Does it upset you when a TVshow/Movie/Game etc, you like has the creators make one of the characters LGBT retroactively purely for agenda purposes?

Is people changing story/characters to be LGBT for agenda purposes in mid/long running series bad?


  • Total voters
    54

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,423
1,146
540
Define "changing." As in a character was previously straight but turned gay? It happens in real life, especially if you're a Republican. Or a character who's sexuality wasn't mentioned, you assumed they were straight, but then the plot contradicted your assumption, as is the case of Mr. Ratburn? Well that's your own fault for ascribing sexual orientations where none existed and then proceeding to get mad when you were wrong about it. Enjoy yelling at the clouds.

Also lol at "imagine if Rugrats was nothing but incest" as another hypothetical. Lay off the drugs dude.
 
Last edited:
  • Triggered
Reactions: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
Define "changing." As in a character was previously straight but turned gay? It happens in real life, especially if you're a Republican. Or a character who's sexuality wasn't mentioned, you assumed they were straight, but then the plot contradicted your assumption, as is the case of Mr. Ratburn? Well that's your own fault for ascribing sexual orientations where none existed and then proceeding to get mad when you were wrong about it. Enjoy yelling at the clouds.

Also lol at "imagine if Rugrats was nothing but incest" as another hypothetical. Lay off the drugs dude.
Frustrated leftist strikes again!
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
31,997
3,263
1,100
Everyone who thinks like a Nazi is a Nazi.
Everyone who thinks like a homophobe is a homophobe.

The problem is usually that people don't know what Nazis actually think, or in other words, what Nazi ideology is.

And similarly homophobes don't consider their homophobia homophobic. They just want to keep their world where LGBTQ people and issue are invisible and everything naturally adheres to the heteronormative state of the world.


To the privileged, equality appears like oppression.

The privileged in this case are heterosexuals and equality is the acceptance of LGBTQ and the celebration of them as part of the norm.

This can also be done with racism.
The privileged in this case are the ethnic majority and equality is the proper representation and the acceptance as part of the norm of ethnic minorities.

In either case this equality means that the privileged lose influence and no longer are in the position of embodying the sole concept of the norm, which they perceive as losing rights/oppression.
But thats an issue with their perspective.

But more and more people realize that this perspective is off.
Then they either change their stance or double down.
Usually doubling down means, for example in the case of racism: "I'm a nationalist, I don't hate other ethnicities, I just don't want them around, they should stay where they belong."
Which is just as racist btw.
these are all absurd talking points, it's almost gibberish
 
Last edited:

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
475
1,178
230
Everyone who thinks like a Nazi is a Nazi.
Everyone who thinks like a homophobe is a homophobe.

The problem is usually that people don't know what Nazis actually think, or in other words, what Nazi ideology is.

And similarly homophobes don't consider their homophobia homophobic. They just want to keep their world where LGBTQ people and issue are invisible and everything naturally adheres to the heteronormative state of the world.


To the privileged, equality appears like oppression.

The privileged in this case are heterosexuals and equality is the acceptance of LGBTQ and the celebration of them as part of the norm.

This can also be done with racism.
The privileged in this case are the ethnic majority and equality is the proper representation and the acceptance as part of the norm of ethnic minorities.

In either case this equality means that the privileged lose influence and no longer are in the position of embodying the sole concept of the norm, which they perceive as losing rights/oppression.
But thats an issue with their perspective.

But more and more people realize that this perspective is off.
Then they either change their stance or double down.
Usually doubling down means, for example in the case of racism: "I'm a nationalist, I don't hate other ethnicities, I just don't want them around, they should stay where they belong."
Which is just as racist btw.
That's a lot of text that you used to say absolutely nothing.

People just don't want more token characters that end up being poorly-written. Nobody liked Riri Williams (black female Iron Man) or Jane Foster (as female Thor) because they were shallow mary sues who fought equally-shallow strawman villians, all for the sake of pandering.

By contrast, people liked Miles Morales (black/biracial Spider-Man), Gwen Stacey (as female Spider-Man), and Gwen Poole (female Deadpool) because they were all their own unique characters with their own motivations and their own problems and their own flaws. They had the powerset of a different hero, but were their own characters who used those powers and superhero personas in situations that Peter Parker or Wade Wilson wouldn't have gotten into.

Creating or changing a character for the sake of diversity in and of itself has never been a good idea. If that opinion makes me on-par with Nazis and the KKK in your eyes, that's a delusion you'll have to deal with on your own.
 

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,393
177
550
munich
these are all absurd talking points, it's almost gibberish
I feel like you guys are always scared to actually argue, because you would just end up looking very dumb very quickly.
Whenever someone on here actually tried argue certain topics, it was quickly revealed that they knew next to nothing about it.
Like, I hear the usual arguments you see online all the time, but when it comes to actual understanding of the topics and an awareness of the academic debate that already took place around these topics, it quickly becomes clear that its just a bunch of internet shit posters I am talking to here.


