Random Banter #239 - Now 50% more tangible!

[Fyraltari]

1: "next step" is being used very loosly here.

I believe that's spelled i-n-c-or-r-e-c-t-l-y.

All humans contain the "mutant gene." Mutants don't exist in a vacuum, humans give birth to mutant children. The current canon is that the majority of the "human" population will be mutants within 20 years, barring another genocide, due to the fact that the rate at which humans give birth to mutant children steadily rising with each passing year.

Unless non-mutants are turning into mutants or dying massively, the math doesn't check. Also, even if "superpowered" is a dominant allele evolution just doesn't work that fast.

Well what else are you going to call the merpeople? Can't just call them Atlanteans, only about half of them live in Atlantis.

Homo marinus, Homo oceani and Homo nauta come to mind.

And the genus name is part of the species name.

Yes, but there isn't such thing as an Inhomo genus. Claiming to make up a whole different genus is a much stronger claim than with a species.

And apparently, the Inhumans insisted on being the only species of a human variant genus and people shrugged and said "okay, fine, whatever."

A variant of a genus is a species!

[Peelee]

Can't just call them Atlanteans, only about half of them live in Atlantis.

I'm an American despite being only one country making two America continents.

Also,isnt X-men a metaphor for homosexuality? Calling it "the next step in evolution" seems off. Is not a different form of humanity. Is is humanity. Having them be a different species entirely seems like it's a really bad idea. Hell, even without the allegory.

[Fyraltari]

I'm an American despite being only one country making two America continents.

Just because someone goofed before is no reason to do it again!
Also, one, two or three American continents, depends on who you ask!

Also,isnt X-men a metaphor for homosexuality?

Kinda, sorta, maybe. Originally it was just Stan Lee not wanting to come up with origin stories for every new superheroes, so he just had it that some people had inborn superpowers because of mutations.
Later writers used the X-Men as stand-in for various minority groups like the LGBTQ community but also African-Americans. So, I guess it depends on the story?

There's no shortage of people pointing out that it doesn't always work very well as an allegory (yes "curing homosexuality is abhorrent, but the girl whose powers mean she can't have skin contact with another human being probably shouldn't be scolded for wanting a cure to her condition).

[Anonymouswizard]

At least science fiction stories where humanity becomes universally psychic usually have it take thousands of years or feature a massive reduction in population size. That's also not getting into how the same bit of genetics that causes telepathy in Marvel comics (and let's be honest, DC ones) can apparently also cause people to develop hollow bones and functional wings, eye punches, or weather magic.

The Ultimate Universe declaring them to be the result of an imperfect super serum made much more sense.

That's not even getting into Marvel's nonmutant mutants, a.k.a. 'mutates'.

[Rater202]

Unless non-mutants are turning into mutants or dying massively, the math doesn't check. Also, even if "superpowered" is a dominant allele evolution just doesn't work that fast.

1: Who says it's fast? The first "modern" mutant appeared 17,000 years ago and that's just the oldest confirmed individual, we can infer from the existence of Atlantean mutants—which is technically all modern Atlanteans—that mutants existed at least 18,000 years ago(when Atlantis sank)

(We know that Atlanteans cannot possess the X-Gene as a result of interbreeding with baseline humans because human-Atlantean hybrids are sterile.)

2: There's no descendable difference between a baseline human and a first-generation mutant until their powers activate, which usually happens at puberty. It's only then that the subtle but numerous physiological differences kick in. There are also cases of a mutant's powers just not kicking in until they are placed under a severe amount of stress physiological stress. Like radiation poisoning, or some dumbass transfusing you with Mongoose blood because they think it will stop you from dying from a cobra bite.

So "non-mutants turning into mutants" does kind of happen.

3: This is more inference on my part than stated fact, but... If the factor that determines whether the X-Gene activates is a certain concentration of Deviant DNA... Deviants predate modern humans and were apparently created by the Celestials with the express intent that they interbreed with baseline humans and human-ancestor species. The seemingly sudden steady increase in mutant birth rates could simply be the result of generations the "average" percentage of deviant DNA in humans steadily trending upwards until reaching a critical equilibrium.

