Burn wrote:The majority of it however comes from overseas (primarily US and UK). So I consume a lot of foreign made media. So this whole "you don't understand, you're from another country" argument you seem to throw at me every now and then isn't as valid as you'd like to think it is.
Are you referring to me specifically? Or to posters with whom you've had conversations in general? I don't remember suggesting that before, nor am I saying it now. I simply stated it as a possibility in case we were having a misunderstanding, not as a concrete fact in this situation.
What I don't understand though is your argument for "proportion". How do you even calculate that when LGBTQI people are still, for lack of a better term, emerging?
Again, I agree that the LGBT community has yet to be defined in terms of a quantifiable section of society. And quite possibly it may never happen, considering the nature of the process that takes place, such as self-realization, transition, and possibly others that I'll freely admit I don't fully understand because I'm not a part of it. What I tried to clarify is when I say proportion, I'm referring to a percentage of the population that identifies as a member of the LGBT community in some way. But that will never happen because unfortunately it would make them easier targets for those who actively try to silence them through words and actions.
I do get your point, and it harkens back to Kanrabat's point about this being the latest "big deal" because I do see it, I just don't see how it affects me in a negative manner, I see it as a good thing as society becomes more accepting of it.
It is a good thing. To use your word, normalizing it makes it more acceptable and not something to be feared and ridiculed. As for it affecting you negatively, if you say it doesn't, it doesn't. But you can't (or shouldn't) project your views on others. Everyone should have the freedom to think and live how they want to, even if you don't agree with some of them, and even if those very same people don't agree that you should be able to think and live how you want to. If they attempt to force their way of living on you, then you have a problem.
Existing thread at point, it's one character, one episode, is that an over-abundance? Is that under-representation? How do you measure it exactly to find the right balance?
In the case of Earthspark and Nightshade, I would call it under-representation. It all depends on the total number of characters on the show. The number of LGBT (or on this case, non-binary, as I'm not actually certain which letter that falls under) characters should mirror the percentage of them in overall society. But since we don't have that number due to reasons I stated above, it's virtually impossible. But I would think it's more than one.
But, in reference to the general idea I brought up to begin with, to reiterate a point previously made by
-Kanrabat-, it's too much too fast. Which is why it is interpreted by some like myself as over-representation. It's not as easily accepted by some of us as it is by others, for various circumstances. Human nature is not easily changed fundamentally. It takes time. Case in point, what you stated above regarding the state of the LGBT community now as opposed to 50 years ago. Should they have been more readily accepted back then like they are now? Absolutely. But society in general was different then, and it will be 60 years from now. Hopefully for the better. Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves.
As far as LGBTQI representation in entertainment media is concerned, some handle it well, in that it's there but not shoeved in your face while other media blatantly shove it in your face and that's a leading contributor to pushback.
My original argument. At least we can partially agree.