WAS Magneto right?

[renegade7]

You run into the problem that EVERYONE thinks they're special and unique, or at least a lot more people than actually are.

Though, US culture does have an aspect of anti-elitism. That is, there is a tendency to look with some hostility towards those who are exceptional. People who are smart and studious are "nerds", academics are "ivory tower intellectual snobs", athletes are dumb jocks, people with many friends are shallow, artists are pretentious and snooty, engineers are unstable and eccentric, medical doctors have god complexes, businessmen are corporate tyrants, and politicians are humanoid leech creatures in sharp suits (may actually be true).

 

[Erttheking]

I'd be a little more sympathetic towards Magneto if there were just a few less murder happy mutants running around. Also if he acted a little bit less like, you know, a fucking Nazi.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The Randian "mutants are better and so should rule unfettered" Magneto I don't like. The black panther "mutants are oppressed and must throw off their oppressors by violence" original Magneto I like very much.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

He's a hypocrite. He thinks he's battling intolerance, but his efforts only foster more intolerance and violence, something he remains willfully blind to. In his eyes, the fight is between mutants and non-mutants. In reality, it's between pro-human racists, pro-mutant racists, and those who actually want equality.

I'm not entirely convinced. Especially considering the context of Erik's actions have always been reactionary (TMK). It would be one thing if he was out willfully killing humans left and right, but he's not. He is merely targeting the leaders and those in charge of anti-mutant organizations. Isn't there a difference there?

Take a look at his actions as far as the movies are concerned, did he ever kill a single innocent human? Or did he merely kill the humans that were a part of anti-mutant organizations? And keep in mind, a threat to kill is different than actually killing.

Really, it depends on what said political reasons are. Are lives at stake? Will this murder actually change anything? For the better? Is the murderer willing to face consequences for their actions? How easy would the goal be to achieve without murder? I feel the question doesn't really have to do with tolerance all that much, at least without more context.

Granted, and these are probably questions the character has asked themselves. If killing a hand full of people would prevent the oppression of a thousand more, would you be morally justified in doing so?

Really, what's the difference between restraining someone with your mind and restraining them physically? Apart from the ease with which it can be done? Are you honestly saying that if Charles had physically been in that room, he shouldn't have prevented Erik from committing murder?

Erik wants control to kill people. Charles wants control to save their lives.

Erik wants control so he can be left in peace. Charles controls people to keep the peace. He may justify his actions for the greater good (just like Erik), but he's still asserting his will over people who think differently than he does.

I mean, didn't you think it was odd that Charles was saying he wasn't going to control Mystique when he was controlling 20 other people at the time?

 

[DaWaffledude]

He's a hypocrite. He thinks he's battling intolerance, but his efforts only foster more intolerance and violence, something he remains willfully blind to. In his eyes, the fight is between mutants and non-mutants. In reality, it's between pro-human racists, pro-mutant racists, and those who actually want equality.

I'm not entirely convinced. Especially considering the context of Erik's actions have always been reactionary (TMK). It would be one thing if he was out willfully killing humans left and right, but he's not. He is merely targeting the leaders and those in charge of anti-mutant organizations. Isn't there a difference there?

Take a look at his actions as far as the movies are concerned, did he ever kill a single innocent human? Or did he merely kill the humans that were a part of anti-mutant organizations? And keep in mind, a threat to kill is different than actually killing.

He tried to kill every single human in the world at the end of X2. And almost succeeded.

Also, he seems horrified at the idea of turning a mutant into a human against their will, but he tries to turn a whole city of humans into mutants at the end of the first film. Hypocrite.

Really, it depends on what said political reasons are. Are lives at stake? Will this murder actually change anything? For the better? Is the murderer willing to face consequences for their actions? How easy would the goal be to achieve without murder? I feel the question doesn't really have to do with tolerance all that much, at least without more context.

Granted, and these are probably questions the character has asked themselves. If killing a hand full of people would prevent the oppression of a thousand more, would you be morally justified in doing so?

Again, it depends. Are you sure it'll work? That there isn't a way to do it without killing? That the oppression would actually happen without your intervention? That you won't just make the situation worse? Magneto never seems to bother to ask.

Really, what's the difference between restraining someone with your mind and restraining them physically? Apart from the ease with which it can be done? Are you honestly saying that if Charles had physically been in that room, he shouldn't have prevented Erik from committing murder?

Erik wants control to kill people. Charles wants control to save their lives.

Erik wants control so he can be left in peace. Charles controls people to keep the peace. He may justify his actions for the greater good (just like Erik), but he's still asserting his will over people who think differently than he does.