Like in this case, you could make your point about what you think Nazi ideology is. Maybe you'll cite Dinesh D'Souza and claim the Nazis were actually left wing. (which is like the equivalent of claiming the earth is actually flat) But Nazi ideology is so well defined and documented from so many academic perspectives, from history, over economics, to sociological and psychological and political perspectives, its really best if you don't even try to argue here.
There is several dozen academic primary sources who documented and analyzed the Nazi regime in real time with and understanding of historic context no one today can emulate (Just imagine trying to view Nazism without the backdrop of WW2 and the Holocaust, thats not possible, but for these people back then it was possible, because there was almost a decade of Nazism before WW2 and the Holocaust.)

And the same with the rest of my comment about privilege. The privilege of the norm is a well established scientific concept that also permeates many academic fields.
Here is a more detailed write up on the concept.

"In the context of the theory, privileged people are considered to be "the norm", and, as such, gain invisibility and ease in society, with others being cast as inferior variants. Privileged people see themselves reflected throughout society both in mass media and face-to-face in their encounters with teachers, workplace managers and other authorities, which researchers argue leads to a sense of entitlement and the assumption that the privileged person will succeed in life, as well as protecting the privileged person from worry that they may face discrimination from people in positions of authority."

You can also try to argue against that, but essentially what you argue would boil down to a conspiracy theory about how several academic fields aren't credible and their work null and void.


So yeah, either way, if you wanted to argue with what I said you would have to take on several well established academic views and concepts.
For your own sake, its probably better if you just tell yourself its "almost gibberish" and leave it at that.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
I feel like you guys are always scared to actually argue, because you would just end up looking very dumb very quickly.
Whenever someone on here actually tried argue certain topics, it was quickly revealed that they knew next to nothing about it.
Like, I hear the usual arguments you see online all the time, but when it comes to actual understanding of the topics and an awareness of the academic debate that already took place around these topics, it quickly becomes clear that its just a bunch of internet shit posters I am talking to here.


Like in this case, you could make your point about what you think Nazi ideology is. Maybe you'll cite Dinesh D'Souza and claim the Nazis were actually left wing. (which is like the equivalent of claiming the earth is actually flat) But Nazi ideology is so well defined and documented from so many academic perspectives, from history, over economics, to sociological and psychological and political perspectives, its really best if you don't even try to argue here.
There is several dozen academic primary sources who documented and analyzed the Nazi regime in real time with and understanding of historic context no one today can emulate (Just imagine trying to view Nazism without the backdrop of WW2 and the Holocaust, thats not possible, but for these people back then it was possible, because there was almost a decade of Nazism before WW2 and the Holocaust.)

And the same with the rest of my comment about privilege. The privilege of the norm is a well established scientific concept that also permeates many academic fields.
Here is a more detailed write up on the concept.

"In the context of the theory, privileged people are considered to be "the norm", and, as such, gain invisibility and ease in society, with others being cast as inferior variants. Privileged people see themselves reflected throughout society both in mass media and face-to-face in their encounters with teachers, workplace managers and other authorities, which researchers argue leads to a sense of entitlement and the assumption that the privileged person will succeed in life, as well as protecting the privileged person from worry that they may face discrimination from people in positions of authority."

You can also try to argue against that, but essentially what you argue would boil down to a conspiracy theory about how several academic fields aren't credible and their work null and void.


So yeah, either way, if you wanted to argue with what I said you would have to take on several well established academic views and concepts.
For your own sake, its probably better if you just tell yourself its "almost gibberish" and leave it at that.
It's more that you're just re-hashing the same old retarded media and regressive leftist talking points that you've gobbled up uncritically. You think you're here educating us but you're not saying anything new and you're making arguments that have been refuted a thousand times before. I mean, you're still operating on this alternate timeline where the Mueller report confirmed your pre-conceived notions instead of taking it as the loss that it was. You're quite clearly an ideologue and I have learned that it's not fruitful to invest effort in engaging ideologues on their terms. I'd rather just point and laugh at you.

 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
31,997
3,263
1,100
no dude, i want to argue with someone who is thinking clearly, making reasonable points, without all the metafictive holier than thou bullshit

I feel like you guys are always scared to actually argue, because you would just end up looking very dumb very quickly.
Whenever someone on here actually tried argue certain topics, it was quickly revealed that they knew next to nothing about it.
Like, I hear the usual arguments you see online all the time, but when it comes to actual understanding of the topics and an awareness of the academic debate that already took place around these topics, it quickly becomes clear that its just a bunch of internet shit posters I am talking to here.


