As reported by the press, Dave's up to stuff.
When I found out first*, I sent up a fax to get the confirmations, to wit, I wrote:
And the article.Fourth, over on the Facebooks, Oliver Simonsen posted a link to a video of Ethan Van Sciver saying that you’re scripting Cyberfrog Blood Honey. Just wondering if this is true, or if it’s something somebody made up? Van Sciver also tweeted: “Dave Sim is helping out with the CYBERFROG series. Totally amazing. A genius. #ComicsGate” Which begs the question of: Does Dave know what #ComicsGate is?If not: From the website Inverse: https://www.inverse.com/article/41132-comicsgate-explained-bigots-milkshake-marvel-dc-gamergate
I continued:
And that article. I continued:And the story from Mr. Van Sciver is that YOU approached HIM about doing Cyber Frog. Kinda wondering about that too?I dunno Dave, looking around the internet, it seems that Ethan Van Sciver and #ComicsGate are not the kind of people or institutions I’d wanna associate with. Which, if YOU are, I would be forced to be, in promoting any work you’re involved in on AMOC.I mean I literally just spent a couple hours reading various online articles about Mr. Van Sciver. And while there may be some political slant on the part of the writers, the consensus is not good.
I mean the optics of the creator of Judenhass working with a creator who has frequently used Nazi imagery…Look, you’re a grown-up. You’re gonna do what you want to do, but I’m just saying, as an admirer of your work, associating with #ComicsGate is probably not a sound business decision. Especially if you’re trying to launch The Strange Death of Alex Raymond soon (which I believe you are.)
Also, somebody asked on the Facebook group if Mr. Van Sciver has signed the Petition, and Margaret Liss checked and reported that he didn’t, so what up with that?And Dave done responded:
"Further question"? You bet yer sweet bibbie Pardner!
First, Hobbs, what the sweet F@$#! did you say "ComicsGate" was to Dave?
I mean they have a F@$#ing BLACKLIST!
What the HELL man?!?
I'm formulating my response. As some fans/supporters have already decided that if Dave's "in", they're "out", I'm taking submissions of CONCRETE EVIDENCE of ComicsGate (in general) and Ethan Van Sciver (specifically) being..."No-goodniks". If you got a link, or something sent it to: amoccomments@gmail.com with the subject heading "ComicsGate NAY!"
I already have this one.
But, since I'm a firm believer that there are three sides to every story: Yours, Theirs, and the truth, I'm ALSO willing to take submissions of CONCRETE EVIDENCE of ComicsGate (in general) and Ethan Van Sciver (specifically) being "Darling Lil' Angels who wouldn't hurt a hair on a fly". If you got a link, or something sent it to amoccomments@gmail.com with the subject heading "ComicsGate Yay!"
But ONLY that email address, and ONLY with one of those subject headings. Everything else will be tossed aside.
Okay, apologies to Margaret for bumping her post, see everybody here tomorrow for the Weekly Update.
*Sometimes it's GOOD to be the king...
39 comments:
Wow. What a total non-answer.
Ethan Van Sciver is a mor(m)on and that's as good a reason as any to stay away from him. The guy's just a really big jerk.
More seriously, the guy isn't as for free speech as he likes to make himself out to be and he cannibalised fellow conservatives on twitter over imagined slights, not something you would expect from a grown man trying to posture as the rational man contrasted with irrational opponents.
There's a vocal minority willing to give you visible, objective proof of the clownish behaviour of comicsgate and I'm paraphrasing multiple anecdotes and personal observations to say that: "Yeah your suspicions are right on the money".
The only good comicsgate guy is Nerkish, practically adored by all. He's a delightful rascal and rabble rouser (so he's not even really a part of this dumb movement created by drooling superhero fans)
- Memetaphysician
Matt,
You are fooling yourself if you do not think that EVS and his ilk are squarely within Dave's philosophical wheelhouse. It is a a near perfect fit. The question will be: How will Dave's supporters rationalize this?
