Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Library of Congress Opens Records of Anti-Comic Book Shrink

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the sum-of-old-fears dept.

eldavojohn writes "Some light is being shone on comic book history today as the Library of Congress opens up the 222 boxes of a German psychiatrist's evidence and papers against comic books. Dr. Fredric Wertham is well known by comic book fans as the author of Seduction of the Innocent, a bestselling book linking comic books and juvenile delinquency — leading to a full blown congressional investigation (some say witch hunt) of the comic book industry. Wertham was long involved with criminal trials before campaigning against comic books and promoting industry and government censorship for children. Ars adds a little more context for the younger crowd and notes that he later tried to move against television violence but couldn't find the publisher backing he had against comic books."

65 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Ah yes, Wertham by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As much as Dr. Dickhead and Congress should be excoriated appropriately, let's not forget that the Comics industry bent over backwards to censor itself. If they'd shown a little more backbone, imagine what Lee and Kirkby could have done with the "Marvel Way" in the sixties. Imagine not having that fucking glut of saccharine Archie products.

    Mind you, we probably wouldn't have gotten Mad magazine if things had turned out differently, so it's hard to be judgmental.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    1. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know, it seems to me that often the best stories are written when the authors hands are tied a little bit. Typically, code or no code, the author will get the message out that they're trying to get out, but with the code in place it puts a check on the author, preventing him or her from taking the easy way to make their point. It encourages authors to look at both sides of situation more thoroughly than they would have otherwise which in my opinion adds more depth to the story.

    2. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It gives them the luxury of looking at both ways better, while preventing them from doing things the second way, regardless as to whether it's the best way of expressing their message. Genius.

    3. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by jandrese · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tied an artists hands a little bit can be good, but the code was a straitjacket--especially in the original incarnation. And attempting to publish without the CCA logo was suicide. Many distributes wouldn't even carry your product, and towns enacted ordinances making non CCA tagged comics "adult material" and illegal for distribution inside of the town boundaries. It took decades for the industry to recover, and even now comics retain the stigma of "kids stuff about moralistic superheroes and fluffy animals", despite the eventual backlash and proliferation of adult targeted (and non CCA approved) comics during the 80s and beyond.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      regardless as to whether it's the best way of expressing their message.

      Close, but that isn't quite what I said. More accurate would be "...regardless as to whether it's the easy way of expressing their message". There will always be times when going against the code will make the better story, but I feel that rather than making the story better it often just makes the story easier to write, which is a hard thing for most authors to resist.

      If you want your main character to be a criminal for instance, the easy way to do things is to have the criminal succeed and get rich off his crimes. With the code you can't do that, a criminal can't profit from his crimes, so what to do? You have to come up with other ways of having him 'win', through personal relationships, character growth, overcoming adversity, etc.

    5. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And it makes kids think "Evil" is robbing a bank without guns, and yelling "Drat!" or "Curses!" when a superhero shows up. Instead of Evil being a man with an axe holding a severed head. Sometimes the best way to portray a villain is not with subtlety.

    6. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by DMiax · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it was just Hays code all over again. Funny how these things happen at decades of distance for different mediums. Let's see if the plot repeats with videogames...

    7. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by Hojima · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But you have to look at what comic book writers were trying to accomplish, and what Dr. Wertham was trying to accomplish. This guy thought he found a correlation between violent media and delinquency. Did it ever occur to him that the naturally violent children will be attracted to the comic books and later become criminals, regardless of what they are subjected to. This man compared leaving the responsibility of controlling media for parents to anarchy. It would be more accurate to compare the restriction of freedoms of all for the sake of protecting few to despotism. Every outlet of entertainment you look at will always create a market for those who are drawn to violence, and quelling it can only make the problem worse in the same way that prohibition made drinking worse. It's fine to create rating for parents to select which media to subject their children to, but eliminating it completely not only takes away the opportunity to do so, but it also makes people neglect teaching their children to use violence appropriately. There's nothing wrong with violence if used moderately in self defense or in the defense of others (one of the reasons my kids will learn discipline from martial arts). I guess some people still think they can create some utopia that operates in the absence of violence, like it hasn't failed countless times in history.

      --
      Help fight spam
    8. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't know you had to decapitate people to be considered evil! I think robbery is pretty bad even when performed without a weapon (which actually happens quite often).

      There's evil, and there's Evil.

    9. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While it's true that necessity is the mother of a great deal of creative invention, there are a great many stories which simply could not be threaded through the eye of the needle which is the Comics Code.

      The Code did more than just say things like "no boobs" and "no decapitations". It dictated which points of view could be expressed. A writer couldn't write a story which questioned the authority of the police. A writer couldn't do a story which expressed the idea that maybe crime does pay. These were specifically disallowed. The Code even declared entire topics off-limits. You couldn't write a story about drug use... pro or con. (The first mainstream comics to defy the Code were about the dangers of drug use.) You couldn't write a story expressing an opinion about homosexuality, because the subject couldn't even be mentioned. At best you might be able to fashion a Star-Trek-like metaphor for the topic you wanted to comment on, but that kind of vagueness leaves your point open to misinterpretation or just going over people's heads, which makes for a weaker story, not a stronger one.

      The Code's overriding principle was that all comics should be suitable for children. It was tantamount to requiring that all movies in cinemas be rated G or PG. That wasn't just a challenge to storytellers' creativity, it was an assault on it. You simply cannot write a sophisticated, nuanced story about complex themes, on an adult reading level under the Code. Because kids couldn't handle that.

