Eh, no, those aren't "random people on the street". Everyone I saw was a student at an art school, and one could make the argument that such a selection is going to skew certain ways. Probably more politically liberal, more likely to be idealists, more likely to be familiar with comics and/or manga. They all appear to be in a similar age bracket. Without trying to analyze it too deeply, it appears that in some instances she's trying to lead her interview subjects to come to some conclusions about the cover. Would she have had the same results if she'd taken the cover and shown it to random people at an adult bookstore? At the mall? In a different state?
And whether your experience in reading blog posts is indicative of the population in general will, in similar fashion, depend a lot on which blogs you select, and whether that selection is truly a varied cross-section of humanity. If you stick to, say, what I've seen over the last few days at When Fangirls Attack, you are going to get a predominantly anti-cover reaction, peppered with a few dissenting opinions here and there. But I'm aware of other communities where this cover would be considered rather tame (if it is even noticed at all).
There's also another factor involved: what people care enough to post on the subject? Surely people who are profoundly offended will feel the need to speak out - a person who is noncommittal on the issue may not see any reason to either defend or attack the cover. And where in the equation do the "backlash" posters fit? It's easy to dismiss their opinions as ignorant and illogical, but they are opinions all the same.
I think it is dangerous to assume that because you only predominantly see one side, that side is actually the majority opinion - and if the majority opinion is the determining factor, that implies that if the majority thinks something like the cover is fine (or at the least unoffensive) then that settles the question of whether it's acceptable. If you learned that the number of people who object to the cover, worldwide, was maybe a 20% minority (which I'm not trying to imply, just using it as an example number), would that then make it all okay? I kind of doubt you'd see things like that.
This kind of argument makes me uneasy since it's the kind of thing I see on Fox News - to wit, in order to marginalize "liberal" issues, they are called "extreme" and "far left". By using those sorts of words, Fox's anchors and reporters can make a liberal issue seem to be the banner of frothing madmen - and then, having established that benchmark, they can present moderate stances as "liberal", and left-leaning right-wing stances as "moderate". After that becomes accepted, the standards can be shifted further, until anything slightly liberal is labeled an extremist viewpoint.
To call something with no explicit content "porn" to me seems a similar tactic. If you establish that the HfH cover is porn, then it's that much smaller a step to work towards defining a Maxim cover as porn.
Let me ask you this: Suppose Marvel re-rated Heroes for Hire #13 to, say, an 18+ rating? Or better yet: are there any conditions at all under which that cover could be released and be seen as acceptable in your eyes?
no subject
Eh, no, those aren't "random people on the street". Everyone I saw was a student at an art school, and one could make the argument that such a selection is going to skew certain ways. Probably more politically liberal, more likely to be idealists, more likely to be familiar with comics and/or manga. They all appear to be in a similar age bracket. Without trying to analyze it too deeply, it appears that in some instances she's trying to lead her interview subjects to come to some conclusions about the cover. Would she have had the same results if she'd taken the cover and shown it to random people at an adult bookstore? At the mall? In a different state?
And whether your experience in reading blog posts is indicative of the population in general will, in similar fashion, depend a lot on which blogs you select, and whether that selection is truly a varied cross-section of humanity. If you stick to, say, what I've seen over the last few days at When Fangirls Attack, you are going to get a predominantly anti-cover reaction, peppered with a few dissenting opinions here and there. But I'm aware of other communities where this cover would be considered rather tame (if it is even noticed at all).
There's also another factor involved: what people care enough to post on the subject? Surely people who are profoundly offended will feel the need to speak out - a person who is noncommittal on the issue may not see any reason to either defend or attack the cover. And where in the equation do the "backlash" posters fit? It's easy to dismiss their opinions as ignorant and illogical, but they are opinions all the same.
I think it is dangerous to assume that because you only predominantly see one side, that side is actually the majority opinion - and if the majority opinion is the determining factor, that implies that if the majority thinks something like the cover is fine (or at the least unoffensive) then that settles the question of whether it's acceptable. If you learned that the number of people who object to the cover, worldwide, was maybe a 20% minority (which I'm not trying to imply, just using it as an example number), would that then make it all okay? I kind of doubt you'd see things like that.
This kind of argument makes me uneasy since it's the kind of thing I see on Fox News - to wit, in order to marginalize "liberal" issues, they are called "extreme" and "far left". By using those sorts of words, Fox's anchors and reporters can make a liberal issue seem to be the banner of frothing madmen - and then, having established that benchmark, they can present moderate stances as "liberal", and left-leaning right-wing stances as "moderate". After that becomes accepted, the standards can be shifted further, until anything slightly liberal is labeled an extremist viewpoint.
To call something with no explicit content "porn" to me seems a similar tactic. If you establish that the HfH cover is porn, then it's that much smaller a step to work towards defining a Maxim cover as porn.
Let me ask you this: Suppose Marvel re-rated Heroes for Hire #13 to, say, an 18+ rating? Or better yet: are there any conditions at all under which that cover could be released and be seen as acceptable in your eyes?