16 replies to this topic

[LogiTeeka]

I dunno. Whenever I find a campaign that I happen to agree with on certain terms but end up disliking the sort of people it ends up attracting, I usually don't bother joining it. Instead, I either try finding some other comparable association whose patrons appeal more to the sort that I wanna associate myself with, or I might try starting a different one myself in hopes of attracting people that share my particular sentiment.

 

 

The issue here is that the current pollitical climate is becoming way too soft and are falsely flagging anyone with a dissenting opinion as an aggressor who must be silenced, deplatformed, and ruined financially.  It's getting out of control and the mainstream media is trying to force everyone down a homogenized path of white guilt, forced diversity and political correctness.  No matter how you look at it, the badguys that everyone are pointing out as being bad, are cultivated and facilitated BY THESE SO CALLED GOOD GUYS.  "You" are manufacturing your own outrage by treating people who are fighting back as enemies.  And THIS is why Donald Trump is president.  Not because some hateful mob rose out of the 4th dimension space between spaces, not because hidden racists showed up from out of nowhere, etc - seriously, a great deal of people who voted for Trump previously voted for Obama, think about that.

 

And that's why I can't get myself to side with either of them. Both sides are equally guilty of doing horrible things. What one side does in reaction to the other, the other counteracts and it just continues to grow worse from there, amplifying to even more damaging proportions till both sides are shattered.

 

 

 And yes, Netflix She Ra is getting a bit of undeserved hate.  I plan on trashing the series myself, as I'm watching it with friends in our discord server, but I noticed right off the bat that these guys were picking apart at every single thing, rather than JUST the funny, awkward moments.  Again though, it's more that they took an existing premise and fuxxed it up, so I can understand that.  I'm only on episode 3, and besides a few things (like whimpy white boy on the horde side being the weakest on the team as to send a statement) I'm not seeing why others don't notice they're being a bit unfair to it.  My problems are simple - the artstyle is weak, the design choices are pathetic, the dialogue is horrendous, and the insertion of identity politics is 100% unnecessary.  I think so far, it's pretty watchable.  Considering the show is (or should be) aimed directly at weeb girls, I'm not finding anything too offputting in that regard, but it's making ME roll my eyes to the point where I can see my own brain. 

 

I have no doubt that the new She-Ra series has its flaws (I still haven't seen it myself yet), but it already looks way more interesting than its previous iteration. 

 

 

That just takes me back to my original statement earlier.  Comic pros are using the fact that "normies", that is, people who either don't:

 

 

 

- read comic books normally

- question those in places of authority and call them out on their bullshit

- bother to do any research

- follow their hobbies intently

- aren't adept at finding out the truth of the matter and are using them to combat their 'harassers' by labeling them the enemy.  Think of it like this:  If the comic book pros were to get their way, they dominate the industry, even if breifly, before their outrage machine runs dry and they either cannibalize the userbase or the userbase gets bored and runs off to their next fleeting point of contention.  If comicsgaters get what they want, the comic book companies will be forced to respect their users and continuously put out thoughtful, quality material.  The freedom to express oneself means that people will eventually become annoyed with eachother, which is why the comic pro's side of the argument is laughably unstable.

 

But if writers aren't being honest with the material they're writing and are just writing stuff that panders only to the readers without any conscious thought put into it, isn't that just as bad?

[ShenFNWoo]

 

I dunno. Whenever I find a campaign that I happen to agree with on certain terms but end up disliking the sort of people it ends up attracting, I usually don't bother joining it. Instead, I either try finding some other comparable association whose patrons appeal more to the sort that I wanna associate myself with, or I might try starting a different one myself in hopes of attracting people that share my particular sentiment.

 

That sounds horrible.  So no matter how right someone is, you'll separate yourself from and not defend them just because they're unlikable.  Perfect for someone to take advantage of.  Professionals do this all the time.  They appear likable, get your patronage, and hide everything that would piss you off.  Sorry, but that's immoral on both ends.  If a guy is accused of arson killing 30 people, and was proven guilty for killing one dude, you don't hang him for both crimes just because of the one he's guilty of.  If he didn't do it, he didn't do it.

 

 

And that's why I can't get myself to side with either of them. Both sides are equally guilty of doing horrible things.