Yes, but there isn't such thing as an Inhomo genus. Claiming to make up a whole different genus is a much stronger claim than with a species.


A variant of a genus is a species!

Look, I'm not gonna lie, it's probably political.

The Inhumans are very insistent that they are not human.

The Inhumans are also frighteningly quick to declare war on people who piss them off.
Edit:

isnt X-men a metaphor for homosexuality

No. The "Mutant Metaphor" is a metaphor for alienation.

LGBT people, teenagers whose parents refuse to acknowledge that kids today are facing differant changes, the disabled, the neurodivergent, etc.

You know, people who are typically made to feel less than human or stripped of human rights even though they collectively outnumber the "normal" humans.

(yes "curing homosexuality is abhorrent, but the girl whose powers mean she can't have skin contact with another human being probably shouldn't be scolded for wanting a cure to her condition).

That awas made up by the movies, by the way, which also cut out the part where that was the result of psychological trauma instead of bein g an inborn factor of her powers.

In the comics, the people who volunteer to have their powers cured tend to be the ones that have the power of "blue skin" or "smells like chocolate." Completly inoffensive things that are only a problem becuase society refuses to accept them.

Rogue and people like Rogue are often given the chance to be rid of their powers and instead elect to keep them on the grounds that they can learn to control them and so getting rid of it is a bit like cutting off your foot becuase it keeps falling asleep.

[Keltest]

1: Who says it's fast? The first "modern" mutant appeared 17,000 years ago and that's just the oldest confirmed individual, we can infer from the existence of Atlantean mutants—which is technically all modern Atlanteans—that mutants existed at least 18,000 years ago(when Atlantis sank)

(We know that Atlanteans cannot possess the X-Gene as a result of interbreeding with baseline humans because human-Atlantean hybrids are sterile.)

2: There's no descendable difference between a baseline human and a first-generation mutant until their powers activate, which usually happens at puberty. It's only then that the subtle but numerous physiological differences kick in. There are also cases of a mutant's powers just not kicking in until they are placed under a severe amount of stress physiological stress. Like radiation poisoning, or some dumbass transfusing you with Mongoose blood because they think it will stop you from dying from a cobra bite.

So "non-mutants turning into mutants" does kind of happen.

3: This is more inference on my part than stated fact, but... If the factor that determines whether the X-Gene activates is a certain concentration of Deviant DNA... Deviants predate modern humans and were apparently created by the Celestials with the express intent that they interbreed with baseline humans and human-ancestor species. The seemingly sudden steady increase in mutant birth rates could simply be the result of generations the "average" percentage of deviant DNA in humans steadily trending upwards until reaching a critical equilibrium.

Look, I'm not gonna lie, it's probably political.

The Inhumans are very insistent that they are not human.

The Inhumans are also frighteningly quick to declare war on people who piss them off.

Rater, these are all fictional characters in a fictional world dealing with fictional problems. A real person had to have come up with these ideas, and another real person had to set them into print. Thats the part that makes it not make sense.

[Rater202]

Rater, these are all fictional characters in a fictional world dealing with fictional problems. A real person had to have come up with these ideas, and another real person had to set them into print. Thats the part that makes it not make sense.

....If your argument for something not making sense is that it's a fictional scenario made up by a real person then literally nothing anyone has ever written ever makes sense.

[Keltest]

....If your argument for something not making sense is that it's a fictional scenario made up by a real person then literally nothing anyone has ever written ever makes sense.

No, my argument is that the things that dont make sense were written not making sense and that telling me how it makes sense in the context of the fiction doesnt change the fact that I exist outside the fiction where it doesnt make sense.

[HalfTangible]

Bioshock Infinite tries so hard to be intellectual and thought-provoking about both its clear textual take-down of American exceptionalism and its subtextual through-line about how non-linear choices are actually linear... only to not actually say anything of consequence and then end on a time travel/loop solution that only kind of makes sense. And that's if you ignore that final bit where Booker wakes up to find Anna in her crib.

