Ivan The Pervy Ghost controversy

Sup Forums's thoughts on Action Lab removing this cover from their con exclusive one shot?

Other urls found in this thread:

comicsbeat.com/nycc-17-action-lab-apologizes-for-pervy-ghost-and-rude-tweets/
archive.is/OfygL
twitter.com/i/moments/915034952152096769
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Here's the article.
comicsbeat.com/nycc-17-action-lab-apologizes-for-pervy-ghost-and-rude-tweets/

It might actually be worth something now that it's a single print and not publically avaliable.

This is how you know comic con is ruined by normalfags. For comic books this is just your basic cheesecake. The entire point of that comic is fanservice and it's current artist is a female smut artist. What is there to be upset about?

It's a shitty cover not worth asking $50-$100 for, even if it does go to charity

>Cover Artist: Dan Mendoza

I didn't knew that fat dogs can draw so well.

Why is the person who writes for a comic book website not know fucking anything about comic books?
>There is so much to unpack here.
>Why does it cost $100?
Because comic books and fans are willing to spend hundreds on exclusive merch. This is well known
>Why is there a nude variant of something that looks like a 7th grader drew it?
Because it's a comic book
>Why is there a nude variant at all in the era of Porn Hub?
Because it's a comic book

the hell ?

archive.is/OfygL
Now you don't have to give them click money

>what is there to be upset about
For these autistic retards, pictures = real life, they assume the author is advocating the molestation of cosplayers by paranormal entities.

>TFW a ghost will never molest you

The worst thing about it is that this triggered trollop got her way. It's sad and disgusting that these pieces of shit are so successful in censoring whatever they desire.

That's her clavicle.

>sell comic online and get more money because free publicity and now an added incentive to get the cover for collectors

Sounds like a win to me.

...

Those ladies on the cover seem to be enjoying it at least.

No, they just have internalized misogyny and don't understand how the patriarchal ghost is oppressing them.

They have nude covers for a lot of their comics. Did some tumblr idiots just notice they exist?

>they(...)don't understand(...)

You're just a typical CIS white male trying to oppress a strong woman embracing her sexual identity as a metaphysical-polysexual with other women with like minded beliefs.

Do you think you have a right to define their sexuality?

Do you think that just because they're 2D, fictional representations of someones concept, that they don't have a right to express themselves as passionate, sexual creature and rather they conform to your ideals?

You're the reason she lost, you know!

that's a thing people who aren't obese have

sjws feminist ruin comics

more at 11

also shit like this would of not be an issue if you fucks cared more about how liberal propaganda being pushed in the comic industry. you all made your bed

This was one of the SJWs complaining about it.
twitter.com/i/moments/915034952152096769

This is just getting tiresome now. I don't know if Donald Trump being elected made it worse or it would have made no difference whatsoever. But it seems that this shit has been RAMPING UP with no brakes. It's worse than 5 years ago.

Will this never end? Is this the new normal?

real tits sag.

>pervy ghost is bad
I think I'm being kinkshamed.

>publishing a comic where the protagonist performs immoral actions is immoral
I'm so goddamn tired.
Also isn't twitter supposed to be for short messages?

Tumblr migrated to twitter and haven't learned to shut up.

Who's the asshole on Sup Forums who keeps claiming SJWs have "NO REAL POWER GAIZ" every time SJWs keep getting things censored or taken down. WHERE THE FUCK IS THAT GUY NOW?!

The apology is mostly about the tweets that got out because of a hacker.

They're only censoring a specific cover, not the content of the comic.

It's not censorship, it's marketing. A "groping cosplayer" comic that is ONLY sold towards cosplayers who object to being groped is tremendously poor marketing. You change your product for your market. It's common sense business.

The comic still costs $100.

I don’t understand.
The content of the comic is still about lewd stuff involving cosplayers, so why would it be a better marketing move to disguise it as the opposite? Also, if their intent is to pander to an audience that likes lewd stuff, why is it common sense to chnage your product that is absolutely NOT your market, considering these people complaining about it are against such prominent sexual content not just in this specific issue but in the comic’s entire series?
It’s like saying “hey gais its totally not censorship if the company bows under pressure from smear campaigns, they are cutting this stuff to sell better because its a marketing move, it woulda been totes bad to face all the controversy and lose sales amirite? its their property, they can totally do anything to it if they want”

He's the kind of asshole who claim the Street Fighter V butt slap removal is not censorship but Cartoon Network UK removing gay references from Steven Universe is. Even though BOTH are done by corporations out of outside pressure.

>They're only censoring a specific cover
>It's not censorship

Riiiiiiiiight...

>fans control what companies publish
>inb4 v-vote with your dollar
This stuff always sells like shit, yet they keep pushing it

Cheesecake generally objectifies women, which upsets plenty of people. It's part of comic book culture to appreciate or at least tolerate cheesecake, but cultures change and classic comic book culture is notoriously unfriendly to women.
The artist may be female, but women can draw things that harm other women. If a Jew drafted a recruitment poster for the Nazis, it would still be harmful to Jews despite being made by a Jew. A female artist may be more likely to have a better understanding of the complex gender-relations-based issues that cheesecake raises, but that doesn't mean everything she makes has the seal of god. She's an individual, and individuals have their own thoughts and opinions.

>Objectifying literal objects
STOP
and before you're intentionally dense, I'm referring to drawings, not women.

You're a fucking retard if you think this variant wouldn't have sold since it was being sold a convention

Then women can also draw things that harm and objectify men. Fuck off and take your post modern bullshit with you.

>never ever been in contact or heard of this person before
>I'm blocked
meh, I guess that's just another micro-rage I'm avoiding today

I'm sure there's a point in here somewhere, but all I see are buzzwords

The drawings are of women. The women in the drawings are only valuable to the story for their bodies. The narrative that follows this implicitly accepts that the women in this story are valuable only for their bodies. When it happens in porn, it's ok because that's the value of every character, regardless of gender or sex.
When you start to add other things, like plot and character development, suddenly there are more things a character can be valuable for, like defusing a tense moment or helping another character snag the macguffin.
Ivan adds a story but only primarily allows the women value through their bodies. Now, it's still porn, but it also contains elements that go beyond the definition of porn. So it's not bad for being porn, it's bad being a bad story that treats women like objects, and being porn doesn't negate that. The two can coexist, but one doesn't negate the other.
Yes, this is correct. However, when they do so, it's not within a culture that has been harming and objectifying men, so it's a smaller, more isolated problem. Still a problem, but not an out of control, society-wide one. That's why people don't tend to make a big deal out of it. It happens a lot less to men than to women.

I was talking about SJW Marvel type shit dumbass, in reference to
>> liberal propaganda being pushed in the comic industry.

That post was meant to be accessible not divisive. What buzzwords did I use?

>That post was meant to be accessible not divisive
>hurr women who draw cheesecake are the devil
>not divisive

>women who draw cheesecake are the devil
You mean
>The artist may be female, but women can draw things that harm other women.
>A female artist may be more likely to have a better understanding of the complex gender-relations-based issues that cheesecake raises, but that doesn't mean everything she makes has the seal of god. She's an individual, and individuals have their own thoughts and opinions.
They're never going to let you graduate high school if you don't learn how to read, sweetie.

>a woman may be allowed to draw cheescake if she likes, but that doesn't mean she's not a gender traitor and shouldn't be hunted down in the streets for her crimes

I ain't afraid of no ghost

>The drawings are of women
Still drawings, still objects. Unless you're going for the "media brainwashes people" thing, in which case you can fuck off Fredrick Wertham

>harm other women.
Oh fuck off, drawings don't hurt people, it's literally impossible.
>m-muh psychology

>Action Lab
Who the hell cares. They are deviant-tier shit.

>nazis comparison
Post discarded

Actually if you'd read the post you'd see it was a Jew comparison. I compared her to a Jew, the other group in the example was the Nazis.

If it activates your almonds, just replace Jew with Sup Forumsmrade and Nazi with SJWs. Hopefully that doesn't hurt your fee fees as much.

Are...are you discounting all of psychology?

And you don't think the media we consume affects the way we think or the ideas in our heads? Brainlets detected.

Explain this papercut, retard.
Checkmate.

>And you don't think the media we consume affects the way we think or the ideas in our heads?
Are you seriously suggesting that some shitty cheesecake variant cover is going to convince people it's ok to commit sexual assault on cosplayers?

No. Quick question tho, what's your definition of sexual assault in this scenario?

Drawing something is literally the same as not just committing whatever act you drew but also condoning it and promoting it.

Unsolicited groping of titties

I can't tell if it's a shitposter or a genuine retard. You can never know with this board.

There is a legal definition

they don't actually, not in any meaningful way. Just like every moral panic in the past, D&D doesn't make you a satanist, rock music doesn't make you overthrow the government, and video games don't make you shoot up school/work. Likewise, cheesecake doesn't actually affect how you treat women; some of the worst eras of misogyny were during more puritan time periods.

I'd say 25/75 shitposting/retardation

Why is just the nude cover being pulled? Is there a rule against explicit nudity at NYCC? Are other's following it? If it's getting pulled because misogynerd patriarchal opression, why isn't the comic itself being pulled? Or any other comics with scantily clad women?

Nothing is explained. It seems like some twitter mob wanted a scalp, and stumbled on a sufficiently ignorable nobody comic to take it from.

No one truly believes that but a couple teenagers on tumblr, and what they think doesn't matter.
I'm trying to have a discussion here and your strawmanning is basically shitposting. Build a real argument, lurk moar, or talk to someone else.

No I'm saying objectification theory is fucking bullshit because it relies on "internalized standards of beauty" to support its "self-objectification" (a literal oxymoron) point, a crux of its argument. But again, objects cannot be objectified.

>No one truly believes that
Then what argument are you fucking making? Either drawings effect how people treat other people or they don't.

>inb4 eyerape

You would have agreed with Fredick Wertham then? Or is he wrong for being a PROBLEMATIC HOMOPHOBIC SHITLORD

Building a real argument with people like you is a wasted effort and has been since well before lurking moar was a concept, but I'm sure that's a stinging catchphrase on your usual forums

That's not how I understand objectification to work. Can you break that down for me a little more? Or link me to something that does?

I don't know who that is, but his wikipedia article makes him sound like one of those nuts who thinks violence in media makes children killers. I think violence in media desensitizes us to the idea of violence and makes us less afraid of the idea of being violent, which may (to different degrees in different people depending on their mental health, impulse control, and many other factors that determine who we are) make us less afraid of violence and thus slightly more likely to engage in or condone it.

But people like the guy described in this wikipedia article take it way too far. Any idiot can look at the popularity of COD and notice how few of its fans are out in the streets killing people. But that doesn't mean there's no effect whatsoever.

>I'm not like this guy, even though I share his beliefs almost to the letter

actual jew here

pro-censorship advocates are the only modern equivalent of nazis

eat shit, faggot

>Talking about objectification
>Never read Fredrickson and Roberts' theory
Even in feminism SJWs are fucking casuals.

So you are exactly that guy, you just use more weasel words

>On Sup Forums
>Doesn't know Frederick Wertham
>"even though Wertham is literally making the same argument as me, he's wrong because reasons"

So how's the comic?

This, how is it encouraging cosplayer harassment if it's consensual?

It alright.

Oh I see you have some unique groundbreaking definition of your own

Oh well then yeah, I do agree with him inasmuch as he agrees with me.

Yeah it's not meant to be a perfect comparison. Sometimes we use examples not because they are exactly 100% the same as the thing we are describing, but because they have a similar relationship with something else and we are trying to show a simplified example of that relationship out of the context of the situation we are trying to break down.

Besides, >If it activates your almonds, just replace Jew with Sup Forumsmrade and Nazi with SJWs. Hopefully that doesn't hurt your fee fees as much.

I think I've said a few times now that I don't know him or who he is. I also didn't say he was wrong, I just made some generalizations based on a skimming of the first paragraph of his wikipedia article, which I admitted.

Still waiting for one of you geniuses to explain objectification...

>Still waiting for one of you geniuses to explain objectification
I'd like your definition first. What is objectification and how does it harm people?

I literally gave you the name of the theory and its writers, I'm not spoonfeeding you, you little casual faggot.

So does this mean we're going to have to start pretending this comic is good?

>your religion and its history is fee fees
Nice fedora bro

No need to. The comic is trash. Doesn't change anything

its not about the comic quality

its about advocating censorship for stupid reasons like patriarchy and muh "attractive fictional characters make people feel bad"

>I'd like
No one cares what you'd like. gave a stupid breakdown of objectification and I asked them to explain further, because what I do know seems to be different from what this user knows, and I think they're wrong, just as I suspect they think I'm wrong. But they claimed a theory is bullshit, and I'm asking them to back up their claim.

I want to hear you explain it, in your own words, or at least get a link to the article you're regurgitating, because I don't think you really understand it. I'm quite capable of googling two names, thanks, as is everyone else in this thread. If you're unable or unwilling to back up your claim, then how about this. What are "internalized standards of beauty" as you understand them? What is "self-objectification" as you understand it?

>What are "internalized standards of beauty" as you understand them? What is "self-objectification" as you understand it?
Pointless buzzwords that don't mean anything

see

Read a book nigger. You are not only a casual about comics, you're a casual about feminism, talking about objectification without having actually read the paper that coined the term. I bet you go around tossing phrases like "intersectionality" without having read Crenshaw too.

see

That poster wasn't me, but see those quotation marks? Do you know what they represent?

Ah I thought you were attributing the words in quotes to me. My bad.

So the paper that coined the objectification also explains why objectification theory is bullshit? I'm asking you to explain your anti-objectification argument in more detail. Can you or can't you?

Objectification isn't a fucking thing, faggot. Some shitty comic with titties on the cover isn't going to magically create a world that is less safe for women

I was that poster, and while I don't think that standards of beauty is a buzzword, I do think it's absurd to say attractive people harm unattractive people by existing. Self Objectification is a meaningless buzzword though, if you chose to do something you inherently cannot be an object. The theory is also not backed up by any kind of psychology/psychiatry/testing of any kind, it's a pure thought exercise.

How can you not see that "self objectification" is an oxymoron? How warped is your mind to think that making the choice to do something is being an object.

I finished reading the wiki. Standing by my initial impression; he gives the influence of our media too much credit. I think the influence media has on us is much more subtle, and much more easily overpowered by other factors, like the influence of a family member or a strong code of ethics. FW may have thought that violence in the media we consume causes violence in children, but I think that violence in the media we consume merely normalizes violence, which affects how willing we may be to engage in violence but can not be said to cause it. Anyone who can't tell the difference between "causes x" and "can be a factor that makes x more likely" will be ignored b/c they haven't even taken a high school psych class.

>JUST BELIEVE IT BECAUSE I SAID SO REEEE
I've spent half this thread trying to get people to back up their arguments. What did you think this unsupported assertion was going to do for me?
Besides, your post was behind the conversation about 30 posts ago. Read the thread before you post.

>making the choice to do something is being an object
Is that it? Did I finally track down this user's () definition of objectification? Is that you?

>I've spent half this thread trying to get people to back up their arguments
You'd need an argument yourself first, before anyone needs arguments of your own.

God what is this eyesore I always see on here? Can some Canuck fill me in on this monstrosity?

>That shitty wannabe anime Vasquez art
>That high school anime fan-fic dialogue

This is the horrible comic that's oppressing women? Don't let them know about deviant art or bleedman. Society and civil rights could crumble away by two centuries overnight.

Individual here.

Just came to call you a faggot.

Enjoy the (You), I guess.

I hate people like you.

A lot.