Quite easily I would imagine. Yeah, some may have a hand wring or two, but most will simply shrug it off. Comicsgate is anti diversity and blames the current down cycle in comic sales on such. Ignoring other down cycles in the past that had no convenient whipping boy (or girl). Whether you choose to believe that they are all alt-right, nazi sympathizers or worse, is actually irrelevant. They are actually anti creatives who look for the lowest common denominator to blame everything on. Prejudice and racism usually vie for that lowest rung, and these fools are gladly hanging on to it.
You will neither ban or abandon Dave. The hardcore supporters will not do so either.
All means of rationalization to continue supporting him will be presented.
A very few on this board will rail against it. It will mean nothing.
Being associated with Dave as a collaborator I should get something publicly on record about this.
Dave asked what I thought about crowdsourcing YDKJ "through Comicsgate." To paraphrase my response.
As far as I can tell there is a loose movement of people on the internet that use "comicsgate" as a term for various things, ranging from supporting the rights of conservative creators to have a voice withing the mainstream industry without harassment from SJW culture or threat of losing their jobs, to a hypocritical willingness to harass and call for the firing of creators whose "leftist" views displease the movement.
There is also a new imprint, "Comicsgate" associated with some other imprints that produce, as far as I can tell, completely garbage comic books.
I am 100% against Van Sciver's call for certain creators to be fired based on their politics. I am 100% against this blacklist they have. If a reader cannot identify the politics of an overtly political writer by reading the work and make their own decisions...that is sad. Who CARES about the politics of a penciler, inker or colorist!? Do they do good work or do they not? Does the content of the work bother you or not? If it does don't buy it. If you like it, buy it.
Van Sciver's position is hypocritical in that it targets people for their politics at the same time he decries being targeted for his politics (real or imagined) and it blames declining sales on one highly questionable factor instead of acknowledging a multiplicity of issues.
His arguments also frame comics as primarily a business venture. I believe in comics primarily as an artform. If a business wants to lose money to promote a work they believe adds to the growth of the medium we should praise them, even if we dislike the work. Should that more companies threw money at risky projects.
Because the "movement" is nebulous I personally do not want a "Comicsgate" stamp on any work I produce, and I especially do not want to work with the Comicsgate imprint.
I AM totally okay spending time talking to WHOMEVER wants to talk about what we are doing. Ethan VanSciver has a big audience, many of whom I assume are perfectly fine human beings, many of whom seem like they would be interested in Dave's work. I think Dave would be smart to spend time on Van Sciver's podcast. I would love to do the podcast and talk to Van Sciver about the issues I raised above. The more fans know what we are doing the better. I am fine switching from IDW to a crowdfunded release for YDKJ. If the art is going to come out either way, then, yeah we might as well take the route that is going to net us the most return.
Hopefully Dave Sim fans can agree it is possible to engage in discussion with and buy work from someone we disagree with. The reverse of this should apply as well. We can engage in discussion with and sell work to fans who we disagree with (and by we I mean I, not Dave. I won't speak for him.).
However, as an individualist I do not want to go slapping any labels on my work that associates me with an entire ideology without qualification.
Carson Grubaugh
Surprise, surprise, surprise. The old Duck and Cover but leave some tail feathers sticking out - just in case.
Yeah, Carson you started out well, but ended just as I predicted in my previous post, rationalizing.
Two questions: If Hillary was flogging a book, would she go on Limbaugh?
If she did, do you think anyone listening to that show would buy it?
'I find so and so's opinions to be very objectionable, but I will do his show because maybe someone in his audience will buy my book because they identify with me even though they are fans of this guy who is so objectionable'
Uh, huh.
Or, maybe just two peas in a pod and the third pea just wanna get his no matter what moral contortions are needed.
With due respect Carson, "comicsgate" is for more than problematic than:
"Hopefully Dave Sim fans can agree it is possible to engage in discussion with and buy work from someone we disagree with."
I am willing to engage in discussion with people having different viewpoints. I don't tend to agree with Dave on many topics, but he (1) respectfully accepts whatever my disagreement is and (2) does not proceed to harass me on that, or others about me.
