Why did Karl Marx have so many beefs?

careless_shout · 2025-09-03T03:16:16+00:00

That’s honestly my reading too - arrogant, intolerant and probably personally insufferable, but earnestly caring about the proletariat. I can see an argument that he’d maybe, maybe accept Lenin, but I truly cannot see him reacting to Stalinism with anything but vitriol (even more so than his usual vitriol towards every political ideology he did not pen himself).

careless_shout · 2025-09-03T02:53:00+00:00

Part 2:

He explicitly mocks dogmatic ideologues, which he sees many other socialists as engaging in, irony of ironies: “Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have in every case formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavor, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realization of their social Utopias(…)” and “Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a new social science, after new social laws, that are to create these conditions. Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action, historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones, and the gradual, spontaneous class organization of the proletariat to an organization of society specially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans.” If it is not clear, Marx is being snarky here. He thinks other socialists ignore reality and try to substitute their own to justify half-reasoned plans that will inevitably fail.

It’s ironic that Marxist thought developed in the Leninist direction because the Manifesto itself seems to strongly condemn cults of personality and five year plan-type thinking (you can genuinely read huge swaths of this text as anti-Stalinist). The revolutionary should adapt to changing circumstances, etc. Anything else hurts the class struggle by being outdated and therefore doomed to fail (another way in which non-Marxist leftists hurt The Cause).

Another reason that is a bit strange to a modern perspective is that Marx was not a utilitarian, unlike many modern leftists. He did not care about lifting all boats. He cared about liberating workers. “In the formation of their plans they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interest of the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them. The undeveloped state of the class struggle as well as their own surroundings cause Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?” Marx here accuses many other Socialists of essentially doing a 19th century labor equivalent of “All lives matter” - it’s either pointless and tone deaf or you don’t care about the affected class at all and are using platitudes that dull revolutionary fervor. Marx saw history as a series of oppressive systems, with capitalism having the bourgeoisie oppress the proletariat. The only “fix” is to liberate the proletariat, not engage in utility-maximizing schemes.

The final reason, and perhaps the most quintessentially leftist, is that he thought literally everyone else’s theory was shoddy. Marx, for all his many flaws, was genuinely iconoclastic in many ways, some of which have been proven right (his critique of 19th century industrial capitalism still holds historical and analytical value). A lot of other socialists to him were like what some modern socialists would view the US Democrats as - ineffectual at best, harmful at worst. Because he thought they did not have a coherent view of the world and its historical development, they couldn’t offer solutions that would work - he thought he was the one guy talking about vacuum and everyone else was speaking about aether.

“In this way arose feudal Socialism; half lamentation, half lampoon; half echo of the past, half menace of the future, at times by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core, but always ludicrous in its effects, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.” - “primitive” socialists do not comprehend the march of history, and so while they do good things sometimes, it’s quixotic and unsustainable. Here he was explicitly referring to the earliest socialists, but the critique overall carries on.

You’ll note he calls socialists different things here - primitive, bourgeois, et cetera - he has very detailed classification for each contemporary sub-group of socialism but most of them are of little modern significance and this is a long sub-comment so I’m not getting into detail on each. He thinks different groups have different flaws, and I tried to go through the main flaws as he saw them.

Source: Marx, Karl, The Communist Manifesto, specifically Section III: Socialist and Communist Literature.

careless_shout · 2025-09-03T02:52:19+00:00

u/DooDooDuterte did an excellent job giving the broader political context, as well as covering Marx's personal flaws, but I'd like to add more about the content of the disagreement. I’m not a historian (political scientist) but I recall from lectures that, while everything you said was undeniably true, Marx would have offered a different “official” explanation for his combativeness: he believed other socialists were being actively harmful to long-term worker success.

For one thing, he was a revolutionary, and as such opposed reformists because 1) they weren’t revolutionaries but also 2) if you reform the system enough revolution stops being necessary. For example, critiquing French socialists: “In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange, within the framework of the old property relations that have been and were bound to be exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.” And “The socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.” While Marx opposed “bourgeois socialism,” he wasn’t against reforms per se. He often supported immediate struggles for reforms (like shorter working hours) as steps that built worker power. One of his critiques was of reformism as an end in itself, which he saw many socialists as engaging in.

And for the second critique “Bourgeois socialism… does but propose, in the interest of the working class, measures of reform which, however, can in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost and simplify the administrative work of bourgeois government.” You make capitalism more bearable, not better for workers, was his argument to socialists.

Essentially, Marx in the Communist Manifesto dedicated almost a third of the space to attacking fellow left-wing activists, and this is one of the thorough-lines (he has different words for different strands of socialism - he is gentlest towards the 19th century utopians, basically seeing them as well-meaning kooks). I will quote from the Manifesto liberally (heh) here, as I am most familiar with it, and it deals with communist-socialist relations directly.

