I was sick of Civil War when it was in the comics and in everyone's sigs. I dunno if I can take another few years of it now that there's going to be a movie version.
The movie version won't be terrible.
I never read the comics, and I'm not hatin' on a movie that hasn't even been shot yet. I'm just sick of everyone discussing it. I dunno, this particular tangent strikes me, personally, as a symbol of every nerd stereotype, and I can't bring myself to care about either side of this "debate".
Also, the fact that we can't escape it in any Marvel thread. I mean, if this was the MCU thread, it'd at least make a little sense, but this is the Agents of SHIELD thread, and thus far, there is no indication that any "registration" hi-jinx are being introduced yet.
The entire Inhuman storyline and the responses from humans thus far lean heavily towards registration hi-jinx.
I was sick of Civil War when it was in the comics and in everyone's sigs. I dunno if I can take another few years of it now that there's going to be a movie version.
The movie version won't be terrible.
I never read the comics, and I'm not hatin' on a movie that hasn't even been shot yet. I'm just sick of everyone discussing it. I dunno, this particular tangent strikes me, personally, as a symbol of every nerd stereotype, and I can't bring myself to care about either side of this "debate".
Also, the fact that we can't escape it in any Marvel thread. I mean, if this was the MCU thread, it'd at least make a little sense, but this is the Agents of SHIELD thread, and thus far, there is no indication that any "registration" hi-jinx are being introduced yet.
The entire Inhuman storyline and the responses from humans thus far lean heavily towards registration hi-jinx.
Part of the problem with Civil War was that having some kind of regulation and records for people with tremendous supernatural power makes complete sense, was it not?
The use of mutants/powered folk as allegory for sexual or racial minorities has some resonance, but it can never really be completely successful because humans are completely justified in being afraid of mutants. The power difference is tremendous.
But that's not really the point of those stories anyway? They are just as much speculative science fiction about the nature of discrimination when there are real, enormous differences between groups instead of imagined or superficial ones. They also kind of make the point that you can never be justified in committing genocide or other atrocities; even if children can grow up to level city blocks with their mind, we cannot be justified in mass murder and oppression.
Complications to these issues (e.g. Wolverine mercy killing that toxic kid who killed a whole town by accident) are interesting speculative sci fi as well. They aren't limited to direct commentary on contemporary issues.
But the problem is that they keep trying to tie it to real life discrimination. They're not just presenting it as speculative fiction. They are making direct comparisons between discrimination/persecution of mutants with discrimination/persecution of religious/ethic/racial minorities. Many times, they practically outright say that if someone expresses concerns/reservations about the danger mutants present, then they're racists.
The allegory does break down due to the fact that powered people actually present a danger to others and themselves. As evidenced by the
little girl who couldn't control her powers and mind controlled a bunch of criminals and SHIELD agents.
I hope you understand that the reasoning "They are a danger because they're more powerful" only makes the allegory stronger, not weaker. The "strong [people with power] savages [ people who don't conform to our concepts] threaten our society" line has been used for a long long time.
Except they aren't dangerous just because they're powerful. They're dangerous because they can't necessarily control their power and can hurt themselves or others. It has nothing to do with those people threatening societal or cultural norms. They are a danger regardless of the society they're in.
Someone who can accidentally break people's brains with a touch is not comparable to a group of people from a different culture who have historically been oppressed/abused due to their religious beliefs, the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, etc.
Tell that to the X-Men.
That analogy breaks down in X-Men too. It's pretty ridiculous for them to compare someone who can level half a city by opening their eyes with actual people who have been persecuted and abused for centuries based solely on a physical difference as insignificant as the color of skin.
Well, the X-Men can point to all the death camps, genocidal maniacs and outright discrimination of every mutant no matter how powerful as justification. As the MCU's X-Men surrogates, I wouldn't be shocked if we got at least a taste of that with the Inhumans.
Except the problem is that they lump legitimate concerns over the dangers mutants present along with the crazy people who hate mutants based purely on ignorance and prejudice.
Instead of dealing with issues of mutants manifesting their powers and accidentally causing a ton of damage or hurting people in a reasonable way, the people who express those concerns are immediately turned into genocidal maniacs who want to herd all mutants into concentration camps.
The allegory does break down due to the fact that powered people actually present a danger to others and themselves. As evidenced by the
little girl who couldn't control her powers and mind controlled a bunch of criminals and SHIELD agents.
I hope you understand that the reasoning "They are a danger because they're more powerful" only makes the allegory stronger, not weaker. The "strong [people with power] savages [ people who don't conform to our concepts] threaten our society" line has been used for a long long time.
Except they aren't dangerous just because they're powerful. They're dangerous because they can't necessarily control their power and can hurt themselves or others. It has nothing to do with those people threatening societal or cultural norms. They are a danger regardless of the society they're in.
Someone who can accidentally break people's brains with a touch is not comparable to a group of people from a different culture who have historically been oppressed/abused due to their religious beliefs, the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, etc.
For a long time the argument was that "savages" (as many foreigners were considered in many countries) didn't know their own strength or could not control their emotions or could not integrate into society. This goes way, way back.
Here's Plato
Every care must be taken that our auxiliaries, being stronger than our citizens, may not grow too much for them and become savage beasts.
- Plato
Except those arguments were wrong and based on myths and lies.
In the universe they're building in the show, they've actually shown that there are powered people who are extremely dangerous, have trouble controlling their powers, and have hurt/killed people as a result. That's where the analogy breaks down. Unless you're implying that people's beliefs about "savages" were actually based on truth.
There have also been many instances of those with powers being able to control them and their powers not making them dangerous.
The people of the past have also used the few instances of people acting dangerously as the evidence against a majority. You can continue to try to turn it around on me if you like, but that doesn't make your stance work.
And you can make as many tenuous parallels as you want but it doesn't change the fact that mutants/powered people are a bad allegory for racism/discrimination of real people.
Not every metaphor needs to have a perfectly literal counterpart to have resonance.
But I'm not saying that the metaphor needs to be perfect.
It's the X-Men comics that are implying they're making a perfect metaphor by outright stating that concerns about mutants is exactly the same as racism in real life.
And there's a pretty big difference between good allegories/metaphors and bad allegories/metaphors. Animal Farm is a good allegory, True Blood is a terrible one.
Part of the problem with Civil War was that having some kind of regulation and records for people with tremendous supernatural power makes complete sense, was it not?
The use of mutants/powered folk as allegory for sexual or racial minorities has some resonance, but it can never really be completely successful because humans are completely justified in being afraid of mutants. The power difference is tremendous.
But that's not really the point of those stories anyway? They are just as much speculative science fiction about the nature of discrimination when there are real, enormous differences between groups instead of imagined or superficial ones. They also kind of make the point that you can never be justified in committing genocide or other atrocities; even if children can grow up to level city blocks with their mind, we cannot be justified in mass murder and oppression.
Complications to these issues (e.g. Wolverine mercy killing that toxic kid who killed a whole town by accident) are interesting speculative sci fi as well. They aren't limited to direct commentary on contemporary issues.
But the problem is that they keep trying to tie it to real life discrimination. They're not just presenting it as speculative fiction. They are making direct comparisons between discrimination/persecution of mutants with discrimination/persecution of religious/ethic/racial minorities. Many times, they practically outright say that if someone expresses concerns/reservations about the danger mutants present, then they're racists.
The allegory does break down due to the fact that powered people actually present a danger to others and themselves. As evidenced by the
little girl who couldn't control her powers and mind controlled a bunch of criminals and SHIELD agents.
I hope you understand that the reasoning "They are a danger because they're more powerful" only makes the allegory stronger, not weaker. The "strong [people with power] savages [ people who don't conform to our concepts] threaten our society" line has been used for a long long time.
Except they aren't dangerous just because they're powerful. They're dangerous because they can't necessarily control their power and can hurt themselves or others. It has nothing to do with those people threatening societal or cultural norms. They are a danger regardless of the society they're in.
Someone who can accidentally break people's brains with a touch is not comparable to a group of people from a different culture who have historically been oppressed/abused due to their religious beliefs, the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, etc.
Tell that to the X-Men.
That analogy breaks down in X-Men too. It's pretty ridiculous for them to compare someone who can level half a city by opening their eyes with actual people who have been persecuted and abused for centuries based solely on a physical difference as insignificant as the color of skin.
Well, the X-Men can point to all the death camps, genocidal maniacs and outright discrimination of every mutant no matter how powerful as justification. As the MCU's X-Men surrogates, I wouldn't be shocked if we got at least a taste of that with the Inhumans.
Except the problem is that they lump legitimate concerns over the dangers mutants present along with the crazy people who hate mutants based purely on ignorance and prejudice.
Instead of dealing with issues of mutants manifesting their powers and accidentally causing a ton of damage or hurting people in a reasonable way, the people who express those concerns are immediately turned into genocidal maniacs who want to herd all mutants into concentration camps.
The allegory does break down due to the fact that powered people actually present a danger to others and themselves. As evidenced by the
little girl who couldn't control her powers and mind controlled a bunch of criminals and SHIELD agents.
I hope you understand that the reasoning "They are a danger because they're more powerful" only makes the allegory stronger, not weaker. The "strong [people with power] savages [ people who don't conform to our concepts] threaten our society" line has been used for a long long time.
Except they aren't dangerous just because they're powerful. They're dangerous because they can't necessarily control their power and can hurt themselves or others. It has nothing to do with those people threatening societal or cultural norms. They are a danger regardless of the society they're in.
Someone who can accidentally break people's brains with a touch is not comparable to a group of people from a different culture who have historically been oppressed/abused due to their religious beliefs, the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, etc.
For a long time the argument was that "savages" (as many foreigners were considered in many countries) didn't know their own strength or could not control their emotions or could not integrate into society. This goes way, way back.
Here's Plato
Every care must be taken that our auxiliaries, being stronger than our citizens, may not grow too much for them and become savage beasts.
- Plato
Except those arguments were wrong and based on myths and lies.
In the universe they're building in the show, they've actually shown that there are powered people who are extremely dangerous, have trouble controlling their powers, and have hurt/killed people as a result. That's where the analogy breaks down. Unless you're implying that people's beliefs about "savages" were actually based on truth.