[LaZodiac]

The first Bioshock is clearly the best; it's the one that shows the developing character of Tenenbaum. All of Bioshock is the story of dispassionate self-interest pushed past the breaking point of everyone involved, and she broke towards morality instead of away from it. The Atlas boss fight is often (and deservedly) criticized and easily one of the two worst parts of the game, the other being how the implementation of the Proving Grounds mandates an endless supply of Little Sisters, reducing them to "supply" status; but I can accept that writing satisfying endings can be really hard. (Maybe if Atlas actually shrugged, it'd at least have been mildly amusing....)

Bioshock 2 is a (fairly) close second. Like you say, the writing is very good when it's good; but while I think the combat mechanics are improved, the whole "wave defense" thing being forced is very offputting. Also I miss the ability to go back to previous levels. All in all it feels more linear and less cohesive than Bioshock did....

...which brings me neatly to how much I dislike Bioshock Infinite.

Spoiler: Long-ish Bioshock Infinite Complaints

Show

I think it started for me in the police station impound. The whole "darn, there's no way we can carry this stuff out...Look, there's an opening to another reality, let's go through it...Hurray, the stuff's not here-here so we must have already done it, let's go get our reward" thing was just like...there's so many things wrong with this. Even if that wasn't an incredible convenience followed by an unjustified leap of assumption pretending to be logic, was this Booker intending to rob the other Booker who presumably had already gotten the reward from actually doing the work?

Then I started noticing the real problem. The game goes to great lengths to insist that its areas are not as linear as they are, most frequently by presenting two directions that converge out of sight from the start, hoping you're not going to notice there's no exploring to be done because they've stretched their small lines into circles.

Which I suppose was intended to be symbolic of the atrocious theme they chose to tie together the story scenes with: "It is perfectly acceptable to judge you for what you could have done but didn't. Just because you didn't do it is irrelevant; it leads to the same thing." Especially jarring after the first two games have had the ending change based on your decisions throughout, you're kinda stuck here....And by "stuck here", I mean "the girl who you've spent the entire game trying to rescue, decides she needs to drown you because you could have been the guy who kidnapped her in the first place; and you're okay with this and the game portrays this as a good thing". If you've ever wondered what the opposite of the Giant's stance about portraying suicide could look like, here's an example.

Spoiler

Show

Not that I'm going to be the one to leap to Infinite's defense, but I've always felt it was less "you didn't do this bad thing but you could've so I'm going to kill you", and more... Booker/Comstock has an evil inside him. Booker was a Pinkerton, a monstrous thing to be, flat out. He's done evil. He finds redemption in becoming Comstock, but that is just a false absolution, leading to further monstrosity in the name of a now "clean and pure" self. No matter what route Mr Dewitt is on, he's by some definition evil (strike breaker and murderer or religious tyrant), and exerts that evil over Elizabeth- as Booker he neglects her, as Comstock he kidnaps and torments her. Their lives are intertwined in a way that that is really fascinating to me, this idea of the Forever Abuser and the Forever Victim.

The exceptional Burial at Sea DLC plays with this perfectly, twisting it around and showing that this mentality of Elizabeth's is kinda ****ed up too, mind you. Because ultimately this stuff is ABSURD and, as I said, not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. But it's fascinating to look at.

Noah Caldwell-Gervais has a very well done video on Burial At Sea that I'd highly recommend (alongside all of his catalog, to be frank).

EDIT: Obviously Burial at Sea causes Weirdness with that final scene, HT, but before that came out my understanding of that scene was "through the spiritual suicide of all of our most evil selves, all that is left is a chance at finally being good."

Which, is ****ed up. And definitely not what they intended probably. But still.

[Rater202]

At least science fiction stories where humanity becomes universally psychic usually have it take thousands of years or feature a massive reduction in population size. That's also not getting into how the same bit of genetics that causes telepathy in Marvel comics (and let's be honest, DC ones) can apparently also cause people to develop hollow bones and functional wings, eye punches, or weather magic.

1: It was over the course of thousands of years.

2: "X-Gene" is short for "Essex Genetic X-Factor Complex." It's not one gene, it's several working in tandem. It's also been stated that it doesn't so much cause powers as allow the manifestation of latent mutations present elsewhere in the genome and those are what cause the powers, and there are variations in the exact make-up of a specific x-gene complex.

