176 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Do people even know what this term means and applies to anymore?

The simple act of making a character gay, whether the character in question is established or not, is not political correctness in itself. It must be motivated by fear of the possibility of offending a minority group.

Almost always political correctness in entertainment is achieved and indicated by a company putting as little effort as possible into the content created to please the minority group and making sure it can be glanced over as insignificant and unintrusive by those not within the minority group. That's all it takes and anything more is unnecessary. DC here is going beyond the call and making an "iconic" character gay which is obviously going beyond the template of political correctness. It is not going beyond a publicity stunt, however.

I have no idea how "hype" can be politically correct in the entertainment industry. Are people going to pretend to be excited for something? Hype *generating* can use political correctness, but this is just news sites impartially reporting a story from one, passive interview Q&A.

I personally think PC is a good thing in society when taken by its basic fundamentals and not to the extreme. It's why we stop using words that offend certain groups. The N word, for example, became a no-no word due to PC as even though it was once considered to be just a common slang to refer to African Americans they eventually came to see the term as deragatory thus making the rest of society who still saw the word as nothing but harmless slang fear using it. Through that fear (and idiots, often also bigots, pissing about their rights to use the term being silenced) that offensive word became flat-out inappropriate to say. We say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" when talking to large groups of diverse people because it makes them all feel included whatever seasonal holidays they happen to celebrate. PC breeds more respectful, controlled behavior and discourages us to exclude others because of differences.

So what you think is supposedly more correct than what I believe?

I care little if DC is making a fictional character to be gay; simply question the motivation behind it. And my aplogies to Quicksilver; twas Northstar from Alpha that had all the sim type of hype those many years ago.

Modifié par Elhanan, 24 mai 2012 - 10:58 .

[Homebound]

why should this even b a thing in comics anyways? magnetos kids were sexing it up while wolverine watched in the bushes at one point. but gay marriage, nooooo we cant have THAT.

[Maria Caliban]

Elhanan wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...


They specifically said male and gay.

Nope, they are retconning the sexuality.

I'm calling it: Jimmy Olsen

Decent guess.

I do not follow comics currently, but would Robin/ Nightwing be viable as an actual heroic type?

Think this all Politically Correct hype myself, but I hope it goes better than the Quicksilver reveal for the sake of all fans.

I could see Tim Drake Robin as gay.

HoonDing wrote...

Elton John used to be married to a woman, too.

DC Comics had a reboot not long ago. I strongly suspect that they knew who they were going to make gay before they did the reboot. It wouldn't make sense to show Aquaman in a loving relationship with his wife in #1 and have him gay in #13.

Alternatively, there are iconic male characters who haven't been attached to any women since the reboot.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 25 mai 2012 - 12:31 .

[Clover Rider]

The reason DC didn't get rid of Aquaman and Mera's relationship is because their relationship is the best relationship of DC.

Modifié par Some Geth, 25 mai 2012 - 01:22 .

[Cutlass Jack]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I could see Tim Drake Robin as gay. 

That won't happen though since DC's current openly gay male character (Bunker) is in the current Teen Titans with him. And they already established that Bunker thinks Robin is attractive but knows he really has a thing for Wonder Girl.

Dick Grayson has already slept with women in his current new 52 book, so that rules him out as purely gay too.

Based on the hints so far, it won't be any of the Robins since the only one that hasn't appeared post-52 is Stephanie Brown, and they said the reveal was male.

I'm sticking with my Wally West guess for now since I heard there was a proposal about how to bring him back into the current continuity at about the same time I heard this rumor.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 25 mai 2012 - 02:30 .

[Blacklash93]

Elhanan wrote...
So what you think is supposedly more correct than what I believe?

In my opinion it is. Becuase it's, you know, my opinion. If you can come up with a defense of your statement instead misguidedly accusing me of belittling your opinion in a short sentence then be my guest.

That last paragraph in the quote was just my two cents (rant) on the whole PC thing, largely irrelevant to the my point that it's very unlikely PC has anything to do with this decision and I'm pretty sure you knew that.