I mean, didn't you think it was odd that Charles was saying he wasn't going to control Mystique when he was controlling 20 other people at the time?

I'm not sure what scene you're referring to here. I haven't seen DoFP or either of the Wolverine movies, so I might need context if it was in one of them.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

He tried to kill every single human in the world at the end of X2. And almost succeeded.

Also, he seems horrified at the idea of turning a mutant into a human against their will, but he tries to turn a whole city of humans into mutants at the end of the first film. Hypocrite.

That's kind of the beauty of his actions; because they were again reactionary to what the humans were doing. Was it wrong of him to speed up human evolution by unlocking the mutant gene?

I'm just not convinced that you can call someone a hypocrite if they tell you not to punch them, and you do, so they punch you back. If he said I don't punch people and then punched them, you'd be right to call him a hypocrite. At worst he's contradictory.

Again, it depends. Are you sure it'll work? That there isn't a way to do it without killing? That the oppression would actually happen without your intervention? That you won't just make the situation worse? Magneto never seems to bother to ask.

I'm thinking Erik had a long time to think about his life and his actions and their consequences. And he reached the inevitable conclusion that there will always be a problem inherent with the human and mutants and the only way to insure that problem would go away is the removal of humans. Extremism sure.

I'm not sure what scene you're referring to here. I haven't seen DoFP or either of the Wolverine movies, so I might need context if it was in one of them.

Err... sorry about that. I don't want to spoil anything. But say you take the first couple movies and Charles willfully controls anyone when he serves his interests, even though he does it for the greater good. The henchmen, Jean, a mall full of people, etc.

 

[DaWaffledude]

He tried to kill every single human in the world at the end of X2. And almost succeeded.

Also, he seems horrified at the idea of turning a mutant into a human against their will, but he tries to turn a whole city of humans into mutants at the end of the first film. Hypocrite.

That's kind of the beauty of his actions; because they were again reactionary to what the humans were doing. Was it wrong of him to speed up human evolution by unlocking the mutant gene?

I'm just not convinced that you can call someone a hypocrite if they tell you not to punch them, and you do, so they punch you back. If he said I don't punch people and then punched them, you'd be right to call him a hypocrite. At worst he's contradictory.

Yes. It was wrong. He was altering the very DNA of innocent people without their permission. I don't know about you, but I would certainly call that immoral.

When the "cure" for mutation was created, it was handed out to people who asked for it. The first time it was used as a weapon was in a last-ditch effort to bring down a terrorist leader, who was in the middle of breaking a group of violent and dangerous criminals out of prison. Magneto responds by blowing up a medical clinic.

Also, he did it first. So it's more like he punched someone and then got offended when they punched him back.

Of course, this all seems to stem from the beach scene in First Class. Worth noting, Magneto already hated humans before any shots were fired. As I recall, he tells Shaw that he agrees with everything he said, and was only killing him in revenge. Sure, the betrayal probably made him feel justified, but he was hardly "reacting" to it.

Again, it depends. Are you sure it'll work? That there isn't a way to do it without killing? That the oppression would actually happen without your intervention? That you won't just make the situation worse? Magneto never seems to bother to ask.

I'm thinking Erik had a long time to think about his life and his actions and their consequences. And he reached the inevitable conclusion that there will always be a problem inherent with the human and mutants and the only way to insure that problem would go away is the removal of humans. Extremism sure.

Inevitable? I think not. Charles reached a different conclusion. One not involving murder. And one that seemed to be getting much better results.

I'm not sure what scene you're referring to here. I haven't seen DoFP or either of the Wolverine movies, so I might need context if it was in one of them.

Err... sorry about that. I don't want to spoil anything. But say you take the first couple movies and Charles willfully controls anyone when he serves his interests, even though he does it for the greater good. The henchmen, Jean, a mall full of people, etc.

Not just his interests. It looked like Magneto was about to kill dozens of police officers. And look at what happened when he lost control of Jean. The mallfull of people was a bit much, I admit, but he was trying to avoid a major public incident. Really, was it any less ethical than if he'd used an invisible teleporter?

 

[Zontar]

The Randian "mutants are better and so should rule unfettered" Magneto I don't like. The black panther "mutants are oppressed and must throw off their oppressors by violence" original Magneto I like very much.

Actually, Magneto started as a 1 dimensional villain, it was only years after he was introduced that he was given a sympathetic backstory and an actual cause.

 

[RatRace123]

I'd have to say no. Magneto is viewed as a villain for a reason.

And I'd say "no" in relation to both the X-Men universe and our own. Ultimately, I think Xavier is right.
To beat the people who oppress you, who vilify you, you have to stand tall and prove yourself to be the better man. You need to have faith that society will eventually side with you in the end.