 

Define "horrible things".  Talking shit over the internet is not 'horrible'.  You have a way of stopping them.  Everyone does.  Find me examples of stuff CGers have done that you can't avoid, and we can start talking.

 

 

 

I have no doubt that the new She-Ra series has its flaws (I still haven't seen it myself yet), but it already looks way more interesting than its previous iteration.

Had they went the heman remake in the early 2000s, that would've blown away this She-Ra hands down.

 

 

But if writers aren't being honest with the material they're writing and are just writing stuff that panders only to the readers without any conscious thought put into it, isn't that just as bad?

 

Can Ian Flynn be 100% honest with what he wants to write with now, with restrictions and such?  No one said that the comics had to PANDER to CGers, just that they shouldn't PANDER to the opposition, because the opposition isn't full of already repeat customers.

[LogiTeeka]

 

I dunno. Whenever I find a campaign that I happen to agree with on certain terms but end up disliking the sort of people it ends up attracting, I usually don't bother joining it. Instead, I either try finding some other comparable association whose patrons appeal more to the sort that I wanna associate myself with, or I might try starting a different one myself in hopes of attracting people that share my particular sentiment.

 

That sounds horrible.  So no matter how right someone is, you'll separate yourself from and not defend them just because they're unlikable.  Perfect for someone to take advantage of.  Professionals do this all the time.  They appear likable, get your patronage, and hide everything that would piss you off.  Sorry, but that's immoral on both ends.  If a guy is accused of arson killing 30 people, and was proven guilty for killing one dude, you don't hang him for both crimes just because of the one he's guilty of.  If he didn't do it, he didn't do it.

 

But if there's a place that you wanna build your house at that looks idyllic but comes with several hazards and dangers that would threaten your wellbeing, would you take your chances and still move in? Personally, I would rather look for another place to live since it's not worth the risk.

 

 

 

And that's why I can't get myself to side with either of them. Both sides are equally guilty of doing horrible things.

 

Define "horrible things".  Talking shit over the internet is not 'horrible'.  You have a way of stopping them.  Everyone does.  Find me examples of stuff CGers have done that you can't avoid, and we can start talking.

 

I wasn't talking about the stuff limited to ComicsGate - both rights and lefts have done some pretty shameful things that leave me not wanting to side with either one of them.

 

 

 

I have no doubt that the new She-Ra series has its flaws (I still haven't seen it myself yet), but it already looks way more interesting than its previous iteration.

Had they went the heman remake in the early 2000s, that would've blown away this She-Ra hands down.

 

How so?

 

 

 

But if writers aren't being honest with the material they're writing and are just writing stuff that panders only to the readers without any conscious thought put into it, isn't that just as bad?

 

Can Ian Flynn be 100% honest with what he wants to write with now, with restrictions and such?  No one said that the comics had to PANDER to CGers, just that they shouldn't PANDER to the opposition, because the opposition isn't full of already repeat customers.

 

As far as I'm aware, Ian's contributions to both comic series haven't pandered to any opposition. I'm guessing it's because Sonic's world is so far removed from our own (for the most part) that anything that happens in the real world doesn't really affect it, whereas traditional superhero worlds (especially Marvel) are more connected to real-world events.

[RedAuthar]

The problem with things like Comicsgate and anonymous is that if anyone can claim to do something in the groups name. If they do, the group is responsible for its members actions. Good or bad.

That also means if they deny responsibility they set standards on who can and cannot do things under the comicsgate name and what things they can do.

This means if anyone can join and use the name, anything they do is comicsgate, not just an individual. Since there is not one entity to dictate the responsibility for an action, then it is the organization as a whole who must take blame or credit. They can't denounce or deny actions because there is no central core to approve them.

So while it is true not all comicsgate are elitists or racists, they are still responsible for the members who are.

[ShenFNWoo]

 

But if there's a place that you wanna build your house at that looks idyllic but comes with several hazards and dangers that would threaten your wellbeing, would you take your chances and still move in? Personally, I would rather look for another place to live since it's not worth the risk.

 

You're assuming something of some significance is going to happen.  What, is someone going to say hurty words to you because you claimed yourself a CGer?  And what's that going to do?

 

 

I wasn't talking about the stuff limited to ComicsGate - both rights and lefts have done some pretty shameful things that leave me not wanting to side with either one of them.

 

Ah yes, centrism (at least the definition in my mind).  The only position worth taking.

