QuoteTurkey: Children fostered by European gay couples will be retrieved
by Corinne Pinfold for PinkNews.co.uk
18 February 2013, 12:04pm
A campaign has been launched by the Turkish Government to retrieve Turkish children fostered by Christian families in Europe – starting with children fostered by gay and lesbian couples.
According to the Hurriyet Daily, the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag has instructed Turkish international representatives to start the process in the cases of three children fostered by gay couples in Belgium.
The children had been taken from their families by child welfare officers because of abuse claims, or because the families could not financially support their children.
An investigation was launched last month after the Turkish Government estimated that 5,000 such children had been given to Christian foster parents in Europe, rather than being matched to foster parents who share their faith and heritage.
The Turkish Parliamentary Human Rights Commission (TPHRC), which lead the investigation, reported that three of the children had been given to gay and lesbian couples in Belgium.
One child, Yunus, was taken from his family at 6-months-old after allegedly being dropped on the floor by his parents. He is now 9-years-old and lives with a lesbian couple in Belgium. His family had previously applied for his return, but had been rejected by courts.
Turkish authorities have begun legal proceeding to have Yunus and other Turkish children given to gay foster parents returned, citing a violation of human rights and psychological damage done to the child.
Speaking about Yunus' case Ayhan Sefer Ustun, head of the TPHRC, said: "We don't condemn that culture, but the child has been given to a foreign culture, to a lesbian family. Even if a child is taken from the [biological] family for the right reasons, he or she should be placed with a family closer to his or her culture."
He said he was concerned that the children would have their Turkish cultural background and Islamic religion "assimilated" by living with Christian European families.
"The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in a past ruling said that taking a Christian child from his family and giving him to a family of Jehovah's witnesses was not an appropriate act," he said. "This is a situation against human rights. It is an assimilation to take a child who has grown up with an Islamic culture to be given to a Christian family without a judicial decision."
"We have highly successful Turks in Europe. Turkish children could be given to such Turks," he added.
Well, first of all, the headline is pretty misleading.
And while the pink news website is now overflowing with "OMG Turks are homophobes do not let them into the EU" (which may very well be right in general), I think Turkish position on this is not without merit.
This is not about adoption, but about fostering and taking children away from representatives of one culture and giving them to representatives of another culture is not considered fine by modern human rights standards (in fact, if done on a mass and systemic scale, it could also amount to a "soft" genocide).
So what do you think?
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2013, 08:21:22 AM
So what do you think?
Heh that is kind of funny. We get crap in the US for trying to match up races for foster care and adoption and it seems if we did not racially profile like that we would be committing "soft" genocide and violating human rights. Man not being worse than Hitler is tough these days.
Anyway I do not have enough information to judge. If efforts were made to find Turkish foster parents and when there were none they were transferred over the general population then...yeah...what was Belgium supposed to do? If Belgium does some sort of 'colorblind' foster care they might want to consider modifying it, but I have a hard time imagining they do with their ethnic situation they surely try to match up Flemish kids with Flemish Foster Homes.
In most of these cases of OMG soft genocide the adoptees' own ethnic group is not willing or able to adopt.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2013, 09:00:03 AM
In most of these cases of OMG soft genocide the adoptees' own ethnic group is not willing or able to adopt.
Yep.
I thought this might have been a thread about homophobic superman - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/dc-comics-orson-scott-card_n_2663591.html
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2013, 08:21:22 AM
Well, first of all, the headline is pretty misleading.
And while the pink news website is now overflowing with "OMG Turks are homophobes do not let them into the EU" (which may very well be right in general), I think Turkish position on this is not without merit.
This is not about adoption, but about fostering and taking children away from representatives of one culture and giving them to representatives of another culture is not considered fine by modern human rights standards (in fact, if done on a mass and systemic scale, it could also amount to a "soft" genocide).
So what do you think?
Marty, I think this is a bit of an outrage. Not that they are trying to match turkish kids with turkish parents, but it says in the article they will start by taking the kids from gay and lesbian foster parents. So homophobia is at play here.
Also, while I don't have a problem with trying to match turkish kids with turkish parents, I do have a problem with taking kids from a family they are established with to give them to turkish parents.
I assume by "Christian" they mean "European?" I have a hard time believing there are many militantly Christian, same-sex, abusive foster parents adopting Turkish kids out there...
Quote from: alfred russel on February 18, 2013, 10:27:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 18, 2013, 08:21:22 AM
Well, first of all, the headline is pretty misleading.
And while the pink news website is now overflowing with "OMG Turks are homophobes do not let them into the EU" (which may very well be right in general), I think Turkish position on this is not without merit.
This is not about adoption, but about fostering and taking children away from representatives of one culture and giving them to representatives of another culture is not considered fine by modern human rights standards (in fact, if done on a mass and systemic scale, it could also amount to a "soft" genocide).
So what do you think?
Marty, I think this is a bit of an outrage. Not that they are trying to match turkish kids with turkish parents, but it says in the article they will start by taking the kids from gay and lesbian foster parents. So homophobia is at play here.
Also, while I don't have a problem with trying to match turkish kids with turkish parents, I do have a problem with taking kids from a family they are established with to give them to turkish parents.
Agreed on all counts.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on February 18, 2013, 10:32:01 AM
I assume by "Christian" they mean "European?" I have a hard time believing there are many militantly Christian, same-sex, abusive foster parents adopting Turkish kids out there...