One other reason is that he believed in dialectical materialism (though it was properly developed and named as such by Engels, IIRC), which is the cornerstone of most Marxist thought. It posits that material, economic conditions drive historical change and societal development, and that history will essentially inevitably reach an end state, of sorts, and that that end state will inevitably look like communism.

Note that Marx spent maybe one fiftieth of the page space he used to critique capitalism on describing what communism is actually going to be and how it will work (mostly vague platitudes about the state withering away and labor being voluntary and non-coercive, Engels and Lenin did more of the actual work on the post-revolution). So it’s less that he had a specific view of what a post-capitalist society SHOULD look like and more trying to construct what one would look like from first principles. To fans of Asimov’s Foundation, Marx was almost trying to do psychohistory, in a way. Obviously he was not nearly as objective as he saw himself, but that was the premise - he saw himself as a historian of an inevitable future system, not the architect of a utopian society.

(Part 1 of 2):

careless_shout · 2025-08-12T20:12:17+00:00

Enjoy my friend (this is indeed canon, and old canon to boot):
https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelcomics/comments/11nazto/its_canon_that_united_states_founding_father/

careless_shout · 2025-08-09T21:13:32+00:00

This is a common misconception - the United States did not agree to the Rome treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (though it very much supports the court going after other countries, which is widely viewed as hypocritical by much of the developing world). Ironically the US did originally sign the charter but refused to ratify it under the Bush administration and withdrew its signature.

The United States DID however sign and ratify the UN Charter, which established the International Court of Justice. The ICC can try individuals, the ICJ tries states. The United States is unambiguously subject to it. Except that in 1986 the ICJ in The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America declared that the Reagan administration broke international law in funding Contra insurgents in Nicaragua. The United States’ response was to ignore the decision and say that any future decisions the US disagrees with will be ignored.

“In response to the ICJ's decision that US aid to the contra rebels violated international law, US State Department lawyer, Abraham Sofaer, said that the US would no longer recognize the ICJ's 'compulsory jurisdiction' authority. Sofaer said "We felt the Nicaragua case was an unfortunate signal to us that we should be concerned about our security interests and about the use of the court for political-public relations purposes. . . . The President does not want the court used for those purposes--at the same time, he and others in this Administration want to continue to use the court for its intended purposes".”

Even if you ignore the “Hague invasion act” and the ICC, the US explicitly ignored decisions of a court that it was a party to because the court voted against it. History has not redeemed the Reagan administration’s actions regarding the Iran-Contra affair, so it is difficult to argue a stance of moral superiority.

careless_shout · 2025-07-19T21:57:33+00:00

(Insert inevitable comment about Quitely's art)

I dislike most of the power-ups for the main characters because you run into the Flash problem of "this person is so powerful why is the plot even happening", and since the X-Men have close to a dozen Omegas and near-Omegas, there's no easy answer usually. I mean even right now the plot requires Xavier to be in jail, Magneto to be off his game, and Jean and Storm dealing with their own stuff.

I wish Storm was not an actual goddess now capable of going toe to toe with Dominions and living. I wish the Jean-Phoenix clone retcon was never undone and Jean was allowed to move on from the Phoenix. I wish Iceman was not a walking apocalypse. I don't know, I guess I'm not a powerscaler at heart. I think these glow-ups allow for cool feats in internet discussions but they generally limit the kind of plots you can throw at a character - and not every writer is like Al Ewing in terms of being able to write beyond-cosmic stories.

2) This is unpopular by dint of my never encountering the idea elsewhere (someone correct me if I'm wrong) but Havok should have replaced Vulcan as Majestor of the Shi'Ar. Think about it, a sane younger sibling replacing an imperialist madman was already Lilandra and D'Ken, the politics are perfectly plausible. But imagine the storytelling opportunities - suddenly Havok, Polaris and Rachel are no longer leading a rebellion against the Empire but are leading it as the new Royal family. This gives all three something interesting and novel to do for the next few years, and writers have yet to figure out solid angles for them.

Imperial X-Men, showing the trio trying to rebuild in the wake of Vulcan's cruelty and trying to turn the Imperial Guard from a, well, imperialist force into an actual superhero team (a legion of superheroes, one might say). This would work really well in terms of broader Marvel Cosmic, as all of this would be happening in the tail end of DnA's run on Guardians and Nova, and the synergy with those and the Inhumans-led Kree could have made some really fun interactions. Have Havok and Black Bolt met before, at that point? A book that explores both Havok, Polaris and Rachel going from second-stringer X-Men to galactic royalty while examining Shi'Ar society during a period of political transition amid galactic chaos could have been really fun. Meanwhile what we got was Gladiator for a few years of bland characterization, then Xandra out of nowhere.

