photo 500x90_zpstdr3iova.png

Back in March 2019, Google announced something related to gaming that people can buy, and I'm having a hard time explaining what that is.. I was going to say that it announced a console, but the console doesn't exist. It showed some triple A games being played on a pixel Chromebook, but it wasn't any store copies of said games, so it's not like you can pop a disk into the Chromebook, and it could play it from the disk or anything.

The announcement was proceeded by a leak of the controller's design, and let's be honest here, the controller is just about the only thing you could actually buy. Everything else either doesn't physically exist, or can only be played if you share the same internet as CERN.

You see, Google Stadia is a cloud gaming platform. That footage you see of Red Dead Redemption is being played on one of the monoliths from 2001: A Space Odessy, and Google is claiming that you can play games at 4K with a consistent 60FPS, on just about anything with a Google Chrome browser installed.

This is the point in the article where I tell you why that's bullshit. For anyone who has ever tried to use Google cast within the comfort of their own home, you would struggle to get anywhere near a less than 1 second delay at 720P, let alone 4K. So, just imagine trying to do that over a north American "High Speed" connection for a moment. Seriously, between AT&T's hard 50GB monthly bandwidth limit, and Spectrum's connection reliability being about as consistent as peppy the pig's speech patterns, Google is going to have a really hard time selling this to people who frequented online gaming. In fact, the only people they could manage to sell something like this to are people who don't know shit from Shyamalan about multiplayer, latency issues, dropped frames, ping, or response time in videogames. The only way this experience will even come close to true 4K HDR is if it ran on the same bandwidth latency as the fucking Matrix, and had more jpeg compression and a lower frame rate than found footage of someone being abducted by aliens.

In other words, this is a marketing gimmick. There is no way in blue hell on a green fire 4K HDR would even be playable in north or south America, let alone countries like Australia. Maybe the South Koreans, or Japanese can pull this off, but compared to our internet access, their whole network mine as well be the halodeck from Star Trek by comparison.

Lease your gaming experience.

This brings me to my primary argument, which is that just like the music industry, and even the software industry as a whole, what is marketed on the basis of "convenience" is really an excuse to sell you something you don't even own after you buy it. You're not being sold games on this platform, but the permission to play Google's games on Google's console. and I guess we're supposed to look at a console we're never actually going to see like "oh, look at how edgy and revolutionary that is!"

If you need a prime example of everything that could go wrong with the very concept of leasing something on the cloud for a monthly fee, look no further than every single streaming-based platform that has ever gone out of business. OnLive, Microsoft Books, Vidium, and every single spottify competitor ever made.

Hell, even Netflix -the industry monolith of movie streaming- has repeatedly failed to successfully re-negotiate it's licenses with directors and film studios, causing many to lose their lease and their so-called "purchase" outright, in the blink of an eye.

"Oh, but it's Google!" you say behind the comfort of your 2020 Apple product that you paid a $900 premium for. "They have so-much money! It's not like they can go out of business or anything!" Well, see, that's the thing. Google is never going out of business for several reasons; Chief among those reasons is how often they will kill a project if it doesn't turn a profit. Google Plus, Google Jobs, AngularJS, App maker, Cloud Messaging, and YouTube Gaming were all killed over a year ago alone, with most projects only being in Alpha for less than 6 months! Don't even get me started on how many times Google Hangouts has been cannibalized into something else. Hangouts has more names than a DeviantArt user has gender identities! Make no mistake; Google is the emperor of jettisoning branches of their company, so don't be surprised if this mega-corporation cuts the Stadia brand loose in two years.

Let's take OnLive or Microsoft Books for example: Do you think after these companies went under, and customers lost their 10 to 50+ games or books, they were able to get a refund? You think these people got their money back? No, they didn't.

If you don't actually buy a physical copy of the game, you don't own it. With physical copies of a game, you don't have any way to  preserve the game if Google ever decides to Google+ the platform out of existence, which -at this point- is almost a mathematical certainty.

At least with ROMs, we have a real library of games that are actually as good as they were designed to be from decades ago. You don't get that from cloud-based games. All you get is a license to run something over the internet. A fickle internet, that sometimes gets in moods and is randomly tired of your shit, just as you need to send that important email to a client.

Google Stadia, and the death of software ownership.

Look, I understand "cloud services" are the future, but whether or not that's a 'bright' future -in my opinion- depends on whether or not you're the mega-corporation earning a steady stream of income, or you're the sucker shelling out a monthly premium for something you don't even get a copy of.

If you've ever worked in graphic design, business administration, or video production, you'll notice there's been a trend of software you used to be able to buy a working -permanent- license for, being turned into "live services". Instead of having bought one working copy for life, you're paying either a monthly or yearly licensing fee for every month -or year- you use the thing. Didn't use Adobe Photoshop that month? Well, too bad, because you still gotta pay for it. Want Maya Unlimited for 3D graphic design? You better use it every day to justify the almost $1000 you'll be paying every year.

And, just like "live services" like spotify, we consumers are being marketed this blatant rip-off as a convenience. Big software has paid billions to marketing executives to come up with words like "live services" and "stream from the comfort of your own home[/]office" as a way of softening the impact of the theft. And make no mistake about it: This is theft. The marketing department tells you you're getting "full software", but what you're really getting is a complex lease of software hosted at someone else's house. You don't own sh*t, and the license agreements of most of these software companies make that abundantly clear. At any time, they can reject the license you're paying money for at any time, for any reason, and don't even have to give you an explanation. You could "buy" adobe illustrator in new york city, get home, and find out your license key is rejected because they though you were a Baltimore Raiders fan.

And so, I reject Google Stadia. I reject the very idea of google Stadia. Even if the platform had zero lag and perfect latency, it's the principle of the thing that I don't care for. Selling me games I can BUY on any store shelf for other platforms, offering no exclusives, then telling me I don't even own the copy I just bought is just stupid - not on the part of Google Stadia, but on the part of the consumer who bought the thing in the first place. It would be like if I were a stock broker from the future who traveled back in time to invest all his life savings into the making of the Titanic.

Why I will never buy a Stadia

It's not the fact that nobody gives a shit about property rights that bothers me here. What bothers me is WHY people don't give a shit anymore. That's what worries me.

We are always being told by mainstream tech journalism that this is just the way people want it, and that if it wasn't, people wouldn't use it. This is definitely not true.

When you updated your computer's hard drive from windows 7 to Windows 10 after 7's support ended last year, did you feel like you had a choice? When Apple ended support for snow leopard when Yosemite came out, and you had to buy a whole new freakin' Mac just to run the new OS, did that feel like you were making a "personal choice"? No, it didn't. because it wasn't.