Comicsgate in general sense is willing to amp up from rhetoric to outright hostility, stalking like behavior and harassment.
In my mind, a supporter of a movement that encourages such action is not worth discussion with, support of, or my time/money/support.
EVS is welcome to believe anything he wants to, no matter how distasteful his belief(s) are to me (and my beliefs to him). But to stalk, belittle, disparage others...to attack on Twitter or Facebook...or to align to a group that is so willing to do that is, to me, indefensible.
Carson, I don't know you, so I may misinterpret what I read as a "I don't support but I'll not not support" position. I do believe your rationale around EVS (and by extension, comicsgate) is a house of cards in a very windy environment.
**
Re: Dave's response does not fill me with much hope, as he's wrapped his own views of society's disdain for him into belief that comicsgate is "safe" for him. I still cannot get past an irony that Dave's years of believed/actual persecution is a key part of comicsgate to-do to others platform.
Dave,
You answered none of the questions put to you by Matt, except the rather incomplete answer you gave to the question of your knowledge of comicsgate, and in that you make reference only to that you think it might be a safe space for you to step out into the world. Of that I have no doubt.
You do not owe me or anyone an explanation for whom you chose to talk with or do business, but neither do I owe you my "unwavering support", that which Kim Jong Un offered to Donald Trump recently. If after reading the material Matt supplies to you or (here's an idea) using the technology available to you to do some investigating of your own, you then choose to support comicsgate directly or work with Van Sciver or simply use his audience to advertise your work, then I would have to withdraw my support of you.
I know that sounds rather pretentious. After all, what is my support anyway? Well,I signed your petition because I do not think you are a misogynist, I publicly defend that position and champion your art in comics circles whenever the opportunity presents itself, I am a Patreon supporter, and I have pledged for each portfolio in support of the ongoing Cerebus restoration project. All drops in a bucket, I suppose, but that support was both conscious and costly for me.
Erick,
It seems presumptuous and unfair of you to assume Matt will rationalize any of Dave's words or actions in order to keep involved with Dave and AMOC. If anything Matt seems genuinely concerned with himself being linked to comicsgate even in a seven degrees of Kevitch manner.
Carson,
I know many Cerebus fans, myself included, who engage meaningfully with creators who's work we admire and with whom we have many disagreements. For me Dave Sim has been one of those creators, and so are you.
I agree with much of what you wrote above but I can't bring myself to rationalize using Van Sciver's audience the way you propose. Even if I presume as you do that within Van Sciver's audience there are "fine human beings" (Not "very fine people", surely.), I think hocking my wares on a platform built by such an unpleasant fellow would either require my tacit approval of his views and actions or a hipocritical rationalization that the ends justify the means.
Michael Hunt
Gee, and this whole time I thought I was looking at a molehill.
I guess if your perspective is just so, it appears to be a mountain.
Steve
Michael,
I truly believe that Matt holds no truck with the Comicsgate crowd and that he will do his best to not be associated with such. But, the reason why I think that he and other hardcore Cerebus supporters will rationalize it away is twofold. 1) Look at how easily Carson just did it? Just like I predicted.
2) This site is called A Moment Of Cerebus and features a weekly update by Dave. Do you really think that someone(s) who is that devoted to Cerebus and Dave would just toss that away? No, they will find a way to rationalize.
I love Cerebus. But I hate the way Dave's politics/philosophy/L.Ron Hubbard-isms/misogyny have caused Cerebus to suffer. Embracing EVS and his ilk, will only deepen that.
Matt, I mean you no ill will and I think you are a good person, whether I am right or wrong about how this comicsgate stuff shakes out
Just a silly thought...but off the top of my head I'd be hard pressed to think of a comic that's more "SJW" than Dave's own Judenhass.
Now, since I've had absolutely no interest in "mainstream"/MarvelDC/superhero comics since around 1988, I'm going back to ignoring these jerks. Sometimes I just have to shake my head at the kinds of things people think are worth considerable time and attention. If you don't like a comic, don't buy it! End of story.
