Fundamentals of Woke: Heroism

[Cognisant]

This is a response to the tangent that came up in "Superheroes, how do they work?"
You can find that thread in the Fun section.

Here's the YouTube video that informed my thoughts on this subject: Superman: Collateral Damage – Detail Diatribe
The video is an hour long but you'll get the gist of it in the first 15min.
It's not required watching but I highly recommend it, Red and Blue are a joy to listen to.

Let's begin,
Super-Man is exactly what it says on the tin, he's the archetypal man exaggerated, and exaggeration is a literary technique used to examine something, like how something appears bigger under a microscope, the exaggeration of the archetypal man into a persona larger-than-life allows us to examine it more closely. Consequently examining the character of Superman over time, how he is portrayed and how audiences react to these portrayals, gives us an insight into both the perceived and actual public consensus of the archetypal man (i.e. the concept of a man) at that time.

Now I could give a detailed breakdown of that decade by decade, through each era of the comic book industry, culminating in the various Superman movies and where the comics are at in the present day. I'm not going to do that because Overly Sarcastic Productions have a whole series of detailed diatribes regarding Superman and I'm not going to spend the next week or two writing a massive text wall that I'm damn sure nobody's going to take the time to actually read.

Just go watch those videos.

Now assuming you have, or you know enough about Superman in pop culture that you don't need to, or you're generously willing to hear me out at face value, here's the points I want to make.

1. As arguably one of the first superheroes, possibly the actual first if you're pedantic about the definition of a Super-hero, it's undeniable that Superman has incredible staying power and enduring popularity, and I think there's a reason for that which goes beyond him simply being a power fantasy.
2. Superman stories have been very hit-and-miss in recent decades, to be fair it's always going to be difficult to write new and interesting stories for a character that's been around for so long, but when movie critics and literary theorist talk about what makes a good Superman story it always seems to revolve around getting the character right.
3. What everyone seems to agree on is that the 1978 Superman movie (which wasn't a great movie in all regards) absolutely nailed the portrayal and intrinsic appeal of the Superman character, indeed it was arguably that movie which introduced Hollywood to the concept of superheroes as a worthwhile subject for movie making.

Based on these three arguments I speculate that modern culture, or more specifically modern writers, have difficulty writing heroic characters, not just Superman but heroic characters in general, but as Superman is such a paragon of heroism it affects his character more than most. In part it's the "too cool to care" effect, as people tend to associate darker/grittier content with age restrictions and therefore maturity the paragon hero appears childish to them, lacking the nuance of an anti-hero or villain protagonist. Enter Batman, the grittier and edgier counterpart to Superman, yes that's soo much more mature

Also I think modern men just kinda suck.

The whole premise of the Super-Man is that as someone privileged with inherently greater capabilities he has a duty to use that privilege to protect and serve others (like a police-Man), not an obligation, it's not a job he's payed for or a task imposed upon him, rather his duty is his pride as a man, he save people because he wants to and he wants to because that's who he has chosen to be.

Superman could have been a tyrant, but he wanted to be a hero.
That's a profound and beautiful message. That being a good person is its own reward.

But modern men (not all but you know the type) disparage Superman and heroism in general because they find it unrelatable, and they can't relate to it because they're weak, not weak relative to a literal super-human, rather too weak to be "Men" in the modern world. Modern men see themselves not as heroes but rather as the ones in need of saving.

Interestingly this whole "with power comes responsibility" thing is universal, just interpreted differently, the woke see the powerful as obligated to serve the weak (because equity) whereas the conservative thinks it's not an obligation but rather an honor, a conservative man aspires to have a wife and family, not to rule over but to support, because in that duty he finds meaning as a man.

Whereas the woke hate the concept of family, of commitment, of duty, of honor, and their version of pride is not pride in one's achievements but rather being proud of what one is inherently, they want to be lauded for something they never worked for, like their gender or orientation, or getting top/bottom surgery.

 

[Hadoblado]

Can you quote the criticisms you're addressing?

I thought the main problem was that Superman was a Mary Sue who can trivialise all narrative stakes through near omniscience and omnipotence.