Gen-X and millennial types whine about this all the time, but the Zoomers don't know that yet. They didn't grow up in an era where they could just buy their own software; we did. Zoomers don't complain about it because they don't know what they've lost. 

It sets a dangerous precedent for the future. We make little concessions to this predatory practice until one day, we're paying a shit ton of money for absolutely nothing. You already see it happening with crowd-funding projects like Mighty No.9 and Star Citizen.

  • First, Diablo III -an offline single-player game- could only be played with an internet connection. Everyone complained, but the controversy went away.
  • Playstation decided to turn their once FREE multiplayer platform into a paid service, the way Microsoft did with Xbox live. Everyone complained, but the controversy died, and we moved on.
  • Then Sims 3 was only playable online, despite being a single-player game. Everyone complained, but the controversy went away, and we moved on.
  • Street Fighter 4 and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 had "downloadable content" (DLC) that you had to pay for, despite the fact that you didn't download it, because that "content" was already on the disk you installed the game with! Once again, everyone complained, but the controversy went away, and we moved on.
  • Battlefront II remake sells the game at full price, only to continually force you to pay hundreds of dollars in micro-transactions just to barely stay competitive online. The controversy practically set the world on fire, with mass boycotts and even lawmakers from dozens of countries around the world calling for this practice to be illegal, or at least make it subject to gambling laws. Once again, the controversy dies, and we move on.

Every time we ignore something like this when its a problem, it becomes the new standard a few months later. Why? because we are buying the shit we complain about. We support the streamer who buys these games and these platforms we complain about. It's like going to a strip club, and throwing your whole paycheck at the stripper while complaining about promiscuity. You're practically piping the prostitute while you complain about the sinful nature of fornication.

Gamers are the type of consumers who would buy a bad game for clout. We feel like owning a popularly bad game gives us the right to talk about it. We want to be one of the few people who were an authority on the matter, and this is the whole problem. The problem isn't even the bad games, or the shady platforms: It's US. GAMERS. We did this. Every time we kowtow to an "live service" with our money, we aren't telling them that the practice is bad; we're sending a message that what they're doing is good. Paying these companies for bad practices is like giving your dog a treat every time he shits on the carpet. You can yell at and scold your dog all freken' day; the dog still got the treat, didn't it? What happens when that dog wants a treat again? It's going to shit on the carpet.

I won't ever buy a Stadia because I'm sick of rewarding companies for shitting on the carpet, and you should be as well.

Why I Won't Buy a Google Stadia | The Takedown


Robert Pattinson's batman is the Toyota Prius to Ben Affleck's coal-rolling 12-cylinder diesel pickup truck.

In a world where Birds of Prey bombs like an Islamic terrorist at the box office, and Ben Affleck's Batman project vanishes faster than evidence that Geoffrey Epstein didn't kill himself, comes a new take on an old Batman story - this time with Robert Pattinson as the legendary Ninja of dead parents, Batman.

This time, director Matt Reeves gives us our first look at the Batsuit up close, letting us rest easy in the knowledge that this thing doesn't have bat nipples like the George Clooney one did, and wasn't designed for the build of an 800lb gorilla the way Affleck's was.

The following is a clip from the director, courtesy of Veriety, with an ominous musical score by Michael Giacchino, depicting Pattinson's Batsuit from the waist up. In a scene darker than my house when I'm walking to the bathroom at 3 in the morning. Ambient light just barely makes the scene visible as Pattinson looks off into the distance, brooding harder than an edgy 14-year-old Atheist that just got bodied online in a fighting game.

Pattinson isn't the only A-listing actor joining the cast of the Batman. Zoe Kravitz joins the ranks as Catwoman, and Collin Farrell as the Penguin, Paul Dano as the Riddler, and Andy Serkis as Alfred Pennyworth; The butler-turned-adoptive father of Bruce Wayne.

There is an interview with Pattinson as he describes feeling "powerful" in the Batsuit, shortly after a village full of people had to physically squeeze him into it every time it was filmed.

The Batman's opening night is June 25th, 2021.

Robert Pattinson's new Batman Suit


If Sprint's PR department is anything to be believed, Leading the world in 5G data development, and a Sprint and T-Mobile marriage of networks could make it the best wireless carrier available to consumers. On the surface, Sprint seems to have a lot going for it these days. It owns the two big prepaid carriers, it's coverage is the closest to Verizon in terms of overall range of cellphone towers, and it's the first thing that comes to mind when searching for a direct alternative to AT&T. To bad Sprint —as a company— sucked balls like marbles through a vacuum cleaner.

It's not just my opinion. Back in 2017, Sprint came in dead last in categories like talk /text, LTE coverage, AND customer support, according to Consumer Reports survey that year.

The company still hasn't changed much since 2017. The complaints people have are still very much there. Despite excellent marketing and brand recognition that could rival Jesus Christ, all the exposure in the world can't help a company with low quality coverage, Electronic Arts-style prices, and LTE internet slower than AOL Dial-up in 1997.

The LTE sucks.

This image was stolen courtesy of this Tech Quickie article.

This is the problem that holds back Sprint’s sister companies like Virgin and Boost Mobile. Sprint LTE is slow enough to make Internet Explorer in 1996 look like Usain Bolt running from Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Doesn't matter if the coverage is within 1% of Verizon if it feels like you're playing an underwater level in an old Playstation 2 video game every time you load a web page. That is, if it manages to load a page at all.

The Talk and Text is crap most of the time.

This image comes from an article on Even the prices displayed here are completely false.

Your mileage may vary, like I mentioned earlier, but Sprint has probably the spottiest network in the history of hotspots. I have accepted and received calls that sounded like T-Pain's Autotune in a tumble dryer, and had texts that took almost 3 minutes to send after I sent them. Keep in mind, I've been both a Sprint customer for well over a year, and a Virgin Mobile customer since 2014. They both share the same network, and have the same coverage and LTE speeds. Same with Boost Mobile. Same network, same performance. Having lived in both Portland Oregon and California's Orange County, and the coverage has been equally terrible in both places. Yet in Burbank California, and visiting relatives in rural Indiana, the coverage is pretty much spot-on. No dropped calls, or wonky texts.

Most Sprint customers you ask complain about serious reliability issues, especially when traveling more than a mile in any direction. It isn't terrible everywhere, but most of what you hear are complaints from customers who already pay a steep price as it is, and still get the kind of coverage you would expect from bumming your neighbor's Wi-Fi.

Infrastructure is bad.

This is the phone I was trying to get linked to the Sprint network. It's the LG Stylo 4+, and it's the last phone that sprint will ever contaminate in my house.