I'm not a part of comicsgate, but I have followed it loosely for a few months now. Frankly, there is nothing that I (some random guy on the internet) could say in the confines of a Cerebus fansite to change anyones mind on the subject. I've seen bullying and rude behavior on both sides of the issue. There are black-lists on both sides as well. One side uses block-bots on Twitter to silence anyone they don't agree with. The other side mocks people endlessly on Youtube. Honestly, it has all gotten tiresome and it distracts people from making and enjoying comics.
Besides... If you believe everything that everybody tells you on the internet - then you probably believe everything they ever told you about Dave Sim. And if you believe that, then what are you doing on his fan site?
Bob O.
Evidence-free "Both-Siderism" (tm) from Bob O.! Hey Bobbo, the Comisgaters have published an actual blacklist; where's the "other side"'s blacklist that you claim exists? Link please.
It's so precious how important it is to Dave that he be unique, unprecedented, the only one who really understands feminism / the Bible / the universe / whatever.
I accidentally and completely refuted one of Dave's "15 things" years ago, and he still hasn't addressed that or amended his list. One might almost conclude that his mind is hermetically sealed and impervious to new input.
He used to be a damned fine cartoonist, though, and I am looking forward to his Strange Death.
-- Damian
Michael,
I think if I had the larger platform and used it to introduce Van Sciver to MY audience it would be a tacit approval of his ideas as worthy of being heard but he has a FAR bigger platform than Dave, and an ASTRONOMICALLY larger one than I do.
If he were to willingly brings someone into his venue that he knows is going to disagree with him -- in this hypothetical case, me, as I won't speak for what Dave would have to say--I really don't see the problem.
For instance, taking the Limbaugh idea from Erick, in my hometown there is a young, unknown Democrat, Josh Harder, running for Congress. We hope he will oust Republican Jeff Denham. If Limbaugh, for some crazy reason, decided to have Harder on his show shouldn't we praise Limbaugh for doing so and encourage Harder to take the opportunity?
I would.
I think Ethan should have gabby Rivera on his show. I think Gabby should be willing to go on. (I haven't read Cyberfrog, but I assume it isn't any great addition to the comics cannon. I did read the first issue of Rivera's America and found it laughably bad. "Pure white energy, huh? Well, pure white just means the absence of color so let me give her a little of this brown fist." Given this evidence I assume the conversation would be laughably bad on both sides.)
Apparently this mindset keeps me in the dog house with both sides. Dave has officially determined I am "way over there" and "comicsgate is way over here" so the conversation about how to promote YDKJ and SDOAR to them is basically dead in Dave's mind. And here on AMOC I am seen as way over there with comicsgate and you all are way over there somewhere else.
Sure. Happily over here in the middle wishing a situation had not arisen where I needed to make my opinion public.
Damien, you didn’t post one either so...
Neener neener.
Bob O.
(I had something better started, but it’s late on a Friday and I’m tired and hangry.)
Carson,
Your point as to the various players possessing differing vastnesses of audiences is well taken, or at least it would be if we were simply talking about Dave or you or me having a discussion of comicsgate or its adherents' tactics on Van Sciver's platform.
Dave, in his faxed reply ("reply" not "answer") to Matt's questions, mentions Van Sciver, his audience, and the YouTube platform he uses to reach them only in the context of it being a safe space for Dave to advertise his work to a larger audience than that to which he's been recently accustomed. In his enthusiasm for this safe space I find neither the willingness on his part to engage with the more troublesome aspects of Van Sciver's tacticts, nor any acknowledgement that Van Sciver and comicsgate are anything but like-minded anti-femenists being persecuted by the homosexualist/femenist axis, just as Dave sees himself.
That is what I was responding to when I suggested Dave appearing on Van Sciver's platform was hipocritical at best, and a tacit approval of comicsgate at worse.
As to who's way over here, there, and everywhere...well, I've never placed you or Dave in any sort of box and filed you away, although I've sparred in a gentlemanly manner with you both a time or two. I think either of you would be an excellent neighbor or dinner companion.