Like in this case, you could make your point about what you think Nazi ideology is. Maybe you'll cite Dinesh D'Souza and claim the Nazis were actually left wing. (which is like the equivalent of claiming the earth is actually flat) But Nazi ideology is so well defined and documented from so many academic perspectives, from history, over economics, to sociological and psychological and political perspectives, its really best if you don't even try to argue here.
There is several dozen academic primary sources who documented and analyzed the Nazi regime in real time with and understanding of historic context no one today can emulate (Just imagine trying to view Nazism without the backdrop of WW2 and the Holocaust, thats not possible, but for these people back then it was possible, because there was almost a decade of Nazism before WW2 and the Holocaust.)

And the same with the rest of my comment about privilege. The privilege of the norm is a well established scientific concept that also permeates many academic fields.
Here is a more detailed write up on the concept.

"In the context of the theory, privileged people are considered to be "the norm", and, as such, gain invisibility and ease in society, with others being cast as inferior variants. Privileged people see themselves reflected throughout society both in mass media and face-to-face in their encounters with teachers, workplace managers and other authorities, which researchers argue leads to a sense of entitlement and the assumption that the privileged person will succeed in life, as well as protecting the privileged person from worry that they may face discrimination from people in positions of authority."

You can also try to argue against that, but essentially what you argue would boil down to a conspiracy theory about how several academic fields aren't credible and their work null and void.


So yeah, either way, if you wanted to argue with what I said you would have to take on several well established academic views and concepts.
For your own sake, its probably better if you just tell yourself its "almost gibberish" and leave it at that.
i dunno where to fucking begin with this post, the first paragraph is all nonsense that i will ignore

re: second paragraph, the onus is yours to tell me what you think a nazi is, as you brought it up, not for you to reverse engineer the discussion to get me to tell you what i think nazi ideology isn't, because make no mistake bro, that is what you are doing

a nazi was a member of the national socialist german workers party, they were murdered by great men like my grandfather

if you wanna talk about neo-nazism, we can have that discussion

the rest i cannot reply to as it's all social scientific nonsense

recently three scholars wrote many fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and those conclusions were wildly celebrated by the established academic elite, befitting the narratives and biases they wanted to see; maybe that's conspiratorial thinking because those papers were acting in bad faith

derp

EVERYONE WHO THINKS THING IS THING
 
Last edited:

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,393
177
550
munich
re: second paragraph, the onus is yours to tell me what you think a nazi is
Nazis believe in:
- National identity and cultural identity above all.
- A strong state to protect it
- Freedom within the limits of the general interests of nation and culture
- Germany(or respective other country) first
- We are better than everyone else and should therefore only concern us with our own goals, regardless of the interests of others

This was the core philosophy. Basically a form of populist, authoritarian nationalism.
WW2, the Holocaust, eugenics etc were all just specific consequences of this ideology.

You find Nazi ideology in mainstream politics in countless countries today, but its rarely identified as Nazi ideology because many people have created this caricature of inherent evil out of Nazis and don't even understand what kind of ideology it actually was that infected millions upon millions of people and enabled them to commit the atrocities of WW2.

a nazi was a member of the national socialist german workers party, they were murdered by great men like my grandfather
Thats wrong. Most germans were Nazis, but only a fraction of them were members of the NSDAP.

if you wanna talk about neo-nazism, we can have that discussion
Where do you draw the line between nationalists and neonazis?


the rest i cannot reply to as it's all social scientific nonsense
As I said, several academic fields brushed away just like that...

recently three scholars wrote many fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and those conclusions were wildly celebrated by the established academic elite, befitting the narratives and biases they wanted to see; maybe that's conspiratorial thinking because those papers were acting in bad faith
Which happens in every field... Does that mean you don't take any one them seriously?

This exposes problems with certain journals rather than problems in a certain field.
There is an entire industry around faux peer reviews, mostly interconnected with big businesses like pharma and fossil fuel who regularly publish nonsense defending their products.
A few months german public media uncovered a global net of these faux-journals, unfortunately I couldn't find an english source: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/fakescience-101.html


But I expect you'll just find the next reason not to take science seriously without even looking at it and understanding it.
 

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,393
177
550
munich
I argued with you, you ignored it.
Your point was examples xyz are bad, which is already showing a double standard, because thats a measure you would never apply to anything that fits the norm. If a straight character is bad its just a bad character, but if a gay character is bad its suddenly an issue about agendas and forced ideologies and whatnot.
Also keep in mind that this content isn't made for you and your personal taste isn't what this is about.

Remember the discussion around how Deacon from Days Gone is generic and boring because he is a straight white male. Which was pretty stupid, but also pretty limited.
Imagine if that was the discussion we would have about every straight white character who is not amazing.
Thats the situation with LGBTQ characters. Because they are not the norm they have to meet unusual standards standards, there is a special spotlight on them.

