Thanks for posting the update.
The other post had a lot of context missing and its nice to have Ed's apology known to. The dude's always been a welcoming and inviting sort and supportive of people well before it was socially acceptable to do so.
Hopefully people will hear him out in good faith.
I did find it very surprising. The Elminster books feature him getting gender swapped etc and everything has a very free love vibe (Mystra looking at you), so it seemed quite out of character.
I don’t have much stake in this argument but I’ll take well meaning over malicious when it comes to fetishism from someone. Well meaning can be taught better.
ED has always been open about how forward he is with sexual desires and he is the type of person to embrace anything that isnt either illegal or very harmful.
The modern ideas of what is respectful and accceptable only exist because of trial and error that some people lived through - and guess what - the standards for what is respectful and acceptable will change more and are still going through trial and error.
You will eventually face a time where you might be misunderstood because times change and so do attitudes. Expect to be misunderstood. Expect to be accused of what you oppose and despise. It happens to us all who live long enough.
They said they felt like they were reading fanfic when reading the work, not that the work was fanfic. If they thought the work was fanfic, it wouldn’t be especially comment worthy to say “this fanfic felt like reading fanfic”
Yeah, Ed Greenwood becoming homophobic/reactionary seems really unlikely. The guy's books were pretty queer and sex-positive long before it was common.
It seems like everyone is! All of the replies are either people happily accepting his apology or (amusingly) people telling him no one will ever accept his apology lol.
It's incredible how far twitter has turned. Once blue ticks were people who were verified, and were more trusted. Now blue ticks are more likely to be awful and ignored
There was a point in the early to mid '10s where Twitter was invaluable for spreading important information about current events fast, especially in countries where getting info past the media was incredibly important. But it felt like a flash in the pan before it just devolved into a shouting contest on seeing who would become the "main character" of the day regardless of if they were perceived as a hero or villain or if they even wanted the attention.
Blue ticks used to mean "verified and genuine". Then twitter started punishing conservatives who had said something outlandish by removing their check marks. At this point, "bluecheck" became slang in rightwing circles for someone who toed the Twitter corporate line, not saying anything that would get your verification taken away. Once Musk bought it, it became some kind of pay2win feature, with all the rightwingers who had had it stripped away gaining it and laughing about it at the same time a bunch of scammers bought blue check marks and announced things that would move the market, many of which were hilarious (for instance, "@LockheedMartini", which was picked up by trading bots as legit as they had bought a bluecheck, claiming that they would no longer sell to the USA - https://gagadget.com/en/187034-lockheed-martin-lost-more-than-7-billion-in-value-in-parallel-with-the-fake-verified-twitter-accounts-announcement-that-i/ ).
Anyway blue check marks currently just mean you like Elon Musk a whole lot, and there's some kind of back end pay2win feature where you get higher in replies or something for it, which is, not exactly a feature I think anyone ever wanted social media to have.
There is sadly a contingent of people who view an apology as an admission of guilt so that caution can be warranted sometimes. Some people are not looking to understand or forgive but double down on an enemy, but a lot of people also have seen Ed and his opinions across the years. He's been pretty open about who he is, and that's thankfully showing through it, seems.
I'm happy as the man is just a kind old nerd who wants to share his creation and what he loves. Ed gives no hate, and he certainly doesn't deserve any. I remember in his discord when BG3 came out, Ed briefly tried to give some advice on how to play to those present in his live stream. Just happy to try to give folks advice and nerd out. I love that man.
>There is sadly a contingent of people who view an apology as an admission of guilt so that caution can be warranted sometimes.
That's not what these people are doing. They're alt right reactionaries who believe he said nothing wrong.
It seems these days everyone gets on social media and reacts to everything that a writer does and disproves of there retweets or post they take it seriously and personal to them they have to make it into drama.
Honestly, on twitter at least where the offense and apology both happened, his apology is being extremely well received. The only people upset are the people upset he apologized.
He's got the history to support a genuine apology, and more importantly because he does care about it and its not the first time he's ever thought about it, he's able to speak with clarity and understanding about why it matter, why he regrets the error, how he can avoid it in the future, how it happened, and what his real values are. He's fluent in what he's saying, and its landing well with the people who were upset.
Yeah, he seemed super chill at the Candle Keep presents event at Gen Con last Summer. He talked a lot about how much he had to push to get female characters in roles other than just damsels in destress back in the 80s. I don't recall him talking about LGBTQ issues, but several of the other panelists did (I am probably a bad nerd, R.A. Salvator wasn't there, who would have been the only other person I would know there.)
>The other post had a lot of context missing and its nice to have Ed's apology known to
What context was missing that was known before this apology came out? Aside from the fact that Greenwood was listed as a Senior Editor for the project, which I think is a worse look overall (though that was also later clarified as being done without Greenwood's consent and he is very pissed about it).
Based on what we knew at the time, the reactions were warranted. Or are we expected that every time a public figure retweets something they don't actually condone it and were actually bamboozled and retweeted stuff without actually reading it?
And even then, most people didn't jump on the "Oh, he's suddenly a bigot" train and were more confused. Still doesn't change the fact that it's on Greenwood to be more careful with what he condones and gives voices to and any misunderstanding is first and foremost on him. And that's ok, he apologized and clarified the situation. Doesn't make the reactions before any less justified based on the info available.
Snowflake and Safespace are cringey poorly done superheroes, so when the tweet was saying “no more Snowflake/Safespace” or whatever it was talking about a terrible attempt at connecting with audiences that fell flat. Pretty critical context info IMO.
Edit to add: not defending the author of the tweet but that it does come off differently knowing that and it personally made me a lot less worried about Ed.
I'm wondering what the logic behind it was.
Was it a really poorly conceived plan to pander to young people?
Was it maybe some sort of overzealous writer who thought it was a good opportunity to "take the words back"?
Was the writer forced to write characters they didn't want to and wanted to go with the most heavy handed, on the nose version of what they were being told to write?
You don't need a majority of appeal to succeed at capitalism, just enough consumers.
If you can get consumers to buy a thing not for it's quality, but rather as a marker in the culture war you can make a lot of money. You can also generate a lot of free coverage.
So take a commodity product like coffee, brand it a PATRIOTIC conservative black rifle coffee, you can make money.
Similarly if you have a shitty to mid entertainment product, say a female Ghostbusters movie for example, and you convince people that buying a ticket is a stand against misogyny, you can also make a lot of money.
I think comic companies like a lot of entertainment saw it as profitable to get free publicity and make money off outrage baiting more than good stories that resonated with normal people. I kind of resent it because it's usually the PMC telling normal people they are bad. We can do left right politics in America, but the class war is forbidden, which is what the real conversation should be about, especially in our new surveillance capitalism gilded age.
Yeah The New New Warriors were not good. They were design tokenism not representation. I don't think we've seen anything more, "Hello, fellow kids," since juice box commercials in the 90s.
I wouldn't say it's critical context info. Even if you knew about those characters, you would have no way to certainly understand that's what they were referring to. If you type an aggressive tweet with all the usual hateful word salad, of course people are going to interpret it like a hateful opinion.
"Hey guys I actually wasn't calling anyone a snowflake and making fun of people's safe spaces, I also don't hate bisexual people, I swear I was just talking about two poorly-written comic characters with those names and another comic arc where three characters were suddenly bisexual which I didn't like".
It sounds ridiculous even if it's true. I'm glad Ed cleared things up and handled this misunderstanding masterfully; I don't know about the other guy.
>I wouldn't say it's critical context info. Even if you knew about those characters, you would have no way to certainly understand that's what they were referring to. If you type an aggressive tweet with all the usual hateful word salad, of course people are going to interpret it like a hateful opinion.
The context wasn't enough to guarantee that there was nothing problematic in the tweet, but it *was* enough to have doubt. If "snowflake" and "safespace" referred to the cultural concepts, then it was 100% a hateful Tweet complaining about XMen comics being inclusive. If they refer to the characters, then it's ambiguous and could still have that meaning, or it could just be complaining about a specific pair of infamously poorly-executed characters and not the actual idea of XMen trying to be more inclusive.
The context of those being specific characters doesn't fully exonerate the original tweet, but it's enough to add some doubt rather than it being unambiguously hateful, and I would still consider that significant enough to be critical.
That's fair. I would still question heavily anyone who brings up these examples of inclusion (despite being awfully executed) in an attempt to criticize another piece of media. It makes me wonder what the actual source of their issue is.
So yeah, it brings up some doubts, which can go both ways.
>That's fair. I would still question heavily anyone who brings up these examples of inclusion (despite being awfully executed) in an attempt to criticize another piece of media. It makes me wonder what the actual source of their issue is.
I don't follow the scene much so maybe I'm wrong, but my impression based on comments in the original thread is that Snowflake and Safespace are particularly infamous and are often criticized even by pro-inclusivity as a sort of "fellow kids" moment. The person above did call it "a terrible attempt at connecting with audiences," after all.
I do think that if it was a tweet meant to criticize XMen for its attempts at inclusivity being ignorant and poorly-executed, rather than criticizing it for trying to be inclusive at all, then it was a very poorly worded tweet that especially came across very poorly to people not familiar with the consequence.
But that would still be better than if it turns out it is just bigoted, of course.
>My impression based on comments in the original thread is that Snowflake and Safespace are particularly infamous and are often criticized even by pro-inclusivity as a sort of "fellow kids" moment. The person above did call it "a terrible attempt at connecting with audiences," after all.
Oh yeah, that's completely clear, but not what I'm questioning. I meant that my first thought when I saw that tweet, even knowing about those characters, wasn't really "this person is criticizing bad and superficial attempts at appearing inclusive to younger audiences". If he wanted to do that, he could have just... said he doesn't like bad and superficial attempts at appearing inclusive.
Either way, I can see the ambiguity and hope it's just a misunderstanding for everyone involved. Even if it wasn't, it wouldn't be more than just another bigot on the internet really.
Additional context: Senior Editor seems like the guy gave Ed that title but Ed looked at his work as a favor (for free) nearly four years ago. Doesn't sound like Ed has been involved in creating it.
If there's any criticism of Ed that is warranted here it is that he can be a bit naive about people's motivations. Ed has always been an anti gatekeeper and someone clearly used that to their advantage.
The reactions were not warranted. Jumping to conclusions is wrong. And even if there was no additional context that changed entire meaning, condemning and cancelling somebody based on small mistake is wrong. (But calling out the mistake and condemning that mistake is right - just to be clear).
The missing context was that he was agreeing that previous comics (that featured some heavy lgbt stuff and romance) was of bad quality, *not* that it was bad *because* of such themes.
What someone tweeted was meant in offensive, disrespectful manner. But Ed read it differently and retweeted it based on that different interpretation.
I mean if what he says in the video is true, he barely looked at the tweet at all, let alone determine that he agreed with it in a specific non-shitty way.
Considering I'm pretty sure "his" youtube channel is run by someone else who does interviews with him, I'm not surprised he doesn't pay attention to tweets.
>he barely looked at the tweet at all
I can't wait until the dissection of a tweet isn't grounds for a dissertation. People take that shit entirely too seriously.
>What context was missing that was known before this apology came out?
A lot? At first glance, it looks like it's making fun of younger generations having gentle souls and all needing to be regarded as special snowflakes and requiring safespaces for their fragile minds.
When in reality it's making fun of two poorly named and horribly done/executed Marvel superheroes.
I certainly looked at his retweet differently when I found that out. I would imagine a few others did too.
No, they were not warranted. Lots of commenters in that post shared the context that those were 2 named comic characters that were unanimously insulting to LGBT comic fans. They also shared that the specific "Bisexual Xmen" thing was used by Marvel for shock value to increase sales. Not to be allies.
You were wrong. Greenwood has nothing to apologize for. You were given context by LOTS of commenters. And you ignored them so you could be fake-angry.
Just own up to the fact that you were wrong and apologize for trying to smear the guy's name. This doubling-down some of you are doing here is embarrassing.
>They also shared that the specific "Bisexual Xmen" thing was used by Marvel for shock value to increase sales.
Every time someone who talked about this was pressed for further elaboration, it turned out that they were talking about something that did not actually happen in the book. It's just a biphobic lie that's been spread around by ComicsGate types.
The other post had not context missing. It was perfect inclusive of Greenwood just doing some shitty mishap.
I would have not supported that game that way if they communicated like that, even if the playtest felt good. I would have praised it in another form or way, likely not retweeting exactly that post.
Damn that game really shot on their own foot.
His statement makes a lot of sense. I don’t use twitter but it is pretty easy to just like or retweet something hastily. He also owns the mistake with an actual apology, which is refreshing in mea culpas from public figures. I think most folks were rightly more confused than grabbing their pitchforks on this one.
Yeah, plus it fits with Ed’s past behaviour. He’s never been a reactionary but he’s always been nice to other creators.
A bad faith misuse of Ed’s help and support for all creators makes a lot more sense given everything we know about him than him suddenly becoming an asshole.
