My thoughts on Supergirl #23
Leor Blumenthal
Here are some of my thoughts on the issues PAD raised, notably whether
Mattie, Steel, et al, were justified in blocking the bigot from speaking
on campus, or whether Cutter was right, and we have to let him speak.
(Supergirl didn't seem to have much to say; she eventually took Cutter's
side, but she didn't wax eloquent the way Steel did.)
From personal experience I'm going to have to agree with Steel. Bigots
can't be reasoned with. They can't be debated with. They have a
constitutional right to deny the Holocaust, denigrate blacks, jews, etc,
but who says that a college can't ask them to do it elsewhere? The bigot
in the issue was presented quite realisticly. Successful race-baiters don't
dress up in bizarre costumes, or chant nonsense. They wear suits, and speak
coldly, rationally, and with a twisted logic. However when someone
questions there rhetoric, or points out that they just contradicted
themselves, their veneer shatters, and they start shouting.
A few weeks ago a group calling themselves the "Black Israelites" came to
my campus, with a permit to speak on the sidewalk. Campus security was
there to make sure that it stayed orderly. These "Black Israelites" claim
that they are the "True Jews" and that anyone who claims to be jewish
that doesn't meet their "qualifications (ie isn't black) is not a Jew.
And they say so loudly, with great fanfare. They were dressed in a
mockery of the vestments of the Cohen Gadol (high priest) and carried
placards with the Lubavitch Rebbe and Jesus adorned with horns, and
pitchforks.
I overheard the shouting match going on around them, and saw some of my
friends arguing with them. I went to see for myself, and after sizing
them up, decided that it wasn't worth debating them. Then the leader of
the "Israelites" sees me, sees my yarmulke, and singles me out. For the
next fifteen minutes I was "debating" with them, fielding questions like
"What color are the `True Jews'?" (I replied that it was irrelavent since
there are Jews of all colors.)
After fifteen minutes of arguing with the wall, I left.
Not once did they try enter the college's buildings. So I left them to
preach in the street. If they had been invited to speak before the
student body I probably would have complained much louder.
The issue of free speech is often difficult. In Germany it is against the
law to deny that the Holocaust happened, or to wear a swastika. Here bith
are legal. The constitution guarantees that. But it's also legal to not
print an article denying the Holocaust, or to demand that swastikas not
be spraypainted on a synagogue. But is it legal to prevent someone from
speaking in a public forum they were invited to? No it isn't. Is it the
right thing to do? I'd like to think so.
That's all I have to say for now. If you disagree with me, say so. It's a
free country. Just e-mail me privately; I won't be able to post for a while.
Leor Blumenthal
lblu...@hejira.hunter.cuny.edu
Juliesback
>From: Leor Blumenthal <lblu...@hejira.Hunter.CUNY.EDU>
>Date: Fri, May 29, 1998 13:52 EDT
>Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980529...@hejira.hunter.cuny.edu>
But is it legal to prevent someone from
>speaking in a public forum they were invited to? No it isn't. Is it the
>right thing to do? I'd like to think so.
I disagree. If you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen. Steel's
comments about a "more polite society" were a little frightening because it
equals a lobotomized society.
Education is the key here. Obviously, we want to reach a point where no one
hates each other, but suppressing hate that exists doesn't make it go away, it
just makes it fester.
People have a right to say things that offend us. Once they don't, we're all in
trouble.
Many people point out how many Germans ignored the rise of Nazism, which led to
perhaps one of the lowest points in human history. They say that letting a
bigot pontificate about the inferiority of blacks, or anyone, is akin to doing
the same thing.
This, of course, is an argument that I tend to have to think long and hard
about. What do you think?
>
>That's all I have to say for now. If you disagree with me, say so. It's a
>free country. Just e-mail me privately; I won't be able to post for a while.
>
>
______________________________________
Stephen Robinson
scholar, lover, crimefighter
"Quiet! Or Papa spank!"
-Batman to Selina Kyle in BATMAN #1
PatDOneill
The antidote to offensive speech is more speech, not the elimination of the
offensive kind.
Best, Pat
The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do not
represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
Leor Blumenthal
On 29 May 1998, Juliesback wrote:
> I disagree. If you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen. Steel's
> comments about a "more polite society" were a little frightening because it
> equals a lobotomized society.
> Education is the key here. Obviously, we want to reach a point where no one
> hates each other, but suppressing hate that exists doesn't make it go away, it
> just makes it fester.
> People have a right to say things that offend us. Once they don't,
we're all in trouble.
> Many people point out how many Germans ignored the rise of Nazism,
which led to
> perhaps one of the lowest points in human history. They say that letting a
> bigot pontificate about the inferiority of blacks, or anyone, is akin to doing
> the same thing.
The Germans didn't ignore the rise of Nazism. Hitler was arrested for
calling for the downfall of the Wiemar Republic. While in jail he wrote
Mein Kampf. Mein Kampf never really sold well until Hitler became the
furher and made it required reading. Even his own cohorts had trouble
reading it (Shakespeare it ain't.)
Once Hitler was in power he began to systematically silence all
opposition. Jews were banned from journalism (along with some other
trades) and the newspapers were converted into the mouthpieces of the
Nazi party. This was in the mid thirties.
If the roles were reversed, the bigot would not defend your right to
speak for tolerance.
> This, of course, is an argument that I tend to have to think long and hard
> about. What do you think?
> >
> >That's all I have to say for now. If you disagree with me, say so. It's a
> >free country. Just e-mail me privately; I won't be able to post for a while.
>
> ______________________________________
> Stephen Robinson
> scholar, lover, crimefighter
>
> "Quiet! Or Papa spank!"
> -Batman to Selina Kyle in BATMAN #1
Leor Bluemnthal
Juliesback
>From: Leor Blumenthal <lblu...@hejira.Hunter.CUNY.EDU>
>Date: Fri, May 29, 1998 15:40 EDT
>Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980529...@hejira.hunter.cuny.edu>
>
>If the roles were reversed, the bigot would not defend your right to
>speak for tolerance.
>
That's why I'm against the Golden Rule (a little too self-serving). We should
do the right thing *because* it's the right thing, not because our enemies
might return the favor.
My enemy might shoot be in the back, but I certainly wouldn't do the same to
him.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Leor Blumenthal (lblu...@hejira.Hunter.CUNY.EDU) wrote:
: If the roles were reversed, the bigot would not defend your right to
: speak for tolerance.
And therefore, two wrongs make a right?
- Elayne
--
"Very few people possess true artistic ability. It is therefore both
unseemly and unproductive to irritate the situation by making an effort.
If you have a burning, restless urge to write or paint, simply eat
something sweet and the feeling will pass." - Fran Lebowitz
Juliesback
>From: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput)
>Date: Fri, May 29, 1998 16:17 EDT
>Message-id: <6kn556$e...@panix3.panix.com>
>
>Leor Blumenthal (lblu...@hejira.Hunter.CUNY.EDU) wrote:
>
>: If the roles were reversed, the bigot would not defend your right to
>: speak for tolerance.
>
>And therefore, two wrongs make a right?
>
I'm continually amazed by the statements uttered on a newsgroup devoted to
superheroes.
In my years reading comics, I've learned the following things:
"Never expect a favor for a favor."
"Do something because it's the right thing to do, not for praise or thanks."
"Never give up."
Oh..and "two wrongs don't make a right."
Among others...anyone else care to add?
BigBadOmar
{The Germans didn't ignore the rise of Nazism. Hitler was arrested for
Mein Kampf. Mein Kampf never really sold well until Hitler became the
furher and made it required reading. Even his own cohorts had trouble
reading it (Shakespeare it ain't.)
Once Hitler was in power he began to systematically silence all
opposition. Jews were banned from journalism (along with some other
trades) and the newspapers were converted into the mouthpieces of the
Nazi party. This was in the mid thirties.
If the roles were reversed, the bigot would not defend your right to
speak for tolerance.}
Comparing bigotry to Naziism not only shows a lack of understanding about what
happened in WW2 but displays a lack of maturity in discussing the real issues
involved.
Edward Mathews
PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: The antidote to offensive speech is more speech, not the elimination of the
: offensive kind.
Good lord. Every once in a long while, you actually say something
profound. I'd rather see the snakes then have them hiding under rocks
waiting to attack. Keeps me on my toes.
I'll ignore you till October now. ;)
Ed (no, I won't...) Mathews
*****
**-----
* ---
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://pages.nyu.edu/~em11
"I'd like to see Nat and Boris take on the roles of those idiot kids who
were hanging around the Super Friends, but I don't think Grant sees it. If
I were writing JLA, they'd become the new mascots."- christopher j. priest
Patrick Thompson
Juliesback wrote:
>
> >From: Leor Blumenthal <lblu...@hejira.Hunter.CUNY.EDU>
> >If the roles were reversed, the bigot would not defend your right to
> >speak for tolerance.
> >
> do the right thing *because* it's the right thing, not because our enemies
> might return the favor.
> My enemy might shoot be in the back, but I certainly wouldn't do the same to
> him.
