Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9017922" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Ugh.Please re-read what you just wrote! That's literally what I was saying. This, right here, this is the problem. This is why we continue to have issues with just basic representation.White heterosexual male characters are always considered the baseline according to what you just wrote. So they never have to prove anything, or do anything. But if you want to actually reflect our diverse society, if you want to show people characters that represent them ... well, you're not allowed to unless, what? They meet some arbitrary seal of approval that they are "interesting enough?" This is the issue. This is the problem with the tokenism argument. If they get more representation, then they're not tokens. But people will keep saying that they are tokens because they are fighting against increased representation! Finally, the idea that bigots (sorry, "people who are prejudiced") are the people that we need to cater to when it comes to representation is kind of abhorrent to me. The bigots are already catered to by the default standards in a lot of media. The concept that having a character that has a same-sex relationship (for example) is "brow-beating" as opposed to ... normal ... is certainly an idea, but not one that I would want to touch with a 10' pole.</blockquote>