The Divided States of Hysteria #1 Storytime

Howard Chaykin on his third run of apologies to SJW cucks:
comicbook.com/comics/2017/06/30/divided-states-of-hysteria-lynching-cover/

Other urls found in this thread:

freaksugar.com/chaykin-responds/
youtube.com/watch?v=xKOQdcVoRys
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

...

...

...

...

...

His mistake was pandering to them in the first. SJWs dont read comics

...

...

>Howard Chaykin on his third run of apologies

What apology?

freaksugar.com/chaykin-responds/

I that title a Humanwine reference?

he didn't pander to them, as a matter of fact, he consciously stir some shit to vent

...

Is that that sjw comic that sjws hate?

that tweets are infuriating and make it a chore to read

...

it's an anti-sjw comics (I mean, look at the title of the comic), so them hating is a natural outcome

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Yes.

...

A honest question, slightly related to the topic.
Why is "Paki" considered a racial slur?
Is brit, kraut, yankee a racial slur too?

...

...

The cuck here is Chaykin, not the SJWs.

fuck the Yankees

If this is true, why are both Chaykin and Image apologizing several times now?

I take that as yes?

they're the baseball team that America unites in hatred of

Image apologized.
Chaykin kinda gave a half-assed one that blamed the critics and sjws.

Chaykin didn't apologize, Image caught coldfeet

"Kraut" was often used in a derogatory manner during WWII. Brit and Yank are rarely ever used in a flattering manner either. I guess the main difference is that Pakis are brown and the others are white. God forbid a brown person get offended.

It CAN BE a racial slur, but to hypersensitive people, that means it's ALWAYS a racial slur. Also kraut is hilarious and I think it should make a come back.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Ignore what is saying, as he is currently choking to death on his father's semen-crusted feces.
Anyway, just Google it. It's derogatory based on how it's used, the context.

Chaykin agreed with Image's decision to pull the cover only because he didn't want other people to get badly affected indirectly. But he never apologized to the side attacking him. He also says:

>It should also be noted that, in the first issue, an e-mail address was provided for a letter column, which commences in issue two. As of this writing, not a single e-mail in regard to this controversy has been sent to this email address, indicating in all likelihood that the people attacking the material still haven’t read the book. Go figure.

What are pre-ww2 tanks doing there?
Is this serious?

Thank you for explanation. I honestly thought that it's a short term for Pakistani, etc.
(I use Brit and Kraut a lot. Sometimes Yanks, Japs, and rarely Russki/Katsap)

Wish the series was in black and white.

The colorist cheapens the look

OP is a dummy, Chaykin didn't apologize.

>It's derogatory based on how it's used, the context.
Well, then Spaghetti can also be a racial slur, if used in proper context :%)

How am I wrong, exactly? About krauts? About pakis being brown?

I guess is OP

...

well, you were dishonest about the reality of paki. it has a history of a racial slur, and I guarantee you that Indians and Afghanis get called pakis in the UK. yes, people get way too offended over things, but that doesn't mean it's as simple as rayciss sjws keepin' you down either.

...

>Or you can still continue to believe that not having your feelings hurt is in the bill of rights somewhere–despite the fact that I’m still not quite sure what all the fuss is about. For the record, apologies are for the guilty.

I never really cared about Howard Chaykin. but holy shit do I respect this guy now

Why are people getting mad at satire?

...

I never denied paki was a racial slur. It's considered more of a slur than the others, which depend on context, and who is saying it.

...

Or that someone should use it.
Sometimes people say that because they want to offend.
Context and maybe voice are important when something is an insult or not.

I can't say I sympathize or care about Chaykin.

If he had a point to make and people were being oversensitive about it, it's one thing. But he's just looking for attention and shock value for the point of shock value. It makes him no better than an Sup Forums-tard posting gore in other boards until the mods ban him.

I still can't understand Chaykin's political views.
Is he a SJW? Why do SJWs hate him?

He only published one issue so far
I won't be surprised if he has to publish it elsewhere, like, Avatar?

He calls himself left-winger, albeit he is not delusional

You know, I mocked this when it first came out, and so did most of Sup Forums - but we never demanded it be censored and the creator be forced to publicly abase himself.

I'm seriously tempted to buy this comic now, just to give a big fuck you to the new generation of Werthams.

He's far-left, but he's anti-censorship, so he's not a SJW.

They hate him because a transgendered character got attacked by a transphobe in issue #1, and the cover of issue #4 shows a Muslim man lynched by racists - which SJWs somehow interpret to mean that he genuinely wants his readers to attack transgendered people and murder Muslims.

And like Chaykin said about the cover getting pulled:

>I have no regrets in this action, as I abhor the idea of the impact of collateral damage inflicted on anyone not responsible for drawing the attention of these people, who represent themselves as members of the liberal left.

>It should also be noted that, in the first issue, an e-mail address was provided for a letter column, which commences in issue two. As of this writing, not a single e-mail in regard to this controversy has been sent to this email address, indicating in all likelihood that the people attacking the material still haven’t read the book. Go figure.

