The TNG episode, "Relics" brought Scotty into the 24th Century. His pattern had been held in a transporter buffer for the previous 75 years.

Gotcha. I forgot about that.

Don't presume to think you know what my motivation was. You are, as usual, completely wrong about my politics. It's also hilarious and ironic that you accuse me of being obnoxious. Instead of reviewing my review (and I am entitled to dislike what, in my opinion, is bad writing), why not actually review the comic? An ad hominem attack is an extremely weak, and intrinsically fallacious rhetorical device. Pathetic.

I will presume because of the pattern present in your reviews. You can tell me what your politics are, but I can always tell you how your politics are perceived. It's only an ad hominem if I used it to discredit your argument, but you didn't actually make an argument to discredit. In fact, I agreed that the writing was on the nose, and I liked it. Me calling you obnoxious was simply an insult.

You truly are pathetic. Yes, your comments were ad hominem. I did make an argument in my review, and to attempt to suggest otherwise is frankly ridiculous. I'm glad, however, that you accept that you were being deliberately insulting: this demonstrates exactly the kind of person you are. You appear to like to think of yourself as some sort of progressive hero, keyboard-warrior. You are instead a nasty, small-minded individual, who chooses to attack people...

...because they don't like all of the same comics as you. That you believe you can define my politics from a few reviews here and there is breathtaking arrogance. I have criticised quality of writing and art in my reviews. This is perfectly normal. You liked this comic: good for you. I didn't, and I explained why. That you can't accept a difference of opinion without resorting to being offensive speaks very ill of you.

An ad hominem is when someone discredits an argument by insulting the character of the person who they are arguing with. I didn't present a contention with your argument,and so I wasn't trying to discredit your argument. I was just slinging an insult because I think you can be obnoxious. I'm open and honest about my intentions.

I do like to think I'm pretty progressive, but I don't consider myself a keyboard warrior. That would imply that either of us are important, when we're not. I do attack people for being politically offensive, and you are.

That's not arrogance, that's observation. I just wish that people were upfront about what they actually think, instead of obfuscating it and then getting mad when someone calls them on it.

When most of your engagement on your reviews in either comments or likes are from the known racists and bigots you really don't have a leg to stand on in regards to "you don't know my politics". You may not be saying who you are for directly but you don't leave room for any other inference.

This could be solved so quickly by this guy just giving a brief explanation of his politics. Like, "I don't like misogyny and here's why!" Instead he just claims we don't know what his big brain thinks and refuses to elaborate further.

Hex, you are completely wrong, and you know it. Nice to see you ganging up once again with Amazing Psycomorean, however! Funny how you even noticed this! Hmmm. Bullies do tend have a gang of hangers on.

Amazing Psycomorean, what drivel. I have previously engaged with you and outlined some of my political views, and you ignored it. Nonetheless, here we go again... I am a UK trade unionist, who believes in racial, sexual and gender equality. I vote on the economic left, and for social liberty. I don't know what country you are in, but assuming it is the USA, then I am very far to the left of the Democrats. Interesting that you have assumed my sex and/or gender, by the way. Very progressive!

Oh, and please don't try to lecture me on what an ad hominem attack is. It comes from Latin, and is an abbreviation of, "argumentum ad hominem," which translates as, "argument to the person." What this means is that the person making an ad hominem argument ignores the points made and instead attacks the person making them. That is exactly what you did.

You have chosen to read into what I have written, but that doesn't mean that your reading is correct. I think that this was a badly written comic, and so I said as much. That doesn't mean that I am a racist/imperialist/misogynist... or any other slur that you choose to throw at me. It just means that I think the writing is poor: which is what I said.

I follow him & get updates through the site. It is a normal function. He was right, so I backed him up. Also, I really don't think I'm wrong because you regularly have RedK, Merlyn (had), and SenpaiFenix interacting with your reviews in a positive way. They are all outspoken bigots that never tried to hide who they were and just did exactly what you are doing in getting called out for it. Projecting onto everyone else & try to spin the narrative that, "the progressives won't let me be ignorant!"