As I see it, the golden rule isn't to do unto others in the hope of them
returning the favor, it's that we should judge what the right thing to
do is based on what we would want done to us if the roles were
reversed. It's a put yourself in the other person's shoes thing, not a
tit for tat thing.
Dwight Williams
PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) writes:
> The antidote to offensive speech is more speech, not the elimination of the
> offensive kind.
In Canada, it would be argued that if the speech advocates interference
with anyone's right to life, liberty and security of the person...it is
not only offensive but by nature unlawful.
Specifically, there's a Criminal Code statute up here dealing with "Advocating
Genocide" that would be of use in such instances.
However, there is some debate over whether it ought to be tossed out. So
far however, our Supreme Court has nixed any such notion of that statute being
unconstitutional.
For myself, there are days when I think that Parliament had the right idea
with that bill...
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
pengu...@earthlink.net
> That's why I'm against the Golden Rule (a little too self-serving). We should
> do the right thing *because* it's the right thing, not because our enemies
> might return the favor.
> My enemy might shoot be in the back, but I certainly wouldn't do the same to
> him.
>
> Stephen Robinson
> scholar, lover, crimefighter
>
> "Quiet! Or Papa spank!"
> -Batman to Selina Kyle in BATMAN #1
Sorry, but the "golden rule" says....Do unto others as you WOULD HAVE
them do unto you."
In short, do to them what you wish they would do to you. Or what you
would want them to do to you.
What was being taught is that if they shoot you in the back, you have to
offer them a cloth to wipe the blood from their suit when it is over.
If you shoot him in the back, you are saying that you would want them to
shoot you. That is not what is being taught.
Just to try and muddle the religious waters a bit more.
LArry Stanley
The Ultimate Fanboy
pengu...@earthlink.net
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
>
> Leor Blumenthal (lblu...@hejira.Hunter.CUNY.EDU) wrote:
>
> : If the roles were reversed, the bigot would not defend your right to
> : speak for tolerance.
>
It is not the job of the bigot to defend you. But it is the right of
decent people everywhere to do this. If they choose not to, then they
align themselves with the people the bigots.
While I will defend the right of anyone to say what they want, I will
also do everything in my power to get others to understand that what
they are preaching is garbage.
That is the only way to defent my right to say what I want to say.
Terence Chua
In article <199805291900...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
julie...@aol.com (Juliesback) wrote:
>I disagree. If you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen. Steel's
>comments about a "more polite society" were a little frightening because it
>equals a lobotomized society.
>Education is the key here. Obviously, we want to reach a point where no one
>hates each other, but suppressing hate that exists doesn't make it go away, it
>just makes it fester.
>People have a right to say things that offend us. Once they don't, we're all in
>trouble.
To paraphrase Voltaire, "I will defend to the death your right to say it,
but I can still think - and say - that it's a load of horse-hockey."
Nobody is stopping an offended person from standing up and doing the exact
same thing - offer his or her own ideas, as a counter-point. The entire
idea of dialectic has its problems, but the discussion is equally as
important... and sometimes the ability to discuss is the most important
thing... as the conclusions derived from it.
--
----------
Terence Chua <kh...@mbox2.singnet.com.sg>
WWW: <http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~tchua>
"Love ain't a dying art as far as I can see..."
Terence Chua
In article <199805292037...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
julie...@aol.com (Juliesback) wrote:
>In my years reading comics, I've learned the following things:
>
>"Never expect a favor for a favor."
>
>"Do something because it's the right thing to do, not for praise or thanks."
>
>"Never give up."
>
>Oh..and "two wrongs don't make a right."
>
>Among others...anyone else care to add?
"There is a right thing, and there is a wrong thing, and the distinction
is not difficult to make."
Well, most of the time, anyway...
Juliesback
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Supergirl #23
From: kh...@mbox2.singnet.com.sg (Terence Chua)
Date: 5/30/98 12:12 AM !!!First Boot!!!
Message-id: <khaos-30059...@qtns00401.singnet.com.sg>
<<
Nobody is stopping an offended person from standing up and doing the exact
same thing - offer his or her own ideas, as a counter-point. The entire
idea of dialectic has its problems, but the discussion is equally as
important... and sometimes the ability to discuss is the most important
thing... as the conclusions derived from it.>>
Exactly, exactly. I'm rarely quite in the presence of idiots, bigots,
homophobes, etc. In fact, I'm very much of the belief that "silence equals
endorsement" (The case of someone who allows someone to make a denigrating
remark about a racial, religous, sexual group without challenging it).
However, challenging stupidity is different from supressing it. Two totally
different things.
Let's have more discussions, I say! And all viewpoints. Trying to supress
hateful rhetoric implies that it can't easily be defeated by logic.
Nathan Sanders
In article <199805300152...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Juliesback <julie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Let's have more discussions, I say! And all viewpoints. Trying to supress
>hateful rhetoric implies that it can't easily be defeated by logic.
Well, sometimes it can't. It's really easy to bring out the Bible,
toss a few scriptures around, and proclaim that, for example,
homosexuals are the most wicked creatures on earth. Few people who
believe that are going to be persuaded by any amount of logic.
A point that seemd to be trying to rear its head in this story, but
didn't quite get into the light, was that of "brainwashing". That is,
allowing someone to rant about something which could convince others
that they're right (more easily than another group could convince them
otherwise). This is why, for example, many religious and conservative
views of sexuality are so pervasive --- the attitudes in this country
prevent rational thought about sex, because of its taboo nature. So
any opinion that caters to that is be design going to be more readily
accepted than one that requires logic.
I still agreed with Cutter, though. =)
Nathan
--
san...@ling.ucsc.edu ***** Department of Linguistics
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders *** University of California
http://www2.ucsc.edu/~syncope * Santa Cruz, California 95064
Edward Mathews
Juliesback (julie...@aol.com) wrote:
: I'm continually amazed by the statements uttered on a newsgroup devoted to
: superheroes.
:
: In my years reading comics, I've learned the following things:
:
: "Never expect a favor for a favor."
:
: "Do something because it's the right thing to do, not for praise or thanks."
:
: "Never give up."
:
: Oh..and "two wrongs don't make a right."
:
: Among others...anyone else care to add?
2 + 2 = 4
Ed (couldn't resist) Mathews
Padguy
Nathan Sanders writes:
>Well, sometimes it can't. It's really easy to bring out the Bible,
>toss a few scriptures around, and proclaim that, for example,
>homosexuals are the most wicked creatures on earth. Few people who
>believe that are going to be persuaded by any amount of logic.
What's interesting is that the Bible also says, as I understand it, that a
child who curses his parents should be slain...that a man who has sexual
congress with a woman during menstruation, even if she's his wife, should be
banned from society...that a woman suspected of adultery should drink poison as
a test of her innocence...and that a leper's leprosy is a sign of his lack of
morality. All those have fallen by the wayside, but the admonition against
same-sex relations still stands. Curious.
PAD
DKitson
It's probably a combination of Western Societies views about sex and the fact
that to my knowledge only one of those admonations were repeated in the new
testament. Curious.
DDK
BigBadOmar
{It's probably a combination of Western Societies views about sex and the fact
that to my knowledge only one of those admonations were repeated in the new
testament. Curious.}
Admonations? Hmm, perhaps you should go back to first grade before posting
again.
Captain Atom
Easy there, BBO...it wasn't long ago that I caught you on "alltogether."
--The Cap
(Who happens to make a living as an editor.)
Pariah
Dwight Williams wrote:
> In Canada, it would be argued that if the speech advocates interference
> with anyone's right to life, liberty and security of the person...it is
> not only offensive but by nature unlawful.
Free Speech isn't absolute here (in the US) either... there are laws against
speaking of overthrowing the government, IIRC.
Usually it deals with the intent of the Speech, more than it's content, though.
Pariah
--
University of Houston, TX
"You took my breath away, now I want it back. You should have killed me, honey,
you always looked so good in black." --Don Henley
Pariah
Leor Blumenthal wrote:
> If the roles were reversed, the bigot would not defend your right to
> speak for tolerance.
Just because he would trample my rights doesn't make it right for me to trample on
his.
Eric Sturgeon
In article <356FB0D0...@cheerful.com>,
Pariah <Par...@cheerful.com> wrote:
>Free Speech isn't absolute here (in the US) either... there are laws
>against speaking of overthrowing the government, IIRC.
>
>Usually it deals with the intent of the Speech, more than it's
>content, though.
Yeah. For instance, there's no law against saying, "Wouldn't it be
nice if someone overthrew the government we have now," but it is
against the law to say to some associates, "I think we should
overthrow the government, and here's how we can do it."
Stirge, who does not advocate overthrowing the
government. Too likely to interfere with my life
somehow. The overthrowing part, I mean.
Dwight Williams
Thankfully such divine commandments of brutality towards one's neighbours
and kin do seem to have largely fallen by the wayside over the millennia.
The Great and Powerful Danny Sichel
Padguy wrote:
>>Well, sometimes it can't. It's really easy to bring out the Bible,
>>toss a few scriptures around, and proclaim that, for example,
>>homosexuals are the most wicked creatures on earth. Few people who
>>believe that are going to be persuaded by any amount of logic.