>I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about censorship via regressive liberalism.

>"So now that liberal-center-left narcissism, with a healthy dose of identity politics, has lost the game to right-wing ignorance and hypocrisy-driven rage, and I find myself anticipating a future spent in a live-action dystopia, the book seems almost naively cheerful and filled with hope. Go figure,"
sauce:

>Chaykin pandering to liberals

But he's like diet Frank Miller

I wanna see the lynching cover that title suggests.

Read this last time it was posted.

The story it self is basically offensive to everyone in a weird level playing field that makes us all pieces of shit.
There's worse and more offensive comics out there.

It's nothing that graphic in my opinion.

>The story it self is basically offensive to everyone
That's why it's hated.
You're supposed to be only offensive to the "bad guys"

Eh I could see people not liking it. I mean it is a brutal death, and dude has his pants down so that's kinda nudity on the cover usually that gets censors wanting to step in.
Sounds like a vocal minority that's causing everyone to pay attention to this thing most shouldn't care about.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised some of these news articles and threads weren't made to PROMOTE the comic. I mean this is getting a lot more people paying attention to it. Certainly Sup Forums since this is like the 3rd thread.

It was getting plenty of attention from Sup Forums when it first came out.
But then we were mocking it, now we're defending it.

bigger

desu I wouldn't approve of displaying that cover in a store where kids could potentially see it. It should have been nixed by Image on those grounds alone.

This isn't a kiddie comic.

Kids can still see the cover. I know adult comics come bagged so kids can't get into them, but putting it in something opaque so that the cover isn't visible at all is a bit much for just this one issue.

My opinion of comic 'journalists' has reached an all-time low after some of the pieces they published as a response. The demands they were placing on Image, Chaykin and the public were absolutely shocking too;

>they wanted to boycott Image at the sake of all other creators involved
>they wanted said unaffiliated creators to state their stance lest they be held accountable, even though they've fucking nothing to do with it
>they wanted Eric Stephenson to resign

Props to Chaykin for not bending over and taking it in the ass. The public should NOT get to dictate what a creator does in their own story just because it offends them. That's called censorship, no matter what way you look at it.

It's pretty sad.

It was kind of amazing to see the vast majority of the Bleeding Cool readership side with Chaykin.

Whatever happened to that CALEXIT comic they were gonna make? Heard nothing of it since they announced it literally after the election.

I think that's Black Mask, not Image.

JUST VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET

IF YOU HATE IT DON'T BUY IT

I would say what's sadder is the comics professionals that also advocated for this book to be censored or removed from store shelves.

It's like guys you know if it happens to this book your books are also fair game, right? Outrage and outrage culture knows no boundaries. How do these people think we got the Comics Code Authority?

Because it's usually used by someone who's bashing someone's head in or getting ready to vote for discriminatory laws.

Controversy aside, why is the art so godawful?

This comic feels like ironic shitposting, I don't understand the levels of chess in this

The reason it's used by those people is because nice people have been browbeaten into not saying it

See how it just feeds into itself?

>I think paki is a slur so stop saying paki
>People who don't give a shit about being nice keep saying paki
>Look, only assholes say paki so stop saying paki

>a transgendered character got attacked by a transphobe in issue #1
The worst part is that they didn't even treat the trans character negatively. In fact, she shot and killed the transphobes in literally her first appearance. I'm not sure about whether I like the comic or not, but you can't say that's transphobic.

If not for the shitstorm I wouldn't have read it.

But it's fucking godawful so I'm not going to buy it either so who knows.

Right. So, understanding this connotation, the only people who insist on continuing to use it are the ones who purposely intend to recall its association with violence. You don't call someone a paki without it being an implicit threat.

This leaves out the part where the word was coined and widely employed by the kind of people who'd smear it on the neighbor's house in what smells suspiciously like human feces.

It's transphobic for even showing someone being transphobic.

I wish I were being sarcastic.

This really don't seem to be anti sjv.
Which I don't mind.

Right, like how Guild Wars 2, infested with current year as it was, got shit for including the Sons of Svanir. A bunch of insane dragon-worshiping cultists the game demands you kill without remorse. They we MISOGYNISTS and that was REALLY problematic

Editorial does that to some extent.
Young wanted 'I Hate Fairyland' to be titled 'Fuck Fairyland', Image said no but gave him a line of variant covers featuring his title.

I guess my point is retailers can decide that for themselves and you're a puritanical faggot kys desu.

Oh my god.. this makes me sick.
Trump isn't evil and white people aren't evil.
youtube.com/watch?v=xKOQdcVoRys

Chayin seems to be relying too much on computers, it seems. Also, he can only draw three different faces.

How do they function? So you can't even have ANYONE be villains in fiction and media when SJWs are concerned? By that logic the only thing you CAN make are for pre-schoolers.

>why is the art so godawful?
Because Chaykin's best years are behind him. I don't know anyone that defends his post 2000's art

Updated for the modern day