Gay character in the Witcher world =/= actual gay man in real life on Earth.
Indiana Jones =/= actual archeologist historian in real life on Earth.
Hawkeye =/= actual archer in real life on Earth.
Wonder Woman =/= actual women MMA fighters in real life on Earth.
TL;DR...
Fictional characters =/= real people in real life on planet Earth.
Fictional characters are featured in media that is consumed by actual real people on planet Earth. That has meaning, whether you like it or not.
The lack of self awareness is astounding, I haven't personally attacked anyone. But i'm the one being rude and aggressive? By all means continue to be a hypocrite, but don't act all holier than thou when you do so, it's quite sickening.
Self-awareness check time. Here's the first time we've interacted in this thread. It was you responding to a comment I made to someone else:
Get back to me when gay men make up more than 0.001% of villains. All gay people are villains? What world are you living in?
I actually clarified that you misunderstood my point and the tone was appropriately snarky in response to yours. And then, rather than addressing my actual point, here's your second response to me:
So name a game, film or TV show where this is the case. I doubt you can. Dethmold isn't the only gay character in TW, so that's out. Name one.
You've been rude and aggressive from the jump. We both have. Here's the difference: I admit it and you are pretending otherwise.
I'm done with you in this thread because one of us needs to walk away. I've got to say that I'm really disappointed in how this went down. We often disagree but we've shown each other respect in the past. I was hoping that that respect would have gotten me a little more from you in conversation.
The villain of Dune, at least the film version, is subject to characterization where his gayness is implicitly linked with disease and general grotesqueness.
In a book Vladimir baron Harkonnen (btw, this is the most over the top villain name in entire universe) is simply a pedophile, as I recall. Or a ephebophile.
'Dragon Age: Origins" used sexuality in a lighthearted manner. Once BioWare started to take the subject seriously, the sexual context of the game began to overshadow the lore.
"Dragon Age" should bring back the lore; thus, the sexuality and relationship storylines should take a backseat. If people are looking for digital stimulation, I am sure you can find plenty of adult content online.
The villain of Dune, at least the film version, is subject to characterization where his gayness is implicitly linked with disease and general grotesqueness.
The Baron?
He was just typical Lynch nastyness to me. Or do you mean Sting?
edit: Suddenly I want to watch Dune now...
Also, I meant "nastiness". 
'Dragon Age: Origins" used sexuality in a lighthearted manner. Once BioWare started to take the subject seriously, the sexual context of the game began to overshadow the lore.
"Dragon Age" should bring back the lore; thus, the sexuality and relationship storylines should take a backseat. If people are looking for digital stimulation, I am sure you can find plenty of adult content online.
I ran out of likes, you are on point. That's what a good RPG game is supposed to be about. Lore, story and plot > Sexuality.
IMO, Bioware decided to take sexuality more seriously because the lore in their games is a mess and their storytelling have been declining in quality as of late. Enter sexuality, an effective marketing tool that can also serve as a deflection to just say "You hate trans ! You hate gays ! You hate representation !" when you criticize their game.
Remember this fiasco ? - https://www.techdirt...omophobes.shtml
http://www.cinemable...trol-41334.html
Its a lot like what's happening with the new Ghostbusters movie. The PR campaign that has been running is that if you don't like the film, you are a misogynist and a woman hater, not that you might have actual grievances with the film.
http://www.theguardi...sogynistic-shit
Fictional characters are featured in media that is consumed by actual real people on planet Earth. That has meaning, whether you like it or not.
If by meaning you mean entertain us, then yes. Otherwise, there isn't any real meaningful link. Fiction is fiction and reality is reality. Unless if you are religious.
Here is evidence of a crybully in action people. Asking for proof of absurd claims is now being hostile and aggressive. Whilst the person carrying out the actual personal attacks is the "victim".
And I do respect you Dave, just not when you resort to antics like this. You're way better than that.
Fictional characters are featured in media that is consumed by actual real people on planet Earth. That has meaning, whether you like it or not.
Meaning? Yes. Responsibility? No.
But gay people are evil tho
You too. Hush!
So the way gay people were potrayed in the past should shift somehow the way we portray them now?
Yes and no. Again, I'm not saying that because the stereotypical gay villain thing was a big problem in the past, that there can't be those types of characters today. But you can't also just ignore the past and pretend that it didn't happen. Culture is shaped by media. And culture shapes media. It's symbiotic. So it's part of a cycle. For a while, because there was alot of overt homophobia, gay stereotypes were used as a "code" for "bad", "villain", "creepy", etc. So much so that there were generations of people who grew up seeing those 'codes' and the two concepts became intertwined.
