Dan Slott Sales Meme

For roughly an entire year now Dan Slott has had regular meltdowns directed at yours truly. Last May, I wrote a piece titled: ‘Is Dan Slott’s ‘Superior Spider-Man’ really a Superior anti-Semite?’ The whole point of the article was to show that a villain who came within inches of exterminating 6 billion people was about to be placed in Peter Parker’s body. Marvel’s flagship character was going to be taken over by a genocidal maniac. At a pivotal point in Spider-Man history, one of his greatest villains declared that he would transcend Hitler, Pol Pot, and Genghis Khan in terms of infamy perpetrated upon the world.

Dan Slott has obsessed over me for almost a year — even going so far as to sic his Twitter groupies on me — because I had the gall to react to his insertion of a real-world monster into a fictional comic. In response to his attacks I asked: What is more offensive — Dan Slott’s indiscriminate use of incendiary names or my reminder of the implications of his indiscriminate use of incendiary names? He never answered. All he’s done is engage in online ranting and raving (e.g., I’m a “terrible human being”) that must make consummate professionals within the confines of Marvel’s offices cringe.

For the past year he’s taken to multiple platforms to engage in character assassination. I’m a “terrible” person. I’m a “bad” person. He’s holds that I simultaneously “implied” and “flat-out” said that he — a Jew — was anti-Semitic (as if I even knew or cared about his heritage in 2013).

My response was that it was quite clear in the piece — and in the comments section within an hour of writing the piece, that I did no such thing and that his accusations were false.

From the piece: Silly me. The guy who “just” came within inches of an extinction level event because he hated all of humanity is now housed in Peter Parker’s body. …

Slott [to Newsarama]: He’s trying his best to be a hero, but he’s doing it in a very Doc Ock way. And Doc Ock’s an egotistical, annoying sh*t. It makes him an interesting character. At his core, he’s someone we don’t really think of heroic. But is he any more annoying than [former villain] Hawkeye used to be?

From the comments section the day it was published: Very well articulated. I agree with you in that I don’t think a hatred of Jews drove him, but I wrote the piece to corner Dan Slott’s fans into admitting just how horrible Otto is.

Rational adults can see that. I even used Dan Slott’s own words to show who and what he believes Otto represents (i.e., a wannabe hero is just kinda-sorta more annoying than Hawkeye before he was an Avenger — never mind that whole extinction-level event plot months earlier). Dan Slott refuses to acknowledge the truth when it’s right in front of his face, so I had to reiterate it for him:

Doug Dan ExchangeNote that I say that if I had it all to over again I probably would have just used a picture of Hitler, but that it was “the first one that showed up on the Holocaust museum website [as] I was looking for stats, it was late at night, and I write my posts after extremely long days. I used that one. Oh well.” I needed a Nazi picture. There was one on the page I was reading at that moment. I grabbed it. Case closed.

How was I to know that a single blog post — by a random guy Dan Slott doesn’t know and will likely never meet — would cause the Marvel scribe to seethe with “crazy town banana pants” anger for an entire year? Of course I would have picked a different picture if I had it to do over again.

Afterward, Dan Slott started littering up the YouTube page with jokes about how I said I was unable to find a picture of Hitler online. Why would he do that? Because when faced with irrefutable evidence that he is wrong about the objective of my piece — or at a minimum should rethink his knee-jerk reaction to categorize me with real-world rapists, murderers, dictators and despots — he does what he does best: attack. And then, in order to feel even better about himself, he turns to Twitter, where The Dan Slott Ego Massage Squad can go to work. It’s always ready to rub down all those tender areas of his fragile mind.

Dan Slott Lie Tweet

Here’s the extended tweet:

Today a blogger explained to me why he used a picture of Jewish remains being shoveled out of ovens in his Spider-Man article. And why he left it up on his site for the better part of a year. It was because he couldn’t find a picture of Hitler. There are TWO takeaways here. 1) This guy is the world’s BIGGEST asshole. […] and 2) Apparently it’s REALLY hard to Google a picture of Hitler.

You see, it’s much more soothing for his sensitive psyche to soak in the slobbering Slott-worship of Superior Spider-Man diehards, who will lather him in in praise and confirm his conclusion that detractors are “assholes” and “douches,” than it is to deal with rational people on YouTube:

RichardDan Slott’s reply? I simultaneously “imply” and “flat-out” call him an anti-Semite. It’s a good thing that Dan Slott covers all his bases. Never mind the quotes above that demonstrate I did no such thing.

The truth of the matter is that Dan Slott didn’t like the way I went about making my point. He didn’t like the fact that I used very real historical pictures to point out that there are implications to what all of us write and say. When you put words in a character’s mouth, those words mean something. Or, as President Obama would say: “words matter.”

Dan Slott now says that Doc Ock citing a desire to surpass Hitler, Pol Pot and Khan’s collective infamy was merely the rhetorical flourish of a “James-Bond”-type villain. Fair enough, but if Dan Slott thinks that Hitler’s name is now merely fodder for James Bond-ish dialogue, some of us think that with that should come a dose of perspective.

And so, at this time, I will include the following image, which I show you with Dan Slott’s blessing.

Dan Slott request

Human remains found in the Dachau concentration camp crematorium after liberation. Germany, April 1945. — US Holocaust Memorial Museum
Human remains found in the Dachau concentration camp crematorium after liberation. Germany, April 1945.
— U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

That’s a wake-up call, isn’t it? Given Dan Slott’s reaction over the past year, it appears that he’s gotten the message — when you infuse real-world genocidal maniacs into the pages of Marvel comics, do not act surprised when history lovers take it seriously. Strangely enough, Dan Slott didn’t go into a TwitLonger rage when Bleeding Cool called out his character for “full-blown Nazi-like experimentation/ torture on his victims.” Ouch. How did that scene sneak by Dan Slott before going to print, given how important it is for him to protect the honor of his ancestors?

Being a veteran, whose friend was killed by a sniper in Iraq, I’ve had people say some pretty gruesome things to me, both online and in person. (Try dealing with it when it’s your college professors.) I’ve seen some horrible images that were personal affronts to the experience that probably shaped my life more than any other. However, I never obsessed over the individuals behind those hurtful or offensive acts and I didn’t call them “evil” people because, unlike Dan Slott, I know how to put things in proper perspective. But I digress. Back to the Holocaust image.

I received two reader comments that nicely summed up the debate about the picture after Dan Slott’s attacks began. They are excerpted here:

Reader #1. I think the pic was in poor taste. I see your point about taking a fictional character’s frame of reference as being wildly inappropriate. You are absolutely correct about that, it didn’t need that kind of punch. I believe Slott was only trying to maximize the horror and insanity of Ock’s mind. Regardless of his remarkably bad decision, it is still fiction, and the references should have stayed away from real-life mass murderers, unless it was far in the past. Hitler was too recent a reference, and as a Jew, Slott should have had the good taste to stay away from it. Enter Doug Ernst, who not only takes very real umbrage at this reference, but feels the need to one-up it with not only a blog post, but a photo of these poor, massacred souls to make a point. You also overstepped a boundary, Doug, and I still hope you decide to remove it on your own without further prompting. Slott is too full of bile to ask nicely, even if he is the one who instigated this. I then ask you, for the sake of those people who were in those ovens, the descendants of those unknown souls, and the millions who suffered this still-historically-relevant fate to please remove it from that entry. It serves no purpose other than sensationalism, and you don’t strike me as that kind of man who needs to stoop to that level.

Reader #2. I think Rogue is way off on the sensationalism and especially the testosterone rationale. It is important to show what Slott so casually put in his dialogue and inside Spider-Man’s head. I agree they are real people with no voice, I agree it was horrible, I agree it’s grisly — but it was Slott who betrayed their legacy — and that needs to be shown. Obviously his own grandfather’s story didn’t keep Slott from writing a tasteless story with an iconic hero, so maybe that image drove it home. I respect Rouge’s opinion, but I wouldn’t have changed it. It was Slott who inserted this awful chapter of history into the comic.

Two very different points of view, but which one is right? I ended up taking down the photo, even though I agreed with Reader #2.

My rationale:

I have removed the image and added an editor’s note. While I disagree about your conclusion that the only purpose it serves is to be sensationalistic, I think the more important point at this moment in time is that through respectful dialogue adults can work through their issues.

For that, Dan Slott called me a “coward,” proving my point that he is currently incapable of respectful dialogue.

Instead of responding to the coward claim, I will again cite Reader #1, who prompted me to take down the picture:

Slott never should have used Hitler as a reference, period. Can a fictional story use hot political or religious topics without the author being blamed as the source? No. Authors have been targeted over the course of history for their words, fictional or not. I won’t give history lessons here, but Slott decided to use a non-fictional, politically monstrous, recent, religiously sensitive reference to further a Spider-Man (HYPHEN!!!) story, and (I’m possibly reaching here), since he is a Jew, decided it was OK for him to use it. Only him. Because he’s a Jew. And he’s sensitive to the plight of the Jews. And his family has personally suffered from the Holocaust, so it was OK. Anyone else using Hitler as a reference is a BAD man, and has taken his “one thought bubble” out of context. What Slott fails to see is the hypocrisy inherent in what he did. You cannot use Hitler as a fictional hot button safely, simply because you are a Jew, then fall back on Jewish outrage to bury it once someone else picked up and expanded upon it. The truly laughable part was the threat to sue. Oy vey. I didn’t like Doug’s use of the pic for reasons stated above, none of which were in any way sympathetic to Slott or his reactions.

The point is, this whole debate is actually a lot more complex and nuanced than someone of Dan Slott’s maturity level can handle. It’s easier to call me “evil” and “terrible” and “bad” over and over again. And then, when a guy like me points out — after nearly a year of verbal diarrhea hurled in his direction — that one of the reasons why I enlisted in the armed services was so guys like him would never have to fear being shoved in an oven or shot and killed, he has the nerve to say I have unfairly used my military service as a shield.

A friend of mine put just laughed and mentioned that Dan Slott is pretty good at hiding behind his Jewish heritage (a point that Reader #1 also seems to have noticed).

And with that, I give you one last piece of evidence to show you what an immature and confused man Dan Slott is at this point in his life:

Dan Slott confused as usual

The guy encourages me to use the Holocaust picture for “intellectual honesty,” and then when I tell him I will do just that he again loses it and lashes out at my character. Do you see how it works in Dan Slott’s world? If I use the picture at his request — essentially his dare to provide “intellectual honesty” — I’m a “terrible” person; if I don’t use the picture, I’m a “terrible and dishonest” person. Dan Slott wins every time.

If I put up a picture that offends Dan Slott, I’m a “terrible human” on par with (ironically) Hitler. If I take it down after a reader acts like an adult, I’m a “coward.” While East Ukrainian Jews are being told to register with pro-Russian forces, Dan Slott pats himself on the back at night because he’s identified and attacked the real threat to the Jewish community — me. For days. And weeks. And months.

What courage. What bravery. What sacrifice. Churchill would be proud.

The great thing about Dan Slott calling me a “coward” is that anyone who reads these blog posts will understand that he’s attacked me personally on YouTube, Comic Book Resources, Twitter, TwitLonger, Comic Vine, the Marvel Message Boards and probably a few other places that I don’t even know of for roughly one year — but he hasn’t come here. Maybe now he’ll show his face. Or not. He seems to like the sound his Twitter followers make when he blows the stroke-my-ego dog whistle.

If he does decide to show up, expect him to once again say that I implied that he was anti-Semitic, even though I quite clearly never did such a thing. (Or was that “flat-out” say he was an anti-Semite? I can’t remember because it changes hourly.) No Dan, you did not write a book with an anti-Semitic character — you just wrote one with a man who wanted to kill six billion people because he hated all of humanity. And then, you made him Spider-Man. For an entire year. Again, silly me.

Time once again for Dan Slott to do his best ‘You Spin Me Round (Like a Record, Baby)’ imitation.

YouTube Dan Slott tango

Speaking of Church, here’s how Dan Slott’s tolerant liberal colleague Erik Larsen “celebrated” Easter.

Erik Larson retweet

As a practicing Catholic, I find this to be incredibly tasteless (understatement of the year award). Using the Dan Slott litmus test for “bad” and “terrible” people, Erik Larson fits the bill. It’s a good thing I don’t use Slottian methods for judging someone’s character. If I did, then I’d obsess over Mr. Larsen’s single tweet for the next year and abuse the caps-lock button as I proclaim: “I’m Catholic! I’m Catholic! I — a Catholic — am Catholic! I’m Cathooooooooolic! How dare you challenge the Universal Salvific Will of God! RAGE!”

If you enjoyed this post, just know that there will probably be more in the future, as Dan Slott’s obsession with me shows no signs of slowing down. The next time he complains about tight deadlines, take a moment to think about just how much time he wastes attacking his critics.

H/T Hube on the Erik Larsen tweet.

If you’ve made it this far I now invite you to enjoy Dan Slott’s favorite song: ‘You Spin Me Round’

Exit question: How long will it be before Dan Slott lies to his Twitter groupies and tells them that  a.) I picked ‘You Spin Me Round (Like a Record Baby)’ for surreptitiously evil purposes, and b.) I seriously implied/said (pick one … or both) that he enjoys listening to Wagner, even though he’s not supposed to.

Bonus Number 2: Tomorrow Dan Slott tweets to his followers that Francis Ford Coppola may be an anti-Semite.

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

198 comments

  1. Well, this got pretty damn ugly on a holy day. By the way, hope you had a Happy Easter, even if I have to use bleach to get that rabbit image out of my head. That has to be by far the most offensive internet Easter image I’ve ever seen. And I’ve seen a few that made me scratch my head and leave me to imagine the twisted minds of the people who created them.

    As for Slott, I actually wonder if he’s insane. To deliberately reference an event that so seemingly traumatized him that he felt the need to sic his Twitterazzi on you at that time to shout you down, only to bring it up again, just reeks of either a desperate need for validation, or insanity. I can’t believe he’d need the validation, as Superior Spider-Man has wrapped up, and he is covered in the warm fuzzies of a successful run. I guess some folks thrive on controversy and conflict. Or they just need to up their meds.

    I myself don’t understand why he would bait you into reposting that photo. It makes no sense. It was down, and again, I still think it was the right move. But I knew as soon as I read that tweet, that ridiculous tweet, that you would feel obligated to bring it right back up, because he challenged you to. Reminds me of Robert Conrad’s dare and the perched battery on his shoulder in those ads. I understand meeting the challenge, but why indulge him?

    It serves HIS purposes. It was a reactive move. If I were to interpret this unkindly, you became his internet monkey as soon as you did that. But I very likely would have risen to his taunt too. I’m human also, and he rankles many of us out there.

    I agree with your post, and you make an excellent series of points. Slott can’t hide from his own words, try as he might. As a personal insertion, my ex liked to redefine our personal history in a similar fashion. I’m convinced he is and always will be unaware of this proclivity, because he’s nuts. And you can’t argue with insane.

    Good luck with that, though. It looks as if you’re having fun, at least. 🙂

    Editor’s Note: I have taken the liberty to provide the Robert Conrad battery commercial.

    1. I myself don’t understand why he would bait you into reposting that photo. It makes no sense. It was down, and again, I still think it was the right move. But I knew as soon as I read that tweet, that ridiculous tweet, that you would feel obligated to bring it right back up, because he challenged you to. Reminds me of Robert Conrad’s dare and the perched battery on his shoulder in those ads. I understand meeting the challenge, but why indulge him?