There have also been many instances of those with powers being able to control them and their powers not making them dangerous.
The people of the past have also used the few instances of people acting dangerously as the evidence against a majority. You can continue to try to turn it around on me if you like, but that doesn't make your stance work.
And you can make as many tenuous parallels as you want but it doesn't change the fact that mutants/powered people are a bad allegory for racism/discrimination of real people.
I'm not sure you know what allegory is.
I'm not sure you know the difference between a good allegory and a bad one.
Your arguments have been mirroring both those used in the show, and those used to oppress various people for a long time. I'd say it's a pretty good allegory.
We already know that those deemed dangerous on the index were a minority. We know that there are even more people out there that SHIELD didn't know about, in the Inhumans, who are not posing a significant risk to people or society. We already know that people being given an opportunity to use their gifts in a meaningful way has proven better than the systematic disenfranchisement of the SHIELD index.
Yeah, I'd say it fits.
Hell, you could even see in Centipede the parallels to militant groups that prey on the disenfranchised people and "burn-outs" of society, offering a better life but only using them for their own ends.
Lincoln could probably fry a person, Gordon could probably break into banks, but that doesn't mean that they should instantly be treated as if they have done so just because they could do so. However, it is exactly what SHIELD has done when dealing with powered people in the past, and it's exactly how Olmost SHIELD has been shown treating powered people now. Treating people like they are the worst kind of criminals they could be because they are "other".
So, yeah, I'd say the allegory is a very good one.
Except you need a bit more than that to make a good allegory.
Yes, my type of arguments have been used to oppress various people. But that's like saying because religion has been used to oppress people then any fiction involving religion being used to oppress people is a great allegory for how it's been done in real life. If you're just going to make such general comparisons then anything can be considered a good analogy/allegory for anything else.
For your allegory to work, you have to ignore the very important fact that the arguments used in the show are based on actual events that happened in that universe while arguments used in real life are based on ignorance, exaggerations, misinformation, and complete fabrications. You basically have to completely dismiss all previous incidents of powered people hurting others and the potential of powered people causing disasters in the future.
You also have to clear all reasonable middle ground and push everything to the extreme. I never said that powered people should automatically be treated as criminals before they even do anything. I was simply pointing out that there are legitimate concerns about powered people. I never gave any suggestions about how to deal with those concerns. Why can't there be a reasonable solution that's satisfactory for everyone, despite the actual dangers involved? So the allegory won't work unless any reasonable concerns automatically end up causing people to become heartless genocidal maniacs who have no qualms about putting powered people into concentration camps or wiping them out completely.
Actually quite a few of the real world accusations use/used scientific or evidence based arguments. That evidence often held up but the implications drawn from them required you to be willing to ignore the atrociousness of the implications drawn from them.
The argument that any communist could be a traitor to the US (the basis of the second red scare and McCarthy era) was drawn from the few people who were both traitors and tied to the communist party.
The arguments that African Americans are more violent has drawn from statistics showing that there are more African Americans in jail for violent crimes than White Americans.
The argument that Japanese Americans should be placed in camps was based on the incident at Pearl Harbor.
The idea that Muslims are terrorists is based on the evidence provided by the International media.
It's all vile lies and misinformation, but it's based on the smallest instances of facts taken out of context and used for vile ends.
It's dangerous to think that all hatred is based on something without any trace of fact that anyone should be able to see through. Because we so very rarely do.
In the show people who want to control powered people aren't portrayed as heartless maniacs, nor are those who want to "fix" them, or those who want to monitor them, not even those who want to kill them.
Communists could not shoot lightning out of their hands, Japanese Americans can't cause earthquakes with their minds, Muslims can't teleport, etc.
And you're doing exactly what I said was the problem with the allegory. You're ignoring the fact that there are legitimate issues with powered people that cause concern without distortion or misinformation, and aren't the result of a history/culture of oppression and prejudice. You're immediately going to the strawman of "all concerns about powered people are based on distortions of tiny kernels of truth because that's how it happens in real life."
I don't deny that people have twisted truths to oppress people in real life and the same could happen in the MCU. However, you can't ignore the fact that there are real concerns about the dangers presented by powered people that are not analogous in any way to perceived dangers about oppressed people in real life. Whether or not this allegory is a good one is dependent on how significant those concerns are. If they set things up to where there are lots of powered people who literally have the power to destroy the world or wipe out the human race, then the allegory would be a terrible one. If on the other hand, they set things up where there was only one powered person ever who accidentally hurt others and people are using that bit of truth to distort the facts, then the allegory would be OK.
That was (one of) the problem(s) with the "vampires are gay people" allegory in True Blood. They made the vampires so dangerous and sadistic that it had the opposite message of "we should accept gay people" that they were trying to portray.
In the show, the people who want to control powered people are portrayed as rather heartless. They messed up Blackout and Angar. The angry Boat SHIELD guy was deceptive and tried to kill Skye.
In the X-Men comic books, there are tons of crazy genocidal anti-mutant groups.
KingofMadCows on
+4
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I was sick of Civil War when it was in the comics and in everyone's sigs. I dunno if I can take another few years of it now that there's going to be a movie version.
The movie version won't be terrible.
I never read the comics, and I'm not hatin' on a movie that hasn't even been shot yet. I'm just sick of everyone discussing it. I dunno, this particular tangent strikes me, personally, as a symbol of every nerd stereotype, and I can't bring myself to care about either side of this "debate".
Also, the fact that we can't escape it in any Marvel thread. I mean, if this was the MCU thread, it'd at least make a little sense, but this is the Agents of SHIELD thread, and thus far, there is no indication that any "registration" hi-jinx are being introduced yet.
The entire Inhuman storyline and the responses from humans thus far lean heavily towards registration hi-jinx.
It started with
Simmons going anti-Gifted when she met Raina.
It's all over.
The resentment towards the "freaks" in the Avengers from world powers who don't want them doing anything.
Fear about Coulson and Skye and their respective situations.
Gonzalez's feelings from a to z.
Inhumans unintentionally injuring or killing people (Skye, the creepy fucking girl and her mom, Cal's band-o-misfits)
Hell, the stage was set with the Hulk "breaking Harlem".
If someone can't see how the registration isn't pending, well shit I dunno.
I was sick of Civil War when it was in the comics and in everyone's sigs. I dunno if I can take another few years of it now that there's going to be a movie version.
The movie version won't be terrible.
I never read the comics, and I'm not hatin' on a movie that hasn't even been shot yet. I'm just sick of everyone discussing it. I dunno, this particular tangent strikes me, personally, as a symbol of every nerd stereotype, and I can't bring myself to care about either side of this "debate".
Also, the fact that we can't escape it in any Marvel thread. I mean, if this was the MCU thread, it'd at least make a little sense, but this is the Agents of SHIELD thread, and thus far, there is no indication that any "registration" hi-jinx are being introduced yet.
The entire Inhuman storyline and the responses from humans thus far lean heavily towards registration hi-jinx.
It started with
Simmons going anti-Gifted when she met Raina.
It's all over.
The resentment towards the "freaks" in the Avengers from world powers who don't want them doing anything.
Fear about Coulson and Skye and their respective situations.
Gonzalez's feelings from a to z.
Inhumans unintentionally injuring or killing people (Skye, the creepy fucking girl and her mom, Cal's band-o-misfits)
Hell, the stage was set with the Hulk "breaking Harlem".
If someone can't see how the registration isn't pending, well shit I dunno.
This season and Age of Ultron's trailers haven't been shy about setting up Civil War.
edit: As well as the movie appropriately titled Captain America: Civil War. It's hard to miss.
Part of the problem with Civil War was that having some kind of regulation and records for people with tremendous supernatural power makes complete sense, was it not?
The use of mutants/powered folk as allegory for sexual or racial minorities has some resonance, but it can never really be completely successful because humans are completely justified in being afraid of mutants. The power difference is tremendous.
But that's not really the point of those stories anyway? They are just as much speculative science fiction about the nature of discrimination when there are real, enormous differences between groups instead of imagined or superficial ones. They also kind of make the point that you can never be justified in committing genocide or other atrocities; even if children can grow up to level city blocks with their mind, we cannot be justified in mass murder and oppression.
Complications to these issues (e.g. Wolverine mercy killing that toxic kid who killed a whole town by accident) are interesting speculative sci fi as well. They aren't limited to direct commentary on contemporary issues.
But the problem is that they keep trying to tie it to real life discrimination. They're not just presenting it as speculative fiction. They are making direct comparisons between discrimination/persecution of mutants with discrimination/persecution of religious/ethic/racial minorities. Many times, they practically outright say that if someone expresses concerns/reservations about the danger mutants present, then they're racists.
The allegory does break down due to the fact that powered people actually present a danger to others and themselves. As evidenced by the
little girl who couldn't control her powers and mind controlled a bunch of criminals and SHIELD agents.
I hope you understand that the reasoning "They are a danger because they're more powerful" only makes the allegory stronger, not weaker. The "strong [people with power] savages [ people who don't conform to our concepts] threaten our society" line has been used for a long long time.
Except they aren't dangerous just because they're powerful. They're dangerous because they can't necessarily control their power and can hurt themselves or others. It has nothing to do with those people threatening societal or cultural norms. They are a danger regardless of the society they're in.
Someone who can accidentally break people's brains with a touch is not comparable to a group of people from a different culture who have historically been oppressed/abused due to their religious beliefs, the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, etc.
Tell that to the X-Men.
That analogy breaks down in X-Men too. It's pretty ridiculous for them to compare someone who can level half a city by opening their eyes with actual people who have been persecuted and abused for centuries based solely on a physical difference as insignificant as the color of skin.
Well, the X-Men can point to all the death camps, genocidal maniacs and outright discrimination of every mutant no matter how powerful as justification. As the MCU's X-Men surrogates, I wouldn't be shocked if we got at least a taste of that with the Inhumans.
Except the problem is that they lump legitimate concerns over the dangers mutants present along with the crazy people who hate mutants based purely on ignorance and prejudice.
Instead of dealing with issues of mutants manifesting their powers and accidentally causing a ton of damage or hurting people in a reasonable way, the people who express those concerns are immediately turned into genocidal maniacs who want to herd all mutants into concentration camps.