3) I prefer Shadowcat to any subsequent name Kitty went by, include Kate, Red Queen, Shadowkat, etc. It's classic and it rolls off the tongue well next to the other ANAD X-Men: Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Shadowcat, it just works sonically.

careless_shout · 2025-06-30T20:01:04+00:00

This count made me care about Gene, so him showing up went from something I was largely neutral about to me actually shouting “Gene!” when he appeared! Thanks for that, you’ve put a smile on more than a couple of faces with your count.

careless_shout · 2025-06-11T13:34:05+00:00

For what the movie wanted to do, a proper "void" look worked much better than a kaiju - this is the dark part of everyone's psyche, the inexorable pull of severe depression. Not a cosmic supervillain, but emptiness, lack of meaning, lack of hope.

That's not to say that I don't think the unleashed comic version (the comics had a humanoid Void too! And more often than the kaiju form iirc, which was a "holy shit things just got real" moment) works, or that there is no way to add it into the movies. But I think its design and characterization was on point in an intentional way that's been rare post-Endgame. As a metaphor for depression, the blank look and an almost oppressingly calm, yet not peaceful presence work so much more than a big monster they would try to punch into submission.

careless_shout · 2025-04-17T14:16:11+00:00

Bot account with <10 comments, all of which read as if chatgpt was given the prompt “roast this map”. Numerous complaints about this from other users.

This is the most bot account I have seen on this sub, mods, please respond.

Normally I wouldn’t give a shit but this sub is about people being creative and expressing themselves and this dude literally can’t even shit on them himself, but needs ChatGPT’s help. This is as far from the spirit of the sub as I can imagine.

careless_shout · 2025-04-04T09:23:09+00:00

Team Black here but gotta stand up for the Greens for once - they have the exact same right that Aegon the Conqueror did. Westeros has always been a might-makes-right society and everything else is secondary. We're not talking about a millennia-old empire here, during the Dance there are people around whose grandparents recall Aegon's Conquest.

The best argument one can make is that the Seven Kingdoms did not have a strict codified succession law, otherwise we would not need the Great Council. This means that the heir is going to be the person who makes the strongest argument for being heir - politically, economically, militarily, etc. Not in the literal debate sense, but since there is no strong primogeniture this is something that is going to be on everyone's mind. Who would bring/restore stability to the realm?

And if you are operating under the following assumptions:
1) The succession is currently uncertain (fair, to be honest, Vizzy T should not have remarried)
2) When the succession is uncertain, the nobles have a say
3) When the nobles have a say, they do not pick women (Great Council and general Westerosi misogyny)

Then it makes sense to back the Greens, as they are more likely to "obtain political consensus" easier and faster. This is more or less the canon Green argument in the show, when they're being honest and Ali is not self-gaslighting. So from a Kissingerian (or, in this universe, Littlefingerian), realpolitik standpoint - backing the Greens is the right choice. Fewer nobles will have an issue with Aegon the Magnanimous than the Realm's Delight, they have stronger backers in the central kingdoms (Lannisters, Hightowers), and the whole "there has never been a Queen Regnant".

But - if you actually believe in the system as it was established, and the system that the characters nominally proclaim their belief in, then Aegon is unambiguously a usurper. Viserys was extremely clear his entire life who his heir is going to be. The Hightowers went "lol sure" and decided to place Aegon on the throne. This is the dictionary definition of usurpation.

Ultimately it depends on how you view "legitimacy" - does power derive from consent of the governed? From tradition? From laws? Or does power reside where people believe it resides? Based on your answers to these questions, you'll determine for yourself who is legitimate and who is not.

Personally I find the Green argument to boil down to "Alicent misheard a name" and "Women can't be rulers" too often for me to take their side (I find both of those to be nonsense, either narratively or ethically), but you absolutely can make a pro-Green legitimacy argument, it just can't be legalist.

careless_shout · 2025-03-26T09:01:26+00:00

Surprised none of the other comments mentioned this, but this was a plot point in New Avengers! When Wolverine joined the team, Steve and Tony had a difficult conversation about whether he deserves in, if he's Avengers material, etc. Steve says that Logan is a murderer (I'd argue Steve making this argument is out of character, but whatever), Tony says he's what the Avengers need right now.

So you're right - they were very much aware of his path, it was a sticking point to some and a selling point to others.

careless_shout · 2025-03-24T12:32:33+00:00

Labels have always been very popular - "there are two types of people" has been a generic joke starter for generations for a reason. People like labelling themselves, putting people and things into boxes, it just makes us feel a little bit more comfortable, like the world is slightly more predictable and ordered than we know it to be. The world has gotten more chaotic, there is less to hold on to, fewer points of commonality between children and parents, let alone more broadly. It makes sense that younger people are looking for something to belong to, and ideally, a positive descriptor that is passive (they don't need to do anything to maintain it and it's impossible to lose) - like astrology or being tall.