      It serves HIS purposes. It was a reactive move. If I were to interpret this unkindly, you became his internet monkey as soon as you did that.

      The Internet is the great equalizer. Guys like Dan Slott used to be able to control the narrative. He has Marvel and all its resources at his disposal. In the past, what did the fans have? Not much. With a blog, there is nothing creators like Dan Slott or Erik Larson or all the others can do to stop many, many people from seeing an alternative point of view — and it drives them nuts. I understand your point about the possibility of becoming an Internet monkey for someone who thrives of controversy. That is certainly something to be cognizant of, but for the most part I’m not going to write a post unless I have a very specific point I want to make. If I ever find myself writing purely off emotion that’s when I take a step back and reevaluate.

      When my wife graduates from medical school (Only a couple weeks left. Woohoo!) we won’t be 400 miles apart. When we’re finally living together, I won’t have time to toy around with Dan Slott on YouTube. Quite frankly, I wonder what his own wife thinks of his late night YouTube battles. If it was a Saturday night and my wife and I were actually together, I can promise you that Dan Slott would not be on my mind at 1:00 a.m. 🙂

    2. I’m glad you understand the difference between being able to be an equalizing voice, and of being that guy who knee-jerks directly onto the path others lay out for you. I don’t advocate sitting and doing nothing at all, but there’s definitely a line between advocate and pawn.

      I’m glad your life is about to improve drastically. Please congratulate your wife for me. Ending med school is only the start, there are going to be many more 1ams where you unfortunately will still be alone, but shifts end. 🙂

    3. Haha. Yes, I’m sure residency will pretty “fun” for her for the next four years. When a baby wants to be born, it wants to be born. They don’t go by the 9-5 schedule…

    4. Congrats on your wife’s graduation from med school, Doug! Hopefully your move will be a successful one.

  2. The one thing I’ll say: Your initial post used the standard media weasel-wording of framing an accusation as a question. You phrased it as, “Is Dan Slott’s Superior Spider-Man really a Superior anti-Semite?” That reduces to, “Is Superior Spider-Man anti-Semitic?” Which reduces further to, “Is Dan Slott anti-Semitic?” And that reduces even further to, “Dan Slott is anti-Semitic.” You may think that’s a stretch. But the thing is, it’s actually not a particularly unreasonable line of thought for a reader to follow. If Fox News runs a headline, “Is Barack Obama actually a Muslim?” then what they’re actually saying is, “Barack Obama is a Muslim.” With the added subtext of, “And that’s bad.”

    You may not have actually intended to call Dan Slott anti-Semitic. But the way you phrased that initial post, it was not at all unreasonable for Slott to draw the conclusion that you were. And that’s the sort of thing that really, REALLY pisses people off. The fact that he’s Jewish himself just made him even angrier. So it put him immediately on the defensive. At that point, the only possible way to get him off the defensive would’ve been to acknowledge that the anti-Semitism charge in your initial post was ill-conceived. Because it was. It detracted from the actual point you were making. You said you were trying to get people to admit that Dr. Octopus was a terrible person. The thing is, I don’t think anyone was going to deny that.

    Your argument that putting a would-be omnicidal maniac in Spider-Man’s body easily could’ve been made without the accusations of anti-Semitism. Maybe Slott still would’ve reacted poorly to the criticism, but he likely wouldn’t have been as incensed as when he believed he was being accused of promoting an anti-Semitic character, and thus of promoting anti-Semitism, and thus of being anti-Semitic.

    1. The one thing I’ll say: Your initial post used the standard media weasel-wording of framing an accusation as a question. You phrased it as, “Is Dan Slott’s Superior Spider-Man really a Superior anti-Semite?” That reduces to, “Is Superior Spider-Man anti-Semitic?” Which reduces further to, “Is Dan Slott anti-Semitic?” And that reduces even further to, “Dan Slott is anti-Semitic.”

      So because you believe that the reduction of a reduction of a reduction of a so-called weasel word posed as a question is actually a direct accusation that a man is an anti-Semite, then it must be true. And I should apologize for it. Gotcha, but no thanks.

      I’ll stick with my assertion that people are smart enough to read: Doc Ock “hated all of humanity” as Doc Ock “hated all of humanity.”

      If Fox News runs a headline, “Is Barack Obama actually a Muslim?” then what they’re actually saying is, “Barack Obama is a Muslim.” With the added subtext of, “And that’s bad.”

      You may not have actually intended to call Dan Slott anti-Semitic. But the way you phrased that initial post, it was not at all unreasonable for Slott to draw the conclusion that you were.

      So what you’re saying is that Fox News viewers — and Dan Slott — are idiots who are incapable of discerning subtly and nuance. Right now I’m also sensing that you don’t believe that Fox News viewers — or Dan Slott — possess the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. That’s rather insulting, but if that’s your line of thinking … more power to you.

      In regards to your view of humanity, you seem to share Dan Slott’s perspective. Here’s what I said over on YouTube, but it was blocked. (I assume the mod blocked it, as I can only see it when I’m logged in.) Do you think the moderator disagrees with my politics?

      Douglas Ernst9 hours ago (edited)

      +PsychokineticEX

      Side note: Dan Slott wants people to believe I’m “deceptive,” a “weasel,” and someone who is an evil master of “semantics,” but yet I’m also “stupid,” “insane” and incapable of capturing nuance. Which is it? The truth is, he knows I’m highly intelligent. He’s admitted as much on CBR, where he said something along the lines of: “You know exactly what you’re doing.” Here’s the truth: Dan Slott does not think I am stupid — he thinks other people are stupid. Follow his Twitter feed and you will soon see evidence of this, as it manifests itself in his political tweets. Essentially, people are so stupid that they need 535 elitist masters in the nation’s capital to control every aspect of their lives. If politics isn’t your thing, no problem: he regularly insults fans who have legitimate gripes with his work.

      If Dan Slott wanted to know my intentions, he could have asked me. And if he didn’t like what was said, he could have confronted me about it like an adult. Instead, he simply tells me (erroneously) what my intentions were, and then reacts to his own false conclusions.

      Yes, it is possible to be upset with someone and still act like a professional. You can be downright livid with someone and still comport yourself with class and dignity. Anyone who has had to work in the real world knows that. I’m not sure why Dan Slott prefers to act like a petulant child. I hope he grows up one day.

      You said you were trying to get people to admit that Dr. Octopus was a terrible person. The thing is, I don’t think anyone was going to deny that.

      Really? Because I’m sure I can find plenty of Superior Spider-Man fans who don’t really seem to grasp just how evil a man would have to be to surpass the infamy of Hitler, Pol Pot and Khan combined.

    2. Good post, Doug. Like I said elsewhere, Dan Slott is the real coward, due to him staying within the familiar confines of Twitter and other social media/message board sites where he knows he’ll have his monolithic drone-like fanboys to back him up and resort to ad hominem attacks.

      And X-Menxpert: get real. At no point did Doug say that Dan Slott was an anti-Semite, which you’d know if you’d read the actual post. There was no implication there at all, so yes it WAS a stretch and both you and Dan Slott are seeing something that it isn’t there. Nor was he aware that Slott was Jewish. Slott himself brought that up, not Doug.

      And obviously you’ve never watched Fox News, because otherwise you’d know they’ve never at any point implied that Obama was a Muslim. None of its current or former hosts have. Hell, I’m a conservative and no fan of Obama, but I’m no Birther nor do I think he’s a Muslim. I think he’s a terrible President with bad policies that are killing the economy, but I don’t believe in that stuff.

      Also, nice fanboyism there, coming to Slott’s defense because you feel you have to, no matter what. I notice you’ve done that in some of the other Superior-related posts, defending Slott while dismissing anything else as “whine-assing” and at one point implying that SSM’s detractors didn’t like it because they were too stupid to figure out what was going on. Slott’s immature online behavior would not be tolerated if he worked at a job outside the entertainment industry. He’d be fired in an instant.

    3. I’m not defending Slott’s actions; partly because I prefer to get as many sides of a story as possible, and I don’t really feel like doing the research necessary to see how other people have viewed the fight between you and Slott. My point was simply that it’s really not much of a stretch to go from “Is Dan Slott’s Superior Spider-Man anti-Semitic?” to “Dan Slott is promoting anti-Semitism.” It’s something the media does all the time, and it generally serves a couple purposes. Sometimes, it’s raising a question specifically to knock it down. More often, it’s used as a way of accusing someone of something without actually accusing them. If someone writes an article headlined, “Was 9/11 an inside job?” and the immediate answer in the article isn’t, “No, of course not, that’s stupid and offensive,” then even if the article doesn’t come out and say it was an inside job, then the implication they’re making is clear.

      That’s the problem with the weasel question: If you don’t answer it “no,” then you’re leading people to think the answer is “yes.” It’s not a matter of whether people are stupid. It’s a matter of the human brain being fairly easy to trick when you know how to do it. There are certain rhetorical tricks that can get people to the conclusion you want them to reach.

      I’ll give a hypothetical example. A few years ago, Kevin Smith wrote “Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do.” In it, he retcons Black Cat’s history so that she was raped at some point. Let’s say I wrote an article headlined, “Does Kevin Smith’s ‘Evil That Men Do’ promote rape culture?” And in that article, I don’t actually come out and say that it does, but I use some fairly aggressive language while talking about rape culture, and make some sarcastic comments about the comic, and about some of Smith’s comments defending it. To you, because I’m not actually outright saying, “Kevin Smith is promoting rape culture,” I’ve done nothing wrong and Smith has no reason to get upset. But really, it would be completely reasonable for someone to interpret my post as making that accusation, and if Smith stumbled on it, he would be completely justified in getting angry at me, especially if fighting against rape culture is something he’s been pretty serious about.

      Ultimately, the problem with your initial post was that you didn’t answer your own question. You waited until I posted before saying that you don’t think there was anything anti-Semitic about it. Even after you say the only defence fans can raise is that he wasn’t targeting Jews, you actually went back to the anti-Semitic line. There was actually nothing in the post itself to suggest you didn’t believe there were anti-Semitic undertones to the book. When you’re raising the question of anti-Semitism, or anything along those lines, you need to actually make it explicitly clear what it is you’re trying to say, and what you’re trying not to say. You need to make sure your point is being made clearly, with as little risk of misunderstanding as possible. Your initial post left a big hole open for misunderstanding.

      I think the anti-Semitism angle was the wrong one to take. I don’t think it got your point across any better, and I think that it actually detracted from what you were trying to say.

    4. Ultimately, the problem with your initial post was that you didn’t answer your own question. You waited until I posted before saying that you don’t think there was anything anti-Semitic about it.

      Wrong. I’m seriously asking: Are you trolling or do you have a reading comprehension problem? Here is the exact text from the post in question. This is why Dan Slott has never shown his face on these boards, because I won’t let guys like you get away with blatant lies.

      Silly me. The guy who “just” came within inches of an extinction level event because he hated all of humanity is now housed in Peter Parker’s body. And fans “love” the story. It’s what brought them back to the book. Congrats Mr. Slott, those are the kinds of winners I want giving me high fives and pats on the back at comic conventions…

      With that said, it is also important to once again revisit how on earth Marvel fans could get a Superior anti-Semite (or was it just your run-of-the mill genocidal maniac?) swinging around New York City in Peter’s body. Mr. Slott’s recent Newsarama interview gives the answer.*

      Slott: He’s trying his best to be a hero, but he’s doing it in a very Doc Ock way. And Doc Ock’s an egotistical, annoying sh*t. It makes him an interesting character. At his core, he’s someone we don’t really think of heroic. But is he any more annoying than [former villain] Hawkeye used to be?

      *That last bold section I used for the comment section here only.

      “He hated all of humanity” is a declarative statement. I affirmed that Ock hated “all of humanity.” Dan Slott’s interview “gives the answer” is a declarative statement. I used Dan Slott’s own words regarding who and what Otto is in order to prove that he sees the character as a “hero” who is just kinda-sorta annoying, like Hawkeye when he wasn’t an Avenger.

      I then go into the dangers posed by the moral relativism adopted by Slott. It’s the kind of thing that ends up creating a “Spider-Man” who wanted to wipe out the “entire” world. And it’s the kind of mentality that allows him to equate me, the “terrible human,” with real-life rapists, murderers and genocidal maniacs.

      In the mind of X-Men Expert, a question is really a reduction of a reduction of a reduction that becomes a declarative statement that means something very specific and very bad. In the mind of X-Men Expert, a declarative statement (italicized and in bold print) is, in fact, not a declarative statement and does not exist.

      Classic. That is pure liberalism right there.

      While I think my audience is smart enough to read a post like that and understand what I was trying to say, you and Dan Slott think people are idiots. I want to raise the bar and you want to lower the ceiling. I’m not going to write a blog for the lowest common denominator.

      If Dan Slott had issues with my blog or the wording he could have acted like a professional and we could have worked something out. He didn’t and refuses to do so until this day. Oh well. That’s his problem, not mine.

    5. You admitted that he was trying to kill everyone, then went back to the anti-Semitic charge, and then went back again to saying he wanted to wipe out everyone. That middle part was the problem – even after saying he wasn’t targeting Jews, you still called him “the Superior anti-Semite” again.

      My problem with weasel questions – and that’s what they are – is that they’re trying to say the question is valid. When you ask if the book is anti-Semitic, you are saying that it’s reasonable to believe that it is. That may not be what you’re trying to say, but it’s still part of your message.

      It’s the sort of thing that happens all the time in politics. Do you remember, in the 2008 election, when McCain corrected someone at one of his rallies who called Obama a Muslim? It’s because a whole lot of conservative websites had articles asking variations of, “Is Obama a Muslim?” While there were some who came right out and said he’s a Muslim, the more common tactic was to imply it and then say, “Hey, we’re just asking the question.” And it’s something that’s common on all sides. It happens constantly. Whether it’s Breitbart or HuffPo, Fox News or MSNBC, it’s one of the most common rhetorical tricks out there, and it’s a dishonest one.

      And again, it’s not that I think the audience is stupid. It’s not a matter of intelligence. The human brain is rather disturbingly susceptible to all sorts of manipulation, even when we’re on the lookout for it. When you ask if the book is anti-Semitic, the audience unconsciously makes a connection between the book and anti-Semitism. It’s not because they’re stupid, it’s just a consequence of how the brain works.

      So I don’t think it is at all a stretch for an intelligent, reasonable person to come to the conclusion that your post was saying Superior Spider-Man was anti-Semitic.

    6. Well, you can believe what you want. I also think a reasonable person would conclude that you have an issue with conservatives, considering that you keep harping on the Obama Muslim thing. Funny, I can’t remember major conservative news outlets (e.g., Townhall, Hotair, National Review, The Weekly Standard) peddling the Obama-Muslim line. In fact, I think they actually wanted to focus more on the fact that he went to a racist church for twenty years but had no idea that the guy who baptized his daughter was a racist… Obama is consistently like Bill Murray’s character in ‘The Man Who Knew Too Little’…

      Let me tell you a story, since I work for a paper: Recently, I wrote a piece on a certain well-known figure. The network that person worked for didn’t like the headline that was attached to the piece. A person from the network called me and we talked about it. At the end of the day a different headline — one they were not happy with, but could much more tolerate — was on the piece. Case closed.