> What's interesting is that the Bible also says, as I understand it, that a
> child who curses his parents should be slain...that a man who has sexual
> congress with a woman during menstruation, even if she's his wife, should be
> banned from society...that a woman suspected of adultery should drink poison as
> a test of her innocence...and that a leper's leprosy is a sign of his lack of
> morality. All those have fallen by the wayside
For "leprosy", read "AIDS".
If you insist on applying Leviticus to the letter, you should be
prepared to keep kosher.
PatDOneill
>While I will defend the right of anyone to say what they want, I will
>also do everything in my power to get others to understand that what
>they are preaching is garbage.
>
>That is the only way to defent my right to say what I want to say.
Exactly. Shutting the bigot up--by violence or law--only allows him to argue
that YOUR position is so weak you can't defend it except by silencing HIM.
PatDOneill
>That's why I'm against the Golden Rule (a little too self-serving). We should
>do the right thing *because* it's the right thing, not because our enemies
>might return the favor.
>My enemy might shoot be in the back, but I certainly wouldn't do the same to
him.
Then you misunderstand the Golden Rule--it's not "Do unto others as others
would do unto you"; it's "Do unto others as you would like others to do unto
you."
IOW--you act in the right way because it's the way YOU would want to treated,
not because others will automatically return the favor.
PatDOneill
>If you insist on applying Leviticus to the letter, you should be
>prepared to keep kosher.
And not wear clothing of mixed fibers, and leave the edges of your fields
unreaped, and not cut your beards, and a host of other stuff.....
Dan McEwen
On Sat, 30 May 1998 07:06:25 GMT, Pariah <Par...@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
>
>Dwight Williams wrote:
>
>> In Canada, it would be argued that if the speech advocates interference
>> with anyone's right to life, liberty and security of the person...it is
>> not only offensive but by nature unlawful.
>
>Free Speech isn't absolute here (in the US) either... there are laws against
>speaking of overthrowing the government, IIRC.
True, but you can say you hate the President (or any other politician)
with no overt problems. This isn't necessarily true in other
countries. Oh, actually, I think you can speak of overthrowing the
government. You just can't actually plot to do so.
>Usually it deals with the intent of the Speech, more than it's content, though.
>
Agreed. I could say right now "I'm gonna overthrow the US!" But
since it's obviously not really my intent to do so, it's not a
problem.
Dan McEwen
On 31 May 1998 00:37:14 GMT, melb...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Andrew
Melbourne) wrote:
>There's a difference between supporting free speech and facilitating
>hateful speech. You don't let the KKK hold speeches on your front lawn.
>
Agreed. That, of course, would certainly be an infringement on my
property. And I'd definitely have them thrown off my lawn. Now, if
they held a rally on public property, that's their right to do so.
Dan McEwen
On 31 May 98 02:20:25 GMT, espi...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Hernan Espinoza)
wrote:
>julie...@aol.com (Juliesback) writes:
>
>>>From: Leor Blumenthal <lblu...@hejira.Hunter.CUNY.EDU>
>>>Date: Fri, May 29, 1998 15:40 EDT
>>>Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980529...@hejira.hunter.cuny.edu>
>
>>>
>>>If the roles were reversed, the bigot would not defend your right to
>>>speak for tolerance.
>>>
>>That's why I'm against the Golden Rule (a little too self-serving). We should
>>do the right thing *because* it's the right thing, not because our enemies
>>might return the favor.
>
> This is not the Golden Rule I learned. It's not about treating your
>neighbor (why assume enemies?) as he treats you, but as you *wish* to be
>treated by him. You don't do it out of fear of his response, but *because*
>you feel it is the right thing...otherwise, why would you want to be treated
>that way?
I thought it was "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto
you." I interpreted this not that this is how others =would= treat
me, but how I would like others to treat me. A huge difference.
Andrew Melbourne
Padguy (pad...@aol.com) wrote:
: What's interesting is that the Bible also says, as I understand it, that a
: child who curses his parents should be slain...that a man who has sexual
: congress with a woman during menstruation, even if she's his wife, should be
: banned from society...that a woman suspected of adultery should drink poison as
: a test of her innocence...and that a leper's leprosy is a sign of his lack of
: same-sex relations still stands. Curious.
Plus, my favorite: (paraphrase) "THOU SHALT PLANT EACH FIELD WITH ONLY
ONE KIND OF SEED."
--
Andrew Melbourne, melb...@sas.upenn.edu, http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~melbourn
-->>PHYSICALLY, I'M BACK IN THE STATES. MENTALLY? I'LL LET YOU KNOW.<<--
"Do us all a favor and save your childish monickers for your fifth grade
friends." -- Omar the Troll
Andrew Melbourne
There's a difference between supporting free speech and facilitating
hateful speech. You don't let the KKK hold speeches on your front lawn.
--
Hernan Espinoza
julie...@aol.com (Juliesback) writes:
>>From: Leor Blumenthal <lblu...@hejira.Hunter.CUNY.EDU>
>>Date: Fri, May 29, 1998 15:40 EDT
>>Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.980529...@hejira.hunter.cuny.edu>
>>
>>If the roles were reversed, the bigot would not defend your right to
>>speak for tolerance.
>>
>That's why I'm against the Golden Rule (a little too self-serving). We should
>do the right thing *because* it's the right thing, not because our enemies
>might return the favor.
This is not the Golden Rule I learned. It's not about treating your
neighbor (why assume enemies?) as he treats you, but as you *wish* to be
treated by him. You don't do it out of fear of his response, but *because*
you feel it is the right thing...otherwise, why would you want to be treated
that way?
-Hernan
Sanjay Cherian
Assorted people contributed to:
> In my years reading comics, I've learned the following things:
>
> "Never expect a favor for a favor."
>
> "Do something because it's the right thing to do, not for praise or
thanks."
>
> "Never give up."
>
> Oh..and "two wrongs don't make a right."
>
> Among others...anyone else care to add?
>
Don't turn your back on your enemy unless you've killed him or he might
cut your girlfriend up and leave her in your fridge :)
Sanjay Cherian
Andrew Melbourne <melb...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<6kq8nq$22v$7...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
> There's a difference between supporting free speech and facilitating
> hateful speech. You don't let the KKK hold speeches on your front lawn.
>
Not sure of the legal issues but wouldn't that entitle you to shoot at
them?
In which case, it might be worth it.
-Sanjay
Captain Atom
Dan McEwen wrote:
> Agreed. I could say right now "I'm gonna overthrow the US!" But
> since it's obviously not really my intent to do so, it's not a
> problem.
I'm not so sure about that. I know that if you threaten to assassinate
the president, even if that threat is idle, casual or joking, you will
be arrested and questioned. It happened once to a high school girl, who
made an off-handed comment to her history teacher about wishing the
president was dead. The teacher reported it to the authorities, and the
girl was interrogated.
I'm guessing a threat to overthrow the federal government would receive
equal attention. For the rest of your life, you'd be monitored by the
CIA or the Secret Service as a precautionary measure. Probably not a bad
idea, actually.
--Captain Atom
Pariah
Dan McEwen wrote:
> True, but you can say you hate the President (or any other politician)
> with no overt problems. This isn't necessarily true in other
> countries. Oh, actually, I think you can speak of overthrowing the
> government. You just can't actually plot to do so.
Oh, absolutely. I didn't mean to diminish the level of free speech we have. We are
one of the freest countries in the world, when it comes to the legality of speech.
> Agreed. I could say right now "I'm gonna overthrow the US!" But
> since it's obviously not really my intent to do so, it's not a
> problem.
They wouldn't arrest you, most likely, but I do believe they legally could. Not
positive, though.
Mark Ogilvie
Leor Blumenthal <lblu...@hejira.Hunter.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
> Here are some of my thoughts on the issues PAD raised, notably whether
> Mattie, Steel, et al, were justified in blocking the bigot from speaking
> on campus, or whether Cutter was right, and we have to let him speak.
> (Supergirl didn't seem to have much to say; she eventually took Cutter's
> side, but she didn't wax eloquent the way Steel did.)
>
> From personal experience I'm going to have to agree with Steel. Bigots
> can't be reasoned with. They can't be debated with. They have a
> constitutional right to deny the Holocaust, denigrate blacks, jews, etc,
> but who says that a college can't ask them to do it elsewhere? The bigot
> in the issue was presented quite realisticly. Successful race-baiters don't
> dress up in bizarre costumes, or chant nonsense. They wear suits, and speak
> coldly, rationally, and with a twisted logic. However when someone
> questions there rhetoric, or points out that they just contradicted
> themselves, their veneer shatters, and they start shouting.
But until they do they sound reasonable, so engaging in an arguement
is the best way to show them for what they are. I found it interesting
that Landers didn't seem to be one of those, but we never did hear what
he would have said.