Is it different today? Yes. A thousand times yes. It's a million times better. And I'm happy to admit that. But to pretend that it didn't happen. Or that there aren't still some lingering effects of that. Well, that's silly in my opinion. It's why I don't love (I don't get "outraged". I don't "boycott". I just "don't love it".) when that crappy antiquated stereotype shows up completely devoid of all of the other good stuff that's come since. Does that make sense? I'm not sure if it's making sense.
Snake please, look at your own antics.
'' HAH, LOOK AT THIS CRYBULLY EVERYONE, SEE HOW RIDICULOUS HE IS ''
If you are trying to take the highroad, you are failing quite miserably.
'Dragon Age: Origins" used sexuality in a lighthearted manner. Once BioWare started to take the subject seriously, the sexual context of the game began to overshadow the lore.
"Dragon Age" should bring back the lore; thus, the sexuality and relationship storylines should take a backseat. If people are looking for digital stimulation, I am sure you can find plenty of adult content online.
Dragon Age: Inquisition did expand quite a bit on the lore, in my opinion, especially on the ancient elves and ancient dwarves. I do not see how sexuality and relationship storylines overshadowed the lore in this installment.
Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd in Diamonds are Forever might be one of the most explicit examples.
Also, Prince Edward in Braveheart
I mean, I'm trying to stick to villainous characters who are blatantly homosexual, but if I were to include characters who are just implied to be homosexual I'd have more names than I have time to write down.
Yes and no. Again, I'm not saying that because the stereotypical gay villain thing was a big problem in the past, that there can't be those types of characters today. But you can't also just ignore the past and pretend that it didn't happen. Culture is shaped by media. And culture shapes media. It's symbiotic. So it's part of a cycle. For a while, because there was alot of overt homophobia, gay stereotypes were used as a "code" for "bad", "villain", "creepy", etc. So much so that there were generations of people who grew up seeing those 'codes' and the two concepts became intertwined.
Is it different today? Yes. A thousand times yes. It's a million times better. And I'm happy to admit that. But to pretend that it didn't happen. Or that there aren't still some lingering effects of that. Well, that's silly in my opinion. It's why I don't love (I don't get "outraged". I don't "boycott". I just "don't love it".) when that crappy antiquated stereotype shows up completely devoid of all of the other good stuff that's come since. Does that make sense? I'm not sure if it's making sense.
I think you overestimate media influence. I want to believe there are examples though... even if I don't know one myself. I'll grant that you have something in mind.
But by and large, villains were rapey and also going after women. Everything from horror to gangster to war movies.
Meaning? Yes. Responsibility? No.
They don't have responsibility. They can create any content they want. That doesn't mean they should be protected against criticism.
Does that make sense? I'm not sure if it's making sense.
It does, but that doesn't answer my question, to be honest . I wonder if you think that there is any ethical obligation in art.
EDIT:
They don't have responsibility. They can create any content they want. That doesn't mean they should be protected against criticism.
True that.
Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd in Diamonds are Forever might be one of the most explicit examples.
Also, Prince Edward in Braveheart
I mean, I'm trying to stick to villainous characters who are blatantly homosexual, but if I were to include characters who are just implied to be homosexual I'd have more names than I have time to write down.
Prince Edward wasn't a villain though. He's kind of tragic. The real one too.
His dad was a bastard though. And he was considered a symbol of masculinity. It's why his followers hated his son.
Snake please, look at your own antics.
'' HAH, LOOK AT THIS CRYBULLY EVERYONE, SEE HOW RIDICULOUS HE IS ''
If you are trying to take the highroad, you are failing quite miserably.
Never claimed to be taking the high road, but to imply I started the whole thing is ridiculous.
It does, but that doesn't answer my question, to be honest
I'd say yes but not for the reasons you might think; It is less what the art in question depicts and more what it is made of but that ties more to the topic of animal cruelty. I know this was likely not what you meant by it, however.
I'm looking at the way their characterized in the context of the film, Straycat. Distinguishing an antagonist from the protagonist by giving them more foppish or flamboyant mannerisms and/or implying homosexuality is one of the most frequent methods of characterization in the world of fiction, especially when it comes to action heavy sci-fi stories.
Prince Edward in Braveheart was portrayed as basically useless and impotent. This quality was introduced right before they pointed a spotlight at his relations with men.
I think you overestimate media influence. I want to believe there are examples though... even if I don't know one myself. I'll grant that you have something in mind.
But by and large, villains were rapey and also going after women. Everything from horror to gangster to war movies.