      Why could Dan Slott not have made the case you made here or the network spokesman made when she contacted me at work? Answer: He very well could have done that. Instead, he has decided that it’s in his best interest to keep calling me a “terrible person.” It’s to the point where I think he doesn’t want it resolved, because he knows this is the only thing he has to latch onto. He knows I make a ton of good points in my reviews, and this is the one way he can play the perpetual victim against the “terriblebadstupidinsaneconservativeblogger” (one word).

    7. It’s not that I dislike conservatives; funnily enough, I’ve been engaged in another debate elsewhere where I mentioned (as something of an aside to the main debate) that I’d like to see more conservatives in comics. I keep using the “Obama=Muslim” example because it was the first thing that came to mind. But it’s something that really does happen constantly, on all sides. From the same year, there were the idiotic bloggers on the left asking if Sarah Palin’s youngest child was actually her daughter’s, or whatever that stupid, stupid accusation was. The savvier among those bloggers did the whole “adding a question mark makes it OK to say whatever we want to” thing.

      As for why Slott couldn’t have made his case in a reasonable, non-dickish way, if Slott felt like he was being personally attacked, that would’ve made him automatically less inclined to respond in a reasonable manner. And yeah, it’s possible that you’re right about him.

    8. When I say “comic-related,” that includes a wide range of blogs in a world of over 6 billion people. There are plenty of users who don’t buy comics anymore, but still search things like “What’s going on in Spider-Man these days” or “Marvel writers” just to sort of keep tabs. It would be interesting to know how many unique visitors per month all the major comic websites get. I would be willing to bet it’s in the millions, easily.

      As for why Slott couldn’t have made his case in a reasonable, non-dickish way, if Slott felt like he was being personally attacked, that would’ve made him automatically less inclined to respond in a reasonable manner.

      Oh boo-hoo. I’ve been personally attacked on my own blog countless times. I still do my best to keep it civil. Carl knows about Lizard19, who got to push it for months and months before I banned him. And even then, I let him know he could come back after “x” amount of time. His ban was only extended because he kept trolling after the ban went into effect and I warned him to knock it off.

      Imagine how things would have turned out if Dan Slott wrote on my page the day he saw the piece:

      Slott: Ernst, you do know I’m Jewish, right? That’s incredibly offensive to me and I hope you would highly consider editing some of that given this new bit of knowledge.

      Ernst: Actually, I didn’t know that Dan. I’ll see what I can do, although I still think it’s pretty disgusting to put a man who wanted to extinguish 6 billion lives in Peter Parker’s body. I’ll make some edits after work. I hope you’ll defend your decision afterward.

      Slott: I think you’re a jerk, Ernst. I’m looking forward to seeing your edits.

      Ernst: I love you too, Dan Slott.

      I’m 95% sure I would have changed the headline to something like ‘Dan Slott’s ‘Superior Spider-Man’: Genocidal ‘Peter Parker’ is really just like Hawkeye.’ I’d be willing to tweak some of the body as well. But alas, we’ll never know because Dan Slott thinks he gets to dictate the intentions I had when I wrote the piece, and then demands I apologize for machinations I never had. Sad.

    9. Yeah, he could’ve reacted better. Like I said, I’m willing to be a little more forgiving of people reacting poorly when they’ve received death threats. Especially since different people have different levels of tolerance.

      One thing I will say is that I have a hunch Slott probably wouldn’t be able to cope with what women deal with every day in the comic book industry. A woman posted an online survey asking for people’s experiences regarding sexual harassment in the comic book industry (as fans or professionals). She then wrote an article criticizing a cover that showed a teenage girl with huge, fake breasts spilling out of her top. A lot of people started responding to her survey with rape threats. Another article the other day, written by a guy, expressed utter shock at reading women talking about rape threats as something they’ve gotten used to.

      It would probably be a good idea for Slott to talk to women involved with comics and see how they deal with all the crap they have to deal with.

    10. Are we talking about the Dan Slott who seemingly had no problems with the cover of Superior Spider-Man #2? Nothing says ‘hero’ and ‘I understand women’ like the image of body-snatcher essentially forcing himself on Mary Jane, most likely because he got a taste of Peter’s memories and couldn’t wait a second longer to treat her like a sex object.

      I think that was the same issue where Slott’s Otto was masturbating to M.J. Another high point of the series, of course.

    11. But that’s the thing: Who approved that cover? Who thought it would be a good idea to have Otto clearly touch himself sexually as he was thinking about M.J. within the issue? Fans get angry about bone-headed editorial decisions that, and then Slott and Whacker have the never to mock them. Why? Because they just so happen to be decent people who enjoy comic books.

      Great business model, guys — mock long-time comic book fans who probably sank boatloads of cash into the industry. Idiocracy.

    12. Wacker probably would’ve been the one who approved the cover. I don’t think Slott would’ve had anything to do with it. Otto jerkin’ it to memories of Peter and MJ was . . . yeah. That was uncomfortable. I think it was probably meant mostly as a joke. It just wasn’t a very good one.

    13. xmenexpert: I have changed the title of the original post to ‘Dan Slott’s ‘Superior Spider-Man’: Genocidal ‘Peter Parker’ is really just like Hawkeye’ because, unlike Dan Slott, I value civil discourse with those with whom I have sharp disagreements. I believe the right quote in this instance is: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I do not always agree with much of what you say, but I do appreciate that for the most part you’ve shown yourself to be a model from which Dan Slott (and other liberals within the industry) can work from to improve the relationship between creators and their critics.

      Let it be known that while Dan Slott has hurled almost nothing but insults and invective at me from afar, decent conversations between myself, Rogue (aka: Vicky) and xmenexpert have resulted in changes to the original post that so bothers Dan Slott. If Dan Slott grew up and acted like a professional, those are results that he too could have achieved long ago (perhaps from day one).

      I hope that when Dan Slott is alone in bed at night he takes a moment in that still silence to reflect on what has happened here.

    14. Carl: I did read the post. Hell, the first comment on that post was from me. And I’ve been rereading the post while replying to this one. And I don’t think it’s at all a stretch for someone to interpret it as accusing Slott of promoting anti-Semitism.

      I was raising a hypothetical question. Fox News may not have run any pieces with that question (I don’t feel like Googling to see if they actually have used that specific headline), but fine, if you don’t like that one, let’s try another. Let’s say MSNBC ran a piece headlined “Should Dick Cheney be tried for war crimes?” Is that something you have an easier time believing would happen?

      In other posts, I’ve come to the defence of a story that I feel has been told well, and argued that some of the criticism of the story comes from an assumption that it’s trying to accomplish something that I didn’t believe it was. There does seem to be people out there who thought the story was about how Otto is a better Spider-Man than Peter, while I believed all along that the story was the complete opposite – something which has been borne out by the final arc, with Otto even admitting in the second-last issue that Peter was always Superior. I’ve criticized what I’ve felt to be certain nitpicky criticisms. I’m not a Slott fanboy – I like his writing, but he’s not in my top 5 favourite current Marvel writers, and only barely in my top 10 (and will probably be knocked out of the top 10 as soon as Marvel gives Kathryn Immonen more work). I think his online behaviour might deserve a little bit of leeway based on the volume and viciousness of the attacks he got over SSM, which included death threats. That makes it understandable that he would become a lot more aggressive himself in reacting to some of the harsher criticisms of the book. I don’t know if his online behaviour this past year has been fairly standard for him – if it’s how he normally behaves, then yeah, he’s a dick. If it’s a fairly major departure from how he’s reacted to criticism in the past, then I think it would arguably be a fairly understandable shift.

    15. I apologize if I came across as a little abrasive last night, X-Menxpert. It was the end of a long Easter and I was a bit tired. Now that I’m fully rested, I can say that I can sort of see your point, even if I think it’s quite a stretch to think that Doug was saying that Slott was an anti-Semite, which he wasn’t.

      Regarding the death threats against Slott… death threats against anyone are out of line. There’s no excuse for that kind of pathetic behavior. But as for Slott’s own behavior, he’s been acting like this for quite a while, since at least 2010 or earlier when he started trolling blogs and websites that were criticizing him. He even told a fan to “f**k off” once. Slott is far from the only comics creator who acts like this online. Writers from both Marvel and DC have acted like this towards fans, although Slott is the only one to my knowledge who has gone this far and even resorted to veiled legal threats against Doug for simply talking about him online. The behavior of modern creators is one reason why I’ve been reluctant to read any modern comics.

      Didn’t mean to imply that you were a Slott fanboy, either, although judging by your comments, I guess I assumed you were.

    16. Carl: If Slott’s always been a dick online, then yeah, he should really try to stop being such a dick. Though even so, I have to wonder if the sheer scale of the attacks he got over SSM might have made it worse. I’m lucky in that my favourite writers are people who are really, really great people with a lot of love for their fans. Kieron Gillen, Kelly Sue DeConnick, Al Ewing, Brian Bendis – just genuinely wonderful people. They sometimes have sharp senses of humour, and KSD certainly isn’t shy about attacking the ingrained misogyny in the comic book industry, but it’s very rare to see any of them engage in personal fights, or for anyone to have anything bad to say about any of them. It’s easy to be a fan of creators like that.

      So there are plenty of creators who are just great people, and who would be glad to welcome you into the fold.

    17. Carl: If Slott’s always been a dick online, then yeah, he should really try to stop being such a dick. Though even so, I have to wonder if the sheer scale of the attacks he got over SSM might have made it worse.

      1. How many tens-of-millions of people read comic-related blogs regularly. There are bound to be a lot of idiots, so when a creator whines about negative feedback it’s sort of like, “play me the world’s smallest violin.” Obviously the death threats should be taken seriously, but complaining about all the rest of the noise and chatter is stupid.

      2. Slott was the one who put a genocidal maniac into Peter Parker’s body. Slott and Marvel used anger to promote the book. They don’t get to then act like complete jerks who are upset and say they were surprised by the push-back.

    18. Slott and Wacker did definitely engage in some trolling. Steve Wacker ‘s always been kind of a troll. He just happens to be a really funny one, so he gets a pass.

      Tens-of-millions seems like a bit of a exaggeration. The top-selling comics have sales under 150 000 a month. It’s true we don’t know what the digital numbers are, but I have serious doubts that they’re that high. And a lot of people who buy comics don’t pay much attention to the blogs. So tens-of-thousands seems a bit more realistic. And even that might be pushing it.

      Which makes me sad. I’m just old enough to remember when 1991’s X-Men #1 sold a record-setting 8 million copies. Superheroes are big money, but comic books are an ever-shrinking niche. Sigh.

    19. The only conservatives in the comic book industry that I can think of include Chuck Dixon (he currently does GI Joe comics for IDW, but he’s slowly transitioning to novels), Frank Miller, Dan Jurgens (who i think might be a conservative), Bill Willingham and Mike Baron. I agree that there should be more conservatives in the industry. To me, diversity isn’t just skin color or culture. It should mean intellectual diversity, the diversity of viewpoint. That’s another point that’s lost on many these days..

    20. I’m currently working on a superhero novel of my own. Not graphic novel, but prose novel. Hopefully if I publish it and it’s successful It’s been with me in some shape or form since 2007 but the current version didn’t really start to take shape until after the “Captain America vs the Tea Party storyline from 2010. That pissed me off, and opened my eyes to the liberalism in the industry.

      And it’s amazing how Obama sat in that church for 20 years and somehow was unaware that his pastor was a vile, racist bigot.

    21. Oops, hit “post comment’ too soon. I meant to say, “if it’s published and successful, i hope it’ll turn into a series.”

    22. Carl: I’ve actually been engaged in a debate the past few days on another site about diversity. My position is that physical diversity (race, gender, disability, and I would include sexual orientation) is more important than ideological diversity (the person I was debating with was arguing that pacifism counts as diversity). While both are important, I do place a greater emphasis on women and minority groups over people with a different philosophy. In the context of the debate I was having with the other guy, it’s far more important to have Hispanic characters than pacifist characters. That includes creators, too – I’d rather someone like Felipe Smith, the half-black/half-Hispanic writer of All-New Ghost Rider, get consideration over yet another straight white male, regardless of that straight white male’s views. I’d be fine with more openly conservative comic book creators getting published, but I’m more interested in seeing more female comic book creators get published first.

      Arguments can and have been made about superhero comics actually being an inherently conservative genre to begin with. Vigilantism is, I would say, tolerated more on the right than on the left – conservatives are more likely to support independent militias, while liberals are more likely to be sceptical of them. I forget the other points off-hand about superhero comics being conservative, but there actually is a compelling case to be made.

    23. Carl: I’m writing a superhero prose story, myself. I’m not looking to be published or anything – I’m nowhere near talented enough for that. It’s just something I’m posting online. Funnily enough, I actually did have a Republican in my cast (who will be making a return soon). He’s a very sympathetic character, very intelligent and well-spoken. I had a chapter where he and a liberal character argued a bit about Obamacare, and I intentionally avoided making either side come across poorly. I hate straw men, so I intentionally chose to have someone in the cast whose politics I disagreed with so I could write him as just as good a person as the people I do agree with.

    24. Harassment is wrong (that goes without saying) and that incident involving the rape threats was beyond disgusting, but it does go both ways. A former Archie Comics editor, Nancy Silberkleit, verbally harassed her male employees last December and kept shouting “I don’t have to listen to you because you have a penis! Penis! Penis!” at them. Or something like that. She also claimed that she shouldn’t be brought up on harassment charges because “white men are not a protected class.” What the hell? Title VII protects all employees from harassment, not specific groups.

      Harassment can happen to anyone and is wrong regardless of who it’s happen to. I should know. I have Asperger’s syndrome and was bullied because of it in middle school. Also, a girl I went out with harassed me for a time after we broke up (she cheated on me with a football player) and then when I called her out on her immature behavior, she acted like I was being mean to her.

    25. Carl: That Archie woman is an outlier. A lot of women involved in comics have talked about how they literally don’t know a single other woman in the industry who hasn’t been harassed. It is a systemic issue, and commonplace to the point where a lot of women talk about being used to it. That is horrifying. Sexual harassment and rape threats are not something anyone should get used to.

      So it’s a false equivalence you’re setting up. That was probably the first time those men were exposed to sexual harassment, and there are decent odds they won’t suffer it again any time soon. Every woman in the comic book field suffers harassment as a matter of course.

    26. Actually, it is not a false equivalence. Harassment can and does happen to anyone. It doesn’t matter who you are. It’s wrong regardless of who’s harassing who.

    27. Carl: Harassment can happen to anyone, yes. But in the comic book industry, women face it on a regular basis. It’s a serious, systemic problem. It can go both ways, but it overwhelmingly goes one way, with only a few isolated incidents of going the other way. Your post suggested that you think men and women are probably treated relatively equally within comics – that the harassment is probably reasonably uncommon for both. But the treatment is nowhere near equal, and the harassment is frighteningly common towards women, while being extremely uncommon towards men.

      Harassment is wrong, no matter who it’s happening to. But when it’s happening overwhelmingly to a specific group – in this case, women – then that’s where the attention has to be focused. And point to a couple isolated instances and saying it happens to men, too, comes across as trying to diminish the scope of the problem women in the comic industry face.

    28. Sounds to me that Carl is not diminishing anything, in fact he wishes it was brought to light and eradicated for everyone; borne unfortunately from his personal experience. I agree wholly with Carl.