Likely, though from how the article states it - the harm done by the gay parents is that they are gay.
OMG, devsirme Euro-style! Or worse, Euro-homo style! :D
Soft genocide sounds like a great idea. You eliminate the offending culture without physical destruction of their wealth, nor their phenotype. So when can we start with the Chinese?
Heck, if you're looking for things to be outraged about, I thought this was pretty dodgy:
QuoteOne child, Yunus, was taken from his family at 6-months-old after allegedly being dropped on the floor by his parents.
That's not abuse, just an accident, and not cause to remove a child from a home unless there is more than that to it.
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 09:29:53 AM
I thought this might have been a thread about homophobic superman - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/dc-comics-orson-scott-card_n_2663591.html
Silly. Just because OSC is making doesn't mean it will have homophobic content. Yawn.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 07:09:38 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 09:29:53 AM
I thought this might have been a thread about homophobic superman - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/dc-comics-orson-scott-card_n_2663591.html
Silly. Just because OSC is making doesn't mean it will have homophobic content. Yawn.
I don't think that is the complaint. In fact they actually state their complaint outright:
QuoteWe need to let DC Comics know they can't support Orson Scott Card or his work to keep LGBT people as second-class citizens.
They don't want DC Comics bankrolling him. Don't see an issue with that stance. :mellow:
Bankrolling what? Putting food on the table for his kids? Are the profits of the DC project going directly into some hate organization or something? As long as he's not putting that shit in Superman I don't see why the guy shouldn't be allowed to earn a living.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 08:17:18 PM
Bankrolling what? Putting food on the table for his kids? Are the profits of the DC project going directly into some hate organization or something? As long as he's not putting that shit in Superman I don't see why the guy shouldn't be allowed to earn a living.
I actually agree there. Before I found out he was a religious nutcase I had already found that there was a strict dividing line in his fiction. Some (e.g. Ender's Game) Was sublimely brilliant and the rest was very mediocre. If he gets it right he might contribute a brilliant story. It's a bit fakey outragey to demand that DC not employ him. DC already has some gay street cred with Earth 2's GL and Teen Titans Bunker being gay and nobody making an issue out of it (unlike the Pink Kryptonite schtick they had some time ago). OSC hasn't used his authorship to deal with the issue or any of the issues related to his idiotic religion. I see no reason that he will do so now.
This is soft target activism. You don't see the same groups demanding that the movie Ender's Game (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1731141/) (at least not to my knowledge) and if they had the courage of their convictions they would be acting against that instead since the movie will make OSC orders of magnitude more money than a single store for a non-canon one off book.
Edit: And of course Batwoman, but that book only exists because when asked DC ixnayed the suggestion that they make Batgirl a lesbian, but like the idea of a lesbian bat.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 08:17:18 PM
Bankrolling what? Putting food on the table for his kids? Are the profits of the DC project going directly into some hate organization or something? As long as he's not putting that shit in Superman I don't see why the guy shouldn't be allowed to earn a living.
Do we now live in a universe where anyone is entitled to earn a living, let alone doing what they want? Great news, if true. :)
Anyway, besides the fact that no bigot should be working on fucking Superman--he could work on other properties, less offensively, but Superman stands for tolerance, amongst other things--a big concern with Card working on Superman is that novels =/= comics and talent from other media have been notoriously bad at making comics, e.g. Brad Meltzer, JMS, Kevin Smith. Lack of professionalism is an overriding theme with them, especially JMS and Smith. Also, more specifically, the Iron Man comics Card himself did write were both bad and ridiculous, although I will grant they did, afaik, come out on time, and he didn't give up halfway through as Straczynski is wont to do (he's abandoned ongoing projects without resolving them at least four times).
(As a counteragument, Joss Whedon is actually pretty okay in comics, but I'd argue that his work has been nothing particularly special in the medium, though obviously he's made great hay with the some comics properties.)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 08:17:18 PM
Bankrolling what? Putting food on the table for his kids? Are the profits of the DC project going directly into some hate organization or something? As long as he's not putting that shit in Superman I don't see why the guy shouldn't be allowed to earn a living.
Well seeing as how he is the member of a hate organization, I'd assume he donates some of his money that way.
I don't see anything wrong with people calling for a bigot to be drummed out of town, so to speak. DC doesn't need to agree but I don't see anything wrong with people who don't want to see bigots hired.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2013, 02:35:43 PM
Soft genocide sounds like a great idea. You eliminate the offending culture without physical destruction of their wealth, nor their phenotype. So when can we start with the Chinese?
Mao offered the US 10 million Chinese women, Kissinger declined.
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 08:32:46 PM
This is soft target activism. You don't see the same groups demanding that the movie Ender's Game (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1731141/) (at least not to my knowledge) and if they had the courage of their convictions they would be acting against that instead since the movie will make OSC orders of magnitude more money than a single store for a non-canon one off book.
Still pretty far out - that's not coming till the fall right?
Anyway, quick search showed a lot of chatter about whether or not the film should be boycotted by gays.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 18, 2013, 09:03:58 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2013, 02:35:43 PM
Soft genocide sounds like a great idea. You eliminate the offending culture without physical destruction of their wealth, nor their phenotype. So when can we start with the Chinese?
Moa offered the US 10 million Chinese women, Kissinger declined.
Kissinger knew that the stone faced bastard wasn't good for it.
