MAGNETO WAS ALWAYS RIGHT | X-Men 97 Ep 1x8 Reactiont & Review | Disney+ 

In the comics, she goes to the future and raises him; (she's the one who teaches him how to use his telekinesis to control the techno organic virus). So she's closer to a mother than Madeline was.

So happy Cable had a family moment with his aunt and father. I wanted that in the original series.

@@davidjones272 But not here. Here she basicly want to steal Madeline place right after she died

where did you get that pfp?

@@MrMelonGuy42 Skottie Young's X-Men (2021) #1 Variant

Fantastic Four too, Ghost Rider also popped up a few times

As a 90's kid, I've seen Spider-Man and X-Men, but I never knew those other ones existed.

Askani!

Yeah no way how powerful these sentinels are there is no way they control the phoneix force 😂

Ding Ding Ding! Based as hell of them to make it that explicit.

thank you! I think this is the first time I've heard anyone else suggest it. I personally think this might tie in with Heroes Reborn. Why does the MCU not have mutants? Because Franklin Richards created the MCU to save the Avengers from Onslaught. The FF might be in their own separate universe. This might not happen in this season but it would certainly explain why mutants don't exist in the MCU.

What you say is true. However, people going to absurd extremes, demanding others to tolerate the intolerable, scream "WHATEVER-PHOBE!" or "WHATEVER-IST!" and will somehow see themselves as victims when those others don't obey, is also true. So where do we go from this situation in which two diametrically opposed things are equally true???

@@durchhalter What exactly are you considering "intolerable"?

@@ConcreteLogicVideo That's part of the issue: It's not about what "I" deem tolerable or intolerable. Because the demarcation line between those two is completely subjective, consensus has to be debated and cannot simply be declared. People should be convinced on the basis of factual arguments, not be forced on the basis of opportune opinion ... something many on both ends of the spectrum seem to have forgotten.

@@durchhalter I'm assuming that you're honestly trying to debate in good faith so I'm gonna try and phrase this in a way that isn't attack you at all but just the argument. There can't really be "going to absurd extremes demanding others to tolerate the intolerable" SPECIFICALLY when it comes to human rights. To not be able to tolerate a person's existence based on race, sex, orientation, disability, "mutation", etc. comes almost solely from ignorance and refusal to learn better comes from the pride of not willing to believe you could and have been the bad guy and the years (decades in some cases) of programming. And the thought of "convincing people on the basis of factual arguments" is a wonderful sentiment, but those who show intolerance often have knowledge of or have been made aware of the facts, but their "beliefs" are stronger than their care of the "truth". And the bigger issue overall isn't the intolerance of a people, but how they express that intolerance. If you're lactose intolerant your body "can't handle milk" so YOU choose to not partake, YOU choose to avoid it because of the feeling it gives you, you don't ridicule those kids eating ice cream, you don't go on an anti-dairy campaign to make sure no one ever eats cheese again, you take a step away from it as an individual and move on with life, maybe go to a professional to see if they can help you with your tolerance. I don't know, I just don't think that intolerance has a place in human rights and so if that is what someone is intolerant about, they are fundamentally and factually wrong, no matter how they "feel". I also think its a little weird that you're example of "absurd extremes" was calling a person a "WHATEVER-PHOBE!" or "WHATEVER-IST!" as if calling a person out on their speech or actions is somehow extreme. If they're intolerant to a race and are called racist.... yeah. Like you said "People should be convinced on the basis of factual arguments" so if factually they said something that aligns with that term and you explain that, it's not an "absurd extreme" in the slightest, its an argument based on evidence they provided. TLDR If someone is intolerant to an issue of human rights, their feelings and opinions on that topic don't matter and calling them out isn't extreme. It's more work to expressively hate than it is to just your own life in a bubble and let other live People *should* be intolerant to harming others, not harming others due to intolerance. Anyways I assume most here in the comments are good people who are aware of social issues cuz this is an x-men '97 reaction lmao so if ya read this far, you're beautiful, you matter, and I happy you're watching this AMAZING show with us :)