That's not even getting into Marvel's nonmutant mutants, a.k.a. 'mutates'.

Those are canonically byproducts of the process that created Eternals and Deviants and seeded the proto-x-gene into human ancestor species. Variant power genes that didn't quite propagate through the species for some reason or another or genetic hiccups as the result of deviant or eternal ancestry.

[HalfTangible]

Spoiler

Show

Not that I'm going to be the one to leap to Infinite's defense, but I've always felt it was less "you didn't do this bad thing but you could've so I'm going to kill you", and more... Booker/Comstock has an evil inside him. Booker was a Pinkerton, a monstrous thing to be, flat out. He's done evil. He finds redemption in becoming Comstock, but that is just a false absolution, leading to further monstrosity in the name of a now "clean and pure" self. No matter what route Mr Dewitt is on, he's by some definition evil (strike breaker and murderer or religious tyrant), and exerts that evil over Elizabeth- as Booker he neglects her, as Comstock he kidnaps and torments her. Their lives are intertwined in a way that that is really fascinating to me, this idea of the Forever Abuser and the Forever Victim.

The exceptional Burial at Sea DLC plays with this perfectly, twisting it around and showing that this mentality of Elizabeth's is kinda ****ed up too, mind you. Because ultimately this stuff is ABSURD and, as I said, not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. But it's fascinating to look at.

Noah Caldwell-Gervais has a very well done video on Burial At Sea that I'd highly recommend (alongside all of his catalog, to be frank).

EDIT: Obviously Burial at Sea causes Weirdness with that final scene, HT, but before that came out my understanding of that scene was "through the spiritual suicide of all of our most evil selves, all that is left is a chance at finally being good."

Which, is ****ed up. And definitely not what they intended probably. But still.

I'm not talking about Burial At Sea. I never played Burial At Sea. I'm talking about the main game.

Where in the end credits Booker wakes up back home and goes into Anna's room where the implication is that she's there.

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that the game just finished establishing that Booker has to die before he even has a chance at fathering her for Zachary Comstock to not exist.

[Keltest]

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense

I think youve just explained every game with time travel.

[LaZodiac]

I'm not talking about Burial At Sea. I never played Burial At Sea. I'm talking about the main game.

Where in the end credits Booker wakes up back home and goes into Anna's room where the implication is that she's there.

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that the game just finished establishing that Booker has to die before he even has a chance at fathering her for Zachary Comstock to not exist.

I'm well aware of those things. I'm saying that "Burial at Sea explains that, but here is my thoughts on it ignoring Burial at Sea for a moment."

[Peelee]

....If your argument for something not making sense is that it's a fictional scenario made up by a real person then literally nothing anyone has ever written ever makes sense.

Look dude, I'm going to level with you. Virtually all fiction doesn't make sense at some level. That level is pretty shallow - the Force in Star Wars is magic. It doesn't make sense. They give a quick and dirty explanation, it's an energy field that binds the galaxy together, but it doesn't go any deeper than that, because it can't. It's magic. There is no deeper, there's just adding needless complexity for no actual benefit (eg midi-chlorians).

Even in bog-standard fiction, characters escape being hit by bullets or have fantastic coincidences that help them solve the plot. They don't make sense. They don't need to make sense, it's enough that it simply isnt bad enough to break suspension of disbelief.

All the stuff you write mini-dissertations on? They don't make sense. They take the inherent "it's magic" and try to rationalize it scientifically, but it's bad science (in no small part due to the writers not being more scientifically literate than the average person, most likely). You go into extreme detail on the actual physics on magic. The physics of magic. It's magic, dude. There's no physics to explore. Any exploration is just going to compound the problem.

Take, for example, The Boys. Compound V is a magic serum. There's no chemistry that will have a substance allow you to shoot laser beams out of your eyes or defy gravity. They barely ever explore where the powers come from, and when they do, it's in service to the plot - for example, Translucent turns invisible. He does this by turning his skin into a carbon nanomaterial that bends light and also is as hard as diamond. Does any of this make sense? No! It's magic! However, both of these properties end up being plot points. Do they ever explain how Homelander can defy gravity? No, because there's nothing plot-wise to deal with that and it's completely irrelevant otherwise.