Here's a radical idea for you: why not read what has been written, rather than decide that actually it is code for something else? Of course, that would mean that there were far fewer opportunities to try and bully people, and I know that would be unpleasant for you.

Hex, your argument is ludicrously flawed. I do not control who likes or comments on my reviews. Please also furnish me with examples of where I have written something racist.

If you are placing yourself in an agreeable position to racists and bigots, then maybe you should be more careful about what you write.

Hex, that is such a poor argument! You really are clutching at straws. As I said, show me where I have written something racist.

My apologies, I wasn't trying to call you a racist, I was just speaking in hyperbole there. Racists just seem to like you and like them when called out for saying something disagreeable, you are practicing the same tactics that they do. Sorry to have to spell that out.

How is if bad people like you then there is a common thread in your words and rhetoric a poor argument?

This is ridiculous. I have no control over who likes my reviews. You are practising a witch hunt. I have repeatedly asked you for evidence of my alleged racism (which you very clearly imply) and you have failed to provide any. You should be ashamed of yourself

Here I sit. Ashamed that I practiced hyperbole.

Oh, and as to, "saying something disagreeable," I would also like to know what constitutes, "disagreeable". I said that this comic was badly written. You may disagree, but I fail to see how that is, "disagreeable," unless you believe that people are not entitled to their own aesthetic values.

You tried to cast me as a racist, but failed to provide any evidence. In essence, you libeled me. Now you try to use sarcasm to hide that.

If you cannot see that it is a poor argument to say that I must agree politically with people who liked a comic review I wrote, then you are in need of more help than I can provide on the internet. I'll say it again: where is the evidence - in what I wrote, and therefore have control over - of me being racist?

If those are your politics, you are center left on any reasonable scale, and perfectly capable of falling into the trappings and rhetoric of the comicsgate crowd that always seem to agree with you. Ad hominem only works if I was trying to disprove your points, but I wasn't. It was an insult. You cry bully a lot, if you need evidence of it, just check your own comments here. You thrive in the rhetoric of the right. Good on you for voting the bare minimum, I guess.

What an incredibly disingenuous response. You and Hex have exposed yourselves for what you are.

It was completely genuine. Cry bully more.

I've tried to expose and belittle bigots and those that associate with them ever since I got here. This is nothing new. You got mad at the idea of, "The Colonizer" a villain written by John fucking Ridley. Big mad.

So, no examples of any racism from me then? What a surprise! I didn't, "g[et] mad at the idea of, 'The Colonizer'". That's arrant nonsense, which is completely unsupported by what I wrote. I didn't get mad at anything; I criticised the quality of the writing, which was clumsy. You can keep trying to justify your unjustified attack on me all you like, but your justifications are pathetic.

I'll ask for it again: give me examples of where I have written something racist.

Look, going through your reviews, it's clear that you may just be incredibly dumb and easily lose the point even if your intentions aren't so bad. You may think yourself to be super left leaning, but literally everything you write only supports the worst the comics community has to offer.

Amazing Psycomorean, you are completely disingenuous. You also misrepresent what 'ad hominem' means: it is an attack on the person, not the argument. Your defence that it was just an insult hardly does you credit. You are a bully, because you attack people, not arguments. That is almost a textbook definition. You also show startling lack of political understanding if you think someone who is far to the left of the Democrats is, "centre left"...

Look at your review of Son of Kal-El #2. You had a totally bad faith reading of everything in that issue, and your review was lauded by the actual racists and bigots on the site.

...I believe in public ownership of all national infrastructure, for example, which puts me to the left of the British Labour Party (which is well to the left of the Democrats).

The Labour Party is not as left as the Dems at this point, mostly because they've kowtowed to the far right surge in your horrible island nation. You are economically left. Okay, sure. Are you socially left, which is what all the talk of this issue would be about?

I thought you were just a right-winger, using lefty aesthetics. But no, you might just be very stupid.

You (and then Hex, leaping to your support) made a crass and ill-informed attack on my review of a comic, which was entirely based on the quality of the writing in that comic, and nothing more. When I challenged you for that, you threw up lots of smoke and mirrors to try and obfuscate, and then you decided to say that you were just insulting me, as if that was a perfectly good thing to do. Your desperate attempts to try and save face are embarrassing. An adult admits when they are wrong.