      If you want writers who "look at both sides of a situation", read a newspaper. Most good writers of fiction have an actual point of view, and use their writing to express it. They shouldn't have to work around a system which declares their point of view impermissible, or the topics they wish to explore off-limits.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    10. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by stonewallred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your first few sentences pretty much sums up today's world. No PB&J sandwiches at school, because some kid may be allergic. WoD because some folks become addicted. Plenty of medications removed from the market, which are effective and work well, because one out of 100 million folks might die if they take it. IIRC correctly, Seldane was the sinus medication prescribed by a doctor that could cause heart stoppage in a very small percent of users who had heart murmurers. So instead of simple solution, don't prescribe for patients with heart murmurers, the government banned it for all folks, because of a sub-set of an already small sub-set. Let's avoid delving into such things as airport security, DHS, and other topics demonstrating the exact same ideas.

    11. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by jythie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hard to say if showing backbone would have worked. They were a weak and unpopular industry in the middle of a moral panic in an age where blasphemy was still a punishable offense. The few publishers that did try to stick up for themselves were tarred and feathered and, more importantly, did not survive as companies.

    12. Re:Ah yes, Wertham by jythie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So many holes have been carved out, at this point the first amendment is only useful when judges want it to be. They can claim tradition or evolving standards to justify going either way.

      Even then it was more of a procedural tool then anything else.

  2. Comics and Video Games by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love how some of the most outspoken people against video games (as well as comics, porno, etc) are often the same people who are against government expansion. Government intervention is always bad...unless it regulates something these people don't agree with.

    I'm looking at you, Mitt Romney...amongst others.

    --
    Living With a Nerd
    1. Re:Comics and Video Games by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Government intervention is always bad.

      There is the problem. I know a lot of people reject propositions with a boring and overly-simple argument of "government is too big," but that doesn't mean that all people who are in favor of a small [federal] government take that route, and it doesn't mean that they think that all government intervention is bad. You're unecessarily reducing a viewpoint to a ridiculous. Claiming that those who are against "government expansion" are in favor of anarchy (if government intervention is always bad, then anarchy would be good, because it would be no government intervention).

      Of course, you are probably just exaggerating to make your point, which is probably what the people you're arguing against are doing, too... meaning we're all arguing against exaggerated opinions of the other side, which means we're not even really arguing about something real ;)

      I'm a "small government" sort of guy. Didn't Romney do the health care thing in MA? Isn't that "government intervention?" Doesn't he still claim it was a good idea? Of course, that was at the state level, not the federal level... but still.

      I suppose I'm nit-picking. But the exaggerations on both sides make any sort of meaningful political discussion impossible. Democrats, according to some Republicans, quite literally want to drive America into the ground and give our land over to Muslim countries. Republicans, according to some Democrats, want to literally milk the people's money out of them through corporations and wouldn't mind if [insert large corporation] actually ran the country. Usually, these are supported by huge jumps from a given action to a motive. Actions are easy to see. Motives are pretty difficult.

      As an example, from my own ideological POV's typical party member, "Obamacare" is clearly an attempt to set up a completely socialist government in America. It's also, clearly, an attempt to ruin America and give it to Iran. It's also clearly an attempt for Democrats to gain more federal power. Of course, some of those clear motives are rather mutually exclusive, but we'll ignore that. The action that caused all this was a health care bill, but we clearly know the motive behind it.

      The same goes for Democrats. They clearly know the motives behind Repuplicans blocking a given bill (it is undoubtedly an evil and nefarious motive, like wanting to get more money from corporate lobbyists, or wanting to ensure they get re-elected, etc). My whole point? We are so caught up in ascribing motives that we can't even argue about the real substance - the legislation itself.

      And, to wrap up, exaggerations about POV's - including "small government" folks being against any government intervention at all, which then boils any discussion down to "well what about [something the government does that is necessary]???!?! you insensitive clod!" and including "all 'socialists' want to control ever single area of your life just like Russian communism!" - is a part of the can't-have-rational-discussion problems...

      IMO, of course. ;)

    2. Re:Comics and Video Games by locallyunscene · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most people don't want to move the discussion beyond that. They want to believe that their set of principles is more "right" than any given policy. They like calling themselves Democrat or Republican and spouting out of context talking points. They can participate in Democracy by simplifying it down to a few axioms and anyone that disagrees is naive, jaded, or just wrong.

    3. Re:Comics and Video Games by Venik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My whole point? We are so caught up in ascribing motives that we can't even argue about the real substance - the legislation itself.

      I agree and I blame the comic book industry's irresponsible, apolitical position on the issue. I think more comics should be dedicated to in-depth discussion of new legislation. Who owns the copyright on the character of the Socialistman?

  3. William Gaines at the Senate Subcommittee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Chief Counsel Herbert Beaser: Let me get the limits as far as what you put into your magazine. Is the sole test of what you would put into your magazine whether it sells? Is there any limit you can think of that you would not put in a magazine because you thought a child should not see or read about it?

    Bill Gaines: No, I wouldn't say that there is any limit for the reason you outlined. My only limits are the bounds of good taste, what I consider good taste.

    Beaser: Then you think a child cannot in any way, in any way, shape, or manner, be hurt by anything that a child reads or sees?

    Gaines: I don't believe so.

    Beaser: There would be no limit actually to what you put in the magazines?