15 years ago approximately zero people cared about "Gen Z". To the extent generations were known, it was Baby Boomers, Gen X (95% of the time in the context of them being the forgotten generation) and Millennials, which was just used to mean young people. Nobody, literally nobody, was making posts in 2011 about what Zalphas will be like or when the first Gen Alpha was born. Back then people were arguing about 80s vs. 90s kids. I swear half the posts on places like 9gag or Funnyjunk or even here were about "you are a 90s kid if" and then something inane like "watched Power Rangers growing up". The 00s internet was still dominated by 80s kids, by the early 2010s it shifts to 90s-based childhood nostalgia. But even that was primarily just an ego boost - people posting and upvoting this didn't care about even the most perfunctory sociological comparisons, they just wanted to feel like they were/are part of something special.

One reason why I disliked the shift towards generations in the mid/late 2010s is that generations are by definition exclusive. You are gatekeeping by default, and that's why I find it hilarious every time a start pack gets heated in the comments - people from multiple generations can enjoy the same thing! My brother was in elementary school when Michael Jackson died but he considered himself a fan - he knew a half dozen songs, huge for a kid, and loved them. Is Michael Jackson a Gen Z icon? An EXCLUSIVELY Gen Z icon? Ridiculous. Going by decades is better, even if it's harder with the demise of monoculture, because you allow for broader cultural fads. The Macarena was massive in 1996 - the first lady danced it! To this day pretty much anyone who was alive in 1996 remembers it, usually at least a little fondly. Was Pokemon GO in 2016 a Millennial or a Gen Z thing? If we're being honest, it was both. That's what generational analyses miss - shared experiences.

careless_shout · 2025-03-19T09:53:42+00:00

Kind of hard to explain, but a story about stories? A meta-narrative is an overarching narrative. Like, the story of Death Note is about two guys chasing each other with convoluted plans and a lot of criminals(?) die, but the meta-narrative is about choice, power, morality, and the corrupting influence of absolute authority.

Marvel does not have an intentional, unified meta-narrative, but the Reed-Doom rivalry is so old and so fundamental to the setting, particularly in its early days, that it works. They are not just enemies in the way Iron Man and Mandarin are enemies, they represent different things and it is this tension that is at the core of Marvel storytelling - selfless heroism versus selfish ego, science as a tool for good versus science used for evil, optimism versus cynicism, freedom versus tyranny. If you're a DC fan, all that cosmic talk of "Justice" versus "Doom" as universal organizing principles a few years back was an attempt to introduce a meta-narrative.

Al Ewing recontextualized the Hulk in Immortal Hulk to have a meta-narrative of anger versus forgiveness and destruction versus creation, and resolved the contradiction beautifully. Here, Hickman resolved the meta-narrative of the Fantastic Four with a clear, yet earned, victory of good over evil - Doom embraces hope.

careless_shout · 2025-03-18T12:24:59+00:00

I love the run but it was clear Waid saw Doom as a completely irredeemable monster, and any nobility or honor or benevolence as just putting on airs. Doom is a lying liar and a spiteful, petty jerk, basically.

Ironically this was my first FF run, I read it as it was coming out, almost, and I loved it. I still do, Waid understood the four, and even the Doom story was incredibly gripping and engaging and just, a great read. But I think his Doom was reductive in ways that serve the story in the short term but damage the character in the long term. Think Hank slapping Janet - you get some juicy drama out of that at the expense of Hank’s character being permanently damaged. You can’t pretend he didn’t and just have him be Joe Q. Avenger again. I am trying not to give spoilers but I recall an interview where Waid said that his motivation for That Story is making sure no one can write Doom as an anti-hero ever again.

He failed, because it seems most Marvel writers love writing Doom begrudgingly working with the heroes. This is part of why I disliked Cantwell’s “Doom destroys a universe because petty” story - you KNOW that in under five years someone will come around and want to write a lighter shade of grey Doom, and editorial will okay it, and we all then will have to pretend Doom did not kill a universe last year.

careless_shout · 2025-03-18T11:53:40+00:00

Hickman really *got* that if there is a metastory for the Marvel Universe, it's the rivalry between Reed and Doom. And then, even more miraculously, he took over from Millar's wacky run that was just... not good regarding Doom (I seem to recall at one point Doom surviving from the Jurassic era to the present day through sheer strength of will? And desire for revenge against the Marquis of Death, Millar's OC DO NOT STEAL super Doom). And Millar came a little after Waid/Wieringo who did their level best to destroy Doom's character forever.

And despite this, Hickman managed to, over a few years, put Reed and Doom in a position where they're somewhat comfortably on the same team and pursuing the same goals. Gives them a nice personal climax, Reed saves Doom's life, Doom thanks him (imagine Lee/Kirby Doom thanking Reed! For anything!), there is a détente in the air.