You'd think by my total admission to it, that you'd have learned that insulting someone is something I'm completely okay with doing. Insults are good, I like insults. I said as soon as you responded that I was insulting you. I didn't decide later that that's what it was. I own that I insulted you, and I'd only feel bad for it if this entire argument didn't give an abundance of credence to the claim that you are obnoxious.

Amazing Psycomorean, pretty well all political scientists agree that the Labour Party is to the left of the Democrats, and has consistently been so. I notice your use of racism in your comments about my, "horrible island nation." The irony is hilarious that you choose to make such overtly racist comments in this context. Please explain how the Labour Party has, "kowtowed to the far right". This should be good! Yes, I am economically left wing, and as already pointed out, socially liberal.

Disagreeing with you about the quality of writing in a comic doesn't make me, "very stupid," but your consistent rudeness does make you an objectionable person.

"Look , going through your reviews, it's clear that you may just be incredibly dumb and easily lose the point even if your intentions aren't so bad. You may think yourself to be super left leaning, but literally everything you write only supports the worst the comics community has to offer." You are breathtakingly arrogant.

Just act like a grown up for once, and say, "I'm sorry, I misrepresented you." Only someone with a very fragile ego would do otherwise.

"Look at your review of Son of Kal-El #2. You had a totally bad faith reading of everything in that issue, and your review was lauded by the actual racists and bigots on the site." Again, disagreeing with your view of a comic doesn't make me wrong. I've already addressed the fallaciousness of the idea that someone who may hold political views I disagree with liking a comic review I wrote makes me a racist. What, in that review was racist?

"Amazing Psyca*morean, pretty well all political scientists agree that the Labour Party is to the left of the Democrats, and has consistently been so." This is a more recent development. Very recent. Here's an article wherein a graph exists that puts the Labour Party to the slight right of US Dems: https://www.ft.com/content/d5f1d564-8c08-4711-b11d-9c6c7759f2b8

"I notice your use of racism in your comments about my, "horrible island nation." The irony is hilarious that you choose to make such overtly racist comments in this context." I don't think of the UK as a racially homogeneous country. And I'm fine with saying what I said. The UK is a terrible country. You can always speak ill of the state. I said nothing of the people, but you've been a really bad impression. If you're on the left, the idea that the UK is a horrible nation should be obvious.

"Please explain how the Labour Party has, "kowtowed to the far right". This should be good!" Well, Kier Starmer just gave a speech where he said that the Labour party was now the party of the center-ground. He also played to nationalism by singing the national anthem, which hasn't happened in a long time in Labour spaces.

They also wanted to keep in place a points-based immigration system, but promised it would simply "be different" from the current points-based system the conservatives put into place. This is a move to appeal to the centrists and disaffected right-wing voters. A move towards the right. A form of kowtowing to the far-right. This is what politics is now, so they've adapted to the ceded ground.

"Yes, I am economically left wing, and as already pointed out, socially liberal." You might want to define socially liberal in this context. It could be something as obnoxious as color-blindness, after all.

"Disagreeing with you about the quality of writing in a comic doesn't make me, "very stupid," but your consistent rudeness does make you an objectionable person." Wrong, and wrong.

""Look , going through your reviews, it's clear that you may just be incredibly dumb and easily lose the point even if your intentions aren't so bad. You may think yourself to be super left leaning, but literally everything you write only supports the worst the comics community has to offer." You are breathtakingly arrogant." Well, shouldn't I be?

"Just act like a grown up for once, and say, "I'm sorry, I misrepresented you." Only someone with a very fragile ego would do otherwise." Why would I apologize for something you haven't actually proven that I've done.

""Look at your review of Son of Kal-El #2. You had a totally bad faith reading of everything in that issue, and your review was lauded by the actual racists and bigots on the site." Again, disagreeing with your view of a comic doesn't make me wrong. I've already addressed the fallaciousness of the idea that someone who may hold political views I disagree with liking a comic review I wrote makes me a racist. What, in that review was racist?" This is pretty much the crux of the issue here.