>
> A few weeks ago a group calling themselves the "Black Israelites" came to
> my campus, with a permit to speak on the sidewalk. Campus security was
> there to make sure that it stayed orderly. These "Black Israelites" claim
> that they are the "True Jews" and that anyone who claims to be jewish
> that doesn't meet their "qualifications (ie isn't black) is not a Jew.
> And they say so loudly, with great fanfare. They were dressed in a
> mockery of the vestments of the Cohen Gadol (high priest) and carried
> placards with the Lubavitch Rebbe and Jesus adorned with horns, and
> pitchforks.
>
> I overheard the shouting match going on around them, and saw some of my
> friends arguing with them. I went to see for myself, and after sizing
> them up, decided that it wasn't worth debating them. Then the leader of
> the "Israelites" sees me, sees my yarmulke, and singles me out. For the
> next fifteen minutes I was "debating" with them, fielding questions like
> "What color are the `True Jews'?" (I replied that it was irrelavent since
> there are Jews of all colors.)
>
> After fifteen minutes of arguing with the wall, I left.
>
> Not once did they try enter the college's buildings. So I left them to
> preach in the street. If they had been invited to speak before the
> student body I probably would have complained much louder.
You would have complained, but would you have blocked their way into
the building? This wasn't just a crowd of students, this was a guy
capable of throwing cars around saying that Landers couldn't speak,
despite the fact that Steel didn't own the college, go to the college
and probably had never heard of the place, but decided he had the right
to tell the college who could and could not speak there. If SG hadn't
been there and the campus cops tried to move him, what would have
happened?
Mark
--
Visit the Comic Book Writer/Artist Connection
Hernan Espinoza
pad...@aol.com (Padguy) writes:
>Mark Ogilvie writes:
>> If SG hadn't
>>been there and the campus cops tried to move him, what would have happened?
>I dunno. What do *you* think would have happened?
The cops would have done their jobs and removed the protestors
then give the lot of them citations. There would have been a lot of
rhetoric in the school paper for a few days and then they would
all move on to the next "crisis". As far as I could tell, this looked
like a pretty standard issue non-violent college standoff. I doubt Steel would
would have hurt the police for doing their jobs.
OTOH, since this is a superhero comic, violence is king. Let's
see, you characterized the Not-Steel opponents as stone throwers and
bombers. Just the kind of violence prone, black-hat-wearing types
that superheroes love to beat on...so I'm guessing one of Steels followers
would have been emboldened by his presence and physically attacked a cop
or that nice racist guy (since clearly their intellectual position
was so weak they would have had to turn to fists)...that would have touched
off a bruhaha and a fight between Steel and Supergirl. Somewhere along
the line SG would have knocked Steel on his duff and given him a stern
yet inspirational lecture. Chastened and ashamed, Steel would have joined
her to stop those nasty rioter, then the two would spend a poignant
moment in the rubble wondering if it were all worth it.
What you actually *did* was a lot better, though, IMHO.
-Hernan
Carl Fink
On 31 May 1998 16:00:47 GMT, Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:
>Mark Ogilvie writes:
>
>> If SG hadn't
>>been there and the campus cops tried to move him, what would have happened?
>
>I dunno. What do *you* think would have happened?
"Dr. Irons, if you don't move we will have no choice but to place you
under arrest."
"Do you really want the publicity involved in arresting a Justice
League member?"
"Do you really want your hospital, and the JLA, to get the publicity
involved if you block a perfectly legal speech because you don't like
what the man is going to say?"
" . . . no." <leaves>
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Q. Why do some people take astrology seriously?
a. Because they have unusually small brains. --Dave Barry
PatDOneill
>There's a difference between supporting free speech and facilitating
>hateful speech. You don't let the KKK hold speeches on your front lawn.
>
>
Yes--but you also can't prevent them from using the podium in the city
park...unless you're going to keep EVERYONE from using it.
Dwight Williams
Padguy (pad...@aol.com) writes:
> Mark Ogilvie writes:
>
>> If SG hadn't
>>been there and the campus cops tried to move him, what would have happened?
>
> I dunno. What do *you* think would have happened?
Dr. Irons is an inventive fellow who seems to go for the elegant,
minimum-force-needed solution as much as possible...beyond that, I
couldn't begin to guess.
BigBadOmar
{"Dr. Irons, if you don't move we will have no choice but to place you
under arrest."
"Do you really want the publicity involved in arresting a Justice
League member?"
"Do you really want your hospital, and the JLA, to get the publicity
involved if you block a perfectly legal speech because you don't like
what the man is going to say?"
" . . . no." <leaves>}
Thank god you don't write dialogue.
BigBadOmar
{I'm guessing a threat to overthrow the federal government would receive
equal attention}
No, just the overt threat to the president.
{For the rest of your life, you'd be monitored by the
CIA or the Secret Service as a precautionary measure. Probably not a bad
idea, actually.}
The authorities are on their way. From now on, you'll be Seargent Neutron.
Nathan Sanders
In article <199805300247...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:
>morality. All those have fallen by the wayside, but the admonition against
>same-sex relations still stands. Curious.
Exactly. Logic and religion just don't always mesh very well, especially
when it comes down to things like the Holiness Code from Leviticus, or
why many words were (intentionally?) mistranslated over time (for example,
a "qadesh" was a pagan temple prostitute, but that word has been translated
as "homosexual" in many places in the Bible).
Nathan
--
san...@ling.ucsc.edu ***** Department of Linguistics
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders *** University of California
http://www2.ucsc.edu/~syncope * Santa Cruz, California 95064
BigBadOmar
{I thought it was "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto
you." I interpreted this not that this is how others =would= treat
me, but how I would like others to treat me. A huge difference.}
So if I would like people to anally rape me, can I...
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: The antidote to offensive speech is more speech, not the elimination of the
: offensive kind.
The protesters in SUPERGIRL #23 no doubt felt that their protest
constituted "more speech" in and of itself.
- Elayne
--
"The kiss originated when the first male reptile licked the first female
reptile, implying in a subtle, complimentary way that she was as succulent
as the small reptile he had for dinner the night before."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
pengu...@earthlink.net wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
: >
: > Leor Blumenthal (lblu...@hejira.Hunter.CUNY.EDU) wrote:
: >
: > : If the roles were reversed, the bigot would not defend your right to
: > : speak for tolerance.
Larry, when you quote someone else, please remove my name from it. I'm
the one who responded to Leor, not the one who wrote the above sentence.
Watch the attributions, folks.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Andrew Melbourne (melb...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: There's a difference between supporting free speech and facilitating
: hateful speech.
That's how I saw the different views of Linda and Dr. Irons. Supergirl
took the former approach; Steel protested what he felt was the latter
approach. Nice summation of the issue, Andrew.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Nathan Sanders (syn...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: A point that seemd to be trying to rear its head in this story, but
: didn't quite get into the light, was that of "brainwashing". That is,
: allowing someone to rant about something which could convince others
: that they're right (more easily than another group could convince them
: otherwise).
Actually, I think that got a fair amount of space. It was made clear that
Landers was eloquent and well-spoken, and I don't think there would have
been the type of protest there was if a significant segment of the college
population HADN'T felt his words would be able to convince/brainwash
others that his way of thinking was correct.
: I still agreed with Cutter, though. =)
I think Peter was speaking more through Cutter than through Supergirl in
this issue. I'm beginning to suspect Cutter is more "author's mouthpiece"
than any other character in this book.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Hernan Espinoza (espi...@cgl.ucsf.edu) wrote:
: pad...@aol.com (Padguy) writes:
: >Mark Ogilvie writes:
: >> If SG hadn't
: >>been there and the campus cops tried to move him, what would have happened?
: >I dunno. What do *you* think would have happened?
: The cops would have done their jobs and removed the protestors
: then give the lot of them citations. There would have been a lot of
: rhetoric in the school paper for a few days and then they would
: all move on to the next "crisis". As far as I could tell, this looked
: like a pretty standard issue non-violent college standoff.
Well, until the bomb went off.
Peter, who do YOU think set off the bomb? :)
Pariah
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
> : The antidote to offensive speech is more speech, not the elimination of the
> : offensive kind.
>
> The protesters in SUPERGIRL #23 no doubt felt that their protest
> constituted "more speech" in and of itself.
And I supported their speech (even agreed with it).. it's the part where they
began to physically protest that made me abandon that side.
PatDOneill
>: The antidote to offensive speech is more speech, not the elimination of the
>: offensive kind.
>
>The protesters in SUPERGIRL #23 no doubt felt that their protest
>constituted "more speech" in and of itself.
And if they had restricted themselves to just vocal protest, I'd agree. But
they acted to prevent Landers from speaking and to prevent others from hearing
Landers speak.
PatDOneill
>Actually, I think that got a fair amount of space. It was made clear that
>Landers was eloquent and well-spoken, and I don't think there would have
>been the type of protest there was if a significant segment of the college
>population HADN'T felt his words would be able to convince/brainwash
>others that his way of thinking was correct.
But isn't that what ALL rhetoric is about--the attempt to convince others
("brainwash" is an ugly term that implies far harsher methods than simple
speech) that one's own thoughts are correct?
