-Kanrabat- wrote:Burn wrote:Your homophobia and transphobia is shining like a lighthouse beacon, you're SUPPOSED to be a member of this staff. It's these sort of comments FROM STAFF that drive people away from this site. You, and anyone who thinks like this, are a bloody disgrace.
"Homophobia and transphobia"
Buzzwords to shut down any and all opposition that have been abused so much that they now means absolutely nothing.
Opposing strange reimagining and retconning of characters in established fictions is not a phobia. Opposing the abuses people do to game the system is not a phobia.
And further proof that the buzzwords you so like to use are pointless.
Take
Blare White on youtube. I admire HER very much. SHE is smart and kind. But this gay man turned trans-woman (and completely transitioned) is AGAINST the authoritarian
woke cult. Guess what? She's deemed a traitor to "all" the LGBT "community" and is accused to be a "transphobe". She's not alone.
Take
Lacy Green, a very liberal feminist dared to start questioning the abuses of her peers and started listening to "the other side". BAM! "Internal misogyny".
Being "anti-woke" is not being "anti-LGBT". It's to be against an insane cult that shut down all discutions.
By your logic, being "pro-LGBT" would be "Islamophobe" because this goes against the tenets of Islam.
Try to dig a bit deeper. Look up all those gay, lesbians, trans, women, and all who DARED speak out against
your tribe. Listen to what they have to say. You may learn something.
Looking at what you've both said, I think we can find both some things you can both agree upon, at least for the purpose of argument, and in good this might correlate to (IDW) (TF) comics and/or media in general.
I think you both are fairly happy with progressive social issues being part of (TF) media, but would like it handled differently? For arguments' sake, "woke" is a term to encompass those progressive/inclusive issues, so arguably, you're both in the "woke" camp, just differently?
Burn is happy for all characters to be treated equally and is fine with the sexuality, gender, appearance and other defining characteristics of (arguably) "main" characters to be adjusted or changed, whereas Kanrabat would rather such changes or inclusions (of any type, be they woke, etc) in either new characters and/or new settings (such as in "What if" scenarios, alternate universes, a plot of McGuffin to explain the changes, etc)? Burn might feel that this is akin to the "Everyone wants and airport but not through their farmland" excuse, whereas Kanrabat would disagree?
If this is true, then I would say that your main difference of opinion is more to do with the degree in how changes should occur in the TF lore, rather than the issues themselves? Of course, I could be putting words in both of your mouths here at this point, so my apologies if that's what I've done.
As for IDW, I personally was rather rather happy with the inclusions of sexuality, social class, etc although I have to admit that I didn't really buy many of the comics (due to availability mainly, rather than making any political statement). I also just admit I did feel uncomfortable about the changing of established characters' sexuality (and, although I still feel a little uncomfortable about many male homosexual kissing, etc scenes depicted in media, that's my problem to deal with, not others') but was happier for "new" characters, like Knockout present such issues instead. I think that might be combination of my issues mentioned above and/or my desire to be more conservative about established lore? For example, in Star Trek, DISCO, I'm happy they have gay characters and a (genderless?) human/Trill and her (effeminate?) male partner. Please accept my apologies if I'm using the wrong terms; no offense meant. However, ST didn't suddenly retcon Picard as being a woman or DATA as being biological. The writers have included progressive and inclusive issues without the need to resort to that?
However, I also think Burn has a point about being less opinionated whilst wearing the "News Admin Trousers". Users like myself may go around, for better or for worse, bandying around their opinions, but there's no way in heck anyone here is going to ask our give me an admin position (even if I had the technical competence to perform that task). Being an admin means, I believe, being more neutral and trying to represent the site (for better or for worse?) unless the site find contrary to your own beliefs and morality, in which case it might be prudent to either try to change the site internally or step down (and in not demand you do either).
That's just my two pence's, for what it's worth (swypos and all).