I opted for the Unlimited Kickstart plan, trying to bring my phone number From Virgin to Sprint, in order to upgrade to a much better  -unlocked- phone. I sit on the phone for about three hours, with customer service reps scrambling trying to figure out why the hell it wasn't working. After being transferred 4 times, someone apparently mentioned what should have been obvious to Sprint technical support, or even sales reps: The $25/month Kickstart plan doesn't work on phone numbers that were already on the Sprint Network. This included Virgin Mobile, which is Sprint's sister company.

So, in order to get my phone number out of the Virgin Mobile prepaid hell, the only other option was the Unlimited Basic; a plan that not only costs an extra $35 more than Kickstart, but added a credit check, followed by a $42 activation fee. So after paying over $100 the first month, I was expected to pay $64 a month for slow internet and talk that sounds like EVP monitors in a haunted house.

I don't even blame the customer care for how long this ordeal even took. apparently, their internal infrastructure is shitting its pants every time you ask it to do anything, and the fact that the terms & conditions of unlimited Kickstart weren't readily available to them -the one group of people who should know what it is- is actually embarrassing.

Website is a mess

If the navigation bar isn't changing faster than a Digimon evolves, half the time, it doesn't actually work. This thing has so many glitches and errors,  you'd thing the website was hosted by Ubisoft Montreal.

I couldn't see my own bill for nearly a month because the website was such an unreliable cluster F*** of errors and spaghetti code.

Having a bad network is one thing, but having both an App and a website less reliable than a heroine addicted roommate is another. This website has been having problems for literally years now, but Sprint is more concerned with going door-to-door and proselyting for the Galaxy S10 like a Jahovas Witness on a Saturday morning than actually fixing the damn problem.

Pricing is awful

If you were to go to Sprint's website right now, and look for the actual price of wireless service for an actual smartphone you actually OWN, you will be lead down enough rabbit holes to have a working map of the lost city of ZION from the Matrix Reloaded. Apparently, Sprint is so ashamed of their actual plan's prices, they would rather show you a collage of advertisements for the Galaxy S10, and how many fetishes the company seems to have for asking people to LEASE the damn thing, that you would have to be halfway --or more-- through signing up for a 2-year contract before you can actually get a straight answer as to what you're going to be paying. This is not surprising, considering smartphone LEASES seem to be the only way this company makes money!

I don't ask for much from my wireless carrier. All I ask is that I don't pay anywhere near $65 for wireless service, whether it's reliable or not. I could buy tablets and smartphones every month for the amount of money I pay in wireless service fees. I don't even pay $65 for high-speed internet in my own house, let alone slow internet on my phone.

Yet and still, the Unlimited Basic -The only actual plan they have for unlocked smartphones- is $65 freken' dollars a month, and goes up from there. Forget everything you heard about $40 unlimited, or $25 kickstart. It's all bullcrap. there will always be some excuse to get you sucked into the Unlimited Basic plan, and everything else is just a gateway drug until they get you hooked on that for two years. Unlimited Basic is their actual lowest priced plan, and everything else is just a two-year gateway drug until you end up on the $60 plan, because let's face it: that is the only way this company is making money.

Sprint already undercuts Verizon by a considerable margin, and out here in California, that's still less than what T-mobile is charging for the same plan. Thing is, Verizon -despite being a shady company in it's own right- actually has a reliable network, and T-Mobile doesn't ask you for your god damn credit score just to pay a phone bill.

That's another thing all together, which is why I would recommend against going with Sprint. Not only does Sprint send inquiries on your credit score just for signing up, (seriously, too many inquiries in a month could lower your credit score,) but it also expects a down payment/service activation fee just to get started, AND you're paying more than $60 a month just to have it. Every plan is on a 2-year contract as well, which leaves me asking: what year does Sprint think it is?

Everything about the way this carrier does business is stuck in 1996; a year when having a cellular device was treated as though you were leasing to own a nuclear warhead. The privilege of paying your own bill was treated like you were taking out a mortgage in those days. Nowadays, in an age where prepaid is king, companies who adopt this model of business -even when you're not even leasing to own the phone you're bringing to the network- are just being tacky at this point. It's no wonder this company is falling behind.

How sprint can fix itself

Every time Sprint is in a little bit of trouble financially, it buys out its closest competitor. It's been doing this for over a decade now. It bought out Virgin, then Boost, and now its merging with T-Mobile, awaiting approval from Congress, The FCC, and even the president. Yet, it isn't doing the one thing it should have done in the first place; fix its infrastructure.

You see, Sprint is a publicly traded company, and needs to dump money into acquisitions like Virgin, Boost, and even T-Mobile just to keep their shareholders happy, and not dumping stock by the time their quarterly reports get published. Don't quote me on this, but for all we know, this is technically Sprint inflating its numbers to give shareholders the impression that the company is worth more than it actually is. The problem is, if this theory is correct, it would explain bad prices, bad performance, and overall customer dissatisfaction in 2018; The company isn't interested in customers, so much as it's interested in shareholders. The fact that Sprint -one of the most recognizable names in mobile computing- managed to sink to the bottom of customer satisfaction, yet still has the balls to propose a merger with T-Mobile is evidence of the overarching problem with the company.

Sprint needs to fix its network FIRST! Not after a merger, not after another TV AD campaign. Other carriers like Verizon and even ATT know that coverage is the name of the game in the mobile carrier market. Anything less than three bars anywhere nationwide is unacceptable.

Why Sprint Sucks Right Now | The TakeDown


A little over a month from uploading this, Sacha Baron Cohen gave a speech, where he lambasted Facebook and YouTube for promoting questionable political ads, and allowing people to have edgy teenage opinions on social media platforms without his permission. A lot of people have given their nuclear takes on this topic, and have been kicking this dead horse into the ground like they're making compost fertilizer. And so, In typical RAGE PRO fashion, I got on this topic later than Microsoft Internet Explorer's download speeds. Bear with me here, because there's a lot to unpack.

The hero 'woke comedy' needs

Mainstream news sites have been plastering Twitter and Facebook with news of the 'brave and virtuous' Sacha Baron Cohen's speech at the Never is Now summit, held by the Anti Defamation league.

Cohen, best known for playing a racist caricature of an antisemitic Khazacstani goat farmer named Borat, slams Facebook and YouTube for promoting "racist and antisemitic posts" on their website. You know, that thing Facebook never actually did?
This film, where Cohen's character Borat famously sang the song "Throw the jew down the well". His promoters advertised this very film on Facebook, but now, all the sudden edgy politics are a "problem".