But If Dave throws in with that crowd, whether it be motivated by capitalism, anti-femenism, or a willful ignorance employed due to a desire for a safe space, then I'll no longer hold him in such high regard.
Michael Hunt
Carson G.: You said, "pure white just means the absence of colour". That's black. Pure white is the presence of every colour. (Remember that we're talking about energy, so we mean light not pigment.)
This argument is analagous to the recent Steve Bannon / New Yorker kerfuffle, which Carson on the side of the Bannonites.
Bobbo, ya bonehead, you're claiming the existence of something, so you provide an example. I'm claiming it doesn't exist, so how would I provide an example? Thinking, son; it's hard, but worth it.
-- Damian
How is a boycott the same as a "blacklist," anyway? A blacklist would mean the artists would be actively prevented from finding work in an organized way. All the Comicsgate boneheads are doing is encouraging people not to buy comics by those folks. That ain't a blacklist.
Oops, I'm not ignoring them, am I? No willpower, none at all...
Michael,
Yeah, I would like to have seen Dave respond to the questions more directly as well.
Anything I am saying here is entirely confined to my opinions on the matter, my own level of willingness to engage with that community, and on what terms, etc. not the terms on which Dave is willing to do it or his level of comfort doing so.
You have always been great to me. No worries about that. Hope you would still pick up SDOAR at least, if not YDKJ.
Damian,
We are in agreement about this. What!? How!?!!
I was pointing out that Gabby Rivera wrote an utterly ridiculous line of dialogue completely ignoring the physics of light to make a political point. BAD WRITING.
If it were me, no matter the size of the potential platform, the general behavior on display over a long steady period of time by the audience in question would make me really, really not want to offer even the slightest validation of that audience's collective behavior in that realm by my participation. Even if my hope was to offer criticism that would attempt to invalidate that audience's collective behavior, I don't think there's a way to make that productive or positive. Don't think of Hillary going on Limbaugh's show, think of Hillary going to a MAGA rally.
Damien -
You've proven my points about rude behavior and not convincing anyone.
I meant you didn't post the comicsgate black list. I've never seen one. I think it's more of a boycott list anyway and not a formal one that is followed by everyone in the movement. And exactly what power does comicsgate have to blacklist? On the other side, however - There is absolutely an industry blacklist against creators of a certain political vein. It's not a secret and they aren't even shy about it.
Look... if Dave wants to work with Van Sciver - what's the problem? I look forward to reading it at an affordable price - not a $25 collectible edition price.
Bob O.
Bob O.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/comicsgate?full=1
Matt
Bobbo: So the actual blacklist that's led to real-life targetting of creators is just a boycott list, and the list that your paranoid mind just made up is a real blacklist? Gotcha.
-- Damian
I think "blacklist" vs. "boycott list" is a semantic debate along the lines of "infer" vs. "imply." The Comicsgate crowd is attempting to act as gatekeepers and would like to blacklist those creators, but ultimately it's a boycott list unless it gets adopted by the actual gatekeepers, Marvel & DC and other publishers of influence, who then decide not to hire those named creators.
Or maybe that semantic distinction doesn't actually exist and both terms are equivalent. The Hollywood blacklist of the 50's was applied by the studios out of concern that American moviegoers might have instead decided to make a similar boycott list of people in the industry whose works they would avoid, right?
I suppose modern usage could conflate those words, resulting in its use by Comicsgate and in the article Matt mentions. Or I could be wrong too and they always meant the same thing.
Good day to you.
Bob O.
Those confused about the differing nature of the comicsgate blacklist and the blocklist circulated amongst their victims would do well to click and read the "know your meme" link (see above) that Matt was kind enough to supply.
Comicsgate's blacklist's ostensive use was to provide an "enemy's list" to those sympathetic to their cause, so that members could avoid purchasing or promoting work by people of which the home office did not approve, and to provide contact information (physical addresses, email addresses, phone numbers) of same, the employers of same, the prospective employers of same, and any media (private, public, and social) that did support the work of same or have the temerity to oppose comicsgate's views. This was there stated goal.
