{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/13/2018 3:08:28 PM
9
Like I said in another person's veiled homophobic post. How in the world is it "forced diversity" if Bungie, as a PRIVATE company, put it into THEIR game? You act like like the Democrats marched on Bungie and "forced" them to put the story in there in order supposedly brainwash the masses into accepting a gay character.
If the story was bad then the story was bad but what you are doing is nothing but trying to intellectualize what, in reality, are just leftover caveman defense mechanisms. You see the Ana story as a threat to you and those like you so you make up terms that have no real meaning and then think that the rest of us are dumb enough to fall for it. There is no such thing as "forced diversity." Gay people are at most 2%-4% of society so if this is a business decision on Bungie's part which is meant to sell more games then they probably should have included monster truck rallies and reruns of The Dukes of Hazard and by your logic they would have made millions more in revenue.
English
-
No such thing as forced diversity? Have you watched the CW's Arrowverse? I can't begin to list the amount of characters that were white in the comics, only to end up having there race changed for some arbitrary reason.
-
So these comics you mention all originally had white characters? So they were examples of 'forced uniformity' then, right?
-
You missed the point completely. The fact that the writers deliberately changed the race of characters to appease a certain demographic is bullsh!t. If they did the same to Steven Stone or John Stewart, I would have complained just as hard. If they want black characters, then add them. I'd kill for a Green lantern movie with John Stewart. But if you're going to just alter a pre-existing character to just to make up a racial quota, then I don't see the point.
-
Edited by Lobane: 7/13/2018 7:27:03 PMI don't find it BS at all, it's common sense. When most of those characters were conceived, they were created for a predominately white male audience. The audience has since changed. They audience now wants more diversity. So you have two choices: You can either abandon many of those old characters, and yes, write new ones...or you can adapt old characters to better suit modern demographics. I don't have a problem with either choice, and I don't blame any writer or content creator from choosing to adapt their original work rather than abandon it as outdated. I know in your mind it makes more sense to write new characters in...and I agree. But realize that it would still have a similar impact. You would end up seeing 'original' characters phased out to allow newer characters to play a larger role in the story. I can't speak for you, so my question is would that appeal to you more? Or would this become about some intentionally 'diverse' character 'replacing' one of your old favorites? Edit: I'm curious, do you also feel similarly when characters from a different era (meaning MOST of them) are suddenly re-written into the modern era? Does modern day batman offend you? Cause he should be long dead. How about the Arrow you mentioned? Dead as well. So if we're going to be intellectually honest here, all these reboots should be nixed. Unless the original character was immortal, they have no business in modern story telling at all. I assume you feel the same?
-
Checkm8
-
I'm still not getting the "forced" part. Its up to the people who own the IP what color the people in the thing that belongs to them are when they put it on television. Or would you rather have a law or something that states that characters must stay the same as they were originally when they were first developed for an all white audience? You can't have it both ways. Are you saying that they are changing the people to be diverse in order to sell to diverse audiences and that previously, when all the people were white they were weren't only trying to sell to white people?
-
You are kidding, right? All you ever hear is "this board room is too white", or "there aren't enough woman in the office". If a movie isn't "diverse" enough, then it gets lambasted. Ironic, really. Most of these diverse movies end up being crap.
-
Edited by A_mo: 7/13/2018 7:02:13 PMI honestly don't care that much one way or the other what color the people are in movies. What I am trying to understand is why you do. I don't get all the white dudes acting like someone is attacking them because someone suggests that "the board room is too white." It has to be for one of two reasons. Either the board room is white because white people are just better than everyone else or the board room is white because other people weren't allowed. It amazes me the victimhood white guys are showing when all they usually do is tell other people to shut up about their victimhood. Also, I fail to understand your argument about how including different races and sexualities and such causes the movies to suck. Is the blackness lowering the quality of a movie that would have otherwise been good?
-
who was changed?