Actually now looking at this more, the dude has said some pretty awful things about gay people. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:06:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 08:32:46 PM
This is soft target activism. You don't see the same groups demanding that the movie Ender's Game (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1731141/) (at least not to my knowledge) and if they had the courage of their convictions they would be acting against that instead since the movie will make OSC orders of magnitude more money than a single store for a non-canon one off book.
Still pretty far out - that's not coming till the fall right?
Anyway, quick search showed a lot of chatter about whether or not the film should be boycotted by gays.
Is there any chatter about whether or not the studio should make the film? I don't have a user at "The back door room" so I'm not au-courant on this issue.
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 09:08:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:06:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 08:32:46 PM
This is soft target activism. You don't see the same groups demanding that the movie Ender's Game (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1731141/) (at least not to my knowledge) and if they had the courage of their convictions they would be acting against that instead since the movie will make OSC orders of magnitude more money than a single store for a non-canon one off book.
Still pretty far out - that's not coming till the fall right?
Anyway, quick search showed a lot of chatter about whether or not the film should be boycotted by gays.
Is there any chatter about whether or not the studio should make the film? I don't have a user at "The back door room" so I'm not au-courant on this issue.
I've no idea. You can do your own google search.
My point was just that it wasn't hypocritical to not be boycotting a movie months before most people even know about it - let alone have the actual opportunity to see it.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:11:27 PM
I've no idea. You can do your own google search.
You claimed knowledge of the contents of the gay grapevine. I don't, so I ask you, the expert (at least relative to me).
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:11:27 PM
My point was just that it wasn't hypocritical to not be boycotting a movie months before most people even know about it - let alone have the actual opportunity to see it.
The demand of DC is not that people boycott the book, but rather that DC should not employ him as a writer. The equivalent for the movie is not that the movie be boycotted but rather that the studio not make the movie.
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 09:14:42 PM
You claimed knowledge of the contents of the gay grapevine. I don't, so I ask you, the expert (at least relative to me).
Actually I said that I did a quick search. That's not expert knowledge - and hence you are free to do your own search if you'd like to know more.
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 09:14:42 PM
The demand of DC is not that people boycott the book, but rather that DC should not employ him as a writer. The equivalent for the movie is not that the movie be boycotted but rather that the studio not make the movie.
As to your other point, meh, maybe so. Though your initial post wasn't clear as you just said acting against it. I'd say if these superman thing is any indication (and the mentions of ender's game in most of the articles about this brouhaha), you'll get people acting against it at some point. :D
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 18, 2013, 09:03:58 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2013, 02:35:43 PM
Soft genocide sounds like a great idea. You eliminate the offending culture without physical destruction of their wealth, nor their phenotype. So when can we start with the Chinese?
Moa offered the US 10 million Chinese women, Kissinger declined.
That's a shame.
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 08:32:46 PM
the suggestion that they make Batgirl a lesbian,
Well, hello.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 18, 2013, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 08:32:46 PM
the suggestion that they make Batgirl a lesbian,
Well, hello.
Harley Quinn taking a strap on to batgirl? I'd buy that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 18, 2013, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 18, 2013, 08:32:46 PM
the suggestion that they make Batgirl a lesbian,
Well, hello.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-pYvly5DgfD8%2FTaFRSYAoy7I%2FAAAAAAAACAQ%2FshsRS0B-JGU%2Fs1600%2Fkate%252Band%252Brenee.jpg&hash=59d882862aa239197059cf84d53848cf1f5f82c7)
Today's Kathy Kane doesn't look a think like the original and (like batgirl) has a batlike costume (no yellow) and like batgirl has long red hair (though the long hair in the costume is a wig). Batgirl actually does observe that people mix them up.
They're also pretty much not remotely similar characters. Kane's a DADT reject from the U.S. Army whose mother and (she believed at the time) sister got killed by terrorists--put the two together and she felt like her only option was beating people up while dressed in a costume. Barbara Gordon was a thrillseeker who started fighting crime for kicks and whose mother left her father because he was a terrible husband (and then at some point she retired, but the Joker crippled her in her non-Batgirl capacity, and she started working with computers and became Oracle--then they fucked that up and made her Batgirl again for no obvious reason, though her decades-long paraplegia was increasingly silly in the wider world of the DC universe and its various applications of super-science).
I lost track of Batwoman when JH Williams III took a vacation from the title. Has she wound up killing anybody yet? The whole Batman rule thing, while stupid in any context and especially in a context where you're bludgeoning people in the head on a frequent basis, seems even sillier when applied to a former soldier whose morality clearly encompasses justifiable killing. They were actually, perhaps, leading up to that when I dropped out, since she'd been co-opted by the federal government. This is interesting, since the last time Batman showed up in her comic, he revealed that he does indeed hate our troops.
I also wonder--if the character is enduring--how comic book time will mess up Kate Kane's origins. Getting shitcanned from Westpoint or wherever she was for fucking girls when you are a girl is confined to a pretty particular time. There's no "OK, Reed Richards and Ben Grimm are Korean War vets now"-style handwave. In ten or fifteen years, she'll have to be forty, because DADT stopped being a thing last year. And not only is it specific, but it's also integral, since in the event there was no DADT dismissal, there's no reason she isn't enhancing our interrogation techniques in Afghanistan. Then again, this is the same company that, during their recent reboot, decided it was no issue for Batman to have had five Robins in a whole career spanning five to, at most, ten years.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:02:19 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 08:17:18 PM
Bankrolling what? Putting food on the table for his kids? Are the profits of the DC project going directly into some hate organization or something? As long as he's not putting that shit in Superman I don't see why the guy shouldn't be allowed to earn a living.