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Pariah (Par...@cheerful.com) wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
: > PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: > : The antidote to offensive speech is more speech, not the elimination of the
: > : offensive kind.
: >
: > The protesters in SUPERGIRL #23 no doubt felt that their protest
: > constituted "more speech" in and of itself.
: And I supported their speech (even agreed with it).. it's the part where they
: began to physically protest that made me abandon that side.
Could you clarify what you mean by "physically protest?"
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
PatDOneill (patdo...@aol.com) wrote:
: >Actually, I think that got a fair amount of space. It was made clear that
: >Landers was eloquent and well-spoken, and I don't think there would have
: >been the type of protest there was if a significant segment of the college
: >population HADN'T felt his words would be able to convince/brainwash
: >others that his way of thinking was correct.
: But isn't that what ALL rhetoric is about--the attempt to convince others
: ("brainwash" is an ugly term that implies far harsher methods than simple
: speech) that one's own thoughts are correct?
You know, I had about five snide Usenet-specific and/or Pat-specific
remarks in response to this, but I just can't do it. :)
- Elayne (self-censoring)
-=|horsefly|=-
On 31 May 1998, Andrew Melbourne wrote:
> There's a difference between supporting free speech and facilitating
the KKK hold speeches on my front lawn not with any eye towards whether i
agree with their views, but because it's *my lawn.* if they want to spout
hate on their own front porches, it's their business, and they have a
constitutional right to do so. further, if they seek to say hateful
things in a public forum, such as the grounds of a city, state, or federal
institution, that's their right as Americans, too.
-=|horsefly|=-
...and it's just *this* sort of debate PAD was
hoping to inspire (not that i fault him)!
Pariah
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> Pariah (Par...@cheerful.com) wrote:
>
> : Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
>
> : And I supported their speech (even agreed with it).. it's the part where they
> : began to physically protest that made me abandon that side.
>
> Could you clarify what you mean by "physically protest?"
To attempt to physically obstruct the event from occuring, via bomb or a big guy in
metallic armor and a hammer blocking the doorway.
PatDOneill
In article <6kv4jf$4...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>: And I supported their speech (even agreed with it).. it's the part where
>they
>: began to physically protest that made me abandon that side.
>
>Could you clarify what you mean by "physically protest?"
Physically bar access to the building. Once they do that, in an attempt to
prevent Landers' being heard by those who WANT to hear him, they cross the line
from speech to preventing speech.
Joseph T. Arendt
In a previous article, eber...@haywire.csuhayward.edu (-=|horsefly|=-) says:
...
> -=|horsefly|=-
> ...and it's just *this* sort of debate PAD was
> hoping to inspire (not that i fault him)!
Interesting debate so far!
I recall one issue of PAD's Hulk comics advertised years ago that IT WILL
MAKE YOU ANGRY! At that time, I wasn't reading Hulk, but bought it from
curoisity. It had to do with abortion. Did it make me angry? Nope. A
bit bored by melodramatics, that's all.
This Supergirl seems far better for yanking people's chains and
getting people talking. :-)
Now, to the completely irrelevant. How's that metal thingie
on the top of Steel's head fold up like cloth as he pulls off
his mask? :-)
Joseph Arendt
Joseph T. Arendt
Okay, Supergirl #23 has me somewhat interested in the title again.
I got the first three or four issues, but gave up because of all
the weirdness with demons and a giant cat and what-not.
So, if I start reading again, what is the must-know stuff that I missed in
twenty-odd issues? Have Ma and Pa Danvers figured out their Linda ain't
quite who she seems to be? Are devils and demons still running around?
Was the real Linda really some evil devil-worshipping nasty girl, which is
what I recall being hinted when I stopped. Whatever's been going on, I
missed it. I didn't even read the REVIEWS. :-) You've seen the
thread about whether one should read Green Arrow. What about
Supergirl?
Joseph Arendt
Gérard Morvan
Joseph T. Arendt wrote:
>
> So, if I start reading again, what is the must-know stuff that I missed in
> twenty-odd issues? Have Ma and Pa Danvers figured out their Linda ain't
> quite who she seems to be?
Very much so. She told them, and so far, the results have been... shall
we say interesting.
> Are devils and demons still running around?
Not for the time being. On the other hand, there are angels (including
Linda herself) and... God!
> Was the real Linda really some evil devil-worshipping nasty girl, which is
> what I recall being hinted when I stopped.
Yes she was, but thanks to Supergirl's influence, she got better. But no
doubt her past will haunt her again.
> Whatever's been going on, I
> missed it. I didn't even read the REVIEWS. :-) You've seen the
> thread about whether one should read Green Arrow. What about
> Supergirl?
>
Well, IMHO, Suprgirl is, for the time being, the best ongoing title of
the whole Superman family (second being Superboy, since Karl Kesel and
Tom Grummett are working again on it. Oh, BTW, best mini was The Kents).
You've got great characterization, thought-provoking issues, dealing
with the nature of good and evil, and God him/herself, a heroine who's
sexy without looking like Lolo Ferrari (french private joke, I'm afraid.
Let's say she's not draw<n by Rob Liefeld), and intelligent, great
supporting characters. In fact, the series is good enough to deserve an
article by me in the webzine I write for. Peter David has managed to
breath life into a character who so far was only a cypher (note that I'm
talking about the current version, _not_ Kara Zor-El, may she rest in
peace). Definitely a series to check out!
Gérard Morvan
http://perso.club-internet.fr/heroes
P.S.: OH, and just in case you complained over her depowering in the
first issues, well she's been powered up since then, and could give, say
Wonder Woman, a run for her money.
Robin Riggs
In article <6l1jn5$gs5$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
bl...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph T. Arendt) wrote:
>You've seen the
>thread about whether one should read Green Arrow. What about
>Supergirl?
Hey, why are folks suddenly asking about both the books that I work on? :)
Robin.
eternally
PatDOneill wrote:
>
> In article <6kv4jf$4...@panix3.panix.com>, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
> Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>
> >: And I supported their speech (even agreed with it).. it's the part where
> >they
> >: began to physically protest that made me abandon that side.
> >
> >Could you clarify what you mean by "physically protest?"
>
> Physically bar access to the building. Once they do that, in an attempt to
> prevent Landers' being heard by those who WANT to hear him, they cross the line
> from speech to preventing speech.
i find myself in the scary position of agreeing with Pat here... :)
eternally
same way Iron Man's suit works, I imagine...
Carl Fink
On 2 Jun 1998 19:12:51 GMT, Joseph T. Arendt
<bl...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>Now, to the completely irrelevant. How's that metal thingie
>on the top of Steel's head fold up like cloth as he pulls off
>his mask? :-)
It's a soft piece of (metallized) cloth. Dr. Irons has developed a
material (perhaps based on memory metals?) that can be made rigid by
applying an electrical current of some sort, but which is otherwise
flexible.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Q. Why do some people take astrology seriously?
a. Because they have unusually small brains. --Dave Barry
The Great and Powerful Danny Sichel
It was a dark and stormy 2 Jun 1998 19:27:33 GMT. Suddenly,
bl...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph T. Arendt) posted:
>Okay, Supergirl #23 has me somewhat interested in the title again.
>I got the first three or four issues, but gave up because of all
>the weirdness with demons and a giant cat and what-not.
>So, if I start reading again, what is the must-know stuff that I missed in
>twenty-odd issues? Have Ma and Pa Danvers figured out their Linda ain't
>quite who she seems to be?
Sort of.
Well, they didn't figure it out as much as she told them.
They didn't take it very well.
Eventually, Jon and Martha Kent had to drop by to do some counselling.
> Are devils and demons still running around?
No.
> Was the real Linda really some evil devil-worshipping nasty girl, which is
> what I recall being hinted when I stopped.
Sort of.
Padguy
Joseph T. Arendt writes:
>As for Supergirl with her shapeshifting, I didn't like it. For one thing,
>the Supergirl miniseries established she can change her mass, not just
>shape. YUCK! Shapeshifting always seemed far too powerful for reasonable
>plots to me.
I felt the same way. That's one of the big reasons I redid it so that the only
vestige of the shapeshifting power is that she can change from Linda to
Supergirl. That's it, though.
PAD
Joseph T. Arendt
In a previous article, her...@club-internet.fr (Gérard Morvan) says:
** SPOILERS **
>Joseph T. Arendt wrote:
>>
>> So, if I start reading again, what is the must-know stuff that I missed in
>> twenty-odd issues? Have Ma and Pa Danvers figured out their Linda ain't
>> quite who she seems to be?
>
>Very much so. She told them, and so far, the results have been... shall
>we say interesting.
Ma Danvers seemed to know something about shapeshifting with
that faith discussion. I wasn't sure if that means Ma knows the whole
really confusing bit about pocket universes and what not. Granted,
sometimes I'm not sure I follow it. :-)
>> Are devils and demons still running around?
>
>Not for the time being. On the other hand, there are angels (including
>Linda herself) and... God!
God? Linda made a comment about telling God something for Ma next time
she saw him. That wasn't a JOKE?!? Huh?
I was wondering is Linda the angel or did she have an invisible
monkey on her back or something supplying wings.