A story or character meant to generate buzz and publicity is not PC. It's a publicity stunt. But people throwing this term around to things it doesn't apply to doesn't surprise me in the least. PC essentially has become a buzzterm used to criticize any controversial minority being included in any popular series or franchises.

For example, idiots applied PC to the "all bi" direction of DA2 when common sense dictates it doesn't apply since no one would be even remotely offended by them not including it. The potential to offend is what defines PC and expectation is what defines anyone's capacity to be offended. Considering that no one expected all bi romances you can safely assume that no one would be offended if they weren't there and thus PC does not apply. Same applies here. No one expected or asked to make a popular or specific DC icon gay so no one could be offended if whoever is supposed to be gay was not. DC is making this decision of its own accord for its own, internal reasons.

This isn't even getting into how "hype" can be PC. I find the thought of that kind of ridiculous.

But like I've just seen, if DC is making a character that hasn't been established in this DC continuity gay then I don't have a problem with decision in itself on the basis of integrity of the characters.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 25 mai 2012 - 02:41 .

[Elhanan]

Blacklash93 wrote...

In my opinion it is. Becuase it's, you know, my opinion. If you can come up with a defense of your statement instead misguidedly accusing me of belittling your opinion in a short sentence then be my guest.

That last paragraph in the quote was just my two cents (rant) on the whole PC thing, largely irrelevant to the my point that it's very unlikely PC has anything to do with this decision and I'm pretty sure you knew that.

A story or character meant to generate buzz and publicity is not PC. It's a publicity stunt. But people throwing this term around to things it doesn't apply to doesn't surprise me in the least. PC essentially has become a buzzterm used to criticize any controversial minority being included in any popular series or franchises.

For example, idiots applied PC to the "all bi" direction of DA2 when common sense dictates it doesn't apply since no one would be even remotely offended by them not including it. The potential to offend is what defines PC and expectation is what defines anyone's capacity to be offended. Considering that no one expected all bi romances you can safely assume that no one would be offended if they weren't there and thus PC does not apply. Same applies here. No one expected or asked to make a popular or specific DC icon gay so no one could be offended if whoever is supposed to be gay was not. DC is making this decision of its own accord for its own, internal reasons.

This isn't even getting into how "hype" can be PC. I find the thought of that kind of ridiculous.

But like I've just seen, if DC is making a character that hasn't been established in this DC continuity gay then I don't have a problem with decision in itself on the basis of integrity of the characters.

Perhaps this difference of opinion is brought on by varied defintions, as I believe the one you offered is too narrow; there are others.

From an entry in Dictiobary.com:


politically correct

Also, PC or p.c. Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background.....

The hype being mentioned is DC pointing to themselves and saying, "Look here!". Sorry, but this does not interest me.

Neither did any of the romantic options of DA2 other than the failed one with Aveline, be it gay or not. But I do not recall Bioware placing emphasis on the issue, other than offering romantic options; correct me if I am wrong. I enjoyed the game, and was pleased that all of these romances were optional.

Personally, I much prefer the story of Marvel aiding a deaf child than the one of DC trying to champion a gay hero, but that is my opinion.

Modifié par Elhanan, 25 mai 2012 - 03:05 .

[GodWood]

Stupid B.S, P.C publicity stunt. Characters shouldn't be changed purely for the sake of pleasing minority groups or for having 'equal representation' or any crap like that. A character should be gay because he was written as gay and the whole thing shouldn't be a stupid spectacle.

But really, I haven't read a single DC comic in my life so I really don't care.

[Ecaiki]

I find the whole notion of not being able to see someone as gay as odd, and potentially offensive.   Mostly because it speaks volumes about what people seem to think gay is, and the over importance placed on orientation.

Lets take Superman as an example; do you really think he would be any different if he were chasing Jimmy instead of Lois?  Because I can tell you from experience that the only difference would be him chasing Jimmy, he'd still be the heroic boy scout we all know and like.

As for my guess; no idea, but I like the idea that Batman is Gothamsexual.  

[Blacklash93]

Elhanan wrote...

Also, PC or p.c. Showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone, especially with respect to gender, race, or ethnic background.....