The allegory does break down due to the fact that powered people actually present a danger to others and themselves. As evidenced by the
little girl who couldn't control her powers and mind controlled a bunch of criminals and SHIELD agents.
I hope you understand that the reasoning "They are a danger because they're more powerful" only makes the allegory stronger, not weaker. The "strong [people with power] savages [ people who don't conform to our concepts] threaten our society" line has been used for a long long time.
Except they aren't dangerous just because they're powerful. They're dangerous because they can't necessarily control their power and can hurt themselves or others. It has nothing to do with those people threatening societal or cultural norms. They are a danger regardless of the society they're in.
Someone who can accidentally break people's brains with a touch is not comparable to a group of people from a different culture who have historically been oppressed/abused due to their religious beliefs, the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, etc.
For a long time the argument was that "savages" (as many foreigners were considered in many countries) didn't know their own strength or could not control their emotions or could not integrate into society. This goes way, way back.
Here's Plato
Every care must be taken that our auxiliaries, being stronger than our citizens, may not grow too much for them and become savage beasts.
- Plato
Except those arguments were wrong and based on myths and lies.
In the universe they're building in the show, they've actually shown that there are powered people who are extremely dangerous, have trouble controlling their powers, and have hurt/killed people as a result. That's where the analogy breaks down. Unless you're implying that people's beliefs about "savages" were actually based on truth.
There have also been many instances of those with powers being able to control them and their powers not making them dangerous.
The people of the past have also used the few instances of people acting dangerously as the evidence against a majority. You can continue to try to turn it around on me if you like, but that doesn't make your stance work.
And you can make as many tenuous parallels as you want but it doesn't change the fact that mutants/powered people are a bad allegory for racism/discrimination of real people.
Not every metaphor needs to have a perfectly literal counterpart to have resonance.
But I'm not saying that the metaphor needs to be perfect.
It's the X-Men comics that are implying they're making a perfect metaphor by outright stating that concerns about mutants is exactly the same as racism in real life.
And there's a pretty big difference between good allegories/metaphors and bad allegories/metaphors. Animal Farm is a good allegory, True Blood is a terrible one.
Part of the problem with Civil War was that having some kind of regulation and records for people with tremendous supernatural power makes complete sense, was it not?
The use of mutants/powered folk as allegory for sexual or racial minorities has some resonance, but it can never really be completely successful because humans are completely justified in being afraid of mutants. The power difference is tremendous.
But that's not really the point of those stories anyway? They are just as much speculative science fiction about the nature of discrimination when there are real, enormous differences between groups instead of imagined or superficial ones. They also kind of make the point that you can never be justified in committing genocide or other atrocities; even if children can grow up to level city blocks with their mind, we cannot be justified in mass murder and oppression.
Complications to these issues (e.g. Wolverine mercy killing that toxic kid who killed a whole town by accident) are interesting speculative sci fi as well. They aren't limited to direct commentary on contemporary issues.
But the problem is that they keep trying to tie it to real life discrimination. They're not just presenting it as speculative fiction. They are making direct comparisons between discrimination/persecution of mutants with discrimination/persecution of religious/ethic/racial minorities. Many times, they practically outright say that if someone expresses concerns/reservations about the danger mutants present, then they're racists.
The allegory does break down due to the fact that powered people actually present a danger to others and themselves. As evidenced by the
little girl who couldn't control her powers and mind controlled a bunch of criminals and SHIELD agents.
I hope you understand that the reasoning "They are a danger because they're more powerful" only makes the allegory stronger, not weaker. The "strong [people with power] savages [ people who don't conform to our concepts] threaten our society" line has been used for a long long time.
Except they aren't dangerous just because they're powerful. They're dangerous because they can't necessarily control their power and can hurt themselves or others. It has nothing to do with those people threatening societal or cultural norms. They are a danger regardless of the society they're in.
Someone who can accidentally break people's brains with a touch is not comparable to a group of people from a different culture who have historically been oppressed/abused due to their religious beliefs, the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, etc.
Tell that to the X-Men.
That analogy breaks down in X-Men too. It's pretty ridiculous for them to compare someone who can level half a city by opening their eyes with actual people who have been persecuted and abused for centuries based solely on a physical difference as insignificant as the color of skin.
Well, the X-Men can point to all the death camps, genocidal maniacs and outright discrimination of every mutant no matter how powerful as justification. As the MCU's X-Men surrogates, I wouldn't be shocked if we got at least a taste of that with the Inhumans.
Except the problem is that they lump legitimate concerns over the dangers mutants present along with the crazy people who hate mutants based purely on ignorance and prejudice.
Instead of dealing with issues of mutants manifesting their powers and accidentally causing a ton of damage or hurting people in a reasonable way, the people who express those concerns are immediately turned into genocidal maniacs who want to herd all mutants into concentration camps.
The allegory does break down due to the fact that powered people actually present a danger to others and themselves. As evidenced by the
little girl who couldn't control her powers and mind controlled a bunch of criminals and SHIELD agents.
I hope you understand that the reasoning "They are a danger because they're more powerful" only makes the allegory stronger, not weaker. The "strong [people with power] savages [ people who don't conform to our concepts] threaten our society" line has been used for a long long time.
Except they aren't dangerous just because they're powerful. They're dangerous because they can't necessarily control their power and can hurt themselves or others. It has nothing to do with those people threatening societal or cultural norms. They are a danger regardless of the society they're in.
Someone who can accidentally break people's brains with a touch is not comparable to a group of people from a different culture who have historically been oppressed/abused due to their religious beliefs, the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, etc.
For a long time the argument was that "savages" (as many foreigners were considered in many countries) didn't know their own strength or could not control their emotions or could not integrate into society. This goes way, way back.
Here's Plato
Every care must be taken that our auxiliaries, being stronger than our citizens, may not grow too much for them and become savage beasts.
- Plato
Except those arguments were wrong and based on myths and lies.
In the universe they're building in the show, they've actually shown that there are powered people who are extremely dangerous, have trouble controlling their powers, and have hurt/killed people as a result. That's where the analogy breaks down. Unless you're implying that people's beliefs about "savages" were actually based on truth.
There have also been many instances of those with powers being able to control them and their powers not making them dangerous.
The people of the past have also used the few instances of people acting dangerously as the evidence against a majority. You can continue to try to turn it around on me if you like, but that doesn't make your stance work.
And you can make as many tenuous parallels as you want but it doesn't change the fact that mutants/powered people are a bad allegory for racism/discrimination of real people.
I'm not sure you know what allegory is.
I'm not sure you know the difference between a good allegory and a bad one.
Your arguments have been mirroring both those used in the show, and those used to oppress various people for a long time. I'd say it's a pretty good allegory.
We already know that those deemed dangerous on the index were a minority. We know that there are even more people out there that SHIELD didn't know about, in the Inhumans, who are not posing a significant risk to people or society. We already know that people being given an opportunity to use their gifts in a meaningful way has proven better than the systematic disenfranchisement of the SHIELD index.
Yeah, I'd say it fits.
Hell, you could even see in Centipede the parallels to militant groups that prey on the disenfranchised people and "burn-outs" of society, offering a better life but only using them for their own ends.
Lincoln could probably fry a person, Gordon could probably break into banks, but that doesn't mean that they should instantly be treated as if they have done so just because they could do so. However, it is exactly what SHIELD has done when dealing with powered people in the past, and it's exactly how Olmost SHIELD has been shown treating powered people now. Treating people like they are the worst kind of criminals they could be because they are "other".
So, yeah, I'd say the allegory is a very good one.
Except you need a bit more than that to make a good allegory.
Yes, my type of arguments have been used to oppress various people. But that's like saying because religion has been used to oppress people then any fiction involving religion being used to oppress people is a great allegory for how it's been done in real life. If you're just going to make such general comparisons then anything can be considered a good analogy/allegory for anything else.
For your allegory to work, you have to ignore the very important fact that the arguments used in the show are based on actual events that happened in that universe while arguments used in real life are based on ignorance, exaggerations, misinformation, and complete fabrications. You basically have to completely dismiss all previous incidents of powered people hurting others and the potential of powered people causing disasters in the future.
You also have to clear all reasonable middle ground and push everything to the extreme. I never said that powered people should automatically be treated as criminals before they even do anything. I was simply pointing out that there are legitimate concerns about powered people. I never gave any suggestions about how to deal with those concerns. Why can't there be a reasonable solution that's satisfactory for everyone, despite the actual dangers involved? So the allegory won't work unless any reasonable concerns automatically end up causing people to become heartless genocidal maniacs who have no qualms about putting powered people into concentration camps or wiping them out completely.
Actually quite a few of the real world accusations use/used scientific or evidence based arguments. That evidence often held up but the implications drawn from them required you to be willing to ignore the atrociousness of the implications drawn from them.
The argument that any communist could be a traitor to the US (the basis of the second red scare and McCarthy era) was drawn from the few people who were both traitors and tied to the communist party.
The arguments that African Americans are more violent has drawn from statistics showing that there are more African Americans in jail for violent crimes than White Americans.
The argument that Japanese Americans should be placed in camps was based on the incident at Pearl Harbor.
The idea that Muslims are terrorists is based on the evidence provided by the International media.
It's all vile lies and misinformation, but it's based on the smallest instances of facts taken out of context and used for vile ends.
It's dangerous to think that all hatred is based on something without any trace of fact that anyone should be able to see through. Because we so very rarely do.
In the show people who want to control powered people aren't portrayed as heartless maniacs, nor are those who want to "fix" them, or those who want to monitor them, not even those who want to kill them.
Communists could not shoot lightning out of their hands, Japanese Americans can't cause earthquakes with their minds, Muslims can't teleport, etc.
And you're doing exactly what I said was the problem with the allegory. You're ignoring the fact that there are legitimate issues with powered people that cause concern without distortion or misinformation, and aren't the result of a history/culture of oppression and prejudice. You're immediately going to the strawman of "all concerns about powered people are based on distortions of tiny kernels of truth because that's how it happens in real life."