Well seeing as how he is the member of a hate organization, I'd assume he donates some of his money that way.
I don't see anything wrong with people calling for a bigot to be drummed out of town, so to speak. DC doesn't need to agree but I don't see anything wrong with people who don't want to see bigots hired.
Would you take that position if instead of a famous (and I suppose wealthy, or at least well-to-do) author, he was some unknown person employeed as a janitor, who had made anit-gay remarks in public (but not while on the clock, or on his employer's premises)?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2013, 10:56:58 PM
I also wonder--if the character is enduring--how comic book time will mess up Kate Kane's origins. Getting shitcanned from Westpoint or wherever she was for fucking girls when you are a girl is confined to a pretty particular time. There's no "OK, Reed Richards and Ben Grimm are Korean War vets now"-style handwave. In ten or fifteen years, she'll have to be forty, because DADT stopped being a thing last year. And not only is it specific, but it's also integral, since in the event there was no DADT dismissal, there's no reason she isn't enhancing our interrogation techniques in Afghanistan. Then again, this is the same company that, during their recent reboot, decided it was no issue for Batman to have had five Robins in a whole career spanning five to, at most, ten years.
Very easy to retcon another reason for her to get tossed from the academy, while still leaving her a lesbian.
Except those reasons would leave her at fault, when the point was that she was blamelessly prevented from serving her country/her community/justice.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 01:21:44 AM
Except those reasons would leave her at fault, when the point was that she was blamelessly prevented from serving her country/her community/justice.
Not necessarily. She could have been wrongly found guilty of some misconduct.
Okay, I'm not really into Comics, but why not just have Batman age and be replaced by a new Batman. Like by Robin or some long lost relative. Or just make him really fucking old.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2013, 10:56:58 PM
They're also pretty much not remotely similar characters. Kane's a DADT reject from the U.S. Army whose mother and (she believed at the time) sister got killed by terrorists--put the two together and she felt like her only option was beating people up while dressed in a costume. Barbara Gordon was a thrillseeker who started fighting crime for kicks and whose mother left her father because he was a terrible husband (and then at some point she retired, but the Joker crippled her in her non-Batgirl capacity, and she started working with computers and became Oracle--then they fucked that up and made her Batgirl again for no obvious reason, though her decades-long paraplegia was increasingly silly in the wider world of the DC universe and its various applications of super-science).
BWs lesbianism is her raison d'etre. Apart from her lesbianism she is merely a "generic superhero". BG's desire to please/help her real and adopted father's is hers.
At the time of the new 52 Re-Boot Barbra Gordon was oracle and in love with Robin1/Nightwing. Stephanie Brown was batgirl. There were competing ideas. e.g. keep Stephanie as BG and Barbra as Oracle. And rumor has it lesbian batgirl was considered and canned.
While the backstories are different you did end up with a completely new Batwoman complete with batgirl style costume, batgirl style adopting the identity without batmans permission, batgirl style winning his grudging respect, batgirl style daddy issues (you forgot how her father's job at DHS type agency got her the starting kit), batgirl style lawenforcement daddy under stress, batgirl style lack of mother. The main difference is the lack of the batgirl style optimistic personality (which makes her likable), batgirl style vulnerability (she is a little girl/small woman) and the lack of a batgirl style "he's like a brother"/"i've always been in love with" confusing with grayson.
Do away with Barbra Gordon's childish bits and make her a lesbian with batman's fashon sense and you have batwoman.
What I do like about batgirl is that she truly has no advantages, she has no powers, she doesn't have innate skills or money (at least when she starts). She also doesn't have a creation trauma. She does it because it is the right thing to do and at one point before the killing joke she does come to her senses and retires. If batman is determined and focused and rich, she is spirited and hopeful.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2013, 10:56:58 PM
I lost track of Batwoman when JH Williams III took a vacation from the title. Has she wound up killing anybody yet? The whole Batman rule thing, while stupid in any context and especially in a context where you're bludgeoning people in the head on a frequent basis, seems even sillier when applied to a former soldier whose morality clearly encompasses justifiable killing. They were actually, perhaps, leading up to that when I dropped out, since she'd been co-opted by the federal government. This is interesting, since the last time Batman showed up in her comic, he revealed that he does indeed hate our troops.
I also wonder--if the character is enduring--how comic book time will mess up Kate Kane's origins. Getting shitcanned from Westpoint or wherever she was for fucking girls when you are a girl is confined to a pretty particular time. There's no "OK, Reed Richards and Ben Grimm are Korean War vets now"-style handwave. In ten or fifteen years, she'll have to be forty, because DADT stopped being a thing last year. And not only is it specific, but it's also integral, since in the event there was no DADT dismissal, there's no reason she isn't enhancing our interrogation techniques in Afghanistan. Then again, this is the same company that, during their recent reboot, decided it was no issue for Batman to have had five Robins in a whole career spanning five to, at most, ten years.
I stopped reading Batwoman at the end of Hydrology, so I don't know if she killed anybody. The artwork was beautiful but I just couldn't get myself to care about the character.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 03:35:58 AM
Okay, I'm not really into Comics, but why not just have Batman age and be replaced by a new Batman. Like by Robin or some long lost relative. Or just make him really fucking old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Beyond_(comics)
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 01:21:44 AM
Except those reasons would leave her at fault, when the point was that she was blamelessly prevented from serving her country/her community/justice.
