MTMTE #39

[Professor Smooth]

https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/transf ... 1827?mt=11

That preview. Holy ****.

The last line gave me chills. Honest to god *chills*.

[snarl]

Not out till 8 April.

Think these are taking Milne a while to churn out (this issue is the replacement artist is it not).

But yeah, looks brill.

[Professor Smooth]

Not out till 8 April.

Think these are taking Milne a while to churn out (this issue is the replacement artist is it not).

But yeah, looks brill.

Drawn by the Kiss Players guy.

[Metal Vendetta]

Apparently some people are boycotting this issue because Hayato Sakamoto draws "sexualised" images.

[snarl]

Yeah, I heard about that. *****.

[Metal Vendetta]

I can't remember what the non-pejorative term for SJWs is, so I'll just say that I'm sure they're all lovely, well-balanced, not-insane people who are perfectly within their rights to protest and boycott anything they choose to.

[Professor Smooth]

I can't remember what the non-pejorative term for SJWs is, so I'll just say that I'm sure they're all lovely, well-balanced, not-insane people who are perfectly within their rights to protest and boycott anything they choose to.

I feel really weird about this. Mr. Sakamoto's work on Kiss Players is, without question, the most offensive official TF fiction that has ever been released. Bar none. No question. Even Michael Bay's stuff *at its worst* doesn't even approach Kiss Players. That Dick-tongued Megatron-like character assaulting a girl who looks like she's about 7 is (iirc) the *first issue*. And it only gets worse from there. There's a bit where one of the Transformers winds up *inside* that girl and she's not happy about it. The only thing that keeps it from being classified as outright hentai is that they don't *show* full-on nudity.

It's *so* far beyond the pale that a lot of fans HERE IN JAPAN, where hentai is sold at 7-11 alongside regular magazines next to the ATM, were appalled by it. This is the country where the "pre-teen girl in skimpy outfit" characters show up in damn near *every* kids show and wind up on merchandise that would make Caligula blush. While Transformers stuff has skyrocketed in price over the last few years, Kiss Players stuff (Prime, Rodimus, the guy who looks like Prowl, etc) are generally available at (or sometimes below) retail. There's just no market for it. And keep in mind, the second hand stores that sell them often have ENTIRE FLOORS dedicated to fan-published hentai.

So, yeah. When I hear people say they're not going to buy the issue on account of the artist... I get it. Hell, I told my LCS that I wouldn't buy any books that had Pat Lee on art, even if they were in the middle of a run of a series I collected. That's fine.

On the other hand, it's MTMTE. M.T.M.T.E. It's the issue where it seems we might get some major revelations on the DJD. The D.J.D. Wild horses wouldn't keep me from buying that book. I don't care if it had character art by Pat Lee, a variant cover by Frank Miller, a 1:25 incentive cover conceived by Orson Scott Card, and backgrounds using the landscape paintings of Adolph Hitler (with royalties going god knows where). I'm *buying* that book. Aside from being just a dude who writes my favorite fictional characters better than I could ever *imagine* them being written, James Roberts is just about the only guy writing stories that are both ultra-progressive AND not *at all* preachy or pandering.

So, in summation: I can't wait for this issue. Kiss Players was the worst thing to ever happen to Transformers. If you don't want to buy/read/support the issue, that's fine.

[Computron]

I can't remember what the non-pejorative term for SJWs is, so I'll just say that I'm sure they're all lovely, well-balanced, not-insane people who are perfectly within their rights to protest and boycott anything they choose to.

I feel really weird about this. Mr. Sakamoto's work on Kiss Players is, without question, the most offensive official TF fiction that has ever been released. Bar none. No question. Even Michael Bay's stuff *at its worst* doesn't even approach Kiss Players. That Dick-tongued Megatron-like character assaulting a girl who looks like she's about 7 is (iirc) the *first issue*. And it only gets worse from there. There's a bit where one of the Transformers winds up *inside* that girl and she's not happy about it. The only thing that keeps it from being classified as outright hentai is that they don't *show* full-on nudity.