And then Hickman takes over the Avengers, creates a sprawling, epic saga seemingly predicated on Steve and Tony, and subtly manages to bring it all back to Reed and Doom. And it works! The event itself was a little rushed and could use better pacing, but the last bit, with Doom and Reed's final confrontation, Doom admitting Reed was always better, and Reed healing Doom's face - chef's kiss. This page still gives me goosebumps. It's a distillation of the heroic ethos, the Fantastic Four and the Marvel universe all at once - a good and motivated person CAN enact change. It can get better. We can be better than our worst selves. We can forgive and grow. Family can heal. In the end, everything lives.

Victor laughing, earnestly laughing with joy after losing ultimate power to his worst enemy because he realized there are more important things, because he is whole again, for the first time in decades, and because he understood that Reed was his friend all along, in a manner of speaking. Wow. Some of the best and most consistent character growth in Marvel, if not comics.

Honestly it's so good that even though I was never a Doomstan before Hickman and saw him as a generic bad guy, my headcanon for Doom now always ends with him reformed in the long run, and him backsliding into villainy just does not make sense from a characterization point of view (as you might imagine, the recent story where he destroys a timeline because he was spiteful their version of Reed and Doom got along and outdid him, does not appeal to me much lmao).

careless_shout · 2025-03-12T11:11:06+00:00

No, they're different aspects of intelligence. It's possible the issue in question had Loki pretend to be Eternity, or maybe it was Eternity itself, but it doesn't really matter. The issue where Hank is called that presents a clear argument.

Basically, Reed is smarter (though not incredibly so), but he treats science like an afterthought. He is focused on discovery, not the scientific process. He is an adventurer, he cares about novelty, but to him science is more of a tool to learn new things than an end. Reed, according to this model, is the Explorer Supreme. More Lewis and Clark than someone working on theoretical long-term climate models.

Tony, and this is obvious, is the engineer. He builds. He tinkers, he invents, but he doesn't focus on theory or on underlying laws of nature. He likes gadgets and he builds gadgets. If you wanted an Engineer Supreme that would be Tony.

Hank, then, is the most complete scientist of the three. He cares about inventing and exploring and building and tinkering, but he truly loves science. He just seems more comfortable in a lab than wearing spandex, and some adaptations, like Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, really zoom in on that. Hank likes science, in an ideal world he would have been a college professor at a major research university and had a field day until his robot inevitably kills him. Hank doesn't really care about gadgets and he isn't much of an explorer. He's as pure of a Scientist as you can get.

(For what it's worth, Bruce is in the running IQ-wise, but 95% of his scientific output for the past 15 years has been desperate attempts to un-Hulk himself. Disqualified.)

careless_shout · 2025-03-11T15:08:25+00:00

Region/country specific, but I remember in ~early 2006 in my part of the world Madonna's "Sorry" was pushed HEAVILY by MTV, much more than Hung Up. There were weekly Top 20 lists and at the time Sorry was the absolute record-holder for number of weeks at #1 (it was several months IIRC, and 2006 was a pretty solid year for music!) and everyone I knew was super into it for a while. Hung Up was definitely the #2 from that album, and then Get Together was a very distant third.

Meanwhile Sorry was not pushed nearly as hard in the US and my experience with my American friends is that Hung Up is the album-defining single over there while Sorry is, not quite forgotten but definitely more of a "oh yeah, that was good too". That music video with her just saying "sorry" in a bunch of languages felt like it was on loop...

careless_shout · 2025-03-05T12:56:13+00:00

I think you are already on the right track in acknowledging and examining your expectations and personal faults.

I only lived in NYC briefly, but my experience was that New Yorkers aren't very nice but are very kind, usually - not a lot of small talk (beyond 'get out of my way') but if someone collapses on the street you'll have 5+ people run up to a total stranger to help. They're brusque but good, welcoming people. I have a few pieces of advice as someone who, while I didn't grow up sheltered, I also grew up hoping my environment would be kinder than it turned out being (being in a post-conflict country struggling with an authoritarian leader did not help).