However, the list, once published, was used also to target, harras, and threaten the entities listed thereon, and often with the express encouragement or veiled encouragement of Van Sciver and his ilk.
The blocklist circulated was a list of people and their various social media "handles" and was used by victims of comicsgate's harrasment and media entities (private, public, and social) to literally block their comments from any online forum that wished to do so.
The two things are not semantically equal. Neither are they equal in either supposed intended effect or actual effect. The former has gone beyond any boycotting campaign and has entered the territory of those who publish abortion doctors names and addresses alongside their picture in a rifle scope's crosshairs. The latter is akin to any media site that uses the control they have to censor user content.
That word, "censor", causes me to cringe, I'll admit. But if I repeatedly called Matt a poo-poo head on his own blog then I would expect to be blocked at some point, and earlier rather than later were I to also let him know I know where he lives...and his little dog Toto too, if you catch my drift. Neither would I be obliged to leave unmolested a swastika painted on my door by another, if you continue in the vein of drift-catching.
So to sum up: comicsgate's blacklist and the anti-comicsgate blocklist are not equal semantically, in motivation, in practice, or in result.
And, for the record, I do not think Matt is a poo-poo head but I'm willing to admit the tall pointy hat poses more questions than it answers.
Wow! Am I ever glad I took some time off from AMOC in the past 36 hours or so. Matt, yer earnin' every penny, dude.
I actually spent a few hours, a coupla days ago, researching comicsgate (and, thankfully, not gamersgate--whence sprung at least the name comicsgate) and what I found seemed, to me, to be a lot of sound and fury signifying what will, eventually, come to nothing.
Several years ago, I was on the receiving end of a very personal attack, online at the old Cerebus Yahoo Group IIRC, directed at me, by name, from Gail Simone. I objected, publicly, and she apologized, publicly. We both moved on. I even bought a couple of her comics afterwards.
I find comicsgate in general and EVS in particular to be an outsized (and somewhat rude) reaction to the outsized (and somewhat rude) SJW movement in comics (primarily, it seems, the Big Two). If females want to complain about how they have been depicted (literally, drawn) in comics for decades, then I say let them get some drawing chops and depict the female body (in its myriad forms) realistically. Let them petition, rightfully so, men to do the same. It's only right, after such a long time (don't even get me started on why Wonder Woman--arguably the most proto-feminist character in the history of comics--was drawn in so many bondage scenes, for decades).
But, what bothers me about both sides--comicsgate and the SJWs--is the nearly unmitigated vitriol that many, if not most, of them spew at each other.
I, like some others here (apparently) am very glad that I don't buy current comic books, aside from Dave's work and Mouse Guard and the occasional back issues or collections (still waitin' on that big-ass FF Galactus treasury book).
I am not a big fan of Gail Simone's writing (probably because I've never been a big fan of WW or the vast majority of DC comics), but I give her respect because she showed the fortitude of character to apologize to me, publicly, for insulting me without merit or cause. Would that the so-called comicsgate people could get a grip and back off from their vitriol against liberals and feminists, and would that the so-called SJWs could get a grip and back off from their vitriol against WASP men.
Lastly, if Dave Sim can inject some solid, apolitical, comic book writing into what has, apparently, been noteworthy for being a not-all-that-well-done comic book, then I'll give it a look. Even though I think that EVS seriously needs to get a grip on how he makes his sometimes-semi-valid points.
Okay. Bottom line. If anyone can produce a comic book or comic book series that consists of a compelling, well-told story and aesthetically-appealing art, then I will buy at least one issue. But, if a writer and/or an artist feels (or, thinks) that using that stage, with or without talent, to advance an agenda IN A VITRIOLIC MANNER, well, then, count me out.
And, yes, I do own the "c***, c***, c**** c***" issue of Cerebus. Bring on the vitriol.
I only know one thing for sure: This, too, shall pass.