Wiki on Kiss Players

Just read the above article on it and pardon my french, but holy **** is that awful. I mean genuinely awful. Smooth has the right of it. Michael Bay may be bad, but its bad in the way that you shouldn't eat that extra slice of pizza cause it will go right to your gut and give you indigestion. This is bad in an actual ethically wrong kind of way.

What an absolute shitshow.

Like Smooth I can totally understand people not wanting to buy anything drawn by the same person who drew a girl being sexually assaulted by Megatron so that certain people could get their rocks off.

[Professor Smooth]

As tempting as it is to just edit my original posting...

Mr. Sakamoto had little to nothing to do with Kiss Players. He worked as the assistant to the guy who wrote it (and who, when given the chance, steered the series well away from the "everything awful ever" bits). He seems to be at least three stages removed from the horror show that was Kiss Players, and most of his TF works have been either fan-made comics or work-for-hire stuff for BotCon.

I feel like an ass. Moreso than usual.

[Metal Vendetta]

So I did some research and it seems that this is what is filling SJW vaginas with sand. Now I've seen the kind of "depravity" this man is capable of I'm wondering if it's possible to care so little you actually give a negative f**k.

[Professor Smooth]

So I did some research and it seems that this is what is filling SJW vaginas with sand. Now I've seen the kind of "depravity" this man is capable of I'm wondering if it's possible to care so little you actually give a negative f**k.

That's it?

Christ, I feel *worse* now.

The *vast* majority of the time, I'm in agreement with so-called SJWs. But not only does that look to be completely harmless, but I sincerely doubt that 99% of people who MAY have a problem with it can even *read* the accompanying text.

[Metal Vendetta]

I sincerely doubt that 99% of people who MAY have a problem with it can even *read* the accompanying text.

I sincerely doubt that a single SJW boohoohooing over the recent Batgirl cover has ever read The Killing Joke, or even an issue of Batgirl for that matter. We live in an era where the perpetually offended and outraged dictate what the rest of us are allowed to enjoy or not, surrounded by vast armies of pussified white knights each desperate to prove he can be more "sensitive" than the last.

[snarl]

You seem perpetually outraged and offended by them being perpetually outraged and offended.

I love this idea there's some big gay conspiracy ******* over middle aged white men - more please.

Here's a Martin Niemöller esque starter:

When the pussified white knights, Femi-Nazis and perpetually offended and outraged came for white, middle aged, home counties dwelling conservative ***** angry with the world (maybe cause their life is ****, it's their fault and they can't or won't take responsibility for it or justify it),

I remained silent;
I was not a white, middle aged, home counties dwelling conservative **** angry with the world (maybe because my life is ****, it's my fault and I can't or won't take responsibility for it or justify it).

etc etc...

When they came for transformers fans...
there was no one left to speak out.

[Computron]

We live in an era where the perpetually offended and outraged dictate what the rest of us are allowed to enjoy or not, surrounded by vast armies of pussified white knights each desperate to prove he can be more "sensitive" than the last.

I've noticed that the response to issues of female objectification never seems to argue that some piece of work isn't objectifying women. Instead the response to female objectification tends to be "Don't get your panties in a twist, you're overreacting."

Why? Seriously why? It's as if you can't defend it, but you like it anyways and just don't want to be called out for liking something that has a societal cost that you don't have to pay for directly.

Is Arcee wearing a maid's outfit the worst thing in history? No of course not. Is boycotting Sakamoto the most effective way of addressing that wrong? No, probably not. But would I want either of my nieces reading that over a piece of work with women who aren't passive cut outs from 1950? Of course not.

More importantly, no one is censoring it. If you want to read about Arcee in a maid's outfit, no one is stopping you.