    29. Patrick: I’m going to be flippant for a moment.

      There’s a difference between someone breaking a leg and someone having a leg amputated. The former has to deal with it once, for a brief time, as an isolated incident. The latter has to deal with it constantly, as a fact of life.

      Within the comic book industry – whether among professionals or fans – cases of harassment towards men are, like a broken leg, brief and isolated incidents. Cases of harassment towards women are like an amputation – they’re a simple fact of life, something they can’t really get away from.

      That’s not to say it’s not terrible for the men who suffer it. It’s disturbing and can have major, long-term consequences on those specific men. But it’s not a systemic problem. I doubt there are many men who’ve grown used to rape threats, and have a system in place for documenting those threats for legal purposes.

      No one is going to disagree that no one should suffer harassment. I’m simply saying that the sheer amount of harassment of women is on a completely different scale than that towards men, in pure numbers.

      Carl’s comment was, essentially, “Women get harassed, but so do men.” But that diminishes the scope of the problem for women. In reality, men get harassed, but women get harassed so much more.

    30. Then I hope Carl is the doctor in charge as he recognizes all the legs need to be treated.

    31. To torture this analogy just a bit more: They all need to be treated, but when you’re looking at the root causes, you deal with what’s leading to amputations before you deal with what’s leading to breaks.

      Some men in the comic industry face harassment. All women in the comic industry face harassment. “Some” is not equivalent to “all.”

      A relatively small group of men in an office facing harassment was fairly easy to deal with – the woman responsible was fired. Those men were lucky, to an extent, that it was so easy to deal with, though certainly unlucky to have been exposed to it. I’ve no doubt that many men face more serious harassment and never report it, and their harassers wind up getting away with it, and that’s tragic. But these are still isolated instances, a relatively small number of terrible people victimizing someone with less power.

      The harassment women face is systemic. They all go through it – it is virtually impossible to find a woman writing about the harassment of women in the comic industry who doesn’t have first-hand experience with some kind of harassment. When it’s that widespread, dealing with it isn’t just a matter of removing a few terrible people. It requires changing the entire culture of comic books.

      A few men being harassed is tragic. All women being harassed goes beyond that.

      I’m not sure how much you or Carl actually care about comics. It may very well be something you don’t need to be particularly concerned about. But I care a lot about comics, as a medium and as an industry, so it’s something I’m very concerned about. And for the people who actually work in the industry, the system harassment of women is something they should be looking at as a full-on crisis.

    32. I covered the industry’s sexist liberals in the past here: ‘The real story behind ‘The Hawkeye Initiative’: Liberals bashing liberals’

      I have found it extremely interesting that guys like Erik Larson, Dan Slott, Alex Ross, Mark Waid, Ron Marz, etc. are all really good at lecturing the rest of us on how to behave while their own industry is littered with instances of blatant sexism.

      I am not saying the liberals are more inclined to be sexists than conservatives. What I am saying is that these guys are so lost in their own self-righteousness that they can’t even see or feel the shards of glass hitting them in the face every time they hurl a stone.

    33. I just read your Hawkeye Initiative post. Several of the people you named were writers, so I’m not sure how they relate to the Hawkeye Initiative itself. It would’ve made more sense to find some of the artists whose work was parodied especially often, and looked at their politics.

      Beyond that, the misogyny of the comic book world is ingrained, complex, and frankly, a crisis. This mostly applies at the Big Two – the independent circuit is much better. And one thing I will say is that Marvel, at least, has been making some major efforts to dial it back. Once Elektra drops this week, they’ll have five ongoing female solo titles, plus the all-female X-Men title, plus a few other books that have female characters in prominent roles. (Mighty Avengers, for example, has Monica Rambeau as the field leader, and is arguably the most powerful member of the team. All-New X-Men is primarily about Jean Grey, also the most powerful member of that team. And there are other examples.) While there are still some artists who are a little too quick to overly sexualize female characters, there’s an increasing number who depict women a little less ridiculously, making them sexy rather than sexualized.

      As far as liberals not being able to see their own sexism, well, that’s a problem with the human brain. People have trouble seeing their own flaws. Liberals and conservatives are both guilty of sexism and misogyny. But both sides are only capable of seeing it in the other. I make a lot of effort to engage in introspection, but there’s not a doubt in my mind that I overlook misogynistic views I hold, simply because my brain won’t let me see them. It’s just how we’re hardwired.

      The best we can do is try to watch ourselves, and to carefully consider when someone makes that kind of accusation at us.

    34. Good point on naming more artists. Guilty as charged. I spent so much time linking to my own coverage of individuals within the industry that I wasn’t thinking as sharply as I should have on that one.

    35. Linking to your own material works. 🙂 Bloggers who don’t do that are missing out on a lot of new subscribers. The longer you keep people engaged, the better.

    36. I’m not sure how much you or Carl actually care about comics. It may very well be something you don’t need to be particularly concerned about. But I care a lot about comics, as a medium and as an industry, so it’s something I’m very concerned about.

      The implication here is rather mean. So because Carl doesn’t see eye-to-eye with you, then he must not “actually care” about comics? Not long ago someone tried to call Carl “sexist” because they had a disagreement over Wonder Woman. This line of thought seems to be in the same vein, although it’s covers the cringe-worthy assumption with a bit more tact.

      Radio host Chris Plante was talking about seeing an “At least Obama cares” bumper sticker on the way to work this morning, and I can’t help but think about it after reading that last comment. It’s bothersome that when a conservative guy disagrees with a liberal guy on an issue it’s always injected into the conversation that the conservative is less caring. Well, no, not really. Not at all. It’s just that you disagree on how to get the same end result. In this instance it’s a workplace where no one — male or female — has to feel threatened.

    37. Oh, that’s not what I meant. Sorry that I phrased it poorly; I really wasn’t trying to be insulting or condescending. I actually meant pretty much what I said – I sincerely don’t know how much comics matter to him. If they’re something he – and Patrick, for that matter, since I did mention both – has a serious interest in, then fair enough. I stand by my argument that the harassment of men is isolated tragedies while the harassment of women is a systemic crisis.

      I really didn’t want to imply that Carl or Patrick doesn’t care about comics, and I apologize for that.

    38. No problem. Yeah, that’s another problem with online interactions. I’ve had that before where you can’t always pick up someone’s tone. I’ve had people say that I sound “angry.” Anyone who actually knows me laughs. I very seldom get angry. I might have a “merry prankster” smile on my face, but I don’t get angry.

      I’ve always had more of a problem with laughing than yelling…

    39. Using proper grammar, and not using emoticons, makes tone even more difficult to get across. As I well know. In this case, I just plain didn’t say what I wanted to say.

    40. Yeah, I resisted the emoticons for many moons…but eventually I too had to give in. I try not to use them too much. I still pride myself on never having opened a MySpace account, though! I know a certain person who comments here who never opened a Facebook page. I’m actually kind of jealous.

    41. I opened a Facebook account at one point, but after going several months without checking it, I closed it. That was years ago, and I still haven’t gotten another Facebook account.

    42. No worries, X-menxpert. I do care about comics, though my interest in comics mostly is from Golden Age through the mid-2000s… I do read some of the licensed titles from IDW, such as their GI Joe series and also the Ninja Turtles as well.

      It might interest you to know even though I’m not a feminist, I do feature strong female characters in my own yet-to-be-completed novel and the leader of the team in question is a woman (who is also the CEO of a major- fictional- corporation in her civilian life), although she’s not the main protagonist. The main character is a college-aged kid whom she recruits onto the team.

      I don’t really view myself as sexist or misogynistic, for that matter. I might’ve said things in the past that could’ve been interpreted as such, but there is not a single hateful part of me. I don’t hate anyone. There are people I dislike, certainly, but I don’t base that on their gender, race or anything like that. I base it on how they treat me or others.

      I wasn’t diminishing women and I do believe it’s a problem in the industry. I was just referring to my own views on harassment in general. And like Doug, I take issue with people like Slott, Larsen, Ron Marz and others lecturing others on how to act while refusing to acknowledge the sexism in their industry. I have a hard time believing that Slott is respectful of women (even though he likes to harp on people who aren’t) when he had an issue where Doc Ock-inside Peter’s body essentially raped MJ.

    43. Ha. I quit Facebook last year because I got sick of a lot of people I went to high school with, especially my so-called “friends” who badmouthed me behind my back and were always quick to ridicule everything I did. Also I got sick of having to be friends on there with relatives I dislike and have no real desire to talk to.

      I used to have a MySpace, way back in 2006-2009. I barely used it back then, largely because I had dial-up at the time and deleted it at some point in either 2009 or 2010.

    44. Carl: All due respect, I’m calling BS on you not being a feminist. Do you believe men and women should be treated equally? Then you’re a feminist. You’re simply not engaged in political efforts to promote feminism. (Unless you actually are, in which case, kudos to you.)

      People declaring themselves not to be feminists is a pet peeve for me. Because feminism, at its core, is the ideal that men and women deserve to be equal, at least in the eyes of the law. In 2014, in the developed world, that is not any sort of revolutionary or controversial point of view, and there is no reason for anyone to claim not to be a feminist. Feminist should not be a dirty word – it should be something that, at this point, pretty much everyone says, “Well, yeah, of course I’m a feminist.”

      Also, in fairness, Otto only TRIED to rape MJ. He never got more than a kiss from her. So he’s an ATTEMPTED rapist in regards to MJ. A case could be made that he did rape Anna Maria. Though I can’t remember if it was ever confirmed they did the deed – they were interrupted the one time, and I can’t remember if anything happened after that.

    45. Mm. Fair point about climaxing. Yeah, completed or not, it was rape by deception.

      Which, contrary to what a lot of guys out there seem to think, is really, really not cool.

    46. I hope you can understand why people like Carl would shun feminism when it has been highjacked by individuals who only believe their idea of what feminism is constitutes the real thing.

      Quintessential feminist Suey Park blames ‘structural whiteness’ for her personal problems

      U.S. feminists worry over pressure to ‘wear Ugg boots’ while India still deals with dowry

      “[My Twitter hashtag is] but one step in a plan to take down white, hetero, patriarchal, corporate America. … Can you make a pinky promise to keep my radical agenda in your article?” — Suey Park.

    47. I can somewhat understand why some people are reluctant to call themselves feminists. But at the same time, I find it crazy when people say they’re not feminists. It’s like someone who believes in Jesus declaring themselves not a Christian because of some of the crazier Christians. Few groups are monolithic, and there’s crazy jerks in every group, but there’s certain core values or traits that mean someone is part of the group. If you believe men and women deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, you’re a feminist, and you shouldn’t be afraid to embrace that, and you should try not to let positive labels be hijacked by people that you believe do that label harm.

      I’m also a big fan of common ground. When we share things in common, we should embrace them. We all think men and women should be treated equally. We all think democracy’s pretty neat. We all think Nickelback sucks. So let’s enjoy those shared values.

    48. We all think Nickelback sucks.

      This will make little sense to you, but when my sister and I are talking about bands we’ll randomly bust out into our best Chad Kroeger imitation and sing: “And what the hell is on Joey’s head?” because when the song ‘Photograph’ came out that line cracked us up. It’s so … bad.

    49. No offense taken. I guess I don’t view myself as one. Never really have. Sure, I believe men and women should be treated equally (and I do like strong female characters), but as a conservative Christian I’m personally against abortion and think the phony “War on Women” was invented by liberals in this country to distract people from the failing economy and other issues that actually mattered during the 2012 election. I dislike a lot of modern feminists because of their hateful rhetoric toward those they disagree with. Recently a bunch of them went after Kirsten Dunst because she says she likes chivalry (most women seem to like it when I hold a door open for them and i fail to see how that’s “sexist.”) and said all sorts of nasty, hateful things about her for expressing such a view. So I have a hard time identifying with people like that.

      Either way, the stuff involving Doc and MJ and Anna Marie is still… uncomfortable.

    50. Suey Park is another of those modern idiot feminists who spend time whining about imaginary oppression here in the U.S. when in places like India or the Middle East women are treated like crap on a regular basis. People like her are a big reason why I shun feminism. A girl I went to high school (who was brainwashed by her college professors into becoming a feminist; she was largely apolitical in high school) with blocked me on Facebook back in 2011 when I disagreed with her regarding abortion, and implied that I wanted to “make her live a subservient life,” which was of course nonsense.

      And Ayaan Hirsi Ali gets banned from speaking at Brandeis University, all because she’s a former Muslim who speaks out against radical Islam, thanks to the CAIR lobby. Where are the feminists’ outrage there? I know the answer; her views aren’t considered “correct.”

    51. “We all think Nickelback sucks”

      Haha! That’s for sure, xpert! I think it calling what they produce “music” would be too generous.

  3. Holy Jeez. Seeing these so-called “professionals” in action leads me to conclude one thing: They’re simply older versions of the stereotypical self-righteous comicbook fanboys that infest comic shops (or, music fanboys who infest record stores like in High Fidelity) and sneer at anything (and anybody) that dares to disagree with them.

    Their current positions, where myriad “fans” fawn at their every word, has led to an intellectual lethargy. When one actually dares to confront them with facts and logic, and does it in a reasonable manner, they actually don’t know how to handle it. In the days before social media, we’d never know about this. You’d write a letter to the editor of your favorite comic and that was that. It most probably never saw the light of day. If it was critical, especially so. Now, everybody has a voice … and the Slotts of the industry are incapable of dealing.

    1. Holy Jeez. Seeing these so-called “professionals” in action leads me to conclude one thing: They’re simply older versions of the stereotypical self-righteous comicbook fanboys that infest comic shops (or, music fanboys who infest record stores like in High Fidelity) and sneer at anything (and anybody) that dares to disagree with them.

      Crack! Hube makes contact and it’s going back…way back…way back…and it’s outta here! Home Run for Hube on the High Fidelity comparison. Good one.

      In the days before social media, we’d never know about this. You’d write a letter to the editor of your favorite comic and that was that. It most probably never saw the light of day. If it was critical, especially so. Now, everybody has a voice … and the Slotts of the industry are incapable of dealing.

      2 for 2, Hube. That’s a triple off the left field wall.

      I covered this in an old post from 2011: ‘DC and Marvel Use Letters to The Editor to control content, Liberal editors loathe conservative bloggers’

      Another relevant one is: ‘Dan Slott and Marvel’s Orwellian message boards can’t hide the truth: Fans want Peter Parker’

      That second one is also good because Dan Slott recently made a crack on YouTube about the number of people who comment here. I countered that he knows very well that many people read these blog posts, which is why he expends to much time addressing what I say.

      Excerpt:

      This blog is on pace to have roughly 25,000 page views for the month of July. The individuals who get here search any number of topics, from liquid fluoride thorium reactors to Navy SEALS, weightlifting advice to the national debt. However, readers also get here because they care about the character Spider-Man. I have taken one search result from each day this month in order to highlight what many Spider-Man fans are thinking:

      July 31: “Is Peter Parker coming back?”

      July 30: “When will Superior Spider-Man end?”

      July 29: “Dan Slott should be fired”

      July 28: “Will Peter Parker return?”

      July 27: “Superior Spider-Man ending”

      July 26: “Dan Slott is an asshole”

      July 25: “Why Dan Slott ruined Spider-Man”

      July 24: “Dan Slott is an asshole” …

      You get the point. There are a lot of eyes on this blog, even if many people don’t register to comment. For the limited amount of time I have to put into the blog, I’m happy with its growth over the past four years. Again, guys like Dan Slott hate it because there’s nothing they can do to stop it.

  4. Yes, it is possible to be upset with someone and still act like a professional. You can be downright livid with someone and still comport yourself with class and dignity. Anyone who has had to work in the real world knows that.

    And that’s it in a nutshell! Maybe Slott could have contacted you and expressed his concerns? Voiced them reasonably in some forum? *Sigh* …

    Slott is like Charles Durning’s character in North Dallas Forty whom John Matuszak berates near film’s end: “Every time *I* call it a game, YOU call it business! Every time *I* call it a business, YOU call it a game!” Just fill in “real life” and “comicbook” where appropriate.

    1. Slott is like Charles Durning’s character in North Dallas Forty whom John Matuszak berates near film’s end: “Every time *I* call it a game, YOU call it business! Every time *I* call it a business, YOU call it a game!” Just fill in “real life” and “comicbook” where appropriate.

      You’ve hit a homer, a triple and a double. One more and you’ve gone for the cycle, Hube!

      The thing that bothers me is that Dan Slott appears to think he’s clairvoyant. He apparently knows that my intentions were part of some weird plot to make him — “a Jew” I tell you! — out to be an anti-Semite (again, as if I even knew or cared about his history). He makes it sound like I was in some dark cave, bin Laden-style, rubbing my hands together saying “What would really get under the skin of a Jewish comic creator? Hmmm. I could write a reduction of a reduction of a reduction of a so-called weasel word posed as a question — that would really be an accusation that he’s anti-Semetic. And I’ll do it using the Holocaust. Bwoohahahaha!”

      Seriously, he needs to grow up. I’m not going to “apologize” for acting with evil intentions since I never had them. I can say “sorry for the misunderstanding — how can we fix this?” but I’m not going to say what he wants to “end it,” which is: “I’m sorry I did that.” No — I’m not saying that, because he keeps saying I wrote the piece with intentions I never had, calling me a “terrible human being,” etc.

    2. The classic fight dilemma – one person feels attacked, so they attack back, which leads the other person to attack back again, and neither side feels any particular inclination to be the one trying to end it.

    3. The classic fight dilemma – one person feels attacked, so they attack back, which leads the other person to attack back again, and neither side feels any particular inclination to be the one trying to end it.

      1. I have asked Dan to come to the boards and deal with his grievances like an adult so that something can be worked out. He has declined.
      2. I took down the picture when a reader asked me to do so with tact and grace to buttress her respectable opinion. Dan Slott called me “cowardly” for doing so.
      3. I have never called Dan Slott a “bad” person or a “terrible” human being. He has hurled such insults at me repeatedly.
      4. I have told Dan Slott that I have forgiven him for all the mean and nasty things he said about me, and I said I would continue to forgive him for any mean and nasty things he may say going forward. He responded with more snark.
      5. Dan Slott told me I should put up the image to give intellectual honesty to this post. When I said I would honor that request to show I have nothing to hide, he again lashed out at my character.

      Tell me, xmenexpert: Who is the one who has continued to revive this issue over and over and over again? Do you really believe it’s me?

    4. I try not to make any judgments without getting as many sides of a story as I can. Based on the little I glanced at on your blog, I’m inclined to think Slott should’ve responded much, much better. I will also say I’m inclined to give him a little bit of slack based on some of the attacks he received, which included death threats. That sort of thing could easily push someone to be far too defensive in the face of criticism. It could also easily make someone assume the worst about a given criticism. The idea of a post being an accusation of anti-Semitism becomes a lot easier to buy when you’ve been inundated with much worse already.

      I’d have to see an example of how he behaved online prior to Superior Spider-Man to be able to get an idea of whether he really is just a dick, or if he got pushed too far.

    5. I’d have to see an example of how he behaved online prior to Superior Spider-Man to be able to get an idea of whether he really is just a dick, or if he got pushed too far.

      You shouldn’t have to do too much digging to see that he has a reputation for being thin-skinned.

    6. I think the “pushed too far” thing is not really an excuse, “too wrongs don’t make a right” and all that. If Slott felt that he was becoming burnt out or jaded by fan back lash, a smarter thing to do would be a change of scenes to recharge the batteries. In creative jobs like Slott’s, it is really important to have the right mindset and fully charged batteries (I honestly don’t think Slott has either at the moment).

      Alternatively addressing complaints is an effectively better way to reduce them. One of the main complaints with Superior is that people didn’t like how Peter was effectively written out of his own book and the cheap way Peter was killed off (twice). Superior Spiderman was also a very very different comic to Amazing Spiderman and it is very very understandable why a lot of peoples didn’t like it (i.e. replacing an apple with an orange).

      At Superior’s height, there was like 3 anti-hero Spider titles on the market (5 if you include Team-up and Foes) and no hero Spider title save for Miles Morales. This and Slott’s antics just further compounded things (a double whammy of bad marketing and bad salesmanship).

      Bendis didn’t get anywhere near the number of complains Slott did for killing off Peter in Ultimate Spiderman. His version had Peter going out with a bang and the replacement Miles Morales series had a similar tone, style and humour to the Ultimate Peter series (i.e. replacing an apple with an apple).

    7. Alternatively addressing complaints is an effectively better way to reduce them. One of the main complaints with Superior is that people didn’t like how Peter was effectively written out of his own book and the cheap way Peter was killed off (twice).

      Yep. Peter went out like a punk — twice. That one really stung. I could accept a “death” if it was done right. Slott was 0-2 in one of the biggest games out there (i.e., The World Series of Spider-Man). If you’re going to kill Peter Parker, it better be good. And then to add insult to injury, he was replaced with a murderer who wanted to transcend the evil of Hilter, Pol Pot and Khan. Ouch.

  5. Just popping by to say thanks for featuring the image I put together! I credited you on the “Know Your Meme” page for said image.

    1. Thanks, man. It’s a pretty funny meme. It’s a good thing to know there are others out there who have observed the same type of behavior from Dan Slott. Keep up the good work, Kung Fu Cthulhu!

    2. It is pretty funny.

      I can’t really top what anyone else has said, but the Slotts of the world do not like it that fans have an ability to express their own opinions now. Years ago, before the internet, the only place you could do that was in the letters to the editor page and you were lucky if it ever got published. Especially if you expressed a dissenting opinion regarding a character or storyline. The internet is very much an equalizer.

  6. xmenxpert says:

    Carl: I’ve actually been engaged in a debate the past few days on another site about diversity. My position is that physical diversity (race, gender, disability, and I would include sexual orientation) is more important than ideological diversity (the person I was debating with was arguing that pacifism counts as diversity). While both are important, I do place a greater emphasis on women and minority groups over people with a different philosophy.

    Is this in reference to comics only? Education? Life in general? I certainly hope comics, else you’re seriously off base.

    Arguments can and have been made about superhero comics actually being an inherently conservative genre to begin with. Vigilantism is, I would say, tolerated more on the right than on the left – conservatives are more likely to support independent militias, while liberals are more likely to be sceptical of them. I forget the other points off-hand about superhero comics being conservative, but there actually is a compelling case to be made.

    Key words: “To begin with.” I doubt many would argue that comics to begin with were conservative in nature. In the last 10-20 years, though? No way. You say the Right would support militias; ironically, the Left is the biggest supporter of restrictions of basic rights on college campuses, for example, not to mention kangaroo courts and Maoist “re-education” seminars for those who dare to dissent. Which is more dangerous?

    1. The debate was specific to comics. Actually, my position could be applied to mainstream entertainment media in general.

      Even in the last 10-20 years, a lot of the same strains still apply. On one level, Civil War could be read as an indictment of the Bush administration’s tactics in the war on terror – that was certainly the view held by a lot of comic book readers. But it could actually also be read as an indictment against gun control.

      I’m not interested in getting into a political debate. I was just saying that conservatives are more willing to support militias, while liberals are more likely to be sceptical of them. I wasn’t saying either side is right or wrong.

    2. Even in the last 10-20 years, a lot of the same strains still apply. On one level, Civil War could be read as an indictment of the Bush administration’s tactics in the war on terror – that was certainly the view held by a lot of comic book readers. But it could actually also be read as an indictment against gun control.

      I’m not interested in getting into a political debate.

      So the writers insert their own politics into the books, but then guys like you often don’t want to have “a political debate.” It works out perfectly for the liberal creators, doesn’t it? The only thing that saves comics is that it is historically a conservative (or classically liberal) medium. When creators try and push a liberal agenda in an medium that has conservatism built into it…things fall apart.

      So basically, you get Captain America going on self-righteous rants about freedom and liberty that are inherently screwy. Wait, so Cap is now fighting for a mutant’s right to not register with the federal government, even though he has the power to completely destroy half the planet? Even though characters would have the power to walk into your house, rape your wife and child in front of you, and then mind wipe you so you never remembered it happened, we’re not supposed to believe the federal government would have a vested interest in keeping tabs on that guy? You have to register to operate a vehicle, but it’s somehow un-American to expect the guy who has the power of 10,000 suns to disclose that to his government? Gotcha, Mr. Millar.

    3. To be fair, Doug, I think that’s what xpert was saying — that CW could be seen as an indictment of gun control. I happen to think that’s a big minority view (after all, Captain America leads the anti-registration forces while the registration forces utilize known villains as “heroes” and an extra-dimensional prison for the [real] heroes who fight registration … I mean C’MAHN. What message is being sent?).

    4. I definitely get what he was saying — it could be viewed as anti-gun control — be we all know that the creators had a very, very specific purpose for writing Civil War … and that purpose was not friendly to conservatism. They clearly stacked the deck against one side. I think I saw a few random comments where they tried to just tell as story, blah, blah, blah. Bulls**t. It was Marvel’s stupid Bush administration allegory — and that was in many ways the beginning of the end for me in terms of being a loyal Marvel customer.

      The fact that you “could” glean conservative messages from the material — despite the creators’ best efforts to get you to look at the shiny liberal thing they’re waving in front of your face — (“Bush bad! Bush critics good!”), does little to quell my disgust.

      And then when guys like us point out that this sort of things is going on, the creators go into attack mode.

    5. Indeed. I’m still waiting for anyone to dare to take on Boss Obama in the pages of comics. Perhaps have the Avengers get audited for doing something Obama didn’t like and have the investigation lead all the way to “Number One” — a “highly placed government official …” 😉

    6. Exactly. When Bush was in office, these guys felt some sort of social responsibility to make sure they took on his administration, the Patriot Act, etc. Now? Crickets.

      Obama has a “Terror Tuesday Kill List” and guys like Dan Slott shill for him in their Twitter feeds. If it came out that Bush had a “Terror Tuesday Kill List” I guarantee you that would make it into a big Marvel story. There would be a “Terror Tuesday” story arc, where Captain America would find out that super villains were being droned without due process, yadda, yadda, yadda. It would lead “all the way to the top,” and then Captain America would give up the role to become “The Ex-Patriot”… Kids would ask their parents why Captain America was no longer Captain America, and hopefully (in the minds of liberals at Marvel) fathers would say, “Well Billy, it’s because America is not longer what it once was under President Bush. Do you know how your room gets messy when you don’t clean it? Well, that’s what Bush has done to America’s room. He’s made a mess of it, and now the Ex-Patriot has to clean it up.”

      That is why I spend less than $50 a year on Marvel comics these days. Years ago I probably spent close to $50 a month on comics for a good stretch.

    7. Civil War was a deeply flawed story. But it’s not really relevant to this debate. My point was that one could easily read some deeply conservative undertones to the superhero genre, regardless of the political leanings of the writer. A lot of the main superhero tropes were established in the ’30s and ’40s. The things established by Lee, Kirby, Ditko and the other ’60s writers have remained, by and large, unchanged. The fact that the X-Men still have the absolute worst approach to civil rights that anyone could possibly come up with (hide away in a mansion, and only ever let people see us when we’re causing major property damage!) is part of that problem.

      But this is all a totally other topic of debate, one which I don’t feel like getting into here.

    8. For the record, the way the pro-Registration side was depicted annoyed a lot of comic book readers, including plenty of liberals. It was a case of bad writing. There are, obviously, some very real arguments to be made in favour of registering superhumans. But that side was depicted as straight-up villains. It was made worse by the fact that none of the books really seemed to agree what registration meant.

      Civil War was a deeply flawed story.

    9. Yep. I believe at the very outset you just had to register (makes sense). Then, somewhere along the line you had to register and work for the government. Huh?

      I bought almost every issue of Civil War and then towards the end I just got so annoyed I stopped. A few years later I threw them all out. Most of my comics went in the trash. I kept my collection of ASM, but that’s about it. That’s what Marvel’s hostility towards conservatives has done to the fan base. Take a look at Hube, Carl, Truthwillwin1, Patrick and others to see how the creators are pushing away potential customers. I used to spend a good chunk of change on Marvel, but why would I now? When the creators spit in the face of fans, I’m not going to shell out cash.

      It’s a good thing Marvel is making money from the movies, because if they had to just rely on the comics like the old days…they’d be doomed (no pun intended).

    10. Take a look at Hube, Carl, Truthwillwin1, Patrick and others to see how the creators are pushing away potential customers. I used to spend a good chunk of change on Marvel, but why would I now? When the creators spit in the face of fans, I’m not going to shell out cash.

      Indeed. I used to spend a small fortune every month, all on Marvel Comics. You know what I spend now? Bluto Blutarski’s grade point average. Any Marvels I read now are usually Essentials, and usually bought used by a private dealer on Amazon.

    11. My Marvel pull list is around 15 titles right now, though it fluctuates a little. I also buy the My Little Pony comics. And I was buying Pretty Deadly, but it finished its first volume, and it’ll be a few months before volume 2 starts. By the end of the year, I’ll be buying Pretty Deadly, Bitch Planet and The Wicked and the Divine, all from Image (two of them by Kelly Sue DeConnick, the third by Kieron Gillen). Other than that, I’m a Marvel Zombie, and I imagine I always will be. I criticize some of their policies. I don’t buy the big event titles. But I love a lot of the writers, I love a lot of the characters, so I love a lot of the books.

  7. Xmenxpert, I disagree with your statement “I was just saying that conservatives are more willing to support militias, while liberals are more likely to be sceptical of them. ”
    I think liberals are supportive of having militias as long as they side with their cause. The hypocrisy has been astounding. When you make a statement against a conservative you are a hero but when you make a statement against a liberal you are a terrorist? The left wing does not want you to have a gun why? Think about this, it is easier to control when your opposition has no way to defend themselves. Dependency breeds slavery. This is a scary slope we have many depended on food and now healthcare. If you depend on a person to live do you oppose them? It is very clear that that the left is finding ways to vilify the ones that disagree with them yet they preach tolerance? How tolerant are they whey you disagree with their views? Dan Slott follows the same school of thought and proves it with his actions. He avoids the facts using misdirection, lies and character assassination. Dan Slott can judge you yet you are a bad person for being critical of his actions? I also ask you this, why will Dan Slott not show up for discussion in any place that he cannot have special treatment? It is very telling. Dan Slott also feels that he is above anyone if you do not agree look at his posts over the last few years. Anyone that disagrees with him is an idiot, misinformed….. or whatever he decided for that day. We need to be able to have genuine discussion of topics in order to find equal ground but it is clear that some people do not feel that they are equal. I know for a fact that Dan Slott does not feel that others opinions should mean as much as his and he will let you know it. Now let me ask you again, is that tolerance?

  8. I find it amusing to see anyone believe that harrassment of women has boundaries. It’s prevalent in all areas of my life, and always has been. Behavioral adjustments are so ingrained now I don’t even think about it, unless I physically put myself in a position where it can become a threat, and then it whooshes to the forefront and alters my behavior slightly, or significantly. I won’t even begin to comment on that woman getting death threats because she negatively commented on the breasts on a woman.

    1. Yeah, I would absolutely hate to be a woman. The shit women have to go through – it’s terrible. But given we’re talking about comics, I wanted to comment specifically on just how awful women in the comic community are treated.

      And yeah, there’s something almost special about a woman talking about sexual harassment, and then being sexually harassed because of it.

  9. The latest Dan Slott spin:

    “Well, partially true to his word, Ernst’s piece went up. Full of lies, spin, misinterpretations, misleading conclusions and– despite his promises to do so– Ernst did NOT include the photo WITH its original text underneath.

    Probably because that text drives home the point of how wrong he is.
    To remind you, THIS is the text that originally went under that photo Ernst used of Jewish corpses from a concentration camp oven in his blog entry complaining about Spider-Man comic books:

    “Got that? Doc Ock had a “Final Solution,” but it involved being a “superior” version of Hitler; he would implement a plan that would in effect kill all of the Jews instead of just those residing in Europe. And now he’s Spider-Man. In Peter Parker’s body. In fact, he’s Dan Slott’s Spider-Übermensch.
    Kind of sick, isn’t it?”

    Does anyone with common sense honestly believe that Ernst wasn’t implying that I was pushing an anti-Semitic character as the new Spider-Man?
    After seeing that used in CONJUCTION with the photo of Jewish remains being shoveled out of ovens, does anyone honestly believe that he wasn’t smearing me, a Jewish author, in the worst possible way?

    This is not a nice person.

    But it’s nice to see his regular cronies accept his spin and leap to his defense for such deplorable behavior.

    The most tell tale part was his picture of an Easter bunny defecating Easter eggs (because THAT was on topic). And linking it to me… because it was posted by someone I’ve had all of 3 conversations with over the past 10 years? What?

    Typical Ernst. Intellectually dishonest through and through.”

  10. The latest Dan Slott spin:

    “Well, partially true to his word, Ernst’s piece went up. Full of lies, spin, misinterpretations, misleading conclusions and– despite his promises to do so– Ernst did NOT include the photo WITH its original text underneath.

    Probably because that text drives home the point of how wrong he is.
    To remind you, THIS is the text that originally went under that photo Ernst used of Jewish corpses from a concentration camp oven in his blog entry complaining about Spider-Man comic books:

    “Got that? Doc Ock had a “Final Solution,” but it involved being a “superior” version of Hitler; he would implement a plan that would in effect kill all of the Jews instead of just those residing in Europe. And now he’s Spider-Man. In Peter Parker’s body. In fact, he’s Dan Slott’s Spider-Übermensch.
    Kind of sick, isn’t it?”

    Does anyone with common sense honestly believe that Ernst wasn’t implying that I was pushing an anti-Semitic character as the new Spider-Man?
    After seeing that used in CONJUCTION with the photo of Jewish remains being shoveled out of ovens, does anyone honestly believe that he wasn’t smearing me, a Jewish author, in the worst possible way?

    This is not a nice person.

    But it’s nice to see his regular cronies accept his spin and leap to his defense for such deplorable behavior.

    The most tell tale part was his picture of an Easter bunny defecating Easter eggs (because THAT was on topic). And linking it to me… because it was posted by someone I’ve had all of 3 conversations with over the past 10 years? What?

    Typical Ernst. Intellectually dishonest through and through.”

    1. The guy with his “fanboys” is complaining about Doug’s cronies?!??

      Even if Doug was not a nice person (which I 100% disagree with) how about Slott answer why he, the suddenly offended Jewish author, had his flagship character emulate the greatest dictators in history, including Hitler? Why did he wreck an iconic character? That was Doug’s point as I took it, calling Doug names avoids the issue.

    2. Patrick, your check for the for having a Gold Membership in the Douglas Ernst Crony Club (DECC) is on its way. I shouldn’t be advertising that I have a Crony Club, but every time Dan Slott goes on one of his rants it brings more people to the post he hates. I might as well let people know that it exists. Sometimes I come out of my underground bunker to hold elaborate galas with members. They’re always memorable occasions.

    3. Thanks for the reminder, Hube. I’m still working out bonuses. Just so you know, your electronic key FOB might not work for the bunker next Monday. We’re upgrading security. Since I’m pretty confident most people don’t know where it is, feel free to use the password: ‘Doctor Slottopus.’ I will also accept ‘New England Clam Chowder.’

    4. Slott, as usual, has nothing to offer but personal attacks and name-calling. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with his fanboys singing his praises and defending him no matter what (calling Doug “an asshole” and “douche”), but we’re just “regular cronies” who “accept Doug’s spin.” Again, Doug and the rest of us “regular cronies” didn’t know- nor did we care- about Slott being Jewish. He was the one who kept throwing his religion in people’s faces, not Doug.

      I just it fascinating that Slott has whined about deadlines and the such before, and seems to spend most of his time on the internet harassing people who disagree with him. As I’ve said before, maybe the stories would actually be good if Slott and other writers spent more time doing that and less time acting like preschoolers on the internet.

    5. Right, he says he loves spiderman and treasures his grandfather’s legacy; yet he craps all over both with his writing an evil spiderman emulating a nazi monster. He trolls the Internet to argue with people…..sounds like he should go back to superhero school and get his priorities straight.

    6. As I said once before, for someone who claims to be a lifelong fan of the character, Slott writes Spidey as though he hates him.

      Given the way he acts, I’m just amazed this guy still has a job with Marvel, writing one of its flagship titles. I’ve skimmed through his Spider-Man/Doctor Octopus stories at Barnes & Noble and they’re like really bad fanfiction. Plus his Silver Surfer run is a ripoff of Doctor Who…. an alien traveling through space and time with a female companion.

    7. Carl: The first issue of Silver Surfer was fantastic. Just brilliant stuff. I’ve never been much of a fan of the Surfer, but I added this one to my pull list. Mike Allred has a lot to do with that, too – the guy’s a fantastic art, and always seems to bring out the best in the writers he works with. Any book Allred draws has a wonderful mix of humour and sweetness. Slott’s bringing that to Silver Surfer. So while I can understand criticisms of Superior Spider-Man – even if I feel that it was, for the most part, a well-written and enjoyable story – I really can’t agree with your comment on Silver Surfer. The first issue’s great, and I have absolutely no reason to doubt the series will remain great under Slott and Allred.

    8. Where did you get that? I’ll link to it.

      Umm, I hate to inform Dan Slott, but the line about “Dan Slott’s Spider-Übermensch” is still there! Even when he accuses me of lying, he’s wrong. Should I have copied and pasted the whole piece, with the original picture, into this post? Yeesh. The guy has serious problems.

      Glad to see that he still takes to other forums to complain about me. Classic! I love it.

  11. Sadly I feel that Dan Slott is blinded by his hatred for anyone that does not agree with him. Until he can see past it he will never be able to move beyond his hypocrisy and have a rational discussion.

    1. Sadly I feel that Dan Slott is blinded by his hatred for anyone that does not agree with him. Until he can see past it he will never be able to move beyond his hypocrisy and have a rational discussion.

      There’s a surprise. I swear, Slott and some of HIS cronies are indeed just like I posited — High Fidelity-style arrogant “know-it-alls” with absolutely zero life outside of comics and the social skills of a kid with a face like a pepperoni pizza.

  12. Once again Dan Slott proves he cannot have a discussion unless it is going in his favor. Please see the post a person made and the Dan Slott response.

    PsychokineticEX

    “+Dan Slott Look, I know you skim all of the comments of people who disagree with you, but please read carefully. And please, don’t the use take the All-Caps as me throwing a tantrum, they are for emphasis.

    I’m going to be honest Dan, reading your comments whenever you talk about Douglas Ernst is like hearing stereotypical teenage girl drama but WORSE. Where did that comparison come from? From every single time you ran to your Twitter whenever your feelings were hurt by Mr. Ernst or his “cronies”. Remember that one you did about me? You didn’t bother to give your followers any context about this “person who reads summaries and reviews and bases his criticism of SSM on that” you cast me as. That was an incorrect assumption that you made that I attempted to clear up (I read summaries and reviews in addition to reading it at bookstores, as I had not read some issues), but you ignored me and kept talking about my criticisms as if I had never laid eyes on your comic book. I can forgive an incorrect assumption without proper context, but I’m less forgiving about ignorance and lying.

    And if you want to back up what you claim to be a direct quote from Doug’s blog post, please show some visual proof of such, because you are hardly unbiased in this little conflict. As someone who didn’t see the original post, I have no reason to believe your claim. And as I mentioned before, you often stretch the truth in order to back up your own statements. I’ll say it now; I DON’T BELIEVE YOU, AND HAVE NO FAITH IN JUST YOUR WORD. I hope you see that when skimming though here.

    And back to the Dachau picture, I’m just going to give up on reasoning with you if you start to complain about that, because you specifically implored him to do so. Imma All-Caps this one so you get the message THAT PICTURE YOU SPENT A YEAR WHINING ABOUT IS BACK IN ANOTHER BLOG POST SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE YOU ASKED FOR IT. THE IRONY WAS NOT LOST ON ME.

    The only “spin” I found on his article was the Easter picture. That was silly and off-topic for the article and wasn’t good for the overall message of the article, especially since you had nothing to do with that guy. (See? I don’t worship Douglas Ernst! Didn’t you think I was his “crony” or something?)

    And calling anyone who agrees with his reasoning his crony? What the hell does that make your Twitter followers? That is boldfaced hypocrisy. Dan, I want you to explain to me how your Twitter followers and Doug’s blog commentators are completely different. Come on.

    That is all I have to say as a third party here. I owe no allegiances to either of you, I simply agree with Mr. Ernst. Mr. Slott I think your arguments are wrong and at times, distasteful and pompous.

    But then again, there is a likely chance you’ll just come back with the same arguments again and that I’m some drone of Douglas Ernst and -yadayadaya
    I’ll likely speak to you soon.”

    ·
    Dan Slott

    “+PsychokineticEX Sorry. Not reading this. You only seem to be interested in “taking me to task” and you go back & forth on “taking jabs” and being reasonable. I think we’ve each reached wherever we’re gonna reach in any convo.
    As far as Ernst goes: He said he’d use the picture AND text again. He did one but not the other. His adherence to “intellectual honesty” is just as dependable. That’s all you really need to know about him.”

    Notice the other persons post was not important enough in his eyes to read but we should trust Dan Slotts judgment because he knows “all you really need to know”.

    1. I’m going to be honest Dan, reading your comments whenever you talk about Douglas Ernst is like hearing stereotypical teenage girl drama but WORSE. Where did that comparison come from? From every single time you ran to your Twitter whenever your feelings were hurt by Mr. Ernst or his “cronies”. Remember that one you did about me? You didn’t bother to give your followers any context about this “person who reads summaries and reviews and bases his criticism of SSM on that” you cast me as. That was an incorrect assumption that you made that I attempted to clear up (I read summaries and reviews in addition to reading it at bookstores, as I had not read some issues), but you ignored me and kept talking about my criticisms as if I had never laid eyes on your comic book. I can forgive an incorrect assumption without proper context, but I’m less forgiving about ignorance and lying.

      Haha! This sums up Dan Slott perfectly. Every time Dan “set the record straight” Slott opens his mouth he just makes himself look worse. If that conversation was a wrestling match, Dan Slott just hit the mat hard.

      Keep talking about me from afar, Danny Boy. Keep calling me a “coward” from your safe little Twitter feed and a YouTube page managed by a friendly moderator.

  13. Just for the record: Here are some numbers Dan Slott, notice when we compare top characters Spider-Man clearly did not hold up.
    Superior Spider-Man Sales est
    1 188182
    2 112531 -0.4
    3 101811 -0.095
    4 95892 -0.058
    5 86614 -0.0967
    6 85807 -0.009
    7 87940 0.024
    8 85666 -0.025
    9 93656 0.09
    10 85346 -0.089
    11 84219 -0.013
    12 82338 -0.0223
    13 81678 -0.01
    14 80839 -0.01
    15 78636 -0.027
    16 78087 -0.0069
    17 89118 0.14
    18 80178 -0.1
    19 83671 0.04
    20 85309 0.019
    21 74940 -0.12
    22 81250 0.08
    23 77105 -0.05
    24 76131 -0.012
    25 77311 0.015
    26 72591 -0.06

    Total Sales first 10 1,023,445.00
    Ave -0.032
    Ave – issue 1 -0.016

    Average monthy sales – issue 1 84746

    Batman Sales est
    1 188420
    2 172428 -0.084
    3 150984 -0.124
    4 133781 -0.113
    5 130492 -0.0245
    6 128459 -0.015
    7 127402 -0.008
    8 130602 0.0245
    9 134605 0.03
    10 130265 -0.03
    11 127210 -0.023
    12 125249 -0.015
    13 148305 0.184
    14 159729 0.077
    15 151568 -0.05
    16 (SSM 1 out) 145923 -0.037
    17 150684 0.032
    18 137893 -0.084
    19 132147 -0.04
    20 129039 -0.023
    21 142088 0.101
    22 132047 -0.07
    23 128230 -0.028
    24 124652 -0.027
    25 125602 0.007
    26 119143 -0.05

    Average monthy sales – issue 1

    Total sales for first 10 1,427,438.00
    Ave -0.0156
    Ave – issue – 1 -0.012

    The numbers speak for themselves. I am sorry I have not updated the last few issues (which is why I temporarily took the site down).
    Sorry Dan but your excuse does not hold up.

  14. Hey guys, it’s the unofficial third wheel in Dan’s little war on Mr. Ernst. It was me that pissed him off in February, leading to this whole sordid affair. Hilariously enough Dan was provoked this time by a comment from a friend of mine…..left two weeks before Dan actually replied. Dan apologized for that slight about my ADHD and Aspergers, so at least I can call that a win. However, after Dan posted his “review” of this article, I posted a retort on Youtube. He didn’t bother reading it. So I posted an abridged version. He’s just refusing to talk to me now.

    Did I just win a flame war? No seriously, I’m not entirely sure.

    1. I enjoyed the part where you called him out on taking your arguments out of context and blasting them out to his Twitter groupies. How can he respond to that? It’s so obvious what he does, and when he’s called on it he changes the subject (e.g., talking about my opinions on Trayvon Martin or climate change).

      Basically, Dan Slott — the guy who has refused to ever comment on my blog while calling me a coward on basically every other social media platform under the sun — wishes I just posted the full article right below my new one. Ummm, okay. It doesn’t matter that I’ve linked to the original article multiple times and I’ve told everyone to read it.

      Here’s a question: After Dan Slott’s “Superior Spider-Man” blew of Massacre’s face off from point-blank range, what if I called the Superior Spider-Man “Dan Slott’s Dylan Klebold”? Would that mean that I think Dan Slott supports school shootings? No. Of course not. It would mean that Dan Slott — the guy who preaches about gun control in his Twitter feed — put a cold-blooded killer in Peter Parker’s body.

      Dan Slott’s upset I put this phrase into the piece: “Doc Ock had a “Final Solution,” but it involved being a “superior” version of Hitler; he would implement a plan that would in effect kill all of the Jews instead of just those residing in Europe. And now he’s Spider-Man. In Peter Parker’s body. In fact, he’s Dan Slott’s Spider-Übermensch.”

      My point was not that Dan Slott was anti-Semitic — but that he had put a monster worse than Hitler into Peter Parker’s body. And I did that because at the moment Doc Ock was about to incinerate 6 billion people he decided that of all the things he could have said — the infinite number of things he could have said — Hitler’s, Pol Pot’s, and Genghis Khan’s names were what he most wanted to utter.

      In that sense, the Superior Spider-Man was a Spider-Übermensch. If the Marvel Universe Hitler was looking up from hell at Doc Ock’s accomplishments, he would have smiled a great big smile. Can anyone argue otherwise? As uncomfortable as that is for Dan Slott to accept, that is the truth. And it’s a truth I would have never had to talk about had he not flippantly inserted a real-world genocidal maniac into the book.

      I did not know Dan Slott was Jewish. I didn’t hire a private investigator to look into his ancestry. I don’t spend my time wondering about the religious affiliation of comic book writers unless they make it an issue. If I knew Dan Slott was Jewish, I’m sure the finished product would have looked different. The fact is, I did not know that. I’m not going to “apologize” for acting upon intentions I never had.

      If he wants to continue to act like a baby, so be it. His finger wagging does nothing but make me laugh at this point.

    2. Well put, and I’ll tell you this, the most annoying this about SSM #31 was Peter mourning Doc Ock at the end. You kidding me? That maniac who tried to blow up the world, and cheated his painful and deserved death by stealing your life? Who fully intended to stay as Peter Parker and Spider-Man until his mistakes caught up with him and then bailed out and left you to clean up the mess? The same guy Dan Slott is obviously going to bring back eventually, rendering all the silly mourning moot? (Otto’s body disappeared in the comic)

      I really wish I could see face Dan makes when the irony hits him; “Oh Crap. I just convinced Douglas Ernst to repost that picture I spent 11 months complaining about. I just rendered all the offense I took and the accusations I flung pointless”

      And hey, I think I deserve Platinum membership in the “Douglas Ernst Crony Club” due to my contributions to all this, don’t you think so?

    3. I really wish I could see face Dan makes when the irony hits him; “Oh Crap. I just convinced Douglas Ernst to repost that picture I spent 11 months complaining about. I just rendered all the offense I took and the accusations I flung pointless”

      Ha! Yes, I couldn’t believe it when he told me to post the photo. I was like, “Thank you, God!” because, like you said, the guy went ballistic over the picture for roughly a year now. It seems to give him the nervous shakes just thinking about it, and yet there he was telling me to put it up. If he would have just shut up a year ago (or acted like an adult) he could have saved himself a lot of frustration.

      And hey, I think I deserve Platinum membership in the “Douglas Ernst Crony Club” due to my contributions to all this, don’t you think so?

      Well, Dan Slott says my “cronies” blindly follow my every word, and you’ve shown to have more of an independent mind on YouTube. However, since Dan Slott doesn’t know what he’s talking about (e.g., Patrick and I disagree on Wal-Mart; I believe Hube and I probably have some disagreements over the Iraq War) you may be eligible for the Douglas Ernst Re-Education Camp. If you pass “the test,” then you will be admitted into the club.

      Your test begins now:

    4. Update: Dan Slott has provided a rather telling quote:

      “No. He went out of the gate– before I said one word– doing something despicable and horrible to me as a human being. I am justified in HOWEVER I approached this. What should be coming from his side of this is 5 simple words, “I’m sorry I did that,” — Dan Crybaby Slott.

      All caps Dan went out of his way to say “HOWEVER” he decided to handle the situation was correct. Got that? Dan Slott is justified in reacting in any way he sees fit when he’s upset.

      Do you know who else acts that way? Babies. Little babies do whatever the heck comes to their mind when they’re upset or angry or sad or confused. Dan Slott is, for all intents and purposes, an infant.

      Update II: Great response by PsychoKineticEx over at YouTube:

      All that matters to him is that you offended him by talking bad about his comic book, so he’s going to use the picture as ammunition against you like the coward he is. Doesn’t matter if you removed it, he’s going to stay salty about it, not because you’re an evil person, but because you make him mad by writing negative articles about his comics.

      And a final bit from me:

      Well, that’s the thing: he can now either accept my apology — “I am sorry that I used that picture now that I know that he is a Jew” — or not. If he wants me to say I’m sorry for writing the piece as a whole, or for intentions that I never had, I won’t do that.

      Like I said, the fact that he can not see how — when he was on the cusp of an apology — that his own behavior sank it, is just sad. That he says “however” he wanted to respond to someone who “wronged” him is also telling. Actually, it’s rather scary…

      But yes, I think you articulated quite nicely that what is driving his behavior is more my consistent criticisms of SSM and editorial moves that are detrimental to Peter Parker, than anything else.

      I hope you guys have a good conversation if you meet in person.

    5. Slott: Based on what I’ve read, I am a year older than you. But I act forty years older than you.

      Grow. The. F***. Up.

  15. Looks like I’m a little late to the party.

    Not sure if it’s mentioned in the comments but Slott’s previous career was in advertising. Hardly surprising that to him sales = quality.

    The fact his previous career was in advertising explains a lot about his writing. Half thought ideas that generate “buzz” for the “product”

    I also find it hilarious that blogs I have read defending SSM hate the last issue. Mainly complaining about the unconcerned reactions of people when told it was ock in his body.

    Until Slott is removed I will stick to collecting back issues.

    1. Worth noting that the final issue, while plotted by Slott, was scripted by Christos Gage (a writer I actually really enjoy; he’s higher on my list of favourites than Slott is). And for my part, I found the cavalier attitudes people had towards Peter being possessed to be hilarious. My favourite line in the whole issue was Spider-Man 2099 saying it was just about stupid enough to be right – not only was it a nice little bit of poking fun at the whole story (Gage has a habit for doing that – his Avengers Academy run included an early reference to One More Day, and near the end, a character commented about Avengers vs. X-Men dragging on too long), but it’s also pointing out how insane comic books are in general. “I literally wasn’t myself.” “Oh, yeah, one of those deals. Happens all the time. OK, it’s cool.”

      While the final issue wasn’t great, I thought it was pretty good. And like I said, any complaints about dialogue should be directed at Gage; complaints about the plot would be directed at Slott.

      And if you are going to make complaints about Gage, be nice. He’s a great guy. When one of the characters in Academy came out as gay, someone sent in a (politely-worded) letter complaining about it. Gage printed the letter in the letters page, responded politely, and encouraged the audience to be equally polite in any responses. So, yeah, Gage is cool.

    2. I haven’t read it but thought Slott wrote the first half and Gage the second…. I am more than happy to be corrected.

      I strangely was just reading an issue of avengers academy.

    3. No, Slott plotted the first half, Gage scripted. Gage is listed as the sole writer for the second half.

      I loved Academy. It was one of my favourite comics. I liked that there was a greater willingness to settle problems through talking rather than fighting. The Academy had a quick scuffle with the Runaways, for example, but it was over almost as soon as it started, and they decided on another approach.

      I’d love for Gage to be put on a New X-Men book. But I also just really, really want a new volume of New X-Men. As a big fan of diversity, the junior teams often appeal to me more than the main teams.

  16. Yeah, Slott getting even more annoying on the YT video. He’s claiming that Mr. Ernst has never extended or attempted an apology towards him over the picture. Despite Mr. Ernst doing EXACTLY THAT five comments before Slott’s.

    I’ve given up reason. NOW I TROLL.

    1. Dude, I apologized for something very specific, and now he says it doesn’t count.

      To quote Dan Slott:

      “To act like that was an apology is disingenuous. It’s wordplay and trickery,” — Dan Slott.

      Here’s the apology:

      “Well, that’s the thing: he can now either accept my apology — “I am sorry that I used that picture now that I know that he is a Jew” — or not. If he wants me to say I’m sorry for writing the piece as a whole, or for intentions that I never had, I won’t do that,” Douglas Ernst

    2. To think that yesterday I was almost placated and satisfied with his apology to me, only to be reminded what a jack-off he is. All I can do at this point is engage troll mode and make him wish I’d go back to being an intelligent and focused critic.

    3. I love how he accused me of “LYING” (all caps, of course) when the apology is right there. Haha!

      But I guess that’s not good enough because I have to say ‘I am sorry for that’ (i.e, everything Dan Slott has accused me of that isn’t true, which includes all sorts of weird thoughts and motivations I never had).

      Quick recap:

      1. I took the picture down at the behest of Rogue to prove that adults can work through their issues when they’re civil towards one another.
      2. I changed the headline after discussing it with Xmenexpert — again, in an intelligent and civil manner.
      3. I apologized to Dan Slott for using the original picture, since I would not have done that if I knew he was a Jew prior to writing the piece.

      Dan Slott’s conclusion: “Douglasisaterriblehorriblehumanbeing Rarrrrg! Never Forget! Never Forget! Never Forget!”

      Gotcha, Dan Slott. Seek help. There’s a big difference between remembering history and learning from it, and being so attached to the past that one turns into a raving lunatic.

    4. I think Slott turned into a raving lunatic a long time ago, especially considering him still focusing on this a year later and calling you names and refusing to accept your apologies. He’s just too in love with himself to realize that.

    5. Slott’s been shown the crystal clear apology four times now (including my double-post) and he is still asking for it. When Rogue said she thought he might be insane… Well, I’ll just leave it at that.

  17. Haha, loved comics as a kid, follow passively now; this isn’t really my fight….I just find Slott’s actions and statements bizarre; but I’ll be like the Irish guy who helped the Scots in Braveheart; and join the Doug Cronies! Especially if Doug is cutting checks to us, usually it’s the other way around! Walmart is still an evil company; I won’t bend on that.

    Back to the issue at hand, I thought it was big of you (Doug) to apologize. As has been the pattern, no matter what you do, he acts like a child who needs drama in his life. Doug and I disagree on some businesses, Hube and Doug over some policies, Doug and Rogue over a Slott post, Doug and some regular readers over political/theological/social posts; yet we all get along civilly; Slott can’t. If I recall, all this began on a critique of the comic, and Doug voiced a disappointment in the treatment of Peter Parker that resonated with a portion of the fans. A shame Slott couldn’t either respond to the critique or at least let it go, but he couldn’t in this instance or seemingly any other the last few years. Alienating the fan base probably not good for long term sales.

    1. I debated it. If you string many of Dan Slott’s longest screeds together he sounds like a crazy homeless man — not because he’s offended — but because he literally says the exact same thing over and over and over again, he abuses the all caps button, and then faced with evidence of an apology, he denies that it exists. When people make rational points, he also completely ignores those. It’s strange.

      Dan Slott seems to think he’s the only person on earth who had a grandpa impart wisdom upon him. He never really talks about WWII or Hitler in any sort of details other than (“Never forget!”) because he knows that when it comes to a real historical discussion I will wipe the floor with him. He downplayed my military service (i.e., it’s a “shield” to hide the fact I’m really a “horrible” person) and he downplayed the fact that during the time I lived in Germany (for years) I traveled to many of the historical sites to learn as much as possible. On my free time — when I could have done anything, including reading stupid Dan Slott comic books — I went to historical sites throughout Germany to learn from history.

      Has Dan Slott ever left the safety and security of the little comic book world he created? Doubtful. He lives in a bubble, and he hates it that I’ve popped it.

      That might also be why he must resort to Orwellian attacks on Israeli blogger Avi Green*.

      Dan Slott: Avi, THIS is me. I really hope you can see the different IP#s to know that this, like a lot of your other “proof” is very off the mark. I like that your blog here has this phrase at the top: “All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
      Guess that doesn’t apply to all people in your mind. Good night. God bless.

      Avi Green: Ladies and gentlemen, look at the superficial defense written by a left-winger who’s never said Arabs of non-Muslim backgrounds deserve representation in comics either. Once again, he goes an Orwellian route and can’t tell us a single Sura from within the Koran. If you tried to suggest creating a heroine inspired by Brigitte Gabriel, he probably wouldn’t be interested; he sure hasn’t done much to prove he cares about Armenians. And for somebody of allegedly Jewish background, why hasn’t he ever argued that Sephardic Jews with ancestry from North Africa and Yemen serve as inspirations for comic book stories either? Hey, give him a chance and he’ll say Haredi Judaism of the kind practiced by Satmar is the only legitimate form of Orthodox Judaism around. No kidding. Sometimes I feel sorry for him and his inability to just admit he’s a human being and makes mistakes.

      *Dan Slott’s head to explode in 5…4…3…2…1. Question: What would happen if Israeli blogger Avi Green was as sensitive an immature as Dan Slott? We’ll never know because Avi is a professional.

    2. I saw that he’d attacked Avi a few nights ago and that he linked to the post in question on his Twitter page, where his fanboys called Avi “racist” and “bigoted.” It’s rather predictable. Avi has good points. For example, where are Armenian superheroes? There is a large Armenian community in southern California, after all and I think they could use better representatives (real or fictional) than the Kardashians.

  18. Avi, I am sorry but if Dan Slott could not even understand an apology or that 72591 units sold is less than 85346 units sold is a decrease then I am almost certain that he would not understand any of your response.

    1. In the mind of Dan Slott, I’m playing “semantics” with this: “[Dan Slott] can now either accept my apology — I am sorry that I used that picture now that I know that he is a Jew — or not.”

      “Semantics” to Dan Slott means: “Douglas Ernst is too smart to outright say what I think he means — be he means it — and it’s bad. Very baaaaaaaaaad! Rage!”

      Dear Dan Slott,

      While you were writing Scooby Doo comic books in your underwear, I was marching through mountainous regions of a developing country with a 50-pound ruck on my back, learning from guys who believed so much in selfless sacrifice that they would gladly die for the man next to him. Take my advice: Travel the world. Learn something new. Grow up. You’ll thank me later.

    2. Ouch!!

      Slott’s gnomish self wouldn’t be able to march ten feet with such a ruck. And travel the world? Hell, why? He inhabits the most comfortable insulated bubble there is, now. Face the real world? Heaven forbid!

    1. LOL, Truth. He must have worked out quite hard, based on the evidence. His index fingers are surely the size of IHOP link sausages.

    2. I just replied to Dan’s latest lie about my “out of the blue” post on YouTube. I mentioned his attacks on Avi Green. Prepare for another meltdown in 5…4…3…2…1.

      “For those who are interested, I suggest reading ‘Dan Slott goes nuts over sales because he knows Spider-Man fans don’t respect him,’ which is dated April 3. I highlight all of Dan Slott’s personal attacks on me, tweeted to thousands of people (e.g., ‘idiot,’ ‘utterly stupid,’ ‘brain dead,’ ‘brain removed’ … you get the point). Dan Slott loves ad hominem attacks, in case you didn’t notice. That post was made over one month before my “out of the blue” post.

      I also suggest reading Israeli blogger Avi Green’s response to Dan Slott’s attacks, titled: “Dan Slott wants to lecture me.” Can you imagine if Avi Green was as sensitive as Dan Slott? (How dare Dan Slott lecture a Jew who probably has to deal with Hezbollah rockets whizzing over his head on a regular basis.) You might have another 150 incoherent replies on a YouTube channel just like this.