There is absolutely zero benefit to explaining magic unless it has relevance to the story because it's magic. And even when relevant to the story, it's best to keep it fairly surface-level, because, again, it's magic. It will not make sense. it doesn't need to, it's the nitty gritty details. They just need to establish that it works, and then the story can take it from there.

[Keltest]

Look dude, I'm going to level with you. Virtually all fiction doesn't make sense at some level. That level is pretty shallow - the Force in Star Wars is magic. It doesn't make sense. They give a quick and dirty explanation, it's an energy field that binds the galaxy together, but it doesn't go any deeper than that, because it can't. It's magic. There is no deeper, there's just adding needless complexity for no actual benefit (eg midi-chlorians).

Even in bog-standard fiction, characters escape being hit by bullets or have fantastic coincidences that help them solve the plot. They don't make sense. They don't need to make sense, it's enough that it simply isnt bad enough to break suspension of disbelief.

All the stuff you write mini-dissertations on? They don't make sense. They take the inherent "it's magic" and try to rationalize it scientifically, but it's bad science (in no small part due to the writers not being more scientifically literate than the average person, most likely). You go into extreme detail on the actual physics on magic. The physics of magic. It's magic, dude. There's no physics to explore. Any exploration is just going to compound the problem.

Take, for example, The Boys. Compound V is a magic serum. There's no chemistry that will have a substance allow you to shoot laser beams out of your eyes or defy gravity. They barely ever explore where the powers come from, and when they do, it's in service to the plot - for example, Translucent turns invisible. He does this by turning his skin into a carbon nanomaterial that bends light and also is as hard as diamond. Does any of this make sense? No! It's magic! However, both of these properties end up being plot points. Do they ever explain how Homelander can defy gravity? No, because there's nothing plot-wise to deal with that and it's completely irrelevant otherwise.

There is absolutely zero benefit to explaining magic unless it has relevance to the story because it's magic. And even when relevant to the story, it's best to keep it fairly surface-level, because, again, it's magic. It will not make sense. it doesn't need to, it's the nutty gritty details. They just need to establish that it works, and then the story can take it from there.

Indeed. The more you try and examine and explain and justify these things, the more they stop making sense. Most people will accept that Superman can fly because reasons. But as soon as you try to have Superman fly because he's exerting some sort of wind turbine style force out of the bottom of his feet and he forms a telekinetic field shaped like wings to navigate or something, and then explain how he gets around the newtons laws of not leaving giant craters in the ground whenever he takes off with enough force to punch the moon to death or whatever, you have now made the audience unable to ignore how little sense it makes. People are willing to shrug it off when the parts that dont make sense arent the important parts, but as soon as you make them important then the willing suspension of disbelief is dropped.

[Lord Raziere]

@ Peelee:
{Scrubbed}

No matter how true that is, Peelee, I have to stress that Rater finds such theorizing, fun. you may not like it, but its fun to him. Whether it needs to be done is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with him making these theories to make it make sense to him. If you don't want to deal with him making those theories, don't respond, because its not your fun. these theories do not have to make 100% perfect sense, especially since they are fictional. If nothing about these fictional worlds make sense then a theory about them won't hurt anything. No one is assuming that Rater is trying to do real science or whatever. If he wants such complexity added, thats his prerogative to make. some people LIKE the complexity.

If Rater wants to take a view of making sense of things to some level, there is nothing wrong with that, and if you want to take your view, thats also valid, just don't expect him to take your view or for those views to be compatible or play well with each other. if you don't like discussing such things with him, then simply don't do that. Just because there is zero benefit to you, doesn't meant he same for him. So please, don't act like you can persuade him into stopping if you don't like his theories when you can just not engage.

[Rater202]

This isn't even theorizing.

With the exception of the one thing that I said I was making inferance on, all of this is straight out of pages of various comics.

Usually in the context of it being plot relevant.