I don't deny that people have twisted truths to oppress people in real life and the same could happen in the MCU. However, you can't ignore the fact that there are real concerns about the dangers presented by powered people that are not analogous in any way to perceived dangers about oppressed people in real life. Whether or not this allegory is a good one is dependent on how significant those concerns are. If they set things up to where there are lots of powered people who literally have the power to destroy the world or wipe out the human race, then the allegory would be a terrible one. If on the other hand, they set things up where there was only one powered person ever who accidentally hurt others and people are using that bit of truth to distort the facts, then the allegory would be OK.
That was (one of) the problem(s) with the "vampires are gay people" allegory in True Blood. They made the vampires so dangerous and sadistic that it had the opposite message of "we should accept gay people" that they were trying to portray.
In the show, the people who want to control powered people are portrayed as rather heartless. They messed up Blackout and Angar. The angry Boat SHIELD guy was deceptive and tried to kill Skye.
In the X-Men comic books, there are tons of crazy genocidal anti-mutant groups.
This is the thing I don't get. Yeah, they can shoot lightning, yeah they can teleport, yeah they can shake things. Those are really terrible ways to kill a person or threaten them. Anyone could have a gun, anyone could have a bomb, anyone could have a knife. Those are really good ways to kill someone.
Skye isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because people taught her how to use a gun and disable people with her hands. May is more dangerous than anything the Inhumans have brought to the show.
The idea that the inhumans are more dangerous because they have different abilities is ridiculous when everyone else has the same potential to cause damage or kill. Yeah, that kid killed people in an unpleasant way, but she had to touch them. She had all the same killing potential as if she only had a knife.
+3
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
This conversation is surreal.
Capability is 100% part of the equation. Yes, everyone can kill someone else. That's why there are laws against murder. If people couldn't kill each other, you wouldn't need the restriction in the first place. And, by the way, people don't just give kids knives. Or guns. Or nuclear bombs, for that matter.
What are you arguing, exactly? That people can't be treated differently because they have different abilities? Or that they can't be discriminated against because of it? Because those are two entirely different things.
I think people are confounding a lot of things, particularly the idea that being born with something somehow constitutes an inherent difference in rights and responsibilities than if you choose to have something (or rather, if you obtain something externally, such as via a tool (think guns)). That's not really the issue here.
Let's say we're talking about a kid who has a loaded gun with the safety off vs. a kid who has the ability to kill someone simply by snapping his fingers. In the former case, pretty much everyone agrees that a young child should not have the gun in the first place, except under very particular circumstances (such as at a shooting range, under careful adult supervision, after being properly trained, etc.), if at all. That's not meaningfully different from saying that the latter child should be proscribed from killing someone with the snap of his fingers by being forced to wear gloves. That would be an entirely reasonable restriction upon the rights of the child, 100% based on the fact that he can kill someone just by snapping. And this would extend even into adulthood, where we place restrictions upon the behaviors of others all the time (see: everything from fire regulations to felony murder).
If you are trying to argue that it is somehow immoral to place a restriction on someone simply because they were born with a particular capability, then I don't know what to say other than that's a terrible argument.
Then he'd snap his fingers and destroys (you)r argument. Doesn't really matter if you think it's bad, then. Hopefully you get the point, even if it's not such an extreme power.
Capability is 100% part of the equation. Yes, everyone can kill someone else. That's why there are laws against murder. If people couldn't kill each other, you wouldn't need the restriction in the first place. And, by the way, people don't just give kids knives. Or guns. Or nuclear bombs, for that matter.
What are you arguing, exactly? That people can't be treated differently because they have different abilities? Or that they can't be discriminated against because of it? Because those are two entirely different things.
I think people are confounding a lot of things, particularly the idea that being born with something somehow constitutes an inherent difference in rights and responsibilities than if you choose to have something (or rather, if you obtain something externally, such as via a tool (think guns)). That's not really the issue here.
Let's say we're talking about a kid who has a loaded gun with the safety off vs. a kid who has the ability to kill someone simply by snapping his fingers. In the former case, pretty much everyone agrees that a young child should not have the gun in the first place, except under very particular circumstances (such as at a shooting range, under careful adult supervision, after being properly trained, etc.), if at all. That's not meaningfully different from saying that the latter child should be proscribed from killing someone with the snap of his fingers by being forced to wear gloves. That would be an entirely reasonable restriction upon the rights of the child, 100% based on the fact that he can kill someone just by snapping. And this would extend even into adulthood, where we place restrictions upon the behaviors of others all the time (see: everything from fire regulations to felony murder).
If you are trying to argue that it is somehow immoral to place a restriction on someone simply because they were born with a particular capability, then I don't know what to say other than that's a terrible argument.
It's a long conversation, so I understand why it's hard to keep track of it. The idea was put forth that AoS's use of "powered people" could be an allegory for treatment of "others" or more specifically how it's used the same way "black people" has been used in the recent past. Mad Cows said that the allegory breaks down because people with power pose a threat to themselves and others.
Now, they don't actually inherently pose a threat to themselves or others any more than anyone else, and treating all of them based on the actions of what has been regularly shown to be a minority of people with powers is the same kind of logic that has been used regularly throughout history and actually strengthens the allegory rather than weakening it.
People don't give kids guns or knives (though with the latter they do have access to them) often, but they have the same potential in being a threat to themselves and others. The kid thing isn't a great thing to fall back on anyways since it has only ever been shown to be the case once in the show. The fact that powered people have a power doesn't make them dangerous. For most of the powers shown the people need training to be much more than an oddity.
Your example for people with powers is something of an oddity since there's only ever been one person in the show with anything approaching that ability, and all but one person agreed that she should never have been given that ability in the first place and it was one of the few instances where her getting a power was a choice rather than an incident. Whereas the example you gave for a non-powered person is an actual possibility, and one that happens with frightening regularity.
Even then, the one person who actually did have that power was shown to be much much less of a threat than one person who doesn't have any powers at all. Someone who has regularly beaten or killed people with powers. The argument that the person with powers has an inherent advantage breaks down when people without powers fight and kill them with regularity. This inherent threat just hasn't shown up in the show.
Regardless, the argument hasn't been about placing restrictions on a person, but whether the allegory in the show is valid.
Capability is 100% part of the equation. Yes, everyone can kill someone else. That's why there are laws against murder. If people couldn't kill each other, you wouldn't need the restriction in the first place. And, by the way, people don't just give kids knives. Or guns. Or nuclear bombs, for that matter.
What are you arguing, exactly? That people can't be treated differently because they have different abilities? Or that they can't be discriminated against because of it? Because those are two entirely different things.
I think people are confounding a lot of things, particularly the idea that being born with something somehow constitutes an inherent difference in rights and responsibilities than if you choose to have something (or rather, if you obtain something externally, such as via a tool (think guns)). That's not really the issue here.
Let's say we're talking about a kid who has a loaded gun with the safety off vs. a kid who has the ability to kill someone simply by snapping his fingers. In the former case, pretty much everyone agrees that a young child should not have the gun in the first place, except under very particular circumstances (such as at a shooting range, under careful adult supervision, after being properly trained, etc.), if at all. That's not meaningfully different from saying that the latter child should be proscribed from killing someone with the snap of his fingers by being forced to wear gloves. That would be an entirely reasonable restriction upon the rights of the child, 100% based on the fact that he can kill someone just by snapping. And this would extend even into adulthood, where we place restrictions upon the behaviors of others all the time (see: everything from fire regulations to felony murder).
If you are trying to argue that it is somehow immoral to place a restriction on someone simply because they were born with a particular capability, then I don't know what to say other than that's a terrible argument.
It's a long conversation, so I understand why it's hard to keep track of it. The idea was put forth that AoS's use of "powered people" could be an allegory for treatment of "others" or more specifically how it's used the same way "black people" has been used in the recent past. Mad Cows said that the allegory breaks down because people with power pose a threat to themselves and others.
Now, they don't actually inherently pose a threat to themselves or others any more than anyone else, and treating all of them based on the actions of what has been regularly shown to be a minority of people with powers is the same kind of logic that has been used regularly throughout history and actually strengthens the allegory rather than weakening it.
People don't give kids guns or knives (though with the latter they do have access to them) often, but they have the same potential in being a threat to themselves and others. The kid thing isn't a great thing to fall back on anyways since it has only ever been shown to be the case once in the show. The fact that powered people have a power doesn't make them dangerous. For most of the powers shown the people need training to be much more than an oddity.
Your example for people with powers is something of an oddity since there's only ever been one person in the show with anything approaching that ability, and all but one person agreed that she should never have been given that ability in the first place and it was one of the few instances where her getting a power was a choice rather than an incident. Whereas the example you gave for a non-powered person is an actual possibility, and one that happens with frightening regularity.
Even then, the one person who actually did have that power was shown to be much much less of a threat than one person who doesn't have any powers at all. Someone who has regularly beaten or killed people with powers. The argument that the person with powers has an inherent advantage breaks down when people without powers fight and kill them with regularity. This inherent threat just hasn't shown up in the show.
Regardless, the argument hasn't been about placing restrictions on a person, but whether the allegory in the show is valid.
Except I'm not saying that the analogy breaks down just because powered people pose a threat to themselves and others. The scale of the danger is part of the problem. The fact that abilities can be innate and manifest with little or no external stimulus is part of the problem.
Skye has the power to level part of a forest. The little girl mind controlled a dozen criminals/SHIELD agents. Yes, anyone can cause as much, if not more, damage with a missile or a nuclear weapon. But we don't give out missiles and nuclear bombs to everyone.
It's the same problem with the powers manifesting without external influence and being a part of the person. Yes, you can teach a person to fight or use guns. But that's not the same as a person suddenly gaining the ability to shoot lasers out of their eyes.
This is a huge problem with the X-Men because there are so many powerful mutants. The most popular mutants, Professor X, Jean Grey, Magneto, Storm, Iceman, Scarlet Witch, etc., all have the power to wipe out the entire human race. It's kind of hard to compare them to real oppressed people.
Skye isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because people taught her how to use a gun and disable people with her hands.
It's been implied Skye can destroy cities. In her first unconscious act as an Inhuman she unintentionally caused a city wide area to shake - from under a city. It was felt on the surface.
May is more dangerous than anything the Inhumans have brought to the show.
Skye, Raina is now on her level and she doesn't need weapons to kill. Lincoln and not! Nightcrawler have terrifying powers at their disposal were they inclined to use them in that matter.