    Gaines: Only within the bounds of good taste.

    Beaser: Your own good taste and saleability?

    Gaines: Yes.

    Senator Estes Kefauver: Here is your May 22 issue. [Kefauver is mistakenly referring to Crime Suspenstories #22, cover date May] This seems to be a man with a bloody axe holding a woman's head up which has been severed from her body. Do you think that is in good taste?

    Gaines: Yes sir, I do, for the cover of a horror comic. A cover in bad taste, for example, might be defined as holding the head a little higher so that the neck could be seen dripping blood from it, and moving the body over a little further so that the neck of the body could be seen to be bloody.

    Kefauver: You have blood coming out of her mouth.

    Gaines: A little.

  4. Weasel words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dear Slashdot editors:

    Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, the phrase "some say witch hunt" is a weasel-faced cop out. It's a device commonly seen on Fox news to to inject opinion into otherwise factual reporting. If "some people" say it, tell us who. Otherwise, let us know it's your opinion.

    Regards.

    1. Re:Weasel words by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would normally agree with that, but in this instance the term "witch hunt" is commonly used to describe this period in comic (and law) history. The "some people" is referring to the culture in general.

      If you're looking for a wikipedia-style source to be cited, open a phone book.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
  5. Congress: The New Superhero! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is Congress the new superhero, defending the rights of comic book readers everywhere? Um, no ...

    Dr. Wertham is just an early predecessor to Jack Thompson. These idiots think that anything they don't understand or enjoy should be banned because "clearly it has no moral value". It's a myopic view of art and entertainment that would lead to everyone buying and enjoying the exact same things. Sure, the RIAA, MPAA and big radio would love that but it would kill creativity as we know it.

    Comic books and video games aren't my cup of tea but that doesn't make me think they should be banned because those who enjoy them are delinquents and dangerous. If everyone who didn't share my POV was labeled dangerous ...

    1. Re:Congress: The New Superhero! by Nukky+Cisbu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dr. Wertham is just an early predecessor to Jack Thompson. These idiots think that anything they don't understand or enjoy should be banned because "clearly it has no moral value". It's a myopic view of art and entertainment that would lead to everyone buying and enjoying the exact same things....

      I take a possibly more cynical view that like so many other politicians, pundits and activists, their "cause" is nothing but a horse they've hitched their career cart to.

    2. Re:Congress: The New Superhero! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is not accurate to lump him in with Jack Thompson, did you read the article linked to Ars?

      In the 1940s he opened an outpatient mental health clinic in Harlem for the poor.

      "Wertham was an eloquent critic of Jim Crow segregation. His research on its harmful psychological effects was cited in the 1954 Brown versus the Board of Education Supreme Court case. And he spoke out for the welfare of people behind bars, including Ethel Rosenberg, who was eventually convicted and executed for espionage, along with her husband, Julius."

      He was trying to help society and try to make the world a better place, he just added 2+2 up and got 5.321 when it came to violence and comic books.

    3. Re:Congress: The New Superhero! by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it is important to give Wertham his due props, because he did contribute positively to his community and our society in many ways. He was precisely the kind of complex shades-of-grey character that the Code prevented later comic book writers from depicting in their work.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  6. Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Damnit, you're not supposed to open the shrink wrap. Do you know how much value this has lost?

  7. Inaccurate Headline & Summary by Blackeagle_Falcon · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not Congress opening up these records, it's the Library of Congress.

    1. Re:Inaccurate Headline & Summary by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      Emily Letella: The what?
      Blackeagle_Falcon: Not Congress, the library of Congress.
      Emily Letella: Oh, well, never mind then.

    2. Re:Inaccurate Headline & Summary by Intron · · Score: 2, Funny

      What is with all these Saxon violins on television that I keep hearing about?

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  8. futu by mestar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "(some say witch hunt)"

    For example, all of us.

    --
    I'd like to say you are wrong, so I will.

  9. Worst story EVER by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    Worst story EVER!

    Rest assured, I was on the internet within minutes, registering my disgust.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. X-Ray glasses by bit9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only juvenile delinquency that comic books ever made me want to delve into was with the X-Ray glasses they always advertised on the back page of the comics. For a little boy, I apparently had quite the dirty mind. The thought of being able to see through girls' clothes held more awe and wonder for me than any amazing stunt Superman or Batman could ever pull off.

    1. Re:X-Ray glasses by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only juvenile delinquency that comic books ever made me want to delve into was with the X-Ray glasses they always advertised on the back page of the comics. For a little boy, I apparently had quite the dirty mind.

      Didn't some of those Xray spec ads show a guy leering at his "skeletal" hand with young women in dresses in the same field of view? The ad was begging you to think of the logical conclusion to the picture-story.

    2. Re:X-Ray glasses by Abstrackt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only juvenile delinquency that comic books ever made me want to delve into was with the X-Ray glasses they always advertised on the back page of the comics. For a little boy, I apparently had quite the dirty mind. The thought of being able to see through girls' clothes held more awe and wonder for me than any amazing stunt Superman or Batman could ever pull off.

      I hear the TSA has a few job openings.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
  11. Demonization? by Millennium · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until we can synthesize Wertham in his time, he will be demonized by historians for changing the comic-book industry and affecting the way generations of adults see comic books.

    And why should an enemy of freedom such as this man not be demonized? The trauma this man has inflicted on American media culture -such that entire media are still seen, more than 50 years later, as fit only for children- should be viewed with no other lens than pure, unadulterated contempt. There is nothing wrong with demonizing a demon.

