same time that Black Lives Matter just want to kill all whites. Currently I'm being told that everyone that the internet called "Alt-Right" is actually a white supremacist who wants all colored people to get out of the country or be lynched. This isn't an internet-exclusive phenomenon, either; when I was a kid there were plenty of protesters against abortion who claimed all left-wing pro-choice voters were in favor of mass slaughter of babies. Gee, maybe a tiny exaggeration there.

There's a very simple line of reasoning all of these hyperbole-filled generalizations follow, and it's always filled with fueled by the innate desire to be "the good guy" as well as the tendency humans have to paint a group as a singular opposed entity to the True Righteous Path that I, the most enlightened, follow. Here's my understanding of the chain of events. See if this seems familiar to you:

You have two groups that have differing political opinions. Usually fairly big ones. Obviously as usual there's mudslinging but it's the normal shit.

A bunch of specific bad individuals (neo-Nazis, pedophiles, looters, people who think the new series of Berserk is good) start sticking out from either crowd. This is always (and I mean always) a minority faction within the group, at most.

The media (or social media) highlights these gross people exclusively, to cast the entire group in a negative light. These individuals' views become Their views. Everyone in the group that's reasonable gets painted with the same brush. It becomes "Us Versus Them" now that it's confirmed all the people who disagree with you are (Nazis, pedos, looters, attracted to Benedict Cumberbatch)

A call to action against these vile (Nazis, pedos, looters, gen 1ers). Sometimes this involves violence (Punch a Nazi!) sometimes just protest, but it's almost always a gross overreaction.

Suddenly a huge group of people with primarily moderate views are conflated with extremists. Sometimes people will specifically defend this generalization by saying the moderates are “enabling” the minority (even if most people strongly oppose the beliefs of said vocal minority). This is where people get off saying that “whiteness” is inherently problematic.

Ironically this almost always leads to a fifth step where the vocal minority who are touted as the majority suddenly become empowered by the media rhetoric and thinks everyone actually does agree with their awful beliefs. The smaller minority that once quietly agreed now find the platform for their beliefs and the minority gets larger. A bunch of people who formerly kept it to themselves suddenly hear about how millions of voters are extremist homophobic sexist racists and collectively say "I'm not the only one who believes gays belong in internment camps! I've found a group to voice my opinions!" Then these people with newfound support start shooting cops or holding neo-nazi rallies.

You can probably think of at least a few specific examples immediately. Some of you are mentally tagging this #black lives matter and some of you are tagging it #gamergate and that alone is a good example of how this same bullshit happens to two distinctly different crowds. I’ll use those two as examples, as much as I never ever wanted to talk about gamergate again.

I remember being on Twitter almost 24/7 when shit was going down in Ferguson and being completely floored by how the mainstream media was exclusively showing burned-out buildings and using the phrase "riots" left and right. Meanwhile I was watching dozens of on-site sources post live video of huge silent crowds standing firm and not instigating anything. To the people disconnected from it, it sure seemed like the people of Ferguson were a bunch of thugs and looters and rioters just itching for an excuse to punch a cop. Meanwhile the sane protesters in the town were forming living barriers around buildings to stop arsonists and looters from doing any more damage-- but the effect of the media spin was long done by then and to this day people still have completely fabricated ideas of what happened there. And of course this painted future protests the same way. They escalated until the rational and sane people started coming out less and the riled violent crowds became exactly what the media said they were: rioters. Bam, now you have cops getting shot from rooftops and the media succeeded in minimizing the original message of BLM. Now I'm not sure if most of the remaining BLM protesters are actual violent criminals or if the media is just twisting it that way, because the truth is so blurred-- either way there's no way I'm ever associating with that particular group now that they're branded terrorists.

I also remember being on Twitter almost 24/7 when shit was going down in the #gamergate hashtag. Everyone I knew was talking about how ridiculously stupid and elitist gaming journalism had gotten, but a bizarre twist happened in which everyone seemingly decided that it was actually about how sexist gamers are and how badly they want women to leave game development. Legitimately awful humans like Milo Yiannopoulos [insert sound of vomiting here] suddenly got a surge of new followers because on a surface level they supported the original argument (that game journalism had become too elitist and started becoming a circlejerk about the writers' Superior Artistic Taste and Moral Uprightness) but were in it for less savory reasons than to support a reform of the gaming media's journalistic ethics. Suddenly the discussion was all about sexism instead of the original point, and anyone who made a post at the beginning of it like "maybe videogame journos should be required to be actually good at videogames #gamergate" are suddenly sexist and a social media terrorist. To the people disconnected from it, it sure seemed like the gamergate crowd were a bunch of sexists and racists just itching for an excuse to drive women out of gaming. Meanwhile the sane gamergaters involved were getting new gaming sites started and promoting up-and-coming journalists (some of whom quickly got hired by major gaming sites like The Escapist)-- but the effect of the media spin was long done by then and to this day people still have completely fabricated ideas of what happened there. Now I'm not sure if most of the remaining #gamergate supporters are actual sexist lunatics or if the media is just twisting it that way, because the truth is so blurred-- either way there's no way I'm ever associating with that particular group now that they're branded terrorists.

Currently the big one is a huge group of people being thrown into the category of "Alt-Right" for a variety of reasons, varying from actual neo-nazi affiliation to having an anime character for a Twitter avatar. I see legitimate media outlets refer to "anime avatars" as a prominent warning sign of white supremacists, and if that isn't a sign of some hyper-generalization I don't know what is.

Now back to the point of this, which you've probably gathered by now if you're not completely fucking dense. It’s simple: Telling people to punch Nazis isn't the best idea, because nobody can agree on who actually is a Nazi. I've seen people get called a Nazi constantly over a decade on the internet, for reasons such as supporting communism (lol what), voting for Trump, being anti-abortion, or watching Axis Powers: Hetalia.

If you expect the general internet-using public to exercise restraint when told to “Punch a Nazi,” then you're either new to the internet or legitimately insane. If the former: Welcome! We have tons of great porn here. Click this link! Also don't ever Google "meatspin," "goatse," or "lemon party."

Get ready to see a lot of people who voted for Trump get punched in the face for no good reason. If that sentence makes you respond “voting for Trump is a good reason,” you’ve instantly proven my point.

Meanwhile Trump and his supporters get more and more of the evidence they need that anti-Trump protestors are violent criminals.

This isn’t going to end well.