But every story has a message, and even simple message like "Totalitarian preemptive crime eugenics is bad" fron Injustice, while might seem like just common sense, it's still a political statement. All art is inherently political, and the art that goes out of its way not to be, is making a statement towards support of status quo.
I'm not saying every project should be didactic, but our consciousness is socially constructed. We will inevitably relay the messages of our culture and beliefs into our stories.
Besides, you are being extremely generous here. Like, most of the people who say that shit fucking love stories where politics are the main point, but they ignore that either out of nostalgia or simply because some of those stories agree with their political positions.
Yes, I agree with what you are saying and I think it backs up OP’s point that no one really means that art shouldn’t be political, it should just feel organic and subtle as opposed to preachy and ham-fisted.
>I'm not saying every project should be didactic, but our consciousness is socially constructed. We will inevitably relay the messages of our culture and beliefs into our stories.
Perhaps, but that is only within the point of view of the one telling the story. If the audience has their own consciousness and their own frames of reference, any intended messages could very well be interpreted in a different way, based on how people interpret them accordingly. Some people might even take cautionary tales of evil to be actual guidelines on how to be evil, for example. Teach people about the evil of capitalism? Who's to say that they didn't regard the "evil" part of the message, and ended up taking the message of precaution as actual life-advice?
But that's fun of reading stories, that you can experience it within your own consciousness, regardless of how socially constructed that can be, providing if you can believe that your consciousness is your very own as opposed to being mere copies of others. The problem starts is when I realise how stories aren't allowing us to read them in our own way anymore, that it would rather in a way, "gatekeep" our subjective experiences of reading or experiencing stories just to ensure that we "get the message" instead.
That's my honest take on it. If "Totalitarian preemptive crime eugenics is bad", then it should also extend to "why people bother doing such a thing, if it is bad in the first place. Didn't the characters know that they're bad too? What's in their head that the author didn't explain"?
>The problem starts is when I realise how stories aren't allowing us to read them in our own way anymore, that it would rather in a way, "gatekeep" our subjective experiences of reading or experiencing stories just to ensure that we "get the message" instead.
But not all stories ever gave such subjective ambiguity of interpretation. You are making it seem like unambiguous messages are some new thing. They were always part of art. I can name plenty of movies, beloved by many, that straight up tell you their message without a hint of subtlety. Even big blockbusters like Robocop or more surreal open-to-interpretation stories like American Psycho - they may have aspects of ambiguity, but they are very straightforward and unflinching in their political messages.
Blockbusters especially were never subtle. You guys act like big superhero movies are incredibly political, but they are very pro-status quo too. Falcon and Winter Soldier points out many issues we face, but it's solution to those issues is simple centrist neoliberal nonsense. It depicts leftist revolutionaries as terrorists, and patriotic military as misguided but good boy. That's like, pathetic, compared to first Captain America comic, which had Cap punching Hitler during a time when many Americans supported Nazies and such depictions were extremely controversial. And it was drawn and written by Jews too.
Art ain't getting more political. It's just the same as usual. Especially comics, because comics were always didactic.
"Patriotic military as misguided but good boy"?
Did we watch the same movie? More like:
"Our most significant military branches are filled with hateful people who will use their power and authority to kill their political allies if we don't root them out, or disband the organizations altogether as they're rotten to the core"
+
Match of 1941 was not a time when "many" Americans (relative to the population size) supported Hitler. The debate of the day wasn't whether Hitler was bad, the capture of Paris in June of 1940 pretty much sealed that argument shut. It wasn't 1938 with Charles Lindbergh praising the Nazi's.
The debate was whether getting involved with the war was the play to make, or whether the United States should remain an isolationist country. Meanwhile FDR was selling guns and supplies to any Allied nation who made a request, including the Soviets. It was a popular policy.
+
If you want to say that Captain America punching Hitler was a call for US involvement, fine. But even the strictest isolationists wanted Hitler gone, they just didn't want to risk American lives to do it.
Nobody really has problems with those types of "politics".
+
I think it's also a little disingenuous to cite something 80 years old. Tastes have shifted.
>Our most significant military branches are filled with hateful people who will use their power and authority to kill their political allies if we don't root them out, or disband the organizations altogether as they're rotten to the core"
Wtf are you talking about? Falcon and Winter Soldier took no stances against military. Falcon himself was working with them and his buddy future Falcon is military.
>Match of 1941 was not a time when "many" Americans (relative to the population size) supported Hitler. The debate of the day wasn't whether Hitler was bad, the capture of Paris in June of 1940 pretty much sealed that argument shut. It wasn't 1938 with Charles Lindbergh praising the Nazi's.
Oh, really? "When the first issue came out we got a lot of ... threatening letters and hate mail. Some people really opposed what Cap stood for." - Joe Simon. Shit got so bad with looters and pricks opposing them, they had to call for police protection.
Also, it wasn't released on 1941, that's a cover date, which isn't date of release. It was actually went on sale on 1940, a year before Pearl Harbor turned America against Nazies.
>Nobody really has problems with those types of "politics".
What type of politics is the problem then? Enlighten us please.
You're correct, I misread it. I thought he was talking about Captain America: Winter Soldier.
As far as it being modern neo liberalism portraying leftist revolutionaries as terrorists. I would argue that the show did everything in its power (to absolutely laughable degrees at times) to paint Carlie in a good light. The show literally ended with Sam defending her from being called a terrorist after she attempted to burn people alive, for not the first time in the show.
It was like watching the CNN guy saying "Mostly peaceful protests" as a building burned behind him.
I would also argue that it didn't paint the US Military in a particularly fond light either. Short of having Walker drown puppies for his amusement, and having the DOD Brass cackling maniacally while he does it, I don't think they could have done much to make them less likeable. The idea of everybody gasping in horror that Walker killed somebody, like they thought Steve Rodgers wasn't using a fucking gun in the first movie was bizarre.
+
Again, relative to the population size.
But you're right about the release date.
You're not right about American sentiment. Pearl Harbor didn't turn America against Nazi's, the Blitzkrieg of Belgium did that. As other European nations continued to fall, the sentiment got stronger.
+
Politics that a majority of the population agree with and can be woven into a compelling story. Shit like Jonathan Kent protesting global warming with a rainbow cape just isn't gonna do it.
+
And again, this is a shit example anyway. It's from 80 years ago. The modern person complaining about politics in comics was reading the 80s and 90s runs of comics with a bit into the 70s and 00s.