Make her short and unable to match the height requirement. That worked fine to blamelessly prevent Barbra Gordon from serving country/gotham/justice as a police officer.
How the fuck did this thread got derailed into Batman talk?
Quote from: dps on February 19, 2013, 01:01:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:02:19 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 08:17:18 PM
Bankrolling what? Putting food on the table for his kids? Are the profits of the DC project going directly into some hate organization or something? As long as he's not putting that shit in Superman I don't see why the guy shouldn't be allowed to earn a living.
Well seeing as how he is the member of a hate organization, I'd assume he donates some of his money that way.
I don't see anything wrong with people calling for a bigot to be drummed out of town, so to speak. DC doesn't need to agree but I don't see anything wrong with people who don't want to see bigots hired.
Would you take that position if instead of a famous (and I suppose wealthy, or at least well-to-do) author, he was some unknown person employeed as a janitor, who had made anit-gay remarks in public (but not while on the clock, or on his employer's premises)?
Why would I waste my time caring about janitors? :unsure:
On the not flippant side - I think you might be missing the point. I don't think people are protesting because he is famous (though certainly you have to know of someone to protest them - which would be hard with an unknown janitor) but as Card has written many articles about the evils of homosexuality and is on the board for NOM. Highly unlikely that this unknown janitor would be do either of those.
So without more details, I can only say it would depend on what sort of remarks, to whom, and what their reach was.
Quote from: Martinus on February 19, 2013, 07:19:45 AM
How the fuck did this thread got derailed into Batman talk?
Well.. Crazy Mormon fundies are more interesting the abused children in turkey
batgirl as a lesbian is more interesting than crazy mormon fundies
nerdrage about whether batwoman is derivative or not is more interesting than batgirl as a lesbian
thats how.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:02:19 PM
I don't see anything wrong with people calling for a bigot to be drummed out of town, so to speak. DC doesn't need to agree but I don't see anything wrong with people who don't want to see bigots hired.
And that's why every fag in the world has to die or be cured. With that kind of trash, tolerance is always a one-way street.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:59:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:02:19 PM
I don't see anything wrong with people calling for a bigot to be drummed out of town, so to speak. DC doesn't need to agree but I don't see anything wrong with people who don't want to see bigots hired.
And that's why every fag in the world has to die or be cured. With that kind of trash, tolerance is always a one-way street.
He can say what he wants - but that doesn't mean gays have to fund his lifestyle. ;)
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 01:21:44 AM
Except those reasons would leave her at fault, when the point was that she was blamelessly prevented from serving her country/her community/justice.
She could punch out an officer or something for grabbing her ass.
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:59:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:02:19 PM
I don't see anything wrong with people calling for a bigot to be drummed out of town, so to speak. DC doesn't need to agree but I don't see anything wrong with people who don't want to see bigots hired.
And that's why every fag in the world has to die or be cured. With that kind of trash, tolerance is always a one-way street.
He can say what he wants - but that doesn't mean gays have to fund his lifestyle. ;)
Yes, they do. That's what tolerance is all about.
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:21:58 AM
Quote from: dps on February 19, 2013, 01:01:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:02:19 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 08:17:18 PM
Bankrolling what? Putting food on the table for his kids? Are the profits of the DC project going directly into some hate organization or something? As long as he's not putting that shit in Superman I don't see why the guy shouldn't be allowed to earn a living.
Well seeing as how he is the member of a hate organization, I'd assume he donates some of his money that way.
I don't see anything wrong with people calling for a bigot to be drummed out of town, so to speak. DC doesn't need to agree but I don't see anything wrong with people who don't want to see bigots hired.
Would you take that position if instead of a famous (and I suppose wealthy, or at least well-to-do) author, he was some unknown person employeed as a janitor, who had made anit-gay remarks in public (but not while on the clock, or on his employer's premises)?
Why would I waste my time caring about janitors? :unsure:
It's not clear to me why anyone would waste their time caring about Orson Scott Card.
Quote from: dps on February 19, 2013, 09:10:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 07:21:58 AM
Quote from: dps on February 19, 2013, 01:01:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:02:19 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2013, 08:17:18 PM
Bankrolling what? Putting food on the table for his kids? Are the profits of the DC project going directly into some hate organization or something? As long as he's not putting that shit in Superman I don't see why the guy shouldn't be allowed to earn a living.
Well seeing as how he is the member of a hate organization, I'd assume he donates some of his money that way.
I don't see anything wrong with people calling for a bigot to be drummed out of town, so to speak. DC doesn't need to agree but I don't see anything wrong with people who don't want to see bigots hired.
Would you take that position if instead of a famous (and I suppose wealthy, or at least well-to-do) author, he was some unknown person employeed as a janitor, who had made anit-gay remarks in public (but not while on the clock, or on his employer's premises)?
Why would I waste my time caring about janitors? :unsure:
It's not clear to me why anyone would waste their time caring about Orson Scott Card.
Because he is making money and I guess they care about Superman comics? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
He can say what he wants - but that doesn't mean gays have to fund his lifestyle. ;)
I still don't think you have addressed the concern I raised about the difference between boycotting a product and demanding that the publisher not publish the product. Do you think that they are functionally identical?
Not to mention the issue of whether the man can separate his personal political and religious views from his work.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 09:07:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:59:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:02:19 PM
I don't see anything wrong with people calling for a bigot to be drummed out of town, so to speak. DC doesn't need to agree but I don't see anything wrong with people who don't want to see bigots hired.