Lincoln almost destroyed Afterlife in fire when he became Inhuman.
Skye's mother doesn't age, it's been implied she can resurrect herself from death. Wolverine can't do that!
The idea that the inhumans are more dangerous because they have different abilities is ridiculous when everyone else has the same potential to cause damage or kill.
There was that Russian lady with super-strength, which can extremely deadly in the wrong hands. Imagine May with that power.
Yeah, that kid killed people in an unpleasant way, but she had to touch them. She had all the same killing potential as if she only had a knife.
That "knife" was an entire squad of elite SHIELD commandos, the physical harm she could do is significant depending on how many people she can control. It gets worse when you consider she could do that covertly to governments and SHIELD and start her own HYDRA-lite cult and sabotage them from within. SHIELD was lucky they caught her when she was a kid and still stupid and small scale. She was the show's not! Purple Man.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Skye isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because people taught her how to use a gun and disable people with her hands. May is more dangerous than anything the Inhumans have brought to the show.
You're right, she isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because she can level a city, she can set off bullets that are in their magazines, she could probably detonate missiles before they're launched, she can control the vibration of ALL matter. If comic canon is going to be used here, she once gave Magneto a fucking aneurysm. She destroyed Wolverines heart from the outside in.
She can kill an entire army or a single target and there ain't shit you can do about it. Perfect assassin meets one-woman army.
Skye (Quake) is some serious shit, man. You think disarming someone is dangerous? She can disarm someone now by literally taking their arms off with her fucking mind.
jungleroomx on
+4
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Yeah I had a couple of really long replies written up but decided against posting them. The long and short of it is that the analogy between mutants/Inhumans/powered people/whatever and racism is incredibly flawed. This may very well be why boatSHIELD comes off as so stupid - because they are ignoring those same issues in lieu of treating all "powered people" as shoot-on-sight.
I think you're overstating the strength of the analogy, because it's pretty clear that it falls flat on its face. The first time Marvel tried to grapple with this issue head-on, apparently they completely shit the bed (I say apparently because I didn't read the comics). That's because it's actually really hard to make a case that there shouldn't be some sort of regulation in place (i.e., a restriction on someone's rights) because someone has a particular power. The only way the analogy makes sense is if you take it to the extreme where everyone with any power whatsoever is now forced to live on a prison island for the rest of their life (i.e., blanket discrimination and a severe restriction on someone's rights based purely on their "group"). Otherwise, it becomes increasingly difficult to make the comparison and not get laughed out of the room.
Let's say we're talking about a kid who has a loaded gun with the safety off vs. a kid who has the ability to kill someone simply by snapping his fingers. In the former case, pretty much everyone agrees that a young child should not have the gun in the first place, except under very particular circumstances (such as at a shooting range, under careful adult supervision, after being properly trained, etc.), if at all. That's not meaningfully different from saying that the latter child should be proscribed from killing someone with the snap of his fingers by being forced to wear gloves. That would be an entirely reasonable restriction upon the rights of the child, 100% based on the fact that he can kill someone just by snapping. And this would extend even into adulthood, where we place restrictions upon the behaviors of others all the time (see: everything from fire regulations to felony murder).
The problem with that line of argument is that it ignores the fact that the kid with powers is being restricted and hindered from being his "real self", and the kid with a gun is merely stopped from using a tool that is not part of his nature. Obviously the murder-finger-snap power is a terrible example for this, but this is the way Skye's mom, Fitz, and others have been arguing in this half season. What was it Fitz said, "different doesn't mean worse" or so? It's a plea for/exercise in tolerance. I think the way this conflict is portrayed in AoS is a very fitting analog to how the majority in any culture exercises a normative pressure to conform on anyone who differs from what is perceived as normal by the majority. "Normal people can't make everything around them vibrate at will - so we have to stop her from doing that."
Arguing that it's a measure to "protect" the "normal people" from the "dangerous" others is nothing but a sugar coat over this normative pressure, and is only used in order to convince everyone to go along with it.
Really, in AoS, it's shown to work exactly the same way it works in RL. Take it from this social scientist ;-)
Skye isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because people taught her how to use a gun and disable people with her hands. May is more dangerous than anything the Inhumans have brought to the show.
You're right, she isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because she can level a city, she can set off bullets that are in their magazines, she could probably detonate missiles before they're launched, she can control the vibration of ALL matter. If comic canon is going to be used here, she once gave Magneto a fucking aneurysm. She destroyed Wolverines heart from the outside in.
She can kill an entire army or a single target and there ain't shit you can do about it. Perfect assassin meets one-woman army.
Skye (Quake) is some serious shit, man. You think disarming someone is dangerous? She can disarm someone now by literally taking their arms off with her fucking mind.
Well, so can the president of the US. I say we lock him up, just to be safe!
Skye isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because people taught her how to use a gun and disable people with her hands. May is more dangerous than anything the Inhumans have brought to the show.
You're right, she isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because she can level a city, she can set off bullets that are in their magazines, she could probably detonate missiles before they're launched, she can control the vibration of ALL matter. If comic canon is going to be used here, she once gave Magneto a fucking aneurysm. She destroyed Wolverines heart from the outside in.
She can kill an entire army or a single target and there ain't shit you can do about it. Perfect assassin meets one-woman army.
Skye (Quake) is some serious shit, man. You think disarming someone is dangerous? She can disarm someone now by literally taking their arms off with her fucking mind.
Well, so can the president of the US. I say we lock him up, just to be safe!
Let's say we're talking about a kid who has a loaded gun with the safety off vs. a kid who has the ability to kill someone simply by snapping his fingers. In the former case, pretty much everyone agrees that a young child should not have the gun in the first place, except under very particular circumstances (such as at a shooting range, under careful adult supervision, after being properly trained, etc.), if at all. That's not meaningfully different from saying that the latter child should be proscribed from killing someone with the snap of his fingers by being forced to wear gloves. That would be an entirely reasonable restriction upon the rights of the child, 100% based on the fact that he can kill someone just by snapping. And this would extend even into adulthood, where we place restrictions upon the behaviors of others all the time (see: everything from fire regulations to felony murder).
The problem with that line of argument is that it ignores the fact that the kid with powers is being restricted and hindered from being his "real self", and the kid with a gun is merely stopped from using a tool that is not part of his nature. Obviously the murder-finger-snap power is a terrible example for this, but this is the way Skye's mom, Fitz, and others have been arguing in this half season. What was it Fitz said, "different doesn't mean worse" or so? It's a plea for/exercise in tolerance. I think the way this conflict is portrayed in AoS is a very fitting analog to how the majority in any culture exercises a normative pressure to conform on anyone who differs from what is perceived as normal by the majority. "Normal people can't make everything around them vibrate at will - so we have to stop her from doing that."
Arguing that it's a measure to "protect" the "normal people" from the "dangerous" others is nothing but a sugar coat over this normative pressure, and is only used in order to convince everyone to go along with it.
Really, in AoS, it's shown to work exactly the same way it works in RL. Take it from this social scientist ;-)
The Inhumans aren't wrong that Gifted require training with safety, the X-men do that too. Anyone with powers can be dangerous*, the good people will learn how to control them to use it wisely - the bad people will exploit it like any criminal with a weapon does.
* that's what the Inhumans overlook in Afterlife. Skye and Raina are extremely dangerous, they're lucky neither has murdered or crippled anyone yet, accidentally or deliberately.
Harry Dresden on
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yeah I had a couple of really long replies written up but decided against posting them. The long and short of it is that the analogy between mutants/Inhumans/powered people/whatever and racism is incredibly flawed. This may very well be why boatSHIELD comes off as so stupid - because they are ignoring those same issues in lieu of treating all "powered people" as shoot-on-sight.
I think you're overstating the strength of the analogy, because it's pretty clear that it falls flat on its face. The first time Marvel tried to grapple with this issue head-on, apparently they completely shit the bed (I say apparently because I didn't read the comics). That's because it's actually really hard to make a case that there shouldn't be some sort of regulation in place (i.e., a restriction on someone's rights) because someone has a particular power. The only way the analogy makes sense is if you take it to the extreme where everyone with any power whatsoever is now forced to live on a prison island for the rest of their life (i.e., blanket discrimination and a severe restriction on someone's rights based purely on their "group"). Otherwise, it becomes increasingly difficult to make the comparison and not get laughed out of the room.
Look, the comparison is purely superficial.
It's fear of the unknown at its most base. If you're going to pinpoint it to racism then have at it. If you dig deep enough you'll be able to throw out every single analogous situation that has ever existed because all situations have their little foibles. It's human response at its most historically glorious to that new thing or that different thing. It's highly appropriate given our human history, and just for a quick rundown:
1. Columbus. All of his shit, all of it.
2. Large Hadron Collider
3. Internet
4. Hip Hop Music
5. American history with slaves
6. The Red Scare/McCarthyism
That's just a quick snippet. All of these things were met with trepidation, fear, hatred, and even a few left a trail of dead people. All of these things are different but were met with the same hysterics. The identification of the "other" is primary in the panicky idiots of the world, and when some shit comes around that they feel threatened by they tend to try to minimize it by developing a treasure trove of bullshit justifications for actions taken against these things, mindsets taught to children about these things, and misinformation spread towards discrediting these things.
As a general principle, "powered people" is a slur and probably the most human reaction given on the show.
If you want to get into the width and depth of the issue down to its most granular then be my guest (especially because it hasn't happened in Marvel's MCU canon yet).
Yeah, we should definitely come up with something a bit more Kreeative than "powered people."
+4
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
There's a huge distinction between pointing out that people react to things they don't understand the same, or that they tend to overgeneralize and stereotype based on spurious correlations, and then trying to argue that the Inhumans situation is strongly analogous to something like the Holocaust (to reference the X-Men movie) or to slavery (to reference this thread).
I agree that they are driven by the same human psychology, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing. The problem with conflating the two is that people will mistake one issue for the other at a visceral level (as they are doing in this thread), while not appreciating the vast tract of moral, political, and societal ground that is completely and utterly different.
Like, does anyone here really think that it's morally unacceptable for the Inhumans to pick and choose who undergoes Terrigenesis?
What the fuck am I even asking. Fuck you guys. Me and my big nerd mouth always gotta get dragged into fucking nerd arguments about fucking nerd bullshit...