 

 

How so?

 

Do you need to ask?  Did you watch the He Man reboot on Cartoon network in the late 2000s, early 2010s?  Animation = beautiful.  Story = beautiful.  Atmosphere = amazing.  Total package = truly the stuff of gods.

 

 

As far as I'm aware, Ian's contributions to both comic series haven't pandered to any opposition. I'm guessing it's because Sonic's world is so far removed from our own (for the most part) that anything that happens in the real world doesn't really affect it, whereas traditional superhero worlds (especially Marvel) are more connected to real-world events.

 

I'm not talking about in regards to politics.  I'm talking about Ian being held back by Sega's and legal restrictions.  Because of those he can't write to his heart's content, but he managed to work around that right?  So no, the idea that you can't write to your heart's content because of what your audience might consider messed up is null.

 

 

 

 

The problem with things like Comicsgate and anonymous is that if anyone can claim to do something in the groups name. If they do, the group is responsible for its members actions. Good or bad.

That also means if they deny responsibility they set standards on who can and cannot do things under the comicsgate name and what things they can do.

This means if anyone can join and use the name, anything they do is comicsgate, not just an individual. Since there is not one entity to dictate the responsibility for an action, then it is the organization as a whole who must take blame or credit. They can't denounce or deny actions because there is no central core to approve them.

So while it is true not all comicsgate are elitists or racists, they are still responsible for the members who are.

 

Okay, since you think it's so cut and dry, perhaps I need to prove to you that this way of thinking is inadequate, unfair, and a horrible display of laziness.

 

Seeing as CG was a movement started to do a specific thing, it should only go to show that that specific thing is the only true desired goal the movement wishes to obtain.  Anything else is collateral.  People get involved in the movement thinking one thing and that one thing only, to be confronted by someone "hurt" by people on their side that they're not even aware of. 

 

Let's say you're a victim of this, and you have the authority to do something about it...

 

Whachagonnadoaboutit?

 

You're going to come to them, or me, about the actions of someone I have no clue about having pulled some nonsense?  And what do you expect us to do about it if you do expect something out of us?  We don't have to disavow anything because we can always deny that party's existence or fall back on the fact that whatever he did has nothing to do with the original plan. 

 

You're effectively trying to hold Christians of today responsible for the crusades....

 

...Religions in general for atrocities done it's name....

 

...nations for wars committed in the past.....

 

....white people for enslavement of blacks, as if that was the worst example of slavery in history (it isn't)...

 

....science for providing everyone the means of hurting eachother, since wishing for weapons to hurt people with never put them in your hands...

 

You would stand to make an enemy out of people who would or could have otherwise be an asset to you, all because you want something to take the blame for someone's actions when you could've held that individual accountable for his own.  And even if you get something out of those people, you would effectively been robbing them, as they owe you nothing. 

 

That sound fair?

[LogiTeeka]

 

But if there's a place that you wanna build your house at that looks idyllic but comes with several hazards and dangers that would threaten your wellbeing, would you take your chances and still move in? Personally, I would rather look for another place to live since it's not worth the risk.

 

You're assuming something of some significance is going to happen.  What, is someone going to say hurty words to you because you claimed yourself a CGer?  And what's that going to do?

 

Words may be just words, but they can still have a profound effect on people. Just the simple act of associating yourself with a controversial movement can lead to things happening, particularly chastization from opposing adherents that could leave a mark on your credit and affect how others might perceive you.

 

Sure, words may not harm you in the real world, but in the online world, which is entirely dependant on words, it could alter your life.

 

 

 

How so?

 

Do you need to ask?  Did you watch the He Man reboot on Cartoon network in the late 2000s, early 2010s?  Animation = beautiful.  Story = beautiful.  Atmosphere = amazing.  Total package = truly the stuff of gods.

 

I must've missed it.

 

Wait... Did you mean to say the early 2000s? That appears to be when the last recent incarnation of the franchise aired before the new She-Ra series.

[RedAuthar]

Okay, since you think it's so cut and dry.

 

I don't just think this, this is how political movements work. If anyone can be a member, each member represents the group.  If anyone can speak using the groups name, than the group is speaking whenever a member does.  If there are no social structures to deem what is or is not appropriate action for the group to take, than every action is appropriate in the groups eyes.  

