Not relevant. The author created art, it’s to us to discern meaning.
In the books it is relevant. In the film…well Ridley just didnt understand PKD’s point.
That’s cool. Different pieces of art.
Yep, and Scott made it so you can believe either way.
A side track.
Google Wizard of Oz. Click on the red shoes on the right side of the screen. When you’re done, click on the tornado.
Okay, that’s wonderful.
That kid needs a manager/promoter.
“The Aristocrats!”
Although the way the e.g. Apache or Comanche went about it was rather brutal. Regardless of what wrongs were done their people, you would not want to be tied to a post while a Comanche approached you with a knife.
From what I have read, the white raiders were at least as savage and brutal as the NA.
Want?
No one wants to be tied to a post and killed.
No one wants to be invaded by a hostile culture that kills your people.
Who started it?
William Stryker and all the other similar human villains in X-Men (as there is generally only one plot-line in X-Men movies 
)
Pretty much every single X-Men movie ends with Magneto or someone else, proving general General Stryker right by coming within a hairs-breadth of wiping out humanity. The fact some good X-Men swoops in at the last minute and saves the day doesn’t make him less right. Treating X-Men as a threat isn’t some bigoted irrational prejudice, its a perfectly logical reaction to the facts.
It also makes the whole “X-Men as a metaphor for real-life prejudice against oppressed minority groups” thing a bit dodgy. As unlike real-life oppressed minority groups X-Men are incredibly dangerous and being scared of them is not just bigotry.
Well, yeah, but most of them also involve baseline humans coming within a hairs-breadth of wiping out mutantkind. So…Magneto and Stryker both have a point?
And in the comics, ever since the Days of Future Past story arc, we (the readers) know that the number of timelines in the multiverse where baseline humans committed genocide against mutants vastly outnumber the number of timelines where mutants come out on top. Due to time travel/multiverse hopping/retcons/etc., quite a few characters are aware of this in-universe, as well.
Let’s distinguish between mutants and X-men. X-men are mutants but not all (or even most) mutants belong to an organized crime - fighting team called the X-men. Most mutants are leading quiet, unassuming lives and are not dangerous. The X-men are different. They are specially trained in the use of their powers to protect all mutant kind, and all human kind. X-men are also extraordinarily powerful relative to most other mutants (Usually. You look at something like Grant Morrison’s run and you’ve got a guy with six extra feet of skin, that’s an unfortunate power but it points, again, to the fact that not all mutants are dangerous, and some are actually quite pathetic.)
All that said… We can’t confuse capacity to do harm with likelihood of doing harm. Most humans are technically capable of extreme violence but choose not to use that capacity to do harm. There’s really nothing beyond individual morality that’s stopping the average human from a murder spree. Yet humans generally get the benefit of a doubt, we’re free to do whatever we like unless we exhibit actually dangerous behavior. I really don’t see a meaningful difference between “register all humans” and “register all mutants.” It’s merely a difference of scale.
I’d say that the anti mutant humans who were portrayed as the bad guys had a good point.
many mutants, including the ‘good ones’ like wolverine were mass murderers and very destructive criminals. they would commit endless felonies anytime they felt like it. the humans wanted to register them and invent a drug to neutralize their powers and the mutants acted like victims. it would be like Ted bundy screaming how unfair it was if the police demanded he register his cars license plate number.
Addendum: My husband, the resident X-men expert, has advised me that the aforementioned mutant Skin is from Generation X, which predates the Grant Morrison run.
Sigh.
Sure, but it’s like the difference between a hand grenade and a nuclear weapon. A person with a hand grenade can do some damage but doesn’t threaten civilization.
On a large enough scale, capacity to do something means that thing becomes inevitable. Murder sprees are not an enormous threat because even that one-in-a-million murderer with a gun can only kill a few dozen people. Give everyone the capability to kill millions and it no longer matters if 99.999…% of people are good.
But not every mutant has the capacity to kill millions. Even someone as arguably lawless as Wolverine does not have that capacity. Skin? Not a chance. Beak? No way. There’s a mutant who is literally a brain in a jar. It isn’t right to judge an entire species by its most dangerous actors, which is the entire point of the X-men. And Magneto, I’ll agree, is an excellent villain in part because he shares the ideological fight for mutant rights with Xavier, they just take wildly different approaches (and Xavier is no saint.)
If having any unique ability at all makes one dangerous, why not argue that all superheroes are dangerous? Why is it mutants specifically that are so dangerous?
Wasn’t that idea explored in Avengers Civil War? It’s been a while since I saw it - at the very least, they were being held accountable for collateral damage.
Yes, but if that capacity is ‘wipe out all life on the planet’ then, you cant trust anyone, can you? See Dark Phoenix.
This is why we dont allow any individuals to own atomic weapons.