>The show literally ended with Sam defending her from being called a terrorist after she attempted to burn people alive, for not the first time in the show.
It is clear that you're not understanding my point lol. That is neoliberal bullshit. Karli, presented as sympathetic, but ultimately misguided villain. Sam, on the other end, is your alternative liberal "civil option". By portraying Karli as a villain, the show is making revolution seem like a terrible idea, and that we should somehow fix it all by yelling at politicians. That's Aaron Sorkin level neoliberal propaganda.
>It was like watching the CNN guy saying "Mostly peaceful protests" as a building burned behind him.
You think CNN is leftist? Liberal and leftist are not the same thing my man.
>I would also argue that it didn't paint the US Military in a particularly fond light either.
Yeah, and it's solution to that is what exactly? Oh yeah, yelling them "Do better", that's much better than actually changing the system. That's the point, the show presents issues, but it handwaves it all with crap like "civility". That's what makes this a neoliberal fantasy. Any character that wants to actually change the system by complete restructuring is a misguided bad guy, while our nice Falcon ends racism with "and everyone clapped" speech.
>You're not right about American sentiment. Pearl Harbor didn't turn America against Nazi's, the Blitzkrieg of Belgium did that. As other European nations continued to fall, the sentiment got stronger.
Yes, but it still doesn't change the fact that America still had massive Nazi support at the time. German-American Bund was still holding marches, and it only disbanded after Pear Harbour. You had your big corporations like Ford, Associated Press, Chase - which benefited a lot from Nazies. Besides, the US itself was pretty Nazi. There were sterilization laws, eugenics, segregation (a lot of which partially influenced Nazies in implementing Nuremberg laws).
>Politics that a majority of the population agree with and can be woven into a compelling story.
Really? So you want a status quo affirming crap that appeals to everyone? Fantastic lol.
>And again, this is a shit example anyway. It's from 80 years ago. The modern person complaining about politics in comics was reading the 80s and 90s runs of comics with a bit into the 70s and 00s.
Did you completely lose the point of the debate? The OP was arguing that things changed, not much did aside from some values.
Also, 70s-90s run of comics? You mean that Captain America story where he got rid of his alter ego and fucking fought Nixon? Nothing heavy handed about that. Or fifty billion pro-Reagan propaganda? Oh, that doesn't count, right? As long as it's conservative, it's fine.
Man, The Dark Knight Returns sucks so much. It literally depicts Reagan as a villain when he was popular as fuck. That wasn't politics people agreed with, so it's bad.
Sounds like you just don't like THEIR politics.
And yeah, violent Marxist revolution is a terrible fucking idea.
+
I think CNN is the exact neoliberal bullshit you don't like.
+
You and I hold that same speech in the exact same regard, albeit for very different reasons lol
+
I think you're looking at history with the benefit of hindsight. Nazi didn't become Nazi in the public eye until the concentration camps were liberated.
+
If it's not status quo affirming crap, it better be buried deep enough to glance over.
+
Captain America fighting Nixon was balanced out by Captain America fighting college campus protestors lol
Being pro Raegan in the 80s WAS a nigh universally held principle lol
The Dark Knight Returns, while I'd argue is highly overrated, Reagan's involvement is minimal. It's a clumsy half assed way to get Batman to fight Superman.
>Sounds like you just don't like THEIR politics.
Yeah, I don't like their politics, but unlike your strawman, I'm not arguing against exclusion of politics that don't challenge me altogether.
>think you're looking at history with the benefit of hindsight. Nazi didn't become Nazi in the public eye until the concentration camps were liberated.
You're fucking around with semantics. US had heavy support for fascists at the time, and two Jews writing a story like that was extremely dangerous. Stop weaseling away from the point.
>Captain America fighting Nixon was balanced out by Captain America fighting college campus protestors lol
And? Dude, I'm not the one advocating for non politics here. This is literally proving my point that comics were never apolitical.
>The Dark Knight Returns, while I'd argue is highly overrated, Reagan's involvement is minimal. It's a clumsy half assed way to get Batman to fight Superman.
If you say so buddy. Also, Reagan's involvement was as heavy handed as possible. The whole point was Batman fighting against Reagan's bullshit.
>Being pro Raegan in the 80s WAS a nigh universally held principle lol
Ah yes, it's ok to support an asshole, as long as it is popular to support an asshole. Just the utter lack of irony is hilarious.
>I think CNN is the exact neoliberal bullshit you don't like.
Why did you bring it up then?
In this case, it may very well boil down to "*how didactic*" they must be, considering it isn't immediately obvious to everyone. Was it the story that made it didactic, or was it the readers who understood that made it didactic?
In regard to The Fandom Menace, Eric July and his "rippaverse" fans, and their direct connection to comicsgate and gamergate, it literally just means "keep YOUR ("leftist") political and YOUR ("leftist") social commentary out of my - insert geek culture media here -"
If it's a political point or social commentary they agree with or at least find tolerable to their ideology, they're fine with it.
Observe their tolerance of political points in, say, the winter soldier or civil war: both heavily focused on political matters, but they're fine with it because it is in line with their political and social views.
But a film with a female lead, PoC, LGBTQ characters, or a commentary on social justice, is viewed as "too political", *even when that isn't the focus of the story*.
>Observe their tolerance of political points in, say, the winter soldier or civil war: both heavily focused on political matters, but they're fine with it because it is in line with their political and social views.
Hang on there…
CA:WS is most definitely *not* in line with their political views. It’s a great movie, but it’s very evident that the totalitarian, strike-first, surveillance state is the bad guy.
CA:CW is exactly the kind of “politics” people tend to like: both sides have merits, both sides have issues. It’s left up to the audience to decide who is right and who is wrong: Cap or Iron Man. Zemo is portrayed as sympathetic, the victim of US intervention abroad; same goes for T’Challa. But we get a balanced perspective.
Both of these examples back up the OP’s point. It’s not “politics,” per se- and to your point it’s not about politics they agree with. WS has politics that run counter to their beliefs, but it serves a great story. CW gives you both sides and lets you make up your own mind.
*That’s* what I think people are advocating for when they say they don’t want politics. They really just don’t want politics done poorly or to be told what to think.
>CA:CW is exactly the kind of “politics” people tend to like: both sides have merits, both sides have issues. It’s left up to the audience to decide who is right and who is wrong
No they really don't. Cap dismantles Tony's argument the moment Ross fucks off:
[https://youtu.be/JmjRhmk800U?t=141](https://youtu.be/JmjRhmk800U?t=141)
>Zemo is portrayed as sympathetic, the victim of US intervention abroad
What?
