The fascinating thing to me is when they get all the facts so completely wrong to the point that their coverage is nonsense the second you get any context, why do they even bother starting from something real in the first place?
Why did they wait for a Joker comic to come out with this content? Why didn't they run a segment on a completely fabricated trans stripper abortifacient batman or whatever? Clearly they have no qualms with making things up or getting the information completely wrong. I honestly don't understand what's stopping them. There's functionally no difference.
"We can accept a guy falling two stories into a vat of toxic waste only to get plastic surgery and devote his entire life to hunting down an eccentric orphan billionaire who dresses up like a bat but we draw the line on a pregnant trans man."
"There is a bizarre new Batman storyline that has the Joker becoming pregnant and giving birth. This is a statement you literally could not say ten years ago"
You could tell me practically anything happened in a comic book from decades ago, and I'd go "Sounds legit." Given the inherent zaniness of superhero/supervillain stories and their innumerable deviations from the laws of observed reality, the question these Fox News contributors should ask themselves but won't is why *they* feel the need to make a statement about *this* storyline in *this* moment.
Also, can society please get past the idea that certain forms of media (e.g., comic books, animation) are inherently for kids?
I have to wonder what these right-wing nut-jobs would make of pantomime in Britain? It's family entertainment -- for kids but also with jokes for parents that kids won't get -- where the leading man is traditionally played by a woman and the "old maids" are played by men. It dates back to the Middle Ages so it's about as traditional and "old-fashioned" as you can get! https://www.britishpantomimes.com/ with origins explained https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantomime
It's not just the Fox News crazies who misunderstand/condemn something they know nothing about. I saw a local news spot about this. The story went something like "Well, this is NOT your father's Batman..." The unspoken implication was that was another stunning example of how the world's going to hell in a bucket. I admit I know very little about comics, but my thoughts when I heard the story were: "Comics are not real. It signifies nothing except to people who follow the stories. Must just be something I don't get, but it involves the JOKER after all. How in any universe is considered news anyway?" Proof you can even twist "unreality" to fit any real narrative you want.
The fascinating thing to me is when they get all the facts so completely wrong to the point that their coverage is nonsense the second you get any context, why do they even bother starting from something real in the first place?
Why did they wait for a Joker comic to come out with this content? Why didn't they run a segment on a completely fabricated trans stripper abortifacient batman or whatever? Clearly they have no qualms with making things up or getting the information completely wrong. I honestly don't understand what's stopping them. There's functionally no difference.
OMG What about ALIEN (1979) Where Kane gets pregnant???
"We can accept a guy falling two stories into a vat of toxic waste only to get plastic surgery and devote his entire life to hunting down an eccentric orphan billionaire who dresses up like a bat but we draw the line on a pregnant trans man."
Also "this is a statement we couldn't say 10 years ago" meanwhile https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110216/
"There is a bizarre new Batman storyline that has the Joker becoming pregnant and giving birth. This is a statement you literally could not say ten years ago"
You could tell me practically anything happened in a comic book from decades ago, and I'd go "Sounds legit." Given the inherent zaniness of superhero/supervillain stories and their innumerable deviations from the laws of observed reality, the question these Fox News contributors should ask themselves but won't is why *they* feel the need to make a statement about *this* storyline in *this* moment.
Also, can society please get past the idea that certain forms of media (e.g., comic books, animation) are inherently for kids?
I have to wonder what these right-wing nut-jobs would make of pantomime in Britain? It's family entertainment -- for kids but also with jokes for parents that kids won't get -- where the leading man is traditionally played by a woman and the "old maids" are played by men. It dates back to the Middle Ages so it's about as traditional and "old-fashioned" as you can get! https://www.britishpantomimes.com/ with origins explained https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantomime
It's not just the Fox News crazies who misunderstand/condemn something they know nothing about. I saw a local news spot about this. The story went something like "Well, this is NOT your father's Batman..." The unspoken implication was that was another stunning example of how the world's going to hell in a bucket. I admit I know very little about comics, but my thoughts when I heard the story were: "Comics are not real. It signifies nothing except to people who follow the stories. Must just be something I don't get, but it involves the JOKER after all. How in any universe is considered news anyway?" Proof you can even twist "unreality" to fit any real narrative you want.
These "journalists" who you monitor and critique are not good faith actors. They are bigots whose hatred does not reduce to a knowledge deficit.
Thanks for the sacrifices you make on the discursive front lines. You never give these monsters an inch, which is so important.
Sending kindness and compassion from a sister.
You've got to admit - they had no choice, "Woker" was just irresistible.