 

[Cognisant]

The stakes are not whether or not he can win the fight, he's the protagonist, he's not going to die (of if he does it doesn't stick) and he's not going to lose, because the story wouldn't end there. This is true for all protagonists who are the centerpiece of their narrative universe regardless of superpowers, Sherlock Holmes doesn't have any powers (aside from the POWER OF DEDUCTION boom-tish) but the same principles apply, because it wouldn't be a Sherlock story without Sherlock.

Almost every hero story has such a load bearing protagonist, accordingly they all establish stakes the same way, it's not the hero we have to worry about it's everyone else, it's the people who need saving, I mean it wouldn't be much of a hero story if nobody needed saving right?

A hero cannot lose, but they can fail, the innocents can die.
That's what creates the tension.

Now I'm examining why you think Superman is boring, because he's objectively not, no character with such long lasting popularity could possibly be intrinsically boring, but entertainment is subjective, so perhaps he's boring to you, but why is that?

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't feel like watching the one hour video, but might do it later when I am in mood.

What exactly do you mean men feel weak to be men? Like can you give examples?

 

[fluffy]

What can be achieved in this world?

It seems that family is what people want but is it possible?

My account of the need to be with someone already has in this sense been drained.

Working on achievement took away from me that wish.

If I had instead persuade a family life then that would mean I would not have enough time to think of what I wanted.

Needless to say there is the question of working to make money for someone else or studying to create your achievements.

Because you want to make stuff not labor in a work mill. If you don't have any goals then being a wage slave is good. But as I had noticed in myself most people don't care about science or philosophy at the janitorial work place. And not do people care at University about helping students because it is based on making money to further midwit careers in banking or lawyers.

So sure slave be happy with tv of power fantasy and the have family because anyone can get together and be boy and girlfriend. Yes some men are weak but why does it matter? It matters because those apposed to wokeness have nothing better to do. They don't have girlfriends. Or it makes them feel powerful to pick on that smaller super small group. Because they are Young and still not adult.

Superman is cool. Batman is cool. They both have stories about them. There is that aspect though as too why the first is ideal. It is because for the same reason Captain America existed. WWii gave men the reason for teaching kid how to be strong. And superman fought Hitler several times. To show what Americans stood for. Superman in an alternate realty history pod landed in Russia. So his personages grew from that time in history. The war period.

Not only is he strong or honorable he also is an alien who joins the good side being raised by good parents and goes to the big city meets a girl and creates his fortress of solitude.

What exactly do people have today to give them such advantages? Yes be like Superman but not everyone can.

People today are more the X-MEN with genetic superpowers. They are mutants. Not 1950's jocks and greasers. They came from the 1960's as Stan Lee saw the civil rights movement. A period of strife.

Who is a persons role model today? When you grew up with only a single mother at home. Not everyone was broken but most things pass generationally the the Vietnam war made you dad drunk and mother leave.

So no one can blame anyone as they are. Strong or weak, it is weak people picking on each other not just on strong people. Strong people ignore it because they are not traumatized like us here.

 

[fractalwalrus]

it's undeniable that Superman has incredible staying power and enduring popularity, and I think there's a reason for that which goes beyond him simply being a power fantasy.

The attribution of Superman's staying power being due to something beyond a power fantasy is likely true, since I allow for variety to exist in individual motives and preferences.

Enter Batman, the grittier and edgier counterpart to Superman, yes that's soo much more mature

Personally, I did not just prefer Batman to Superman as a child because he was "grittier," it was more built around an understanding the Batman was weaker and needed to augment reality with tech. Sure, Superman had kryptonite, but it was largely understood that Superman would be able to decimate most threats. Batman seemed to have to work harder for victories.

The whole premise of the Super-Man is that as someone privileged with inherently greater capabilities he has a duty to use that privilege to protect and serve others

Ultimately he chose to do this, and who would stop him should he fail to make this choice? There were others in that universe with his powers that chose not to.