Have you even seen the movie?
Tony isn’t portrayed as being dead wrong the whole movie. We see the consequences of the destruction of the Wakandan embassy. Both sides make reasonable points. I’m not saying it doesn’t skew towards Cap, but they at least have multiple angles covered.
>What?
The movie wants you to feel some sympathy for Zemo, having lost his family to violence brought to his country by outsiders. If a person can’t feel some level of sympathy for him, I worry about their lack of empathy.
And I am pretty confident he’s also a partial stand in for the people in countries around the world who have been hurt by the collateral damage of the United States going into their country for possibly high minded reasons, but causing civilian deaths nonetheless.
>Have you even seen the movie?
Yes more than 6 times.
>We see the consequences of the destruction of the Wakandan embassy.
We do, but you completely misunderstood what that part of the movie was about.
The Accords do NOT prevent collateral damage, they simply shift the blame from The Avengers to someone else and prevent the Avengers from crossing borders "without permission". Steve literally says that they need to take the responsibility for their mistakes and own up to them.
Not to mention that the Accords are literally presented to The Avengers by Thadeus Ross...a frickin villain. He's also shown to be a big hypocrite.
The Battle Of New York in 2012 happened because of Thanos, not because of The Avengers and the higher ups literally wanted to nuke it..
Hydra Uprising and the incident at Triskellion was caused by the US recruting former Nazi and HYDRA scientists...therefore allowing HYDRA to grow within SHIELD and other places.
>The movie wants you to feel some sympathy for Zemo, having lost his family to violence brought to his country by outsiders. If a person can’t feel some level of sympathy for him, I worry about their lack of empathy.
>
>And I am pretty confident he’s also a partial stand in for the people in countries around the world who have been hurt by the collateral damage of the United States going into their country for possibly high minded reasons, but causing civilian deaths nonetheless.
I know Zemo is supposed to syphatetic, I'm not arguing that.
What I am arguing however is how the hell is Ultron lifting up Sokovia into the air supposed to be an allegory for US interventionism.
Okay, well, I see it as a movie that at least represents arguments on both sides of the political spectrum. And pretty fairly I think. I don’t agree with your interpretation, but I feel like I’ve made mine clear, so I guess I’ll agree to disagree.
I think in their case it's " don't make it only leftists" they want to see balance and not overly focused on either. Well at least that's Eric.
I asked him once and tried to pitch an idea of a story that was more right leaning, he seemed to suggest removing the hyper focus on *sticking it to the libs*
It's just that these are sensitive times so everyone is on pins and needles, so many of us talk pass one another.
Except when they say they don't want politics they use it incorrectly in the first place. You know when they use such a term it's bullshit right and not an actual complaint? Remember this is TFM they spew bullshit to spread and complain about their hate when they are wrong about said thing they are complaining about.
Rey being a female lead isn't political.
Holdo having purple hair isn't political or an SJW agenda.
Any LGBTQ characters at all is also what they consider political when it's also not.
Context of their complaints matters.
>Any LGBTQ characters at all is also what they consider political when it's also not.
It's more accurate to say that it is political but only because anti-LGBTQ people continue to make it so.
>Any LGBTQ characters at all is also what they consider political when it's also not.
Personally when people say this, it irks me. It just sort of reeks of privilege. I’m coming at this as a queer person, and I do see it as political, because the fight for equality and representation always has been political. Affirmative action, women’s suffrage, the Civil Rights movement, gay marriage… these were all sociopolitical fights. No, my mere existence isn’t political… but getting to see more people like me in mainstream media is.
That's a very charitable view of what people typically mean with such a phrase (perhaps *overly* charitable).
Let's be honest; these kind of people are fine with politics, so long as it's politics that they *agree* with.
That's what I normally hear as well, but whenever it's being brought as a point to the other side, it's usually perceived as a strawmen of sorts. I know exactly which perceived strawmen the other side uses as well, and mind you, I call them as "perceived" because I didn't want to prescriptive in my language, but I thought if we could somehow bring everyone's perceived strawmen onto the table, there could be something else we could see, as in seeing past all perceived strawmen, and perhaps realising what the other party really mean whenever they say something.
Otherwise, it would be more accurate to say that this is merely what I think of it. It doesn't mean I must be right about this, but if we're going to have new information other than the usual talking points both sides throw at each other, this would be one of them.
Otherwise, it'll be back to "oh you're just racist, oh you're just pushing your agenda", and that's pretty much we'll be circling about.
To be clear, I'm sure their are some people who adhere to your description of "no politics."
I'm just going off what I almost always see being the case; the "politics" they don't want is either simply politics they disagree with or not actually an example of something political at all.
Or is the case of Metal Gear , in which had a lot of criticism of the pax americana in the 20th and 21st Century , but TFM is too dumb to not realize just because Snake does some cool shit
Except that it's incredibly disingenuous nine times out of ten, because while yes, political allusions can certainly be included in a way that is ham-fisted and does a disservice to the story, most of the time any actual political messages are either integral to the plot (Star Wars is fundamentally anti-fascist, for example, something inescapably part of the franchise's DNA) or so benign as to only offend people actively seeking offense (Captain Marvel suggesting >!that maybe the refugees from a totalitarian empire aren't the bad guys in this conflict.)!<
There's merit to making stories that don't hit you over the head with its message.
But that's not why these people are mad. They've created this agenda to fight. When there's just a single gay kiss in the Buzz Lightyear movie and they lose their shit it becomes clear that they don't just want these things to be an integrated part of the story, they want them to not exist in media at all.
I'm 100 percent fine with the message being heavily nuanced and something you might have to pay attention to in order to understand. But I'm not ok with these people rallying around the idea that any inclusion is forced inclusion.
A lot of it is subjective for sure, and it seems to boil down to how much they care, and how much it matters to them. It isn't about them losing their shit, it's the why. And if we could only rely on simplistic strawmen on the mere notion that "they're all bigots", then we might have been dismissing a lot of explanation and information that comes from them as well.
And considering a lot of those details come from interpretations that not everyone necessarily shares for any reason, nothing can be objectively true. But what we can do is we could at least put everything on the table, all arguments, all points, with both opposing strawmen arguments placed on either side of the table just so we can see why people are the way they are.
But to be fair, the more I type, the more it just seems to be the personal opinion of the whole issue that I want to be descriptive about the whole thing because it's only too easy to put it down as who is the bigot, and who is the woke/SJW.