And before you start saying things like "SJWs are the ones overreacting, and they are a bunch of dicks and they are the extremists" remember you are responsible for your demeanour. The way you come across telegraphs a crystallized animosity to anyone who suggests that there is a problem with female objectification in comics or games for that matter. That's on you, not on any "SJW."

[Metal Vendetta]

I've noticed that the response to issues of female objectification never seems to argue that some piece of work isn't objectifying women. Instead the response to female objectification tends to be "Don't get your panties in a twist, you're overreacting."

That's actually a bit wordy, I prefer something brisker, like "Good". Sorry, but I don't really buy into objectification, it's mostly psuedo-science, it's completely subjective and utterly, utterly inconsistent. Like a lot of feminist theory, it kinda falls apart when you hold it up to the light.

Why? Seriously why? It's as if you can't defend it, but you like it anyways and just don't want to be called out for liking something that has a societal cost that you don't have to pay for directly.

What's the "societal cost" of, say, a picture of Arcee in a maid's costume? How is it measured? Is there a scale? Do you add a point every time someone clutches their pearls, wrings their hands and wails "Won't someone think of the children?"

And before you start saying things like "SJWs are the ones overreacting, and they are a bunch of dicks and they are the extremists" remember you are responsible for your demeanour.

Thanks, I was going for "dismissive", maybe verging on "contemptuous". I don't know, I think trying to get someone fired over a cartoon is pretty crappy behaviour, though I suppose it could be worse.

The way you come across telegraphs a crystallized animosity to anyone who suggests that there is a problem with female objectification in comics or games for that matter.

If they can prove that there actually is a problem, I might give them some credit. So far, I've not seen any proof that this picture of Arcee in a maid's costume has directly hurt anyone. I remain decidedly sceptical that anyone's going to come up with a causal link here.

[Yaya]

Not sure what SJW means, but no thanks, I don't need sexuality in my Transformers comics. Sexuality is everywhere. Everywhere. Does it have to finds it's way into a comic based on a child's toy, irrespective of how 'mature' the writing has become? Do I have to become a ****** monk in this world to get away from it?

[Professor Smooth]

There's a time and place for cheesecake type stuff. Hell, there's a time and place for that really violent and degrading porno that Japan is known for. I'd argue that Sakamoto's fem-bot maids are a harmless bit of fun.

The issue is when things like that are portrayed as the *default*. Super hero comics (and comics in general) have had a problem with this for *decades*. The female characters are all dressed in ultra-tight/revealing outfits and drawn in poses straight out of Hustler. The "girlfriend dies to motivate the hero" trope has been going on since the 70's. For a good long time, that was the easiest way to get a hero out of a long-term relationship.

And EVERY time somebody brings this up, folks get all defensive. They bring up Namor and Samus, as if *one* character cancels out the hundreds of others.

So, yeah, I think boycotting one of the most progressive comic books on the shelves because the guest artist drew some cheesecake robot pics seems like overkill, I was perfectly alright with OSC's Superman book getting canned. I understood the issue with that Spider-Woman cover. And I absolutely had no problem with that Batgirl cover being changed.

Maybe some so-called SJW's are just tilting at windmills and just looking for things to be offended by, but you have to admit (even though I suspect most won't) that they don't have to look very hard.

[snarl]

For me this issue (the ft comic boycott) is tiny. I'm not really interested in whether it's credible to take this stand or not, doesn't really interest me that much. That bob's knickers are in a perpetual twist over such an (surely) inconsequential event / group, suggests they're everywhere and ******* up the lives of white men like him (when they so ******* obviously aren't) I DO care about, primarily because a) it's ******* boring and b) it makes all of transfans look like a group of ***** by association.

I have a real problem with white guys moaning that their lives are tough and being impinged upon when they so clearly aren't. I have a problem with the whining, I also have a problem with it being complete bull ****.

This ridiculous MRA twaddle is the absolute antithesis of the actual world. Bob, I suggest you stop hanging around with feminists (you MUST be actually DELIBERATELY engaging with them, it's not like they actually go round getting involved in the lives of 99.9% of men) and also cut back on the whacky bacci, that shits making you paranoid and mentally ill.