You have to consider what you're saying. If all you do is appeal to the right-wing through your reviews that are your stated thoughts, then maybe you are not as far left as you think you are. It's not just one review here and there, it's constant. You don't provide a critique that lends itself to leftist ideas, while attacking left-leaning politics in comics consistently. You might be as leftist as they come, but that's not how you're perceived.

So, at the very least, you should consider that maybe you should be formulating your thoughts in a way that doesn't lend credence to your supposed political opponents in a space that is drowning in those types of people. You seem to be thinking about this very rigidly, maybe look at it from a broader angle.

You are an idiot. I'm done.

10/10 reply.

Great review, I'd just like to point out that my problem here wasn't with Jonathan saving the refugees, just with the messages Taylor was trying to put forward regarding immigration. He makes it look like it's very black and white and it really isn't. As you said, there's the problem of the asylum claiming, of the fact that no country can receive everyone who wants to be there but most of all the claim that Taylor pushed forward that only desperate people are seeking to go to other countries.

That's just blatantly false, there are economic migrants who go to other countries just to get better paid jobs and not because they're in any real life-threatening danger in their countries, and those people are taking advantage of asylum laws. That doesn't seem very fair to me. That was my main point.

Well, Hickman just gave an interview where he basically said he was overruled by the writers in the X-Men line so I kinda have the same impression, that he wanted to show down the line that the X-Men are wrong in their total disdain of human norms but the other writers just loved too much the supremacist angle (probably because that's their thinking in real life too, just like Taylor here) and Hickman lost control of the situation.

I saw Hickman's comments too. It certainly seems that the self-proclaimed progressives (anti-democratic element) overruled him on the story. I'm sick of the pretence that these people are the good and progressive: they aren't.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately they've bullied their way into make everyone else shut up and not say anything against them (if they do, they get cancelled by the angry mob) and right now they're enjoying the fruits of that. You can see it on their social media but what's worst, in the comics we love. And that despicable attitude is adopted by their fans, too.

Hey so, I feel like you should learn what these terms actually mean. Authoritarianism is blind submission to an authority. If Jon was authoritarian, he wouldn't butt heads with the military here, as they're the authority. Totalitarianism denotes a complete state control of every aspect of life and society. Nothing Jon does here is an attempt at that, nor is that the case for issue two, if you've yet to read it.

I think what you forget about all of this is that the way regimes become authoritarian or totalitarian is through the refutation of personal freedom and rights. Nothing Jon advocates for is doing that, nor do his actions support that sort of analysis. I think you need to weigh the balances of freedoms. You're pro-democracy and freedom, that's good. So we should protect those things, right? So apply that to climate change and the combat against that. What is more of a rejection of freedom?

A carbon tax to disincentivize corporations and individuals from continuing to burn fossil fuels, or living in a dystopian nightmare where drinkable water is rare, coastal regions are underwater, and going outside is a death sentence? Which one takes away more personal freedoms? And what comes with societal upheaval like climate change could produce? A dissolution of democracy.

Authoritarianism and Fascism springing from a migrant crisis on an unprecedented scale, or water wars creating isolationist and brutal governments trying to keep their populations under control. If you are a true liberal who believes in freedom and democracy, you should be on the side of the people advocating for real and quick change on the climate change front, because otherwise what you believe in will be destroyed.

As for the Hickman thing, I don't know what type of bullshit spin on this you two have been reading, but Hickman put up moving forward to a vote, and the majority voted for sticking in "act one" of his plans because they had stories they were telling that weren't finished, and Hickman respected that. This is a small form of a democracy at play, btw. Hickman might come back to continue his story, he may not. But he wasn't bullied out of anything.

He's sticking at Marvel and doing other books for them. He wouldn't do that if he was bullied. You guys really need to try not being snowflakes, and look at things objectively.

Oh, and it's been previously established in Tomasi and Gleason's Superman run that Jon would be a stronger Superman than Clark.

Can I just ask why you're stalking me? It's a comic that appeared more than a month ago, you're not following Valiant Son, the only way you could've seen this is by deliberately looking for my activity even though you have me blocked. The very definition of stalking. Seems pretty weird to me.