And that's why every fag in the world has to die or be cured. With that kind of trash, tolerance is always a one-way street.
He can say what he wants - but that doesn't mean gays have to fund his lifestyle. ;)
Yes, they do. That's what tolerance is all about.
So do I not tolerate you as I don't give you money? :unsure:
Get back to lesbian Batgirls, dammit.
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 09:20:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 09:07:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:59:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2013, 09:02:19 PM
I don't see anything wrong with people calling for a bigot to be drummed out of town, so to speak. DC doesn't need to agree but I don't see anything wrong with people who don't want to see bigots hired.
And that's why every fag in the world has to die or be cured. With that kind of trash, tolerance is always a one-way street.
He can say what he wants - but that doesn't mean gays have to fund his lifestyle. ;)
Yes, they do. That's what tolerance is all about.
So do I not tolerate you as I don't give you money? :unsure:
No. I tolerate you because I don't try and get you fired and do my level best to eliminate any way for you to earn a living.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 09:20:34 AM
Get back to lesbian Batgirls, dammit.
Do your own damn googling. Rule 34 is your friend.
Quote from: Viking on February 19, 2013, 09:19:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
He can say what he wants - but that doesn't mean gays have to fund his lifestyle. ;)
I still don't think you have addressed the concern I raised about the difference between boycotting a product and demanding that the publisher not publish the product. Do you think that they are functionally identical?
Not to mention the issue of whether the man can separate his personal political and religious views from his work.
Actually, I don't think that there's a demand that DC not publish the comic, but that they get someone else to write it.
Quote from: dps on February 19, 2013, 09:41:38 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 19, 2013, 09:19:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
He can say what he wants - but that doesn't mean gays have to fund his lifestyle. ;)
I still don't think you have addressed the concern I raised about the difference between boycotting a product and demanding that the publisher not publish the product. Do you think that they are functionally identical?
Not to mention the issue of whether the man can separate his personal political and religious views from his work.
Actually, I don't think that there's a demand that DC not publish the comic, but that they get someone else to write it.
If there is any doubt, when I refer to the product I mean the the story as written by OSC, not the whole project of which OSC's story is merely one bit.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 03:35:58 AM
Okay, I'm not really into Comics, but why not just have Batman age and be replaced by a new Batman. Like by Robin or some long lost relative. Or just make him really fucking old.
Bruce Wayne died (well... the reality is more complicated and too goofy to go into here) and was replaced by Dick Grayson. That was cool, as Grayson has a much different (and more interesting) personality than Wayne, and this briefly made me interested in Batman. Unfortunately, it didn't last. At DC, it never does. The replacement Flash, Green Lantern, and Green Arrow had already been retired or marginalized in favor of their previously dead, and always duller, predecessors. I sort of understood the latter two, but it surprised me a lot when they did it to Wally West (the Flash) since he was the Flash all but the oldest comic book nerds grew up with, and Barry Allen (his predecessor, first appearing in 1956, and dying in 1985) is inferior in pretty much all respects.
Quote from: Viking on February 19, 2013, 06:51:26 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2013, 10:56:58 PM
They're also pretty much not remotely similar characters. Kane's a DADT reject from the U.S. Army whose mother and (she believed at the time) sister got killed by terrorists--put the two together and she felt like her only option was beating people up while dressed in a costume. Barbara Gordon was a thrillseeker who started fighting crime for kicks and whose mother left her father because he was a terrible husband (and then at some point she retired, but the Joker crippled her in her non-Batgirl capacity, and she started working with computers and became Oracle--then they fucked that up and made her Batgirl again for no obvious reason, though her decades-long paraplegia was increasingly silly in the wider world of the DC universe and its various applications of super-science).
BWs lesbianism is her raison d'etre. Apart from her lesbianism she is merely a "generic superhero". BG's desire to please/help her real and adopted father's is hers.
At the time of the new 52 Re-Boot Barbra Gordon was oracle and in love with Robin1/Nightwing. Stephanie Brown was batgirl. There were competing ideas. e.g. keep Stephanie as BG and Barbra as Oracle. And rumor has it lesbian batgirl was considered and canned.
While the backstories are different you did end up with a completely new Batwoman complete with batgirl style costume, batgirl style adopting the identity without batmans permission, batgirl style winning his grudging respect, batgirl style daddy issues (you forgot how her father's job at DHS type agency got her the starting kit), batgirl style lawenforcement daddy under stress, batgirl style lack of mother. The main difference is the lack of the batgirl style optimistic personality (which makes her likable), batgirl style vulnerability (she is a little girl/small woman) and the lack of a batgirl style "he's like a brother"/"i've always been in love with" confusing with grayson.
Do away with Barbra Gordon's childish bits and make her a lesbian with batman's fashon sense and you have batwoman.
The militarism inherent in Batwoman is different.
QuoteWhat I do like about batgirl is that she truly has no advantages, she has no powers, she doesn't have innate skills or money (at least when she starts). She also doesn't have a creation trauma. She does it because it is the right thing to do and at one point before the killing joke she does come to her senses and retires. If batman is determined and focused and rich, she is spirited and hopeful.
Sure, that can be fun. Ted Kord was the same way (except he was in fact rich), doing superheroism for kicks.
QuoteI stopped reading Batwoman at the end of Hydrology, so I don't know if she killed anybody. The artwork was beautiful but I just couldn't get myself to care about the character.