[Keltest]

these theories do not have to make 100% perfect sense, especially since they are fictional.

Hard disagree. It hurts the fiction, as evidenced by the incredible decline of comics as a medium the more they lean into this sort of thing. And by extension, it hurts my brain every time I try and engage with it, because I basically like Rater and enjoy trying to make sense of stuff like that in a similar way. Its always fun to look at something and go "oh, cool, this superficially tracks! Neat!" and then maybe delve into it a bit more to see how deep you can make it go before it kicks you out of the fiction. And then Marvel comes up, and the answer is "immediately and violently." every single time.

Dr. Who goes the same way, except that they openly acknowledge that the character isnt making sense and isnt trying to make sense and is in fact simply speaking due to enjoying the sound of his own voice in a way that could be mistaken for being related to what he is doing sometimes.

[Fyraltari]

@ Peelee:
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

No matter how true that is, Peelee, I have to stress that Rater finds such theorizing, fun. you may not like it, but its fun to him. Whether it needs to be done is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with him making these theories to make it make sense to him. If you don't want to deal with him making those theories, don't respond, because its not your fun. these theories do not have to make 100% perfect sense, especially since they are fictional. If nothing about these fictional worlds make sense then a theory about them won't hurt anything. No one is assuming that Rater is trying to do real science or whatever. If he wants such complexity added, thats his prerogative to make. some people LIKE the complexity.

If Rater wants to take a view of making sense of things to some level, there is nothing wrong with that, and if you want to take your view, thats also valid, just don't expect him to take your view or for those views to be compatible or play well with each other. if you don't like discussing such things with him, then simply don't do that. Just because there is zero benefit to you, doesn't meant he same for him. So please, don't act like you can persuade him into stopping if you don't like his theories when you can just not engage.

You know, you're right, I , and other people, shouldn't rain on Rater's parade, it doesn't help anything. With that said...

This isn't even theorizing.

With the exception of the one thing that I said I was making inferance on, all of this is straight out of pages of various comics.

Usually in the context of it being plot relevant.

Okay, but whether or not you're the one coming up with it was not really the point of contention. The issue people have is that you say it makes sense, when it's utterly bonkers.

[Lord Raziere]

Hard disagree. It hurts the fiction, as evidenced by the incredible decline of comics as a medium the more they lean into this sort of thing. And by extension, it hurts my brain every time I try and engage with it, because I basically like Rater and enjoy trying to make sense of stuff like that in a similar way. Its always fun to look at something and go "oh, cool, this superficially tracks! Neat!" and then maybe delve into it a bit more to see how deep you can make it go before it kicks you out of the fiction. And then Marvel comes up, and the answer is "immediately and violently." every single time.

Everything I just said to Peelee applies to you as well Keltest. {Scrubbed}. If your issue with Marvel specifically? I don't care. Don't engage if thats your view of it. Your just kicking down mind sand castles, which is even more pointless than building them.

[Rater202]

Again, these aren't my theories or headcanons. These are taken right out of what is said on the page in publicshed comics.

Why would I post unsolicited headcanons as if they were facts?

[Keltest]

Everything I just said to Peelee applies to you as well Keltest.{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}. If your issue with Marvel specifically? I don't care. Don't engage if thats your view of it. Your just kicking down mind sand castles, which is even more pointless than building them.

If Rater ever starts writing fanfiction or something and posting it in a part of the forums I frequent, I can assure you I will refrain from posting anything unhelpfully negative about it because I like Rater and dont want to antagonize him needlessly.

But this isnt fanfiction and it isnt headcanon, its a professionally produced and released product being spoken about, and I dont feel the need to refrain from criticizing it just because somebody else likes it.

[Peelee]

@ Peelee:
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
No matter how true that is, Peelee, I have to stress that Rater finds such theorizing, fun. you may not like it, but its fun to him. Whether it needs to be done is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with him making these theories to make it make sense to him. If you don't want to deal with him making those theories, don't respond, because its not your fun. these theories do not have to make 100% perfect sense, especially since they are fictional. If nothing about these fictional worlds make sense then a theory about them won't hurt anything. No one is assuming that Rater is trying to do real science or whatever. If he wants such complexity added, thats his prerogative to make. some people LIKE the complexity.

