>>115635620>None of them were specifically replacing anyoneGotcha again. You're really easy to trap. People complained endlessly about them at first because of them replacing the old X-men. And yet, eventually the stories were great and X-Men became one of the most popular books. Do you see why you're wrong? And how easy it is to prove your lack of knowledge? Writing was always the issue.
>>115635665So you were responding to someone mid argument? When the context of your comment totally sounds like a continuation of said argument? Now onto your lack of argument:
>Yes, calling out sjw-ism is important, even if sjwism wasn't around when older bad stuff happened.Radical politics has always been in comics. Some of it was written well and a lot wasn't. These politics were the "SJW-ism" of their day, contextually, but of course a lot of these politics are no longer seen as being radical.
> Why? Because bad stuff aren't just isolated incidents, they are more often than not results of trends, like 90s aesthetics.Politics isn't a trend. Comics have always tried to appeal to people with political themes. Always. Of course modern marketing gimmicks may attempt to use politics in that way. But see my above point. Plenty of comics have been radical for their day. Fuck, Denny O'Neill just died and look at Hard Travelling heroes.
>so are these dumb sjw-approachesBecause you're never complaining about the writing or art, you're complaining that characters got replaced and making it an issue about diversity (which like I said with the X-Men, has happened before). You act like diversity is the thing driving the bad writing. Also, about trends: Marvel in the 1970s JUMPED on trends. From kung fu to horror to anything else. And the reason why Shang Chi or Tomb of Dracula was good was it had decent teams involved. So yeah, the problem is about quality of the creatives, anyone can make diversity or any other politics you deem "sjw-isms" work.
