all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 40 points 3 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 50 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    I think it's about half-assed gay representation. Like they just slap "gay" on a character and that's their entire personality. Is that what you mean about checklist diversity?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I get why people are critical of rainbow washing but when the fake support disappeared after Trump was elected it was really scary to see how fragile the movement is. So personally, I'll take someone trying and failing at representation over nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    so you'd rather be lied to and told everything is "o-gay" instead of them showing who they really are and you get to choose who you support?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I think when there's implicit consensus on a topic, it disempowers people who disagree from speaking out openly. Anytime someone speaks out, there's always a chance that anyone sitting on the fence would agree with them. I think that while rainbow washing was a flimsy shield, it was still a shield against bigotry because of the implied consensus of support and the disempowering of bigots from speaking out and potentially swaying anyone still on the fence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago
    [–] 21 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    dude... I fuckin hate this shit.

    for the past decade when I called it out I got called homophobic.

    fuck the haters. if you're going to bother mentioning the character is gay you better damn well show it and not just fucking use it as a cheap plot device.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Well, be careful what you ask for, because some dumb execs will take "show it" as, "make this character the biggest gay cliche that ever existed", which ... is harmful representation I'd say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    I'd prefer that over it being meaningless.

    This is a world where everyone is extremely accepting, no one cares this character is gay and they act the exact same as every other character but... let's remind the audience they're gay at every turn and it's somehow a disadvantage that never comes up.

    It's like when a girl character is written like a boy. Why make the distinction if it's not something the person being represented can relate to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    Why make the distinction? Exactly! They made no distinction, except for adding the token...

    While my example was warning against cliche extremes, you point at the exact other end of tokenization that exists in droves in modern media. Vapid, stupid, uncreative, and pointless "representation" that does nothing but assuage the ignorant and inflame the opposition.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    i mean i've met a few dozen of that dude just doing music. my experience is they tend to stop being as flagrant about their cliches, they just get more quiet. which fuck that, be who you are. if you're a walking cliche (like me) sometimes it's nice to see other walking cliches.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    You also need some sort physical gag, like the Triple Snap Z, or a model stance.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)