Demibotchery

Attempting to develop a Sons of Anarchy kind of comic, steeped in Celtic lore, and with steampunk aesthetics. Pretty much is pure symbolic angst for things that are going on in my life as much as things that are currently happening in the States.
Tentatively named Wheels of Taranis.

DD literally plays the devils advocate, saying that they need a heavyweight to match another.

Punisher actually plays the "angel" thinking that it might cause the kid to go down a road he might regret, a life that Frank currently lives in.

Okay, fanfic novel prompt done lol

Daredevil remarks about how he should have called Luke in to help, Punisher adds that he does have the good lawyer money coming in to help pay for it, hinting at the Heroes for Hire runs.

Spider-man reservedly says that hes' never actually gone full tilt.

and he slowly goes into the gray form and grabs a fedora that the audience realizes why Bruce was insanely fixated on the fedora.

This would be a good way to showcase Spidermans actual true strength as he wouldn't have to hold back.

We get the initial three way, heroes kind of fight then realize that's kind of pointless trope, then they go after the crew only to find a captured Bruce banner.

Kind of like how Bucky got brainwashed, the crew merely only has to say "Hey Joe, can you fix this?" and banner goes catatonic

With Hulk potentially showing up in Spider-Man, I have to wonder if they are going to introduce or hint at the Joe Fixit personality.

Imagine that Punisher and Daredevil try to track down a mob boss that seems to have a "enhanced" strong person as part of their crew.

And, you're right that these people rang a very pavlovian bell for both sides.
The thing is to me it means intent on bad version otherwise they wouldn't get all the ratios.

That's why I'm frustrated. They get away with both meanings no matter what.

same page on the epstein files.

I mean we're still talking epstein as well (still want those files released) here ironically but yeah.
Male gaze ads not new, yes, can agree.

And that's what also that company was relying on as well. People who would focus on specifying their experience with the word having that abstract would see it as just as harmless. However, when one adds the context of having the 10 + 4 ideal woman as the "male gaze" symbol...apple is red.

Well, I mean, which side is really cheering it on and happy that the left is knee jerk reacting in the way it should to hidden eugenics euphemisms. They knew the research.
I mean, I do definitely get where you're coming from when it comes to the abstract.
I also was surrounded by that meaning.

The ones that are cheering on it's other abstract implication of the 10 + 4 edicts.

The "male gaze" factor is definitely also a part of it.

It's just that being left leaning doesn't excuse for bad behavior (the FDR paradox)

And, well, at least for me, even though I know where you're coming from on the abstract benign meaning, it's just it's been colonized by not so good people

I think obviously the company has decided to trash whatever leanings it used to have (again, pulling another Target switcharoo) for deciding to go with a demographic it thinks can spend more money (nfts, gold shoes, hats, other participation trophy clothing).

How do you argue that to them, because gay has a completely different automatic meaning and context to them, and gay has been utilized as a synonym to be happy and also as a reference to the homosexual community in general. Neither is wrong, but their argument is saying only 1 definition exists.

I'm glad you caught on to the example here. So if someone argues was the Flintstones promoting a homosexual life style because they were having a gay old time, you'd have your frame of reference.
And, that right wing person tells you your frame of ref is wrong.

And, the people pointing out the obvious innuendo are wrong because it obviously was meant more about the clothing than innuendo....

Context.

Anyways, I'm out of analogies for now.

I'm still wanting epstein files out, I don't want brown people treated like the Japanese and Jewish people were (and like a other minorities in other countries still are...), and I can still keyboard warrior those as much.

It's just I still need to point out poisonous and bad apples.

It's just someone created a commercial that featured a very prominent well known gay figure in Mad Men garb and telling people that he's going to have the gayest time on the town.
And people then gaslighting you about pointing out the ad campaign isn't promoting gay lifestyle.
it's "old movie" ref

Let me put it this way. You and I both have had enough life orbits to know that the word gay has shifted in context.

We're not wrong to point out the history of the use in the older movies, we're also not wrong about the more obvious modern use.

And, yes, I am also old enough to remember that phrasing had more of an abstract meaning. As my fellow youths like to say, I did some work to find that expression definitely still had some problematic origins, which is why pro eugenics people really really latched onto it.

And that's why they kept it vague, didn't add clarification. Yes, I do realize the irony of playing into their back and forth. But they win more by silence (which implies inferred consent)
And, we can fight multiple fights at once. I know they are tossing a lot into the ring.

The word play on genes/jeans is very much the apple is red statement. They then go to the backpedal red delicious gaslight pivot: Genes just refers to her inherited looks, blue refers to jean color only. An apple is red.
Meanwhile the people being gaslit for saying apple can also be green

And they are effectively gaslighting people into believing they only meant the harmless generic meaning, that that apple is indeed very red, and how dare people think they were talking about those horrible Granny smiths.

I'm not sure if this analogy helps, but it's the best way I can present it.

And how dare you correct me for saying that Red Delicious obviously isn't red....

But I never clarified or added the specifics because if I did...

I couldn't reverse UNO you into oblivion with the gaslighting.

It's the same with their eugenics euphemism.

Very "harmless" general words.

I make the very general statement
An apple is red.
You tell me I'm wrong because an apple can be green.
I tell gaslight you into adding more context to a very vague generalized statement that can be interpreted as an absolute or as just it's harmless observation.
Indeed, an apple can be red.

I'm going to counter with my own example here.

You see this commercial relies on what I refer to as An apple is red fallacy. Perhaps someone more steeped into debate terminology can point what the actual wording is, but that's how I refer to it.

And, I lay it out here after this one...

And as far as the sexism, they don't care about arguing about that.
For some conservatives, the inferred heteroshipping (several Conservative men wanting to dump their wives for her) vs actually caring about premarital sex & marriage vows.

Because promoting hetereo part more important.

Because once we have silence and end cancel culture on eugenics, we have a perceived silent consent.

Yeah no, I'll be completely okay doing the keyboard warrior with cancelling eugenics euphemisms. It's the very least I can do.

I have no problem cancelling 10 + 4 euphemisms for eugenics. It's just like abusers do, they constantly call the people they hit with the abuse crazy (which for MAGA is several iterations of mentally ill). And they also rely on the codependency of silence as their end goal too.

And sidebar FDR probably had some problematic history before then because usually there's a bit of a pattern when it comes to people being okay on being abusive to others, but that's a whole other sidebar but just wanted to acknowledge anyone that might have deeper knowledge than me about that.