After accepting the ADL's International leadership award, Cohen –the guy who played a white guy trying to be a ghetto AF black guy for five years in films and television– lambasted major social networks like YouTube and Facebook for what the wealthy elitist boomers who likely wrote Cohen's acceptance speech claim are directly responsible for "murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities"
This is the guy who wants to tell you what's appropriate on the internet.

here's some notable quotes from the speech he gave during an election season, which totally isn't suspicious or anything.

all this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history
 Says the guy who used both Facebook and YouTube to promote his film, where he played the role of a flamboyant homosexual fashion designer, chasing down straight people.

I feel like this speaks for itself.

The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear. It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist Alex Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that lies spread faster than truth … As one headline put it, just think what Goebbels could have done with Facebook.

 If you pay them, Facebook will run any ‘political’ ad you want, even if it’s a lie,

 And they’ll even help you micro-target those lies to their users for maximum effect. Under this twisted logic, if Facebook were around in the 1930s, it would have allowed Hitler to post 30-second ads on his ‘solution’ to the ‘Jewish problem’.

Cohen then went on to roast Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for saying that Facebook is a bastion of "Free expression." Which is bullshit, by the way.

I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and paedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.

He then goes on to say this:

Internet companies can now be held responsible for paedophiles who use their sites to target children. I say, let’s also hold these companies responsible for those who use their sites to advocate for the mass murder of children because of their race or religion. And maybe fines are not enough. Maybe it’s time to tell Mark Zuckerberg and the CEOs of these companies: you already allowed one foreign power to interfere in our elections, you already facilitated one genocide in Myanmar, do it again and you go to jail.

Why is this a problem?

I think anyone who has used the internet for more than a week in their entire life knows that Facebook doesn't know what humor is, or that there is such a thing as being facetious or sarcastic. Meme pages are taken down faster than a pedophile on an FBI watch-list, and posting articles from sites that are among Facebook's competitors is enough to get your article banned. It's a similar situation with YouTube. Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube all banned InfoWars at relatively the same time, and most YouTube videos aren't even monetize-able, because so many videos might contain the word "fuck" in them.

Yet, music videos, and clips uploaded from major Holywood and music studios are able to stay untouched, AND have ad revenue⁠ —despite containing content that breaches the TOS (Terms of service) of all these websites. Why? Because they have money. Just goes to show you how disconnected rich dudes like Cohen are from the world, as seen by the poor and middle class. He's  rich, so he never had to deal with censorship in social media first hand.

The "freedom for security" question

Yeah, you could argue that Facebook needs to censor people in order to protect the fragile Minds of its incredibly stupid users, but let's be real here: If Facebook took the moral policing approach in the mid 2000's, while he was making jokes about the holocaust and playing a wigger named ALI-G for 5 years, Cohen wouldn't have a comedy career at all. He would be banned on the platforms he's criticizing now, and would probably be fighting off more allegations of racism than a police officer serving an arrest warrant in a black neighborhood.

It seems like the only way to get away with making edgy jokes is to be paid up with the right people. It's always like that with these "famous people", isn't it? If Stephen Colbert does a white nationalist salute on his late night TV show, he gets national syndication, because he has enough money and fame to make the context matter. But if I made that same joke, in the same context, My videos will get demonetized, I'd be suspended from Twitter, and my ass would probably be on a government watch list or something. 

Stephen Colbert mocking Steve Bannon on his late night show in 2017, but it's okay when THIS white guy does it, because he's making fun of the Trump administration, and CBS pays him a lot of money.

If I walked around for years famously pretending to be a hood n**** from the streets, getting that paper, my ass would be cancelled faster than a Jeffrey Epstein's prison term. Unless, of course, I were, say, a famous film director like Quintin Tarantino. Then, everyone is cool with it. Suddenly, as long as you make a film starring a black comedian that made 426 million dollars, you get to walk around like you're posted up on the block, and say the n-word any time you feel like it. If my Italian ass walked around wearing jerseys three sizes too big, and speaking fluent food stamps, somebody would check me almost immediately. I would get the shit kicked out of me faster than a homosexual walking into an ISIS hideout for a job interview. 

Just goes to show you how disconnected rich assholes like Cohen are from the real world. People like Cohen haven't seen a crackdown on freedom of expression, because he's too rich to have to deal with it himself. So, like most wealthy 40-something boomers with their head up their ass, they just assume the censorship their ego trip is looking for doesn't exist.

But the fact that Cohen is the one saying it makes it feel even more disingenuous. Hearing a guy -who made his living off of these platforms- start slamming them now is like watching Mitt Romney pretending to care about poor people. This asshole waits until he's made all the money he possibly could for more than a decade, then he chooses to promote censorship now that he made all his money. 

The 'woke' epidemic in comedy

Cohen's sellout mentality isn't unique, however. Nearly every celebrity who made their careers in edgy humor starts getting a superiority complex any time they get a little bit of clout, don't they? Amy Schumer, for example, built her entire career on edgy humor. Her repertoire included rape jokes, racist jokes, you name it. Yet, the moment she got mainstream clout, she's throwing fellow comedy writer Kurt Metzger under the bus because he made an off-color joke on Twitter about false rape accusations...?

How about Sarah Silverman? She spent more than a decade as one of the edgiest comics in show business. She was racier than comics like Doug Stanhope and Luis C.K., with more antisemitic humor than the /pol/ message board on 4Chan when the subject of Israel comes up. She's used the N-word with a hard R in one of her bits on 'the Sarah Silverman program,'  on Comedy Central, yet, because she had a network deal worth millions of dollars, nobody said a damn thing. But, this same woman can turn around years later and start giving the rest of the world "woke" lectures about 'equality' on her cancelled Hulu show "I love you America"?

Don't get me wrong: This clip is hilarious, but come on, people. Don't pretend you're the wokest Apple user at Starbucks after you got famous off of shit like this. 

But, even in light of those examples, Sacha has got to be the biggest sellout in the history of comedy. Cohen hasn't headlined a movie since 2011, and he's worth nearly 180 million dollars. Yet, in his nearly 30 year career, he never once said anything even remotely close to a rebuke toward social media during the Obama administration. No, he waits until TRUMP is president, then all the sudden, he complains about "racist ads" and "fake news". Funny how deafening his silence was when he was trending on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, when his promoters were using these platforms, paying his way to the top of the comedy scene. Real "virtuous" of you, Cohen. Way to throw the rest of us comedians under the bus.


The way I see it, no one who is pro-censorship in has any business calling themselves a comedian. Rich assholes like this will never know what it's like to have to build a comedy career from nothing in the age of cancel culture, the way I and other young comics would.
Cohen will likely never know what it's like to do a set on a college campus in the 2020's, and get treated like you're only black guy at a Klan rally. He's never going to know what it's like to go on Twitter, make a joke about his own ethnicity, and get treated like he just stuck a baby in a microwave. This is the reality we -as comics- face every time we do our act in public these days. 