This just reinforces my point that there is an unfair double standard thats rooted in homophobia. I mean, why else would you pay so close attention just because a character is gay? Why else so much outrage?
 

RedVIper

Member
Jun 13, 2017
1,253
1,369
220
Everyone who thinks like a Nazi is a Nazi.
Everyone who thinks like a homophobe is a homophobe.

The problem is usually that people don't know what Nazis actually think, or in other words, what Nazi ideology is.

And similarly homophobes don't consider their homophobia homophobic. They just want to keep their world where LGBTQ people and issue are invisible and everything naturally adheres to the heteronormative state of the world.


To the privileged, equality appears like oppression.

The privileged in this case are heterosexuals and equality is the acceptance of LGBTQ and the celebration of them as part of the norm.

This can also be done with racism.
The privileged in this case are the ethnic majority and equality is the proper representation and the acceptance as part of the norm of ethnic minorities.

In either case this equality means that the privileged lose influence and no longer are in the position of embodying the sole concept of the norm, which they perceive as losing rights/oppression.
But thats an issue with their perspective.

But more and more people realize that this perspective is off.
Then they either change their stance or double down.
Usually doubling down means, for example in the case of racism: "I'm a nationalist, I don't hate other ethnicities, I just don't want them around, they should stay where they belong."
Which is just as racist btw.
I got a bingo here guys.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
Your point was examples xyz are bad, which is already showing a double standard, because thats a measure you would never apply to anything that fits the norm. If a straight character is bad its just a bad character, but if a gay character is bad its suddenly an issue about agendas and forced ideologies and whatnot.
Also keep in mind that this content isn't made for you and your personal taste isn't what this is about.

Remember the discussion around how Deacon from Days Gone is generic and boring because he is a straight white male. Which was pretty stupid, but also pretty limited.
Imagine if that was the discussion we would have about every straight white character who is not amazing.
Thats the situation with LGBTQ characters. Because they are not the norm they have to meet unusual standards standards, there is a special spotlight on them.

This just reinforces my point that there is an unfair double standard thats rooted in homophobia. I mean, why else would you pay so close attention just because a character is gay? Why else so much outrage?
This guy jacks it in San Diego
 

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,393
177
550
munich
This is an oxymoron. Not coincidentally, this is also what most people in this topic complain about.
Why?
Wouldn't you say that any random romantic comedy is (usually) a celebration heterosexual relationships?
At least thats what I mean with the term "celebration" here. A presentation in a positive light.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
Why?
Wouldn't you say that any random romantic comedy is (usually) a celebration heterosexual relationships?
At least thats what I mean with the term "celebration" here. A presentation in a positive light.
Heterosexuality is the norm because it is how we continue our species, you braindead zealot. That doesn't mean that homosexuals can't exist and live their lives in peace with equality under the law.
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
475
1,178
230
Your point was examples xyz are bad, which is already showing a double standard, because thats a measure you would never apply to anything that fits the norm. If a straight character is bad its just a bad character, but if a gay character is bad its suddenly an issue about agendas and forced ideologies and whatnot.
Also keep in mind that this content isn't made for you and your personal taste isn't what this is about.
They were bad because they were made to pander. Their actual character was thrown to the wayside in favor of having traits that they thought would sell to the SJW crowd. Turns out the SJW comic-buying crowd wasn’t very big since the comics sold like shit and when Marvel saw that they promptly canceled them.

Which means it’s not just my personal taste. Sales numbers back it up.

Remember the discussion around how Deacon from Days Gone is generic and boring because he is a straight white male. Which was pretty stupid, but also pretty limited.
Imagine if that was the discussion we would have about every straight white character who is not amazing.
Thats the situation with LGBTQ characters. Because they are not the norm they have to meet unusual standards standards, there is a special spotlight on them.
There’s people that have conversations like that all the time. It’s called Tumblr and it’s cancer. Every time there’s a straight white character it’s “why isn’t he a polyamourous genderfluid biracial demigirl with vitiligo?!”

I’m not criticizing the characters for being gay or female or whatever. I’m questioning the motives behind making a character those traits when it has no relevance to the story, isn’t part of the character’s growth, and isn’t inherent to the setting.

This just reinforces my point that there is an unfair double standard thats rooted in homophobia. I mean, why else would you pay so close attention just because a character is gay? Why else so much outrage?
“Everyone who doesn’t like bad writing and token characters MUST secretly be a bigot.”

How about you fill this out since your dumb ass wants to act like a clown:

 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

Guynamedbilly

Member
Feb 28, 2018
222
283
200
Why?
Wouldn't you say that any random romantic comedy is (usually) a celebration heterosexual relationships?
At least thats what I mean with the term "celebration" here. A presentation in a positive light.
No, I wouldn't say it's a celebration. I would say it's what most people can relate to, thus it is the norm. I have no problem with gay movies or trans movies existing for people that can relate to them, but that's not the norm. To pretend otherwise is simply willful ignorance.