    1. Re:Demonization? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously, "enemy of freedom?" Oh, I don't know about. Werthan wasn't some power mad dictator who unilaterally banned comics. He reflected the concerns of parents at the time and was an eloquent spokesman for the censorship position. Its important to realize what mainstream American society was in the 1950s and 60s. A lot of media at the time was fairly sanitized, except for comics, which kids bought and often broke down into two categories. Detective stories which may involve adult themes like rape and murder and horror comics that was pretty gruesome.

      I don't think we should dismiss the people in the past, even Werthan, as mindless automatons hell-bent of censorship, but people with a political position that may very well be valid. Should comic buyers, especially when most of them were under 14 or so, be exposed to such things? How can a 10 year old process rape, murder, etc? This is what people mean to put him in context of his times, the same way we put George Washington's slave ownership in the context of his time.

      The real issue is that the comics code was too encompassing. Instead of the rating system we have for movies and tv, the comics code was really the only rating and it meant that if you wanted to publish enough to make real money that you had to follow it.

      I think all human societies must have some level of ratings or censorship. It crops up everywhere and even purposeful experimental societies draw the line somewhere especially when you deal with children. Some nudist societies don't allow children, for instance. A bad implementation is a bad implementation. Shame people didn't care enough to better implement comic ratings.

    2. Re:Demonization? by dargaud · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wouldn't call all all those super-hero comics 'adult oriented'. In 99% of the cases, their stories are so puerile that only children would want to read them. Or maybe brain-damaged adults. I've read about 10000 adult comics. By adult, I mean not porn or gore, but the same kind of 'adult' who enjoys a good drama movie that is clearly not intended for children. But those kind of comics, while thriving in other countries, are almost non-existent in the US.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  12. How far back you want to go? by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those dang kids and their __________, it's ruining them!

    Video games
    Magic the Gathering cards
    Dungeons and Dragons
    Comic books
    Rock and Roll
    Jazz music and dancing

    How far back you want to go?

    1. Re:How far back you want to go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Christianity

    2. Re:How far back you want to go? by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fruit?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:How far back you want to go? by kungfugleek · · Score: 2, Informative

      You skipped movies and playing cards (the standard kings, queen, aces, spaces, clubs kind -- they were/are viewed as being too tarot-like or too close to gambling).

  13. Public domain golden-age comic downloads by dameron · · Score: 3, Informative

    Golden Age Comics has many of these pre-code comics in friendly formats (i.e. not pdf) and available free downloads. Registration is required, however, as they are quite strapped for bandwidth, especially considering a single comic can easily be 30-50mb.

    They also have a donations page if you're feeling generous wrt the free service they provide.

    So check out some of these pre-code comics, they vary in quality immensely, but it's an interesting look back at what was considered vulgar and damaging to children 50+ years ago.

    1. Re:Public domain golden-age comic downloads by kailoran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why don't they put this stuff on bittorrent then?

  14. It's My Fault, I Apologize, I Was Wrong by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dear Slashdot editors:

    Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, the phrase "some say witch hunt" is a weasel-faced cop out. It's a device commonly seen on Fox news to to inject opinion into otherwise factual reporting. If "some people" say it, tell us who. Otherwise, let us know it's your opinion.

    Regards.

    I wrote that summary and CmdrTaco posted it without editing so I guess some if not all of the blame should be on me. And I'll concede that the statement is not accurate. There were staged comic book burnings and during the testimony, Kefauver and Wertham (a German doctor no less) opened their testimony with statements calling Hitler a "beginner" when compared to the comics industry as well as flat out claiming comic books affected children to the same way Nazi propaganda indoctrinated children. Several books on the history of comics detail this testimony including Bradford Wright's Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth Culture in America.

    So I must confess I was wrong to use that phrase, clearly "a witch hunt" would have more sound logic than what was used in an attempt to have the government replace the parents in guiding their children. Tell me though, if you don't think it was a witch hunt, why did backing dry up when they tried to move on to television to clean up all the violence that children saw in the moving pictures? The unrealistic violence of Larry, Moe and Curly is okay because ... ? Also, you do know that after the reformation of the comic book industry, juvenile delinquency did not plummet, right? We can still purchase said comic books today. So it seems you have the public burnings to spread fear and you have the oddly selective nature of who is guilty but the "worse than Hitler" testimonial logic is probably more faulty than "weighs as much as a duck" so I don't know what the right label would be.

    Perhaps a better label would have been "insanity?"

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:It's My Fault, I Apologize, I Was Wrong by Hylandr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dewd,

      Grow a backbone and don't candy coat the truth please.

      It's Politic season and this witch hunt is just more grandstanding for votes the same way craigslist is under attack by AG's of various states.

      The only way to hurt these bastards is to vote them from office, and vote away their expensive pensions just for having served a single term.

      Just my honest .02 - Don't Mod me bro!

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    2. Re:It's My Fault, I Apologize, I Was Wrong by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps a better label would have been "insanity?"

      It's not insanity. Witch hunts are behavior that perfectly normal people in good mental health engage in. It's part of what it is to be human. I'm not saying that it's not wrong and evil and all that, just that this type of evil is part of the human condition. Scapegoating, xenophobia, confirmation bias, all completely normal.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  15. Pro-censorship crackpot by airfoobar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Video games are corrupting our youth! Comic books cause delinquency! The internet is limiting our attention span!