Superman and heroism in general because they find it unrelatable, and they can't relate to it because they're weak, not weak relative to a literal super-human, rather too weak to be "Men" in the modern world

This has been an issue that I would argue is not unique to today. In the Middle Ages, the marauding knights often got out of hand to the point that codes of conduct had to be developed: Chivalry. Sure, some of the big fictional role models out in history (Superman) have great power and also lack a disdain for the weak, but they may not track with how powerful men actually behave in our societies (fascists despised weakness, they hated small business (Darwinian)). Men also have a track record of fighting for the interests of other powerful men rather than wage a resistance towards doing so. They will call themselves strong and justify it as being "for the community," but at the end of the day, they are enriching the Lex Luthers of the world (with perhaps a small reward for themselves). I would not call the man who blindly follows a tyrant a "strong man." Should we call them woke?

 

[Puffy]

The stakes are not whether or not he can win the fight, he's the protagonist, he's not going to die (of if he does it doesn't stick) and he's not going to lose, because the story wouldn't end there. This is true for all protagonists who are the centerpiece of their narrative universe regardless of superpowers, Sherlock Holmes doesn't have any powers (aside from the POWER OF DEDUCTION boom-tish) but the same principles apply, because it wouldn't be a Sherlock story without Sherlock.

Almost every hero story has such a load bearing protagonist, accordingly they all establish stakes the same way, it's not the hero we have to worry about it's everyone else, it's the people who need saving, I mean it wouldn't be much of a hero story if nobody needed saving right?

A hero cannot lose, but they can fail, the innocents can die.
That's what creates the tension.

Now I'm examining why you think Superman is boring, because he's objectively not, no character with such long lasting popularity could possibly be intrinsically boring, but entertainment is subjective, so perhaps he's boring to you, but why is that?

I'd chime in with what @fractalwalrus said. I'm not super deep into Superman lore, but from what I've seen what I find boring about Superman is how overpowered he is in his initial starting point as a protagonist.

I can think of other protagonists like Goku from DBZ or Mark from Invincible who play a similar role to Superman as protector of the Earth and who eventually become super powered. But you get to follow their journey and the challenges they have to overcome to reach that point from much more humble beginnings.

I'm reminded of my teenage years playing MMORPGs. I much more enjoyed the journey towards reaching max level than being at max level.

 

[scorpiomover]

This is a response to the tangent that came up in "Superheroes, how do they work?"
You can find that thread in the Fun section.

Here's the YouTube video that informed my thoughts on this subject: Superman: Collateral Damage – Detail Diatribe
The video is an hour long but you'll get the gist of it in the first 15min.
It's not required watching but I highly recommend it, Red and Blue are a joy to listen to.

Let's begin,
Super-Man is exactly what it says on the tin, he's the archetypal man exaggerated, and exaggeration is a literary technique used to examine something, like how something appears bigger under a microscope, the exaggeration of the archetypal man into a persona larger-than-life allows us to examine it more closely. Consequently examining the character of Superman over time, how he is portrayed and how audiences react to these portrayals, gives us an insight into both the perceived and actual public consensus of the archetypal man (i.e. the concept of a man) at that time.

Now I could give a detailed breakdown of that decade by decade, through each era of the comic book industry, culminating in the various Superman movies and where the comics are at in the present day. I'm not going to do that because Overly Sarcastic Productions have a whole series of detailed diatribes regarding Superman and I'm not going to spend the next week or two writing a massive text wall that I'm damn sure nobody's going to take the time to actually read.

Just go watch those videos.

Now assuming you have, or you know enough about Superman in pop culture that you don't need to, or you're generously willing to hear me out at face value, here's the points I want to make.

1. As arguably one of the first superheroes, possibly the actual first if you're pedantic about the definition of a Super-hero, it's undeniable that Superman has incredible staying power and enduring popularity, and I think there's a reason for that which goes beyond him simply being a power fantasy.
2. Superman stories have been very hit-and-miss in recent decades, to be fair it's always going to be difficult to write new and interesting stories for a character that's been around for so long, but when movie critics and literary theorist talk about what makes a good Superman story it always seems to revolve around getting the character right.
3. What everyone seems to agree on is that the 1978 Superman movie (which wasn't a great movie in all regards) absolutely nailed the portrayal and intrinsic appeal of the Superman character, indeed it was arguably that movie which introduced Hollywood to the concept of superheroes as a worthwhile subject for movie making.