To turn things into gay or trans etc...relatable things, should naturally provoke a response from the people who are now excluded.
 
Last edited:

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,393
177
550
munich
They were bad because they were made to pander.
But apparently not to you.

Their actual character was thrown to the wayside in favor of having traits that they thought would sell to the SJW crowd. Turns out the SJW comic-buying crowd wasn’t very big since the comics sold like shit and when Marvel saw that they promptly canceled them.
Imagine if everytime a company tried something and it didn't work it would create such an upheaval.

Which means it’s not just my personal taste. Sales numbers back it up.
And The Last Of Us 2 will sell gangbusters and some will still whine about having a gay agenda forced down their throats.


There’s people that have conversations like that all the time. It’s called Tumblr and it’s cancer. Every time there’s a straight white character it’s “why isn’t he a polyamourous genderfluid biracial demigirl with vitiligo?!”
So you mean like GAF but the other way round?

I’m not criticizing the characters for being gay or female or whatever. I’m questioning the motives behind making a character those traits when it has no relevance to the story, isn’t part of the character’s growth, and isn’t inherent to the setting.
Are you also always questioning the motives behind any straight, white, male character? If not, why not?


“Everyone who doesn’t like bad writing and token characters MUST secretly be a bigot.”
I would argue that, at least in video games, gay characters are on average much better written than straight characters.
Mainly because the average straight character in video games is fucking trash.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssolitare

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
475
1,178
230
But apparently not to you.


Imagine if everytime a company tried something and it didn't work it would create such an upheaval.


And The Last Of Us 2 will sell gangbusters and some will still whine about having a gay agenda forced down their throats.



So you mean like GAF but the other way round?


Are you also always questioning the motives behind any straight, white, male character? If not, why not?



I would argue that, at least in video games, gay characters are on average much better written than straight characters.
Mainly because the average straight character in video games is fucking trash.
You literally didn’t say anything in this posts except “nuh-uh!”. You didn’t challenge any of the things I said, or made an actual counterargument. Just a bunch of self-righteous snarky one-sentence responses. I’ll humor you and answer the one things that resembled an actual response.

Are you also always questioning the motives behind any straight, white, male character? If not, why not?
If a character who is clearly terrible is created, of course I’m going to question what decisions were made along the way and why they were made. It’s called critical thinking. You should try it some time.

If not, I would recommend putting these on:


 
Last edited:

Rran

Member
Jan 2, 2013
650
126
430
amugsblog.blogspot.com
I haven't seen anyone on here imply that having a gay character in a work of fiction is a bad thing. No one says The Simpsons is pandering because of Smithers, or The Office is pandering because of Oscar, or any other hundreds of shows, movies and books that have featured gay characters for the entirety of our lives. Doubly so for black, Mexican, Jewish etc characters. And moreso still for women, which star in many fan-favorite series from Alien to Parks & Rec to Metroid.

This topic is specifically about retroactively making an established character gay just to appeal to a certain demographic--and, as I understood the topic, doing so once that work has already ended. That's a big difference from just featuring non-white and/or non-male and/or non-straight characters and letting them stand on their own merits.
 
Last edited:

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,393
177
550
munich
You literally didn’t say anything in this posts except “nuh-uh!”.
No, I pointed out why your criticism represents a double standard. Apart from that also cherry picking. You re talking about a few examples from freaking comics here if I got that right. I didn't even know they still made proper comics.

You didn’t challenge any of the things I said, or made an actual counterargument.
You just said they were pandering (which is your subjective view on a character you probably can't identify with) and then cited sales as if it would back up your point.
To which I responded: "Imagine if every time a company tried something and it didn't work out it would create such an upheaval."
... to illustrate the double standard and the constructed nature of your argument.

Just a bunch of self-righteous snarky one-sentence responses.
You just didn't understand them. Sometimes one sentence is enough to offset the logic of an argument.


If a character who is clearly terrible is created, of course I’m going to question what decisions were made along the way and why they were made.
But you don't.
You take a much closer look at LGBT characters and hold them to completely different standards than you would the average non-LGBT character.

It’s called critical thinking. You should try it some time.
Shouldn't your critical thinking lead you towards demanding more LGBTQ characters? Since you are so unhappy with these ones you saw so far and since representation is definitely an important factor in entertainment media, the only logical conclusion is demanding more and better LGBTQ characters.


But how would you want them? If their sexuality is part of the story you think it is forced. If their sexuality is not part of the story you think it's an unjust addition that is reflective of an agenda.