I'm confused. Gee, skip 20 issues and suddenly I don't know
what's going on! :-) Maybe DC could rip off Marvel's idea
and have a foldover on the cover with one page giving the
cast list and the other a summary of pertinent details of
last issue! That's one thing Marvel's doing that I liked!
Of course, the only Marvel I read was Star Trek and they just
lost that.
>> Was the real Linda really some evil devil-worshipping nasty girl, which is
>> what I recall being hinted when I stopped.
>
>Yes she was, but thanks to Supergirl's influence, she got better. But no
>doubt her past will haunt her again.
I wasn't sure whether it was really Linda's past or game playing
by the demon guy.
>You've got great characterization, thought-provoking issues, dealing
>with the nature of good and evil, and God him/herself, a heroine who's
>sexy without looking like Lolo Ferrari (french private joke, I'm afraid.
>Let's say she's not draw<n by Rob Liefeld), and intelligent, great
>supporting characters.
I liked Leonard Kirk's art. I was confused by golden wings and
flame vision power, but that's not the artist's fault. :-)
Kirk did pretty good with Steel. For example, the silotte in
the sky with the red cape and then the rocket flames as Steel
came in for a landing. Cool. :-)
Is Dr. John Irons nearsighted or farsighted?
>Peter David has managed to
>breath life into a character who so far was only a cypher (note that I'm
>talking about the current version, _not_ Kara Zor-El, may she rest in
>peace). Definitely a series to check out!
I was surprised how much I liked Kara given how I often thought the writers
did so badly by her! The Daring New Adventures of Supergirl had a bit in
the letter page that all sorts of Kara's continuity was deliberately being
ignoreds because if they didn't, she'd be too old to be called "girl."
GROAN! Somehow, she remained an interesting character. There'd be
some story where she'd be dressed up in different costumes like
a living Barbie doll or something, yet she remained an interesting
character. Weird.
On the other hand, I had no such inherent interest in the new Supergirl.
>Gérard Morvan
>
>http://perso.club-internet.fr/heroes
>
>P.S.: OH, and just in case you complained over her depowering in the
>first issues, well she's been powered up since then, and could give, say
>Wonder Woman, a run for her money.
Uh, no! I certainly didn't complain! I LIKED the depowering.
I'm far from the average in that, though.
I liked the Mike Baron version of Flash II who had a top speed of just
around the sound barrier. I liked that way better than faster-than-light
and "ultimate speed" and Speed-Force-Land what-not going on now!
I liked the Bryned Superman who wasn't nearly so invicincible or powerful.
No more shoving the moon around and time traveling under his own power.
Much better, IMHO! :-)
As for Supergirl with her shapeshifting, I didn't like it. For one thing,
the Supergirl miniseries established she can change her mass, not just
shape. YUCK! Shapeshifting always seemed far too powerful for reasonable
plots to me.
Joseph Arendt
Dwight Williams
Padguy (pad...@aol.com) writes:
> Joseph T. Arendt writes:
>
>>As for Supergirl with her shapeshifting, I didn't like it. For one thing,
>>the Supergirl miniseries established she can change her mass, not just
>>shape. YUCK! Shapeshifting always seemed far too powerful for reasonable
>>plots to me.
>
> I felt the same way. That's one of the big reasons I redid it so that the only
> vestige of the shapeshifting power is that she can change from Linda to
> Supergirl. That's it, though.
Until you decide you're finished, of course. I can put up with temporary
paralysis of that ability until then, since we've been getting good enough
stories in the meantime...
I'm sure _Martian Manhunter_ will put paid to that "too powerful
for reasonable plots" assumption, though...
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Joseph T. Arendt
I don't see all that many Martian Manhunter stories I'm dying to
read.
I liked MM in his original story. It was such a loopy twist on
50's paranoia science fiction. MM has got the abilities of the
scary space aliens of the B movies. Scary! :-) However, all MM does
is...become a cop because he saw too much injustice on Earth!
I recall MM appearing in some Priest-written Hawkman issues. That
was the one where it takes several minutes for a guy to fall from
the top of a building to the ground. :-) Anyway, either in the
comic or subsequent discussions, I thought it was mentioned Martian
Manhunter lost his disability of not being able to handle fire.
So, we have a superhero who is superstrong, a shapechanger, able to turn
invisible, some sort of heat vision, and seems invulnerable to EVERYTHING.
I'm sure he has lots more abilities besides.
At least Superman is affected by Krytonite and magic!
BTW, Golden Age Superman could shape shift his face in one story.
That's better than the new Supergirl's shape shifting because it
involves no change in mass!
At any rate, Superman's shape-shifting face was quickly swept under
the rug and forgotten. If you like MM shapeshifting so much, maybe
Superman should get his limited shapeshifting back too. It'd make
it much easier to believe people aren't figuring out Superman and
Clark Kent aren't the same. :-)
Joseph Arendt
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Joseph T. Arendt (bl...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
: In a previous article, her...@club-internet.fr (Gérard Morvan) says:
: ** SPOILERS **
: >> Are devils and demons still running around?
: >
: >Not for the time being. On the other hand, there are angels (including
: >Linda herself) and... God!
: God? Linda made a comment about telling God something for Ma next time
: she saw him. That wasn't a JOKE?!? Huh?
Wally Godboy. My second favorite character in the book, after Linda. He
continues to play a major role.
: I was wondering is Linda the angel or did she have an invisible
: monkey on her back or something supplying wings.
Linda's an Earth-born angel.
: >> Was the real Linda really some evil devil-worshipping nasty girl, which is
: >> what I recall being hinted when I stopped.
: >
: >Yes she was, but thanks to Supergirl's influence, she got better. But no
: >doubt her past will haunt her again.
: I wasn't sure whether it was really Linda's past or game playing
: by the demon guy.
It was part of Linda's past. It really brought the first nine issues down
for me. That was a hard story arc for me to read through, I didn't enjoy
it that much at all. Since #10, though, I've really adored this book.
: >You've got great characterization, thought-provoking issues, dealing
: >with the nature of good and evil, and God him/herself, a heroine who's
: >sexy without looking like Lolo Ferrari (french private joke, I'm afraid.
: >Let's say she's not draw<n by Rob Liefeld), and intelligent, great
: >supporting characters.
: I liked Leonard Kirk's art. I was confused by golden wings and
: flame vision power, but that's not the artist's fault. :-)
Hey, there are two artists here! :) :) :)
If anyone spots me and Robin at either Heroes Con or San Diego, check out
his SUPERGIRL pages in his portfolio. Sometimes the color separations
tend to obscure the nice line work, especially on stuff like Supergirl's
wings and flame vision and like that. Frankly, I believe a lot of that
stuff looks much more impressive in black and white.
: Kirk did pretty good with Steel. For example, the silotte in
: the sky with the red cape and then the rocket flames as Steel
: came in for a landing. Cool. :-)
Hey, there are two artists here! :) :) :)
: As for Supergirl with her shapeshifting, I didn't like it. For one thing,
: the Supergirl miniseries established she can change her mass, not just
: shape. YUCK! Shapeshifting always seemed far too powerful for reasonable
: plots to me.
I suspect that's one of the reasons Peter is downplaying it (she still
shapeshifts, only it's strictly between the form of Linda Danvers and the
form of Supergirl now).
- Elayne
Juliesback
>From: pad...@aol.com (Padguy)
>Date: Wed, Jun 3, 1998 23:00 EDT
>Message-id: <199806040300...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>Joseph T. Arendt writes:
>
>>As for Supergirl with her shapeshifting, I didn't like it. For one thing,
>>the Supergirl miniseries established she can change her mass, not just
>>shape. YUCK! Shapeshifting always seemed far too powerful for reasonable
>>plots to me.
>
>only
>vestige of the shapeshifting power is that she can change from Linda to
>Supergirl. That's it, though.
>
This isn't meant as an attack of your work, Peter; I'm actually just wondering
aloud. Also, I don't mind your decision to jettison her shapeshifting power for
now.
______________________________________
Stephen Robinson
scholar, lover, crimefighter
"Quiet! Or Papa spank!"
-Batman to Selina Kyle in BATMAN #1
Juliesback
>From: bl...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph T. Arendt)
>Date: Thu, Jun 4, 1998 11:31 EDT
>Message-id: <6l6el4$se7$1...@pale-rider.INS.CWRU.Edu>
>
>At any rate, Superman's shape-shifting face was quickly swept under
>the rug and forgotten. If you like MM shapeshifting so much, maybe
>Superman should get his limited shapeshifting back too. It'd make
>it much easier to believe people aren't figuring out Superman and
>Clark Kent aren't the same. :-)
>
Actually, that's what was so wack about the GA Superman's shape shifting
ability. In one issue, he makes himself look like an alien being. Yet, his
secret identity is a pair of glasses? Oooh-kay.
Steve
On 4 Jun 1998 15:31:48 GMT, bl...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joseph T.
Arendt) wrote:
>
>BTW, Golden Age Superman could shape shift his face in one story.