Superman and Batman were from D.C., aka Detective Comics. All the DC superheroes were this way. They were the stereotypes of heroes from the 1930s, when conservative, right-wing values still held sway.

Based on these three arguments I speculate that modern culture, or more specifically modern writers, have difficulty writing heroic characters, not just Superman but heroic characters in general, but as Superman is such a paragon of heroism it affects his character more than most. In part it's the "too cool to care" effect, as people tend to associate darker/grittier content with age restrictions and therefore maturity the paragon hero appears childish to them, lacking the nuance of an anti-hero or villain protagonist.

The other side is represented by the characters from Marvel Comics, which started in the 1960s, the era of the counter-culture from which the modern counter-culture gained its roots. Iron Man is their classical protagonist.

Also I think modern men just kinda suck.

The whole premise of the Super-Man is that as someone privileged with inherently greater capabilities he has a duty to use that privilege to protect and serve others (like a police-Man), not an obligation, it's not a job he's payed for or a task imposed upon him, rather his duty is his pride as a man, he save people because he wants to and he wants to because that's who he has chosen to be.


Superman could have been a tyrant, but he wanted to be a hero.
That's a profound and beautiful message. That being a good person is its own reward.

DC charcters:

Superman was abandoned by his parents, and raised by an old couple who were farmers and believed in hard work and not drawing attention to yourself.

Batman's parents were gunned down. He was raised by his butler.

Superman and Batman had a hard childhood. They both had good male role models who raised them to have strong values.

They don't owe the Earth anything. But they know injustice from their own lives, see injustice in the real world, and feel that it would be a good use of their time and their talents to stop injustice.

But modern men (not all but you know the type) disparage Superman and heroism in general because they find it unrelatable, and they can't relate to it because they're weak, not weak relative to a literal super-human, rather too weak to be "Men" in the modern world. Modern men see themselves not as heroes but rather as the ones in need of saving.

Interestingly this whole "with power comes responsibility" thing is universal, just interpreted differently, the woke see the powerful as obligated to serve the weak (because equity) whereas the conservative thinks it's not an obligation but rather an honor, a conservative man aspires to have a wife and family, not to rule over but to support, because in that duty he finds meaning as a man.

Whereas the woke hate the concept of family, of commitment, of duty, of honor, and their version of pride is not pride in one's achievements but rather being proud of what one is inherently, they want to be lauded for something they never worked for, like their gender or orientation, or getting top/bottom surgery.

Marvel characters:

Iron Man was raised by a father who largely ignored him and concentrated on his work. When his father retired, the business was run by Pepper Potts. But there was no-one to educate him. He was left to party, party, party.

Then one day, he discovers that the business he owns and the profits it makes, that allowed him to party, party, party, all came from killing innocent women, children and BIPOC, and were used to oppress all sorts of people all over the world by vicious dictators, who usually oppress BIPOC, women and LGBT.

He feels that it is his responsibility to correct the injustices of the world, to make up for all the injustices that paid for his party, party, party lifestyle.

Family, commitment, duty, honour, etc., are not as important as Iron Man making up for all the deaths he caused.

In addition, he never had a good male role model. He only knows how to party, party, party. So he doesn't understand family or being committed to a relationship.

Comparisons:

There aren't really characters like Iron Man in the DC Universe. Without a positive male role model, males with super-powers tend to turn bad.

There aren't really characters like Superman or Batman in the Marvel Universe. The only equivalents are people like Captain America or Wolverine, who fight for honour, but don't really understand the complexities of modern life, where even the good guys like Iron Man often fight to atone for mass murdering for profit, or Thor who fights just because he likes fighting. They belong to an earlier era, when duty & honour meant something, and millions of soldiers killed other soldiers and die because it was their duty to follow orders.

 

[Hadoblado]

The stakes are not whether or not he can win the fight, he's the protagonist, he's not going to die (of if he does it doesn't stick) and he's not going to lose, because the story wouldn't end there. This is true for all protagonists who are the centerpiece of their narrative universe regardless of superpowers, Sherlock Holmes doesn't have any powers (aside from the POWER OF DEDUCTION boom-tish) but the same principles apply, because it wouldn't be a Sherlock story without Sherlock.

Almost every hero story has such a load bearing protagonist, accordingly they all establish stakes the same way, it's not the hero we have to worry about it's everyone else, it's the people who need saving, I mean it wouldn't be much of a hero story if nobody needed saving right?

A hero cannot lose, but they can fail, the innocents can die.
That's what creates the tension.

Now I'm examining why you think Superman is boring, because he's objectively not, no character with such long lasting popularity could possibly be intrinsically boring, but entertainment is subjective, so perhaps he's boring to you, but why is that?

But it doesn't establish these stakes. Superman is as strong as he needs to be, as fast as he needs to be, and as aware as he needs to be. If Louis Lane is on the other side of the world and someone looks at her wrong, Superman will know, Superman will arrive immediately, and Superman will overcome the threat. If Superman wanted he could kill you with a look, or by breathing on you. The choice of whether to do so is irrelevant, because he never needs to kill anyone because he has every other option under the sun.

I'm not saying there is no narrative tension in Superman, it's possible. But the vast majority of the time he can have his cake and eat it too with Superspeed.

If Superman were a woman, you would be lashing out at her for being an unrealistic depiction of female competence.

How is any of this woke?

 

[Cognisant]

Bad writing is bad writing, I'm not going to defend the merit of a poorly written story because the conclusion, that it's poorly written, is baked into the premise.

Obviously Superman isn't going to struggle to save someone whose parachute failed, I'm sure there's depictions of him doing this, but none of him struggling to do so. Accordingly something like that isn't what a competently written Superman story is about, rather that would be an opening scene to establish what an average day in the life of Superman looks like, it's just what he does.

Really I'm not defending Superman specifically so much as I'm defending heroism in general, imo the difference between Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman, Supergirl and whoever is simply spectacle. As heroes they all perform the same function, they save the innocent, Spiderman can't stop a kilometer wide asteroid and Superman isn't going to hurt people like Batman does, but they're all in the same business more or less.

Now you tell me are Wonder Woman and Supergirl boring characters because they're too powerful? Imo it's not the powers you take issue with, for narrative purposes they essentially cosmetic, no I think what you take issue with is unambigious heroism.

That's why it's Superman in particular you call out as being boring.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay so it's woke because you've mindread people and decided that the reasons they give aren't the real reasons they think.

You're having both sides of the conversation.

What are your favourite superman stories? No googling.

 

[fluffy]

Supposedly being woke = anti-heroic

This is that people need heroes to look up to to imitate to personally admire. And I guess that as Nietzsche said people dislike strength. So cog is trying to say he doesn't like peoples resentment. That he sees in woke people but then he must create some kind of us vs them mentality to categorize woke this way and put that on trans people.

It would seem he has had to many bad experiences in life and must scapegoat people in the way he sees them treating himself. He wants to be the hero but "woke" people won't let him.

 

[Cognisant]

Not so much trans people as people who are trans as a fashion statement, who want to be lauded as brave and stunning, that's not all trans people indeed I believe the majority of them aren't like that.

I brought them up because they're the most egregrious example of woke-heroism, it's a whole spectrum of things.

He wants to be the hero but "woke" people won't let him.

I think everyone should want that, and that they don't is further proof that we live in a world which is as it is, as a consequence of the debasement of heroism.

And I guess that as Nietzsche said people dislike strength.

Weak people, weak of character, feel compelled to tear down everything and everyone to their level. It's like how current AAA game stuidos have this strange adversion to putting out any content that appeals to the male gaze. Seemingly because fat ugly purple haired nose-ringed artists want characters they can identify with, who as unappealing and vapid as their artists are.

Because when they see attractive characters it makes them insecure, likewise they hate strong female characters who are strong of character, rather than inherently so, because that also makes them feel insecure.

Likewise woke people hate heroism because having a functional sense of justice and wanting to protect the community from outside threats is "conservative values".

There are no heroes in the woke worldview, only victims and oppressors, and you're either one or the other so which is it going to be? This is why woke people given any degree of power immediately turn authoritarian, because as they'll happily tell you, it's their turn now.

 

[Cognisant]

Trump and Harris are perfect examples of their respective ideologies, an incompetent DEI hire and a sleazy old white man.

Trump wasn't a conservative until the Biden administration went after him and the harder they tried to get him on trumped up charges, the more unjust their treatment of him was, the more people rallied to support him.

The attempted assasinations have only added more fuel to the fire, one man vs the corrupt system. That he's a sleazy old man is widely known and accepted by his supporters because ironically it's become a kind of virtue.

In a world where everyone is fed up with corrupt politicians superficially virtue signalling the virtue-less man is king

 

[fractalwalrus]

There are no heroes in the woke worldview, only victims and oppressors, and you're either one or the other so which is it going to be? This is why woke people given any degree of power immediately turn authoritarian, because as they'll happily tell you, it's their turn now.

In my analysis of world affairs, I see all of the above (heroes, victims, oppressors). Reality offers all of those. I would ask who these woke rulers of the past with an authoritarian streak are. I would imagine that you would probably point to 1900s examples, but let's go back further. Would you say that in the past, 1) Authoritarian rulers of the past (say one of the many Loius of France) were woke, or perhaps they were heroes? 2) If, indeed, a hisotrically oppressed individual decided to wield power in an authoritarian manner, then it would suggest they have no compunctions about utilizing rule by force, and that if they become an oppressor that they then did not also have a problem with the oppressor-oppressed dynamic so much as they had a problem with who was who.

 

[Hadoblado]

@Cognisant
What is your favourite Superman story?

 

[Cognisant]

I like the Justice League cartoon series, in particular the one where Toyman sends Superman into the future and he hangs out with Randel Savage.

Yes I realize part of the plot is Superman losing his powers, it's still a neat story.

 

[Hadoblado]

Are there ones you particularly like where he doesn't lose his powers? What level of fan are you on a scale from 1-100? Are there other heroes you like?

 

[Cognisant]

Do you have a point to make or are you just derailing my thread?

Are you checking my fan cred? Why should I give a damn if you think I'm not a big enough fan to have an opinion, who made you the fan police?

 

[Hadoblado]

I am addressing the fundamental assumption of your thread.

You say not liking superman is fundamentally woke but it seems to me like you don't really like him yourself. The one story with Superman in it you do say you like, the premise is that he loses his powers, which alleviates the core criticism the "woke" have leveled at Superman stories. There are hundreds of heroic heroes that enjoy popularity (they are called heroes for a reason). There are not many that are both heroic and substantially more powerful than their rogue's gallery.

Take Spiderman for example. "With great power comes great responsibility". Is the woke gnashing their teeth over Spiderman because he's too heroic?

If good storytelling is about the human heart in conflict with itself, and Superman is so powerful he never needs to navigate such conflict, Superman is antithetical to good storytelling. He's not a bad character per se, he just makes the story around him worse by virtue of his capacity to trivialise all conflict and complication. Exactly the same as Captain Marvel (but worse).

 

[Cognisant]

I knew you'd be a pedantic ass about it.

I gave you an honest answer, but the thing is the reason I like that story has almost nothing to do with Superman, it just happens to be a Superman story I like.

My favourite Superman movie was the 1978 one which plays the character completely straight, he a big damn hero all the way through. So take your conjecture and shove it.

Take Spiderman for example. "With great power comes great responsibility". Is the woke gnashing their teeth over Spiderman because he's too heroic?

By your logic, Miles Morales is an objectively worse character than Peter Parker because he can also turn invisible?

He's not a bad character per se, he just makes the story around him worse by virtue of his capacity to trivialise all conflict and complication. Exactly the same as Captain Marvel (but worse).

Captain Marvel is the perfect example because removing her powers would do nothing to improve her character, because it's her character that sucks, not her powers.

 

[Cognisant]

Fractal I will get back to you.

 

[Hadoblado]

I knew you'd be a pedantic ass about it.

I gave you an honest answer, but the thing is the reason I like that story has almost nothing to do with Superman, it just happens to be a Superman story I like.

My favourite Superman movie was the 1978 one which plays the character completely straight, he a big damn hero all the way through. So take your conjecture and shove it.

That's why I asked, but you started melting down over being asked questions because you thought I was gatekeeping you. At the time, it seemed like you didn't like Superman, so I asked.

Take Spiderman for example. "With great power comes great responsibility". Is the woke gnashing their teeth over Spiderman because he's too heroic?

By your logic, Miles Morales is an objectively worse character than Peter Parker because he can also turn invisible?

Yes. That's exactly what I was saying. Very perceptive. What actually makes a superhero a compelling character is their complete lack of any ability whatsoever. That's why my favourite superhero is Merta from down the road who needs a machine to breathe.

He's not a bad character per se, he just makes the story around him worse by virtue of his capacity to trivialise all conflict and complication. Exactly the same as Captain Marvel (but worse).

Captain Marvel is the perfect example because removing her powers would do nothing to improve her character, because it's her character that sucks, not her powers.

It's both. As soon as she was introduced into the MCU every other hero had to have an excuse for why she couldn't just fly down and fix every problem they encounter. These are two different axes of suck.

 

[Puffy]

If it helps Cog yes I also find wonder women and supergirl boring. And I gave examples of two other straight male protagonists who I said are more interesting. Saying we don’t like Superman for woke reasons is a straw man.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I am going to be honest I watched man of steel and it was super boring and did not watch it past few scenes.

What imho, is intriguing about protagonists is mindset, values, attitudes.

That is what makes superheros awesome.

They must be relatable on some level, and they must be interesting enough.

Or at least their story has to be interesting.

My favorite is dead pool simply because its lighthearted and fun.

I am not really super interested in super heros. I find real human heros more interesting or heros of fiction that have admirable, but at least partly attainable qualities, that are worth emulating.

 

[Hadoblado]

To be fair, the new Superman movies are reviled by Superman fans because they do not capture his character well. He doesn't care about innocents and kills Zod without seeking alternatives. I hear people find Superman relatable when he's written by people who understand the character better - though I do wonder about the self-image of such people.

 

[Puffy]

I liked retired Batman beating up Superman in Dark Knight Returns.

 

[fractalwalrus]

If it helps Cog yes I also find wonder women and supergirl boring. And I gave examples of two other straight male protagonists who I said are more interesting. Saying we don’t like Superman for woke reasons is a straw man.

Same here. I don't care if they draw Wonder Woman or Supergirl to be physically attractive either. Let them, it might get some more readers (who may then be turned off by lack of depth). Superman is drawn to be appealing to the "female" gaze I would think. Who cares? We're attracted to what we're attracted to. If they tried to draw Wonder Woman as an obese, pink-haired, nose-ring haver, and did this culture wide in an attempt to normalize that aesthetic (assuming this even worked and attraction is not hardwired), you'd probably have other people complaining that the other options were marginalized.

 

[Cognisant]

I have no problem with male characters being designed to appeal to women, in fact I think that's a good thing. If a man wants to appeal to a woman rather than try to somehow trick or force her into a relationship, then what women find appealing is important information to him, and when he sees that he will try to embody it.

Muscular men, courageous men, men of integrity, compassionate men, dutiful and noble men, I think we desperately need more of that.

Likewise female characters should be appealing, in a healthy way, and I will admit there's a lot of attractive female characters who are attractive in an unhealthy way and there does need to be less of that.

And then there's Sony putting out that Concord game that was clearly designed to be as unappealing as possible, then they have the audacity, the utter gall, to complain that people didn't buy it. It would be absurd enough to think they're entitled to sales in the absence of any competition, but they arrived to the market late with a game that was mechanically mediocre. But that's not what killed the game, a failure that monumental requires something truly awful to drive people away and the character designs did that perfectly.

 

[Cognisant]

In my analysis of world affairs, I see all of the above (heroes, victims, oppressors). Reality offers all of those. I would ask who these woke rulers of the past with an authoritarian streak are. I would imagine that you would probably point to 1900s examples, but let's go back further. Would you say that in the past, 1) Authoritarian rulers of the past (say one of the many Loius of France) were woke, or perhaps they were heroes? 2) If, indeed, a hisotrically oppressed individual decided to wield power in an authoritarian manner, then it would suggest they have no compunctions about utilizing rule by force, and that if they become an oppressor that they then did not also have a problem with the oppressor-oppressed dynamic so much as they had a problem with who was who.

You need look no further than the current Australian Labor government trying to pass a "Disinformation and Misinformation" bill which essentially gives the Australian government powers to censor speech that causes harm or is likely to cause harm, based entirely on a definition of their choosing which is not outlined in the bill. Indeed worse than that the government doesn't have to enact the censorship themselves, rather they can threaten social media companies with massive fines (like 5% of global revenue) thereby ensuring social media will be heavily self regulated to suppress anything that the government might even hint and considering a problem.

This is basically the end of free speech online for Australians.

There's a bunch of other stuff but I won't bore you with the minutia of Australian politics.

I don't think this is a consequence of Albo being oppressed, I just think he's one of many psychotic politicians whose actions are based solely on whatever serves their own personal best interests.

A more straightforward example of perceived victimhood turning to toxic entitlement would be Greens senator Dorinda Cox.

 

[fractalwalrus]

I don't think this is a consequence of Albo being oppressed, I just think he's one of many psychotic politicians whose actions are based solely on whatever serves their own personal best interests.

What if these people just really understand how to achieve their goals and understand the psychology of their voter base? The data I have seen in the past would suggest that authoritarians exist on the right and the left respectively. The old school true "liberty lovers" are a rare temperamental makeup, no matter what their skin tone. Most of us prefer security (which is why most of them love their police and military and surveillance state). There's a long video on this topic, but basically, those who wish to rule by fear need the fear of the ruled to do so. So, if they have this much data about human psychology, then politics doesn't really matter anymore. They'll hit people with the right information from inside their information bubbles and use issues and framing in a way to get what they want. Want certain environmental laws passed? Tell liberals it is about saving animals and with conservatives make it about cleaning up filth. https://oxfordre.com/politics/displ...228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1250

 

[Cognisant]

 

[fractalwalrus]

View attachment 8363
View attachment 8364

 

[Cognisant]

 

[ZenRaiden]

To be perfectly clear I don't exactly know why people take identity politics seriously on any level.
The idea of identity politics has sever limitations on issues of economy and statehood as such.
I think when people take things like comics and heroism and then go straight to politics or try to politicize things I think there is some sort of manipulation that is happening.
Recently watched the whole black people in history where they tried to make Cleopatra black and where they tried to make Hannibal black.
Whats interesting theme in all of identity politics it is good at generating outrage and conflict, but it has nothing to do with anything real or veritable.
One has to wonder how these things will impact people, but generally all it seems to do is sow seeds of prolonged idiocy and irrelevancy.
Same with making sexual identity a political topic.

But when it comes to Superman and other topics its also very funny.
Like most heroes I like the lighthearted entertainment of heroes that can blast through droves of enemies, and ideas of fighting evil crime, finding solutions to worlds problems, to me these topics being entertained in serious social context need to be treated as open debates rather than issues of x superhero.

 

[Cognisant]

To understand the dangers of DEI read up on on the modern history of South Africa.

Corruption run rampant.

 

[fractalwalrus]

To be perfectly clear I don't exactly know why people take identity politics seriously on any level.

Some people take sports teams and movie fandoms extremely seriously as well, which surprised me at first. Do you think identity politics involves similar motivations?

Whats interesting theme in all of identity politics it is good at generating outrage and conflict, but it has nothing to do with anything real or veritable.

I suppose this may depend on where it is applied. Would you say that minority groups (in any country) are sometimes discriminated against via unconscious biases? Then again, this may not be the same thing as identity politics.

But when it comes to Superman and other topics its also very funny.

Yes, people take fictional things very seriously sometimes, it seems. The same applies to sports, as I mentioned earlier. One of the issues that people have had with trans people in sports has to do with "competition," and unfair advantage. Sports are not fictional, but I would argue that they are relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, then again, so is everything else.