    Whatever. Save the children: brain-wash them to be "pure and innocent".. or the world will come to an end.

    I know for a fact that I wouldn't be where I am today had I not had comic books when I was little, games like the Lucasarts point'n'click adventures when I was a teenager and the internet later on. I literally taught myself to read and write English and French (2nd and 3rd languages) through those things, and was given an incentive and the means to learn about computers and programming, which I happily and successfully make my living off today. There is no doubt in my mind that I would be a completely different person had Dr. Wertham and his minions deprived me of those.

    So, I want whiners like that guy to just shut the hell up. I don't want them to censor my comic books, ban my video games or disconnect my internet, and I will fight tooth and nail to make sure my kids (if I ever have kids) will have unfettered access to all the stimuli I had when I was young (be those "good" or "bad" in Dr. Wertham's view).

    I would go as far as to say, film ratings are stupid. What if a 12-year-old watches a 18+ movies instead of just Disney cartoons with rainbows and flying unicorns?

    Good thing Dr. Wertham is already dead, because he would just HATE webcomics (omg, comic books on the internet! It's the work of the devil!)

  16. I'm Ok by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

    I read these "so called" violent comic books in my youth, and I never became a violent person. If you keep saying so, I'll hunt you down and beat you to a bloody pulp!

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  17. Actually, it's even bleaker than that by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, it seems to me like that kind of idiots has an even bleaker view of it all.

    They didn't just think that a violent comic or a violent game just "clearly it has no moral value", but rather that people and especially teenagers will mindlessly do whatever comics/games/tabletop-games/anything tells them to. Let's not forget that the book was called "Seduction Of The Innocent". And really that was the whole thrust. They think that if a 16 year old sees a comic cover where a guy with an axe is holding a woman's severed head, they'll go like mindless zombies and do a verbatim copy of the deed.

    Or in more modern days that if some 16 year old spends an hour a day sniping in some FPS, next thing you know he'll climb on the school and snipe people, because he's just that mindless and unable to distinguish between reality and video games. Or that while a 17 year old may be old enough to be trusted to do that sniping (M rating is good enough there, see?) God forbid that he ever sees a boob, 'cause he's not ready for _that_ yet. He'll probably go on some rape spree than ends up with him giving the town council a facial shot. Or, really, dunno what.

    And if you thought _that_ is stupid, well, at least one Chick Tract seems to be based on thinking that AD&D actually teaches children to cast real spells. But I digress.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Actually, it's even bleaker than that by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a parody. The tract he mentions is real.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  18. Re:20 years from now... by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's make sure a copy of "Daikatana" doesn't slip in there, lest future generations not think too well of us.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  19. I like Adam Smith's critique of small government by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
    The Wealth of Nations,Book V, Chapter I, Part II, 775

    If Government is stripped of all other functions save the defense of property, it is a tyranny of the rich. I believe that is why the rich nearly invariably favor small government. The more desperate the have-nots are, the more they will put up with and the less they will demand. Taking away social safety nets favors the rich employer who desires a pool of desperate, starving, cheap workers.

    But the truly rich make up less than one percent of our population. Why do the non rich desire smaller government? Is it out of some philosophical principle? Well, if humans were commonly genius-saints, perhaps. But we aren't. Most of us start from our assumptions and reason backwards to find support. And most of the upper middle class assume they will be rich one day, despite the lack of any evidence that this is likely. The gap between an upper middle class person making $100,000 to $250,000 per year and an actual owning class person is tremendous. We do not have as much upward mobility in our society as we would like to believe, but everyone believes we do. Why? Simple: anyone who says they don't think they can make it is obviously a failure. Who wants to admit to being a failure? The myth says hard work will make you rich, what, are you lazy?

    This is how the rich fool the middle class into defending the rich from the poor, even though the middle class has far more in common with the poor than the rich.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  20. You're not seeing the past correctly by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As much as Dr. Dickhead and Congress should be excoriated appropriately, let's not forget that the Comics industry bent over backwards to censor itself. If they'd shown a little more backbone, imagine what Lee and Kirkby could have done with the "Marvel Way" in the sixties. Imagine not having that fucking glut of saccharine Archie products. Mind you, we probably wouldn't have gotten Mad magazine if things had turned out differently, so it's hard to be judgmental.

    The problem with this is that you are applying modern behavior to events that happened over 50 years ago. Or to put it another way, what you suggest is kind of like going back in time to the 1950s and getting angry because nobody has a cell phone. (That's "mobile phone" to you non-North Americans).

    I've read some books that talk about the era, which was before I was born. One of the problems is that people and American society were a lot less litigious back then. Sometimes people screwed you over and you didn't go to court over it. You just took it and moved on. People didn't run around suing each other over everything like they do today. I guess, in theory, Bill Gaines of EC and publishers of similar fare could have tried to stand up, but the reality was that the distributors wouldn't touch books that weren't blessed by the "Comics Code" and the Code was specifically written to put companies like EC out of business by forbidding them from doing exactly what they had done. And keep in mind too that plenty of publishers of what I will call "family safe" comic books such as Archie, various Disney comics (these are a lot better than many realize - look up Carl Barks for more info) and others were more than happy to play along with the Comics Code because they didn't do what it forbade and they were really happy to see competitors driven out of the business. Some people probably really did believe that comics turned kids into juvenile delinquents and those people thought that the Code was just doing a public service. There's always been a rumor that John Goldwater, the publisher of Archie Comics, was infuriated by Mad's (then a comic book not a magazine) parody called "Starchie" and he vowed to put EC out of business. Goldwater did substantial work for the Code and it's probably no coincidence that a lot of what the Code forbade applied to EC directly.