@@Cap7070 Thanks for the decency of actually addressing my comments and not attacking. I truly appreciate that, mate! 1) We’re in absolute agreement on “tolerating a person’s existence based on race, sex, orientation, disability, ‘mutation’, etc.” I would even up the “tolerating existence” to “respecting existence”. However, the socio-political discourse is too often (imo) going way beyond that, denying the right of existence and self-expression on the one end, and using one’s own self-expression to infringe on or outright deny the self-expression of others on the other end. A person has the right to expect their existence to be respected, however, they do not have the right to demand others to participate in their self-expression, that would be a privilege that has to be addressed and socially negotiated individually. 2) We’re also in absolute agreement on “those who show intolerance often have knowledge of or have been made aware of the facts, but their ‘beliefs’ are stronger than their care of the ‘truth’ ”. Yet again, this - word for word - goes for the extreme representatives on both(!) ends of the socio-political spectrum. 3) Total agreement again on “the bigger issue overall isn’t the intolerance of a people, but how they express that intolerance …”. No further comment from me on that. 4) “[…] as if calling a person out on their speech or actions is somehow extreme.” Well, it is not - not at all. But there is a significant difference between calling someone out and calling someone names. It is one thing to address someone’s misbehavior and another to use “-isms” and “-phobes” in reaction to any form of criticism. Sometimes the “-isms” and “-phobes” are indeed appropriately used, but more and more often they’re also misused, treated more like passionate yet clumsy insults, not so much destined to make an actual argument then to simply shut the other down. Used in such a way causes their actual meaning to become more and more diluted, devolving them to the point of becoming banal vulgarities. And yes, that is indeed extreme. 5) Total agreement on regarding X-Men ’97 as an AMAZING show, too! 😀

Nah, she was sort of tangentially in on it, but didn't know the extent of it. Like somebody who showed up to Unite the Right because of strong opinions on economic issues who looks around and is like "oh, shit, this is a *Klan* rally."

The secret room with Bastian's tech in the UN made me think she was in on it.

Cooper and Bastion were actually seated next to each other in episode 2 at the round table. She knew actually what she was doing.

@@Heavensrun LMFAO. It's sad how easily I could see that happening.

@@Darkwolfie33 Yeah but when she realized how far Bastion and Trask were willing to go even collaborating with mad scientists like Mr. Sinister and neo-fascist war criminals like Dr. Doom she started to feel more iffy and sympathetic to the mutants.

Droolworthy indeed

Namor needs to show up in this show

It's hard to say how early - but I do believe there is definitely a side of Valerie that was "concerned citizen". I don't know if she was in league with X-cutioner, but I could see her being lured into Bastion's plans with promises of the return of the sentinel programme - which most people only saw as "arrests" of "problem" mutants. It is possible that convinced herself it really was just a "pro-police" version of protecting humanity from the "bad ones". Being at ground zero for Genosha and realising that Bastion's supporters were being mutated without consent into the prime sentinels truly was a wake up call for her to realise she was in over her head. For me, we've seen how easily people can fool themselves after they buy the propaganda and I could be wrong, but that strikes me as a bigger story here.

It's basically the same as people getting upset that their children will replace them. They are meant to.

@@drrohanjacob Exactly! I'd find it much more plausible, if humans would try to speed up humanity's transition from homo sapiens to homo superior, so that it's done within a single generation instead of several, and so nobody would need to feel left behind by nature.

I may be a bit confused here cause I thought he just targeted the Sentinels... Guess we will find out on Wednesday!

That would be lame

@@Алексей545-т6б why it makes since

@@Алексей545-т6б it makes since though

So what? Mutants should stand, do nothing and die because humans which attack them first could die?

it was confirmed that it indeed killed a lot of people..

The father and mother was in that episode too.

It's like getting upset that ur children are going to replace u. That is their purpose 😂

Xavier is a hypocrite here. He is not in position to lecture anybody - he flirt with his alien waifu while Magneto was trying to protect Genosha

Was about to say the samething. You show 3 people close associated with 3 parts of the world , América, Japan and Rússia to show the global impact.

Personally (you may disagree), I think they were already against mutants. They just pretended to be allies because, as Gyrich said, it became popular to be friendly to mutants. What Magneto did was lift the veil and let them proudly wear their real faces to the world.

Nerdy briefly getting into the whole mutants becoming dominant eventually brings up the thing that irks me in this season, everyone keeps calling non-mutants as humans and that mutants are not human. Even the heroes say that. I haven’t watched the original show in twenty years but I distinctly remember master mold explaining he was turning on humans cos his directive is to protect humans from mutants but mutants are humans so, therefore, his purpose is to protect humans from themselves. Like why is it the bloody sentinels get it but none of the main cast!? I am really interested in how the MCU is gonna handle mutants cos them coming so late and the world being cool with superpowers will make any hatred even dumber than it usually is with the “yes I love Spider-Man, Captain America and Thor the god alien but somehow I think you’re unnatural and scare me cos you can make little lights go off with your hands “

he's one of the VA from the bad batch i think

Also you know we already knew this going in like did yall forget this is the fifth season of a show that happened in the 90s they already crossed over with spiderman and cap ran with wolverine in 1945

Good point, but i hated that line about Magneto starting a war. Genosha was pretty good openeing salvo, specialy once you considered the conspirary on Bastion side. Besides Doom, Zemo, Val Cooper and maybe Madam Hidra, every single pearson on those TVs are a diferent pearson, from a diferent organizating, ranging from criminal sindicates, super villans and world goverments