 

Heck that's why they're in the mess they're in now.  That's why there is such hate for them.  

 

 perhaps I need to prove to you that this way of thinking is inadequate, unfair, and a horrible display of laziness.

 

Like you did for SJW?  You clumped the entirety of every Social Justice Warrior (something that isn't even a group or an entity) as, and I quote:

 

- Hypocrites

- counterproductive

- loud and outspoken

- obnoxious

- intollerant

- poorly veiled racists, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, and biggots, but they just don't know it.

- promotes feelings over facts

- free speech adversaries

 

 

Pot calling the kettle black, much?  

 

 

Let's say you're a victim of this, and you have the authority to do something about it...

 

Okay.

 

 

You're going to come to them, or me, about the actions of someone I have no clue about having pulled some nonsense?  And what do you expect us to do about it if you do expect something out of us?  We don't have to disavow anything because we can always deny that party's existence or fall back on the fact that whatever he did has nothing to do with the original plan. 

Except you can't deny it.  The group already said anyone could be part of the group, he can say whatever he wants in the groups name. If he takes action that isn't approved by the group, the group must have some social structure that protects it, otherwise you've already given him permission to do whatever he wants in the groups name.  

 

Technically, someone could commit murder in Comicgates' name.  There is no structure in comicsgate to say that isn't appropriate group action.  Regardless is the man is prosecuted or not, comicsgate will be known for being murderers.  All your hard work to further your goals, gone.  Why?  Because in allowing anyone and everyone to join and speak for the group, there actions represent the group.  Since there is no structure how to achieve the original plan, there is no wrong way to achieve it.

 

 

You're effectively trying to hold Christians of today responsible for the crusades....

 

...Religions in general for atrocities done it's name....

 

...nations for wars committed in the past.....

 

....white people for enslavement of blacks, as if that was the worst example of slavery in history (it isn't)...

 

....science for providing everyone the means of hurting eachother, since wishing for weapons to hurt people with never put them in your hands...

 

You would stand to make an enemy out of people who would or could have otherwise be an asset to you, all because you want something to take the blame for someone's actions when you could've held that individual accountable for his own.  And even if you get something out of those people, you would effectively been robbing them, as they owe you nothing. 

 

That sound fair?

 

Ah, yes, simply put words in my mouth that have nothing to do with the discussion.    

Again, now you're saying it is unfair for me to judge comicsgate with generalizations and yet you apply a generalization to me.  Heck, I haven't even said one way or the other on my stance of comicsgate's actions or if I think they're goals are right or wrong.  Rather I pointed out a flaw in their movement structure.  

 

A movement is represented by its members, good and bad, just like how Ian Flynn represents the Sonic Comics.  The difference is if Ian breaks any of IDW's rules or structures for appropriate behavior his membership in the organization would be terminated.  However because comicsgate has no said structures, they have no such protection.  If they have said structure, then they'd have said protection because members who break those rules would be removed, they would no longer represent the group.  

 

I'm not saying extremely strict structure is good either, that has it's own fallacies, but like I said before, this is where they got to because they didn't have a solid structure.  Now people see the bad members as their representatives.  If comicsgate wants to recover they need to reorganize, and improve their structure.  

[ShenFNWoo]

Words may be just words, but they can still have a profound effect on people. Just the simple act of associating yourself with a controversial movement can lead to things happening, particularly chastization from opposing adherents that could leave a mark on your credit and affect how others might perceive you.
 
Sure, words may not harm you in the real world, but in the online world, which is entirely dependant on words, it could alter your life.

 
Easily refuted. 
 
Words hurt you when you allow them to hurt you.  It's the difference between some kid calling you a poopy head and you dismissing it as nothing important, just like you would if a grown adult, or even someone you love calling you that.  But someone you love calling you a bitch, you'd take with more consideration.  You're invested in them.  You care what they have to say.  Now.  A stranger says it to you.... especially online...  then what?  You have no reason to care what they say, no investment in them.  And you let them hurt your feelings.  Wow.  :|
 
Your second concern makes sense if you're actually dealing with people who are actually doing something suspect in the real world, like say, antifa.  Other than that, the rest of what happens in CG is just a bunch of hoohah that people have to go do at least a bit of research just to even confirm. 
 

I must've missed it.
 
