You don’t have to be in some formal office or position of authority for your words to have a real, tangible, detrimental effect on the people you’re disparaging.
For example, the resurgence of white supremacy we are seeing today saint just pop up out of nowhere because some authoritative person endorsed it. It happened slowly, starting in cultural pockets then in fringe outlets.
Anyone can spread reprehensible ideas trough a culture or society, especially someone like Bill Maher who has some significant audience.
Well, your characterization of this as recreational outrage strikes me as an offensive characterization. You seem to think someone like Maher can’t possibly harm the people he disparaged. Maybe that perspective is colored by some degree of privilege on your part.
I’m not saying that what Maher said this time is unquestionably offensive to everyone he disparaged. But I’m also saying that it wouldn’t be unfair to be offended, and Maher has a history of making uninformed and callous statements that justify people’s taking offense.
It’s true that I don’t see how Maher can harm comic book fans by his remarks. I don’t happen to agree with his remarks, but he is not advocating any action against comic book fans or the industry. I am certainly open to information to show how I am wrong or uninformed. I have found this thread enlightening so far and helpful to me in understanding other points of view on this topic. However, I don’t see how this relates to any degree of privilege. It’s not like a rich old white man who can’t understand why black people are upset when politicians make jokes about public hangings because he has lived a life of white privilege.
I’m not saying people don’t have a right to be offended, I just think people need to pick their battles. I could find enough things in the news every single day to put myself into a perpetual state of anger and resentment. I do get offended by some of them, and others I just write off as inane.
What does that mean to you exactly, to pick one’s battles? Does it mean just shutting up about something that’s on your mind if there are other things that you rank as being graver matters? Does it mean to bring it up only among specific interlocutors? Does it mean just not to mention it online? What if it’s the only battle you have against Bill Maher? Should you not send him a tart communiqué because it robs you of the juice to fight higher-ranked battles? Does it mean that Bill Maher should be left be so long as anyone worse than him is operating in the world?
Or will you be happy so long as no one brings it up in a way that catches your notice?
Misinformation, malicious stereotyping, and the like are often matters of accumulation and repetition. You don’t see how Maher’s remarks can harm anyone because you aren’t a member of the group he’s maligning, and you don’t have reason to fear that might not be the only one who might say something like this. And you don’t know what else it might lead to down the road. That is in part due to your privilege. You don’t have to worry about it because you won’t be one of the people facing harm.
What kind of harm? Can it be that a person with a maligned hobby might face disparagement in a professional setting? Have to keep it quiet or fear being treated differently?
Comic book readers have been maligned for decades. And in this case Maher isn’t just calling them stupid or childish but also tying them to a political moment that has people fearing for their safety and the future of this country and the world.
Sure there are other groups who face worse stereotypes, like women who are seen to be too free with their affections or black people who find themselves wearing a hoodie in the wrong circumstances.
But that’s just more whataboutism, right? When we rank everyone’s worries, how far down do we go to tell everyone below the line to just cool it while we handle more pressing matters?
You don’t get to come in and tell people they are wrong to care about something because you don’t think it’s worth caring about. That will just come off as rude and dismissive. It will only make people who are angry turn their anger on you.
You say that you get offended by things sometimes, too. What if I don’t think that is worth caring about? Should I come in and tell you that you shouldn’t care about it, and say that your offense is just recreational? Should I say you should pick your battles on what you talk with people about? Or should I just let you say what you want to say and let those who want to read it and respond? Genuinely apply this to something you really care about.
What’s more, this is communicating information. Now people who didn’t hear Maher say this know about it. I didn’t know he said this. Now I do. And, since it’s something I care about, it will affect how much I pay attention to Maher. Sure, this one little sliver on it’s own isn’t that important. But it adds to my picture of the Maher being an asshole not worth listening to, and makes it less likely I’ll give him another chance, as I do every once in a while with anyone.
So thanks to these people who care, I learned about something I care about. It’s something I will share with other people, saying that Maher thinks it’s wrong to be upset that Stan Lee died because comic books are not important literature. And they can decide if that is information they care about or not.
I apologize that I was rude and dismissive, and I am sorry if I exacerbated any feelings of offense that people had to start with. I did not mean to disparage anyone’s interests, and I see how my posts can be interpreted like that.
I started out by being surprised that “millions are pissed off”. I just don’t understand it. My opinion is not so different than the first post by Acsenray in this thread:
Not one person took exception to the statement above. I should have just left it at that.
You were making an equivalence between Bill Maher and Gavin Macinnes. Macinnes just resigned as founder of the proud boys, upon their being identified as a hate group. I don’t know how you can resign as a founder but he’s trying.
So making that equivalence just sounds like more attempting to massage acceptable fascism into the public debate. Sorry if that was not your intent.
To be fair, Stan Lee worked entirely in the Superhero/power fantasy genre, which is rather different from Maus.
I found Maher’s remarks to be pretty banal, with some dubious and unsubstantiated stuff about Trump tacked on. I partly agree, but jeez - Stan is still a giant if only for his commercial impact.
MfM elaborates on Stan Lee’s and Steve Ditko’s talents and cultural impact in a not-to-be-dismissed conversation with Derf:
I josh, but Derf’s commentary on Ditko, Stan Lee and Spiderman was pretty good.
My response to this would be read “The Watchmen” or “The Dark Knight Returns.” Tell me they aren’t sophisicated literature. He might also read Eisner’s “A Contract With God.”
Dave Sims may have gone around the bend, but I would suggest he read “High Society” and “Church and State.” Sims was offering some fairly sophisticated opinions about religion and politics.
Only the first two of the five mentioned are superhero fare. Both are associated with DC comics: neither have a link with Stan Lee’s Marvel comics.
And face it: those two works are very much the exception. The Watchman was written by Alan Moore, outside of the DC Universe. Dark Knight was within the DC Universe, but conveniently set decades after the in-world era typically covered. Essentially, it was Frank Miller’s commentary on superhero comics.
Neither Alan Moore nor Frank Miller were operating within the assembly line system of manufacturing comic book stories.
A better example might be Daredevil: Born Again, which actually did appear as a 4 issue series in the usual comic book newsprint of the day. But even that was a one-shot deal: Miller had retired from Marvel (and Daredevil) years earlier: this was a special stint. It was produced from full scripts and not the Marvel method.
All remarks about not confusing the medium with the content apply though.
Bill Maher addressed this issue on his show recently, and doubled down on his criticism of comic book fans. He started out by saying he meant no disrespect to Stan Lee, but then attacked the fans. This time I think he became needlessly and downright hostile to fans of comic books.
It’s one thing to say that you don’t think comic books qualify as literature, and people should not be offended simply by a negative opinion of something they like. But he was attacking the fans themselves in demeaning terms that is completely uncalled for, making this much more personal. So I am now on the side of the comic book fans and support those of you who have been offended by Maher.
Maher’s one to accuse other people of not having grown up. Seriously, he’s never committed to being responsible for another human being in the long term.
And he’s also the one who routinely gives valuable airtime to white suptemacist propagandist Ann Coulter. He treats her like she’s an amusing pet, but she’s partly responsible for the longest federal government shutdown in our history. And giving her such a prominent platform only serves to normalize the white supremacist agenda.
He also airs patently stupid views about health, diet, vaccines, and medicines. And he’s a supporter of the terrorist group PETA.
For many years he was a both-sidesist “libertarian.”
And he thinks comic books are harming our society.
Because what he’s really saying is “I don’t understand something and it isn’t part of my world, so I’m going to disrespect it for no real reason other than to shit on a dead man”.
‘Cartoons are only for children’ is an old, busted and stupid idea that needs to be shat upon each time it rears its ugly head.
It is a form of art or media that uses drawings to help tell the story. Like animated movies. This doesn’t make them non-sophisticated, simple or only aimed at children any more than the Mona Lisa or the Bayeux Tapestry are.
Edit: No, I’m not claiming that a comic book is the equivalent of the Mona Lisa. I’m saying the form doesn’t limit the content.
Maher is an asshole. I like his show, but he’s an asshole. There’s no point in his personal attacks on people who like comic books other than assholery.
To be fair, like pretty much every other comic industry veteran who started working in the 30s/40s, Stan Lee worked in a lot of genres before finding his metier with superheroes in the early 60s. Even after Marvel launched the Fantastic Four and started the shift towards superheroes, Stan was writing titles like Millie the Model, Two-Gun Kid, and Sgt. Fury and His Howling Commandos.
That said, no one would really remember Stan Lee sans superheroes.
When I used to watch him, I strongly suspected that they were having an affair. I can imagine that they would have some pretty crazy angry sex.
What about his show do you like? I used to watch Politically Incorrect, and was very upset with its cancelation. Then I watched his show on HBO for years, but he just kept getting more and more smarmy and full of himself. When he said that everything in a grocery store was poison was when I stopped watching him regularly. I still usually caught up on “New Rules”, but I couldn’t stand to watch his monologue. His panel is usually a pretty bad mix, and he does nothing to moderate, so usually the person that I am most interested in hearing from never gets a word in, while the far left and the far right guests bicker back and forth. Or worse, the far left and the farther left bicker, leaving the more moderate guest unable to speak.
Not to mention that his panel time is often interrupted by some segment that is almost always far more painful to watch than it is funny.
Then his “New Rules” started getting rather petty and insulting as well, and I stopped watching entirely unless there was something in particular that is pointed out for me to watch.
I’ve got little skin in the game on this particular topic, I find the MCU movies to be a decent form of entertainment, but I do not share the obsession that some do, nor do I have much interest in reading comics unless it is something that I really care about (I read the Firefly based comics after that show was canceled). But he does this with many positions, where he comes out and states his opinion, which is fine, and then says that anyone that is not lockstep with his opinion is stupid or worse.