There's something very mocking in that guy's tone. I could be wrong, it just feels like a certain viewpoint ("I've read those tales, but they are silly and look at me telling you how silly they are.").

And someone who subjects early 40s comic characters - when ANY idea was hopeful to be the next Superman - to current standards is probably missing the boat. Yeah, I can go back through a lot of those comics... I can make fun of them... and in the end, they were written by grown men in the 40s for the idea that ANYTHING might catch on. Or might not.

Just seems as if someone needs a hobby. Besides comics, that is...

I may be on my own here but I enjoy learning from history. Trying to understand the context of things.

It seems that this (what, these days, passes for a self anointed) journalist, misses that in pointing at trends of the past (and missing the point entirely with some characters). In doing so he has exposed the underskirt of the present.

I dunno, I've often heard that one should not swing at the easy ones and it feels that these needy top-10's are kinda 'easy'. 

We learn from the stigma's, lore & trends of the past. They helps us avoid or harken back to issues pertinent in the present.

Take the presenter, he owes more to scare mongering, like those that reacted to Fredrick Wertham back in the 50's than the super 'oh-so' enlightened stance he seems to feel that is indicative of this millenium!

This attitude seems to bleed (a little) into the whole current naming and shaming mentality. So and so is a bawdy lech and as such we should never look at one of their films ever again. 

And yet, we in the same breathe will say that someone who was severely autistic and genius level recall can draw every detail from a view they saw for only a minute. Let's revere this!

Somehow we live in a world where we can't separate the art from the artist, unless it suits our view on fairness and equality.

Art can (and sometimes does) come from odd places. Some of them quite dark or isolated.

Sticking with the Hate-monger and the Hitler connection. When they felt that something was subversive what did they do? Oh yeah...

 

I'm puzzled, are there many people who think having a villain that represents something bad in a story is the same as condoning the bad thing?

Judging from the comments in the YouTube video (never wise to read), that may be more common than I wished to believe.

I am once again reminded of Larry Niven's quip:

“There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'.”

Conrad, I wouldn't read too much into the frequency of such commentators. When you bait your line, you invariably attract nibbles.

As is pointed out here all the time, the internet affords a small (but audible) part of society, to have their voice heard, as loudly as anyone else.

Content people tend to remain quiet, upset people like to 'bump-their-gums'.