Wait... Did you mean to say the early 2000s? That appears to be when the last recent incarnation of the franchise aired before the new She-Ra series.

 
Probably, I don't know exactly when.  I just know it was damned great.
 
****************************************************************************************
 

I don't just think this, this is how political movements work.

 
Political?  I'm guessing you just jumped right into the conversation.  I see....
 

Like you did for SJW?  You clumped the entirety of every Social Justice Warrior (something that isn't even a group or an entity) as, and I quote:

 
Nice try.  You're conflating two different types of things.  CG is a movement based off of corruption in the comic world.  SJW is a pejorative term meant to denote and describe whiney brats who think that simply demanding change for something they want and refusing to take no for an answer is acceptable.  People who fight for social justice (as it's defined right now) are NOT necessarily SJWs, but that's not necessarily a good thing either. 
 

Pot calling the kettle black, much?

 
Unfortunately since you're effectively strawmaning me, the above statement doesn't apply.
 
 

Except you can't deny it.  The group already said anyone could be part of the group, he can say whatever he wants in the groups name. If he takes action that isn't approved by the group, the group must have some social structure that protects it, otherwise you've already given him permission to do whatever he wants in the groups name.  
 
Technically, someone could commit murder in Comicgates' name.  There is no structure in comicsgate to say that isn't appropriate group action.  Regardless is the man is prosecuted or not, comicsgate will be known for being murderers.  All your hard work to further your goals, gone.  Why?  Because in allowing anyone and everyone to join and speak for the group, there actions represent the group.  Since there is no structure how to achieve the original plan, there is no wrong way to achieve it.

 
So, the internet, being the clusterfuck of nonsense that it is, decides to create a group called the RedArthar group, and for whatever retarded reason, takes off like crazy.  Extremely popular on the internet and trending for years to come.  They even dox you just to make sure they've got the right person.  Now they commit all kinds of crazy acts in your name.  Do you take responsibility for it?  Trust me, dumber things have taken off before for absolutely no reason.  Hell, popular memes don't even have to be funny or all that relatable, and they still take off, so don't bother attacking the plausibility of this.  So yeah, what say you?  You've done nothing to deserve it, and now some random movement has taken your screen name and real name and smeared it for no reason.  What do you do?
 

Ah, yes, simply put words in my mouth that have nothing to do with the discussion.    
Again, now you're saying it is unfair for me to judge comicsgate with generalizations and yet you apply a generalization to me.  Heck, I haven't even said one way or the other on my stance of comicsgate's actions or if I think they're goals are right or wrong.  Rather I pointed out a flaw in their movement structure.

 
I made a judgement based on context clues and how you're simply taking the oppositions' accepted defintion of CG.  You're exhibiting the behavior of someone who resents the movement, why shouldn't I assume it's your stance? 
 

A movement is represented by its members, good and bad, just like how Ian Flynn represents the Sonic Comics.  The difference is if Ian breaks any of IDW's rules or structures for appropriate behavior his membership in the organization would be terminated.  However because comicsgate has no said structures, they have no such protection.  If they have said structure, then they'd have said protection because members who break those rules would be removed, they would no longer represent the group.

 
Again, you're effectively trying to contain a cloudlike structure.  Again, you're not telling me what you'd do.  Tell me how do you capture a "sentient" gas that envelops the entire world, if not just a few continents, especially with the remainder of the gas working towards freeing any gas that you manage to trap?  It's not worth it, and much easier to to handle people on individual basis.  Are you going to go after the millions of people streaming movies online or are you going to target the ones hosting the streams?  Which one's easier? 
 
On top of which, people can be "removed" from the group and still claim to be apart of it.  And there's nothing you can do about it.  In Ian's case, it's a company, not a nebulous group.
 
As for anything else you think I may not have addressed, it's not because I skipped over them, I simply can't answer them if you're ignoring/not properly refuting any of the things I've said pointing out how they're wrong.  If I don't know how it's wrong, I can't address what you're saying because it leaves a gap.  No point addressing what you're saying if you're not handling mine.  That leaves loose ends and is basically us talking past eachother.
 
 

Stuff

If you want to break off the topic and paste it there, then fine by me. You replied while I was in the middle of typing.

[RedAuthar]

Continuing on what was Started in IDW Comic Chatter....

 

NOTE:  Some of the posts were started in the other topic.  Moving all of them would be a bit tedious, so I'm only moving a couple so you can pick up where we left off.