How do you actually like your LGBTQ characters in media?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
I haven't seen anyone on here imply that having a gay character in a work of fiction is a bad thing. No one says The Simpsons is pandering because of Smithers, or The Office is pandering because of Oscar, or any other hundreds of shows, movies and books that have featured gay characters for the entirety of our lives. Doubly so for black, Mexican, Jewish etc characters. And moreso still for women, which star in many fan-favorite series from Alien to Parks & Rec to Metroid.

This topic is specifically about retroactively making an established character gay just to appeal to a certain demographic--and, as I understood the topic, doing so once that work has already ended. That's a big difference from just featuring non-white and/or non-male and/or non-straight characters and letting them stand on their own merits.
Next up on VICE: why the concept of pandering is an alt-right conspiracy theory.
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
475
1,178
230
You just said they were pandering (which is your subjective view on a character you probably can't identify with) and then cited sales as if it would back up your point.
To which I responded: "Imagine if every time a company tried something and it didn't work out it would create such an upheaval."
... to illustrate the double standard and the constructed nature of your argument.
Can you please clarify what you mean by “upheaval”?
Like, they saw that their strategy wasn’t working, so they stopped trying it.
Of course they’re going to choose to stop bleeding money.
When a character is made based on how many oppression points can be fit on them, chances are that it’s a shit character.
Nobody wants to read/play/watch a story based on a shit character.


But you don't.
You take a much closer look at LGBT characters and hold them to completely different standards than you would the average non-LGBT character.
And how would you know that?
Seriously, are you going to claim that you know how I feel about every character in existence?
Stop making shit up. This thread is about token characters, so I’m talking about token characters.


Shouldn't your critical thinking lead you towards demanding more LGBTQ characters? Since you are so unhappy with these ones you saw so far and since representation is definitely an important factor in entertainment media, the only logical conclusion is demanding more and better LGBTQ characters.

But how would you want them? If their sexuality is part of the story you think it is forced. If their sexuality is not part of the story you think it's an unjust addition that is reflective of an agenda.

How do you actually like your LGBTQ characters in media?
Characters that are LGBT aren’t inherently better.
I don’t agree that representation is important in entertainment.
Race and sexuality aren’t criteria that I use to decide whether I like or dislike a character. That’s dumb.
Can you really not identify with a character that isn’t exactly like you?
Usually the characters I identify with are unlike me.
Superficial traits like skin color or sexuality or even gender are irrelevant compared to personality and motives.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,393
177
550
munich
No, I wouldn't say it's a celebration. I would say it's what most people can relate to, thus it is the norm. I have no problem with gay movies or trans movies existing for people that can relate to them, but that's not the norm.
Why not?
The stories are about fellow human beings.



To turn things into gay or trans etc...relatable things, should naturally provoke a response from the people who are now excluded.
Yes, it should provoke interest. Interest in a perspective they might not know about.


You act like they only media you consume is about people who are exactly like you and otherwise you couldn't relate to anything.
 

Guynamedbilly

Member
Feb 28, 2018
222
283
200
Why not?
The stories are about fellow human beings.




Yes, it should provoke interest. Interest in a perspective they might not know about.


You act like they only media you consume is about people who are exactly like you and otherwise you couldn't relate to anything.
Because I don't want to. Because I have no interest in butt stuff. Because I already have enough interests. Any reason is a good one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
3,091
1,354
300
Finland
Nazis believe in:
- National identity and cultural identity above all.
- A strong state to protect it
- Freedom within the limits of the general interests of nation and culture
- Germany(or respective other country) first
- We are better than everyone else and should therefore only concern us with our own goals, regardless of the interests of others
Rapist aren't bad because they like sex but because they rape.

With your logic you could say all people who like sex are rapists because rapists like sex.

The list you wrote isn't inherently bad in itself. It's the shit they did that made their party evil.
Defending and protecting your home is not evil, but when you suddenly decide to imprison and execute your guests because you want to protect your home, then we can talk if what you are doing is evil. But just because someone went way overboard with it doesn't mean protecting your home is a sign of you being someone who would do any evil.
 

royox

Member
Nov 3, 2013
3,543
1,135
415
32
Ohhh, only 85% homophobes who think that representation is "an ideology that being forced down their throats".

Really a forum to be proud of, @EviLore
Nobody is being homophobic here. Almost every post I read here was about good or bad characters or sudden character changes due to the need of following an agenda. Nobody here is having a problem with LGBTIQLRST characters, people here is talking about characters that SUDDENTLY become gay out of nowhere after years/seasons just for the sake of pandering, for Political Correctness. He have many good examples on this thread about well portrayed LGBITQKR characters but of course you have the REEEEEEEEEsetera hivemind way of thinking inserted in your brain and "everything that's not 100% my opinion is a nazi".

Everyone who thinks like a Nazi is a Nazi.
Everyone who thinks like a homophobe is a homophobe.

The problem is usually that people don't know what Nazis actually think, or in other words, what Nazi ideology is.