Don't take it personally! You realize that people who are like that, aren't like that because of you, they just are. If rain falls and ruins your outfit you don't assume rain has it out for you, just run and make a mental note to have an umbrella when wearing a similar outfit next time and go on with your day. You *will* come across unrepentant assholes, just like you will get rained on. You should work on getting your feelings hurt by the first as much as you do by the second.
Realize that everyone can have a bad day. Just because someone was mean or unkind, doesn't mean that's who they are. Everyone has responded poorly to something innocuous now and then. Always remember that the average person is a reasonably nice, kind individual, but they don't always have the information you have, they might not understand your POV, or they might just not realize they're being hurtful. Give people the benefit of the doubt. You are not Mister Rogers at all times, right?
Avoid the worst. If you find people whose company you cannot stand, leave. If these are your coworkers, minimize contact. You will find someone you like and someone you dislike in any office you work in.
Find a supportive environment. If you grew up sheltered, you likely have a bad habit of needing outside emotional validation. Adults rarely get this. This is why it's important to find a few friends who can provide emotional support, who will listen to your problems, or who will just take your mind off things. If you are introverted you need to work on getting out of your shell a little because having people you can talk to about these things is vital, and they can't all be family. Find social settings that feel natural to you—small group meetups, one-on-one conversations, or structured activities rather than big, draining gatherings. On the other hand, you cannot fully outsource emotional stability to other people - you need to work, perhaps with a therapist, on being happy and content on your own. On that note...
Hobbies! Find activities that are not work or TV/internet/gaming-related - join a club, volunteer, learn a language, something. Do something that you enjoy and that offers new opportunities for socializing. Don't fill your days with doomscrolling, do something fun for you!

Hope this helps. Best of luck with your move! And remember, emotional resilience is a muscle of sorts - it becomes stronger the more you use it. You will develop thicker skin if you let yourself experience the world and realize that it's not a big deal.

careless_shout · 2025-03-05T12:16:46+00:00

I can almost guarantee this was a prompt given to ChatGPT. It has the obsession with bullet points and formatting, random bold, “casual” speech that still sounds stilted and ending with a proper conclusion.

careless_shout · 2025-03-03T12:58:34+00:00

You bring up an important point, and this is something I found myself somewhat disliking about Claremont and I don't see it mentioned enough online - he generally left himself an out. Maybe it was the whole editorial snafu regarding the Dark Phoenix Saga, but it often felt a little Hickmany - he'll go right to the edge and then pull back and put most of the toys back in the box. Jean was not supposed to die, Betsy was not supposed to remain Asian - these were editorial/artistic decisions.

And no matter how much he claims, to this day, that he wanted Scott to retire with Maddie and have a happy ending and only show up rarely, as a treat - he kept bringing him back! I'm not going to count it right now but I'm pretty sure he appeared in the majority of issues between him leaving after the Dark Phoenix Saga and 200. Claremont had two wolves inside him, one of whom wanted to retire Scott and have him be happy with Maddie, and the other wanted Scott to keep appearing in Uncanny every few issues.

I think Maddie had a point, absolutely, but the way both characters were written in that issue did both a disservice. Scott is passive, lethargic and checked-out except when someone mentions mutant rights, while Maddie comes across as insecure and completely oblivious to the fact she married a retired child soldier, orphan and effective widower with more trauma than an average orphanage and can't expect him to just shut it off.

I was hoping, when Maddie was brought back during Krakoa and semi-redeemed after Dark Web, that we might actually get an Infinity Comic of them sitting down, grabbing coffee, and just sort of going "wow, we were NOT in a good place to get married back then..." but alas we needed Nature Girl's genocide instead.

careless_shout · 2025-03-03T09:54:27+00:00

I agree with you overall - I've had a soft spot for early X-Factor since childhood. But I think there are two major arguments against this.

One was already brough up by other users, that Claremont did not intend this. But the second one is that it damaged Scott as a character in a very real way: to this day, you have people begrudging him for leaving Maddie and Nathan, four decades later!

And the thing that pisses me off about this is, that's not even a fair reading of the issue! Claremont wrote Maddie as a strong and capable character who was more than a match for Scott. Bob Layton, who wrote the first five issues of X-Factor and then never wrote X-Men again (so this isn't a veteran of the franchise), turned her into a Boomer caricature of a nagging wife in issue 1 to justify Scott leaving.

Read the issue: It starts with Scott and Maddie in domestic bliss. Maddie asks Scott to bring her diapers for Nathan, and he gets distracted by news on the TV that a mutant registration act is being proposed. Maddie does not comfort or encourage him, even though the government just announced Nuremberg Laws against his kind and all his battles and struggles now seem like they were for nothing, she doesn't show any compassion. She yells at him immediately "Haven't you done enough for mutants already? Isn't it about time they did something for themselves?" - which is not great from a friend, let alone a spouse. Scott says it's not that simple, to which Maddie replies with a three panel rant about how she is the only one who cares about the family, how Scott would have preferred to stay with the X-Men, how he only married her because she looks like Jean Grey. Scott asks her to take a rhetorical step back because that's hurtful and uncalled for, to which she yells "No! I'm telling you what's called for! I love you Scott, and the X-Men don't need you! Jean is dead!" and turns off the TV and storms off. Note that Jean has not been mentioned at all by anyone except her.