If Rater wants to take a view of making sense of things to some level, there is nothing wrong with that, and if you want to take your view, thats also valid, just don't expect him to take your view or for those views to be compatible or play well with each other. if you don't like discussing such things with him, then simply don't do that. Just because there is zero benefit to you, doesn't meant he same for him. So please, don't act like you can persuade him into stopping if you don't like his theories when you can just not engage.

I have nothing against people enjoying rationales like that. If anyone likes it, hey, more power to 'em. Hell, I like dressing up in plastic space armor, who am I to judge? My sole rebuttal was to the claim that "it makes sense". It doesn't. That is objective fact.

I could go into detail about the Force in Star Wars, and how it works beyond the simple "energy field" bits. Other people who are significantly more interested than me in that part of lore could do it better, and I'll never say a word against 'em because they're interested in it and they like it. But if they say the source martial claims "and that's how it is copacetic with real-world physics, that's how it makes sense", that's the point where I'm going to say that it doesn't.

The sole point I was making there was that virtually all fiction, at some level, will not make sense. There isn't really any rebuttal to that. And sure, if someone is enjoying something and I butt in to exclaim how it doesn't make sense, then yeah, that's a jerk move and is raining on their parade. But I'm not the one who initiated it. I'm responding to "here is how the material says it makes sense". And the answer is, it doesn't.

[Lord Raziere]

If Rater ever starts writing fanfiction or something and posting it in a part of the forums I frequent, I can assure you I will refrain from posting anything unhelpfully negative about it because I like Rater and dont want to antagonize him needlessly.

But this isnt fanfiction and it isnt headcanon, its a professionally produced and released product being spoken about, and I dont feel the need to refrain from criticizing it just because somebody else likes it.

{Scrubbed} Rater is just having fun, there is no need for you to engage or rain on his parade.{Scrubbed}

[Rater202]

Please stop.

[Fyraltari]

copacetic

Hey, new word!

[Anonymouswizard]

1: It was over the course of thousands of years.

Thousands of years led to what, a few percent?

And yet apparently twenty will lead to over 50% of the population being wizards. That really doesn't make much sense.

2: "X-Gene" is short for "Essex Genetic X-Factor Complex." It's not one gene, it's several working in tandem. It's also been stated that it doesn't so much cause powers as allow the manifestation of latent mutations present elsewhere in the genome and those are what cause the powers, and there are variations in the exact make-up of a specific x-gene complex.

I never said it was one gene. Although this also just reads like biobabble to me.

Those are canonically byproducts of the process that created Eternals and Deviants and seeded the proto-x-gene into human ancestor species. Variant power genes that didn't quite propagate through the species for some reason or another or genetic hiccups as the result of deviant or eternal ancestry.

All I'm getting is 'something something biobabble'.

[Keltest]

Thousands of years led to what, a few percent?

And yet apparently twenty will lead to over 50% of the population being wizards. That really doesn't make much sense.



I never said it was one gene. Although this also just reads like biobabble to me.



All I'm getting is 'something something biobabble'.

From my limited understanding of genetics, if you cut out the part where the genes lead to bursting into flames on command or turning your eyes into a portal to another dimension that constantly emits death rays, that actually is relatively consistent with how genetics introduced into an early population would spread over generations.

Which should come with a giant ASCI asterisk saying that there is an unbelievable amount we still dont know about genetics in the real world, other than that they dont give people mutant superpowers.

[Anonymouswizard]

From my limited understanding of genetics, if you cut out the part where the genes lead to bursting into flames on command or turning your eyes into a portal to another dimension that constantly emits death rays, that actually is relatively consistent with how genetics introduced into an early population would spread over generations.

Which should come with a giant ASCI asterisk saying that there is an unbelievable amount we still dont know about genetics in the real world, other than that they dont give people mutant superpowers.

Unless mutants are particularly promiscuous I'd expect it to take at least three generations, and that's assuming it passes to every child.

Now if Rater had said two hundred years (so >10 generations) I wouldn't have as many issues