Why did?

I don't want to read something else. I want to read Marvel/DC and have it be good.

>wanting things to be well made and make sense means you're a manchild
Eat shit moron

It worked for B3313 and Mario 64

Learning that the world doesn't give you what you want is an important part of growing up, sport.

lol I'm sure you're an expert in non-cape comics.
>Non-capeshit usually comes with mundane visuals or uninspiring characters or uninteresting storylines.
So does capeshit, especially modern capeshit

>wanting things to be well made and make sense means you're a manchild
Eat shit moron

Wanting only a singular thing to be good and refusing to try anything else means you're a manchild. Do you only eat chicken nuggets too?

If they can't do their job correctly, stop paying them and find someone who can, you manchild.

You know how. Any person who spent any amount of time online in the last 10 years knows how. Stop being disingenuous.

Name 3 black characters that are being vilified on the level of white people

I'll wait

>Name 3 black characters that are being vilified on the level of white people
What do you mean by on the level of white people?

Also stats are out of context

>What that pic isn't understanding is that they can just say that, they don't need to say they hate politics generally and then enjoy the MGS series. People call out those leaving it at just "politics" because clearly they're fine with it, they just have a problem they don't want to be specific about for some reason.
People often say politics when they specifically mean modern american political discussions.

Woke is just "the vibes are off" it doesn't mean anything. It's used to make your specific complaints more vague so you don't have to publicly say you hate Black person worship.

>Because the mundane isn't everyone's cup of tea. Non-capeshit usually comes with mundane visuals or uninspiring characters or uninteresting storylines.
Just because something isn't capeshit, doesn't imply it focuses on the mundane.

>Many "apolitical" grillpillers are people privileged enough to enjoy the status quo and not feel the need to engage.
Same applies to manga too
We're in the most mediocre era of shounen since the 90s but it's praised relentlessly just because it doesn't berate the reader for being white

Haha it's funny because blacks don't want to move on from atrocities that happened 200 years ago because eternal victimhood is their most profitable hustle

Who gives a shit
It's not the 60s anymore; it's 2023 and everyone is short of being required by law to tolerate you.

>learning about history is just not wanting to move on
It's also pretty important because it's the story of how most blacks are more American than some of our presidents. Also if you don't teach it people believe stupid shit like the civil war wasn't about slavery.

I get it though, brainwashing a country into believing a more convenient national myth can be cool.

>also if you don't teach it people believe stupid shit like the civil war wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't about slavery. The north taxed the shit out of southern agriculture while giving northern industry a break because northie elites, as the always have, considered southerners to be poorgay hillbillies unworthy of respect. It was obvious government favoritism that gets ignored because we have to worry about the poor precious black people.

Also let's not forget states like Kentucky and Maryland kept slavery legal and Lincoln let them do it just to keep them in the union.

>Shit takes time, and it takes time for families to exit poverty
It also takes not spending your stimulus check on Jordans and Gucci but good luck with that.

Infact all of the statements of seccession mention slavery as a root cause:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#mississippi_slavery

So?

>6. The confederates were all democrats
Party politics shifted drastically since that time.

>8. The suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional

The constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion and invasion.
>The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-9/

>9. The US did not recognize the southern states as having left the Union, so Congress never legally had a quorum for any sessions it held during the war
What's the significance of this?

Kentucky abolished slavery six months after Texas. Texas was a new territory and south whites fought with Mexico to turn Texas into their own territory. Mexico outlawed slavery, slavery was so important to them they brought it over and didn't give up their slaves until the government threatened them. Kentucky slavery went six months later because the emancipation proclamation targeted southern states first.

So?

Those are some fun facts but in practice they phased out slavery in half a year after after having to force the south that was refusing to phase it out. They loved it so much they took it to Texas.

Lincoln being based and Confederates being democrats is just funny. Is it dems fighting to keep Confederate statues? You're removing a lot of context and are obviously looking for distraction, some other conversation to have.

>Lincoln being a dictator in all but name is totally fine because the ends justify le means
Americans will excuse any behavior in favor of darkie welfare

So, if you think what lincoln did was unjustified, do you think african americans should have remained slaves?

You're making the south sound even more moronic. Like Lincoln just did a genocide on the mentally handicapped.

Have some more Kelly. This one isn't so great.

Slavery already was obsolete it was the southern aristocracy who largely made their money from the slave trade that used their power and influence to pass laws that benefited them and convince the populace that slavery was part of the natural order of things

based mutie, taking what she deserves: warm fries.

Muppet

If the civil war was about slavery why were there slave owning states on both sides?

>it doesn't berate the reader for being white
lmao

Cinemaphile doesn't outwardly berate white people but the "NIPPON NUMBAH WON!" weeb mentality does the same job.

Its the difference between passive aggressiveness and plain aggressiveness. Both make you a c**t, but one only sounds "nicer" than the other

DC and marvel Comics have always been woke.

Your picture consists of a bunch of out of context panels, and it doesn't really showcase why the comics are woke.
Like looking a few parts of it, having a bunch of female heroes appear on a comic spread isn't woke.

>>DC and marvel Comics have always been woke.
>You're insane
the hatred of Mutants were used as a metaphor for racism for a long time in comics.
Captain america was made by israeli people as anti-nazi propaganda.
Pretty sure black panther was intended to be political.

Not sure about DC though.

You can say that they used to handle their themes better and were written better or whatever, but comic writers at the big 2 have always tended to be somewhat left leaning.

>Woke != political
>pic related
So, would you say your issue isn't with the comics pushing a leftist viewpoint, but rather them doing it in a hamfisted way?