    Mad became a magazine specifically to evade the Code. It was a huge gamble that worked. But many artists, writers and others in the comic industry lost jobs and had to scramble to find new ones thanks to the Code. I'm pretty sure that if Bill Gaines and others could have stood up to the Code they would have.

    1. Re:You're not seeing the past correctly by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2

      No, it's a lot simpler than that.

      One guy, with a bunch of assertions, managed to get enough members of Congress alarmed. The comic companies, instead of challenging the claims on their merits, and you know, defending themselves and their work in any way, pissed their collective pants, and asked only question: How far apart would you like us to spread our cheeks?

      What was instructive about this episode (and similar ones in that decade), is that it was an early sign that the US, this supposed bastion of democracy, liberty and free speech, was jut as retarded and parochial as the countries it was supposedly better than.

      You can call me to task for looking at the 50's with 21st-Century blinders on (or, more accurately in my case, eyewear from the 1980s), but the simple fact of the matter is that this was an embarrassing and wasteful episode in American culture.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:You're not seeing the past correctly by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with this is that you are applying modern behavior to events that happened over 50 years ago.

      Some things do not change over time.

      Fallacious reasoning is fallacious reasoning, today or 50 years ago. Censorship is censorship, today or 50 years ago.

      Or to put it another way, what you suggest is kind of like going back in time to the 1950s and getting angry because nobody has a cell phone.

      No, it's not like that at all. It's more like going back in time to the 1950s and getting angry because so many people were ignorant enough to think that segregation was a good idea, and wishing that someone would do the Rosa Parks thing a few years earlier.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  21. Re:I like Adam Smith's critique of small governmen by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then again, I would have to care about the uber-wealthy. Honestly, if I manage to live a decent middle-class life, what do I care how much money they make, even if it's off of me? They REALLY don't intrude all that much on any freedoms I have - I can still go, do, and say pretty much anything I want in this country, and the most anyone else can do is complain.

    We'd just have different problems if they all went away in any case; and, in America at least, if you really do work hard and hold down a decent job life really isn't going to be all that bad without a major health malady.

  22. Re:I like Adam Smith's critique of small governmen by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is that, of all the economic growth over the last thirty years or so, almost all of it has gone to the top one percent. The owning class are actively redistributing wealth upwards. You may be alright being a slave, but I'm not. The working class creates wealth, by actually working, yet the wealth goes to the owning class, who thanks to socialism for the rich, don't even have the excuse that they are 'risking' their wealth by investing it in job creation. They get bailouts, even if the companies they own employ only minimum wage Indians and Asians and no actual Americans whatsoever.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  23. Re:I like Adam Smith's critique of small governmen by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You misunderstand socialism. The problem isn't stupid people, it's greedy, evil, selfish people. You see, we have government to protect us from those people. Socialism isn't about helping people who are too stupid to help themselves, it is about protecting those too weak to protect themselves.

    History has shown us that we can not educate the vast majority of people to become genius saints, that is simply not human nature. In fact, the idea that we need to "educate" humanity to be genius-saints is pure Marxism. It didn't turn out so well.

    Giving to the poor benefits society. In a more egalitarian society where everyone has a place, people work harder. They cheat and steal less. Social stability improves. Unfortunately, some people want these benefits without paying for them. They want you to pay to help the poor, so they don't have to. I don't approve of crooks like that, and fully support making them pay their fair share.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  24. Re:I like Thomas Jefferson's Critique of Large Gov by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I make over that and don't lose half my income. And I really don't see your imagined slippery slope as a problem. There is a clear distinction between the owning class who make the majority of their income from gambling (or 'investment' as they like to call it) and the vast majority of us who actually work for a living.

    Most countries in the world pay a significantly larger proportion of GDP in taxes than we do. In fact, taxes in America account for less than 20% of GDP. Yet many citizens in many countries that pay more in taxes actually consider the taxes they pay to be a great bargain in exchange for the services they get.

    So the real question is, what are we doing wrong here in America? Why are we not getting a good bargain? I would say, that is thanks to the corrupting influence of the rich man's money on politics.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  25. Re:I like Adam Smith's critique of small governmen by EvolutionsPeak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You have made quite an extrapolation from a very specific quote.

    1. Defense of property is not the only function of government and no one suggests that it should be, this is a poor premise to start from.
    2. The rich do not nearly invariably favor small government. Just like everyone else, they favor big government when they think it works in their favor.
    3. The more desperate the have-nots are the more likely they are to do something drastic, like steal from the "have's".
    4. Your definition of "truly rich" is arbitrary. Many people in the world and this country consider a person making $100k plus as "very rich".
    5. We may not be genius saints, but we do have some principals, such as an innate sense of fairness. We do not take from other what we would not have them take from us if our positions were reversed. You don't have to assume that you will be rich someday to see that taking from them what they have earned is wrong.
    6. Big or small government does not invariably benefit the poor with regard to property or anything else. Those who are for small government would probably argue that it hurts the poor more often than it helps.
    7. There are many, such as myself, who do not think that they will ever be rich. However, I do not believe that makes me a failure, and I do not begrudge those who will be rich. So long as they have behaved legally and hopefully ethically, their success is deserved. The fact that some may not behave ethically is not justification to take from them all.
    8. You may think the middle class is being "fooled", but I think you give them too little credit. You believe they are being fooled because otherwise they would agree with your beliefs. Yet a reasonable person can see flaws with your beliefs, as I have enumerated. You may want to argue over the points, but they are at least debatable. They don't require anyone be "fooled" to believe them.

    If your viewpoint really is that the middle and lower class should rise up and take from the rich because they have that power and it would benefit them (they have license to do so in a democracy), then I find your sig pretty ironic.

  26. Seldane is a bad example by Mathinker · · Score: 2, Informative

    > IIRC correctly, Seldane was the sinus medication prescribed by a
    > doctor that could cause heart stoppage in a very small percent of users

    Seldane (terfenadine) is a bad example, because it was discontinued because it became possible to use fexofenadine instead. Fexofenadine, being terfenadine's active metabolite, has all of the biological activity of terfenadine but without the cardiotoxic drawbacks.

  27. Rewriting history by westlake · · Score: 2, Interesting
    As much as Dr. Dickhead and Congress should be excoriated appropriately, let's not forget that the Comics industry bent over backwards to censor itself. If they'd shown a little more backbone, imagine what Lee and Kirkby could have done with the "Marvel Way" in the sixties. Imagine not having that fucking glut of saccharine Archie products.

    The comic book was on the fast track to extinction after World War Two.

    Mikey Spillane was in paperback and so, for that matter, was Dashiell Hammett. Trash or class for 25 cents. The kids were watching television.

    The crime and horror comic was the stop-gap, quick-buck, solution.

    Pretty much every commercial artist serves his apprenticeship in the sub-basements of his profession. The Civil War artist Mort Künstler churned out Nazi sex-slave bondage covers for men's magazines like Stag.

    The problem is that critics weren't looking at what the comic book might become - but what old pros like Al Capp, Hal Foster and Milton Caniff and newcomers like Walt Kelly had made of the newspaper comic strip.

    Without a ratings system in place, Tales From The Crypt could be sold off the same racks as Scrooge McDuck and Casper.

    The comic book did not have an independent distribution channel but tended to end up in places like your neighborhood cigar store - a strictly male preserve, like the old time saloon, and often a front for pornography sales, bookmaking and the numbers racket. It was not a place you wanted to see a kid.

    Call it guilt by association, if you like, but the connection hurt the comics industry and hurt it badly.

  28. Re:I like Adam Smith's critique of small governmen by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You have made quite an extrapolation from a very specific quote.

    1. Defense of property is not the only function of government and no one suggests that it should be, this is a poor premise to start from.
    2. The rich do not nearly invariably favor small government. Just like everyone else, they favor big government when they think it works in their favor.
    3. The more desperate the have-nots are the more likely they are to do something drastic, like steal from the "have's".
    4. Your definition of "truly rich" is arbitrary. Many people in the world and this country consider a person making $100k plus as "very rich".
    5. We may not be genius saints, but we do have some principals, such as an innate sense of fairness. We do not take from other what we would not have them take from us if our positions were reversed. You don't have to assume that you will be rich someday to see that taking from them what they have earned is wrong.
    6. Big or small government does not invariably benefit the poor with regard to property or anything else. Those who are for small government would probably argue that it hurts the poor more often than it helps.
    7. There are many, such as myself, who do not think that they will ever be rich. However, I do not believe that makes me a failure, and I do not begrudge those who will be rich. So long as they have behaved legally and hopefully ethically, their success is deserved. The fact that some may not behave ethically is not justification to take from them all.
    8. You may think the middle class is being "fooled", but I think you give them too little credit. You believe they are being fooled because otherwise they would agree with your beliefs. Yet a reasonable person can see flaws with your beliefs, as I have enumerated. You may want to argue over the points, but they are at least debatable. They don't require anyone be "fooled" to believe them.

    If your viewpoint really is that the middle and lower class should rise up and take from the rich because they have that power and it would benefit them (they have license to do so in a democracy), then I find your sig pretty ironic.

    1. I'm glad you agree with my point.
    2. We agree here, too. The rich favor big government for the rich, and small government for everyone else. As the rich make up only 1%, I'd say they generally want smaller government.
    3. Are you simply noting the most obvious implications of what I said and repeating them in order to curry favor with me? Yes, this is exactly the major problem with wealth disparity, thanks.
    4. My definition is not arbitrary. When the top 10% own 90% of the material wealth, I think that dividing line is crystal clear.
    5. Taking something that someone originally stole from you is not wrong. The wealthy have been waging class war on us, and stealing the wealth we created.
    6. Congratulations. You've made your first coherent point in the first half of this item. Which also negates the second half. If big government is no guarantee the poor will be helped, small government is no guarantee either. You say people argue that small government will help the poor, but on the most crucial point you remain silent: what are those arguments?
    7. I agree completely, and let me add that I believe most people actually want to see excellence rewarded, even if they are not the recipient. We do not want excellence punished, but we do want unfairness punished.
    8. I believe they are being fooled because they are acting neither according to any coherent principles they espouse, nor according to their own self interests.

    The middle and lower class should rise up and take back what they created with their ingenuity and labor. Idly sitting in mansions investing money that you can not really lose does not create wealth. Work creates wealth.

    My sig is a reminder that freedom isn't free. It takes work, and sacrifice. It is more than just license. Freedom means defending those whose freedoms are endangered.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  29. Re:I like Adam Smith's critique of small governmen by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

    I would say that it is fair to ensure that everyone gets at the bare minimum, clean water, enough to eat, shelter, and free medical care. If you want more than that, work for it. I don't think everyone should be rewarded equally, people who do more should get more.

    But what is 'more?' If it were only tangible things like mansions and yachts, I would be fine with that. But what more really means, beyond a certain point, is more ability to control other people's lives, and that is not fair. Just because you are excellent at deciding what to invest in should not give you more control over other people's lives and livelihood.

    You can't really use Russia as an example of socialism, as they didn't have that style of governemt. They were an oligarchy. Anyone can claim to be anything they like, for example, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither democratic, nor a republic. Why not use real examples of socialism, like most of Europe?

    I'd say your theory about our education system is off the mark. I certainly don't recall schools teaching me anything like the lessons you claim they teach. I recall being taught that if you work hard, you will succede, but that does not appear to be true for most people. Hard work is important, but going to the right schools and knowing the right people will make you a success even without the hard work, and hard work without luck or contacts just leads to a long life slaving for someone else.

    A government system must not assume corruption on the part of all human beings, lest it encourage just that. We must recognize that most people are not corrupt. In fact, most people value fairness and reciprocity over their own self interest. Only when they see that everyone around them is acting unfairly will most people begin to act unfairly themselves, in self defense.

    The problem is and always has been the sociopaths who have faulty empathy and no capability for remorse. The vast majority of people do not need laws in order to be good people. They just need the ability to punish unfairness. And in a vastly unequal society, the poor simply don't have the ability to punish the rich when the rich act unfairly. They aren't even part of the same society. The rich can do whatever they like to the poor.

    This is the problem. When some in society can impact the lives of others without being impacted themselves, they do not have to take the interests of the others into account. The power of the rich insulates them from even having to understand or empathize with the poor. The rich tell themselves a comforting myth, and no one has the power to stand up and make them understand that their myth is a lie: they did not achieve their position through excellence alone, but through systematic unfairness they took advantage of.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  30. Re:I like Adam Smith's critique of small governmen by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, in fact, most people are not greedy and selfish, recent economic experiments have shown that people value fairness and reciprocity over self interest.

    If an elected government is full of stupid, evil, greedy people, who is really at fault?

    How is taking taxes and giving some to the poor trampling your rights? Are you being held here against your will? Think of society like a retail establishment that sells package deals. You take the deal a society offers you, or you shop around for something better. You wouldn't walk into a Kentucky Fried Chicken and demand a Whopper for five cents, and then complain they were trampling your rights when they laughed at you, would you? If you don't like the deal, you are free to look elsewhere for a better one.

    I don't want to remove all economic inequality, I want to remove economic inequity. Excellence and hard work should be rewarded, but fooling people into thinking you are excellent and hard working should not be. And why should pure luck be rewarded? Shouldn't good fortune be shared? Quite frankly, if you are selfish and don't feel like sharing your good fortune, how are you any benefit to society, and why should you be allowed to participate?

    I think maybe we have different ideas about what 'fair' means. I don't think it is fair for 10% of the population to control 90% of the wealth, for instance. In such a society, there is no way that everyone is treated as equals and no way that everyone has the same political, economic, or civil rights. Would you or I have gotten the same light handed treatment that, say, Lindsey Lohan got for stealing an SUV, driving around intoxicated, and crashing it into an innocent bystander? Nope, justice really means 'just us rich folk.' How many Americans grow up with dozens of fabulously wealthy friends who are willing to loan us money for our loopy business schemes that have failed dozens of times in the past? You and I don't, But George W. Bush sure did.

    We have two Americas now. The America of Wall Street CEOs that makes up 90% of the physical wealth of the country, and the America of the rest of us, a measly 10% split amongst the bottom 90%. They get bailouts and tax breaks, we get failing infrastructure.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  31. I WISH it were a parody... by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're going off the deep end, in a rant in the opposite direction.

    Nothing is accomplished by ranting off parodies of your opponent.

    I really _wish_ it were a parody.

    - the tract is very very real, as TheRaven64 already pointed out

    - the accusation that comic books actually turn children into violent juvenile delinquents also was actually very real, and in fact the main thrust of the campaign against them. The muppet mentioned in TFA actually testified before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency that comics are the cause for juvenile deninquency, and actually convinced them. The hearing that William Gaines got, and which another poster quoted actually happened before the same Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency.

    If it helps, remember it was also roughly the same age when America also believed such stupidities as the Domino Effect, or such stupid theories as that the Americans are more creative (measured in patents!) than the Russkies (which didn't have a patent office, actually) because the Americans have more pictures in their children's books. The ideas that basically "monkey see, monkey do" and that pictures somehow have some kind of magical power over the mind of youngsters, were sadly very very real.

    Why even politicians believed such things... now that's a good question. Lead water pipes, maybe? ;)

    - the accusation that video games are making teenagers shoot up the school... well, just listen to Jack Thompson or Joe Lieberman, really. Or at the rhetoric waved around each time some school shooting happened.

    Really, I wish such things were just a parody of reality. But reality actually is that some people are that freaking stupid, and that eager to have some scape goat for everything wrong today. Whenever that "today" may actually be.

    For an idea of how far back it goes... well, let's just say the main accusation that got Socrates executed was that his ideas are a corrupting influence on the youth.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.