NOTE2:  Technically this is the first post but the moved posts appeared above it.  Sorry.

Edited by RedAuthar, 23 November 2018 - 08:43 PM.

[ShenFNWoo]

Fair enough. Though if you want to be completionist, I guess you could link to back to the original thread and put post stamps on where it broke off from.

That said, also glad to hear you'll do research. But for the long and short of it, comicsgate is not a political movement. It's a consumer movement. It can get political, but what it's really about is what people want out of their entertainment, and how some shady people practically run industry now.

[Freya Manibrandr]

It definitely is about politics, I mean, the comics nerds are literally seeing this as an invasion, and that only makes sense when you see it as identity politics vs identity politics. The reality is, they're realizing that their space is now being shared by people other than overweight neckbeards, and that they are going to have to start accomodating for the new demographic.

[ShenFNWoo]

Honestly didn't see this reply here. Sorry for that. I'm always here and yet I let this slip under me. Guess I'll follow this forum to make sure I don't miss anything else. Now to answer you:

Passing off comicsgate as a political movement just fails as a narrative. As a costumer, you have the right to complain when the product you've bought fails to meet up to the standards that it held previously. There seems to be a common complaint among all the comic book youtube and internet personalities who support the movement – “forced” diversity sucks. Every time I watch their videos, I can see the repeating this. You can tell from a mile away when someoen is forcing an issue in a comic book – the quality of the writing starts dropping, or the characters start spewing the creator’s agenda in a vain attempt to glorify it. Usually the creator pats their own back in some sort of way or another by attempting to insert their beliefs and political opinions into the comic, which brings us to our next point.

Bad writing isn’t the only aspect they take issue with – another thing that isn’t necessarily political…. People working at a publisher attacking their own reader base. Isn’t it bad enough that they’re coming into the industry trying to uproot everything and change it to their liking, much like how sjws have done in a many other aspects of entertainment like hollywood, and their recent attempt at taking over anime, but now they want to INSULT their readers by belittling them when they complain about what they’re doing? 3 or 4 years ago, Hulk Hogan got kicked out of WWE for saying the word “nigger”……. almost 10 years prior to his firing. Why should an employee of a company be immune to the consequences of making outrageous statements in this case if bigger celebs can’t even cut a break for stuff they said a long time ago? Why should an employee get away with verbally attacking it's customers on social media and dragging real life politics into their stories when stuff like this should remain apolitical?

The industry is tanking by the way. The majority of the reader base doesn’t take kindly to this kind of nonsense pandering. Most of these comics that “get woke”, eventually “go broke”. Comicsgaters being forced to have to get used to it? I think not. Also, insulting people who'd side with comcisgate does nothing more than prove their point. They were antagonized, they fought back, only to be antagonized again.... How does one siding against them expect to look innocent when they're out to demonize people for complaining about the quality of their products? There's all SORTS of things that could be said in retort to an insult like neckbeard in regards to the diverse people who are "intruding" on their space, but I think that would classify as hate speech, no?

Also, if I were any more a minority than I am now, I’d feel insulted by the ways in which they try to be ‘inclusive’. Not an comics example, but the new she-ra reboot, despite being about girl power and not needed guys to get the job done, actually makes the men seem more rational in the majority of the decisions being made in the show. Way to prove ‘menenists’ right? Lol

[ShenFNWoo]

Won't hear the definition from me or anyone who deems themselve's a comicsgater as to what comicsgate actually is? Here, take it from a guy who's completely neutral and doesn't give a crap about any of this in particular:



He breaks down what Comicsgate is at 1:10 into the video

[ShenFNWoo]

Another one bites the dust:

Get Woke





GO BROKE

[RedAuthar]

I'd argue this doesn't prove anything yet. If they pick up with a "volume 2" the series isn't cancelled, just under new management.

Heck Wolverine, arguably Marvel's most popular character next to Spider-man, volume 6 had only 12 issues. He is still a selling character.

This only proves anything if no new writers pick it up. And we're still too early for that.

[ShenFNWoo]

I'd argue that if another writer picks it up, and "unwokes" it, and it sells decently or even flies off the shelf, then my point would still stand.

[RedAuthar]

I dunno if you can with squirrelgirl, but if that is the case, it would.