>That's better than the new Supergirl's shape shifting because it
>involves no change in mass!
>
>At any rate, Superman's shape-shifting face was quickly swept under
>the rug and forgotten.
If I recall correctly (and I may not, I haven't read this story in
easily 18 years, in a friend's collection), what Superman did was use
"super-muscle control" to distort his face. It wasn't really
shape-shifting as such. (IE: he couldn't do what Plastic Man did in
World Without Adults with the giant mouth.)
Steve
eternally
Dwight Williams wrote:
>
> Padguy (pad...@aol.com) writes:
> > Joseph T. Arendt writes:
> >
> >>As for Supergirl with her shapeshifting, I didn't like it. For one thing,
> >>the Supergirl miniseries established she can change her mass, not just
> >>shape. YUCK! Shapeshifting always seemed far too powerful for reasonable
> >>plots to me.
> >
> > I felt the same way. That's one of the big reasons I redid it so that the only
> > vestige of the shapeshifting power is that she can change from Linda to
> > Supergirl. That's it, though.
>
> paralysis of that ability until then, since we've been getting good enough
> stories in the meantime...
isn't it nice he wasn't one of those writers who had to do something
like, "okay, Supergirl could NEVER shapeshift, has never shapeshifted
and will never shapeshift because i will tangle and tear continuity and
the character in such a way as to make sure this has to be the case just
because _I_ don't want her to shapeshift!"
gotta love talent and restraint. thanks, PAD (seriously).
BHMarks
eternally <eter...@hotmail.com> said:
>isn't it nice he wasn't one of those writers who had to do something
>like, "okay, Supergirl could NEVER shapeshift, has never shapeshifted
>and will never shapeshift because i will tangle and tear continuity and
>the character in such a way as to make sure this has to be the case just
>because _I_ don't want her to shapeshift!"
>gotta love talent and restraint. thanks, PAD (seriously).
I agree completely. Despite PAD's claims that he's not very interested in
continuity, he takes care of it in an unobtrusive and unegotistical way. Face
it, PAD - you're a Nice Guy! (How'd you ever get married?)
As ever,
Bennet
BHMarks
julie...@aol.com (Juliesback) said:
>But why does shapeshifting and invisibility work for Martian Manhunter?
IMHO, it doesn't. From day 1 I always believed that MM was just *too*
powerful, leading to many stories in which he doesn't really seem to use his
powers very creatively. This is refelcted by the constant retconning (back and
forth) of both his fire weakness ("Oops! Need a weakness this time!") and, in
order to build in more conflicts, the details of his origin.
"He wants to go back to Mars. Ummm, no, guess he could do that, but he's
exiled. And there were these White Martians. But they're all dead. And
anyway everyone on his planet is dead. And, well, it really all happened
hundreds of years ago. Oh, and there are these surviving White Martians, but
they really *are* allergic to fire. And . . . ."
Don't get me wrong, I love the big bald greenie. I'm just never sure which one
of him I love.
As ever,
Bennet
-=|horsefly|=-
On 4 Jun 1998, Joseph T. Arendt wrote:
> In a previous article, her...@club-internet.fr (Gérard Morvan) says:
>
> ** SPOILERS **
> >Joseph T. Arendt wrote:
[snip]
> >> Are devils and demons still running around?
> >Not for the time being. On the other hand, there are angels (including
> >Linda herself) and... God!
> God? Linda made a comment about telling God something for Ma next time
> she saw him. That wasn't a JOKE?!? Huh?
no joke. look for a... nah, i'll let you figure out what God
looks like ;)
> I was wondering is Linda the angel or did she have an invisible
> monkey on her back or something supplying wings.
issues 18 and 19 for details about Supergirl's status as an angel.
her wings premiered in issue 17.
> I'm confused. Gee, skip 20 issues and suddenly I don't know
> what's going on! :-) Maybe DC could rip off Marvel's idea
"I'm out of it for a little while and suddenly everyone's got
delusions of gradeur!" ;)
> and have a foldover on the cover with one page giving the
> cast list and the other a summary of pertinent details of
no, please, GOD, no! aaaaaauuuugghh! :-P one of the
few--alright, several--things i dislike about the current Marvel issues
<grumble>.
> last issue! That's one thing Marvel's doing that I liked!
> Of course, the only Marvel I read was Star Trek and they just
> lost that.
>
> >> Was the real Linda really some evil devil-worshipping nasty girl, which is
> >> what I recall being hinted when I stopped.
> >Yes she was, but thanks to Supergirl's influence, she got better. But no
> >doubt her past will haunt her again.
> I wasn't sure whether it was really Linda's past or game playing
> by the demon guy.
it was definitely Linda's past, but i for one hope we haven't seen
the last of Buzz. if you feel like going back to those stories, the
Supergirl TPB collected the Showcase preview as well as issues 1-8, so the
storyline is all together.
> >You've got great characterization, thought-provoking issues, dealing
> >with the nature of good and evil, and God him/herself, a heroine who's
> >sexy without looking like Lolo Ferrari (french private joke, I'm afraid.
> >Let's say she's not draw<n by Rob Liefeld), and intelligent, great
> >supporting characters.
> I liked Leonard Kirk's art. I was confused by golden wings and
> flame vision power, but that's not the artist's fault. :-)
yeah, it's a fun look, ain't it? :) [snip]
-=|horsefly|=-
"All I am after is a just life, at the end of which I can laugh as I die."
--ARCADIA OF MY YOUTH, end credits lyrics
R. Tang
In article <199806050552...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
BHMarks <bhm...@aol.com> wrote:
> julie...@aol.com (Juliesback) said:
>>But why does shapeshifting and invisibility work for Martian Manhunter?
>
>IMHO, it doesn't.
Except.......
This sort of abilities plays neatly into the BEM/Alien set of
abilities that generates paranoia. A good writer could contrast that to
the very HUMAN soul J'onn J'onzz has.....
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/arts/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Padguy
gwangung writes:
>In article <199806050552...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>BHMarks <bhm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> julie...@aol.com (Juliesback) said:
>>>But why does shapeshifting and invisibility work for Martian Manhunter?
>>
>>IMHO, it doesn't.
>
> Except.......
>
> This sort of abilities plays neatly into the BEM/Alien set of abilities
that generates paranoia. A good writer could contrast that to the very HUMAN
soul J'onn J'onzz has.....
>
>--
Not just that, but I always thought that invisibility and shape changing would
be pretty cool if you were writing a character who was a detective...which is
what J'onn, from the very beginning, was supposed to be. Be able to follow
people, be able to pose as others to try and extract information...that'd be
cool. *That* I could do.
PAD
R. Tang
In article <199806051833...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:
>gwangung writes:
>
>>In article <199806050552...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>>BHMarks <bhm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> julie...@aol.com (Juliesback) said:
>>>>But why does shapeshifting and invisibility work for Martian Manhunter?
>>>IMHO, it doesn't.
>> Except.......
>> This sort of abilities plays neatly into the BEM/Alien set of abilities
>that generates paranoia. A good writer could contrast that to the very HUMAN
>soul J'onn J'onzz has.....
>
>be pretty cool if you were writing a character who was a detective...which is
>what J'onn, from the very beginning, was supposed to be. Be able to follow
>people, be able to pose as others to try and extract information...that'd be
>cool. *That* I could do.
AH. NOW I get it....
Shapeshifting and invisibility doesn't fit a Supergirl, because
Supergirl is a variant (NOT a knockoff or lesser light) of the
Super-concept....which as some folks around here posit means the
amplification of a baseline human. Humans can lift things, they can jump,
they can be tough, aand the Superpeople take it on to another level.
But the concept REALLY breaks down with invisibility and
shapeshifting, but DOESN'T with a visibly alien character. And it may work
VERY well with the Martian Manhunter, since his detective works extends
far beyond the criminal to what humanity is in general....
Trevor Barrie
>Not just that, but I always thought that invisibility and shape changing would
>be pretty cool if you were writing a character who was a detective...which is
>what J'onn, from the very beginning, was supposed to be. Be able to follow
>people, be able to pose as others to try and extract information...that'd be
>cool. *That* I could do.
Of course, seeing how he has telepathy too, it's not clear that he'd ever
really need to do the latter.
Mario Di Giacomo
Joseph T. Arendt wrote:
> >Of course, seeing how he has telepathy too, it's not clear that he'd ever
> >really need to do the latter.
>
> I'd forgotten that power.
>
Telepathy isn't infallible...wasn't there a story in an 80-Page Giant
where Ollie Queen thought a guy was guilty, J'onn thought he was
innocent (after a mind probe) and Ollie was *right*?
mdg
Joseph T. Arendt
In a previous article, tba...@ibm.net (Trevor Barrie) says:
>In article <199806051833...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Not just that, but I always thought that invisibility and shape changing would
>>be pretty cool if you were writing a character who was a detective...which is
>>what J'onn, from the very beginning, was supposed to be. Be able to follow
>>people, be able to pose as others to try and extract information...that'd be
>>cool. *That* I could do.
>
>Of course, seeing how he has telepathy too, it's not clear that he'd ever
>really need to do the latter.