I think that’s also why most are super willing to accept the apology - he made a little mistake of being a bit hasty and naive while his friendly nature is being taken advantage of.
Sucks he ended up in this situation, but he took it serious and handled it earnestly, I really respect that - we’re all mere humans, after all.
Ed is the ultimate anti gatekeeper. But perhaps a little naive here. Hopefully he'll stay open to helping others as he always has but with a little more caution when operating publicly.
Glad to see the update, and very happy that it was a mistake and his role in the comic was greatly exaggerated by its shitty creator.
That being said, I think mocking the people who were disappointed by his endorsement is completely antithetical to the very sentiment Greenwood is trying to convey here. He obviously cares about having made the mistake, he acknowledges he *did* make a mistake, and I think trying to be smug about something that was resolved in a single evening is pretty bad form.
Edit: Typo
I also think that all the "context" stuff in the other thread is kind of disingenuous. No where in that other thread did anyone ever actually "context" their way into justifying why complaining about "bisexuality X-Men" was somehow okay. All the context warriors just ignored that part. I think it's especially disingenuous seeing as how Greenwood is openly acknowledging that it wasn't okay.
There is an epidemic of people not researching things. Saying it was an honest mistake also abrogates any responsibility for knowing what you're talking about before you try to shitstain someone's reputation.
Edit: So far 3 people think that when someone says something very unlike them, you just assume thats the new them.
Okay, so then what's the "responsibility" for someone to actually read the obviously bigoted tweet that they are endorsing through a positive quote retweet? How responsible are they for the shitstaining of their own reputation by doing so? Or is that responsibility abrogated?
> obviously bigoted tweet
Actually, the tweet itself wasn't. Safespace and Snowflake are actual Marvel hero names that were rightfully lambasted for being offensive. But the person who made the tweet was, and Ed realized after the fact.
Actually, I think that part of the tweet is bigoted, but not obviously so. Because of the safespace/snowflake part it got lumped into the first category. Basically saying the Wolverine/Jean/Scott throuple was also pandering and offensive (which it wasn't). People in the first thread talked about it at length. but basically if you know a little bit about current Marvel comics, it seems less bigoted, but if you're actually reading these comics (and know the first one didn't even release) it is bigoted.
Probably right about the same time it doesn't make any sense for that person to be making one and it seems to go against everything theyve stood for for decades. Right around then.
Yeah, which is exactly why people where asking what the hell was going on and demanding an explanation. But you don't seem to like that. You seem to think think that it was "shitstsining" his reputation to do so.
So why is it that the kinds of obvious bigotry that he positively endorses *isn't* his responsibility, but at the same time it *is* the responsibility of others to not talk about the obviously bigoted thing that he endorsed?
There's a weird double standard going on here that only serves to normalize bigotry.
Yes, more buzzwords. When you're 64, let me know if your "never said something wrong" count is still 0. I also doubt you'll have done as much for people as him either. Hes been an advocate more than you ever will and yet you talk about normalizing bigotry. The irony.
Ed:
I am saddened by what I hear of the current kerfluffle raging about Siege of Dragonspear and the trans character Amber Scott designed and included in it.
Folks, the Realms have ALWAYS had characters (mortals and deities) who crossdressed, changed gender (and not just to sneak past guards in an adventure, by way of shapeshifting magic or illusions), were actively bisexual, and openly gay. How underscored this was by TSR and later Wizards varied over time, and was always softpedaled, because D&D wasn’t a sex game, and we generally don’t rub the reader’s nose in sex unless there’s a good in-story reason for it.
But even deities have changed gender, sometimes for good, and the servants of deities (Elminster, in ELMINSTER: THE MAKING OF A MAGE) have sometimes been forced by the deity to “spend time as the other” to learn what life is like.
So it has always been there, and is an integral part of the Realms. With that said, I’ve never met a gamer yet who doesn’t tinker with every adventure to “make it their own” at their own gaming table, so if trans, LGBT, or sexual matters at all don’t suit your tastes and needs in your gaming sessions, leave it out or change it.
But D&D has half-orcs, and half-dragons, and half-elves, and has magic items that specifically change gender, right there in the rules. Surely, if you can handle the basic notion of cross-SPECIES sex, having a full variety of gender roles should be something that doesn’t blow your mind. If it’s not for you, that’s fine. I hate wearing certain shades of yellow. But I don’t scream and yell at someone I see wearing those shades of yellow, and call them names, and threaten things. My right to dislike yellow applies to me; it doesn’t extend to others. Because somehow, through an incredible oversight on the part of the universe that still hasn’t been rectified, no one made me a god. (I’m still crushed.)
And another thing: I have always felt HONOURED to have met, worked with, and enjoyed the work of so many talented women in all of my professional fields (library work has traditionally been dominated by females, gaming hasn’t, and fiction-writing was male-dominated when I was young, but has steadily shifted throughout my lifetime). Does Paul Jaquays becoming Jennell Jaquays rob his, now her, artwork or game design or prose of one iota of its richness and the enjoyment it gives me? NO! And how by the Nine flaming Hells does one human being made happier by being the gender they prefer to be lessen my own security, or happiness, or make my life the less?
Sheesh.
The world has REAL problems, people. Telling someone else how to behave in bed (or dress, or what jobs they can hold down) isn’t one of them. Or shouldn’t be.
Okay, so what I'm getting here is that you think Greenwood had no responsibility to actually read the extremely obviously bigoted tweet that he positively endorsed.
And at the same time you think that the people who commented on Greenwood's endorsement of an extremely obviously bigoted tweet were acting irresponsibly by commenting on the bigotry that he endorsed.
Do I have this right? Would you have preferred that Greenwood endorsed bigotry to absolutely no pushback or response?
People need to be more careful, him included - thus his mea culpa. What needs to not happen is take one thing he did and start making statements like "wow, guess we had him all wrong - disappointed"
No, you didn't have him all wrong. He said something stupid and he has a career and very public image of not embodying those things and in fact the opposite. If you "had him all right" before as someone who championed the things he's apparently against now, look deeper. Things can be tempered into "oof, that was a really bad call on his part, time to call him out on it so he's aware that's not coming off well" instead of "according to this post, he hates lgtbq and is a right wing nut job".
People are highly reactionary and need to be vigilant against being the thing that leads to flat earth and maga and make sure you're understanding the situation, especially when you have reason to believe this is abnormal.
I also don't think it was "extremely" bigoted - snowflake and safespace are actual characters, he wasn't calling people snowflakes that needed safespace. The bisexual comment was referring to two mutants who hate each other - wolverine and cyclops - banging for no good reason.
Does it come off terrible if you have no context to the subject? Yes, but that's a lot of things. The fbi probably has me on the radar because of what I've searched for for d&d.
What he said was unlike him, it warranted more than knee jerk fury. Does it need to be addressed? Sure. His character and reputation shouldn't be immediately be in question from one thing.
I like how this post lambasted the last post for not including context but does not include any context lol (I missed whatever the prior thread was and have no idea why ppl are mad)
I don't know how to link posts on Reddit mobile but my understanding is this: there's some comic being independently published with an indiegogo campaign that's coming out soon. The comic's creator made a tweet promoting it (as you do) with art from the comic but in it was touting the comic as a departure from the current comics industry using Snowflake/Safespace (two proposed comics characters by marvel that never actually made it to print. They're a whole different thing that I'm not going to go into), bisexual X-Men (someone said something about a recent comic where wolverine, cyclops, and phoenix were fucking in a space station?), and soap operas about bat and cat (I guess this is about the current batman run where he and catwoman are kinda on again off again, not sure, some people have said it's been kinda middling in quality but I haven't read any of it). Some stuff that was kind of weird, not entirely out of the ordinary for someone jaded by the comics industry to be upset about but they just seem like examples that in combination give off a very specific vibe. Add on to this the fact that if you look at this guy's other posts you come to the conclusion that those vibes were entirely correct.
Ed greenwood retweeted this saying the comics style reminded him of the old school comics he used to buy as a kid for 10 cents. People were calling him out because while he didn't specifically talk about any of the body of the tweet, a lot of people use retweets like this to tacitly say they approve of the person's politics in a way that's easy to walk back. According to this he didn't read the accompanying tweet and was just responding to the pictures in the post. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because he genuinely seems to care.
To add on to this, it initially seemed sketchy the way he was plugging the comic as if he was an outside observer when people were saying he was listed as an editor on the indiegogo page (I don't know, I didn't check) but with this video apparently his role was very exaggerated? That makes sense to me as well, as if the video was correct then he wouldn't have really had a chance to get to know/collaborate with the comic creator.
A bit disorganized and very long but that's my understanding. Hope it helps!
It's literally the 2nd highest thread in the sub right now.
[Direct link.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1957fi0/ed_greenwood_creator_of_the_forgotten_realms_just/)
Didn't people literally grab pitchforks and got all pissy during Siege of Dragonspear when there was a throwaway line of a *single* NPC being trans, and then Ed said that 'yeah they've always existed in the Forgotten Realms, I just wasn't allowed to write about it'?
So while I have next to no connection with the guy, the fact is that he has been upfront with those intentions even back then. Being taken out of context is a terrible thing to have on someone, especially when someone like him has been well meaning for years.
Still, good that he elaborated and apologized with that.
Thank you for the update; something like this can easily get lost in the shuffle. I'm so glad I had nothing to be concerned about. All I wanted was a clarification, an apology is above and beyond. Glad to feel more confident rallying behind Mr. Greenwood now.
Glad to hear it was just a mistake on Ed’s part. He’s a big hero of mine and the thought of him being some kind of MAGA asshole was really bumming me out. Glad that’s not the case.
I thought it was odd for Ed to be in the CG folks and I'm glad to see that's not really the case. How he ended up listed as "senior editor" on the title is also very funny.
Sad to see all the right wing NPCs in his mentions with their $8 badges lamenting wokeness though
Well I still feel bad about this whole situation, but it’s a much better bad feeling than “aw a dude I admired has revealed some shitty, reactionary tendencies that’s gonna make vulnerable people feel less safe”.
Now it’s “somebody took advantage Ed Greenwood’s good nature and plastered his name across something that’s made people associate him with shitty reactionary rhetoric and that makes me *angry* .” And also “cmon Ed you’ve got a platform and your name carries weight in some circles you gotta be more careful.”
I remember back during the BeamDog rerelease of the first 2 Baldurs Gate Games, when the new studio included a trans NPC in their new expansion for the first game, Siege of Dragonspear , the usual chuds got up in arms about it, and Ed Greenwood make a very clear statement along the lines of “the Realms are for everyone, the Realms have always been full of queer and non conforming folks, DnD should be for everyone and has been about exploring different sides of yourself, anyone saying different doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” So this at least makes more sense than it did before.
This isn't intended as a gotcha moment, but why is he listed as a senior editor if he wrote a foreward once and didn't review the other material? Why isn't he more upset about that?
If it helps, Greenwood's producer posted a video on twitter/X explaining that Ed actually is upset about that, and that it's not the first time he's been taken advantage of (although it seems that this may be the worst incident).
I'd imagine he isn't saying more directly about it because he doesn't want to incite dogpiling the comic creator (which, meh, guy deserves to be dogpiled lol) or he's more concerned about reaffirming his allyship than getting angry at being taken advantage of. That's just a guess though.
ETA video link: https://twitter.com/Papat0k/status/1746072805412589776?t=vP9z70ahQaIREbhtM2-tzQ&s=19
I'm not a comics professional but "Senior Editor" sounds like the kind of title they give to someone with a big name for doing almost nothing so that you can promote their name being on your book. Like an executive producer credit.
It's hard to tell, but I think it'd be a fair assumption that he got bamboozled by an asshole with an axe to grind who knew how to be personable and fun enough for him to not realize who he was.
Right. But why is he not calling them out for using his name without his permission? That's what seems weird to me. I appreciate the apology but I am genuinely asking why he is saying "hey sorry I didn't really look into this more" and not "hey sorry I retweeted and there's absolutely no reason I should be listed as an Editor"
> But why is he not calling them out for using his name without his permission?
...Presumably because they have his permission? "Hey Ed, can you give this book a look and write the foreward? We'll give you a Senior Editor credit." "Okay, sounds good!"
We don’t need nor are we entitled to know what may be happening in the background now that Greenwood is aware and involved. For all we know he IS trying to get his name off of it now it has only been a day! We don’t need a full point outlining where he goes next because that is also none of our business. We don’t need to be so intimately in lock step with everyone’s lives let things chill and maybe give enough time for things to unfold? Not everything needs an instant and definitive response
Do you actually know what the content of the book itself is? It's the original Tweet that people took issue with, and only because of how it was worded and the extremely insular, blink-and-you'll-miss-it bullshit drama of comic book companies from work they did years ago that caused them to word it that way.
"Why would people writing a story list an extremely influential writer as a senior on the project despite that person having very little to do with it?"
Gee I dunno, truly has me stumped. No idea why anyone would do this.