Now that you mention it- Yeah, fuck them. They have no right to stop anyone not clearly batshit/too young from going through with it. They should enforce the proper use afterwards, which would be hard, so they weed people out beforehand. They clearly have shit judgement anyway.
Capability is 100% part of the equation. Yes, everyone can kill someone else. That's why there are laws against murder. If people couldn't kill each other, you wouldn't need the restriction in the first place. And, by the way, people don't just give kids knives. Or guns. Or nuclear bombs, for that matter.
What are you arguing, exactly? That people can't be treated differently because they have different abilities? Or that they can't be discriminated against because of it? Because those are two entirely different things.
I think people are confounding a lot of things, particularly the idea that being born with something somehow constitutes an inherent difference in rights and responsibilities than if you choose to have something (or rather, if you obtain something externally, such as via a tool (think guns)). That's not really the issue here.
Let's say we're talking about a kid who has a loaded gun with the safety off vs. a kid who has the ability to kill someone simply by snapping his fingers. In the former case, pretty much everyone agrees that a young child should not have the gun in the first place, except under very particular circumstances (such as at a shooting range, under careful adult supervision, after being properly trained, etc.), if at all. That's not meaningfully different from saying that the latter child should be proscribed from killing someone with the snap of his fingers by being forced to wear gloves. That would be an entirely reasonable restriction upon the rights of the child, 100% based on the fact that he can kill someone just by snapping. And this would extend even into adulthood, where we place restrictions upon the behaviors of others all the time (see: everything from fire regulations to felony murder).
If you are trying to argue that it is somehow immoral to place a restriction on someone simply because they were born with a particular capability, then I don't know what to say other than that's a terrible argument.
It's a long conversation, so I understand why it's hard to keep track of it. The idea was put forth that AoS's use of "powered people" could be an allegory for treatment of "others" or more specifically how it's used the same way "black people" has been used in the recent past. Mad Cows said that the allegory breaks down because people with power pose a threat to themselves and others.
Now, they don't actually inherently pose a threat to themselves or others any more than anyone else, and treating all of them based on the actions of what has been regularly shown to be a minority of people with powers is the same kind of logic that has been used regularly throughout history and actually strengthens the allegory rather than weakening it.
People don't give kids guns or knives (though with the latter they do have access to them) often, but they have the same potential in being a threat to themselves and others. The kid thing isn't a great thing to fall back on anyways since it has only ever been shown to be the case once in the show. The fact that powered people have a power doesn't make them dangerous. For most of the powers shown the people need training to be much more than an oddity.
Your example for people with powers is something of an oddity since there's only ever been one person in the show with anything approaching that ability, and all but one person agreed that she should never have been given that ability in the first place and it was one of the few instances where her getting a power was a choice rather than an incident. Whereas the example you gave for a non-powered person is an actual possibility, and one that happens with frightening regularity.
Even then, the one person who actually did have that power was shown to be much much less of a threat than one person who doesn't have any powers at all. Someone who has regularly beaten or killed people with powers. The argument that the person with powers has an inherent advantage breaks down when people without powers fight and kill them with regularity. This inherent threat just hasn't shown up in the show.
Regardless, the argument hasn't been about placing restrictions on a person, but whether the allegory in the show is valid.
Except I'm not saying that the analogy breaks down just because powered people pose a threat to themselves and others. The scale of the danger is part of the problem. The fact that abilities can be innate and manifest with little or no external stimulus is part of the problem.
Skye has the power to level part of a forest. The little girl mind controlled a dozen criminals/SHIELD agents. Yes, anyone can cause as much, if not more, damage with a missile or a nuclear weapon. But we don't give out missiles and nuclear bombs to everyone.
It's the same problem with the powers manifesting without external influence and being a part of the person. Yes, you can teach a person to fight or use guns. But that's not the same as a person suddenly gaining the ability to shoot lasers out of their eyes.
This is a huge problem with the X-Men because there are so many powerful mutants. The most popular mutants, Professor X, Jean Grey, Magneto, Storm, Iceman, Scarlet Witch, etc., all have the power to wipe out the entire human race. It's kind of hard to compare them to real oppressed people.
Skye isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because people taught her how to use a gun and disable people with her hands. May is more dangerous than anything the Inhumans have brought to the show.
You're right, she isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because she can level a city, she can set off bullets that are in their magazines, she could probably detonate missiles before they're launched, she can control the vibration of ALL matter. If comic canon is going to be used here, she once gave Magneto a fucking aneurysm. She destroyed Wolverines heart from the outside in.
She can kill an entire army or a single target and there ain't shit you can do about it. Perfect assassin meets one-woman army.
Skye (Quake) is some serious shit, man. You think disarming someone is dangerous? She can disarm someone now by literally taking their arms off with her fucking mind.
She actually can't do any of that in the show. You can't compare the two very different versions, one who has had decades of developing her powers to do very specific tasks, and the other who has broken her own arms while trying to use her powers.
Now that you mention it- Yeah, fuck them. They have no right to stop anyone not clearly batshit/too young from going through with it. They should enforce the proper use afterwards, which would be hard, so they weed people out beforehand. They clearly have shit judgement anyway.
It's implied they're to conservative with their process. Clearly what's needed is balance, and lots of psychiatrists/psychologists on staff and telepaths. Age of Ultron spoilers
Skye's going to freak out when she hears what Scarlet Witch can do.
There's a huge distinction between pointing out that people react to things they don't understand the same, or that they tend to overgeneralize and stereotype based on spurious correlations, and then trying to argue that the Inhumans situation is strongly analogous to something like the Holocaust (to reference the X-Men movie) or to slavery (to reference this thread).
I agree that they are driven by the same human psychology, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing. The problem with conflating the two is that people will mistake one issue for the other at a visceral level (as they are doing in this thread), while not appreciating the vast tract of moral, political, and societal ground that is completely and utterly different.
Like, does anyone here really think that it's morally unacceptable for the Inhumans to pick and choose who undergoes Terrigenesis?
What the fuck am I even asking. Fuck you guys. Me and my big nerd mouth always gotta get dragged into fucking nerd arguments about fucking nerd bullshit...
Capability is 100% part of the equation. Yes, everyone can kill someone else. That's why there are laws against murder. If people couldn't kill each other, you wouldn't need the restriction in the first place. And, by the way, people don't just give kids knives. Or guns. Or nuclear bombs, for that matter.
What are you arguing, exactly? That people can't be treated differently because they have different abilities? Or that they can't be discriminated against because of it? Because those are two entirely different things.
I think people are confounding a lot of things, particularly the idea that being born with something somehow constitutes an inherent difference in rights and responsibilities than if you choose to have something (or rather, if you obtain something externally, such as via a tool (think guns)). That's not really the issue here.
Let's say we're talking about a kid who has a loaded gun with the safety off vs. a kid who has the ability to kill someone simply by snapping his fingers. In the former case, pretty much everyone agrees that a young child should not have the gun in the first place, except under very particular circumstances (such as at a shooting range, under careful adult supervision, after being properly trained, etc.), if at all. That's not meaningfully different from saying that the latter child should be proscribed from killing someone with the snap of his fingers by being forced to wear gloves. That would be an entirely reasonable restriction upon the rights of the child, 100% based on the fact that he can kill someone just by snapping. And this would extend even into adulthood, where we place restrictions upon the behaviors of others all the time (see: everything from fire regulations to felony murder).
If you are trying to argue that it is somehow immoral to place a restriction on someone simply because they were born with a particular capability, then I don't know what to say other than that's a terrible argument.
It's a long conversation, so I understand why it's hard to keep track of it. The idea was put forth that AoS's use of "powered people" could be an allegory for treatment of "others" or more specifically how it's used the same way "black people" has been used in the recent past. Mad Cows said that the allegory breaks down because people with power pose a threat to themselves and others.
Now, they don't actually inherently pose a threat to themselves or others any more than anyone else, and treating all of them based on the actions of what has been regularly shown to be a minority of people with powers is the same kind of logic that has been used regularly throughout history and actually strengthens the allegory rather than weakening it.
People don't give kids guns or knives (though with the latter they do have access to them) often, but they have the same potential in being a threat to themselves and others. The kid thing isn't a great thing to fall back on anyways since it has only ever been shown to be the case once in the show. The fact that powered people have a power doesn't make them dangerous. For most of the powers shown the people need training to be much more than an oddity.
Your example for people with powers is something of an oddity since there's only ever been one person in the show with anything approaching that ability, and all but one person agreed that she should never have been given that ability in the first place and it was one of the few instances where her getting a power was a choice rather than an incident. Whereas the example you gave for a non-powered person is an actual possibility, and one that happens with frightening regularity.
Even then, the one person who actually did have that power was shown to be much much less of a threat than one person who doesn't have any powers at all. Someone who has regularly beaten or killed people with powers. The argument that the person with powers has an inherent advantage breaks down when people without powers fight and kill them with regularity. This inherent threat just hasn't shown up in the show.
Regardless, the argument hasn't been about placing restrictions on a person, but whether the allegory in the show is valid.
Except I'm not saying that the analogy breaks down just because powered people pose a threat to themselves and others. The scale of the danger is part of the problem. The fact that abilities can be innate and manifest with little or no external stimulus is part of the problem.
Skye has the power to level part of a forest. The little girl mind controlled a dozen criminals/SHIELD agents. Yes, anyone can cause as much, if not more, damage with a missile or a nuclear weapon. But we don't give out missiles and nuclear bombs to everyone.
It's the same problem with the powers manifesting without external influence and being a part of the person. Yes, you can teach a person to fight or use guns. But that's not the same as a person suddenly gaining the ability to shoot lasers out of their eyes.
This is a huge problem with the X-Men because there are so many powerful mutants. The most popular mutants, Professor X, Jean Grey, Magneto, Storm, Iceman, Scarlet Witch, etc., all have the power to wipe out the entire human race. It's kind of hard to compare them to real oppressed people.
The allegory does break down due to the fact that powered people actually present a danger to others and themselves. As evidenced by the
little girl who couldn't control her powers and mind controlled a bunch of criminals and SHIELD agents.