I'd forgotten that power.
Joseph Arendt
Matthew Herper <mjherper@mit.
Mario Di Giacomo wrote:
>
> Joseph T. Arendt wrote:
>
> > >Of course, seeing how he has telepathy too, it's not clear that he'd ever
> > >really need to do the latter.
> >
> > I'd forgotten that power.
> >
>
> where Ollie Queen thought a guy was guilty, J'onn thought he was
> innocent (after a mind probe) and Ollie was *right*?
>
> mdg
Yeah. J'onn apparently scanned him to see if he was a "good man" --
he apparently (at least in this story) gets a gestalt impression of
the mind he's reading, not a ctalogue of specific memories. Which
makes more sense -- thoughts aren't that organized that you could read
them like a book, unless maybe the book is Ulysses or Finnegans Wake.
Even J'onn couldn't read those very quickly.
Ollie simply had a hunch and a knowledge of what it means to be rich
in this society. There's a great moment where he's talking about how
all rich people are scumbags and canary says something like, "But
you used to be rich. Are you saying that you were a dishonest scumbag?"
Ollie says, "Yes! Haven't you been listening?" or something like that.
Great moment.
Matt.
Padguy
gwangung writes:
> Shapeshifting and invisibility doesn't fit a Supergirl, because
Supergirl is a variant (NOT a knockoff or lesser light) of the
Super-concept....which as some folks around here posit means the amplification
of a baseline human. Humans can lift things, they can jump, they can be tough,
aand the Superpeople take it on to another level.
>
>But the concept REALLY breaks down with invisibility and
>shapeshifting, but DOESN'T with a visibly alien character. And it may work
VERY well with the Martian Manhunter, since his detective works extends far
beyond the criminal to what humanity is in general....
Perhaps. My problem with the two powers, in regards to Supergirl, was
two-fold. First, I felt that--as Supergirl--Matrix lacked an identity. The
shape-shifting into whomever she wanted undescored that for me. I tried to fix
this by "attaching" her to Linda Danvers, but making the resulting identity a
blend of the two--and by limiting the shape shifting from Supergirl to Linda
and back, 'cause really, who wants to deal with wigs?
With the invisibility, I couldn't see why she would ever be visible in a fight.
If I could both disappear and wield TK blasts, I'd stay invisible and pummel
my foes into unconsciousness with the psi-powers. So I ditched the
invisibility.
Also, it's the types of stories that I would tell: With J'onn, I'd do
mysteries. The powers suit those types of stories. With Supergirl, even
though I delve into weird realms, it's still at heart superheroics. I just
don't see those powers, or at least those combinations of powers, a good mix
for interesting stories.
That's just me. Another writer might very well have had a way of doing it.
PAD
Padguy
Trevor Barrie writes:
>Of course, seeing how he has telepathy too, it's not clear that he'd ever
>really need to do the latter.
Good point. I suppose we could redefine the telepathy to say that it only
works at surface level, i.e., he can communicate with it, but he can't do a
deep probe or access things people want to keep hidden. I dunno.
PAD
Mike Chary
Well, since any number of comic books (Kingdom Come and JLA for two) have
relied on him doing deep readings, that's a bit unreasonable. Here's a
thought: if you don't like what a character can do, use another one or
make your own character? How's that sound? Huh?
Now, I don't necessarily address this at PAD whom I trust a little.
(Though you do seem to have this habit of altering character's abilities
now that I think back on it) but at the general practice of writers who
seem to say "Gosh, you know, I really like Superman, except for
everything about him."
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
Congratulations on a Great Season VALPO!
Happy 100th birthday, Paul Robeson!
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
Padguy
Mike Chary wrote:
>Well, since any number of comic books (Kingdom Come and JLA for two) have
relied on him doing deep readings, that's a bit unreasonable. Here's a thought:
if you don't like what a character can do, use another one or make your own
character? How's that sound? Huh?<
I hardly feel the need to defend a stance on J'onn since I'm not writing the
character anyway. If the character can really do those kind of deep probes,
there's any number of options available aside from the (somewhat snidely
worded, I think) option you put forward, Mike. Writing mysteries with a
detective who can read anyone's minds would be kind of boring to me, so my
options would be: (a) not do it as a mystery, (b) do something to limit the
telepathy, (c) pass on an offer to write the character, (d) other stuff I
haven't thought of.
I came up with a nifty idea for a Superman story that could have been really
really major. But it would totally and irrevocably have changed the character
and thrown out a lot of what has always made him work. So I created other
characters, wrote it as a prose story called "The Archetype" and sold it to
F&SF.
PAD
Mike Chary
Padguy <pad...@aol.com> wrote:
>Mike Chary wrote:
>
>>Well, since any number of comic books (Kingdom Come and JLA for two) have
>relied on him doing deep readings, that's a bit unreasonable. Here's a thought:
>if you don't like what a character can do, use another one or make your own
>character? How's that sound? Huh?<
>
>I hardly feel the need to defend a stance on J'onn since I'm not writing the
>character anyway.
And as i said, I wasn't really addressing what you do, but rather what
seemed to be a general comic book trend.
> If the character can really do those kind of deep probes,
>there's any number of options available aside from the (somewhat snidely
>worded, I think) option you put forward, Mike.
Well, a) I must be losing my touch, because that was meant to be
*extremely* snidely worded, and b) I am sorry if I caused you offense,
but I did specifically say I wasn't including you in particular.
And yes, there are dozens of options, but why use the character if you
don't like what he can do?
> Writing mysteries with a
>detective who can read anyone's minds would be kind of boring to me, so my
As a side note, one of my favorite novels is _The Demolished Man_ a
mystery with a detective who can read minds, written by one of the great
comic book writers ever :):) No bearing on PAD's statmeent, just thought
I'd plug the book.
>options would be: (a) not do it as a mystery, (b) do something to limit the
>telepathy, (c) pass on an offer to write the character, (d) other stuff I
>haven't thought of.
Yes, but too many writers lately seem to wnat to taker the "change the
character" option.
>I came up with a nifty idea for a Superman story that could have been really
>really major. But it would totally and irrevocably have changed the character
>and thrown out a lot of what has always made him work. So I created other
>characters, wrote it as a prose story called "The Archetype" and sold it to
>F&SF.
Which issue? I'd like to read it.
Mario Di Giacomo
There's really only one thing I can contribute to this discussion (and
I'm a bit shocked that PAD hasn't brought it up)
"The Demolished Man" by Alfred Bester. The classic tale of murder in a
society of telepaths. It's even vaguely on topic, since he wrote Green
Lantern way back in the 50's (I believe).
mdg
Pariah
Mike Chary wrote:
> Well, since any number of comic books (Kingdom Come and JLA for two) have
> relied on him doing deep readings, that's a bit unreasonable. Here's a
> thought: if you don't like what a character can do, use another one or
> make your own character? How's that sound? Huh?
While I understand where you're coming from, I personally get irritated when you
have two nearly identical characters with only one minor difference, this would
be the case with a Martian Manhunter and a Venician Viking, who are identical
except in how far into the mind they can read...
> Now, I don't necessarily address this at PAD whom I trust a little.
> (Though you do seem to have this habit of altering character's abilities
> now that I think back on it) but at the general practice of writers who
> seem to say "Gosh, you know, I really like Superman, except for
> everything about him."
See, I agree with you here.. I wouldn't want someone taking over Manhunter and
saying that he can suddenly change into tables and change body textures, and
things he could not previously do, but can't become invisible and soforth.
There is a legitimate difference between slightly altering a character, and
drastically doign so.
Pariah
--
University of Houston, TX
"It's much easier to villainize an ideological opponent and label him immoral,
immature, or greedy, than to try to understand him as an opposing force for
good"
Pariah
Mike Chary wrote:
> And yes, there are dozens of options, but why use the character if you
> don't like what he can do?
Perhaps because you like every other aspect of the character except one?
pariah
BHMarks
Pariah <Par...@cheerful.com> said:
>I wouldn't want someone taking over Manhunter and
>saying that he can suddenly change into tables and change body textures, and
>things he could not previously do
He can't change into tables and change body texture?
News to me.
As ever,
Bennet
nyste...@yahoo.com
Mike Chary wrote (replying to PAD):
> Well, since any number of comic books (Kingdom Come and JLA for two) have
> relied on him doing deep readings, that's a bit unreasonable. Here's a
> thought: if you don't like what a character can do, use another one or
> make your own character? How's that sound? Huh?
>
> (Though you do seem to have this habit of altering character's abilities
> now that I think back on it) but at the general practice of writers who
> seem to say "Gosh, you know, I really like Superman, except for
> everything about him."
>
This is too funny. You've been talking to John Byrne, right?
Steve Wacker
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Mike Chary
Pariah <Par...@cheerful.com> wrote:
>
>
>Mike Chary wrote:
>
>> And yes, there are dozens of options, but why use the character if you
>> don't like what he can do?
>
>Perhaps because you like every other aspect of the character except one?
So you just throw that one out? Suppose what I don't like iis Batman's
utility belt?