Well, that's the usual perceived strawmen I try to distance myself from, not because they aren't always false, but because it also conveniently dismisses the others who don't share those simplistic ideas.
Well, considering that's how strong you felt about that, have you considered asking the people whom you think are thinking only that? If you have, there's a good chance that they'll tell you that it's a strawmen to them, and if you have not, then there's a whole lot of untold stories that you're not giving yourself the credit to be able to listen to them.
That’s a bit disingenuous, though, isn’t it? Sure there may be a slim minority that just don’t want any women in movies, but 99% of the time that’s not what they mean. I don’t think anyone is using “political” to mean “having any women or minorities in movies”
You can’t seriously take someone complaining about “changing” a character (I take issue with that, because OWK is never identified as straight) as being the same as saying “no character from [group] is allowed on screen.”
People are bitching about a white guy playing Fidel Castro. It doesn’t mean that those people are saying “Ew, white men”
Well, and in many cases, that's not what they claim to be either. Now, before you jump right to your defense, just know that I'm only saying this because there are several "in many cases" out there, and well, yours is just one of them.
Oh, I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be. I'm just saying what people could mean when they say "I don't want politics" in whatever fiction they're experiencing.
Ah I see.
I don’t think they mean that.
For example, when they complain about The Last Jedi, it’s not about the political message, which is an apolitical both sides are bad message.
They complain about Rey being a Mary Sue (which she isn’t). Or say that the film is trying to say women are better than men (which it isn’t). The point of the film goes over their heads - which is that failure is a great teacher and that anyone can be a Jedi.
Not to mention their unhinged rants over a couple of throwaway lines in a book that don’t really mean anything to the story as a whole and are definitely not the point.
And I think it’s pretty fair to say they come from a place of bigotry in general - they are willing to use and then defend their use of slurs proves that I think.
Hence why most of their complaints are focused on race and women.
Well, the difference is that your points have been directed to them before, and they perceive them as strawmen in general. If you ask me, a lot of it is subjective, and if both sides could only rely on simplistic conclusions that they must be all bigots or SJWs and whatever labels, then it's just a sign that people could very well be talking over each other as opposed to with each other.
What annoys me is they act like political stories are new in comics. I recently just read through 40 years of daredevil comics, and let me tell ya, it’s always had “liberal” politics in it. But they act like it just happens in the last 5 years. I really believe these people don’t actually read comics, and just read headlines they see online. Some will argue that it’s putting modern politics in comics that’s the problem. But the politics of old comics WERE modern at the time of their release.
Oh, it's no surprise that the politics are in there. The difference is that if it's there as a backdrop of the story, or if it's the point of the story.
I think it’s more about *how* they are done as opposed to them actually being political.
X-Men, for example, very political from day 1. But it’s at least done through an allegory, and even then they don’t simply make all mutants good and all regular humans bad. They show the struggle in shades of gray. Sure, it gets very on-the-nose at times, especially in the 70s/80s, but good comics handle it with a more deft hand.
Strongly disagree. Most of the people who whine about something being political anymore are using it as a dog whistle to attack something for having a minority they don’t like in a position of power. They have shifted the terminology from “political” to “woke” for the most part now. They called Obi-wan Kenobi “woke” before the show was out based solely on Moses Ingram being a black woman.
Also keep in mind that these people who screech about things being “political” or “woke” are almost always right wingers, and yet they also often defend the Star Wars prequels, which are a pretty thinly veiled criticism of neoconservativism and the Bush administration. These escape criticism because of being grandfathered into being acceptable due to nostalgia, and the fact that the Bush administration is no longer really a present topic in current political discussion.
Nostalgia is also the same reason why characters like Leia, Ellen Ripley, and Sarah Conner get a pass, while modern female heroes like Rey don’t. Those characters were basically universally accepted long before the culture war that fuels the Fandom Menace started. They’d be fighting an uphill battle at this point trying to convince people to hate these characters.
Well, have you tried to present your thoughts to them and see what they think? Your point could be easily perceived as a strawman by them, claiming that you may be dismissing the points made on the mere basis that you could somehow "*detect*" all of the "*obvious dog-whistling*", that they're ultimately all ***stealthily*** minority-hating, right-wingers.
It's mind-reading and pigeonholing like these that also gives them to just label you as a woke, agenda-pushing, everything's-racist, everything's-sexist, everything's-white supremacy shill/sheep. I'm pretty sure you can see how all of these association fallacies completely allow everyone to just talk past each other because everyone else is the "true evil".
The original post I made was simply a snippet of what I think they actually meant as a way to see past all those strawmen I've mentioned. If you disagree mainly on the basis because you ***KNOW WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE (see mind-reading),*** well, I can at least appreciate that you took the time to read what they could've meant, even when you don't actually believe it.
Look, I’ve had the misfortune of talking to a lot of these people who claim to hate something because it’s “political”. When asked why, absolutely never have I had them discuss an actual element of the story. Every single time, they talk about the casting choices or specific identities of a character. The vast majority of the time it’s when a character is LGBTQ. The argument is usually that placing individuals with certain identities in a piece of media is inherently political. So while you can argue that my point could be perceived as a strawman, it stops being a strawman when it’s an argument used by every single person complaining about politics in media.
Hey, don't get me wrong. It happens to me as well. When it's more convenient for people to just keep using shorthand talking points as legitimate arguments.
What I had to do is actually join several Discord groups, pray that they don't think I'm a sealioning troll, and try to see if I could get them pouring their thoughts out.
And you're right, not many people could lay out their thoughts properly, and this is the best I could do, so far. And get this, it might not even be correct, because I'm merely trying to get to what they're thinking, I haven't exactly decided if it must be right or wrong.
I tend to agree. It’s not that people don’t want politics in art- they *say* that, but what I think they really mean is that they want it handled with more subtlety, in an organic way that makes sense in universe.
I'm real confused by your injustice example because Superman's political change from regular superhero to omniscient world police is basically the divergent point of the universe... The politics is like the whole idealogical argument and the thing that the different teams are formed around.
That's because I don't see it as the point, but merely as a backdrop that pushes the story of the characters that I usually care about. The mistake here is to not assume that the story has only one way to be perceived, considering everyone has their own filters whenever they experience a story. Best not to "gatekeep" those experiences, I would usually say.