So you're arguing from the premise that because I didn't give every conceivable reason why the analogy breaks down and mentioned only one reason, therefore everything else I said was irrelevant?
Capability is 100% part of the equation. Yes, everyone can kill someone else. That's why there are laws against murder. If people couldn't kill each other, you wouldn't need the restriction in the first place. And, by the way, people don't just give kids knives. Or guns. *snip*
Yes they absolutely do. Like... all the time.
Basically, there are already laws against murder and coercion by force or other means. Creating new laws to cover the various methods by which one might commit those crimes isn't necessarily what's called for.
Capability is 100% part of the equation. Yes, everyone can kill someone else. That's why there are laws against murder. If people couldn't kill each other, you wouldn't need the restriction in the first place. And, by the way, people don't just give kids knives. Or guns. *snip*
Yes they absolutely do. Like... all the time.
Basically, there are already laws against murder and coercion by force or other means. Creating new laws to cover the various methods by which one might commit those crimes isn't necessarily what's called for.
Paradoxically, I'm pro-gun control.
Huh
I dunno, creating a new law to stop Inhumans creating earthquakes to destroy cities isn't far fetched. What are they going to charge Skye with if she does that?
Capability is 100% part of the equation. Yes, everyone can kill someone else. That's why there are laws against murder. If people couldn't kill each other, you wouldn't need the restriction in the first place. And, by the way, people don't just give kids knives. Or guns. *snip*
Yes they absolutely do. Like... all the time.
Basically, there are already laws against murder and coercion by force or other means. Creating new laws to cover the various methods by which one might commit those crimes isn't necessarily what's called for.
Paradoxically, I'm pro-gun control.
Huh
I dunno, creating a new law to stop Inhumans creating earthquakes to destroy cities isn't far fetched. What are they going to charge Skye with if she does that?
If she destroyed a city via earthquake?
I mean... thousands upon thousands of counts of murder or manslaughter for a start I guess
Malicious destruction of property
I'm guessing they could find a way to throw terrorism charges at her pretty easily
Murder-ass-murder, along with destruction of property, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct...
Probably inciting riot, I think I've heard of that one.
Jaywalking, loitering, and really anything else they feel like. Because, hey, she just leveled a city and who gives a fuck what they charge her with, she's going away for literally ever.
The point is, she shouldn't be charged before she's done it or because she could.
I mean, somebody shows up to an office building carrying an arsenal and doing heinous shit, you call the cops. And they tend to show up well-armed.
Somebody shows up and starts peeling off with military-level destructive force, you call the National Guard.
Somebody levels a few city blocks with their eyeball-punch-beams, you call Iron Man. And, in the MCU, you can do that.
So the only reason to sanction people because of a possibility they might end up with that power is basic xenophobia.
Because in the real world, you don't sanction infants because they might someday commit a crime.
Well, unless they're brown. Then, yes, we definitely do have systems in place to make sure shit doesn't go well for them. Aaaaand that's the point being made.
Murder-ass-murder, along with destruction of property, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct...
Probably inciting riot, I think I've heard of that one.
Jaywalking, loitering, and really anything else they feel like. Because, hey, she just leveled a city and who gives a fuck what they charge her with, she's going away for literally ever.
The point is, she shouldn't be charged before she's done it or because she could.
I mean, somebody shows up to an office building carrying an arsenal and doing heinous shit, you call the cops. And they tend to show up well-armed.
Somebody shows up and starts peeling off with military-level destructive force, you call the National Guard.
Somebody levels a few city blocks with their eyeball-punch-beams, you call Iron Man. And, in the MCU, you can do that.
So the only reason to sanction people because of a possibility they might end up with that power is basic xenophobia.
Because in the real world, you don't sanction infants because they might someday commit a crime.
Well, unless they're brown. Then, yes, we definitely do have systems in place to make sure shit doesn't go well for them. Aaaaand that's the point being made.
No one should be charged before doing criminal acts, but Gifted would have an impact on the law when shit happens. The hard part is when subtle powers come up, like telepathy and whatever Purple Man has.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
...when everyone else has the same potential to cause damage or kill. Yeah, that kid killed people in an unpleasant way, but she had to touch them. She had all the same killing potential as if she only had a knife.
I am so sorry for you. It must be terrifying to live in a place where everyone can crack open a mountain from half a mile away just by thinking about it. How do you even sleep at night?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It does depend on how their powers manifest. With the mutants, their powers can manifest at unpredictable times and lots of people could get hurt in the process. So an argument can be made about the need to monitor them to ensure the safety of the public.
With the Inhumans, as long as there's no chance of their powers manifesting without Terrigen crystals, then there shouldn't be any problem with pre-terrigensis Inhumans. There just needs to be safeguards in place to prevent the crystals from falling into the wrong hands or getting set off accidentally.
It does depend on how their powers manifest. With the mutants, their powers can manifest at unpredictable times and lots of people could get hurt in the process. So an argument can be made about the need to monitor them to ensure the safety of the public.
With the Inhumans, as long as there's no chance of their powers manifesting without Terrigen crystals, then there shouldn't be any problem with pre-terrigensis Inhumans. There just needs to be safeguards in place to prevent the crystals from falling into the wrong hands or getting set off accidentally.
What about post-Terrigenesis Inhumans? That's here it gets tricky.
Fear of the other is a concept that has been used to prop up all manner of xenophobia and racism for thousands of years. It doesn't matter if it's more or less rational than other examples have been in the past, it's still rooted in the same lizard brain reaction to the unknown and different.
Except fear of mutants/powered people isn't rooted in a reaction to the unknown. It is actually known that there are mutants/powered people who can accidentally level cities. There have been many incidents in X-Men where mutants have accidentally destroyed property or hurt/killed people. There have been incidents in the MCU where powered people hurt/killed people.
This isn't about some vague fear over the "other" corrupting/subverting your culture. It's about a fear of specific incidents in the past where lots of people were hurt being repeated in the future.
Fear of the other is a concept that has been used to prop up all manner of xenophobia and racism for thousands of years. It doesn't matter if it's more or less rational than other examples have been in the past, it's still rooted in the same lizard brain reaction to the unknown and different.
Except fear of mutants/powered people isn't rooted in a reaction to the unknown. It is actually known that there are mutants/powered people who can accidentally level cities. There have been many incidents in X-Men where mutants have accidentally destroyed property or hurt/killed people. There have been incidents in the MCU where powered people hurt/killed people.
This isn't about some vague fear over the "other" corrupting/subverting your culture. It's about a fear of specific incidents in the past where lots of people were hurt being repeated in the future.
Posts
The entire Inhuman storyline and the responses from humans thus far lean heavily towards registration hi-jinx.
http://imgur.com/gallery/I71V6
Clearly, the answer is: Caves!
It started with
Communists could not shoot lightning out of their hands, Japanese Americans can't cause earthquakes with their minds, Muslims can't teleport, etc.
And you're doing exactly what I said was the problem with the allegory. You're ignoring the fact that there are legitimate issues with powered people that cause concern without distortion or misinformation, and aren't the result of a history/culture of oppression and prejudice. You're immediately going to the strawman of "all concerns about powered people are based on distortions of tiny kernels of truth because that's how it happens in real life."
I don't deny that people have twisted truths to oppress people in real life and the same could happen in the MCU. However, you can't ignore the fact that there are real concerns about the dangers presented by powered people that are not analogous in any way to perceived dangers about oppressed people in real life. Whether or not this allegory is a good one is dependent on how significant those concerns are. If they set things up to where there are lots of powered people who literally have the power to destroy the world or wipe out the human race, then the allegory would be a terrible one. If on the other hand, they set things up where there was only one powered person ever who accidentally hurt others and people are using that bit of truth to distort the facts, then the allegory would be OK.
That was (one of) the problem(s) with the "vampires are gay people" allegory in True Blood. They made the vampires so dangerous and sadistic that it had the opposite message of "we should accept gay people" that they were trying to portray.
In the show, the people who want to control powered people are portrayed as rather heartless. They messed up Blackout and Angar. The angry Boat SHIELD guy was deceptive and tried to kill Skye.
In the X-Men comic books, there are tons of crazy genocidal anti-mutant groups.
It's all over.
The resentment towards the "freaks" in the Avengers from world powers who don't want them doing anything.
Fear about Coulson and Skye and their respective situations.
Gonzalez's feelings from a to z.
Inhumans unintentionally injuring or killing people (Skye, the creepy fucking girl and her mom, Cal's band-o-misfits)
Hell, the stage was set with the Hulk "breaking Harlem".
If someone can't see how the registration isn't pending, well shit I dunno.
This season and Age of Ultron's trailers haven't been shy about setting up Civil War.
edit: As well as the movie appropriately titled Captain America: Civil War. It's hard to miss.
Also, I can't believe how stupid I am. The tie in to Age of Ultron couldn't be more obvious.
This is the thing I don't get. Yeah, they can shoot lightning, yeah they can teleport, yeah they can shake things. Those are really terrible ways to kill a person or threaten them. Anyone could have a gun, anyone could have a bomb, anyone could have a knife. Those are really good ways to kill someone.
Skye isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because people taught her how to use a gun and disable people with her hands. May is more dangerous than anything the Inhumans have brought to the show.
The idea that the inhumans are more dangerous because they have different abilities is ridiculous when everyone else has the same potential to cause damage or kill. Yeah, that kid killed people in an unpleasant way, but she had to touch them. She had all the same killing potential as if she only had a knife.
Capability is 100% part of the equation. Yes, everyone can kill someone else. That's why there are laws against murder. If people couldn't kill each other, you wouldn't need the restriction in the first place. And, by the way, people don't just give kids knives. Or guns. Or nuclear bombs, for that matter.
What are you arguing, exactly? That people can't be treated differently because they have different abilities? Or that they can't be discriminated against because of it? Because those are two entirely different things.
I think people are confounding a lot of things, particularly the idea that being born with something somehow constitutes an inherent difference in rights and responsibilities than if you choose to have something (or rather, if you obtain something externally, such as via a tool (think guns)). That's not really the issue here.