[Metal Vendetta]

The issue is when things like that are portrayed as the *default*. Super hero comics (and comics in general) have had a problem with this for *decades*. The female characters are all dressed in ultra-tight/revealing outfits and drawn in poses straight out of Hustler. The "girlfriend dies to motivate the hero" trope has been going on since the 70's. For a good long time, that was the easiest way to get a hero out of a long-term relationship.

...and? I mean, what happened then? Did a wave of American teenage boys kill their girlfriends because of it? You say it's been going on for decades, most of these characters were designed in the 1950s and 1960s and they... look like they were designed in the 1950s and 1960s. Society hasn't always reflected the rather prudish morals of present-day Americans and still doesn't in many places - I really don't think the existence of Wonder Woman is any more problematic than Superman. Oh noes, a bit of bare flesh in a comic book. Yes, that's what's wrong with society.

And EVERY time somebody brings this up, folks get all defensive. They bring up Namor and Samus, as if *one* character cancels out the hundreds of others.

This seems like a conversation you're having with someone else. I'd never bring up Namor or Samus, so I don't really know where you're going with this.

I was perfectly alright with OSC's Superman book getting canned. I understood the issue with that Spider-Woman cover. And I absolutely had no problem with that Batgirl cover being changed.

I haven't even heard about the Superman thing, but I really do not see the issue with the Spider-Woman and Batgirl covers. They seem kind of tame - I wasn't sold on the Spider-Woman cover myself (but that was more to do with the eyes than anything else) and I thought the Batgirl cover was kinda cool. As far as I can see it's entirely an issue of taste.

Maybe some so-called SJW's are just tilting at windmills and just looking for things to be offended by, but you have to admit (even though I suspect most won't) that they don't have to look very hard.

Fine, but even if they are genuinely offended, I don't recognise "Eeek, I'm offended by this" as a reason to get rid of it. A lot of stuff offends me, so I don't look at it. I don't campaign to have it changed because I recognise that other people might like it and as long as no harm is being done, live and let live. I'm sorry but I think this kind of thing is really, really repressive and intolerant. I'm not going to ally myself with the side that wants to ban things because I believe in free speech and equality, you know, the values of the left. This kind of thing to me is indistinguishable from the Christian right wanting to ban comic books because they tempt kids into Satan. There's no objective proof, there's no way to test any of this, it's basically mob mentality. I was hoping that after #shirtgate humanity might have a collective realisation that maybe this whole Twitter dogpiling thing was a big bag of ****, but no, apparently we're stuck with it.

As regards the argument snarl appears to be having with Jeremy Clarkson,

white men like him

You know, I've not seen an actual photo of him so I'm entirely willing to concede this point and perhaps it is a little bit racist for me to make assumptions about him based solely on his name, but I am reasonably sure that Hayato Sakamoto is not a white man like me. Unless he's like Tom Cruise in that movie where he was a samurai or something. Like I said, I'm open to corrections on this.

MRA twaddle

I think MRAs are generally dicks, just like feminists. I don't want any part of this, I think that looking at the world through the lens of "girls vs boys" is retarded, whichever side of it you're on. The only reason you don't hear me bitching about MRAs is that they have no political power and they're not trying to ban stuff I like. The day a bunch of MRAs start trolling MTMTE I'll tell them to **** off in no uncertain terms but that never happens because no-one takes them seriously or leaps to their defence when they do something stupid. Do MRAs even care about Transformers comics?

you MUST be actually DELIBERATELY engaging with them, it's not like they actually go round getting involved in the lives of 99.9% of men

I must stop reading the comments underneath the MTMTE preview? Because that's where I heard about this, it's not like I go trawling tumblr for crazy stuff to get annoyed by. I try to stay away from it.

whacky bacci

LOL

[Professor Smooth]

I didn't think it was possible to miss that many points simultaneously. It's the intellectual equivalent of Kitty Pryde walking through the Danger Room with her eyes closed.