Anyone tell Dave, or does Dave know, that Darwyn's widow has gone on record with what she understands Darwyn's position was and/or would have been apropos "ComicsGate"? So, you know, no need to guess unless one believes they know Darwyn better than his wife did (or, I suppose, believing that she's lying).
Hi, I'm a neutral fan that is still forming my views on #ComicsGate and I'm not sure if its a good thing or a bad thing in a stagnant industry that is in desperate need of a shake up, but I'd like to point out two things that I know for certain.
A) There is no #ComicsGate blacklist, any list that is circulated around the internet is fraudulent and being spread by internet trolls in order to create drama.
B) There is no #ComicsGate book imprint, nor will there be. The one that was announced on Bounding Into Comics was an elaborate prank by Vox Day, who was looking to have a laugh at Ethan Van Sciver's expense. He is a controversial internet figure that is not generally considered to be within their community.
-Billiam
While I can understand why Dave might see the comicsgate folk as intellectual kindred spirits, I am disappointed that he seems to be willing to overlook their use of targeted harassment as a strategy to go after those with whom they disagree. I would have thought that sort of thing was anathema to Dave.
Dominick Grace, well phrased. Agreed, and stated much clearer than I achieved.
So Jeff S. is opposed to vitriol in comics, unless it's on the side of his own (i.e. Dave's) beliefs. And someone named Billiam says that we should believe him over our lyin' eyes.
-- Damian
Billiam,
Of the two things you know to be true you are batting no better than 500. Bounding Into Comics published the list earlier this year.
http://boundingintocomics.com/2018/02/09/fans-create-list-comic-book-professionals-boycott/
Since they are the go to website for comicsgate you can hardly claim the list was circulated by internet trolls unless you consider Bouncing Into Comics as being run by internet trolls, which...well...it is, they are, and that's actually the point.
Michael Hunt
Damian T.Lloyd,Esq
Ethan van sciver was sent unsolicited pictures of an artist Currently employed by dc's anus publicly on twitter.
The breitweisers who are working on a comicsgate affiliated book cancelled a convention appearance over safety fears.
Peter Simeti who runs alterna comics issued a social media policy for creators on his companies books not to use blocklists or block bots,several members of the comic book industry and media n took that to be a sign of support for comicsgate and gave him enough grief to the point that he was in his own words"borderline suicidal" he then received anonymous threats before a convention appearance this weekend.
So yeah I'd say there's evidence of "both sideserism"
Scott,
I was unaware of DC's new "Anus" imprint. Are they also hiring writers? Do I need to send a head-shot? Or will the other end suffice?
The nature of the Breitwriser's security concerns remain unknown, both to the convention at which they cancelled their appearance, and to the comics press that has asked for details. Mitch Breitweiser replied only thus:
"This guy. No I will not defend why my wife feels unsafe to you. What is newsworthy is raising $165,000 from nearly 3,000 of the greatest fans on the planet for Red Rooster: Golden Age on Indiegogo which is still available as an in-demand store: https://t.co/9VeMQKrIyd pic.twitter.com/sHlceYzdML
— 🌈🌤 M I T C H 🦅🌩 (@mbreitweiser) August 30, 2018"
That doesn't sound at all like a fellow who has been successfully marketting his wares on comicsgate platforms while standing alongside comicsgate notables, and has never mentioned comicsgate online unconnected to advertising his book on Indiegogo, and has done the math and figured out he'd move more units by tweeting his supposed victomhood than by packing a bag and spending the weekend amongst a community of people of whom most would find his clearly cynical and opportunistic connection to comicsgate repungnant and worthy of at least a public tongue-lashing, does it? Nah. I didn't think so.
The Peter Simeti thing is unfortunate. He and Alterna Comics are undeniably a force for good in comics. That his social media policy for creators was completely misunderstood as support for comicsgate is undeniable. I think the outsized and unacceptable reaction to that misunderstanding can be credited to the fact that he has been seen as such a force for good in the industry and that it was incorrectly assumed that he had done a 180°. The good news is that the misunderstanding seems well on it's way to be cleared up. It's a shame that facts don't travel as fast as outrage through the intertubes.