Let's say we're talking about a kid who has a loaded gun with the safety off vs. a kid who has the ability to kill someone simply by snapping his fingers. In the former case, pretty much everyone agrees that a young child should not have the gun in the first place, except under very particular circumstances (such as at a shooting range, under careful adult supervision, after being properly trained, etc.), if at all. That's not meaningfully different from saying that the latter child should be proscribed from killing someone with the snap of his fingers by being forced to wear gloves. That would be an entirely reasonable restriction upon the rights of the child, 100% based on the fact that he can kill someone just by snapping. And this would extend even into adulthood, where we place restrictions upon the behaviors of others all the time (see: everything from fire regulations to felony murder).
If you are trying to argue that it is somehow immoral to place a restriction on someone simply because they were born with a particular capability, then I don't know what to say other than that's a terrible argument.
It's a long conversation, so I understand why it's hard to keep track of it. The idea was put forth that AoS's use of "powered people" could be an allegory for treatment of "others" or more specifically how it's used the same way "black people" has been used in the recent past. Mad Cows said that the allegory breaks down because people with power pose a threat to themselves and others.
Now, they don't actually inherently pose a threat to themselves or others any more than anyone else, and treating all of them based on the actions of what has been regularly shown to be a minority of people with powers is the same kind of logic that has been used regularly throughout history and actually strengthens the allegory rather than weakening it.
People don't give kids guns or knives (though with the latter they do have access to them) often, but they have the same potential in being a threat to themselves and others. The kid thing isn't a great thing to fall back on anyways since it has only ever been shown to be the case once in the show. The fact that powered people have a power doesn't make them dangerous. For most of the powers shown the people need training to be much more than an oddity.
Your example for people with powers is something of an oddity since there's only ever been one person in the show with anything approaching that ability, and all but one person agreed that she should never have been given that ability in the first place and it was one of the few instances where her getting a power was a choice rather than an incident. Whereas the example you gave for a non-powered person is an actual possibility, and one that happens with frightening regularity.
Even then, the one person who actually did have that power was shown to be much much less of a threat than one person who doesn't have any powers at all. Someone who has regularly beaten or killed people with powers. The argument that the person with powers has an inherent advantage breaks down when people without powers fight and kill them with regularity. This inherent threat just hasn't shown up in the show.
Regardless, the argument hasn't been about placing restrictions on a person, but whether the allegory in the show is valid.
Except I'm not saying that the analogy breaks down just because powered people pose a threat to themselves and others. The scale of the danger is part of the problem. The fact that abilities can be innate and manifest with little or no external stimulus is part of the problem.
Skye has the power to level part of a forest. The little girl mind controlled a dozen criminals/SHIELD agents. Yes, anyone can cause as much, if not more, damage with a missile or a nuclear weapon. But we don't give out missiles and nuclear bombs to everyone.
It's the same problem with the powers manifesting without external influence and being a part of the person. Yes, you can teach a person to fight or use guns. But that's not the same as a person suddenly gaining the ability to shoot lasers out of their eyes.
This is a huge problem with the X-Men because there are so many powerful mutants. The most popular mutants, Professor X, Jean Grey, Magneto, Storm, Iceman, Scarlet Witch, etc., all have the power to wipe out the entire human race. It's kind of hard to compare them to real oppressed people.
It's been implied Skye can destroy cities. In her first unconscious act as an Inhuman she unintentionally caused a city wide area to shake - from under a city. It was felt on the surface.
Skye, Raina is now on her level and she doesn't need weapons to kill. Lincoln and not! Nightcrawler have terrifying powers at their disposal were they inclined to use them in that matter.
You're right, she isn't dangerous because she can shake a room. She's dangerous because she can level a city, she can set off bullets that are in their magazines, she could probably detonate missiles before they're launched, she can control the vibration of ALL matter. If comic canon is going to be used here, she once gave Magneto a fucking aneurysm. She destroyed Wolverines heart from the outside in.
She can kill an entire army or a single target and there ain't shit you can do about it. Perfect assassin meets one-woman army.
Skye (Quake) is some serious shit, man. You think disarming someone is dangerous? She can disarm someone now by literally taking their arms off with her fucking mind.
I think you're overstating the strength of the analogy, because it's pretty clear that it falls flat on its face. The first time Marvel tried to grapple with this issue head-on, apparently they completely shit the bed (I say apparently because I didn't read the comics). That's because it's actually really hard to make a case that there shouldn't be some sort of regulation in place (i.e., a restriction on someone's rights) because someone has a particular power. The only way the analogy makes sense is if you take it to the extreme where everyone with any power whatsoever is now forced to live on a prison island for the rest of their life (i.e., blanket discrimination and a severe restriction on someone's rights based purely on their "group"). Otherwise, it becomes increasingly difficult to make the comparison and not get laughed out of the room.
The problem with that line of argument is that it ignores the fact that the kid with powers is being restricted and hindered from being his "real self", and the kid with a gun is merely stopped from using a tool that is not part of his nature. Obviously the murder-finger-snap power is a terrible example for this, but this is the way Skye's mom, Fitz, and others have been arguing in this half season. What was it Fitz said, "different doesn't mean worse" or so? It's a plea for/exercise in tolerance. I think the way this conflict is portrayed in AoS is a very fitting analog to how the majority in any culture exercises a normative pressure to conform on anyone who differs from what is perceived as normal by the majority. "Normal people can't make everything around them vibrate at will - so we have to stop her from doing that."
Arguing that it's a measure to "protect" the "normal people" from the "dangerous" others is nothing but a sugar coat over this normative pressure, and is only used in order to convince everyone to go along with it.
Really, in AoS, it's shown to work exactly the same way it works in RL. Take it from this social scientist ;-)
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
Well, so can the president of the US. I say we lock him up, just to be safe!
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
The Inhumans aren't wrong that Gifted require training with safety, the X-men do that too. Anyone with powers can be dangerous*, the good people will learn how to control them to use it wisely - the bad people will exploit it like any criminal with a weapon does.
* that's what the Inhumans overlook in Afterlife. Skye and Raina are extremely dangerous, they're lucky neither has murdered or crippled anyone yet, accidentally or deliberately.
Look, the comparison is purely superficial.
It's fear of the unknown at its most base. If you're going to pinpoint it to racism then have at it. If you dig deep enough you'll be able to throw out every single analogous situation that has ever existed because all situations have their little foibles. It's human response at its most historically glorious to that new thing or that different thing. It's highly appropriate given our human history, and just for a quick rundown:
1. Columbus. All of his shit, all of it.
2. Large Hadron Collider
3. Internet
4. Hip Hop Music
5. American history with slaves
6. The Red Scare/McCarthyism
That's just a quick snippet. All of these things were met with trepidation, fear, hatred, and even a few left a trail of dead people. All of these things are different but were met with the same hysterics. The identification of the "other" is primary in the panicky idiots of the world, and when some shit comes around that they feel threatened by they tend to try to minimize it by developing a treasure trove of bullshit justifications for actions taken against these things, mindsets taught to children about these things, and misinformation spread towards discrediting these things.
As a general principle, "powered people" is a slur and probably the most human reaction given on the show.
If you want to get into the width and depth of the issue down to its most granular then be my guest (especially because it hasn't happened in Marvel's MCU canon yet).
I agree that they are driven by the same human psychology, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing. The problem with conflating the two is that people will mistake one issue for the other at a visceral level (as they are doing in this thread), while not appreciating the vast tract of moral, political, and societal ground that is completely and utterly different.
Like, does anyone here really think that it's morally unacceptable for the Inhumans to pick and choose who undergoes Terrigenesis?
What the fuck am I even asking. Fuck you guys. Me and my big nerd mouth always gotta get dragged into fucking nerd arguments about fucking nerd bullshit...
She actually can't do any of that in the show. You can't compare the two very different versions, one who has had decades of developing her powers to do very specific tasks, and the other who has broken her own arms while trying to use her powers.
It's implied they're to conservative with their process. Clearly what's needed is balance, and lots of psychiatrists/psychologists on staff and telepaths. Age of Ultron spoilers
Welcome to Penny Arcade, you nerd.
So you're arguing from the premise that because I didn't give every conceivable reason why the analogy breaks down and mentioned only one reason, therefore everything else I said was irrelevant?
Yes they absolutely do. Like... all the time.
Basically, there are already laws against murder and coercion by force or other means. Creating new laws to cover the various methods by which one might commit those crimes isn't necessarily what's called for.
Paradoxically, I'm pro-gun control.
Huh
EDIT: Bolded for clarity
I dunno, creating a new law to stop Inhumans creating earthquakes to destroy cities isn't far fetched. What are they going to charge Skye with if she does that?
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
If she destroyed a city via earthquake?
I mean... thousands upon thousands of counts of murder or manslaughter for a start I guess
Malicious destruction of property
I'm guessing they could find a way to throw terrorism charges at her pretty easily
Not to mention the civil suits
oh god the civil suits
Probably inciting riot, I think I've heard of that one.
Jaywalking, loitering, and really anything else they feel like. Because, hey, she just leveled a city and who gives a fuck what they charge her with, she's going away for literally ever.
The point is, she shouldn't be charged before she's done it or because she could.
I mean, somebody shows up to an office building carrying an arsenal and doing heinous shit, you call the cops. And they tend to show up well-armed.
Somebody shows up and starts peeling off with military-level destructive force, you call the National Guard.
Somebody levels a few city blocks with their eyeball-punch-beams, you call Iron Man. And, in the MCU, you can do that.
So the only reason to sanction people because of a possibility they might end up with that power is basic xenophobia.
Because in the real world, you don't sanction infants because they might someday commit a crime.
Well, unless they're brown. Then, yes, we definitely do have systems in place to make sure shit doesn't go well for them. Aaaaand that's the point being made.
No one should be charged before doing criminal acts, but Gifted would have an impact on the law when shit happens. The hard part is when subtle powers come up, like telepathy and whatever Purple Man has.
I am so sorry for you. It must be terrifying to live in a place where everyone can crack open a mountain from half a mile away just by thinking about it. How do you even sleep at night?
With the Inhumans, as long as there's no chance of their powers manifesting without Terrigen crystals, then there shouldn't be any problem with pre-terrigensis Inhumans. There just needs to be safeguards in place to prevent the crystals from falling into the wrong hands or getting set off accidentally.
What about post-Terrigenesis Inhumans? That's here it gets tricky.
And you know, the whole terrorist thing