And similarly homophobes don't consider their homophobia homophobic. They just want to keep their world where LGBTQ people and issue are invisible and everything naturally adheres to the heteronormative state of the world.


To the privileged, equality appears like oppression.

The privileged in this case are heterosexuals and equality is the acceptance of LGBTQ and the celebration of them as part of the norm.

This can also be done with racism.
The privileged in this case are the ethnic majority and equality is the proper representation and the acceptance as part of the norm of ethnic minorities.

In either case this equality means that the privileged lose influence and no longer are in the position of embodying the sole concept of the norm, which they perceive as losing rights/oppression.
But thats an issue with their perspective.

But more and more people realize that this perspective is off.
Then they either change their stance or double down.
Usually doubling down means, for example in the case of racism: "I'm a nationalist, I don't hate other ethnicities, I just don't want them around, they should stay where they belong."
Which is just as racist btw.
Your post:
-Hitler had a moustache
-Royox has a moustache
-Royox is Hitler
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: matt404au

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,064
3,644
250
Nazis believe in:
- National identity and cultural identity above all.
- A strong state to protect it
- Freedom within the limits of the general interests of nation and culture
- Germany(or respective other country) first
- We are better than everyone else and should therefore only concern us with our own goals, regardless of the interests of others
Wow, you just described....97% of soverign nations?

do yourself a favor and actually read up on these concepts. Who the Nazi's were and what they believed in.

Read books. Not just Wikipedia and Twitter.
 
Last edited:

royox

Member
Nov 3, 2013
3,543
1,135
415
32
I would argue that, at least in video games, gay characters are on average much better written than straight characters.
Mainly because the average straight character in video games is fucking trash.

It's examples time!!!

Horrible Gay characters I remember:

-Steve Cortez (Mass Effect 3): a gay pilot that lost his fiancee on the Reaper invasion. If Male Shepard acts AS A FRIEND (literally as if he was taking to Wrex) towards him it will trigger a scene where out of nowhere he tries to kiss him. Literally DAYS after crying about how sad he was. A character that's only in the game so m.Shep can have a gay romance

-Dorian (Dragon Age Inquisition)
MY ALL TIME FAVOURITE!! His whole character arc and quest is: "I'm gay, all the problems I had in my life are because I'm gay, my family hates me cause I'm gay, hey you looking great today <wink wink>, i wish I was not gay but i am gay". In a world where NOBODY gives a fuck about gays.

-Kaidan Alenko (Mass Effect trilogy):
ME1: --
ME2:--
ME3: I'M SO GAY SHEPARD CAN WE BANG???

-That random guy on ME Andromeda: Hi pathfinder, thanks for saving me....BY THE WAY I'M TRANS LOL

Dude BioWare is so bad at this xD. The most you want to pander certain people, the most you want to "demonstrate how progressive and cool" you are the worse characters you write. Because when the first thing you think about a character you are creating is "OK and this is going to be the GAY character" you are making his sexuality his most important trait as a character making it bland and uninteresting, a token you only put there just "because we needed one". Same with race or any other "lol representation" stuff.


Of course they did really good Gay Characters. One of the best I remember was Miss Chambers (ME2). She looks like she's hitting on Shepard and even drops the "may I go to your bedroom and have some dinner?" So the player thinks she can be a love interest for Male Shep, and if you force a love interaction she says "oh sorry, i like women, I just needed a friend" and the rest of the night is just Shep and Her as friends playing chess and eating steak. Like real people behaviour. And that's never spoken again, and it's not a big deal, and her whole character arc goes around her relationship with Cerberus and not her sexuality. That's a good gay character, one of the most loved Crew members of the ME saga if you ask the fans and her best scene involves a god damn toothbrush.
 

Shelbutt

Gold Member
Apr 20, 2019
136
208
325
27
North Carolina
I don't care what someone likes or doesn't like, as long as they aren't hurting someone, but it does get on my nerves when a character is LGBT just for the sake of them being it and they literally have no other characteristics than that. I see a lot of creators building characters solely off of their sexuality and not adding anything else. Like, ok they're gay. What else? To me sexuality should be in the description, not the main focus. Unless the story brings that up. If that makes sense at all
 
  • Like
Reactions: matt404au

royox

Member
Nov 3, 2013
3,543
1,135
415
32
I don't care what someone likes or doesn't like, as long as they aren't hurting someone, but it does get on my nerves when a character is LGBT just for the sake of them being it and they literally have no other characteristics than that. I see a lot of creators building characters solely off of their sexuality and not adding anything else. Like, ok they're gay. What else? To me sexuality should be in the description, not the main focus. Unless the story brings that up. If that makes sense at all
In fact most videogame or movie characters could be gay but they never talk or say shit about their sexuality because it's not an important trait for a character. Maybe Frodo was gay, Or Master Chief, or Samus, or Doomguy....we don't know, but nowadays SJW want every character screaming "IM GAY" every 5 minutes or they will feel under represented.
 