Different strokes. I thought she was pretty interesting. But the Williams art is the main draw--and I do think Williams has the ability to plot competently and definitely the ability to conjure up stories demanding interest imagery. Still, his scripts are a little weak. I'd say I'd wished Rucka had stuck around to continue to write his co-creation, but then Rucka, while always readable, isn't going to wow anyone either.
Anyway, I preferred both teenage and pregnant Batgirl and breath (all kinds) and martial arts (all kinds) Batgirl to Barbara Gordon, whom I never particularly cared about, but especially when she became Oracle (I HAVE A MAGIC COMPUTER). Unfortunately, I forget what they even did with Stephanie Brown and Cassandra Cain they ruined very early on by giving her the ability to speak via telepathy/plot convenience, hence disposing themselves of any and all of the inherently interesting elements they'd set up with a mute/quasi-feral woman.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 07:31:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 03:35:58 AM
Okay, I'm not really into Comics, but why not just have Batman age and be replaced by a new Batman. Like by Robin or some long lost relative. Or just make him really fucking old.
Bruce Wayne died (well... the reality is more complicated and too goofy to go into here) and was replaced by Dick Grayson. That was cool, as Grayson has a much different (and more interesting) personality than Wayne, and this briefly made me interested in Batman. Unfortunately, it didn't last. At DC, it never does. The replacement Flash, Green Lantern, and Green Arrow had already been retired or marginalized in favor of their previously dead, and always duller, predecessors. I sort of understood the latter two, but it surprised me a lot when they did it to Wally West (the Flash) since he was the Flash all but the oldest comic book nerds grew up with, and Barry Allen (his predecessor, first appearing in 1956, and dying in 1985) is inferior in pretty much all respects.
That's what the whole new 52 is about. Flashpoint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashpoint_(comics)) resets all continuity by having wally-flash and reverse-flash tit-for-tat reset history at an earlier and earlier point. iirc wally-flash wins by resetting himself out of existence meaning reverse-flash never exists meaning he never starts the flashpoint event meaning original barry-flash exists again.. it's all very convoluted.
Though, I may remember the whole thing wrong.... The DC resets are messy, especially so since DC really doesn't bother with continuity between them.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 07:31:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 03:35:58 AM
Okay, I'm not really into Comics, but why not just have Batman age and be replaced by a new Batman. Like by Robin or some long lost relative. Or just make him really fucking old.
Bruce Wayne died (well... the reality is more complicated and too goofy to go into here) and was replaced by Dick Grayson. That was cool, as Grayson has a much different (and more interesting) personality than Wayne, and this briefly made me interested in Batman. Unfortunately, it didn't last. At DC, it never does. The replacement Flash, Green Lantern, and Green Arrow had already been retired or marginalized in favor of their previously dead, and always duller, predecessors. I sort of understood the latter two, but it surprised me a lot when they did it to Wally West (the Flash) since he was the Flash all but the oldest comic book nerds grew up with, and Barry Allen (his predecessor, first appearing in 1956, and dying in 1985) is inferior in pretty much all respects.
Nolan wasn't making movies about Nightwing. Blame your boy.
And there is no way that Kyle Rayner is more interesting than Hal Jordan. You're probably the sort of guy who prefers some random spic teenager to Ted Kord.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 07:42:27 PM
Anyway, I preferred both teenage and pregnant Batgirl and breath (all kinds) and martial arts (all kinds) Batgirl to Barbara Gordon, whom I never particularly cared about, but especially when she became Oracle (I HAVE A MAGIC COMPUTER). Unfortunately, I forget what they even did with Stephanie Brown and Cassandra Cain they ruined very early on by giving her the ability to speak via telepathy/plot convenience, hence disposing themselves of any and all of the inherently interesting elements they'd set up with a mute/quasi-feral woman.
Cassie's superpowers were nerfed by allowing her to speak. She was still too overpowered. I never really liked her. Mute characters do not work in comic books unless they are super expressive in feature and gesture. The image-comic format means you don't see the gestures in motion and putting a mask not only on the head and eyes but the mouth as well sort of negates the rest. No winks, smiles, frowns or any kind of facial feature means she can't show emotion, fortunately for the character she didn't have any.
Stephanie "no longer exists" after flashpoint. Her last issue has her exposing her dad as "chief plotter" in the longer arc going on at the time. The last few images of Batgirl #24 has her "future" as batgirl, nightwing and mother. The writer of the smallville season 11 comic wanted her to be nightwing in that, but they went with Barbara, apparently
http://www.wired.com/geekmom/2012/07/nightwing-swapped-out-in-smallville/
QuoteChuck Dixon, the co-creator of Stephanie Brown, says it sure seems like someone doesn't like the character, despite the critical acclaim of her solo series as Batgirl by Smallville Season 11 writer Miller.
"Someone at DC does not like Stephanie Brown. They killed her and now they're removing her from books," Dixon said. "I don't mean to be paranoid but the Spoiler's never even had an action figure and Mister Terrific has had two. (if you just asked yourself "Who?", you're not alone) I only created Steph as a plot device for an arc in Detective Comics. But the fans asked for more in in fact ASSUMED there would be more. And fan assumptions are a powerful force."
and even worse
http://www.wired.com/geekmom/2012/06/bat-character-that-wont-die/
QuoteSteph moved from The Spoiler to a blonde-haired Robin but quickly became cannon fodder as she was tortured by the villain Black Mask and died at the end of the War Games crossover. To add insult to injury, DC even offered a Black Mask figurine complete with the tools used to torture Steph.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 07:55:14 PM
Nolan wasn't making movies about Nightwing. Blame your boy.