To comment on the image you posted:
Everything is political, yet somethings are less directly tied to politics than others.
Quality of message is another thing.

is political
>Again, you're insane
Not everything ties directly into modern 2020's usa political hot topics like Republicans vs democrats, but everything ties into politics and, if distantly.

Not everything necessarily has a political message (and trying to read one where one doesn't exist will usually only confuse you), but everything exists in a social context.
Stories reflect their authors and authors reflect their society, whether in agreement or in opposition.

is political
>Again, you're insane
Not everything ties directly into modern 2020's usa political hot topics like Republicans vs democrats, but everything ties into politics and, if distantly.

Not everything necessarily has a political message (and trying to read one where one doesn't exist will usually only confuse you), but everything exists in a social context.
Stories reflect their authors and authors reflect their society, whether in agreement or in opposition.

As usual with these kinds of discussions, the problem is definitions. You two are using two completely different definitions of the word politics.

A story about a man being hunted down by a pack of wolves. How is it political?

Not that anon, but the content itself needs context. When was it made and what was the society like in which it was made? A tribal cautionary tale as a safety method to keep people from running away? A post 9/11 commentary on the inevitable and encroaching turbulent times after a decade of relative safety? Is it mocking return to nature romanticism and conservativism? Liberal tree huggers? Nothing exists in a vacuum and to engage is to form some sort of assumption.

The contents of the story are a man being hunted down by a pack of wolves. That's it. No discussion on anything else. You don't know when or where it is happening. You don't know if the wolves are close to extinct, or anything about the man. Just a man trying to survive. In my mind, it has no political message or political subtext, and as such, is not political.

Social context does not necessitate political context. This is where we disagree. You are turning a politically driven eye on things that are unrelated to politics. I agree that many things are political, but not all.

You're putting a hypothetical in a vacuum. If it were to ever exist, all the context added would make it more clearly political. It's just weird that in an unobserved state, we're supposed to not consider it anything but entertainment. Or just a distraction? Or does it become political once we start talking about the context, purpose, and whether it was told, bought, or pirated?

>The smartass answer would be to say: It is political because it is (attempting to be) politically neutral.
That's a cop out that attempts to stop discussion.

I would say that something being connected to politics does not imply that the author necessarily had a (political) message in mind.

I disagree that the work itself has anything connected to politics. In a meta sense, it might, because like I said, you can view anything through the lens of politics.

>The contents of the story are a man being hunted down by a pack of wolves. That's it. No discussion on anything else. You don't know when or where it is happening. You don't know if the wolves are close to extinct, or anything about the man. Just a man trying to survive. In my mind, it has no political message or political subtext, and as such, is not political.

>The smartass answer would be to say: It is political because it is (attempting to be) politically neutral.
That's a cop out that attempts to stop discussion.

[...]
I disagree that the work itself has anything connected to politics. In a meta sense, it might, because like I said, you can view anything through the lens of politics.

>I disagree that the work itself has anything connected to politics. In a meta sense, it might, because like I said, you can view anything through the lens of politics.

It could raise questions about ethics such as:
When does a person have the right to defend themselves against animals?
Who does the reader think is correct? Are both merely obeying their true nature?

It seems more as a tool for reflection or for something a viewer to assign their own meaning to rather than something with a message.
But that's sort of a meta thing.

Some literary critic may say it represents a nightmare, given that it is a battle without anycontext, and dreams often thrust you into a situation without explanation. Or they may say it represents fear of nature or the wild.

In any case, that sort of story is probably as apolitical as you are going to get.
Most stories exist with far more context than that.

It is instructive to view it through the tool of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model of human needs.” (Mcleod) The hierarchy is progressive in that each tier must be satisfied in order for the next tier to blossom. The five tiers are arranged in a bottom-to-top order, and are physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.

In a story about a man being hunted down by a pack of wolves, the story is one of survival, the basic impulse of life to live and continue to live. This is the beginning tier of Maslow’s hierarchy, concerned with the basic needs an organism needs to live, such as water, food, sleep, shelter, clothing, etc. For the man, the wolves are threatening his survival.

It may not be immediately clear how depicting the basic animal drive to survive is a political statement. Historically, certain peoples’ mere continuance of existence is politically problematic, from the Hebrews in ancient Egypt to Palestinians in the modern Middle East. When the dominant powers wish for a populace to not exist, if that populace defies that wish by continuing to exist, that defiance is ipso facto a political act. I don't mean to assert that nature inherently has a political motivation; I simply assert that an individual's steadfast declaration, through deed as well as word, of “I deserve to exist!” is inherently a political position, however rudimentary.

Works Cited
Mcleod, Saul. “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory.” Simply Psychology, 12 July 2023, www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html. Accessed 24 July 2023.

Any sort of broader social problem, like poverty or crime, ties into politics.

Interpersonal conflicts are also often political. How much power a parent should have over a kid, what is the role of spouses in a family and so on.
Poor performance in school is a political issue, Kids fighting in school is a political issue.
How much you get paid is a political issue. Healthcare is a political issue.

Most stories have some form of conflict, and most conflicts tie into politics.
To clarifty the deinition a little bit, I say these are political because these are examples of things that are often discussed by legislators, legislators often run on improving these things, and political movements are sometimes centered around them.

But yeah, it's important to make sure you agree on definitions of terms.

What definition do you think the other guy is using?

It was 2015.

Are you an ESL or something?
"Fart-huffer" = Person who's annoying and full of themselves, usually some smug c**t.