[Metal Vendetta]

In your metaphor, is the Danger Room filled with MRA strawmen who talk about Namor and Samus?

[Computron]

Surely I can't be the only person whose talked to women of all stripes and backgrounds who generally agree that it is rather tiresome that for the longest time, women in comics, video games and media have generally only been offered as eye candy?

From their viewpoint they are tired of always being portrayed as a pair of breasts without anything else going for them. So yes there is societal harm here because girls grow up thinking that men get all the interesting adjectives while women are generally defined by their appearance. If you don't think that sort of thing wears on you, you are mistaken. While you may be able to just simply ignore it, for a lot of people it just reinforces the idea that media is being produced by 16 year old boys and that a woman's value is based on the amount of skin shown.

My wife loves comics, video games and other geek-centric entertainment, but she can't stand it when, for instance, female characters end up dressing in lingerie to fight crime or something. To her it reinforces this idea that even when doing something like fighting crime, a woman is still defined by how much cleavage she can display and that she better be showing off some leg while doing so. It does sour her enjoyment of things at times and I can totally understand why.

It's so ridiculous and unnecessary. Samus and Shepard from Mass Effect prove you can have compelling female characters without the need for making sexuality the only aspect of the character. And that's the thing. No one is saying you can't have sexuality be a component of a character. It would be odd not to have that be a part of things. But it can't be the only thing.

[Metal Vendetta]

Surely I can't be the only person whose talked to women of all stripes and backgrounds who generally agree that it is rather tiresome that for the longest time, women in comics, video games and media have generally only been offered as eye candy?

Maybe it's because I tend to hang out with other liberally-minded people, but most of the women I talk to who like comics and video games have already cosplayed as their favourite piece of "eye candy", or have a tattoo of them in their scantiest outfit or something. Most of the women I talk to who don't like comics and video games couldn't care less to begin with. I still don't understand why it's this small but vocal minority of offence-takers who get to decide on what's appropriate for the rest of us.

So yes there is societal harm here because girls grow up thinking that men get all the interesting adjectives while women are generally defined by their appearance.

Well only if those girls' sole source of education is comic books and video games. And I'm fairly sure that most people can tell the difference between comic books and real life anyway. Everyone knows that characters in comic books obey different rules to the real world.

[Computron]

Surely I can't be the only person whose talked to women of all stripes and backgrounds who generally agree that it is rather tiresome that for the longest time, women in comics, video games and media have generally only been offered as eye candy?

Maybe it's because I tend to hang out with other liberally-minded people, but most of the women I talk to who like comics and video games have already cosplayed as their favourite piece of "eye candy", or have a tattoo of them in their scantiest outfit or something. Most of the women I talk to who don't like comics and video games couldn't care less to begin with. I still don't understand why it's this small but vocal minority of offence-takers who get to decide on what's appropriate for the rest of us.

So yes there is societal harm here because girls grow up thinking that men get all the interesting adjectives while women are generally defined by their appearance.

Well only if those girls' sole source of education is comic books and video games. And I'm fairly sure that most people can tell the difference between comic books and real life anyway. Everyone knows that characters in comic books obey different rules to the real world.

To quote Smooth: "There's a time and place for cheesecake type stuff. The issue is when things like that are portrayed as the *default*."

That's the issue. It's not that we shouldn't have cheesecake. I rather like cheesecake, both the literal kind, especially with raspberries, and the metaphorical kind. The problem is when cheesecake is the only thing on the menu. I don't think we should take cheesecake away, but it'd be nice if that wasn't the only thing on the menu. Now I'm sure some people would rather take away all the cheesecake. They are wrong.

As for the latter point, it's not just comic books and video games. It's TV, movies and books as well. It's infused in all of our culture. In addition while a 30 year would presumably be able to rationally separate fantasy from reality, are we really going to say that a 6 year old isn't going to be influenced by culture? Weren't you influenced by reading or watching Transformers when you were younger? Presumably you may have even had your own ethics influenced by Optimus said or did. What we consume can also influence us negatively, and it is certainly reasonable that a 6 year old watching Arcee in a dress is going to view gender roles in a certain way.

[Metal Vendetta]

As for the latter point, it's not just comic books and video games. It's TV, movies and books as well. It's infused in all of our culture. In addition while a 30 year would presumably be able to rationally separate fantasy from reality, are we really going to say that a 6 year old isn't going to be influenced by culture?

Fine, I'll give you comic books, video games, movies, TV and books - hell, I'll even throw in music as well. Even if they were as harmful as you say and that harm could somehow be proven, they'd still be as nothing compared to the one subject feminists and SJWs ignore completely and utterly. I'm talking about those gigantic, genuinely patriarchal and misogynist, hugely influential religion-shaped elephants in the room, the ones whose adherents really can't tell fantasy from reality and actually do cause harm to women. Because compared to the likes of Christianity and Islam, comic books are a fart in in a tornado - if they reduce women down to just a set of breasts (and I'd argue they don't, but hey) religion doesn't see any value in a woman beyond her womb. You think that Arcee comic might screw up a 6 year-old? ****, that's nothing compared to what religion does.

[Computron]

As for the latter point, it's not just comic books and video games. It's TV, movies and books as well. It's infused in all of our culture. In addition while a 30 year would presumably be able to rationally separate fantasy from reality, are we really going to say that a 6 year old isn't going to be influenced by culture?

Fine, I'll give you comic books, video games, movies, TV and books - hell, I'll even throw in music as well. Even if they were as harmful as you say and that harm could somehow be proven, they'd still be as nothing compared to the one subject feminists and SJWs ignore completely and utterly. I'm talking about those gigantic, genuinely patriarchal and misogynist, hugely influential religion-shaped elephants in the room, the ones whose adherents really can't tell fantasy from reality and actually do cause harm to women. Because compared to the likes of Christianity and Islam, comic books are a fart in in a tornado - if they reduce women down to just a set of breasts (and I'd argue they don't, but hey) religion doesn't see any value in a woman beyond her womb. You think that Arcee comic might screw up a 6 year-old? ****, that's nothing compared to what religion does.

You won't get an argument from me on how most major religions treat women. However just because religion has done a ton of damage to women doesn't mean we ignore other things that are doing damage. In addition, I'm not a priest, pastor, imam or monk. What I am is a consumer. I have much more impact on what I buy, and don't buy, then I do on dogma.

[Metal Vendetta]

Your "default" argument doesn't work when you're defending the banning of, say, one subscription or variant cover out of the three or four available, by the way. That's not the "default", that's when people have a choice which cover to get and apparently they shouldn't even be allowed that.

[Professor Smooth]

Your "default" argument doesn't work when you're defending the banning of, say, one subscription or variant cover out of the three or four available, by the way. That's not the "default", that's when people have a choice which cover to get and apparently they shouldn't even be allowed that.

Boycotting is not the same as banning.

[Metal Vendetta]

Boycotting is not the same as banning.

Pot-ay-to, pot-ah-to. Still makes a total nonsense of your "This kind of thing is the default" argument, when it can't even be one of a choice of three covers.

[Computron]

Boycotting is not the same as banning.

Pot-ay-to, pot-ah-to. Still makes a total nonsense of your "This kind of thing is the default" argument, when it can't even be one of a choice of three covers.

If I choose to not buy a copy of whatever book, does that prevent you from purchasing that book?

Or to put it another way, banning something is an act that prevents anyone from exercising a choice. Boycotting is an act that focuses on your own choice. Rather marked difference.

I suppose that if enough people refuse to buy something that the product won't be offered anymore, but that's free market economics at work, unless you think that commodities with insufficient demand should be subsidized somehow and be made available regardless of whether it will generate a profit?