September 30, 2013

Cognitive dissonance

(Bumped to top due to new happenings -- see updates below.)

Apparently the obvious goes right over Superior Spider-Man writer Dan Slott's head:

So, you're saying this doesn't make much sense, right Dan? I wholeheartedly agree. Why the hell would a comic shop retailer want to potentially axe some business? So how 'bout this: Why would a comic creator "openly slag" the political views of fans (and potential fans) of his own product? What's the essential difference there, Dan? Do you think Marvel is happy that you opine on social media about stuff political ... thereby alienating a substantial portion of your audience?

Don't misunderstand -- you certainly have every right to do so. And you've even stated you're willing to accept any consequences that come your way as a result of being outspoken. That's certainly ballsy, I'll give you that. But, again, what the difference between the comic shop guy you note above, and you spouting off on a controversial political issue? Remember, Michael Jordan once said, "Republicans buy shoes, too*."

RELATED: Doug Ernst details how Slott was tickled pink at the show The Big Bang Theory ripping his Spider-Ock character, and how Dan is obsessed with how people think of him on social media.

UPDATE: Slott implies legal action against Ernst for Doug's "spreading gross falsehoods" about the creator online. Give me a royal break. Good luck with that, Danny.

UPDATE 2: Slott really likes to make Doug's point:

You mean, Dan, like how you and your fellow contemporary creators all think alike politically and socially? Y'see, the problem with that is that when you never hear dissenting opinions you're shocked when someone actually utters one. Sort of like Pauline Kael, y'know.

UPDATE 3: Apparently Slott is still in elementary school. He recently tweeted a massive treatise about Doug, whining about how "bad" a person he is because he [supposedly] called him anti-Semitic in this post. Read it and you be the judge on that. For me, any reasonable person would come away noting that Slott's new "hero" (Dr. Octopus in Peter Parker's/Spider-Man's body) wanted to transcend what Hitler and other maniacal despots did. But don't bring up something like the Holocaust; Slott believes that this is a prodigious affront -- because he himself is Jewish.

*Sigh* How does a guy become obsessed with what average people (like Doug and I) think about his work, when he himself constantly brags about how popular his product is? And how a top-rated TV show just mentioned it? GROW UP!!

* Jordan made the comment while refusing to endorse Harvey Gantt who was running against Jesse Helms in the 1990 North Carolina Senate race. Jordan didn't endorse Helms either, of course. Yours truly never was a Helms aficionado, nor did he approve of his notorious campaign ad against Gantt. Nevertheless, Jordan's comments make complete sense from a business perspective.

Posted by Hube at September 30, 2013 11:59 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I like how he says that he doesn't throw his status around on other sites to get the mods to censor posts, and then makes weird legal threats against me.

If you were the moderator, and Dan Slott started saying he was going to look at legal options to go after those who spread "falsehoods" about him, how would you interpret it?

Dan Slott tries to stifle debate? Who would ever get that idea? ;)

Posted by: Douglas Ernst at September 29, 2013 12:40 PM

RE: Update 2: What? Wait? You mean that I'm not the only person on the planet who disagrees with Dan Slott? Weird.

Posted by: Douglas Ernst at September 29, 2013 03:38 PM

Once again Dan Slott goes crazy and then needs moderators to help him. Looks like another Slott EPIC FAIL

Notice how Slott will change the topic and twist statements to try to get his way. He cannot win the argument so he will lie to vilify the person beating him.

Posted by: Truthwillwin1 at September 29, 2013 05:12 PM

I love how that one Slott follower refers to the "death of journalism" in reference to us, as though there was some kind of Golden Age of Journalism where everyone was supposedly objective. That's a pipe dream, because when liberals refer to a "Golden Age" of Journalism, they mean the era when they had a monopoly on news and didn't have competition from Fox, talk radio and the internet.

Posted by: Carl at September 29, 2013 05:40 PM

Precisely, Carl. The same dolts who would bitch and moan about monopolies of any other type have absolutely NO hassle with media monopolies, or higher ed. monopolies, for that matter.

Posted by: Hube at September 29, 2013 07:07 PM

Hence the reason why every few years they try to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. They can't accept the fact that their views are not held by everyone, and old media (and its LIV followers) can't accept the fact that they're going the way of the dinosaur.

Posted by: Carl at September 29, 2013 09:00 PM

And people often bring up Walter Cronkite in connection to that fictional "Golden Age" of Journalism. He was FAR from objective and was a lifelong Democrat who also had world federalist views. Hell, I think even on "All in the Family" they'd refer to him as "Pinko Cronkite."

Posted by: Carl at September 29, 2013 09:02 PM