And on this particular topic:

How those with special abilities should either become in charge of everything or work to help those who once oppressed them.

I would again agree with Xavier's overall message. People who have special abilities and powers shouldn't seek to use them to dominate all the non special people. Helping them and trying to live as equals is ultimately better for everyone involved, I think.
And if we apply that line of thinking to the real world, well, the big question then becomes "Who decides who's special?"
And that's not at all a question I think any one person or group is qualified to answer.

 

[hermes]

Well, if I were a mutant, I think I would rather be in team Xavier than team Magneto. Before "House of M", it was quite clear that mutantkind would outlive humanity simply because the percentage of mutants being born out of "normal" humans was constantly increasing, while a couple of mutants having normal kids was almost unheard of. After enough generations, mutants would be the new normal (despite the fact they talk like mutants are a single specie, when I think a blue furred gorilla man and a man with wings on his back has as much in common with each other as with a regular human)

But as a human in a mutant filled world, I think they have pretty reasonable reasons to be afraid of mutants. I mean, there are people that can level a city block with a glance, invade the mind of any person on the planet at will and turn him catatonic, or warp reality to the point of changing the rules of the universe. And most of them can do it involuntarily in their formative years, or if under stress. How can you live in a world like that? A world that every cataclysmic scenario is a probability possibility because some random passerby just sneezed... Because its irrational to be afraid of someone whose "abnormality" is being a lighter shade of green, but is it irrational to be afraid of someone that can turn millions into dust just because?

 

[hermes]

That said, I could never understand how Mutant hate is a thing among the Marvel Civilians, but they're okay with Captain America.

I think the narrator of "Marvels" summed it up best: "While the Marvels where the light in this new age, they where the darkness. They where stronger then us, they where faster then us. They where better then us.

And they where here to replace us.

And they didn't have to do anything at all, they only had to wait."

I'm paraphrasing since it's been too long, but basically it gets down to "people who have gained powers and protect us with them" (Marvels) and "people born with powers who claim they will replace humanity and even go so far as to call themselves 'homo-superior'" (Mutants). It also doesn't help that the X-Men, the heroes of the Mutants, keep harbouring terrorists and criminals who turn back to their old ways within a year, which doesn't improve their image on the East Coast (aka 90% of the Marvel Universe). The reaction seems to be more positive in the West Coast and Japan though, and unsurprisingly it's very negative in Canada (can't believe how few people understand that Marvel's Canada is the Nazi Germany of their world, going so far as to have Alpha Flight introduced as Villains and having their history retconed to having mutants gassed. And heroes actually escaped to there after Civil War because "freedom"?)

I just remember in the 90s cartoon, Juggernaut having to explain several times as he rampaged that he wasn't a mutant. That his super powers were magical.

But it's still just like, how could you tell a Mutant from a Normie /w powers? Are they just okay with Capt/Thor/Hulk running around? Fucking Hulk?

Most people are definitely not OK with Hulk running around. Even when unintended, having Hulk in your home town is an invitation to things getting destroyed. That is the reason why many mutants are feared. Not because some have green skin, but because some can be considered biological weapons that could decimate entire cities, even unintentionally.

 

[MrGonzales]

A while back, MovieBob posted an episode of "The Big Picture" in which he discussed how some people held onto the notion that the reason society looked down on them was because they were somehow better than them, and that bullies and others kept them down because they feared their intelligence, skills etc.

This was summed up in his liking the issue to the general division between Magneto and Xavier in the X-Men stories, how those with special abilities should either become in charge of everything or work to help those who once oppressed them, with Bob ultimately falling on Magneto's side.

As for me personally, I think I'm with Bob on this one, but I would like to know where you all stand on this particular debate.

Okay, I just watched that episode, and it seems that you missed the point of it. Bob was saying that this objectivist viewpoint is pathetic and vile, and nerds (and Bob himself) only held onto it because it was a way of assuring themselves that they could eventually come out on top in life and eventually get revenge on their tormentors. Bob was saying that the viewpoint, while understandable seeing as he admitted he would be on Magneto's side, was WRONG.

And in the X-men stories themselves, Magneto is the villain for a reason. Mutants are oppressed and sometimes even hunted by humans, but Magneto's efforts to stop these only make things worse. For every step forward the the X-men make for mutants with their peaceful and heroic actions, Magneto makes them take two steps back with his violent extremism. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy provoked by a few extreme humans (like Stryker and Trask) and continued by a few extreme mutants (like Magneto and his Brotherhood).