The hype being mentioned is DC pointing to themselves and saying, "Look here!". Sorry, but this does not interest me.

Personally, I much prefer the story of Marvel aiding a deaf child than the one of DC trying to champion a gay hero, but that is my opinion.

Any textbook dictionary would not encompass such a definition - only language and conduct motivated by avoiding offense to hot-button groups. It's using *correct* language and conduct to be as *politically* inoffensive as possible. Thus political correctness was coined. This definition does not even fit the structure of the term.

Also, a term that refers to attempts to make a supporting statement or aid a movement against discrimination and prejudice already exists. It's called "political advocacy".

And we actually don't know if DC is intending to say "Look here!". They probably know it will cause a buzz, making it possible they are trying out a publicity stunt, but really all they've been doing is honestly responding to interview questions about it and haven't brought it up unless asked. Not enough to go on from their part. But... then a lot of news outlets report on it and it's suddenly DC's fault it's being made to be such a big deal.

Come to think of it, I know plenty of shows/movies/comics that have addressed issues of such as race and creed, but I don't see any accusations of PC. These days it only seems to apply to LGBT issues. Wonder why...

Anyway, Marvel seems to be way ahead of DC on everything topical in general. They've already "championed" a few gay heroes, for instance.

Stupid B.S, P.C publicity stunt. Characters shouldn't be changed purely for the sake of pleasing minority groups or for having 'equal representation' or any crap like that. A character should be gay because he was written as gay and the whole thing shouldn't be a stupid spectacle.

But this character has not been established in the continuity he will be gay in. Essentially he was written that way from the start. And again, whether DC intended it to be a spectacle or not, I wouldn't blame them for putting into effect the massive deal this is being made out to be. The people and news outlets are doing it.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 25 mai 2012 - 06:53 .

[Clover Rider]

Ecaiki wrote...

I find the whole notion of not being able to see someone as gay as odd, and potentially offensive.   Mostly because it speaks volumes about what people seem to think gay is, and the over importance placed on orientation.

Lets take Superman as an example; do you really think he would be any different if he were chasing Jimmy instead of Lois?  Because I can tell you from experience that the only difference would be him chasing Jimmy, he'd still be the heroic boy scout we all know and like.

As for my guess; no idea, but I like the idea that Batman is Gothamsexual.  

That's nice and all but Superman is no "heroic boy scout" he is pure evil.

 

 

That poor cat and I also feel somewhat sad for the people of Kandor city.

Modifié par Some Geth, 25 mai 2012 - 07:21 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

Of course, the big comic companies both tend to lean into ultra-liberal territory. Didn't Marvel do an issue where Spiderman and Obama team up to fight crime? You wouldn't see that with George Bush for sure. This PC pandering is the same thing everybody's seen before at one time or another. It's something that liberals will pat themselves on the back over and use to paint critics of such "progress" as misogynistic racist homophobes that murder children.

Political correctness in a nutshell: "We love diversity, as long as everybody thinks the same and votes Democrat."

Modifié par ReconTeam, 25 mai 2012 - 07:59 .

[Blacklash93]

ReconTeam wrote...

Of course, the big comic companies both tend to lean into ultra-liberal territory. Didn't Marvel do an issue where Spiderman and Obama team up to fight crime? You wouldn't see that with George Bush for sure. This PC pandering is the same thing everybody's seen before at one time or another. It's something that liberals will pat themselves on the back over. And if you call them out on it you're misogynistic racist homophobe who murders children, etc.

Political correctness in a nutshell: "We love diversity, as long as everybody thinks the same and votes Democrat."

Liberals and pandering and politcal correctness™, oh my!

Modifié par Blacklash93, 25 mai 2012 - 08:00 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

Blacklash93 wrote...
Liberals and pandering and politcal correctness, oh my!

Your favorite! But if you want to think it's all "out of the goodness of their hearts" go right on ahead.

Oh and you have to do the alt-0153 to do the ™ symbol.

Modifié par ReconTeam, 25 mai 2012 - 08:04 .

[Clover Rider]

ReconTeam wrote...