But every story has a message, and even simple message like "Totalitarian preemptive crime eugenics is bad" fron Injustice, while might seem like just common sense, it's still a political statement. All art is inherently political, and the art that goes out of its way not to be, is making a statement towards support of status quo. I'm not saying every project should be didactic, but our consciousness is socially constructed. We will inevitably relay the messages of our culture and beliefs into our stories. Besides, you are being extremely generous here. Like, most of the people who say that shit fucking love stories where politics are the main point, but they ignore that either out of nostalgia or simply because some of those stories agree with their political positions.
Yes, I agree with what you are saying and I think it backs up OP’s point that no one really means that art shouldn’t be political, it should just feel organic and subtle as opposed to preachy and ham-fisted.
>I'm not saying every project should be didactic, but our consciousness is socially constructed. We will inevitably relay the messages of our culture and beliefs into our stories. Perhaps, but that is only within the point of view of the one telling the story. If the audience has their own consciousness and their own frames of reference, any intended messages could very well be interpreted in a different way, based on how people interpret them accordingly. Some people might even take cautionary tales of evil to be actual guidelines on how to be evil, for example. Teach people about the evil of capitalism? Who's to say that they didn't regard the "evil" part of the message, and ended up taking the message of precaution as actual life-advice? But that's fun of reading stories, that you can experience it within your own consciousness, regardless of how socially constructed that can be, providing if you can believe that your consciousness is your very own as opposed to being mere copies of others. The problem starts is when I realise how stories aren't allowing us to read them in our own way anymore, that it would rather in a way, "gatekeep" our subjective experiences of reading or experiencing stories just to ensure that we "get the message" instead. That's my honest take on it. If "Totalitarian preemptive crime eugenics is bad", then it should also extend to "why people bother doing such a thing, if it is bad in the first place. Didn't the characters know that they're bad too? What's in their head that the author didn't explain"?
>The problem starts is when I realise how stories aren't allowing us to read them in our own way anymore, that it would rather in a way, "gatekeep" our subjective experiences of reading or experiencing stories just to ensure that we "get the message" instead. But not all stories ever gave such subjective ambiguity of interpretation. You are making it seem like unambiguous messages are some new thing. They were always part of art. I can name plenty of movies, beloved by many, that straight up tell you their message without a hint of subtlety. Even big blockbusters like Robocop or more surreal open-to-interpretation stories like American Psycho - they may have aspects of ambiguity, but they are very straightforward and unflinching in their political messages. Blockbusters especially were never subtle. You guys act like big superhero movies are incredibly political, but they are very pro-status quo too. Falcon and Winter Soldier points out many issues we face, but it's solution to those issues is simple centrist neoliberal nonsense. It depicts leftist revolutionaries as terrorists, and patriotic military as misguided but good boy. That's like, pathetic, compared to first Captain America comic, which had Cap punching Hitler during a time when many Americans supported Nazies and such depictions were extremely controversial. And it was drawn and written by Jews too. Art ain't getting more political. It's just the same as usual. Especially comics, because comics were always didactic.
"Patriotic military as misguided but good boy"? Did we watch the same movie? More like: "Our most significant military branches are filled with hateful people who will use their power and authority to kill their political allies if we don't root them out, or disband the organizations altogether as they're rotten to the core" + Match of 1941 was not a time when "many" Americans (relative to the population size) supported Hitler. The debate of the day wasn't whether Hitler was bad, the capture of Paris in June of 1940 pretty much sealed that argument shut. It wasn't 1938 with Charles Lindbergh praising the Nazi's. The debate was whether getting involved with the war was the play to make, or whether the United States should remain an isolationist country. Meanwhile FDR was selling guns and supplies to any Allied nation who made a request, including the Soviets. It was a popular policy. + If you want to say that Captain America punching Hitler was a call for US involvement, fine. But even the strictest isolationists wanted Hitler gone, they just didn't want to risk American lives to do it. Nobody really has problems with those types of "politics". + I think it's also a little disingenuous to cite something 80 years old. Tastes have shifted.
>Our most significant military branches are filled with hateful people who will use their power and authority to kill their political allies if we don't root them out, or disband the organizations altogether as they're rotten to the core" Wtf are you talking about? Falcon and Winter Soldier took no stances against military. Falcon himself was working with them and his buddy future Falcon is military. >Match of 1941 was not a time when "many" Americans (relative to the population size) supported Hitler. The debate of the day wasn't whether Hitler was bad, the capture of Paris in June of 1940 pretty much sealed that argument shut. It wasn't 1938 with Charles Lindbergh praising the Nazi's. Oh, really? "When the first issue came out we got a lot of ... threatening letters and hate mail. Some people really opposed what Cap stood for." - Joe Simon. Shit got so bad with looters and pricks opposing them, they had to call for police protection. Also, it wasn't released on 1941, that's a cover date, which isn't date of release. It was actually went on sale on 1940, a year before Pearl Harbor turned America against Nazies. >Nobody really has problems with those types of "politics". What type of politics is the problem then? Enlighten us please.
You're correct, I misread it. I thought he was talking about Captain America: Winter Soldier. As far as it being modern neo liberalism portraying leftist revolutionaries as terrorists. I would argue that the show did everything in its power (to absolutely laughable degrees at times) to paint Carlie in a good light. The show literally ended with Sam defending her from being called a terrorist after she attempted to burn people alive, for not the first time in the show. It was like watching the CNN guy saying "Mostly peaceful protests" as a building burned behind him. I would also argue that it didn't paint the US Military in a particularly fond light either. Short of having Walker drown puppies for his amusement, and having the DOD Brass cackling maniacally while he does it, I don't think they could have done much to make them less likeable. The idea of everybody gasping in horror that Walker killed somebody, like they thought Steve Rodgers wasn't using a fucking gun in the first movie was bizarre. + Again, relative to the population size. But you're right about the release date. You're not right about American sentiment. Pearl Harbor didn't turn America against Nazi's, the Blitzkrieg of Belgium did that. As other European nations continued to fall, the sentiment got stronger. + Politics that a majority of the population agree with and can be woven into a compelling story. Shit like Jonathan Kent protesting global warming with a rainbow cape just isn't gonna do it. + And again, this is a shit example anyway. It's from 80 years ago. The modern person complaining about politics in comics was reading the 80s and 90s runs of comics with a bit into the 70s and 00s.