 

[Vareoth]

You know, to be completely fair, if my parents were murdered like that and I had amazing superpowers you can bet money on the fact that I would lose my mind and turn into a genocidal monster within a minute. And I doubt that I would be the only one.

Anyway, I think Magneto simply thinks that by acting in the way that he does he can prevent the same thing that happened to his parents from happening again. He probably doesn't even see the irony in his actions. If I had mutant powers, I would be on his side nonetheless (though I would try to refrain from being a monster and oppressor). If I didn't I would be on Xavier's side. More so a matter of convenience and practicality rather then morality.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The Randian "mutants are better and so should rule unfettered" Magneto I don't like. The black panther "mutants are oppressed and must throw off their oppressors by violence" original Magneto I like very much.

Actually, Magneto started as a 1 dimensional villain, it was only years after he was introduced that he was given a sympathetic backstory and an actual cause.

Huh. I'd always thought the Xavier as MLK and Magneto as Malcom X motif was the original way X-Men was.

The more you know and such I suppose.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Magneto is absolutely correct. Humanity fears mutants and violence between the two sides is absolutely inevitable. Xavier has the quaint notion that somehow this can be prevented. This seems strange considering how many times he has personally witnessed that the opposite is true.

 

[Dragonlayer]

Snip

To be honest, I think that's a very poor allegory: regardless of your political stance on the issue, you have to acknowledge that someone losing their temper while carrying their gun - while obviously capable of leading to unpleasant consequences - is far less dangerous than someone with the ability to alter physics or control minds doing the same. And it's not even a question of "the will to do it": as one of the later posters says, many of these mutants gain their powers in their formative years. One bad day may cause a normal, unarmed person to snap and punch a neighbour, the same might cause a normal, armed person to snap and shoot some neighbours; it could very well cause a mutant to tear a country apart. Plus, given the context of the Registration Act arc (which admittedly I've not read), the government has plenty of reasons not to trust its mutant populace, namely a history of mutant crime and super-villain acts!

What I am suggesting is that, in such a world, the government at the very least keeps mutants under constant surveillance. Once they've proved their not liable to destroy everything within a fifty mile radius, then their free to go straight to the gas chambers live out their lives unimpeded by The Man.

As for myself, you can do what you please with my license because I don't have one!

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Both of them are wrong. Xavier is too idealistic to think humans and guys who can kill you with one optic laser blast if they?re so inclined can peacefully coexist (not to mention, despite his telepathy, he can never truly understand other mutants? plight due to his privileged upbringing), and Magneto?s an outright terrorist (although, no doubt, a ?freedom fighter? to his henchmen) who does more to harm his cause than improve it and genuinely believes mutants are not only different than humans, but genetically superior (hmm, who does that remind you of?). Humans will always hate those that are different, but mutants are no different.

History has shown that minorities can still hate other minorities; think of how many black Christians are homophobic, or even how there are certain divisions within the LGBT community based on gender and expression. If there?s ever an event in the X-Men universe where Magneto succeeds in what will effectively be a human Holocaust, the weaker mutants will just start hating the stronger mutants.

Additionally, I?m not sure Magneto really cares as much about his ?mutant brothers and sisters? as he claims, since he seems to adopt a ?if you?re not with us, you?re against us? mentality and has shown on multiple occasions a willingness to kill other mutants for the sake of his ?cause?. He?s driven by the anger of having been a victim of the Holocaust; he still hasn?t gotten over it, and is paranoid that it?ll happen again.

Nonetheless, Magneto?s still my favourite X-Men character, because I can emphasise with his mindset despite its flaws (not that I think people dislike me because I?m ?better? than them; I don?t have such delusions and I don?t know for sure that a particular person dislikes me for whatever reason, since I?ve never cared to ask, but I?d be on Magneto?s side out of self-preservation more than anything else). Plus, his costume and powers are awesome.

I mean, some footage of Storm stopping Hurricane Katrina would go pretty far to turn opinion.

Although it could be easily turned round to claim that, based on her powers, Storm caused Hurricane Katrina in the first place. Like with terrorist incidents automatically being linked to Islamism now, any kind of catastrophe could be linked to an unidentified mutant letting their powers go loose.

So, while the Mutant Registration Act in the first X-Men film does reek of the pink triangle used to identify gay men in Nazi concentration camps, it wasn't a terrible way to curb the inevitable issue of some of the more dangerous mutants deciding to cause chaos and then just fly off, causing more murders and property damage than if it was just some ordinary nutter. But unfortunately, it wouldn?t help mutant discrimination either. Just because you?re more powerful than your fellow man doesn?t mean you should feel shit about it, if you had no control over it.