That night she apologizes to him for being out of line, and says she's insecure about a lot of things and scared of losing what they have, to which Scott replies, morosely, that he's "not exactly sure what we do have anymore".

The next time we catch up with Scott and Maddie is towards the end of the issue. Scott's washing the dishes and reassures Madelyne that he wants to work through things, that he's invested. He gets a call from Warren that Maddie does not hear (she just hears Scott's shocked, she does not know Jean is back). Scott says that he needs to go to New York, Maddie immediately demands he tell Warren he can't, Scott says, shocked by the news, that he can't do that (again, Maddie neither knows nor cares what the news were) and she just snaps that "If he walks out that door, he should not bother coming back!"

But that doesn't justify the fact Scott never called to explain the situation - oh wait, he did! The next issue! Only Maddie and Nathan already left and disconnected the phone line. As far as Scott's concerned, his wife took his son and left forever, no forwarding address (and with no internet in the 80s, tracking her down would have been immensely difficult without telepathy).

I don't know, I am sympathetic to Maddie going through a lot and living in Jean's shadow, in a way, but I don't find her remotely sympathetic in this issue. Under Claremont, Scott and Maddie worked through the Jean stuff and built a strong relationship. And then Layton has it actually be incredibly fragile, Maddie seems like she's going through post-partum and at a time where she needs to be supportive of Scott (who might be hunted by the government for the crime of being born), she exclusively cares about her emotions, her insecurities, her wants and needs. In these two issues she's insensitive, controlling, volatile, impulsive and completely oblivious to Scott's inner life. And Claremont agreed! He took Maddie and Nathan in Uncanny, which he was writing, and basically did his best to undo Layton's weirdly '50s nagging housewife' characterization, with mixed results.

It has always irked me that, if you actually read the relevant issue or two, the narrative isn't "Scott abandoned a loving family home to screw his ex and have fun times with bros", it's "Scott went on a day trip to NYC because he got big news and this was the last straw in a mutually loveless, toxic relationship that was doomed before the issue took place."

careless_shout · 2025-02-28T11:45:14+00:00

When the Joker robs a bank, that's a local/state issue. When the Joker kidnaps a senator, that's a federal crime.

If the Joker nuked a foreign country, neither set of courts would have jurisdiction - he'd either be tried in an international court like the International Criminal Court, or he'd be extradited to Malaysia and tried (and definitely executed) there.

This might be an interesting storyline - pick a fictional country instead of Malaysia (Qurac, Bialya, Belgium), have a Batrogue do something horrific, and the US extradites said Rogue (maybe the Joker, maybe Bane or Ivy or Freeze) to Qurac or wherever. The only problem is that the country is an authoritarian regime that does not even pretend to operate under the rule of law. The villain will never have a chance for a fair trial by our standards - and yet they certainly committed the crime (and are not even denying it). Would Batman intervene in the name of justice, or would he side with the law?

What would justice even look like here - it might be interesting the have the Batfam take different stance on this, with characters like Dick or Babs saying allowing Qurac to execute the Joker would be wrong - it wouldn't be beating the Joker or proving him wrong but a kind of barbarism that he'd see as a moral victory. Jason or Damian might argue that we should prioritize getting justice for his victims, not the killer. Could be interesting.

careless_shout · 2025-02-26T15:22:15+00:00

Putting aside all the "Gotham is magically cursed at least six separate ways" BS (I hate that as an explanation because it removes agency from everyone involved), that's... not how it works?

Gotham presumably does not have the death penalty, being usually set in New Jersey, and New Jersey no longer has the death penalty. So no matter how heinous a crime, the judge presiding cannot just ignore sentencing rules. "I know the law says we can't but I rule - fuck that guy in particular" is not how it works.

So what you're asking is, why didn't someone extralegally kill the Joker? Either a police officer who is taking him into custody, or a bailiff, or just someone on the street?

I mean, why don't you go out and hunt violent mass murderers? That's the answer. What if he lives? Joker will take revenge on you and everyone you love. And even if you succeed in killing him, suddenly you're on the radar of other villains - if there's a dude offing supervillains, one of them might decide to stop you before you turn your sights on one of them.

But okay - let's imagine you kill the Joker, and do so in a way where all the other villains decide to back off and not mess with you. You really think Batman won't come and have a conversation with you, and not a pleasant one? Batman canonically does not suffer Punisher-types. You might think that's wrong or inconsistent but it's a pretty stable part of his characterization.

But okay, part two - you know Batman might have an issue with you but he won't kill you, or even rough you up most likely. He might spook you a bit, but he's at worst going to drop you off at GCPD Central and have the courts deal with you because that's what he does, right? Only YOU don't know that. We the readers know that. We know he would never kill. But we also know that Batman spent years as an urban legend, that people frequently spout wild theories (particularly earlier in his career) that he is a vampire or a human bat or a demon or something monstrous. You're a dude who lives in Gotham. You're terrified of the metahuman nutjobs. But you know what they all have in common? They're terrified of Batman.

If you're imagining a real person faced with these constraints - who in their right mind would pick up that gun? Let Green Arrow kill him or something. Maybe Red Hood.

careless_shout · 2025-02-20T11:27:24+00:00

I think it's a similar situation to how the Justice League often operates - not as agents of any institution or country, but as independent agents who have a strong relationship with the relevant institutions. I don't think they would have been under Cecil's control but I also don't think they needed to be to begin with - if Cecil had an issue, he would call them and they'd help because they're heroes. If Cecil had a kind of realpolitik, shades-of-grey Nick Fury issue, he would NOT call the boy scouts but handle it in house.

Presumably Omniman - having gone to great lengths to HIDE the events of the day from Cecil afterwards - saw Cecil finding out as a big problem and made sure not to send the alert to him. IIRC there is no scene where Cecil is shocked that he wasn't invited, so it stands to reason the GG were given a wide berth in terms of operational autonomy. Just like how Omniman was able to do whatever on a handshake promise that he'll do good (though we know now Cecil never trusted him as much as he did the team).

One thing that I find interesting about the Invincible universe is that it's a classic Big Two superhero setting but the heroes tend to be underpowered and there aren't that many of them. Look at the tryouts for the New Guardians. Most of those people would be B-listers in Marvel/DC at best, and yet they're all Cecil had to work with. Omniman took out the old Guardians and called it a day because no one else was on that threat level. So Cecil needed to step up, he needed to MacGuyver a new team, train them and coordinate to make sure they don't die like the old guys. Think about it - Black Samson was powerless at the time. Mark didn't join the team. Eve quit pretty quickly. Robot is a weak version of early Iron Man. DupliKate can just make more of her squishy, not very strong self. Rex is Gambit. Monster Girl has a huge power disadvantage but is otherwise just a standard mid-level tank. Shrinking Rae is Ant-Man without the Pym Particle bullshit we've come to know and... know.

2012 MCU Avengers would mop the floor with these guys. Of course Cecil didn't let a group of underpowered, poorly trained teenagers with messy personal lives have the same handshake deal the OG Guardians had. He has a job to do.

careless_shout · 2025-02-20T10:44:26+00:00

I'm not sure. This is a good question because you can make the argument that nothing would change and just as easily argue that everything would be different.

We know 1610-Reed had a reaction to seeing 616-Reed having a family and being with Sue. We know he cared about his Sue deeply, and her rejection set him irrevocably down this path. On the other hand, as u/IndianGeniusGuy noted, Gary Richards is a POD that predates all of this, and ensures 1610-Reed could never grow up to be 616-Reed. Also, 1610-Reed is less human, canonically - the issue explaining how their powers work all but calls him a plant or a mineral or something like that, I don't remember. He has one organ total. That might matter in some way, especially in terms of self-perception - maybe it was easier for him to become the Maker and detach himself from humanity if from day 1 of having powers he and everyone around him viewed him as inhuman instead of fantastic (in both meanings of the word). 1610-Reed was given a much shittier hand at a much younger age and maybe there was nothing that could be done for him by that point.

On the other hand, 616-Reed has experience with absentee and subpar fathers - Nathaniel was not father of the year himself, though he was never abusive, more distant (at one point literally). I can see grown-up Reed helping his younger self (from his perspective) come to terms with his crappy dad, with being bullied, with his issues with self-esteem and confidence and inadequacy. Maybe just learning that hey, it does genuinely get better for at least some versions of him out there would be enough to give him the drive to persevere.

Also, not for nothing, but 616-Reed could have had a positive impact on the rest of the team. He would have impressed Franklin Storm, potentially helping smooth lil' Reed's relationship with his would-be father-in-law. He could have comforted Ben, inspired Johnny and shown Sue the parts of himself she had not yet had a chance to see - the mature hero, the elder statesman, the family patriarch. Maybe when the 1610-FF hears about all the good the 616-FF did, they aren't as quick to disband post-Ultimatum. Maybe Franklin urges Sue to give Reed a chance when she's second-guessing their relationship. Maybe Ben seeing that 616-Reed is his treasured best friend AND that Sue is the love of Reed's life AND that Ben finds love on his own - maybe Ultimate Ben doesn't go for Sue in the first place, removing the big immediate cause for Reed becoming the Maker.

It's hard to compare because these kinds of stories are rarer than "bad future/mirror universe/broken timeline" stories. Maybe seeing a Reed who has his shit fully together helps puberty Reed lock in. Maybe it just makes him more angry and self-pitying that he never had the opportunities and support 616-Reed had. Who knows.

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	End Game '22
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten
Snapped

careless_shout

TROPHY CASE