No, I don't like the Genocide in Myanmar. I don't like Anti-semetism, and I don't like BoomerBook or YouTube. But I don't like these platforms Cohen criticizes because they are inherently hypocritical. They condemn based on personal politics, rather than principle ⁠—much like Cohen's speech at the ADL.

No, I'm not saying Cohen hates edgy humor. I'm not saying he wants to BAN edgy humor, but I am saying social media is a machine, and machines don't know what humor is. If Facebook, YouTube and Twitter took the steps he's talking about now, he would never have made it as a filmmaker. He would have been blacklisted and swept up in the wokepocalypse just like the rest of us, so it's easy for him to talk his bullshit up in his ivory tower.

...But he has a lot of money, so fuck everybody else, I guess.

Why That Sacha Baron Cohen Speech at the ADL was Bull | The Takedown


If you're one of the few people left who actually bother to watch the Super Bowl, you might have seen this commercial with cute babies, more ethnically diverse than a TV advertisement for a failing community college. The ad --in addition to the babies-- contains a narrator, telling the babies how strong and politically correct they are going to be when they grow up. How they're going to do what they want and "not be silenced," which is exactly what you want to tell your toddler when they inevitably throw a whindmilling tantrum in a walmart because they wanted the box of Kellogg"s Corn Pops you put back on the shelf.

This commercial has all the left-leaning talking points:

Some people may see your differences and be threatened by them. But you are unstoppable. You’ll love who you want. You’ll demand fair and equal pay. You will not allow where you come from to dictate where you’re going. You will be heard, not dismissed, you will be connected, not alone. Change starts now.

Changing what? your Diaper?

Yeah, I'm not feeling this commercial. I'm all for equal pay and standing up for yourself, but this doesn't come across as genuine to me. There are too many political buzzwords tossed in, and it just seems like an attempt to bait /pol/ into trolling the comments section, and pretending some unprovoked attack is taking place over the commercial. Like I'm sure Sky News or the Washington Post is waiting in the wings so that the commercial's writer can cherry-pick the racist comments in order to paint everyone (including me) with the broad brush of "oh, you only dislike it because you're a racist or Misogynist!"

I'm just tired of this stupid cycle these political nutjobs keep putting us in. They keep dragging everyone into their crap, and all we want is to see a cellphone commercial with a cellphone in it. Seriously, I'm in the market for a branded smartphone on a prepaid T-Mobile plan. I want to buy a Moto X4, I'm not trying to buy some asian babies n' shit!!

It's not just the regressive left, either. This is a problem having to do with the less sane elements that exist in pretty much all political parties. It seems like the loudest, most mentally unstable people end up shouting their way to the top of seemingly every political identity, turning it into illogical bullshit, then immediately start trying to force feed their illogical bullshit down every moderate's throat, in places and at times that divisive political politics clearly don't belong.

Now as soon as moderates like me --who don't want this kind of political cancer in their superbowl ads about cell phones-- say that this doesn't belong here, the first thing the director or producer behind the commercial will do is cherry pick the racist comments, take it to the media, and act like it's an epidemic-level problem, further bolstering their fabricated victimhood they so passionately try and convince moderates is actually a real thing. Next thing you know, a bunch of articles are going to crop up like weeds on an abandoned front lawn about how people who watch superbowl commercials are all racist and hate women, or how superbowl commercials need "reform". Then the extremists on the right wing are going to take the bait and start posting swastikas everywhere n' shit, playing right into the hands of the people who want to label everyone a bigot in order to win an imaginary political contest. The articles by zealots on Kotaku and the Verge will probably claim the commercial watching community is "toxic", spinning some highly dubious argument that insinuates every single person watching commercials hate blacks and Jews or something, and every single one of us is sending some kind of death and rape threat, all while providing no evidence.

I know that this WILL happen, because the same thing happened with video game Journalism, (Gamergate,), Metal music (Metalgate,) Atheism (Atheism+,) and even comic books as early as 2016. Whenever the church of Leftitology wants to control a particular form of media, be it music or video games, they shoehorn their divisive, highly debatable ideas into the things they have nothing to do with in the most inorganic way, and as soon as normal --sane-- people politely point out it doesn't belong there, it's almost like these people go out of their way to conjure the Alt-right spergs on 4chan in the hopes that they'll say something racist. Cue the ten different articles about how [insert popular hobby here] needs "reform".

The commercial is incorrect

There is a point in the commercial where, during the "staring at babies during a cellphone commercial" where the narrator says:

"You’ll demand fair and equal pay."
You see where I'm going with this, right? So now that I got the fact that I'm not a Nazi or Klu-Klux Klan member out of the way, I think it's safe to point out that the gender wage gap conspiracy theory that the regressive left like to reference has been debunked numerous times as far back as the early 1980's.

You see, the 77¢ on the dollar myth is a rounded number, based on yearly Department of Labor statistics which collectively measured the average median income between males and females. It doesn't take into account things like maternity leave, the fact that men -on average- don't take vacations as often as women, the fact that men are more willing to work overtime than women, (I.E, they work more hours, hence why they get paid more,) or the fact that men are wiling to work more dangerous, more labour intensive jobs than women; those blue collar jobs that often pay more than what most women are willing to do for a living. It also doesn't take into account that men are almost twice as likely to enter a STEM field in college than women, despite being only %40 of college graduates in the states.

So where did the regressive left get this whole "equal pay for equal work" phrase from? Well, the evidence suggesting women get paid a lower salary -per-hour- than men simply doesn't exist. In all likelihood, this myth came from a lazy misunderstanding of the D.L.S. study, and much like most conspiracy theories, end up taking a life of its own.

But we all know what's going to happen: anyone who politely points this out is going to be labeled a rapist who eats black babies while gassing Jews in their spare time by Polygon, Kotaku, Buzzfeed, The Verge, and all the other fringe political propaganda reels that pretend to be tech and entertainment news websites. And as far as I'm concerned, that was the point.

You see, I don't buy for a second that adding that well-refuted conspiracy theory to the commercial was an accident. It's deliberately provocative. They are looking for vitriol and outrage over their "liberal agenda" so the regressive media can -in tern- call it an "Alt-right attack" on women. 

The regressives love the word "Alt-right". It's a way for them to call you a Nazi without requiring the balls to back it up with evidence. Nowadays, It's been getting difficult for the liars in media to call someone Alt-right and get away with it, when there are people on social media willing to fact-check these things and call them out on their bullshit. The fake tech media can claim anyone espouses "Alt Right views" though. That's the next best thing, after all. If you, for example, believe that gravity forces objects to fall, and the "Alt-right" happened to believe the same thing, the fake tech media can then claim you have "alt right views." Great way for these spineless cowards to manipulate an audience into thinking you're a Nazi, without having to come right out and say it.