Nah, I'm not stalking you. I saw this because The Dark Knight Detective liked it, and I'm following them.

Still don't see why that would require you to involve yourself in a conversation that didn't involve you, I don't do that, but ok.

Because I think the review is weak and it's a public forum.

Psycamorean, I'm well-versed in what authoritarian and totalitarian mean: I'm a graduate in History, and a teacher of that. You don't seem to understand, however, or rather you choose to ignore it. I have explained - quite cogently - why these terms apply. You don't like the interpretation, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong.

You then go on to waffle off-topic about your political views, and create a straw man, where you seek to imply that I believe certain things, when I haven't said that. This is pretty poor academic debate. If you presented this too me in an essay, I would return it with lots of red ink, but I'm on holiday, so I won't.

You are clearly very worked up by people who hold differences of opinion from you. The vast quantity and volume of comments here, and elsewhere, demonstrate that. I suggest that you relax a little more.

Trying to school a graduate in History on the topic of... history. Never change, Psycamorean, never change. :))

Your reasoning why those terms apply is just quotes from the characters. That's poor reasoning. Every government or political figure on the planet considers themselves righteous, and you could easily attribute quotes to them that could be deemed authoritarian or totalitarian. What makes them different is their action and political advocacy.

Let's drop the idea that this is some cogent historical argument, when it really just comes across like every eye-rolling fan argument of why superheroes should go bad. Here, let me actually make your argument better: Superheroes have a lot of power, and therefore can supercede the systems and power structures in place that keep the average person from doing anything they want.

A superhero with a mindset that they can fix everything, without any real idea of how to do that, like say, a teenager who spent most of his life in a pit (That's Jon, if you aren't sure), will cause unintended consequences. With that said, here is the problem with that line of thinking as it concerns this comic. Nothing Jon does in either this issue or the next promotes an authoritarian or totalitarian stance.

He doesn't like police and military brutality, he saves refugees, and he stops a shooter. These are all in line with the actions of the average superhero. So basically, the problem here is that you're conflating intent with action, when the action is on par with what every other superhero in the DC universe would do. You could argue that he has more power than the average superhero, but we have plenty of checks and balances on Superman characters in the DCU, like magic characters.

As for why I went off on a political tangent, you seem very upset with the politics of Tom Taylor and those who you assume to believe similar things, and I believe that's the real problem here because otherwise the alarmism in your review doesn't make sense. You dislike progressives. You were demonizing a group of people who are more readily upholding the values you claim to love than you apparently are, because otherwise you'd be on their side.

I'm not debating you, but rather I just think your argument sucks.

You seriously have too much time on your hands. Your critique of my review is flawed. Move on, child.

I think your critique of my critique is flawed since you don't actually refute anything. Use that education of yours and that teaching skill to school me. It took me a generous five minutes to type out what I said. I do have a lot of free time, because I'm so efficient at getting shit done.

I'm not engaging with you any further because not only do you ignore anything that doesn't fit with your narrative, but also you try to assert what I think without knowing anything about me, and most importantly, you suck the joy out of life. Go away, you irritating child. I'm sure that you will reply because you are clearly the kind of egotistical who just has to have the last word.

I explicitly engaged with what you said, and my assertions about your beliefs were based entirely in what you said in your review and your comments afterwards. I know you don't want me to do this, but I could explain each of my assertions one by one and connect them with your exact words. I don't have to insult you or pull my credentials to validate and bolster my argument. A refusal of engagement shows you can't defend your argument. How embarrassing.

A very good review, please continue to add your reviews here, we could use people who actually put some input here and don't just blindly accept a writers' self-insert because they're fanboys.

Thanks for saying it, there is too much hypocrisy in this book and, as you say, xenophobia. I feel that in a need to make their comic book heroes look good, more now with all the terrible situation in Afghanistan they hang up this little act when they have left a lot of Cubans to drown. I'm not saying that a country has to take all responsibility for the citizens of other countries if it is not in their hands. The issue of refugees and the undocumented is very complicated.

Now we are talking that Clark is a citizen raised, nationalized and educated in the USA and it is not his land? !!! Sounds like an ungrateful bastard, to me.