Incredible Hulk #256, February 1981.
"When did comics get political??!?!!!"
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
56 points (86.8% liked)
Comic Books
1838 readers
122 users here now
A place to discuss comic books of all types, from old to new, Big 2 to indie, and everything in between.
Floppies, graphic novels, compilations, omnibusses (omnibusi?) are all fair game.
There is only one rule:*
Comic Books is a no judgement zone.
You can talk all you want about how Rob Liefeld is trash, Bob Kane is an asshole, or Frank Miller and Dave Sim’s politics have made them toxic, that’s all good.
If, however, another user is LEGITIMATELY a fan of something you don’t like, that does NOT make them a lesser person. Attack the art for being bad, not the person for being a fan of bad art.
* I lied. There are TWO rules... No piracy. Cover shots? That's good. Interior pages, in moderation? Sure. Full books? Links to pirate sites? That's how we get things shut down. :(
I'm not saying it's been a problem, because it hasn't been.
See our sister sites!
Marvel Studios! For all the latest on the Marvel Cinematic Universe!
https://lemmy.world/c/marvelstudios
For other cinematic content, hit up Movies! Aquaman is coming soon, followed by the big reboot!
And don't forget Movies and TV over at lemm.ee! A good place for discussing Marvel, DC and other film and television properties!
Want to talk BOOK books? See Books!
Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay? Becoming Superman? John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood? That's the place!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 35 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
I don't think the author ever intended for this to be as relevant as it is right now.
Why did Hulk go to the Middle-East to look for peace? Is he stupid?
Are you really this angry at a comic book character?
I thought it was funny, just laid on top of everything we've seen, its such a wildly different expectation for how theyd act. These days theyd call those kids Hamas and shed 100% be chasing after Hulk lol.
"Art can't address real things!"
If they aren’t angry at the comic then they are suggesting Israeli people cannot feel empathy which is very fucked up.
I understand that saying Israelis can't feel empathy is obviously not true, but I think it is a somewhat understandable exaggeration, since it's kinda hard to protest a state but not it's people.
People do do it (it's what I'm doing rn) but it is also understandable that people consider the native of a certain nations to be responsible for it's states actions.
It is a bit hypocritical though, as for example we definitely don't hold North Koreans responsible for Kim's actions, but we do sort of think Chinese people are more free to protest their government than North Koreans, but I don't think we assign the Chinese with a whole lot of agency. Then Russians? I think (and I realise this is my opinion about the opinions of others) we think Russians have a bit more but similar levels of freedom to China when it comes to criticising the government. Perhaps we also think Russia is so large and basically education in some parts is so poor it's also a contributing factor.
But Israel... ? I think everyone at least used to consider Israel a rather democratic country. So we assign more moral agency to Israelites for their state's actions compared to the others I mentioned.
But you are right in that a people is not the same as the state with the same name.
I clash with Lemmys Russians all the time, but I still quite enjoy this song:
I can't help but defaulting to generalising and othering sometimes, because we're all people, and we can't be perfect all the time. It does mean, however, that we can always strive for moral perfection, despite knowing we will never actually achieve it.
Are you really this angry that you felt the need to peoject your anger onto someone else who displayed no signs of anger?
Look at the title. They are either angry at a comic book character or they are suggesting Israeli’s cannot feel empathy which is even more fucked up.
Why do you assume anger?
They are suggesting Israel doesn't have empathy, which is based on a true story. They keep electing Netanyahu who is blatantly corrupt because he focuses the populace's anger against Palestinians with a very high level of support and dehumanizing Palestinians is extremely common in Israel.
Although it is likely the superhero pictured is like Captain America, where they are the embodiment of what the country says they are and not who they actually are.
I presume anger because racism is the other option and frankly anger is more likely (I hope).
“They keep electing Netanyahu” is that how the Israeli Parliamentary elections work? I thought they worked like every Parliament where people choose parties that combine to form a government who then select an executive. Oh shit wait that’s exactly how Israel chooses it’s PM too, so no one is electing Bibi other than the parliamentarians voting. Israelis choose parties whose coalitions choose Netanyahu.
And again suggesting an individual cannot feel empathy because of their national origin is at the very least fucked up and never should be encouraged.
That is like saying the people in the US don't elect the president because the Electoral College does.
I mean I'm definitely not with that Israeli bootlicking dude, but it's genuinely pretty rare how the US does not have direct presidential elections, like most developed democracies.
Luckily the states can sort of do away with it at anytime without a federal shit of any kind, by just promising to vote according to the popular vote. Many states have already done it imo
Our shitty system was designed by the wealthy land owning elite to keep control over the elections by putting a wall between the voting public and the presidency that could override the popular vote and also give more power to the slave owning states that had a lower voting eligible population.
It is a shit system that should have been replaced a long, long time ago.
I think John Oliver did a piece on how many states have signed a deal of some sorts saying their electors will always vote according to the popular vote, effectively removing the electoral college without any federal law change required.
That doesn't result in the popular vote matching the electoral college vote because the electoral college votes are not directly proportional to population and the margin of victory doesn't matter.
Small rural states have an outsized impact as long as a candidate has a plurality of the votes. Something like 25% of the total national votes is all that is needed to win the presidency in the most extreme case. That is how the Republicans have won the presidency without the popular vote twice in the last few decades.
Well no it won't address the discrepancy between the number of electors and number of voters, but it does address the fact that the electors could just vote whatever they wanted, which is why there's been a few presidents in the US who lost the popular vote. You know, like Trump in 2016.
If the electors can vote against the will of the people, then it doesn't really matter what relationship the people are represented at. So that has to be fixed first, then you can possibly address the discrepancy in the amount of people. Hopefully.
No state in 2016 awarded Trump electoral college votes without him winning that state's popular vote. What are you talking about?
Oh I sorry I just realised you don't actually understand.
See in pretty much every "first world country" we use direct presidential elections and if the US did too, the result of those elections would've been different.
Not the "will of the people".
The US isn't a democracy. (And republics are types of democracies btw)
Oh I sorry I just realised you don’t actually understand.
I don't understand the thing that I already said that you seem to be trying to explain back to me?
k
So you do understand that if the popular vote was the thing that mattered and not the electoral college, Trump would've lost in 2016?
Yes, that is the thing we are talking about.
So you do understand that if the popular vote was the thing that mattered and not the electoral college, Trump would’ve lost in 2016?
Yes,. that is why I said:
Small rural states have an outsized impact as long as a candidate has a plurality of the votes. Something like 25% of the total national votes is all that is needed to win the presidency in the most extreme case. That is how the Republicans have won the presidency without the popular vote twice in the last few decades.
Do you have a brain injury?
You seem to.
What the fuck are you trying to argue? My point for the entire time has been that unlike modern first world democracies, the US uses indirect elections, ie the electoral college. This is a massive problem in democracy for the US and luckily, it can be circumvented entirely through state legislation without any need for involvement of the federal government.
Your counter-argument has been "WYYAAA WYYAAA WYAAAA". Not really clear what you're trying to say with that, so please, do elaborate.
That is like saying the people in the US don’t elect the president because the Electoral College does.
I was the one who brought up the Electoral College at the start of this thread, not you.
That is like saying the people in the US don’t elect the president because the Electoral College does.
Aye, you did.
That is like saying the people in the US don’t elect the president because the Electoral College does.
You wrote that as if you were being sarcastic, but what you don't realise is that it is what is happening and the fact that the US has indirect elections and still thinks of itself as the bastion of democracy is pretty ludicrous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_by_country
tldr I don't think you know what "indirect election" means
No, not at all. The US electorate votes on a Presidential candidate that the electoral college selects. Israel does not vote for a specific leader. Are you unaware how parliamentary elections work because it seems like you have zero clue.
The people vote for the members of parliment that vote for the PM.
Are you unable to understand the obvious comparison?
Which means the people are not choosing Bibi and it is entirely possible that many/most voted for other parties.
Do you not get that your claim just makes zero sense in parliamentary electoral systems? I get that you hate Israel but at least make informed claims.