I don't want to be a part of this shit. I just wanted an ad that had something to do with smartphones n' shit, but we all know what is eventually going to happen: Pointing out the irrefutable fact that the wage gap myth is wrong is going to be called "alt right views". It's a bygone conclusion at this point. This is an elaborate attempt to stigmatize the very act of fact-checking the debunked wage gap. Even mentioning that this myth isn't true will get you labeled a misogynist.

So in summation, the goal of this commercial, in my opinion, isn't what it says on the surface. At least not to me. This is yet another one of those baitjobs, where it only exists as a strawman argument to weed out only the worst kinds of political people on the right, so that anyone right-of center will be conflated with those furthest from the center. Hence why it references the famously debunked wage gap lie as a rallying cry for these babies. I don't believe the writers of this commercial care about minorities, equal pay, or immigration issues. They don't care about these kids. They are merely a political talking point to them; a round of ammunition for the war they wage on whoever they strawman at the time.

How to fix it

Moderates need to be the ones calling out T-Mobile for greenlighting this commercial. Not the far left, not the far right, not the Alt-right, not /pol/, not Tumblr, just moderates. Because political allegiances are just the perfect tool for political extremists to dismiss anything you have to say, on account of who you voted for, or what party you claim. Anything you say will be dismissed offhand --regardless of how true it is-- as being "biased". The message isn't going to get through to the majority as soon as it's stuck into the quagmire of left vs. right. The problem is, moderates aren't the type of people who dwell obsessively on something they disagree with. They see this bullshit commercial, and move on, because they often have better things to do. The problem with this apathetic stance is that political nutjobs don't have anything better to do, and will often force moderates into a corner with their bullshit until they are forced to pick a side. 

T-Mobile's #LittleOnes Superbowl AD Sucks, and Here's Why

Marvel's VP of sales claims that the declining sales of their comic books are because of the Comic studio's efforts to increase diversity and female characters. 

According to David Gabriel in an interview with ICv2, claims that readers “were turning their noses up” at diversity and “didn’t want female characters out there”.

In case you are one of the many comic book readers that stopped following Marvel's publications as of late, Marvel Editorial staff have been making efforts to replace or kill off founding members of the famous Avengers line of characters, and replace them with new heroes that represent a more 'progressive' and 'diverse' lineup, because apparently the old lineup was too white, and too many of them had penises between their legs. Thor Odinson was replaced with Jane Foster. Carol Danvers's Ms. Marvel changed her name to Captain Marvel in honor of her dead boyfriend Mar-Vell, leaving a Teen Muslim girl to take up the Ms. Marvel name. Steve Rogers got really old out of nowhere, leaving the Captain America moniker to be taken up by his best friend Sam Wilson, and most famously, Tony Stark falling into a coma or something, leaving a complete stranger who is only 15 years old to become the next Iron Man, but not exactly. (See, she was introduced in Invincible Iron Man #1, but most of the time she was trying to come up with a name, and settled on IronHeart eventually.) This 'ethnic cleansing' of sorts has been dubbed "All New All Different Marvel", (ANAD) or, "Marvel Now!"

According to David, he had a spoken to retailers at the Marvel Retailer Summit, who told him that readers were sticking to old favorites. “What we heard was that people didn’t want any more diversity,” he said.

“They didn’t want female characters out there. That’s what we heard, whether we believe that or not. I don’t know that that’s really true, but that’s what we saw in sales … Any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up.”
Gabriel later clarified his statement, saying basically some readers felt abandoned, adding that there is a demographic of readers out there that are really into the new 'diverse' characters.

“And let me be clear, our new heroes are not going anywhere! We are proud and excited to keep introducing unique characters that reflect new voices and new experiences into the Marvel universe and pair them with our iconic heroes.
“We have also been hearing from stores that welcome and champion our new characters and titles and want more! … So we’re getting both sides of the story and the only upcoming change we’re making is to ensure we don’t lose focus [on] our core heroes.”

It goes without saying that Gabriel's remarks took a bit of an ass-kicking on social media...

...Yeah, that didn't go over well with readers.

There seems to be some confusion between retailers and Marvel Editorial. Retailers can only get a gist at the issues readers buy, but that doesn't mean that they have any idea what is going on in a reader's mind. There is a difference between selling comic books for a living, and actually being an avid consumer. And since Marvel's Editorial staff seems to have no idea what the fuck they're doing anymore, allow me to clarify some things, as an avid reader and customer of comic book fiction for 20 years...

Why sales are REALLY slumping...

Marvel's core demographic doesn't like the direction Marvel is taking the universe, and dispite the consensus that Gabriel seems to be getting, it isn't because of diversity: It because a father of a Norse god --who has been dead for literally millennia-- had some UNSOLICITED OPINIONS ON FUCKING ISRAEL!!!!!!!!!! IT'S BECAUSE YOU TURNED CAPTAIN AMERICA INTO A GOD DAMN HYDRA AGENT!!!!!!! IT'S BECAUSE YOU KEEP INSISTING THAT MOTHERFUCKING RED SKULL WANTS TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN & SHIT!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE FUCK, MARVEL!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Seriously, Are you kidding me with this shit? The negative reception is really that hard to understand?! Marvel, I don't know if you people are reading this --and I hope you do-- but literally no one in the comic book community stopped reading your books because of the vaginal status, or the skin color of your replacement characters: It's because YOU ENDED STORIES WE WERE READING! YOU LEFT THOSE STORIES UNCONCLUDED WHILE YOU INTRODUCED NEW CHARACTERS TO TAKE THEIR PLACE PRACTICALLY OVERNIGHT!! Can you imagine how pissed people would be if the final season of Game of Thrones was canceled halfway through, and replaced with a Superhero Samurai Cyber Squad reboot!?!?

See, I don't think you get it, Marvel... We read about characters --individual characters-- in comic books. We come to your universe to read your stories for the character in the fucking title of the story. Not another character with the same name, not a counterfeit of the original, or some spinoff that takes place in a parallel universe. We come to Marvel to check up on the history of the characters --the people-- we care about. We want to see their rich history get even richer over time. We want to read the people WE have come to know and love, not the ones you fucking tell us to!

By the way Marvel, no one likes reading your books because Your politics are a pile of canned, evaporated elephant piss!!