There is media influence when it comes to stereotypes. I have families and friends, even those who are pro-gay who believe that only gay guys or feminine or that there must be a feminine gay guy in a gay relationship or thinking like the gay couples in the Modern Family are how all gay people are. Outside of it, Asian male stereotypes having them as virgins, nerdy, non-sexualized creating a bamboo ceiling, making them less desirable in workfield and in dating pool. In movies, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where Asian characters get changed to white because they don't think Asians can fill in those roles or people wouldn't want to watch an Asian main character.
People who have no exposure to a particular group of people who only knowledge is through the media would get a skewered view of how these groups are like and how they're supposed to act like. I just don't know why when they're making characters, why are these characters need to fall into a certain boxes instead of just different characters being exposed to different scenarios in the story, regardless of their race or gender or sexual orientation. What I want is to just go outside the checkboxes,
There is media influence when it comes to stereotypes. I have families and friends, even those who are pro-gay who believe that only gay guys or feminine or that there must be a feminine gay guy in a gay relationship or thinking like the gay couples in the Modern Family are how all gay people are. Outside of it, Asian male stereotypes having them as virgins, nerdy, non-sexualized creating a bamboo ceiling, making them less desirable in workfield and in dating pool. In movies, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where Asian characters get changed to white because they don't think Asians can fill in those roles or people wouldn't want to watch an Asian main character.
People who have no exposure to a particular group of people who only knowledge is through the media would get a skewered view of how these groups are like and how they're supposed to act like. I just don't know why when they're making characters, why are these characters need to fall into a certain boxes instead of just different characters being exposed to different scenarios in the story, regardless of their race or gender or sexual orientation. What I want is to just go outside the checkboxes,
The average person doesn't believe those stereotypes though. And if someone does, why strain yourself for someone so dense? Worry about people you can at least build a bridge to. Not that.
I'm Asian. I won't be answering your math questions anytime soon
That's what a good RPG game is supposed to be about. Lore, story and plot > Sexuality.
"Dragon Age: Inquisition" contained some very nice moments; however, the relationships and heavy grinding dominated the experience. Whenever I have played a digital role-playing game, the main plot was always in sight.
Corypheus' story felt like a tacked on dlc, which relied upon another dlc for closure.
If BioWare had focused on the core storyline, rather than the relationships, I don't think we would have gotten Corypheus.
Good thing A World Without End gave us a manly warrior version on Edward II (and well-written).I'm looking at the way their characterized in the context of the film, Straycat. Distinguishing an antagonist from the protagonist by giving them more foppish or flamboyant mannerisms and/or implying homosexuality is one of the most frequent methods of characterization in the world of fiction, especially when it comes to action heavy sci-fi stories.
Prince Edward in Braveheart was portrayed as basically useless and impotent. This quality was introduced right before they pointed a spotlight at his relations with men.
I think you overestimate media influence. I want to believe there are examples though... even if I don't know one myself. I'll grant that you have something in mind.
But by and large, villains were rapey and also going after women. Everything from horror to gangster to war movies.
Yeah, I'm not saying that it's causal. There's a two-way influence. Culture shapes the media. The media then, in turn, shapes the culture.
And, again.the "gay stereotype" was usually coded. Look back at old Hollywood (All about Eve is a great example). Gay was coded as bad. And it's part of the reason why these stereotypes still exist.
And, yeah, it's not an absolute thing. It's not "all gay was bad" or "all villains were gay", but it was enough to be a thing. And that thing largely doesn't exist anymore. I just get really testy when people who have never had to deal with the thing tell me that the thing didn't exist or shouldn't be talked about anymore. That's really what this is all stemming from. The idea that it's being dismissed as a thing when it really was.
It does, but that doesn't answer my question, to be honest
EDIT:
True that.
Meh. I don't think that the there really is any ethical obligation in art. But I there is an obligation to at least recognize the larger role that art can play. It's when it's dismissed outright that I get annoyed. You should be free to make any kind of art that you want. And you also need to at least acknowledge that art has larger impact.
"Dragon Age: Inquisition" contained some very nice moments; however, the relationships and heavy grinding dominated the experience. Whenever I have played a digital role-playing game, the main plot was always in sight.
Corypheus' story felt like a tacked on dlc, which relied upon another dlc for closure.
If BioWare had focused on the core storyline, rather than the relationships, I don't think we would have gotten Corypheus.
The core storyline was Faith. And Corypheus could have/almost played into that.
It just failed at it. The whole game became a smorgasbord where they wanked off on all of their lore. Instead of focused on faith issues. And the protagonist lost any real sense of context to it as well.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut