They like Eisner despite his last graphic novel and opposition to communism?
Here's two tweets by a pair of radical moonbats paying respects to Will Eisner, of all people, even though his politics didn't exactly coincide with theirs, certainly not by the end of his career:
Is Busiek for real? And Marz? As noted once before, Eisner's last graphic novel, The Plot, focused on the darkness of Islam, a subject they've been hell-bent on pushing for sainthood. In the mid-80s, Eisner published A Life Force, which also dealt with the rise of communism/socialism. Depending how far out Marz and Busiek have wandered, it makes their backing for Eisner a pure irony. I'm sure if he were still alive today, they'd at least feel awkward about upholding his work.
Since we're on the subject, here's also some tweets by Dan Slott, another moonbat who'd surely harbor distaste for Eisner if he knows about his projects, featuring screencaps from a guy took offense at the conduct of Marz, and another certain writer:
So the guy he speaks of called for blocking Marz and Erik Larsen, the former because of what's explained in the following:
Yep, I've seen Marz do that at least a few times in the past. As for Larsen, I have no idea why Mr. Hanover wants everybody to block him, but if it's because he defended cleavaged costumes for women in superhero comics, that's a very limp reason to do so. It's Larsen's leftist politics that are the galling problem, yet I wouldn't be surprised if Slott was also against Larsen over "costumegate". But Marz is surely worse, and has certainly qualified for somebody who doesn't need to be followed on Twitter, Facebook or any other social media service he uses. So, I'm with Hanover on that idea.
You got that right, buddy. For reasons noted below, that's why I'd strongly advise the ladies not to seek advice from Marz either.
Slott's also offered me an honor with the following:
I feel truly joyous that Slott thinks that way about me and a few other bloggers with similar views! Say, does he admire how Marz and a few others can offend women with their support for a demand by transgenders to use women's bathrooms, no matter how likely it is to encourage men of all sorts to harass ladies in public facilities? Some of those women, you can be sure, are leftists too, and even they don't want creepy strangers following them into the ladies' room where they could traumatize them with stalking. Actress Teresa Saldana had to work very hard to get an anti-stalking law approved in the early 1990s, and the monstrosity Marz and company are supporting could take us all back decades. Oh, and while we're on the subject, as I noted before, veterans like Siegel, Shuster and even Lee Falk had their moments of negative depictions for Islamists. Does Mr. Slott by any chance consider Siegel/Shuster/Falk/Eisner "Islamophobic" cartoonists? I don't know, but excuses like "that was all decades ago" are unbecoming, so he'd only make a fool of himself by stuttering that they're exempt, when it's pretty apparent that if they were alive today, he'd likely harbor some kind of dislike for those famous figures, and even now, it's mysterious how somebody who'd detest their possible politics would still embrace their creations. Let's also recall that this was the same selfish little twit who claimed that "his" version of Superman doesn't kill, and who's got his share of women who find his work a turnoff. He's yet another "creator" whom I'd strongly advise not to seek advice from on serious subjects.
Let's go back now to Marz, and something he wrote that's pure irony:
So he's against Norquist, even though the man has ties to bad sources like the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been hostile to the Tea Party in the past? Gee, how odd, because people like Norquist have actually been quite favorable to the beliefs of men like Marz, yet he's a rather unusual case if they're really against him. After all, if he were a Democrat, they wouldn't say anything, and even now, when he supposedly works as a Republican, you'd think he'd be one such person they wouldn't be bothered about.
Update: well, here's an interesting post Marz wrote, suggesting he may have abruptly changed course on Eisner:
So does this mean he's caught up with Eisner's beliefs and positions, and decided he doesn't like Eisner in the end? An excellent question indeed. If he's changed his mind, it'll be another example of how men like Marz have no true respect for past masters with better manners than they have.
Wrote the book. Literally. pic.twitter.com/fapOSIqxan
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 18, 2016
I like Will Eisner and I cannot lie.
— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) April 17, 2016
I also like what I’ve read of Dresden Codak, though I have no idea what’s going on in it.
Is Busiek for real? And Marz? As noted once before, Eisner's last graphic novel, The Plot, focused on the darkness of Islam, a subject they've been hell-bent on pushing for sainthood. In the mid-80s, Eisner published A Life Force, which also dealt with the rise of communism/socialism. Depending how far out Marz and Busiek have wandered, it makes their backing for Eisner a pure irony. I'm sure if he were still alive today, they'd at least feel awkward about upholding his work.
Since we're on the subject, here's also some tweets by Dan Slott, another moonbat who'd surely harbor distaste for Eisner if he knows about his projects, featuring screencaps from a guy took offense at the conduct of Marz, and another certain writer:
Founder of a pop culture site asking followers to collectively mute 2 comic book creators for having opposing views. pic.twitter.com/GDkrUtScxu
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) April 17, 2016
So the guy he speaks of called for blocking Marz and Erik Larsen, the former because of what's explained in the following:
@DanSlott ron marz didn’t have “opposing views;” he acted like a jerk and then played the victim while simultaneously bullying.
— noodle cutie (@Leask) April 17, 2016
Yep, I've seen Marz do that at least a few times in the past. As for Larsen, I have no idea why Mr. Hanover wants everybody to block him, but if it's because he defended cleavaged costumes for women in superhero comics, that's a very limp reason to do so. It's Larsen's leftist politics that are the galling problem, yet I wouldn't be surprised if Slott was also against Larsen over "costumegate". But Marz is surely worse, and has certainly qualified for somebody who doesn't need to be followed on Twitter, Facebook or any other social media service he uses. So, I'm with Hanover on that idea.
@DanSlott Marz's advice is useless and sensitive in either case
— John Bender (@JohnABender) April 17, 2016
You got that right, buddy. For reasons noted below, that's why I'd strongly advise the ladies not to seek advice from Marz either.
Slott's also offered me an honor with the following:
.@ronmarz I admire that you can offend BOTH that crazy Islamophobic blogger on the Right & that overly-PC site on the Left. It's a gift. :)
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) April 17, 2016
I feel truly joyous that Slott thinks that way about me and a few other bloggers with similar views! Say, does he admire how Marz and a few others can offend women with their support for a demand by transgenders to use women's bathrooms, no matter how likely it is to encourage men of all sorts to harass ladies in public facilities? Some of those women, you can be sure, are leftists too, and even they don't want creepy strangers following them into the ladies' room where they could traumatize them with stalking. Actress Teresa Saldana had to work very hard to get an anti-stalking law approved in the early 1990s, and the monstrosity Marz and company are supporting could take us all back decades. Oh, and while we're on the subject, as I noted before, veterans like Siegel, Shuster and even Lee Falk had their moments of negative depictions for Islamists. Does Mr. Slott by any chance consider Siegel/Shuster/Falk/Eisner "Islamophobic" cartoonists? I don't know, but excuses like "that was all decades ago" are unbecoming, so he'd only make a fool of himself by stuttering that they're exempt, when it's pretty apparent that if they were alive today, he'd likely harbor some kind of dislike for those famous figures, and even now, it's mysterious how somebody who'd detest their possible politics would still embrace their creations. Let's also recall that this was the same selfish little twit who claimed that "his" version of Superman doesn't kill, and who's got his share of women who find his work a turnoff. He's yet another "creator" whom I'd strongly advise not to seek advice from on serious subjects.
Let's go back now to Marz, and something he wrote that's pure irony:
Grover Norquist, apparently longing for the good old days when women couldn't vote. https://t.co/unL1fhGN3P
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 18, 2016
So he's against Norquist, even though the man has ties to bad sources like the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been hostile to the Tea Party in the past? Gee, how odd, because people like Norquist have actually been quite favorable to the beliefs of men like Marz, yet he's a rather unusual case if they're really against him. After all, if he were a Democrat, they wouldn't say anything, and even now, when he supposedly works as a Republican, you'd think he'd be one such person they wouldn't be bothered about.
Update: well, here's an interesting post Marz wrote, suggesting he may have abruptly changed course on Eisner:
This Eisner guy had to be pretty great if they named the awards after him, right? Right?
— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 19, 2016
So does this mean he's caught up with Eisner's beliefs and positions, and decided he doesn't like Eisner in the end? An excellent question indeed. If he's changed his mind, it'll be another example of how men like Marz have no true respect for past masters with better manners than they have.
Labels: islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, politics
Maybe the past "masters" had professional respect, but I doubt they had personal respect, just like the "masters" of today.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:52 PM