We don't give a shit in a Large Hadron Collider about what you think a fucking micro-aggression is, or who the fuck you think we should vote for in an election! I didn't like Frank Miller's run on All-Star Batman & Robin for the same reason I don't want to read the ChampionsI DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR POLITICAL OPINIONS!!!!!!! I DON'T PAY $3.99 AN ISSUE TO READ YOUR FUCKING TUMBLR ACCOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and don't get me started on the smarmy, condescending nature of trying to manipulate grown ass readers who they shouldn't vote for! Jesus H. W. Christ, I don't care who you are! I don't care if you voted democrat or not, Trying to flat out TELL people who they should vote for in a comic book has got to be the most insulting god damn thing I could possibly imagine from a publisher! HOW FUCKING DARE YOU, Marvel! How fucking dare you try to force your politics on me! Who the fuck do you think you are!?! What bills you pay to be pushing propaganda in my house!?!?!?

Fuck You, Marvel! We're done! It's over between us! I'm reading Rebirth now. Rebirth just -- DOES things; Things you never do for me. Rebirth understands me. Rebirth touches me in ways that no one ever has. Rebirth cares about me; what I want to read, but all you care about is yourself.

Things just aren't working out between us, and believe me, it's not me, and its not the readers... It's you.

Marvel Thinks Readers Don't Like "Diversity"

The Idea of diversity destroying comic books makes about as much sense as saying a bottle of water would be enough to destroy the vast expanse of the ocean. Diversity on comic book superheroes has existed well into the 70's, and really saw an uptick n the 90's. That being said, I won't deny that some aspects of it are really becoming a problem now. It isn't so much the diversity itself, so much as the execution being about as effective as a Jahova's Witness knocking on every door in the neighborhood. People are calling Marvel Now's approach to diversity a form of tokenism, but I happen to think it has more to do with bad writing than anything else. Most of the bad writing is due --in no small part-- to Marvel's writers and their terrible habit of promoting political messages that don't really mesh well with the story. When Marvels second Civil War events was going on, political commentary would pop into the narrative and slap me upside the head like Barry Bons with a baseball bat.

People have been saying that they saw columnists at websites that cover comic books insisting that anyone who didn't like Marvel's direction only disliked it because we're all racist. I read a lot of articles online, and personally, I have never seen this happen. I have seen a lot of people claiming that comic book readers tend to fear change, and all that bullshit. 

Comicstorian --a YouTuber-- made an excellent response to this amazingly stupid accusation. If you think about it, Marvel went out of their way to kill or replace all the heroes that these bland, heavily sanitized characters were replacing. People talk about character development being a big issue with these new propaganda puppets like Jane Foster and RiRi Williams, because comic book readers don't read comic books for superpowers at all, rather for story and characters. We care about the people we're reading about, and not so much some stranger that popped up out of nowhere. Had these characters been introduced in their own books with their own superhero persona, I'm pretty sure no one would have had a problem with it.

Of course, most people agreed with Comicstorian on this issue, but I would take it a step further and side with Rob from ComicsExplained, when he called these accusations "ridiculous" and "Tremendously irresponsible." The way I see it, there are very real instances of racism out there in the real world. For some idiot columnists to be casually throwing that accusation around diminishes The impact of a real world problem, and if they keep this shit up, people are going to stop taking racism seriously altogether.

For me, The moment someone starts up a topic with "people who disagree with me are racist," I immediately tune out and ignore everything else they have to say. This isn't just me being an asshole, but a consequence of being a grown up. If you're talking to me --an able-bodied working class adult-- and the whole time we have a conversation, you are performing mental gymnastics in a futile attempt to detect coarse traces of racism in everything I say, then you don't deserve to talk to me. The way I see it, if you have to shoehorn racism into everything, you are not enough of an adult to carry a conversation with a grown-up, and you need to go fuck yourself.

I don't want to come off as a complete asshole, but the politically divisive nature of the media and the way it handles this issue is a red herring. Racism and Sexism and needs to be thrown out of this discussion, before people can have a dialogue about what's really going on here, because all this hyperbole and labels do is derail the conversation. The truth is, I really like Marvel comics. Marvel comics like the X-men, Thor and Spiderman are among some of my fondest memories growing up. My favorite part of the comics was how they always tried to shake up the status quo. The characters lives felt like they were always changing. That being said, I feel like no amount of race-bating and social justice propaganda is going to change the fact that Marvel is really doing something wrong here.

A word about RiRi Williams...

The Riri Williams as Iron man situation was a good example of a character who fell victim to one of the worst introductions to a character that has ever existed. I have to admit, as the series progresses, I'm starting to not dislike the concept it as much as I did in issue #1. The first issue of Invincible Iron Man was like driving by a car accident on a Los Angeles highway in rush-hour traffic. It was clumsily written, had bad artwork with dull, ugly tones, and to top it all off, came almost immediately after Stark was left in a catatonic state, meaning he was (For all intents and purposes) dead. Just before, in Stark's own comics, we learned that not only is he adopted, but he actually meets his real biological mother, in a plot line that goes absolutely fucking nowhere, since he was replaced with RiRi williams almost immediately after the revelation.

The worst part of her story isn't even RiRi herself; it's the fact that her inception derailed a plot line of a story readers actually gave a shit about, to introduce a character that was given literally no build up. Yet, there were dumb liberal douchebags in media that would have you believe that there is nothing resembling nuance to the negative reception. In their mind, the only people who could dislike invincible Ironman #1 are all grand wizards of the KKK. Never mind the virtually non existent story structure, forget the bad writing and dialogue, or that Riri had very little or no character, had not established any real backstory, and readers had no reason whatsoever to get invested in the character.

How not to screw up a character introduction...

Up to this point, we have gotten to know the characters who took up the mantle of any Avenger. Even X-23 had several years of backstory before taking up the mantle of Wolverine. The fact that we are first introduced to the character, who takes up the Ironman mantle practically overnight is bound to piss people off, and for good reason: We don't know this person. We didn't spend time with this character (RiRi) to the extent that we spent with, say, Ms. Marvel. We have no bond or emotional connection to this complete stranger. This is obviously the most plausible and probable explanation for why she wasn't well received by long time fans of comic books, but there is always some moron out there trying to turn this into a political issue.

YouTubers I don't agree with...

For example, I just watched a video by a YouTuber ComicsIsland, where he described what HE felt was wrong with the diversity issue in comic books.

...Doing this, research has shown that they survive this, by, for every older reader they've lost, they've attracted two new ones. That's not necessarily a bad thing ever. There was always gonna be some people who weren't willing to accept anything other than a pure white Marvel. I say good riddance to them.

I'm sorry... I like ComicsIsland and everything, but I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that statement. Fuck that.