And there is no way that Kyle Rayner is more interesting than Hal Jordan. You're probably the sort of guy who prefers some random spic teenager to Ted Kord.
A Guy Gardiner GL Movie might work, if only because Guy is a douche.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 07:55:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 07:31:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 03:35:58 AM
Okay, I'm not really into Comics, but why not just have Batman age and be replaced by a new Batman. Like by Robin or some long lost relative. Or just make him really fucking old.
Bruce Wayne died (well... the reality is more complicated and too goofy to go into here) and was replaced by Dick Grayson. That was cool, as Grayson has a much different (and more interesting) personality than Wayne, and this briefly made me interested in Batman. Unfortunately, it didn't last. At DC, it never does. The replacement Flash, Green Lantern, and Green Arrow had already been retired or marginalized in favor of their previously dead, and always duller, predecessors. I sort of understood the latter two, but it surprised me a lot when they did it to Wally West (the Flash) since he was the Flash all but the oldest comic book nerds grew up with, and Barry Allen (his predecessor, first appearing in 1956, and dying in 1985) is inferior in pretty much all respects.
Nolan wasn't making movies about Nightwing. Blame your boy.
And there is no way that Kyle Rayner is more interesting than Hal Jordan. You're probably the sort of guy who prefers some random spic teenager to Ted Kord.
Sometimes I think you don't even know me. :angry:
Then don't talk shit about Jordan and Kord.
Why does Batman even need a sidekick? Especially underage ones? The only reason I could think of is as a replacement. Maybe he feels if he looks better if someone even worse dressed is with him.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 19, 2013, 09:00:51 PM
Why does Batman even need a sidekick? Especially underage ones? The only reason I could think of is as a replacement. Maybe he feels if he looks better if someone even worse dressed is with him.
1. He needs a "Watson" to explain his reasoning to without endless thought bubbles.
2. He, or his comic book, needs an entry point for kids to imagine themselves into the story.
3. He needs a "Lois Lane" to be rescued.
4. He, or his book, needs occasional comic relief.
and
5. Since 1984 ish, he needs them to pose as anti-thesis to his thesis when bringing up moral topics.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:45:52 PM
Then don't talk shit about Jordan and Kord.
I specifically left Ted Kord out of the discussion. JLI forever.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:45:52 PM
Then don't talk shit about Jordan and Kord.
I specifically left Ted Kord out of the discussion. JLI forever.
Well, that's good.
But how are any of the other Lanterns the equal of Jordan?
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 09:25:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:45:52 PM
Then don't talk shit about Jordan and Kord.
I specifically left Ted Kord out of the discussion. JLI forever.
Well, that's good.
But how are any of the other Lanterns the equal of Jordan?
By not being limited by his silver age origin?
Quote from: Viking on February 19, 2013, 09:28:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 09:25:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:45:52 PM
Then don't talk shit about Jordan and Kord.
I specifically left Ted Kord out of the discussion. JLI forever.
Well, that's good.
But how are any of the other Lanterns the equal of Jordan?
By not being limited by his silver age origin?
I don't think that Jordan's origin limits him at all.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 09:36:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 19, 2013, 09:28:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 09:25:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:45:52 PM
Then don't talk shit about Jordan and Kord.
I specifically left Ted Kord out of the discussion. JLI forever.
Well, that's good.
But how are any of the other Lanterns the equal of Jordan?
By not being limited by his silver age origin?
I don't think that Jordan's origin limits him at all.
It just makes him more of a generic hero type than the later lanterns.
Quote from: Viking on February 19, 2013, 09:39:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 09:36:32 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 19, 2013, 09:28:17 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 09:25:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 19, 2013, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 08:45:52 PM
Then don't talk shit about Jordan and Kord.
I specifically left Ted Kord out of the discussion. JLI forever.
Well, that's good.
But how are any of the other Lanterns the equal of Jordan?
By not being limited by his silver age origin?
I don't think that Jordan's origin limits him at all.
It just makes him more of a generic hero type than the later lanterns.
Except John Stewart, Guy Gardner and Kyle Rayner all have similar origin stories, becuase that's how the Green Lantern rings work.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 09:45:05 PM
Except John Stewart, Guy Gardner and Kyle Rayner all have similar origin stories, becuase that's how the Green Lantern rings work.
The issue isn't origins, but rather the characters themselves. The later lanterns came into existence at a time when there were higher expectations of characterization and personality. Jordan is a test pilot without fear, people like that don't exist in reality. A juvenile delinquent, a veteran with a grudge and a wishy washy graphic designer (why this guy wasn't the gay lantern I don't know) are real characters as opposed to the hero type that jordan is.
Jordan has had a lot more fleshing out. He's superior in every way.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 10:00:57 PM
Jordan has had a lot more fleshing out. He's superior in every way.
My point is that the other lanterns started fleshed out.
Quote from: Viking on February 19, 2013, 10:06:03 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2013, 10:00:57 PM
Jordan has had a lot more fleshing out. He's superior in every way.
My point is that the other lanterns started fleshed out.
They really didn't though. You're just asserting that Hal Jordan is too cool to be believable, and that the college football star, the war hero and the shiftless hippie goof are more believable. Be that as it may, none of them has matched Jordan's popularity and endurance.