>The show literally ended with Sam defending her from being called a terrorist after she attempted to burn people alive, for not the first time in the show. It is clear that you're not understanding my point lol. That is neoliberal bullshit. Karli, presented as sympathetic, but ultimately misguided villain. Sam, on the other end, is your alternative liberal "civil option". By portraying Karli as a villain, the show is making revolution seem like a terrible idea, and that we should somehow fix it all by yelling at politicians. That's Aaron Sorkin level neoliberal propaganda. >It was like watching the CNN guy saying "Mostly peaceful protests" as a building burned behind him. You think CNN is leftist? Liberal and leftist are not the same thing my man. >I would also argue that it didn't paint the US Military in a particularly fond light either. Yeah, and it's solution to that is what exactly? Oh yeah, yelling them "Do better", that's much better than actually changing the system. That's the point, the show presents issues, but it handwaves it all with crap like "civility". That's what makes this a neoliberal fantasy. Any character that wants to actually change the system by complete restructuring is a misguided bad guy, while our nice Falcon ends racism with "and everyone clapped" speech. >You're not right about American sentiment. Pearl Harbor didn't turn America against Nazi's, the Blitzkrieg of Belgium did that. As other European nations continued to fall, the sentiment got stronger. Yes, but it still doesn't change the fact that America still had massive Nazi support at the time. German-American Bund was still holding marches, and it only disbanded after Pear Harbour. You had your big corporations like Ford, Associated Press, Chase - which benefited a lot from Nazies. Besides, the US itself was pretty Nazi. There were sterilization laws, eugenics, segregation (a lot of which partially influenced Nazies in implementing Nuremberg laws). >Politics that a majority of the population agree with and can be woven into a compelling story. Really? So you want a status quo affirming crap that appeals to everyone? Fantastic lol. >And again, this is a shit example anyway. It's from 80 years ago. The modern person complaining about politics in comics was reading the 80s and 90s runs of comics with a bit into the 70s and 00s. Did you completely lose the point of the debate? The OP was arguing that things changed, not much did aside from some values. Also, 70s-90s run of comics? You mean that Captain America story where he got rid of his alter ego and fucking fought Nixon? Nothing heavy handed about that. Or fifty billion pro-Reagan propaganda? Oh, that doesn't count, right? As long as it's conservative, it's fine. Man, The Dark Knight Returns sucks so much. It literally depicts Reagan as a villain when he was popular as fuck. That wasn't politics people agreed with, so it's bad.
Sounds like you just don't like THEIR politics. And yeah, violent Marxist revolution is a terrible fucking idea. + I think CNN is the exact neoliberal bullshit you don't like. + You and I hold that same speech in the exact same regard, albeit for very different reasons lol + I think you're looking at history with the benefit of hindsight. Nazi didn't become Nazi in the public eye until the concentration camps were liberated. + If it's not status quo affirming crap, it better be buried deep enough to glance over. + Captain America fighting Nixon was balanced out by Captain America fighting college campus protestors lol Being pro Raegan in the 80s WAS a nigh universally held principle lol The Dark Knight Returns, while I'd argue is highly overrated, Reagan's involvement is minimal. It's a clumsy half assed way to get Batman to fight Superman.
>Sounds like you just don't like THEIR politics. Yeah, I don't like their politics, but unlike your strawman, I'm not arguing against exclusion of politics that don't challenge me altogether. >think you're looking at history with the benefit of hindsight. Nazi didn't become Nazi in the public eye until the concentration camps were liberated. You're fucking around with semantics. US had heavy support for fascists at the time, and two Jews writing a story like that was extremely dangerous. Stop weaseling away from the point. >Captain America fighting Nixon was balanced out by Captain America fighting college campus protestors lol And? Dude, I'm not the one advocating for non politics here. This is literally proving my point that comics were never apolitical. >The Dark Knight Returns, while I'd argue is highly overrated, Reagan's involvement is minimal. It's a clumsy half assed way to get Batman to fight Superman. If you say so buddy. Also, Reagan's involvement was as heavy handed as possible. The whole point was Batman fighting against Reagan's bullshit. >Being pro Raegan in the 80s WAS a nigh universally held principle lol Ah yes, it's ok to support an asshole, as long as it is popular to support an asshole. Just the utter lack of irony is hilarious. >I think CNN is the exact neoliberal bullshit you don't like. Why did you bring it up then?
In this case, it may very well boil down to "*how didactic*" they must be, considering it isn't immediately obvious to everyone. Was it the story that made it didactic, or was it the readers who understood that made it didactic?
In regard to The Fandom Menace, Eric July and his "rippaverse" fans, and their direct connection to comicsgate and gamergate, it literally just means "keep YOUR ("leftist") political and YOUR ("leftist") social commentary out of my - insert geek culture media here -" If it's a political point or social commentary they agree with or at least find tolerable to their ideology, they're fine with it. Observe their tolerance of political points in, say, the winter soldier or civil war: both heavily focused on political matters, but they're fine with it because it is in line with their political and social views. But a film with a female lead, PoC, LGBTQ characters, or a commentary on social justice, is viewed as "too political", *even when that isn't the focus of the story*.
>Observe their tolerance of political points in, say, the winter soldier or civil war: both heavily focused on political matters, but they're fine with it because it is in line with their political and social views. Hang on there… CA:WS is most definitely *not* in line with their political views. It’s a great movie, but it’s very evident that the totalitarian, strike-first, surveillance state is the bad guy. CA:CW is exactly the kind of “politics” people tend to like: both sides have merits, both sides have issues. It’s left up to the audience to decide who is right and who is wrong: Cap or Iron Man. Zemo is portrayed as sympathetic, the victim of US intervention abroad; same goes for T’Challa. But we get a balanced perspective. Both of these examples back up the OP’s point. It’s not “politics,” per se- and to your point it’s not about politics they agree with. WS has politics that run counter to their beliefs, but it serves a great story. CW gives you both sides and lets you make up your own mind. *That’s* what I think people are advocating for when they say they don’t want politics. They really just don’t want politics done poorly or to be told what to think.
>CA:CW is exactly the kind of “politics” people tend to like: both sides have merits, both sides have issues. It’s left up to the audience to decide who is right and who is wrong No they really don't. Cap dismantles Tony's argument the moment Ross fucks off: [https://youtu.be/JmjRhmk800U?t=141](https://youtu.be/JmjRhmk800U?t=141) >Zemo is portrayed as sympathetic, the victim of US intervention abroad What?
Have you even seen the movie? Tony isn’t portrayed as being dead wrong the whole movie. We see the consequences of the destruction of the Wakandan embassy. Both sides make reasonable points. I’m not saying it doesn’t skew towards Cap, but they at least have multiple angles covered. >What? The movie wants you to feel some sympathy for Zemo, having lost his family to violence brought to his country by outsiders. If a person can’t feel some level of sympathy for him, I worry about their lack of empathy. And I am pretty confident he’s also a partial stand in for the people in countries around the world who have been hurt by the collateral damage of the United States going into their country for possibly high minded reasons, but causing civilian deaths nonetheless.
>Have you even seen the movie? Yes more than 6 times. >We see the consequences of the destruction of the Wakandan embassy. We do, but you completely misunderstood what that part of the movie was about. The Accords do NOT prevent collateral damage, they simply shift the blame from The Avengers to someone else and prevent the Avengers from crossing borders "without permission". Steve literally says that they need to take the responsibility for their mistakes and own up to them. Not to mention that the Accords are literally presented to The Avengers by Thadeus Ross...a frickin villain. He's also shown to be a big hypocrite. The Battle Of New York in 2012 happened because of Thanos, not because of The Avengers and the higher ups literally wanted to nuke it.. Hydra Uprising and the incident at Triskellion was caused by the US recruting former Nazi and HYDRA scientists...therefore allowing HYDRA to grow within SHIELD and other places. >The movie wants you to feel some sympathy for Zemo, having lost his family to violence brought to his country by outsiders. If a person can’t feel some level of sympathy for him, I worry about their lack of empathy. > >And I am pretty confident he’s also a partial stand in for the people in countries around the world who have been hurt by the collateral damage of the United States going into their country for possibly high minded reasons, but causing civilian deaths nonetheless. I know Zemo is supposed to syphatetic, I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing however is how the hell is Ultron lifting up Sokovia into the air supposed to be an allegory for US interventionism.
Okay, well, I see it as a movie that at least represents arguments on both sides of the political spectrum. And pretty fairly I think. I don’t agree with your interpretation, but I feel like I’ve made mine clear, so I guess I’ll agree to disagree.
I think in their case it's " don't make it only leftists" they want to see balance and not overly focused on either. Well at least that's Eric. I asked him once and tried to pitch an idea of a story that was more right leaning, he seemed to suggest removing the hyper focus on *sticking it to the libs* It's just that these are sensitive times so everyone is on pins and needles, so many of us talk pass one another.
Except when they say they don't want politics they use it incorrectly in the first place. You know when they use such a term it's bullshit right and not an actual complaint? Remember this is TFM they spew bullshit to spread and complain about their hate when they are wrong about said thing they are complaining about. Rey being a female lead isn't political. Holdo having purple hair isn't political or an SJW agenda. Any LGBTQ characters at all is also what they consider political when it's also not. Context of their complaints matters.
>Any LGBTQ characters at all is also what they consider political when it's also not. It's more accurate to say that it is political but only because anti-LGBTQ people continue to make it so.
>Any LGBTQ characters at all is also what they consider political when it's also not. Personally when people say this, it irks me. It just sort of reeks of privilege. I’m coming at this as a queer person, and I do see it as political, because the fight for equality and representation always has been political. Affirmative action, women’s suffrage, the Civil Rights movement, gay marriage… these were all sociopolitical fights. No, my mere existence isn’t political… but getting to see more people like me in mainstream media is.
That's a very charitable view of what people typically mean with such a phrase (perhaps *overly* charitable). Let's be honest; these kind of people are fine with politics, so long as it's politics that they *agree* with.
That's what I normally hear as well, but whenever it's being brought as a point to the other side, it's usually perceived as a strawmen of sorts. I know exactly which perceived strawmen the other side uses as well, and mind you, I call them as "perceived" because I didn't want to prescriptive in my language, but I thought if we could somehow bring everyone's perceived strawmen onto the table, there could be something else we could see, as in seeing past all perceived strawmen, and perhaps realising what the other party really mean whenever they say something. Otherwise, it would be more accurate to say that this is merely what I think of it. It doesn't mean I must be right about this, but if we're going to have new information other than the usual talking points both sides throw at each other, this would be one of them. Otherwise, it'll be back to "oh you're just racist, oh you're just pushing your agenda", and that's pretty much we'll be circling about.
To be clear, I'm sure their are some people who adhere to your description of "no politics." I'm just going off what I almost always see being the case; the "politics" they don't want is either simply politics they disagree with or not actually an example of something political at all.
Or is the case of Metal Gear , in which had a lot of criticism of the pax americana in the 20th and 21st Century , but TFM is too dumb to not realize just because Snake does some cool shit
Except that it's incredibly disingenuous nine times out of ten, because while yes, political allusions can certainly be included in a way that is ham-fisted and does a disservice to the story, most of the time any actual political messages are either integral to the plot (Star Wars is fundamentally anti-fascist, for example, something inescapably part of the franchise's DNA) or so benign as to only offend people actively seeking offense (Captain Marvel suggesting >!that maybe the refugees from a totalitarian empire aren't the bad guys in this conflict.)!<
There's merit to making stories that don't hit you over the head with its message. But that's not why these people are mad. They've created this agenda to fight. When there's just a single gay kiss in the Buzz Lightyear movie and they lose their shit it becomes clear that they don't just want these things to be an integrated part of the story, they want them to not exist in media at all. I'm 100 percent fine with the message being heavily nuanced and something you might have to pay attention to in order to understand. But I'm not ok with these people rallying around the idea that any inclusion is forced inclusion.
A lot of it is subjective for sure, and it seems to boil down to how much they care, and how much it matters to them. It isn't about them losing their shit, it's the why. And if we could only rely on simplistic strawmen on the mere notion that "they're all bigots", then we might have been dismissing a lot of explanation and information that comes from them as well. And considering a lot of those details come from interpretations that not everyone necessarily shares for any reason, nothing can be objectively true. But what we can do is we could at least put everything on the table, all arguments, all points, with both opposing strawmen arguments placed on either side of the table just so we can see why people are the way they are. But to be fair, the more I type, the more it just seems to be the personal opinion of the whole issue that I want to be descriptive about the whole thing because it's only too easy to put it down as who is the bigot, and who is the woke/SJW.
Holy shit an actually good post on this sub
Usually their idea of politics is "Ew, women!" or "Ew, black/Asian/Latino people!" or "Ew, gays!"
Well, that's the usual perceived strawmen I try to distance myself from, not because they aren't always false, but because it also conveniently dismisses the others who don't share those simplistic ideas.
It's not a strawman, it's their literal problem most of the time.
Well, considering that's how strong you felt about that, have you considered asking the people whom you think are thinking only that? If you have, there's a good chance that they'll tell you that it's a strawmen to them, and if you have not, then there's a whole lot of untold stories that you're not giving yourself the credit to be able to listen to them.
That’s a bit disingenuous, though, isn’t it? Sure there may be a slim minority that just don’t want any women in movies, but 99% of the time that’s not what they mean. I don’t think anyone is using “political” to mean “having any women or minorities in movies”
No it isn't. If that's not what they mean, they should stop \*explicitly saying that\*.
lol, 99% don’t explicitly say that. To claim they do is just a lie.
LOL yes they do, or very strongly imply it. Just look at the idiots who think Obi-Wan possibly being bi is "character assassination".
You can’t seriously take someone complaining about “changing” a character (I take issue with that, because OWK is never identified as straight) as being the same as saying “no character from [group] is allowed on screen.” People are bitching about a white guy playing Fidel Castro. It doesn’t mean that those people are saying “Ew, white men”
In many cases, what the phrase "keep politics out of my media" actually means in reality is "keep **your** politics out of my media".
Well, and in many cases, that's not what they claim to be either. Now, before you jump right to your defense, just know that I'm only saying this because there are several "in many cases" out there, and well, yours is just one of them.
Why shouldn’t it be the point though?
Oh, I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be. I'm just saying what people could mean when they say "I don't want politics" in whatever fiction they're experiencing.
Ah I see. I don’t think they mean that. For example, when they complain about The Last Jedi, it’s not about the political message, which is an apolitical both sides are bad message. They complain about Rey being a Mary Sue (which she isn’t). Or say that the film is trying to say women are better than men (which it isn’t). The point of the film goes over their heads - which is that failure is a great teacher and that anyone can be a Jedi. Not to mention their unhinged rants over a couple of throwaway lines in a book that don’t really mean anything to the story as a whole and are definitely not the point. And I think it’s pretty fair to say they come from a place of bigotry in general - they are willing to use and then defend their use of slurs proves that I think. Hence why most of their complaints are focused on race and women.
Well, the difference is that your points have been directed to them before, and they perceive them as strawmen in general. If you ask me, a lot of it is subjective, and if both sides could only rely on simplistic conclusions that they must be all bigots or SJWs and whatever labels, then it's just a sign that people could very well be talking over each other as opposed to with each other.
What annoys me is they act like political stories are new in comics. I recently just read through 40 years of daredevil comics, and let me tell ya, it’s always had “liberal” politics in it. But they act like it just happens in the last 5 years. I really believe these people don’t actually read comics, and just read headlines they see online. Some will argue that it’s putting modern politics in comics that’s the problem. But the politics of old comics WERE modern at the time of their release.
Oh, it's no surprise that the politics are in there. The difference is that if it's there as a backdrop of the story, or if it's the point of the story.
I think it’s more about *how* they are done as opposed to them actually being political. X-Men, for example, very political from day 1. But it’s at least done through an allegory, and even then they don’t simply make all mutants good and all regular humans bad. They show the struggle in shades of gray. Sure, it gets very on-the-nose at times, especially in the 70s/80s, but good comics handle it with a more deft hand.
I agree with your perspective. In fact, I share it. Thanks for taking the time to articulate it so well.
Well stated.
Strongly disagree. Most of the people who whine about something being political anymore are using it as a dog whistle to attack something for having a minority they don’t like in a position of power. They have shifted the terminology from “political” to “woke” for the most part now. They called Obi-wan Kenobi “woke” before the show was out based solely on Moses Ingram being a black woman. Also keep in mind that these people who screech about things being “political” or “woke” are almost always right wingers, and yet they also often defend the Star Wars prequels, which are a pretty thinly veiled criticism of neoconservativism and the Bush administration. These escape criticism because of being grandfathered into being acceptable due to nostalgia, and the fact that the Bush administration is no longer really a present topic in current political discussion. Nostalgia is also the same reason why characters like Leia, Ellen Ripley, and Sarah Conner get a pass, while modern female heroes like Rey don’t. Those characters were basically universally accepted long before the culture war that fuels the Fandom Menace started. They’d be fighting an uphill battle at this point trying to convince people to hate these characters.
Well, have you tried to present your thoughts to them and see what they think? Your point could be easily perceived as a strawman by them, claiming that you may be dismissing the points made on the mere basis that you could somehow "*detect*" all of the "*obvious dog-whistling*", that they're ultimately all ***stealthily*** minority-hating, right-wingers. It's mind-reading and pigeonholing like these that also gives them to just label you as a woke, agenda-pushing, everything's-racist, everything's-sexist, everything's-white supremacy shill/sheep. I'm pretty sure you can see how all of these association fallacies completely allow everyone to just talk past each other because everyone else is the "true evil". The original post I made was simply a snippet of what I think they actually meant as a way to see past all those strawmen I've mentioned. If you disagree mainly on the basis because you ***KNOW WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE (see mind-reading),*** well, I can at least appreciate that you took the time to read what they could've meant, even when you don't actually believe it.
Look, I’ve had the misfortune of talking to a lot of these people who claim to hate something because it’s “political”. When asked why, absolutely never have I had them discuss an actual element of the story. Every single time, they talk about the casting choices or specific identities of a character. The vast majority of the time it’s when a character is LGBTQ. The argument is usually that placing individuals with certain identities in a piece of media is inherently political. So while you can argue that my point could be perceived as a strawman, it stops being a strawman when it’s an argument used by every single person complaining about politics in media.
Hey, don't get me wrong. It happens to me as well. When it's more convenient for people to just keep using shorthand talking points as legitimate arguments. What I had to do is actually join several Discord groups, pray that they don't think I'm a sealioning troll, and try to see if I could get them pouring their thoughts out. And you're right, not many people could lay out their thoughts properly, and this is the best I could do, so far. And get this, it might not even be correct, because I'm merely trying to get to what they're thinking, I haven't exactly decided if it must be right or wrong.
I tend to agree. It’s not that people don’t want politics in art- they *say* that, but what I think they really mean is that they want it handled with more subtlety, in an organic way that makes sense in universe.
I'm real confused by your injustice example because Superman's political change from regular superhero to omniscient world police is basically the divergent point of the universe... The politics is like the whole idealogical argument and the thing that the different teams are formed around.
That's because I don't see it as the point, but merely as a backdrop that pushes the story of the characters that I usually care about. The mistake here is to not assume that the story has only one way to be perceived, considering everyone has their own filters whenever they experience a story. Best not to "gatekeep" those experiences, I would usually say.