Yeah, sure... It's easy to speculate that a toothless redneck in some Klan robes took a break from lynching some Negroes in the woods of Alabama to sit and read a Captain America paperback, but this is the same kind of nebulous, deliberately vague generalizations that are tailor-made to lump in every person who stopped reading Marvel comics into one big strawman fallacy. It isn't a slippery slope from "Racists don't want to read black woman" to "Readers stopped reading Marvel Comics because they must be racist, and don't want to read black woman." Honestly, that is such bullshit. Readers of comics shouldn't let garbage statements like that slide --ever-- because its a straw-man fallacy at best, and a bigoted insult to readers at worst.

What's really destroying comic books...

I want to expand upon something Comicstorian brought up in his video. Diversity is bad when it's all about the politics, in my opinion. People don't read comic books for propaganda, like Angela: queen of hel; we read comics for the characters. We follow a character's life in these books, and most of us have been reading long enough to feel like we know these people. How would you feel if your best friend disappeared overnight, only to be replaced by a stranger you've never met trying to take their place? If you ask where your friend went, would it be fair for someone to label you a racist because you miss the person who is now gone? Hell no!

That's what's really destroying comic books here: It isn't diversity, it isn't women, and it damn sure isn't people with different skin tones. Diversity doesn't kill this industry; politics kills this industry. Politics divides people. Inclusion in comic books is supposed to be all about making people feel welcome; like they belong in a community, but politics is all about tearing people apart, and trying to make the other party feel inferior. Politics is all about segregation -- about finding a way to reduce the opposing side to the strawmmen we are expected to create for them. It's about finding some excuse to segregate people based on stupid bullshit. Racism and Sexism are the hatchlings born over the nest that we know as politics. If you want more diverse characters, like LGBT and minorities, then you do it without the political baggage, because people are more than just a vote, or a political statement. People are individuals. People are different. People are --in my opinion-- better than this shit.

Characters of "diversity" that suck...

I never liked Wiccan of the Young Avengers, because he has always been written like a character that only ever existed to fill a diversity quota, and subsequently, his only defining character trait is the fact that he is Gay. Same thing with Wiccan's boyfriend Hulkling. It doesn't strike me as particularly realistic for a real person to talk about nothing but how much of a homosexual they are. I've never spoken to a real gay person who has ever done that in real life, like they only exist to remind an invisible audience of comic book readers that they are in love with the same sex. 

Northstar is a Canadian superhero that pretty much no one cares about at all, so you'd be forgiven for not even realizing that the flying Super Canuck was gay. Being gay is just about the only thing this empty, soulless character has going for him. He doesn't have anything even remotely close to a personality. I used to read his crossovers with wolverine, thinking this guy was secretly an android or something, like a life model decoy modeled after no one in particular.

There is a point where Marvel's politics have bled over into their character development. Diversity is important and all, but I feel like Marvel is crossing that line between equitable opportunity for inclusion, and just shallow tokenism. This isn't real diversity to me; this is just a very inorganic brainstorming session by a committee, looking to cash in on the Tumblr audience of potential readers; people who are more inclined to read articles from Polygon and Destructoid, for no other reason than because these liberal arts and Social Studies majors are the demographic that actually has the patience to sit down and read something. In an attempt to win their trust, Marvel Editorial decided to try and appeal to everything from their cringeworthy hairstyles to their weird Communist politics, and if Marvel's sliding sales figures are any indication, it backfired like a tennis match with a live hand grenade. Marvel's sales are sliding so much, that Marvel revealed that it's poised to abandon the politics all together.

There is a reason for this: Nobody wants politics in their comic books. Nobody expects politics in their comic books. Comic book readers are trying to escape the divisive bullshit in our reality, not celebrate it in the escapist fantasy of Superhero fiction. It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you're on; why the shit would anyone want to read this crap?!

Diverse original characters that Marvel is ignoring...

My favorite recent marvel event was Secret wars. Not so much Secret wars itself, but the lead-up to it, where the Illuminati are struggling against the universe itself to prevent earth 616 from crashing into parallel versions of earth, effectively destroying the space time continuum. What I liked about it was that for the first time in a very long time, the main focus of a Marvel even wasn't about heroes fighting each-other, or about political garbage that comic book readers don't give a shit about. This comic book transcended domestic disputes, and tackled something bigger than Earth itself. But you want to know what I didn't like about it? The fact that Blue Marvel wasn't in it.

Blue Marvel is a physics professor, Electrical Engineer, and holds a PhD from Cornell University. He got his powers from an accident in a antimatter containment field, giving him strength on par with the Sentry and Thor, can fly at light speed, and is more than 80 years old. Now, If I were, say, in need of assistance from a brilliant scientific mind on how to move a god damn fucking planet out of the way, chances are, I would go straight to the guy who can launch Antimatter protons from his fucking body at high speed, to see how one could recreate the experiment in order to change the trajectory of a fucking planet. Just a thought, Marvel... Just a thought.

Of course, that's not what happened though. The one hero that the Illuminati should have brought into this scenario, wasn't; dooming the planet to a war with the Ultimate universe, and had it not been for the supervillain Doom recreating the universe in his own image, the entire multiverse wouldn't even exist.

Art by: Jung Geun-Yoon
Blue Marvel is on the Ultimates team, working as a strike force for Shield, lead by that egocentric jackass Captain Marvel. Blue Marvel is sidelined once again, and this has become a recurring trend with Marvel over the years: These only way a black protagonist can seem to lead a team in the Marvel universe is if he --or she-- commandeers the identity of a white superhero. This takes into account the obvious exception of Storm, since Storm is an original character, but she only leads one of at least 3 X-Men team spinoffs.

Think about it... When's the last time you read a Blade #1? Cage? Doctor VooDoo? Bishop? Hell, It's not just disappointing to me; it's condescending to black, female and minority superheros.  It's sending the wrong message to suggest that readers aren't interested in new characters of color. This idea that Marvel has to sneak one in through the disguise of a traditionally white protagonist is actually kinda racist, if you think about it. It shows how little the Marvel editorial staff seems to think of comic book fans, but also, how little they seem to think of black heroes in their own books. Seriously, Twitter and Reddit are beaming with a hunger for a new, diverse, but --most importantly-- original character, and Marvel has been going out of their way to ignore the "original" part like it's carrying the Ebola virus!

Message to Marvel Writers...

I want to leave this long rant on this note:  Make your new characters as diverse as you want, in as much frequency as you like, but remember this: Being Queer is not character development, being a woman is not storytelling, and being Black or Asian is not a personality trait. Unless you're writing porn, the color of someone's skin, or the variety of sexual tastes should always be secondary to who a character is as a person. Write your characters like they are people, not like they are a campaign billboard, and --maybe-- long time readers will actually take them seriously.

Is Diversity Destroying Comic Books?

Previous PostOlder Posts Home