      Seek help, Dan Slott.” (Douglas Ernst, YouTube Channel: Superior Spider-Man Panel at SDCC 2013 7/18/13)

    3. I find it hilarious that the guy who called me “cowardly” never showed his face here. Dan Slott, since you’re reading this…that’s pretty pathetic to litter up a YouTube page with glittering jewels of colossal ignorance, but you won’t come directly to the source.

    1. Heh. I just like that the longer it went on, the more unhinged he became. I mean…I don’t like it because I feel sorry for him, but I do in that there is not clear evidence that he’s about as mature as a teenage boy.

      Side note: Just found this image of a Dan Slott tweet from one of my other posts: “People will do wrong by you, realize it, never apologize and move on without a second thought. Don’t worry about it. That’s on them,” (Dan Slott, 3.7.13).

      It appears as though Dan Slott continues to worry about me a lot. Heh. 🙂 Even after I apologize, he still worries about me. Classic.

  19. Wow I just checked and Slott is still going at it. I think he is hoping people will come in and feel sorry for him since he once again was caught in a lie that he cannot make disappear.

    1. Haha! He responded to a comment from the moderator from four days ago. I guess when all else fails, turn to the moderator to lick your wounds.

      Seek help, Dan Slott.

    1. I saw that Dan Slott was so desperate to have someone soothe is sensitive mind that he found a four-day old comment by the moderator and took an additional shot at me. I can’t believe he can’t see how pathetic and sad he looks. I’m not seeing it on the YouTube page. Feel free to post it here and I’ll add it into your last message.

    2. Not seeing it, man. The newest comment is Dan Slott’s weird decision to circle back with the moderator on a four-day old comment so he could take another jab at me.

    1. Try going to the video when you’re not logged in and see if it appears. It could be that the moderator blocked it in some way. I wrote a few comments early on that never showed up when I wasn’t logged in.

      Nice song my friend, but I don’t think Dan Slott will put this to rest. I’m sure he’ll have more tweets, TwitLonger rants, etc. in the future. Or if I dared to show up on any comic website and talk about the ASM re-launch you know the first thing he would do is say, “Don’t listen to him! He implied or said or IMPLIED-SAID or semantic-weaseled that I was an anti-Semite! Rarrrrgh!”

    2. I know he’s probably not going to let this go.

      It’s silly because he didn’t bother apologizing when he offended me in regards to my mental disorders, but when I had to prompt him to do so two months later. Did I throw a hissy fit and deny his apology? No, I accepted it and let that whole issue go.

      I was actually listening to both of those songs, and realized that the first one would be hilarious to post in the aftermath,and that the second one semi-accurately describes this whole conflict. Especially the line “Under the circumstances, I’ve been shockingly nice–“, that one goes double for me.

      And if the moderator blocked my comment, it feels kinda silly that he’d block the one comment that was actually intended to be funny.

    3. I had two comments blocked (i.e., I can only see them when I’m logged in) that were incredibly tactful considering the endless stream of personal attacks hurled at me. I get the feeling that he generally agrees with Dan Slott, but for whatever reason let the vast majority of the comments go. In that whole long diatribe, the only time he jumped in was to essentially say he was a legal expert on fair use regulations (i.e., he Googled ‘fair use’ and read a few paragraphs on wiki), and that in his expert opinion I violated them multiple times over the course of four years. That’s funny, because I’m thinking that WordPress would definitely be in contact with me if I was giving their legal guys headaches…

      If only I had known this YouTube moderator earlier — I had a legal scholar available to me and I didn’t even know it!

    1. Hmmm. You know, I think I might actually see if I can put something together. This month is kind of nuts with my move out of D.C., but … let me see what I can do. I’m going to make this a little side project. I’ll circle back when I get something I like, and if you want a free t-shirt for being one of the “Douglas Ernst C.R.O.N.I.E.S.” (Comics Reconnaissance Operative, Negotiator, Intelligence Expert and Soldier) then I’ll send it your way.

  20. An update, several of Dan Slott’s comments were deleted from the Youtube video. Including the one where he insulted my mental disorders. I’ll admit that he apologized for it, but if he is trying to cover his tracks, that’s a seriously cowardly move. But still, I’m not entirely sure if it’s him or the video uploader doing it. I’ll see what I can find out.

    1. Speaking of the comments Doug, how much of that flame war did you screen cap? I’d like to have that around just in case Dan Slott erased his comments or convinced the uploader to do it.

    2. Unfortunately, I’m not sure how much I have, and I don’t believe I have the interaction with you were he made light of your mental health. However, now you know that much of Dan Slott’s ranting and raving has to do with some projection issues he can’t control. He’s done the Dan-Slott-disappearing-comments trick before, on Twitter, the Marvel boards, YouTube, etc.

      As soon as I saw your comments on Slott deleting things I just smiled. It’s so predictable.

    3. Haha! Now I hope everyone sees why he does not post here. He can’t pull that stuff on my blog. He needs to be on a forum where he can delete his comments, or have the moderators assist him. Classic.

    4. By having the moderator delete his comments he’s trying to make it so that if he’s confronted about it later, he can pretend it never happened and accuse people who bring it up as a liar. It seems like Slott has a lot of friendly moderators who come to his aid every time he wants to bail out of a conversation and delete his comments or shut down the threads or ban those who disagree with him. It’s everyone from the Crawlspace moderator to Dragynwulf to that Newsarama guy…

    5. My favorite was the post from CBR titled: “The Inferior Online Debate” that suddenly disappeared — wiped from Al Gore’s amazing internet as if it never existed. Well, almost… The mod banned me when I started winning over other individuals, then closed it all down when they defended me — and then then topped it all by deleting the entire thing. Telling.

    6. Funny how defending yourself is a tactful matter is considered trolling but Slott’s repetitive ranting and raving isn’t. Talk about a double standard. I still think it’s a little too convenient that the URL to “The Inferior Online Debate” is dead now… almost as though they wanted to pretend the post never existed in the first place.

  21. Wow so once again Dan Slott is trying to edit history (since he is on the wrong side as usual). Also as a side note, I should have my post with updated sales information up sometime next month. Sorry Slott but you were wrong about why the page was removed temporarily. I could also share video of when he went crazy when he could not prove me wrong if I wanted to be mean.

  22. Is it just me or did the youtube comments go from 296 comments to 50+ to cover a Dan Slott meltdown. Using Dan’s twisted logic alone would indicate that it had to be removed because he was on the wrong side of history.

    1. I thought only the Marvel Universe had “Damage Control.” It looks like the “Dan Slott Damage Control” (D.S.D.C.) cleanup squad has scrubbed that YouTube post squeaky clean for him! Haha. 🙂

      Dan Slott won’t go toe-to-toe with me on these boards because he knows the D.S.D.C. is powerless around here.

      This is hilarious.

    2. This is common for Slott, someone makes a comment that he does not like and he goes nuts on them and makes a fool of himself. He will attack for days they he realizes how bad he looked and that the caps lock button did not help him. He is then caught twisting the facts and has to have it removed or edited to make himself look good.
      Note to Dan Slott (I know you read this and in one of your yourtube responses you stated that you follow my blog): I should be posting the updated article on sales that you despise sometime before the end of next month. With that said I am sure that you will not comment on it in a place that cannot be edited to cover your tracks.

    3. I’ve been dealing with the Dan Slott Damage Control long enough to know to take screen shots. I might cobble something together in the near future for this occasion. The move this week has thrown a wrench into my blogging plans…but I anticipate something coming down the pike in the near future. It’s too good to pass up.

      Make sure to link to your new post when it’s ready, Truthwillwin1.

    4. Psychokineticex, I hope this whole experience has been rather illuminating in regards to the tactics of Dan “intellectual honesty” Slott. 😉

      I also like how the moderator scrubbed all my comments, but left the one where he questions my motives pertaining to fair use laws. His question still remains, but my replies “poof!” have disappeared, so it looks like I never answered him. That’s some next-level Dan Slott Damage Control on display.

    1. Dan Slott would argue that you’re a mindless drone who can’t think for yourself. Once there is evidence that you’ve been on this site and agree with anything — anything — I say, you are officially a “cronie” in the mind of Dan Slott.

      This of course is rather hilarious, considering that it appears to be Dan Slott who demands 100% agreement with whatever the heck it is the mind of Dan Slott comes up with at any given moment. Heck, even a direct apology (i.e., “I’m sorry for using that picture now that I know you’re a Jew”) on my part is not an apology because I refuse to say I’m sorry for motives I never had.

  23. My buddy said that he’d do some art inspired by this whole thing. I just had an idea for exactly what it should be; an Ace Attorney-esque Breakdown, which is occurs whenever the main character outsmarts a someone by smashing through their BS using hardcore logic. The ensuing freak out is hilarious and exaggerated, to put it lightly. It’s so appropriate.

    For a reference, it looks something like this (it’s in Spanish);

    Got a few ideas for what it will look like, I might leave a link later.

    1. Maybe not a video, but we will see if we can do a short comic. If he agrees to do it, I’ll be posting it on Tumblr and I’ll link it here. Not sure when it would be complete though. I’ll be using yours and my other friend’s screen caps as references.

    2. Another side note: I’m considering making this our first official comic project, I’m considering either doing a short comic with Slott as the villain (taking place in the pseudo-real world), or doing long one with Doc Ock in Spidey’s body as the villain (taking place in the context of the Marvel Universe). I’ll pitch it to my buddy on Sunday, and with any luck, we might have something awesome on our hands!

      Dear Lord, vengeance and retribution truly is the best motivator for a maniac-in-training like me.

  24. I recently posted some critiques on Slott’s facebook and he personally messaged me telling me to leave my “constant pessimism” (in reality light comments) and bile at the door on a site reserved for “rallying the troops”

    The man also wrote a pretty disgusting first issue of ASM where someone deduces Peter’s identity based on the size of his tallywacker. Yeah. I am done with this guy’s vision of the character. He’s a mediocre hack who had success years ago but is now devoid of strong ideas and he has little confidence in himself as either a mature writer or as a mature person.

    It’s funny, I’ve read the Spidey newsspaper strip consistently since 2008, and despite their cornyness, they have been far more consistently entertaining and closer to the themes and spirit of the character than anything Marvel have prioduced in the wretched post-OMD era. The fact Peter and Mary Jane are also still married in the strips, and have been for an inspirational twenty-seven+ years, continues to fill me with the hope Marvel havent forgotten the marraige and will eventually restore it in time.

    1. I recently posted some critiques on Slott’s facebook and he personally messaged me telling me to leave my “constant pessimism” (in reality light comments) and bile at the door on a site reserved for “rallying the troops”

      ‘Pessimism’ defined: “Anyone who doesn’t agree with Dan Slott.” Don’t you know, David: The beatings will continue until morale improves!

      The man also wrote a pretty disgusting first issue of ASM where someone deduces Peter’s identity based on the size of his tallywacker. Yeah. I am done with this guy’s vision of the character.

      What?! I haven’t had a chance to give it a read due to work (and I’m in the process of moving to a new state this week). If this is the case — and I have no reason to doubt that it is — I’ll definitely be reviewing the issue as soon as I get a breather.

      Thanks for taking the time to read and comment, David. I really appreciate it.

      Since Dan Slott reads through my posts and the comments sections, there’s a very good chance you will now be labeled a “cronie” of mine. If you stick around, I’ll make sure to get you a “Doug C.R.O.N.I.E.” (Comics Reconnaissance Operative, Negotiator and Intelligence Expert) shirt as soon as they’re ready.

    2. The reviews of the comic are up on Crawlspace and there’s some good analysis on there already. Apparently the best parts in the issue are apparently the backup stories written by other authors (which are actually adverts for other comics).

      In the main Dan Slott storyline, Peter encounters a villain that can control fabric and basically destroys Peter’s clothes. He ends up spinning web-underwear which in turn gets caught in TV. The scene that David Blyth pointed out basically confirms that SpOck sexually assaulted Peter and Anna.

      When I first read this, I was a little disturbed and I personally don’t want to see these types of storylines in a Spiderman comic. Whatever happened to Spiderman being a likeable everyman that chases street level scum (versus the new storylines where Peter as a rodeo clown that gets sexually assaulted by a body snatcher)?

    3. That sounds like a disgusting story. Slott’s set a new low. It reminds me of that horrific sex scene from Tom Clancy’s “The Bear and the Dragon….” ugh. Clancy was a good writer, but that was cringe-inducing.

    4. This is somewhat off topic, but I just tried to buy a digital version of ASM #1 from Marvel. I couldn’t view it in Chrome or Mozilla, and in Safari I was able to get ** drum roll ** two images! Woohoo! I just wasted 2.5 hours trying to view that stupid comic. Why is Marvel encouraging people to download a product illegally? I’m trying to do the right thing, but when a company gives me a crappy product…

  25. David, as you clearly see Dan Slott will always hide the truth. His Facebook looks like everyone loves him because he only keeps people on that constantly tell him how much they love and adore him. I guess if you keep yourself from reality long enough you will eventually believe it is true.

    1. Yeah, dude’s got a few screws loose, though I am considering buying the SSM issues now.

      Why?

      Gonna scrutinize every single detail of it and possibly write a Phoenix Wright style courtroom fanfic/comic with Otto as the final bad guy as well as “Mason Banks”. Why Phoenix Wright style? Because if I’m going to do a FixFanfic, I might as well have the investigation and eventual reveal of the hidden identities be a gradual process, rather than “AN ORIGINAL CHARACTER SWOOPED IN AND SAVED THE DAY WOO” or “DEUS EX MACHINA TEIM”. It would be a semi-serious comic.

      The idea above would probably be much longer and not entirely in comic form. My other idea would be to do a short comic based on Doug and I’s previous “conversation” with Dan Slott once again in Phoenix Wright style. Myself as the Defense, Slott’s Twitter fans as the prosecutor/maybe, Doug as the Defendant and Slott as a witness/antagonist. This version would just purely be played for comedy.

      Let me know which one you guys prefer, I’m hoping to start one these with my buddy during the summer.

    1. Are you talking about me, or the guy who has stalked me around the internet for over a year? Are you talking about me, or the guy who goes on insane meltdowns on YouTube and then deletes as much evidence as possible as soon as he realizes what he’s done? Are you talking about me, or the guy who demands an apology and then when he gets one — in writing — he denies it happened like a crazy person?

      Just checking.

    2. I’d say Dan Slott is the one who needs medication, not Doug. Go away, troll. Back to whatever dark corner of the internet you came from.

    3. A guy named “Robbzilla” who takes a selfie of himself in a goofy blue hat tells me I need medication. That’s funny enough, but then when you click his profile it leads to a Facebook page where he can be found wearing a bra. Need I say more? He might want to change those Facebook privacy settings…

    4. Thank God I didn’t click on “Robzilla’s” name. I’ll take your word for it. That sounds gross and disturbing.

  26. X-menxpert’s stance that harassment is okay if women are doing it to men is very similar to those who are defending Hope Solo, who is being allowed to play for U.S. Soccer even though she assaulted her sister and nephew. Harassment, like domestic assault, is wrong regardless of who is doing it. It doesn’t matter whether or not it’s a woman or a man doing. It’s not a false equivalence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s