Michael
Michael.
I don't really see what the big deal is about Mitch breitweisers response,both he and his wife's twitter accounts are very oriented towards being positive about their fan base,I highly doubt they're the only people in the industry who have no time for Rich Johnson.
You say the misunderstanding about Peter simeti has been cleared up.really? I've yet to see any evidence of that,what I have seen has been a lot of people viewing the spike in alternas orders this week as being "propped up" by comicsgate and wondering how long it will last and a few others expressing outright disbelief over Peter's claims of over 1500 orders this week.Of course if you've got links to any statements of people admitting they were wrong and misunderstood that'd be great,maybe Peter and alterna could even like and retweet them instead of all those #movetheneedle tweets.
Scott,
I wonder, can you give me an example of a person with a fan base that says negative things about their fans on their twitter page? That the Breitweiser's are positive about their fans is both highly predictable and utterly beside the point.
I don't suppose Mitch Breitweiser is the only person that doesn't have time for Rich Johnston. Neither is he the only person with questionable motives for an action he suddenly doesn't want to talk about anymore. It happens.
I don't follow Peter Simeti on Twitter. The place is a hive of scum and villainy these days. So I can't comment on what's happening there. I do, however, follow him on Facebook, given it's only a hive of villainy with scum-like activity 'round the edges, and I'm way too verbose and scared of robots to have my character-count limited by an algorithm. What I find there in the several posts since the whole kerfuffle kerfuffled is a trend toward support for Simeti and Alterna Comics from wellwishers and sympathizers that don't appear to be comicsgate supporters or anyone blasting those dastardly SJW's. Most seem to realize he got caught up in situation for which he was blameless.
I imagine that the Spike in Alterna's orders might well be due to a combination of comicsgaters who mistakenly thought they had found a kindred spirit (that is there SOP after all: being wrong about things and supporting supposed kindred spirits), folks genuinely sympathetic to Simeti's situation and wishing to show support, and those who were exposed to Alterna's books for the first time due it's profile rising on the wave of the kerfuffle. We likely will never know the truth of it.
No, I can't provide links to people on the internet admitting they were wrong about Simeti, or anything, anytime, anywhere. That's not really a thing, is it?
Michael Hunt
Michael.
I don't necessarily see that its beside the point when there's than implication that Mitch is being disingenuous about safety fears and part of the reason for that doubt is that he chose to thank fans and plug his book rather than respond to rich.Most of his and his wife's twitter feeds is thanking fans for support and plugging other indiegogo projects so it wasn't exactly out of the norm.I've seen several writers such as Mark waid,Dan slott and Nick Spencer insult their fans and in some cases tell them to no longer buy their work,sometimes for political disagreements at other times for rather petty things.
Sure its a thing it may not be a common thing but I've seen it happen enough times to keep my faith in people going.I watched Owen Benjamin apologise and admit he was wrong about his recent opinions on Joe Rogan just last week.
I'll leave the discussion at that I don't want to have the first couple of times I post here veer uninterestingly off topic which I fear may be the case.Though I will say I find the idea of Dave doing work for hire on what is essentially a throwback to 90s superhero comics in 2018 rather fascinating in and of itself regardless of Ethans flaws.
Though I will say I find the idea of Dave doing work for hire on what is essentially a throwback to 90s superhero comics in 2018 rather fascinating in and of itself regardless of Ethans flaws.
Good point. As a Dave Sim fan, anything that slows down the eventual release of The Strange Death of Alex Raymond strikes me as a bad thing (or Bad Thing or "Bad Thing").
On the other hand:
1. Any comic that can get Dave Sim to write some scripts is almost inevitably going to become a better-written comic;
2. If doing work-for-hire for a comic that can attract almost half a million dollars in crowdsourcing helps fund SDOAR, hence expediting its eventual release, then I don't care if the comic's copyright owner is Literally Hitler (TM).
Post a Comment