>>112301754>Claremont didn't make it because he's gayWell, duh. He made it because he was doing exactly the sorta thing he has been known to do: introduce a truckload of subtext into his works.
>You can't use that as an example of gay's secretly pandering to gays.No, it's just regular signaling to gays. Trust me there's countless of people who have always seen those signs and feel identified with that, and I don't mean "shippers".
In fact, Claremont recently was criticized (although mildly, before you start foaming at the mouth) because his recent writing still uses the subtext as a crutch, when we're at a point where it's no longer needed and he can be overt with the ideas he actually wanted to transmit. Obviously this makes the outragefags seethe too, but hey.