Shelbutt

Gold Member
Apr 20, 2019
136
208
325
27
North Carolina
In fact most videogame or movie characters could be gay but they never talk or say shit about their sexuality because it's not an important trait for a character. Maybe Frodo was gay, Or Master Chief, or Samus, or Doomguy....we don't know, but nowadays SJW want every character screaming "IM GAY" every 5 minutes or they will feel under represented.
"thank god you're here commander, we just got wor-"
"-I'M GAY. DID YOU KNOW I'M GAY, I TOTALLY LOVE DICKS"
"....um ok anyway we're being overrun by th-"
"YEAH DICKS ARE SO GREAT MAN JUST SHOVE'EM UP MY BUM"
 

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
3,288
3,787
365
gonna say no because it has literally never happened in anything i have been interested in. im imagining that if it does happen, the character wasn't really that fleshed out to begin with.

what DOES piss me off is companies holding up onscreen representation over offscreen. this is in everything from Marvel to Star Wars, none of these films have women or POCs or LGBTQs involved in writing, directing, music, cinematography, etc. yet we hear constantly how woke they are and how great they are. they are not. they are just exploiting minorities while doing the same old shit. in fact it is worse than if they didn't try, because the people writing these things are largely idiot white male feminist who feel the need to overcompensate and show how woke they are by indulging in Identity Politics.

if you actually had gay people or black women writing a Star Wars instead of a dumbfuck like Rian Johnson trying to be woke, you would probably have something interesting, something we can learn from. you wouldn't have characters acting like idiots to prove a point. you wouldn't have minorities shoved to the side and used only for token status.

as is, it's all just fake PR. never listen to these "diversity" initiatives until you look at who is behind the camera, who actually has the power. in every case it is the status quo merely pretending to wield diversity as a shield. companies purposefully do this so that they can avoid genuine criticism and discussion, and in 30 years people will look back on these films and think they are as backwards as when we look back on stuff from the 70s and 80s. i guarantee.
 
Last edited:

Super Mario

Member
Nov 12, 2016
837
901
250
Watching beauty and the beast remake, the interracial and gay couples were completely out of place. Clear agenda push.

It's like having gingers as Wakanda natives in Black Panther.
 

Eiknarf

Member
Mar 25, 2019
181
112
170
like when Social Justice Warrior Hollywood went on changing the new Beauty and the Beast to include blacks, Asians, gays, and transgender people?
Yeah, because that fairy tale is European, set in France. There were no blacks, asians or gays in the original tale nor in the Disney cartoon remake.

Why is it ok to change that narrative this way but inappropriate to use Western actors (Scarlet Johansson) in, say, Ghost in a Shell?

Hypocrisy much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: oagboghi2

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,423
1,146
540
like when Social Justice Warrior Hollywood went on changing the new Beauty and the Beast to include blacks, Asians, gays, and transgender people?
Yeah, because that fairy tale is European, set in France. There were no blacks, asians or gays in the original tale nor in the Disney cartoon remake.

Why is it ok to change that narrative this way but inappropriate to use Western actors (Scarlet Johansson) in, say, Ghost in a Shell?

Hypocrisy much?
Yes god forbid a story about a beast-man who's life is linked to the petals of a rose from a curse has any historical inaccuracies in relation to racial compositions. Calling a color swap "changing the narrative" makes me think don't understand what the word "narrative" means.

Also lol @ this "gay people don't exist in France" thing.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2007
3,942
235
895
Just read the books / play the video games / watch the movie / etc. for what it is. Follow the language used in the context itself, and don't bother yourself about random fan-fictions after the fact.
If the creator decides to retcon something, why be bothered by it? Retcons have about a 99% chance of being nonsense, based on history. Seriously, can you name a single good retcon? Hell, if you can name one, can you name two or three? It's simply not something to pay attention to.

I don't see the point in becoming so involved in a fictional universe that a change in a character bothers me. If that kind of thing bothers you, consider yourself lucky. I'm out here wondering where the payment for my kids' college funds will come from, and you're here wondering why Dumbledore is gay after the fact.

Don't let the bullshit get to you. If you focus on that kind of thing, you'll never be happy in life.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
Yes god forbid a story about a beast-man who's life is linked to the petals of a rose from a curse has any historical inaccuracies in relation to racial compositions. Calling a color swap "changing the narrative" makes me think don't understand what the word "narrative" means.

Also lol @ this "gay people don't exist in France" thing.
Frustrated Leftist completely missing the point and tilting at windmills again.
 
Jan 18, 2019
249
361
270
When it's put in a show aimed at children, that does piss me off. Stop trying to push your degenerate behavior on impressionable minds.
 
Last edited: