You Know What We Stopped Doing?

We stopped trying to change minds. We live in a more polarized era than ever and that's completely understandable. Think about it. In the digital era, it's that much easier for us to classify one another, make data out of each other. "People that listen to...." and "people who visit 'these' websites". Now, I'm not saying this to make this one of those "google is Big Brother" posts. I say that because computers amplify our ability (and, really, obsession) to classify each other, but it also amplifies our ability to filter out those people.

You've seen it on your social media before. A hot button topic comes along that drives a canyon sized wedge between people. Let's take the stupid ass dress issue for example. You look at this dress and you see one color scheme, right. You look on your timeline and you see a certain minority of people that think the dress is a completely different color scheme, but most people you follow agree with you. You then get so tired of "them" being wrong, you start making posts saying that you're going to delete everyone off of your timeline that thinks the dress is that other color. Sure, now, you've filtered out the odd element and, yeah, you probably have a Facebook/Twitter/Tumblr/whatever you can agree with easier, but you're not the only one to do this. Now we have a whole sect of people off to themselves who will continue to believe that the dress is this certain color and will go on believing it no matter what science is involved in believing one thing or the other (And there is a science involved in seeing the dress one way or the other....and part of it is the way you tilt your goddamned computer screen, but still...). They will make Facebook groups and websites and magazines dedicated to people who think this one way. All of this is in the service of building a fence around themselves, but really, they're just finishing the one that you started. Now, instead of uninformed people (something that YOU can always fix if you want to), we have voluntarily stupid people. And we don't really need anymore stupid people. If you ask me, we're at capacity.

Sidenote: It's important that you understand I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TROLLS. Trolls cannot be saved. Trolls don't want to be saved and they don't want to see anyone else be saved. Please delete the trolls.

We especially do this with celebrities. They say something we construe as racist or sexist or offensive and we write them off and drag them through the town square until they have to issue some public apology. I AM NOT DEFENDING these people, but part of having what you consider "the moral high ground is being able to discern those who misspeak or the "uninformed" from the "trolls". Anyone who has ever watched Girls knows it's pretty silly to be mad at anything Lena Dunham says. So, she said something problematic about black people? I'm convinced Lena Dunham only met her first black person somewhere in the window of "ten minutes ago." Death threats and sexist comments in the comment section of a Buzzfeed article are not educational. Because teaching someone to apologize is not the same thing as teaching them what they did wrong. Ask my parents about 31 years of marriage and this will be one the first things they say.

Now, when a public official...someone asking for the votes of the American people....says something problematic about black people? Sure, I'm mad about that and I'm going to vote accordingly because votes are one form of communication between the American people and their leaders. If you're my governor and I don't like your sentiments towards people with my skin color? I'll show you....by firing you and hiring the guy that spoke to my issues.

Again, if someone in the media or social media offended you, I'm not defending them. I repeat: I AM NOT DEFENDING THEM. But I AM asking if you're addressing them the right way for the good of everyone involved. Are you teaching someone something?

Crowd Participation or Happy Free Comic Book Day

Craig "BBC" Long from Houston, TX wanted to hear my thoughts after reading the Walking Dead comics since I saw Seasons 1 and 2 first.

Well, Craig, I can say that the comic delivers better than I could have hoped. With the direction Swamp Thing and I Vampire went in, The Walking Dead is definitely one of the ONLY mainstream titles in comics that can truly lay claim to being a horror comic. One thing that is well preserved in its own way is the dichotomy of Rick and Shane. Not only do they define each other, they define the theme of the series as a whole. In the moments when it's not an epic zombie saga (easily one of the best of all time), it's essentially a morality play that constantly questions whether or not humanity is a biological or ideological state of being. Rick and Shane seem to be constantly at odds with themselves as well as each other standing on respective sides of the argument. I see where some fans take issue with the things altered in the the tv adaptation, but I think it's the aesthetically reasonable compromise network television could probably muster. No matter how iconic a comic is or how powerful a panel is, the sad truth is that there are just some things that look good in a comic that won't translate as well on television or on screen. That's why I like that geeks are actually being consulted about geek culture. Robert Kirkman works very closely alongside the production team on Walking Dead, George R. R. Martin is reportedly consulted often on the direction of Game of Thrones and Joss Whedon has more than enough nerd credit in the bank at this point to be trusted with The Avengers. At some point Hollywood decided that instead of being satisfied with the receipt for the intellectual property they bought as a stamp of approval, it might be better to actually ask the creator what they think about their work. I stand behind the "for nerds, by nerds" approach.

Johnathan Marroquin writes via Facebook: I need an honest opinion on the Amalgam universe circa 96-98. Potential or not?

For those of you who have no idea what he's talking about, in the late 90s, DC and Marvel were real fiends for cross pollinating their titles because...let's face it...nerds will never stop arguing about who would win in a fight between Superman and the Hulk ("...and then Superman threw the big green monkey into the sun and went back to work. The End."). So, they finally had a Marvel vs. DC miniseries where the best...at the time...of each company had a big slugfest because of some patchwork excuse like "the universes are colliding" (a writer's way of saying "for no good goddamned reason"). Anyway, somehow after the heroes kept the universes from colliding by beating the shit out of each other, the universes collided anyway. The result was a universe full of mashup characters. Sometimes, they made sense like how the "Challengers of the Fantastic" was a combination of the Fantastic Four and the Challengers of the Unknown....both Jack Kirby creations. Most of them, however, were shitty like putting Batman and Man-Thing together to get Bat-Thing. This was indicative of what the mid to late 90s was in the land of comics: a reason to sell cool covers instead of cool books. Assuming Johnathan's question is asking whether or not this same imprint would be a viable venture now, it's enough that DC treats their own artists like the mail room interns you steal ideas from without their knowing. It's enough that Marvel would hold their writers at gunpoint beneath a vat of battery acid and force them to write a "You Got Served" comic if they thought there was money in it. I shudder to think what the Big Two would do to each other.

Batman: No, Logan, I never would have guessed it was you under there.