Of course, the big comic companies both tend to lean into ultra-liberal territory. Didn't Marvel do an issue where Spiderman and Obama team up to fight crime? You wouldn't see that with George Bush for sure. This PC pandering is the same thing everybody's seen before at one time or another. It's something that liberals will pat themselves on the back over and use to paint critics of such "progress" as misogynistic racist homophobes that murder children.

Political correctness in a nutshell: "We love diversity, as long as everybody thinks the same and votes Democrat."

Don't worry Captain America is being just as stupid as Bush was right now in Avengers vs. X-Men. You know wars over "weapons of mass destruction" and all that.

They do care about your lot.

Modifié par Some Geth, 25 mai 2012 - 08:05 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

Some Geth wrote...
They do care about your lot.

I'm still waiting for a comic based around a team of heroes formed by a time-traveling Ronald Reagan who is fighting communism in the far future.

[Clover Rider]

ReconTeam wrote...

Some Geth wrote...
They do care about your lot.

I'm still waiting for a comic based around a team of heroes formed by a time-traveling Ronald Reagan who is fighting communism in the far future.

But he would get his team killed. He is also a little bit more on the left-wing side of things by today's view of right-wings. But then again it is a story in the future, so who really cares.

Anyway all you really need is this.

 

But I think I like it a bit more than you. Since, you know, I'm a liberal and all that.

Modifié par Some Geth, 25 mai 2012 - 08:16 .

[Blacklash93]

ReconTeam wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...
Liberals and pandering and politcal correctness, oh my!

Your favorite! But if you want to think it's all "out of the goodness of their hearts" go right on ahead.

Oh and you have to do the alt-0153 to do the ™ symbol.

"Oh, no! Something being included in entertainment I like that doesn't appeal to me or is something I morally object to? Liberal agenda! Pandering! Political correctness!"

Thanks for the advice on text formatting, though. That'll help with many-a-joke in the future.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 25 mai 2012 - 08:27 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

Blacklash93 wrote...
"Oh, no! Something being included in
entertainment I like that doesn't appeal to me or is something I morally
object to? Liberal agenda! Pandering! Political correctness!"

My mistake. Obviously they would decide to make an existing "iconic" character gay just because they care and feel your pain. Ulterior motives? Unthinkable.

[Clover Rider]

ReconTeam wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...
"Oh, no! Something being included in
entertainment I like that doesn't appeal to me or is something I morally
object to? Liberal agenda! Pandering! Political correctness!"

My mistake. Obviously they would decide to make an existing "iconic" character gay just because they care and feel your pain. Ulterior motives? Unthinkable.

No. They know gay people have money and that there are a lot of them, I am sure there are other reasons, good and bad ones.

And there is nothing wrong with that, more so since the "iconic" character has not even been in the not-reboot reboot yet. It will be like a new character but not really.

I mean what can a gay character do to you anyway?

Modifié par Some Geth, 25 mai 2012 - 08:45 .

[ObserverStatus]

ReconTeam wrote...
 Didn't Marvel do an issue where Spiderman and Obama team up to fight crime? You wouldn't see that with George Bush for sure.

Well duh, George W. Bush is boring and lame, why would Spiderman want to hang out with him?

[Clover Rider]

bobobo878 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...
 Didn't Marvel do an issue where Spiderman and Obama team up to fight crime? You wouldn't see that with George Bush for sure.

Well duh, George W. Bush is boring and lame, why would Spiderman want to hang out with him?

Well there was that one time Spider-Man made a deal with the devil.

Modifié par Some Geth, 25 mai 2012 - 08:46 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

bobobo878 wrote...
Well duh, George W. Bush is boring and lame, why would Spiderman want to hang out with him?

Because he's a Jedi. You would know this stuff if you paid attention in school.

[ObserverStatus]

ReconTeam wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
Well duh, George W. Bush is boring and lame, why would Spiderman want to hang out with him?

Because he's a Jedi. You would know this stuff if you paid attention in school.

Nuh uh, he's Captain Texas.
 Also, someone needed to post this.

comic books need more bisexual swingers like Bueno Excelente.

Modifié par bobobo878, 25 mai 2012 - 08:55 .