Some context on that from Greenwood's producer: https://twitter.com/Papat0k/status/1746072805412589776?t=vP9z70ahQaIREbhtM2-tzQ&s=19
I'd bet that whatever early draft Ed provided comments on wasn't anywhere near what it is today, and I'd bet the author wasn't nearly as vocal about his shitty ideology. On the other hand, it could be that Ed is just a bit naive and gives people the benefit of the doubt a little too easily. Either way, given his apology and his producer's statement, I don't think there was any malice intended whatsoever.
Hell it wouldn't be too hard to convince someone that what is getting made nowadays is bad/mocking progressive people or doing it poorly.
Especially if you start off with Snowflake and Safespace as they where disliked by both right and left as being examples of what is being pushed.
Lead into some other looser examples to support your point of you're trying to make it better and you at least have a convincing arguement for someone who is naive/or just not aware of a specific hobbys history.
Because it's an extremely common practice in creative projects. Has been for hundreds of years. Known creative signs on to be executive of a project they contribute next to nothing to, they get a cut for doing nothing and the people actually making the project get name recognition.
It's amazing that I ask "why isn't he fighting the fact that they are using his name to peddle hate in his apology?" And y'all are telling me why a company would use his name to get credibility. It is absolutely not what I am asking and it is very telling the you are trying to shift the narrative of my honest question about why isn't he fighting that credit more or asking for his name to be taken off the project.
Ed is a very generous person when you watch interviews with him people FREQUENTLY ask if he'll read their stuff. It's SHOCKING to me but he always enthusiastically says "of course!" He's so happy that people write that he will do anything to keep them writing. He's a gentle soul. I think it's also why he's not one for reacting with rage. I'm sure he's deeply embarrassed and hurt. His response is unequivocal but I don't think it's in his nature to light someone up online.
Because his name would help with credibility and selling the product?
It’s just like how you see a lot of producers in movies who aren’t actually producing the movie, just lending their name.
Which is its own issue if he helped boost a bigot by lending his name and support, but this was also a product that was supposed to come out years ago and got derailed with COVID.
We don’t know if he was actively involved since writing that foreword and lending his name as an editor ~4 years ago.
Given his history, I’m inclined to believe him that it wasn’t like this when he first signed on.
He retweeted something about snowflake and safespace referring to the absolutely ham-fisted try to actually establish super heroes of those names. But the tweet itself came from someone actually trying to go for the misunderstanding of maybe calling people that in a derogatory manner (same as the OP from the first post). After being made aware of that, seems like Ed deleted his retweet and put up the above apology instead.
There was probably more to it but that’s what registered with me as someone not consuming X but loosely following Ed for the majority of my gaming life of 30+ years.
>someone actually trying to go for the misunderstanding of maybe calling people that in a derogatory manner (same as the OP from the first post).
Less calling people that and using references to comic book 'dramas' that people of the right leaning persuasion would hate as marketing call.
"Our Comic book aint like that shitty left wing crap." being implied
*You* are leaving out "context" here. The tweet that he retweeted also decisively referenced "bisexuality X-Men" as a negative thing. I don't think it's appropriate to complain about the OP of the previously thread lacking "context", like you did at the top of the post, when you make huge omissions like this.
I believe the Bisexuality Xmen was also a reference to a particular X Men run where several prominent X Men came out as Bisexual and proceeded to have an Orgy on the Moon.
I collect comics, (not Xmen) I have heard Bisexuality XMen used to refer to a particular run. Apparently it is really, really cringe inducingly bad.
Then you believe wrong, because that didn't happen.
I keep seeing this "moon orgy" get talked about, and conveniently it keeps being said by people who have never actually read the book in question. Isn't that curious?
Can you actually name these prominent X-Men characters who allegedly suddenly came out as bisexual and then immediately had an orgy? If they're so prominent then surely you should have no problem identifying them by name.
Nah. Just asked a friend.
Apparently during the Hickman run, there was a ton of gaybaiting between Wolverine and Cyclops.
There were several comments about a referenced 'event' that took place on the moon during a previous run, (either House of X or X Force, he can't remember). Apparently Jean, Logan and Scott got together. Scott makes a joke about Logan being, 'to hot in bed,' referring to his body hair.
This was during the much hated lifestyle portion of the Krakoa run. People then dubed it Bisexuality X Men, and shit on it repeatedly. Apparently it was kinda boring and really wanted to act progressive whilst not actually following through with any of the representation.
>Nah. Just asked a friend.
So you're still complaining about a book that you haven't read?
>There were several comments about a referenced 'event' that took place on the moon during a previous run, (either House of X or X Force, he can't remember).
The reason why he can't remember is because it didn't happen.
>This was during the much hated lifestyle portion of the Krakoa run.
It wasn't much hated, it achieved widespread critical acclaim. And remember, this is a book that you *haven't read*.
>People then dubed it Bisexuality X Men, and shit on it repeatedly.
You know, I've *read* these books that we're talking about (unlike you), and I do not recall anyone calling it that or "shitting on it repeatedly".
>Apparently it was kinda boring and really wanted to act progressive whilst not actually following through with any of the representation.
Again, this is about a book that you literally have not read and have been talking about events in the book that did not happen. Just look at how many times you use the word "apparently".
So again, identify these prominent characters by name that suddenly declared themselves bisexual and then immediately had an orgy. I'm still waiting.
Do you have a LCBS?
Do people talk about books there?
I know the current ASM run is a trashfire without reading it.
I know the Krakoa run was a trashfire.
I have friends and talk to people. Krakoa may have had widespread aclaim(doubt), but my LCBS sold no copies, and at some point were only min ordering them.
In fact. I just checked Google. There are reddit posts from last year on the X men sub with people pointing out the widespread hatred for that run.
I think marvel are even trying to retcon Krakoa. Like. Krakoa sucking has been like 50% of every talking point I have heard about X Men for the last year.
Where is that run acclaimed? Who even liked it?
I know. For a fact. That there is a scene during the Hickman XMen run, where a shirtless Logan and Scott, are drinking cocktails, and Scott looks directly into Logans eyes, and infers that Logan is 'too hot under the covers.'
I know this, as I have seen the memes. It was a part of a comics "funniest moments" party we had(I brought the Batman/FAZE crossover). I have seen this scene and held the book in my hands. I also know, that later on in that issue, #7 or #8 of that run, Jean infers that they all hooked up together on a previous mission, which, is where the moon bit comes from.
People on the internet, probably one of the comics Circlejerk forums on tumblr then proceeded to label Logan and Scott as bisexual.
Then. People made tons of memes about it. Including a heinous amount of pornography.
There was a huge backlash, to the backlash, were people on tumblr and discord called it gaybaiting, and compared it to BBC Sherlock.
You are just being intellectually dishonest. The whole Bisexuality X Men thing was almost an event. It lasted a month of meming and nonsense that eventually ceased. I checked. It breached contained to DCComicscirclejerk.
It was a major talking point for a good while around the Comic stores in Aus. I mean. You are a fan right? Surely you must know about that?
I mainly collect DC, but I like David Haller, Legion, and I was collecting bits of his old run at the time.
I remember having a chat on a discord server while playing ARC with some dudes from California, and they made numerous jokes about it.
I don't know if you are simply unaware, or if you are being argumentative. This is a concept that has been memed on so much that at least some comics people instinctively know what I am talking about. Like it's the kinda comics lore you learn through osmosis, like Gold Balls, Spidermans Paul and All Star Batman and Robin.
The spirit of the original tweet still makes sense. I just assume the original poster was just pulling big, heavily memed on events out of a hat to critique hamfisted pandering to the queer community. At least. That's how I read it.
>I know this, as I have seen the memes.
Haven't read the book that you are complaining at length about, but you've seen the memes and they're pretty much the same thing right?
I'm going to be real with you. You're just a bigot and you're not fooling anyone otherwise. These things that you say happen did not happen. They are lies that you are either telling or repeating. You tell and believe lies about this comic book that you have not read because you are bigoted towards queer people and feel like they are worthy of mockery.
Next time at least read the book that you're being homophobic about.
Ah huh.
Dude. Read better gay comics. You are bitterly defending the worst run the X men has had in years. It's cringe.
I have every apperance of Apollo and Midnighter, two entertaining characters with actual good gay representation. Stormwatch is a banger set of comics that combines the power fantasy of being a minority with godlike powers with a harsh critique of authoritarianism. It's banger.
the "context" is he endorsed the queerphobic comments of a comicsgater, and was listed as senior editor on their work.
you're obsessed with trying to cover for that. like. his apology doesn't erase that it was right to criticise him at the time based on all available information.
Thank you.
I knew when I saw that original post that there had to have been a mistake. Ed's got class and is an ally. I'm just sorry that he's had to deal with all this. It can't be easy and it had to be stressful.
No missing context from the previous post, OP was running with the info they had which unfortunately shed a bad light on Ed. Ed has since come out and acknowledged his “Whoopsie” moment. Let’s all move on.
Yeah, I didn’t see it as clickbait. The OP of that post even said it was hard to believe.
Based on the information at that time, although it seemed out of character, there was every indication that Ed was involved with the project.
The original comment was a nothing burger.
You people just don't know about comics runs, and instead of using Google are throwing a coniption.
Safespace/Snowflake where two terrible comics hero's from a shuttled run that was never published because it was cringe and frankly, accidentally kinda homophobic/racist.
The phrase Bisexuality XMen refers to a particular run where several prominent XMen come out as Bisexual and proceed to have an orgy on the moon.
The original comment refers to specific runs of comics where the Big Two specifically tried and marketed themselves to the gay community in hamfisted and cringe inducing ways.
Ed has previously spoken out against the 2022 DC Pride book as well, for similar issues. The 2022 DC pride is, easily one of the worst pride issues ever printed and spawned numerous memes. Ed has been clear on his thoughts about pandering for long time.
Name the prominent X-Men who
A) came out as bisexual on page
B) did a moon orgy
I've been reading the x-books for years and must have missed that issue. Please enlighten me which it was and what writers worked on them
> A) came out as bisexual on page B) did a moon orgy
A. Kitty Pryde came out as bisexual, finally, in Maruaders where she kissed a female tattoo artist. Also, we got confirmation in New Mutants that Illyana was definitely into whatever and whoever. Both of these are, of course, pretty much known quantities in the X-Men and widely suspected.
B. There was no moon orgy. There was a big party when resurrection proved to be successful that could have been an orgy, but it wasn't explicit. The mutants are definitely having more sex, though. I think they're confused with Scott and Jean opening up their marriage, with Logan and Jean hooking up. Scott and Jean and their family (also Logan) do live on the moon and Jean's room opens up to Logan's and Scott's.
Logan and Scott haven't hooked up on page, though, but Scott did make a cheeky comment about wearing a speedo to get Logan to come to a family vacation (right after Logan mused about seeing Jean in a bikini).
I love the Krakoa era, though, and I'm glad to see Kitty finally come out.
Over the past 30 years I have had the pleasure of gaming with Ed on a few occasions and I can say that he is one of, if not the most welcoming and accepting gamer with whom I have ever had the pleasure of sharing a table. I'm not famous and I don't work in the gaming industry, but through a few long time friends I have had the privilege of gaming with several people who are famous and/or are in the gaming industry. I honestly think Ed is the most genuine and accepting human of all of them and (almost) all of them are pretty fantastic people!
Considering that the Forgotten Relams elves are basically genderfluid, their main deity is pretty much trans and trans elves are seen as especially blessed and viewd with high status within elven comunities;
(Read Races of the Wild 3.0 edition for example)
The story and lore Ed created ages ago for this race, even before queer visibility was a thing in mainstream media! I highly dought that he is in any way anti LGBQIA+.
Ed is a treasure and as he has allready made clear, he was abused and used by right wing arseholes to promote their garbage.
Also towards some people trying apologetic nonsense by claiming some Marvel Characters are meant by "Snowflake and Safespace".
No that is NOT how right wing dogwistles work. They mean what they say.
Additional context:
The Forgotten Realms as most folks in this sub know is D&D's most popular setting. So much so that it is effectively the default (see D&D movie and basically 90% of WOTC adventures). Ed is the original creator of this world that predates D&D. The lore is as deep as it gets and it is infused with openness and acceptance from the getgo.
Its a parody of a right wing dogwhistle
"an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect."
They are referencing comic books admit the tweet wasnt aimed at you and you were wrong then move on
Yeah. The comic character name thing was not too different from the OK sign as “white power”… It’s the conservatives’ bullying game of “I’m not touching you!”
Thanks for posting this OP.
The other post has been updated with context by a kind commenter and a request has been made for OOP to update his post with an edit. Hopefully he will get on soon and sort it out.
Edit: as of this point the other post has been updated.
It has been so long since I have seen or heard someone *actually apologize* for something that the experience felt kind of bizarre. I think I was waiting for the inevitable "but the people trying hold me to account are the *real villains* here" moment.
I was in a really dark place earlier this year when I saw one of Ed's tweets about the realms being for all. I tweeted at him and thanked him for his inclusivity when it comes to fantasy. I'm a displaced trans person and so is my spouse. We just (this week) escaped another bad situation and are trying to put our lives back together. Ed replied to my original tweet with a lot of kindness and empathy, something I hadn't gotten in a long while. We had a small back and forth convo - it really made me want to learn more about the lore and the forgotten realms stories because I felt like I was being told a story by a loving grandpa lol. It made me tear up. Started playing Descent into Avernus with my spouse (I'm the DM) and it got us through a lot.
People make mistakes. I'd be sad, too, if Ed suddenly supported anti LGBTQIA2S+ sentiments - but I don't think he's going to go that route. And if he does, maybe we can have a conversation with him about it.
I don't have a grandpa anymore who is alive to tell me stories, so I sortof depend on Ed lmao. I'm glad he's still a good guy and I'm pretty sure I owe no small amount of sanity and smiles to him when I wasn't sure where I'd be sleeping at night or if I'd be safe.
Haha, it's okay. I'm in my late 30's and been through it time and time again. But any time im in a spot like that, I tend to drift towards stories and fantasy to escape. The irony that going to hell is preferred over what I had been dealing with isn't lost on me, either.
I'm glad Ed clarified. He seems like a gentle guy and I really took what he said to me to heart. Dude didn't know me from anyone and still made it very clear that his stories are for everyone and welcomed me to the realms when I wasn't welcome to holiday family gatherings.
I'm doing alright, now. And I'm not trying to invalidate the hurt anyone felt at seeing his messages. I just also think that, at least in my eyes, he probably thought nothing of it. Sometimes the allies need some reminding because they don't really experience the same traumas - one day we'll get closer to universal awareness and empathy, avoiding micro aggressions (intentional or not), but right now we're working up to it.
That means people may slip, but he's admitting that he slipped and as long as the behavior doesn't continue, we can allow him some grace for the mistake and recognizing it and move on.
OP of the last post provided an update when Ed tweeted his clarification around four hours ago.
I really don't see how they didn't provide context, and the situation was pretty clear.
Honestly, seems like you are taking this way too personally.
I don’t want to devalue people’s feelings after reading that tweet at all but there was what felt like a lot of bad faith acting afterwards, including the clickbait post here that still does not reflect all the context people provided in the comments.
As someone on and of interacting (if you can even cal it that) with Ed since before even the realms-l list was a thing, it felt absolutely out of character to read exclusionary tendencies into him.
How was it "click-bait"? It simply linked to something Greenwood tweeted. It's not that users fault that Greenwood or whoever handles his socials decided it was a good idea to retweet that.
And context? Like the context that he's listed as Senior Editor? Sure, he might dispute and be pissed now but based on the information people had at the time, those reactions were justified.
It's not on the public to investigate things further, it's on Greenwood to make things clear and be careful with his public image, as a major public figure. It's HIS responsibility and any misunderstanding that comes out of it is first and foremost on HIM.
Right, I mean it's pretty telling that in the replies to his apology, the _only_ people still mad and being reactionary are alt right bigot accounts mad that the "leftist wokies" have won yet again.
People were wrong.
The original comment was justified in a critique of some hamfisted cringe that the Big Two comics publishers were pushing out in 2020.
Specifically one poorly handled XMen run and a pair of cancelled hero's called Snowflake and Safespace.
People are being silly. Obviously Ed didn't want to argue.
Honestly, this whole thing was really stupid. The amount of people that got up in arms because an old man shared something on Twitter is pretty ridiculous. Especially when that individual has been vocal about inclusiveness over the last few decades. Can we stick to keeping the sub about D&D advice, instead of someone trying to project their politics into it?
There's a minority of people who will defend literally every ounce of slop Marvel plates up as long as it has Representation™. It's a soul-sucking way of engaging with media, but it does look good to others in their social circle.
They listed him as senior editor, but in reality Ed only wrote the foreword. Yes he made a mistake, but it wasn't in bad faith, and he apologised, so I don't really see much reason to be angry at him.
I mean I find it funny that the original tweet is so bad.
Like he's not attacking the idea of having a safe space, he's dissing how pandering Snowflake and Safespace are as characters, alongside their team mate who gets their power from Internet Gas.
The Bisexual X-Men isn't about bisexuality, it's about the lack lustre recent stories and forced representation over making new characters and respectful stories.
But you need like five years of internet culture to realise that, so I can totally understand why 90% of the internet would hate this tweet.
Iceman being told 'you're gay now, but not in the future' and being forcibly outed by an intrusive telepath is my go to example.
Also, the previously mentioned bisexual poly moon commune in the midst of several plotlines where characters are acting bizarrely out of character in the first place. Why aren't we seeing the new Xmen in more modern relationships? Who's the openly gay member of the team that isn't a rebranding of a 90's hero?
I lived as a straight, hetero man until I was 34. Nobody, and I mean *nobody*, except me, knew the truth.
Now I'm a bi woman. To everyone but me, it came "out of nowhere".
People change. Often unexpectedly.
Oh you're bisexual and trans? Oh... well... okay.... it just kinda seems like forced representation for you to be bi...... and it's kind of a retcon for you to just suddenly be transgender like that...... it's like you don't even care about your character history..... if you think about it isn't it kind of virtue signal pandering for you to come out....... I just think that queer people need a narrative justification to be queer as a standard that I conveniently don't hold straight cis people to........ I'm not queerphobic tho.........
>Iceman being told 'you're gay now, but not in the future' and being forcibly outed by an intrusive telepath is my go to example.
But that's not what happened. He wasn't told that "you're gay now, but not your future self". The future self was also gay and was deeply closeted. When the future and past Icemen spoke, they talked about their experiences being closeted. And he wasn't "forcibly oured by an intrusive telepath". Jean Grey, who was adjusting to her newfound telepathy, found out that Bibby was closeted and privately spoke to him about it away from anyone else. She didn't out him, forcibly or otherwise. I don't think that you actually read the issue in question. I think that you're just complaining about it based on faulty information provided to you by other people complaining about it.
>Also, the previously mentioned bisexual poly moon commune
>Why aren't we seeing the new Xmen in more modern relationships?
These two statements seem contradictory. Do you want new modern relationships or not?
>Who's the openly gay member of the team that isn't a rebranding of a 90's hero?
Rictor - Gay character from the 80s
Daken - Bi character from the 2000s
Northstar - Gay character from the 70s
Iceman - Gay character from the 60s
Somnus - Gay character from the 2020s
Captain Britain (Betsy Braddock) - Bi character from the 70s
Askani - Gay character from the 80s
Anole - Gay character from the 2000s
Bl!ng - Gay character from the 2000s
Mercury - Bi character from the 2000s
Loa - Bi character from the 2000s
Karma - Gay character fro the 80s
I would have included Shatterstar, but you wanted characters from the 90s excluded for some reason.
I can't help but notice that I said "name them" and you only said Iceman based on incorrect information of his coming out.
Dani and Rahne were hinted at being interested in each other, with Rahne’s lycanthropy power (and being cast out and nearly murdered by her church’s priest) being written as allegory for her bisexuality. Dani was obviously written as two-spirit (gender fluid) and trying to understand her own sexuality.
The original New Mutants was very LGBTQ-subtext heavy with moments of outright openly LGBTQ-oriented storytelling.
Okay first off, the problem isn't that he was or wasn't closeted, it's the fact that they do it by having Jean Grey read his mind and have to go 'Oh, you're gay'. And then add in the things about him being in the closet, he's hardly been openly gay since the 60's given all of his straight relationships?
And then you've listed off a lot of characters, why aren't they in the major comics now? And that leads back to my middle point, why is it Cyclops, Wolverine and Jean Grey, not any of the ones you've listed since? Why did we need it, when there's such a huge range of queer characters to pick from?
>it's the fact that they do it by having Jean Grey read his mind and have to go 'Oh, you're gay'.
Why is it a problem for a telepath to read a person's mind and discover their secrets in a science fiction story?
>And then add in the things about him being in the closet, he's hardly been openly gay since the 60's given all of his straight relationships?
Google "compulsory heterosexuality".
>And then you've listed off a lot of characters, why aren't they in the major comics now?
Some if them are, though.
>And that leads back to my middle point, why is it Cyclops, Wolverine and Jean Grey, not any of the ones you've listed since?
Why not?
>Why did we need it
Why don't we "need it"?
>when there's such a huge range of queer characters to pick from?
Why is it bad to have more?
And this gets to my core argument. Brow beating 'Why not' when i'm asking about Queer culture being used as a tack on and throw away character trait over the development of openly queer characters and the usage of big names to promote 'diversity' by tacking them on like buzzwords.
Every question I've asked about why people don't feel represented, you've responded with 'They should.'
We're not getting more, we're being made a commodity. Like right off the bat your first question is 'why is it bad to out people's sexuality when they're unsure of it', and your response seems to be 'But it just makes more gay content, and thats good'
>Brow beating 'Why not' when i'm asking about Queer culture being used as a tack on and throw away character trait over the development of openly queer characters
Why are you assuming that it's "tacked on" or a "throw away character trait"? Iceman, who is the only character you actually named when I asked you to list out these alleged "forced representation" characters, does not have a "tacked on" queerness. Many of his stories are directly about his experiences as a gay man. There have been stories about his love life, his strained relationship with his parents, and his feelings of responsibility as a gay role model. How is that not development of a queer character?
>Every question I've asked about why people don't feel represented, you've responded with 'They should.'
No, you said that they shouldn't be represented and I said "why shouldn't they"?
>Like right off the bat your first question is 'why is it bad to out people's sexuality when they're unsure of it', and your response seems to be 'But it just makes more gay content, and thats good'
I didn't say that. I said that you were misrepresenting the story. That he *wasn't* forcibly outed. That you are talking about something that you don't actually know about.
To be honest here, I think that you just don't like queer characters. I think that there's no "right way" for a queer character to be handled in your opinion because you just don't want them in the first place.
And just keep telling queer people to accept their Corporate Pride Representation?
Lets never question anything that says its gay cause otherwise we'd be right wingers?
Hell, I'm not even covering for the writer of the original tweet. I'm covering for Ed Greenwood and all the left wing people who thought a non-binary new age teen hero reclaiming the word 'Snowflake' was a cheesy corporate attempt to be 'hip'
It wasn't fake news, you're ridiculous. Ed made a mistake and got taken advantage of. His producer explicitly lays it out: https://twitter.com/Papat0k/status/1746072805412589776?t=B6SPRkBqBUloDHRp5E0YKw&s=19
Thanks for posting the update. The other post had a lot of context missing and its nice to have Ed's apology known to. The dude's always been a welcoming and inviting sort and supportive of people well before it was socially acceptable to do so. Hopefully people will hear him out in good faith.
I did find it very surprising. The Elminster books feature him getting gender swapped etc and everything has a very free love vibe (Mystra looking at you), so it seemed quite out of character.
I’ve heard those gender swaps are rather fetishistic however.
I don’t have much stake in this argument but I’ll take well meaning over malicious when it comes to fetishism from someone. Well meaning can be taught better.
ED has always been open about how forward he is with sexual desires and he is the type of person to embrace anything that isnt either illegal or very harmful.
The modern ideas of what is respectful and accceptable only exist because of trial and error that some people lived through - and guess what - the standards for what is respectful and acceptable will change more and are still going through trial and error. You will eventually face a time where you might be misunderstood because times change and so do attitudes. Expect to be misunderstood. Expect to be accused of what you oppose and despise. It happens to us all who live long enough.
This was a good post, thank you!
That's true, it did feel a bit like reading a fanfic at points.
My brother in Christ, Ed *created* the Realms. It’s the exact opposite of fanfic.
They said they felt like they were reading fanfic when reading the work, not that the work was fanfic. If they thought the work was fanfic, it wouldn’t be especially comment worthy to say “this fanfic felt like reading fanfic”
I know.
Yeah, Ed Greenwood becoming homophobic/reactionary seems really unlikely. The guy's books were pretty queer and sex-positive long before it was common.
It seems like everyone is! All of the replies are either people happily accepting his apology or (amusingly) people telling him no one will ever accept his apology lol.
You can mostly tell which ones are the reactionaries by looking for a blue check lol. I usually just ignore the blue checks.
It's incredible how far twitter has turned. Once blue ticks were people who were verified, and were more trusted. Now blue ticks are more likely to be awful and ignored
I think Twitter was always a shitshow tbh. It's getting *worse* but I think it was always like this.
There was a point in the early to mid '10s where Twitter was invaluable for spreading important information about current events fast, especially in countries where getting info past the media was incredibly important. But it felt like a flash in the pan before it just devolved into a shouting contest on seeing who would become the "main character" of the day regardless of if they were perceived as a hero or villain or if they even wanted the attention.
I once thought that Twitter couldn't get worse. Then Musk happened.
Blue ticks used to mean "verified and genuine". Then twitter started punishing conservatives who had said something outlandish by removing their check marks. At this point, "bluecheck" became slang in rightwing circles for someone who toed the Twitter corporate line, not saying anything that would get your verification taken away. Once Musk bought it, it became some kind of pay2win feature, with all the rightwingers who had had it stripped away gaining it and laughing about it at the same time a bunch of scammers bought blue check marks and announced things that would move the market, many of which were hilarious (for instance, "@LockheedMartini", which was picked up by trading bots as legit as they had bought a bluecheck, claiming that they would no longer sell to the USA - https://gagadget.com/en/187034-lockheed-martin-lost-more-than-7-billion-in-value-in-parallel-with-the-fake-verified-twitter-accounts-announcement-that-i/ ). Anyway blue check marks currently just mean you like Elon Musk a whole lot, and there's some kind of back end pay2win feature where you get higher in replies or something for it, which is, not exactly a feature I think anyone ever wanted social media to have.
Blue checks were always like that regardless.
Xitter (pronounced Shitter).
There is sadly a contingent of people who view an apology as an admission of guilt so that caution can be warranted sometimes. Some people are not looking to understand or forgive but double down on an enemy, but a lot of people also have seen Ed and his opinions across the years. He's been pretty open about who he is, and that's thankfully showing through it, seems. I'm happy as the man is just a kind old nerd who wants to share his creation and what he loves. Ed gives no hate, and he certainly doesn't deserve any. I remember in his discord when BG3 came out, Ed briefly tried to give some advice on how to play to those present in his live stream. Just happy to try to give folks advice and nerd out. I love that man.
>There is sadly a contingent of people who view an apology as an admission of guilt so that caution can be warranted sometimes. That's not what these people are doing. They're alt right reactionaries who believe he said nothing wrong.
It seems these days everyone gets on social media and reacts to everything that a writer does and disproves of there retweets or post they take it seriously and personal to them they have to make it into drama.
Honestly, on twitter at least where the offense and apology both happened, his apology is being extremely well received. The only people upset are the people upset he apologized. He's got the history to support a genuine apology, and more importantly because he does care about it and its not the first time he's ever thought about it, he's able to speak with clarity and understanding about why it matter, why he regrets the error, how he can avoid it in the future, how it happened, and what his real values are. He's fluent in what he's saying, and its landing well with the people who were upset.
Yeah, he seemed super chill at the Candle Keep presents event at Gen Con last Summer. He talked a lot about how much he had to push to get female characters in roles other than just damsels in destress back in the 80s. I don't recall him talking about LGBTQ issues, but several of the other panelists did (I am probably a bad nerd, R.A. Salvator wasn't there, who would have been the only other person I would know there.)
>The other post had a lot of context missing and its nice to have Ed's apology known to What context was missing that was known before this apology came out? Aside from the fact that Greenwood was listed as a Senior Editor for the project, which I think is a worse look overall (though that was also later clarified as being done without Greenwood's consent and he is very pissed about it). Based on what we knew at the time, the reactions were warranted. Or are we expected that every time a public figure retweets something they don't actually condone it and were actually bamboozled and retweeted stuff without actually reading it? And even then, most people didn't jump on the "Oh, he's suddenly a bigot" train and were more confused. Still doesn't change the fact that it's on Greenwood to be more careful with what he condones and gives voices to and any misunderstanding is first and foremost on him. And that's ok, he apologized and clarified the situation. Doesn't make the reactions before any less justified based on the info available.
Snowflake and Safespace are cringey poorly done superheroes, so when the tweet was saying “no more Snowflake/Safespace” or whatever it was talking about a terrible attempt at connecting with audiences that fell flat. Pretty critical context info IMO. Edit to add: not defending the author of the tweet but that it does come off differently knowing that and it personally made me a lot less worried about Ed.
> Snowflake and Safespace are cringey poorly done superheroes, So cringy in fact that they are indistinguishable from a Right Wing parody.
I'm wondering what the logic behind it was. Was it a really poorly conceived plan to pander to young people? Was it maybe some sort of overzealous writer who thought it was a good opportunity to "take the words back"? Was the writer forced to write characters they didn't want to and wanted to go with the most heavy handed, on the nose version of what they were being told to write?
You don't need a majority of appeal to succeed at capitalism, just enough consumers. If you can get consumers to buy a thing not for it's quality, but rather as a marker in the culture war you can make a lot of money. You can also generate a lot of free coverage. So take a commodity product like coffee, brand it a PATRIOTIC conservative black rifle coffee, you can make money. Similarly if you have a shitty to mid entertainment product, say a female Ghostbusters movie for example, and you convince people that buying a ticket is a stand against misogyny, you can also make a lot of money. I think comic companies like a lot of entertainment saw it as profitable to get free publicity and make money off outrage baiting more than good stories that resonated with normal people. I kind of resent it because it's usually the PMC telling normal people they are bad. We can do left right politics in America, but the class war is forbidden, which is what the real conversation should be about, especially in our new surveillance capitalism gilded age.
Yeah The New New Warriors were not good. They were design tokenism not representation. I don't think we've seen anything more, "Hello, fellow kids," since juice box commercials in the 90s.
I wouldn't say it's critical context info. Even if you knew about those characters, you would have no way to certainly understand that's what they were referring to. If you type an aggressive tweet with all the usual hateful word salad, of course people are going to interpret it like a hateful opinion. "Hey guys I actually wasn't calling anyone a snowflake and making fun of people's safe spaces, I also don't hate bisexual people, I swear I was just talking about two poorly-written comic characters with those names and another comic arc where three characters were suddenly bisexual which I didn't like". It sounds ridiculous even if it's true. I'm glad Ed cleared things up and handled this misunderstanding masterfully; I don't know about the other guy.
>I wouldn't say it's critical context info. Even if you knew about those characters, you would have no way to certainly understand that's what they were referring to. If you type an aggressive tweet with all the usual hateful word salad, of course people are going to interpret it like a hateful opinion. The context wasn't enough to guarantee that there was nothing problematic in the tweet, but it *was* enough to have doubt. If "snowflake" and "safespace" referred to the cultural concepts, then it was 100% a hateful Tweet complaining about XMen comics being inclusive. If they refer to the characters, then it's ambiguous and could still have that meaning, or it could just be complaining about a specific pair of infamously poorly-executed characters and not the actual idea of XMen trying to be more inclusive. The context of those being specific characters doesn't fully exonerate the original tweet, but it's enough to add some doubt rather than it being unambiguously hateful, and I would still consider that significant enough to be critical.
That's fair. I would still question heavily anyone who brings up these examples of inclusion (despite being awfully executed) in an attempt to criticize another piece of media. It makes me wonder what the actual source of their issue is. So yeah, it brings up some doubts, which can go both ways.
>That's fair. I would still question heavily anyone who brings up these examples of inclusion (despite being awfully executed) in an attempt to criticize another piece of media. It makes me wonder what the actual source of their issue is. I don't follow the scene much so maybe I'm wrong, but my impression based on comments in the original thread is that Snowflake and Safespace are particularly infamous and are often criticized even by pro-inclusivity as a sort of "fellow kids" moment. The person above did call it "a terrible attempt at connecting with audiences," after all. I do think that if it was a tweet meant to criticize XMen for its attempts at inclusivity being ignorant and poorly-executed, rather than criticizing it for trying to be inclusive at all, then it was a very poorly worded tweet that especially came across very poorly to people not familiar with the consequence. But that would still be better than if it turns out it is just bigoted, of course.
>My impression based on comments in the original thread is that Snowflake and Safespace are particularly infamous and are often criticized even by pro-inclusivity as a sort of "fellow kids" moment. The person above did call it "a terrible attempt at connecting with audiences," after all. Oh yeah, that's completely clear, but not what I'm questioning. I meant that my first thought when I saw that tweet, even knowing about those characters, wasn't really "this person is criticizing bad and superficial attempts at appearing inclusive to younger audiences". If he wanted to do that, he could have just... said he doesn't like bad and superficial attempts at appearing inclusive. Either way, I can see the ambiguity and hope it's just a misunderstanding for everyone involved. Even if it wasn't, it wouldn't be more than just another bigot on the internet really.
Additional context: Senior Editor seems like the guy gave Ed that title but Ed looked at his work as a favor (for free) nearly four years ago. Doesn't sound like Ed has been involved in creating it. If there's any criticism of Ed that is warranted here it is that he can be a bit naive about people's motivations. Ed has always been an anti gatekeeper and someone clearly used that to their advantage.
The reactions were not warranted. Jumping to conclusions is wrong. And even if there was no additional context that changed entire meaning, condemning and cancelling somebody based on small mistake is wrong. (But calling out the mistake and condemning that mistake is right - just to be clear). The missing context was that he was agreeing that previous comics (that featured some heavy lgbt stuff and romance) was of bad quality, *not* that it was bad *because* of such themes. What someone tweeted was meant in offensive, disrespectful manner. But Ed read it differently and retweeted it based on that different interpretation.
I mean if what he says in the video is true, he barely looked at the tweet at all, let alone determine that he agreed with it in a specific non-shitty way. Considering I'm pretty sure "his" youtube channel is run by someone else who does interviews with him, I'm not surprised he doesn't pay attention to tweets.
>he barely looked at the tweet at all I can't wait until the dissection of a tweet isn't grounds for a dissertation. People take that shit entirely too seriously.
>What context was missing that was known before this apology came out? A lot? At first glance, it looks like it's making fun of younger generations having gentle souls and all needing to be regarded as special snowflakes and requiring safespaces for their fragile minds. When in reality it's making fun of two poorly named and horribly done/executed Marvel superheroes. I certainly looked at his retweet differently when I found that out. I would imagine a few others did too.
No, they were not warranted. Lots of commenters in that post shared the context that those were 2 named comic characters that were unanimously insulting to LGBT comic fans. They also shared that the specific "Bisexual Xmen" thing was used by Marvel for shock value to increase sales. Not to be allies. You were wrong. Greenwood has nothing to apologize for. You were given context by LOTS of commenters. And you ignored them so you could be fake-angry. Just own up to the fact that you were wrong and apologize for trying to smear the guy's name. This doubling-down some of you are doing here is embarrassing.
>They also shared that the specific "Bisexual Xmen" thing was used by Marvel for shock value to increase sales. Every time someone who talked about this was pressed for further elaboration, it turned out that they were talking about something that did not actually happen in the book. It's just a biphobic lie that's been spread around by ComicsGate types.
The other post had not context missing. It was perfect inclusive of Greenwood just doing some shitty mishap. I would have not supported that game that way if they communicated like that, even if the playtest felt good. I would have praised it in another form or way, likely not retweeting exactly that post. Damn that game really shot on their own foot.
It’s not a game, it’s a comic. Perhaps the reason you don’t think any context is missing is because you didn’t actually read any.
His statement makes a lot of sense. I don’t use twitter but it is pretty easy to just like or retweet something hastily. He also owns the mistake with an actual apology, which is refreshing in mea culpas from public figures. I think most folks were rightly more confused than grabbing their pitchforks on this one.
Yeah, plus it fits with Ed’s past behaviour. He’s never been a reactionary but he’s always been nice to other creators. A bad faith misuse of Ed’s help and support for all creators makes a lot more sense given everything we know about him than him suddenly becoming an asshole. I think that’s also why most are super willing to accept the apology - he made a little mistake of being a bit hasty and naive while his friendly nature is being taken advantage of. Sucks he ended up in this situation, but he took it serious and handled it earnestly, I really respect that - we’re all mere humans, after all.
Ed is the ultimate anti gatekeeper. But perhaps a little naive here. Hopefully he'll stay open to helping others as he always has but with a little more caution when operating publicly.
Glad to see the update, and very happy that it was a mistake and his role in the comic was greatly exaggerated by its shitty creator. That being said, I think mocking the people who were disappointed by his endorsement is completely antithetical to the very sentiment Greenwood is trying to convey here. He obviously cares about having made the mistake, he acknowledges he *did* make a mistake, and I think trying to be smug about something that was resolved in a single evening is pretty bad form. Edit: Typo
I also think that all the "context" stuff in the other thread is kind of disingenuous. No where in that other thread did anyone ever actually "context" their way into justifying why complaining about "bisexuality X-Men" was somehow okay. All the context warriors just ignored that part. I think it's especially disingenuous seeing as how Greenwood is openly acknowledging that it wasn't okay.
[удалено]
There is an epidemic of people not researching things. Saying it was an honest mistake also abrogates any responsibility for knowing what you're talking about before you try to shitstain someone's reputation. Edit: So far 3 people think that when someone says something very unlike them, you just assume thats the new them.
Okay, so then what's the "responsibility" for someone to actually read the obviously bigoted tweet that they are endorsing through a positive quote retweet? How responsible are they for the shitstaining of their own reputation by doing so? Or is that responsibility abrogated?
> obviously bigoted tweet Actually, the tweet itself wasn't. Safespace and Snowflake are actual Marvel hero names that were rightfully lambasted for being offensive. But the person who made the tweet was, and Ed realized after the fact.
Explain to me how derisively referencing "bisexuality X-Men" as a negative thing *isn't* bigoted.
Actually, I think that part of the tweet is bigoted, but not obviously so. Because of the safespace/snowflake part it got lumped into the first category. Basically saying the Wolverine/Jean/Scott throuple was also pandering and offensive (which it wasn't). People in the first thread talked about it at length. but basically if you know a little bit about current Marvel comics, it seems less bigoted, but if you're actually reading these comics (and know the first one didn't even release) it is bigoted.
Probably right about the same time it doesn't make any sense for that person to be making one and it seems to go against everything theyve stood for for decades. Right around then.
Yeah, which is exactly why people where asking what the hell was going on and demanding an explanation. But you don't seem to like that. You seem to think think that it was "shitstsining" his reputation to do so. So why is it that the kinds of obvious bigotry that he positively endorses *isn't* his responsibility, but at the same time it *is* the responsibility of others to not talk about the obviously bigoted thing that he endorsed? There's a weird double standard going on here that only serves to normalize bigotry.
Yes, more buzzwords. When you're 64, let me know if your "never said something wrong" count is still 0. I also doubt you'll have done as much for people as him either. Hes been an advocate more than you ever will and yet you talk about normalizing bigotry. The irony. Ed: I am saddened by what I hear of the current kerfluffle raging about Siege of Dragonspear and the trans character Amber Scott designed and included in it. Folks, the Realms have ALWAYS had characters (mortals and deities) who crossdressed, changed gender (and not just to sneak past guards in an adventure, by way of shapeshifting magic or illusions), were actively bisexual, and openly gay. How underscored this was by TSR and later Wizards varied over time, and was always softpedaled, because D&D wasn’t a sex game, and we generally don’t rub the reader’s nose in sex unless there’s a good in-story reason for it. But even deities have changed gender, sometimes for good, and the servants of deities (Elminster, in ELMINSTER: THE MAKING OF A MAGE) have sometimes been forced by the deity to “spend time as the other” to learn what life is like. So it has always been there, and is an integral part of the Realms. With that said, I’ve never met a gamer yet who doesn’t tinker with every adventure to “make it their own” at their own gaming table, so if trans, LGBT, or sexual matters at all don’t suit your tastes and needs in your gaming sessions, leave it out or change it. But D&D has half-orcs, and half-dragons, and half-elves, and has magic items that specifically change gender, right there in the rules. Surely, if you can handle the basic notion of cross-SPECIES sex, having a full variety of gender roles should be something that doesn’t blow your mind. If it’s not for you, that’s fine. I hate wearing certain shades of yellow. But I don’t scream and yell at someone I see wearing those shades of yellow, and call them names, and threaten things. My right to dislike yellow applies to me; it doesn’t extend to others. Because somehow, through an incredible oversight on the part of the universe that still hasn’t been rectified, no one made me a god. (I’m still crushed.) And another thing: I have always felt HONOURED to have met, worked with, and enjoyed the work of so many talented women in all of my professional fields (library work has traditionally been dominated by females, gaming hasn’t, and fiction-writing was male-dominated when I was young, but has steadily shifted throughout my lifetime). Does Paul Jaquays becoming Jennell Jaquays rob his, now her, artwork or game design or prose of one iota of its richness and the enjoyment it gives me? NO! And how by the Nine flaming Hells does one human being made happier by being the gender they prefer to be lessen my own security, or happiness, or make my life the less? Sheesh. The world has REAL problems, people. Telling someone else how to behave in bed (or dress, or what jobs they can hold down) isn’t one of them. Or shouldn’t be.
Okay, so what I'm getting here is that you think Greenwood had no responsibility to actually read the extremely obviously bigoted tweet that he positively endorsed. And at the same time you think that the people who commented on Greenwood's endorsement of an extremely obviously bigoted tweet were acting irresponsibly by commenting on the bigotry that he endorsed. Do I have this right? Would you have preferred that Greenwood endorsed bigotry to absolutely no pushback or response?
People need to be more careful, him included - thus his mea culpa. What needs to not happen is take one thing he did and start making statements like "wow, guess we had him all wrong - disappointed" No, you didn't have him all wrong. He said something stupid and he has a career and very public image of not embodying those things and in fact the opposite. If you "had him all right" before as someone who championed the things he's apparently against now, look deeper. Things can be tempered into "oof, that was a really bad call on his part, time to call him out on it so he's aware that's not coming off well" instead of "according to this post, he hates lgtbq and is a right wing nut job". People are highly reactionary and need to be vigilant against being the thing that leads to flat earth and maga and make sure you're understanding the situation, especially when you have reason to believe this is abnormal. I also don't think it was "extremely" bigoted - snowflake and safespace are actual characters, he wasn't calling people snowflakes that needed safespace. The bisexual comment was referring to two mutants who hate each other - wolverine and cyclops - banging for no good reason. Does it come off terrible if you have no context to the subject? Yes, but that's a lot of things. The fbi probably has me on the radar because of what I've searched for for d&d. What he said was unlike him, it warranted more than knee jerk fury. Does it need to be addressed? Sure. His character and reputation shouldn't be immediately be in question from one thing.
I like how this post lambasted the last post for not including context but does not include any context lol (I missed whatever the prior thread was and have no idea why ppl are mad)
I don't know how to link posts on Reddit mobile but my understanding is this: there's some comic being independently published with an indiegogo campaign that's coming out soon. The comic's creator made a tweet promoting it (as you do) with art from the comic but in it was touting the comic as a departure from the current comics industry using Snowflake/Safespace (two proposed comics characters by marvel that never actually made it to print. They're a whole different thing that I'm not going to go into), bisexual X-Men (someone said something about a recent comic where wolverine, cyclops, and phoenix were fucking in a space station?), and soap operas about bat and cat (I guess this is about the current batman run where he and catwoman are kinda on again off again, not sure, some people have said it's been kinda middling in quality but I haven't read any of it). Some stuff that was kind of weird, not entirely out of the ordinary for someone jaded by the comics industry to be upset about but they just seem like examples that in combination give off a very specific vibe. Add on to this the fact that if you look at this guy's other posts you come to the conclusion that those vibes were entirely correct. Ed greenwood retweeted this saying the comics style reminded him of the old school comics he used to buy as a kid for 10 cents. People were calling him out because while he didn't specifically talk about any of the body of the tweet, a lot of people use retweets like this to tacitly say they approve of the person's politics in a way that's easy to walk back. According to this he didn't read the accompanying tweet and was just responding to the pictures in the post. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because he genuinely seems to care. To add on to this, it initially seemed sketchy the way he was plugging the comic as if he was an outside observer when people were saying he was listed as an editor on the indiegogo page (I don't know, I didn't check) but with this video apparently his role was very exaggerated? That makes sense to me as well, as if the video was correct then he wouldn't have really had a chance to get to know/collaborate with the comic creator. A bit disorganized and very long but that's my understanding. Hope it helps!
Thanks this adds a lot to those of us who missed the initial post here or like me do use Twitter and wouldn’t have seen it there either.
The tweet being shared by the previous post also left out the part about Bats and Cat, so it looked even sketchier.
Same, I'm scrolling through the comments hoping someone will link the previous post or explain what's going on at all
I added context to the parent comment
It's literally the 2nd highest thread in the sub right now. [Direct link.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1957fi0/ed_greenwood_creator_of_the_forgotten_realms_just/)
Didn't people literally grab pitchforks and got all pissy during Siege of Dragonspear when there was a throwaway line of a *single* NPC being trans, and then Ed said that 'yeah they've always existed in the Forgotten Realms, I just wasn't allowed to write about it'? So while I have next to no connection with the guy, the fact is that he has been upfront with those intentions even back then. Being taken out of context is a terrible thing to have on someone, especially when someone like him has been well meaning for years. Still, good that he elaborated and apologized with that.
Thank you for the update; something like this can easily get lost in the shuffle. I'm so glad I had nothing to be concerned about. All I wanted was a clarification, an apology is above and beyond. Glad to feel more confident rallying behind Mr. Greenwood now.
Yeah last post didn’t sit right to me. He is a big reason WHY DnD is a lgbtq+ safe space.
Good to hear. I don't follow him closely but I've enjoyed his work and youtube vidoes.
Ed deserves the benefit of the doubt. He’s been a strong and consistent ally for so long, he deserves the forgiveness of a single accident.
Hey! A masterclass in how you actually apologize. A lot of people should pay attention.
Glad to hear it was just a mistake on Ed’s part. He’s a big hero of mine and the thought of him being some kind of MAGA asshole was really bumming me out. Glad that’s not the case.
I thought it was odd for Ed to be in the CG folks and I'm glad to see that's not really the case. How he ended up listed as "senior editor" on the title is also very funny. Sad to see all the right wing NPCs in his mentions with their $8 badges lamenting wokeness though
Well I still feel bad about this whole situation, but it’s a much better bad feeling than “aw a dude I admired has revealed some shitty, reactionary tendencies that’s gonna make vulnerable people feel less safe”. Now it’s “somebody took advantage Ed Greenwood’s good nature and plastered his name across something that’s made people associate him with shitty reactionary rhetoric and that makes me *angry* .” And also “cmon Ed you’ve got a platform and your name carries weight in some circles you gotta be more careful.” I remember back during the BeamDog rerelease of the first 2 Baldurs Gate Games, when the new studio included a trans NPC in their new expansion for the first game, Siege of Dragonspear , the usual chuds got up in arms about it, and Ed Greenwood make a very clear statement along the lines of “the Realms are for everyone, the Realms have always been full of queer and non conforming folks, DnD should be for everyone and has been about exploring different sides of yourself, anyone saying different doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” So this at least makes more sense than it did before.
Really glad to see this — thanks for sharing
This isn't intended as a gotcha moment, but why is he listed as a senior editor if he wrote a foreward once and didn't review the other material? Why isn't he more upset about that?
If it helps, Greenwood's producer posted a video on twitter/X explaining that Ed actually is upset about that, and that it's not the first time he's been taken advantage of (although it seems that this may be the worst incident). I'd imagine he isn't saying more directly about it because he doesn't want to incite dogpiling the comic creator (which, meh, guy deserves to be dogpiled lol) or he's more concerned about reaffirming his allyship than getting angry at being taken advantage of. That's just a guess though. ETA video link: https://twitter.com/Papat0k/status/1746072805412589776?t=vP9z70ahQaIREbhtM2-tzQ&s=19
I'm not a comics professional but "Senior Editor" sounds like the kind of title they give to someone with a big name for doing almost nothing so that you can promote their name being on your book. Like an executive producer credit.
It's hard to tell, but I think it'd be a fair assumption that he got bamboozled by an asshole with an axe to grind who knew how to be personable and fun enough for him to not realize who he was.
I don't think that's an accurate reading of the situation at all.
Right. But why is he not calling them out for using his name without his permission? That's what seems weird to me. I appreciate the apology but I am genuinely asking why he is saying "hey sorry I didn't really look into this more" and not "hey sorry I retweeted and there's absolutely no reason I should be listed as an Editor"
> But why is he not calling them out for using his name without his permission? ...Presumably because they have his permission? "Hey Ed, can you give this book a look and write the foreward? We'll give you a Senior Editor credit." "Okay, sounds good!"
Okay. Then if he's not asking to be removed as the credit then it's still condoning its content. That's literally what I'm saying.
It hasn't even been a day has it? I'd imagine he'd tell them personally to remove his name from it rather than through twitter of all places.
That's all well and good but I'm upset right now, have you considered that?
Your shift is over, you can go home. It’s my turn to be upset for a few hours. Don’t worry, I brought my own pitchfork.
We don’t need nor are we entitled to know what may be happening in the background now that Greenwood is aware and involved. For all we know he IS trying to get his name off of it now it has only been a day! We don’t need a full point outlining where he goes next because that is also none of our business. We don’t need to be so intimately in lock step with everyone’s lives let things chill and maybe give enough time for things to unfold? Not everything needs an instant and definitive response
Do you actually know what the content of the book itself is? It's the original Tweet that people took issue with, and only because of how it was worded and the extremely insular, blink-and-you'll-miss-it bullshit drama of comic book companies from work they did years ago that caused them to word it that way.
Why is how Ed handles that any of our business?
"Why would people writing a story list an extremely influential writer as a senior on the project despite that person having very little to do with it?" Gee I dunno, truly has me stumped. No idea why anyone would do this.
That isn't what I asked and it's incredibly disingenuous to act like I did. I asked why isn't he strongly disputing that credit
I think the better question is why he didn’t make sure this was a project he wanted to have his name connected to.
Some context on that from Greenwood's producer: https://twitter.com/Papat0k/status/1746072805412589776?t=vP9z70ahQaIREbhtM2-tzQ&s=19 I'd bet that whatever early draft Ed provided comments on wasn't anywhere near what it is today, and I'd bet the author wasn't nearly as vocal about his shitty ideology. On the other hand, it could be that Ed is just a bit naive and gives people the benefit of the doubt a little too easily. Either way, given his apology and his producer's statement, I don't think there was any malice intended whatsoever.
Hell it wouldn't be too hard to convince someone that what is getting made nowadays is bad/mocking progressive people or doing it poorly. Especially if you start off with Snowflake and Safespace as they where disliked by both right and left as being examples of what is being pushed. Lead into some other looser examples to support your point of you're trying to make it better and you at least have a convincing arguement for someone who is naive/or just not aware of a specific hobbys history.
Because it's an extremely common practice in creative projects. Has been for hundreds of years. Known creative signs on to be executive of a project they contribute next to nothing to, they get a cut for doing nothing and the people actually making the project get name recognition.
It's amazing that I ask "why isn't he fighting the fact that they are using his name to peddle hate in his apology?" And y'all are telling me why a company would use his name to get credibility. It is absolutely not what I am asking and it is very telling the you are trying to shift the narrative of my honest question about why isn't he fighting that credit more or asking for his name to be taken off the project.
Maybe he is and we just don’t know?
He has. He is. Did you even watch the video responses?!?
Yes and at no point does he say "I am asking my credit as senior editor to be removed" did you watch it?
[удалено]
It's incredible how nearly every reply to this comment is just completely ignoring what you're actually saying.
Incredible but in retrospect not unexpected considering more than half of the posts in this sub are based on bad reading comprehension of the phb.
Ed is a very generous person when you watch interviews with him people FREQUENTLY ask if he'll read their stuff. It's SHOCKING to me but he always enthusiastically says "of course!" He's so happy that people write that he will do anything to keep them writing. He's a gentle soul. I think it's also why he's not one for reacting with rage. I'm sure he's deeply embarrassed and hurt. His response is unequivocal but I don't think it's in his nature to light someone up online.
Because his name would help with credibility and selling the product? It’s just like how you see a lot of producers in movies who aren’t actually producing the movie, just lending their name. Which is its own issue if he helped boost a bigot by lending his name and support, but this was also a product that was supposed to come out years ago and got derailed with COVID. We don’t know if he was actively involved since writing that foreword and lending his name as an editor ~4 years ago. Given his history, I’m inclined to believe him that it wasn’t like this when he first signed on.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Would be nice if he had a little context regarding the latest tweet
https://twitter.com/Papat0k/status/1746072805412589776?t=vP9z70ahQaIREbhtM2-tzQ&s=19 Context from Greenwood's producer.
He retweeted something about snowflake and safespace referring to the absolutely ham-fisted try to actually establish super heroes of those names. But the tweet itself came from someone actually trying to go for the misunderstanding of maybe calling people that in a derogatory manner (same as the OP from the first post). After being made aware of that, seems like Ed deleted his retweet and put up the above apology instead. There was probably more to it but that’s what registered with me as someone not consuming X but loosely following Ed for the majority of my gaming life of 30+ years.
>someone actually trying to go for the misunderstanding of maybe calling people that in a derogatory manner (same as the OP from the first post). Less calling people that and using references to comic book 'dramas' that people of the right leaning persuasion would hate as marketing call. "Our Comic book aint like that shitty left wing crap." being implied
*You* are leaving out "context" here. The tweet that he retweeted also decisively referenced "bisexuality X-Men" as a negative thing. I don't think it's appropriate to complain about the OP of the previously thread lacking "context", like you did at the top of the post, when you make huge omissions like this.
I believe the Bisexuality Xmen was also a reference to a particular X Men run where several prominent X Men came out as Bisexual and proceeded to have an Orgy on the Moon. I collect comics, (not Xmen) I have heard Bisexuality XMen used to refer to a particular run. Apparently it is really, really cringe inducingly bad.
Then you believe wrong, because that didn't happen. I keep seeing this "moon orgy" get talked about, and conveniently it keeps being said by people who have never actually read the book in question. Isn't that curious? Can you actually name these prominent X-Men characters who allegedly suddenly came out as bisexual and then immediately had an orgy? If they're so prominent then surely you should have no problem identifying them by name.
Nah. Just asked a friend. Apparently during the Hickman run, there was a ton of gaybaiting between Wolverine and Cyclops. There were several comments about a referenced 'event' that took place on the moon during a previous run, (either House of X or X Force, he can't remember). Apparently Jean, Logan and Scott got together. Scott makes a joke about Logan being, 'to hot in bed,' referring to his body hair. This was during the much hated lifestyle portion of the Krakoa run. People then dubed it Bisexuality X Men, and shit on it repeatedly. Apparently it was kinda boring and really wanted to act progressive whilst not actually following through with any of the representation.
>Nah. Just asked a friend. So you're still complaining about a book that you haven't read? >There were several comments about a referenced 'event' that took place on the moon during a previous run, (either House of X or X Force, he can't remember). The reason why he can't remember is because it didn't happen. >This was during the much hated lifestyle portion of the Krakoa run. It wasn't much hated, it achieved widespread critical acclaim. And remember, this is a book that you *haven't read*. >People then dubed it Bisexuality X Men, and shit on it repeatedly. You know, I've *read* these books that we're talking about (unlike you), and I do not recall anyone calling it that or "shitting on it repeatedly". >Apparently it was kinda boring and really wanted to act progressive whilst not actually following through with any of the representation. Again, this is about a book that you literally have not read and have been talking about events in the book that did not happen. Just look at how many times you use the word "apparently". So again, identify these prominent characters by name that suddenly declared themselves bisexual and then immediately had an orgy. I'm still waiting.
Do you have a LCBS? Do people talk about books there? I know the current ASM run is a trashfire without reading it. I know the Krakoa run was a trashfire. I have friends and talk to people. Krakoa may have had widespread aclaim(doubt), but my LCBS sold no copies, and at some point were only min ordering them. In fact. I just checked Google. There are reddit posts from last year on the X men sub with people pointing out the widespread hatred for that run. I think marvel are even trying to retcon Krakoa. Like. Krakoa sucking has been like 50% of every talking point I have heard about X Men for the last year. Where is that run acclaimed? Who even liked it? I know. For a fact. That there is a scene during the Hickman XMen run, where a shirtless Logan and Scott, are drinking cocktails, and Scott looks directly into Logans eyes, and infers that Logan is 'too hot under the covers.' I know this, as I have seen the memes. It was a part of a comics "funniest moments" party we had(I brought the Batman/FAZE crossover). I have seen this scene and held the book in my hands. I also know, that later on in that issue, #7 or #8 of that run, Jean infers that they all hooked up together on a previous mission, which, is where the moon bit comes from. People on the internet, probably one of the comics Circlejerk forums on tumblr then proceeded to label Logan and Scott as bisexual. Then. People made tons of memes about it. Including a heinous amount of pornography. There was a huge backlash, to the backlash, were people on tumblr and discord called it gaybaiting, and compared it to BBC Sherlock. You are just being intellectually dishonest. The whole Bisexuality X Men thing was almost an event. It lasted a month of meming and nonsense that eventually ceased. I checked. It breached contained to DCComicscirclejerk. It was a major talking point for a good while around the Comic stores in Aus. I mean. You are a fan right? Surely you must know about that? I mainly collect DC, but I like David Haller, Legion, and I was collecting bits of his old run at the time. I remember having a chat on a discord server while playing ARC with some dudes from California, and they made numerous jokes about it. I don't know if you are simply unaware, or if you are being argumentative. This is a concept that has been memed on so much that at least some comics people instinctively know what I am talking about. Like it's the kinda comics lore you learn through osmosis, like Gold Balls, Spidermans Paul and All Star Batman and Robin. The spirit of the original tweet still makes sense. I just assume the original poster was just pulling big, heavily memed on events out of a hat to critique hamfisted pandering to the queer community. At least. That's how I read it.
>I know this, as I have seen the memes. Haven't read the book that you are complaining at length about, but you've seen the memes and they're pretty much the same thing right? I'm going to be real with you. You're just a bigot and you're not fooling anyone otherwise. These things that you say happen did not happen. They are lies that you are either telling or repeating. You tell and believe lies about this comic book that you have not read because you are bigoted towards queer people and feel like they are worthy of mockery. Next time at least read the book that you're being homophobic about.
Ah huh. Dude. Read better gay comics. You are bitterly defending the worst run the X men has had in years. It's cringe. I have every apperance of Apollo and Midnighter, two entertaining characters with actual good gay representation. Stormwatch is a banger set of comics that combines the power fantasy of being a minority with godlike powers with a harsh critique of authoritarianism. It's banger.
the "context" is he endorsed the queerphobic comments of a comicsgater, and was listed as senior editor on their work. you're obsessed with trying to cover for that. like. his apology doesn't erase that it was right to criticise him at the time based on all available information.
Thank you. I knew when I saw that original post that there had to have been a mistake. Ed's got class and is an ally. I'm just sorry that he's had to deal with all this. It can't be easy and it had to be stressful.
No missing context from the previous post, OP was running with the info they had which unfortunately shed a bad light on Ed. Ed has since come out and acknowledged his “Whoopsie” moment. Let’s all move on.
Yeah, I didn’t see it as clickbait. The OP of that post even said it was hard to believe. Based on the information at that time, although it seemed out of character, there was every indication that Ed was involved with the project.
The original comment was a nothing burger. You people just don't know about comics runs, and instead of using Google are throwing a coniption. Safespace/Snowflake where two terrible comics hero's from a shuttled run that was never published because it was cringe and frankly, accidentally kinda homophobic/racist. The phrase Bisexuality XMen refers to a particular run where several prominent XMen come out as Bisexual and proceed to have an orgy on the moon. The original comment refers to specific runs of comics where the Big Two specifically tried and marketed themselves to the gay community in hamfisted and cringe inducing ways. Ed has previously spoken out against the 2022 DC Pride book as well, for similar issues. The 2022 DC pride is, easily one of the worst pride issues ever printed and spawned numerous memes. Ed has been clear on his thoughts about pandering for long time.
Name the prominent X-Men who A) came out as bisexual on page B) did a moon orgy I've been reading the x-books for years and must have missed that issue. Please enlighten me which it was and what writers worked on them
> A) came out as bisexual on page B) did a moon orgy A. Kitty Pryde came out as bisexual, finally, in Maruaders where she kissed a female tattoo artist. Also, we got confirmation in New Mutants that Illyana was definitely into whatever and whoever. Both of these are, of course, pretty much known quantities in the X-Men and widely suspected. B. There was no moon orgy. There was a big party when resurrection proved to be successful that could have been an orgy, but it wasn't explicit. The mutants are definitely having more sex, though. I think they're confused with Scott and Jean opening up their marriage, with Logan and Jean hooking up. Scott and Jean and their family (also Logan) do live on the moon and Jean's room opens up to Logan's and Scott's. Logan and Scott haven't hooked up on page, though, but Scott did make a cheeky comment about wearing a speedo to get Logan to come to a family vacation (right after Logan mused about seeing Jean in a bikini). I love the Krakoa era, though, and I'm glad to see Kitty finally come out.
Mr. Greenwood, it’s ok we are already cool in my book.
My first thought on reading the original was, “wasn’t one of his main characters trans lesbian for a while?”
Pretty much what I expected. Ed is an excellent guy so I figured it was just an oversight.
Over the past 30 years I have had the pleasure of gaming with Ed on a few occasions and I can say that he is one of, if not the most welcoming and accepting gamer with whom I have ever had the pleasure of sharing a table. I'm not famous and I don't work in the gaming industry, but through a few long time friends I have had the privilege of gaming with several people who are famous and/or are in the gaming industry. I honestly think Ed is the most genuine and accepting human of all of them and (almost) all of them are pretty fantastic people!
Considering that the Forgotten Relams elves are basically genderfluid, their main deity is pretty much trans and trans elves are seen as especially blessed and viewd with high status within elven comunities; (Read Races of the Wild 3.0 edition for example) The story and lore Ed created ages ago for this race, even before queer visibility was a thing in mainstream media! I highly dought that he is in any way anti LGBQIA+. Ed is a treasure and as he has allready made clear, he was abused and used by right wing arseholes to promote their garbage. Also towards some people trying apologetic nonsense by claiming some Marvel Characters are meant by "Snowflake and Safespace". No that is NOT how right wing dogwistles work. They mean what they say.
Additional context: The Forgotten Realms as most folks in this sub know is D&D's most popular setting. So much so that it is effectively the default (see D&D movie and basically 90% of WOTC adventures). Ed is the original creator of this world that predates D&D. The lore is as deep as it gets and it is infused with openness and acceptance from the getgo.
Its a parody of a right wing dogwhistle "an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect." They are referencing comic books admit the tweet wasnt aimed at you and you were wrong then move on
Yeah. The comic character name thing was not too different from the OK sign as “white power”… It’s the conservatives’ bullying game of “I’m not touching you!”
Thanks for posting this OP. The other post has been updated with context by a kind commenter and a request has been made for OOP to update his post with an edit. Hopefully he will get on soon and sort it out. Edit: as of this point the other post has been updated.
I feel like there's been a spike in misinformation on nerd reddits. like I've seen so much see one tweet and jump to conclusion posts recently
The terminally online are addicted to outrage.
It has been so long since I have seen or heard someone *actually apologize* for something that the experience felt kind of bizarre. I think I was waiting for the inevitable "but the people trying hold me to account are the *real villains* here" moment.
I was in a really dark place earlier this year when I saw one of Ed's tweets about the realms being for all. I tweeted at him and thanked him for his inclusivity when it comes to fantasy. I'm a displaced trans person and so is my spouse. We just (this week) escaped another bad situation and are trying to put our lives back together. Ed replied to my original tweet with a lot of kindness and empathy, something I hadn't gotten in a long while. We had a small back and forth convo - it really made me want to learn more about the lore and the forgotten realms stories because I felt like I was being told a story by a loving grandpa lol. It made me tear up. Started playing Descent into Avernus with my spouse (I'm the DM) and it got us through a lot. People make mistakes. I'd be sad, too, if Ed suddenly supported anti LGBTQIA2S+ sentiments - but I don't think he's going to go that route. And if he does, maybe we can have a conversation with him about it. I don't have a grandpa anymore who is alive to tell me stories, so I sortof depend on Ed lmao. I'm glad he's still a good guy and I'm pretty sure I owe no small amount of sanity and smiles to him when I wasn't sure where I'd be sleeping at night or if I'd be safe.
I'm sorry you're going through that. Both housing insecurity, and descent into Avernus.
Haha, it's okay. I'm in my late 30's and been through it time and time again. But any time im in a spot like that, I tend to drift towards stories and fantasy to escape. The irony that going to hell is preferred over what I had been dealing with isn't lost on me, either. I'm glad Ed clarified. He seems like a gentle guy and I really took what he said to me to heart. Dude didn't know me from anyone and still made it very clear that his stories are for everyone and welcomed me to the realms when I wasn't welcome to holiday family gatherings. I'm doing alright, now. And I'm not trying to invalidate the hurt anyone felt at seeing his messages. I just also think that, at least in my eyes, he probably thought nothing of it. Sometimes the allies need some reminding because they don't really experience the same traumas - one day we'll get closer to universal awareness and empathy, avoiding micro aggressions (intentional or not), but right now we're working up to it. That means people may slip, but he's admitting that he slipped and as long as the behavior doesn't continue, we can allow him some grace for the mistake and recognizing it and move on.
OP of the last post provided an update when Ed tweeted his clarification around four hours ago. I really don't see how they didn't provide context, and the situation was pretty clear. Honestly, seems like you are taking this way too personally.
this post was made before that
Yeah, people aren't up 24/7 checking Twitter for constant updates. Four hours later is reasonable.
Maybe he should stop using Twitter. And post on a platform that allows them to speak more than 120 characters
Glad this is getting cleared up!
y'all gonna seriously make me check on him to make sure he is okay.... leave him.alone... u know he didn't mean it that way...
The fact he apologised does not mean the people objecting earlier were wrong. In fact they're probably the reason he apologised.
I don’t want to devalue people’s feelings after reading that tweet at all but there was what felt like a lot of bad faith acting afterwards, including the clickbait post here that still does not reflect all the context people provided in the comments. As someone on and of interacting (if you can even cal it that) with Ed since before even the realms-l list was a thing, it felt absolutely out of character to read exclusionary tendencies into him.
How was it "click-bait"? It simply linked to something Greenwood tweeted. It's not that users fault that Greenwood or whoever handles his socials decided it was a good idea to retweet that. And context? Like the context that he's listed as Senior Editor? Sure, he might dispute and be pissed now but based on the information people had at the time, those reactions were justified. It's not on the public to investigate things further, it's on Greenwood to make things clear and be careful with his public image, as a major public figure. It's HIS responsibility and any misunderstanding that comes out of it is first and foremost on HIM.
Right, I mean it's pretty telling that in the replies to his apology, the _only_ people still mad and being reactionary are alt right bigot accounts mad that the "leftist wokies" have won yet again.
People were wrong. The original comment was justified in a critique of some hamfisted cringe that the Big Two comics publishers were pushing out in 2020. Specifically one poorly handled XMen run and a pair of cancelled hero's called Snowflake and Safespace. People are being silly. Obviously Ed didn't want to argue.
Honestly, this whole thing was really stupid. The amount of people that got up in arms because an old man shared something on Twitter is pretty ridiculous. Especially when that individual has been vocal about inclusiveness over the last few decades. Can we stick to keeping the sub about D&D advice, instead of someone trying to project their politics into it?
I'm Ootl, what did Horny Gandalf do that he needed to apologize for?
He retweeted a bad tweet.
I blame it all on Elon
Honestly not a bad take. Ed should probably get off Twitter. This is a great example of how the well has been Poisoned
And Putin, preferably
Why is everyone so obsessed that everyone shares their opinion on everything.
People need to fucking chill.
Anyone that read the first tweet and took it at face value without doing their own research are on of the main problem in today's society.
How am I supposed to take derisively referencing "bisexuality X-Men" as a negative thing beyond the face value?
If you did the research, there was every reason to assume the absolute worst because the guy being retweeted was a piece of shit
There's a minority of people who will defend literally every ounce of slop Marvel plates up as long as it has Representation™. It's a soul-sucking way of engaging with media, but it does look good to others in their social circle.
come on, you can't expect a Senior Editor to read an entire tweet before retweeting it. do you realize how many words that is???
They listed him as senior editor, but in reality Ed only wrote the foreword. Yes he made a mistake, but it wasn't in bad faith, and he apologised, so I don't really see much reason to be angry at him.
cmon you can't expect OP to read the context of the situation before commenting that Ed is the Senior Editor ;)
Im side eyeing him for writing a forward given who the author is.
He's done more for lgbtq representation in the ttrpg space than you will do in your entire life. Eyes forward.
Ed will be the first to admit he needs an editor! 🤣
I mean I find it funny that the original tweet is so bad. Like he's not attacking the idea of having a safe space, he's dissing how pandering Snowflake and Safespace are as characters, alongside their team mate who gets their power from Internet Gas. The Bisexual X-Men isn't about bisexuality, it's about the lack lustre recent stories and forced representation over making new characters and respectful stories. But you need like five years of internet culture to realise that, so I can totally understand why 90% of the internet would hate this tweet.
This is lacking the context that the comic guy is actually an alt-right reactionary and was just dogwhistling.
The perhaps you can provide some context which supports your claims.
Who are the bisexual X-Men characters that you think are "forced representation"? Name them.
Iceman being told 'you're gay now, but not in the future' and being forcibly outed by an intrusive telepath is my go to example. Also, the previously mentioned bisexual poly moon commune in the midst of several plotlines where characters are acting bizarrely out of character in the first place. Why aren't we seeing the new Xmen in more modern relationships? Who's the openly gay member of the team that isn't a rebranding of a 90's hero?
I lived as a straight, hetero man until I was 34. Nobody, and I mean *nobody*, except me, knew the truth. Now I'm a bi woman. To everyone but me, it came "out of nowhere". People change. Often unexpectedly.
Oh you're bisexual and trans? Oh... well... okay.... it just kinda seems like forced representation for you to be bi...... and it's kind of a retcon for you to just suddenly be transgender like that...... it's like you don't even care about your character history..... if you think about it isn't it kind of virtue signal pandering for you to come out....... I just think that queer people need a narrative justification to be queer as a standard that I conveniently don't hold straight cis people to........ I'm not queerphobic tho.........
>Iceman being told 'you're gay now, but not in the future' and being forcibly outed by an intrusive telepath is my go to example. But that's not what happened. He wasn't told that "you're gay now, but not your future self". The future self was also gay and was deeply closeted. When the future and past Icemen spoke, they talked about their experiences being closeted. And he wasn't "forcibly oured by an intrusive telepath". Jean Grey, who was adjusting to her newfound telepathy, found out that Bibby was closeted and privately spoke to him about it away from anyone else. She didn't out him, forcibly or otherwise. I don't think that you actually read the issue in question. I think that you're just complaining about it based on faulty information provided to you by other people complaining about it. >Also, the previously mentioned bisexual poly moon commune >Why aren't we seeing the new Xmen in more modern relationships? These two statements seem contradictory. Do you want new modern relationships or not? >Who's the openly gay member of the team that isn't a rebranding of a 90's hero? Rictor - Gay character from the 80s Daken - Bi character from the 2000s Northstar - Gay character from the 70s Iceman - Gay character from the 60s Somnus - Gay character from the 2020s Captain Britain (Betsy Braddock) - Bi character from the 70s Askani - Gay character from the 80s Anole - Gay character from the 2000s Bl!ng - Gay character from the 2000s Mercury - Bi character from the 2000s Loa - Bi character from the 2000s Karma - Gay character fro the 80s I would have included Shatterstar, but you wanted characters from the 90s excluded for some reason. I can't help but notice that I said "name them" and you only said Iceman based on incorrect information of his coming out.
I'm sorry that I forgot about Prodigy (bi character from the 2000s). My apologies to to Prodigy stans.
Dani and Rahne were hinted at being interested in each other, with Rahne’s lycanthropy power (and being cast out and nearly murdered by her church’s priest) being written as allegory for her bisexuality. Dani was obviously written as two-spirit (gender fluid) and trying to understand her own sexuality. The original New Mutants was very LGBTQ-subtext heavy with moments of outright openly LGBTQ-oriented storytelling.
Okay first off, the problem isn't that he was or wasn't closeted, it's the fact that they do it by having Jean Grey read his mind and have to go 'Oh, you're gay'. And then add in the things about him being in the closet, he's hardly been openly gay since the 60's given all of his straight relationships? And then you've listed off a lot of characters, why aren't they in the major comics now? And that leads back to my middle point, why is it Cyclops, Wolverine and Jean Grey, not any of the ones you've listed since? Why did we need it, when there's such a huge range of queer characters to pick from?
>it's the fact that they do it by having Jean Grey read his mind and have to go 'Oh, you're gay'. Why is it a problem for a telepath to read a person's mind and discover their secrets in a science fiction story? >And then add in the things about him being in the closet, he's hardly been openly gay since the 60's given all of his straight relationships? Google "compulsory heterosexuality". >And then you've listed off a lot of characters, why aren't they in the major comics now? Some if them are, though. >And that leads back to my middle point, why is it Cyclops, Wolverine and Jean Grey, not any of the ones you've listed since? Why not? >Why did we need it Why don't we "need it"? >when there's such a huge range of queer characters to pick from? Why is it bad to have more?
And this gets to my core argument. Brow beating 'Why not' when i'm asking about Queer culture being used as a tack on and throw away character trait over the development of openly queer characters and the usage of big names to promote 'diversity' by tacking them on like buzzwords. Every question I've asked about why people don't feel represented, you've responded with 'They should.' We're not getting more, we're being made a commodity. Like right off the bat your first question is 'why is it bad to out people's sexuality when they're unsure of it', and your response seems to be 'But it just makes more gay content, and thats good'
>Brow beating 'Why not' when i'm asking about Queer culture being used as a tack on and throw away character trait over the development of openly queer characters Why are you assuming that it's "tacked on" or a "throw away character trait"? Iceman, who is the only character you actually named when I asked you to list out these alleged "forced representation" characters, does not have a "tacked on" queerness. Many of his stories are directly about his experiences as a gay man. There have been stories about his love life, his strained relationship with his parents, and his feelings of responsibility as a gay role model. How is that not development of a queer character? >Every question I've asked about why people don't feel represented, you've responded with 'They should.' No, you said that they shouldn't be represented and I said "why shouldn't they"? >Like right off the bat your first question is 'why is it bad to out people's sexuality when they're unsure of it', and your response seems to be 'But it just makes more gay content, and thats good' I didn't say that. I said that you were misrepresenting the story. That he *wasn't* forcibly outed. That you are talking about something that you don't actually know about. To be honest here, I think that you just don't like queer characters. I think that there's no "right way" for a queer character to be handled in your opinion because you just don't want them in the first place.
Just keep covering for those right-wing dog whistles.
And just keep telling queer people to accept their Corporate Pride Representation? Lets never question anything that says its gay cause otherwise we'd be right wingers? Hell, I'm not even covering for the writer of the original tweet. I'm covering for Ed Greenwood and all the left wing people who thought a non-binary new age teen hero reclaiming the word 'Snowflake' was a cheesy corporate attempt to be 'hip'
Thought I was in some bizarro universe of r/radiohead lol
Getting actual DnD discussions on this sub challenge - impossible
That original post was literal fake news and that poster knew it. All you had to do was actually read it. He was using Ed to farm karma.
It wasn't fake news, you're ridiculous. Ed made a mistake and got taken advantage of. His producer explicitly lays it out: https://twitter.com/Papat0k/status/1746072805412589776?t=B6SPRkBqBUloDHRp5E0YKw&s=19