general media Forced Diversity

[Dreambiscuit 9,576]

I don't like anything forced when I watch movies, TV or otherwise. Anything that's shoved down the throat of the viewer is bad art, even if you agree with it. People who sacrifice story for the sake of politics alienate most of their audience, lose credibility and ultimately serve no one. I'd hate to be part of any demographic forced into media as a token. It's far too demeaning. 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Dreambiscuit

[Black Sabbath 2,486]

13 hours ago, Jedishy said:

 Nope sorry does not work. Being in the closet impacts mindset. Still going to change things about the character.

Again, writers have changed characters' personalities in the past, why can't they do so now?  

What it is about a characters sexuality that makes it unchangeable? Why are people fine with changing a character's motive, personality, power set and backstory but unable to handle the idea of said character suddenly being gay or straight? 

 

13 hours ago, Jedishy said:

Nope not gonna happen. They crapped on fans and called them bigots too many times for that.

Again, maybe that wouldn't happen if a large part of the criticism wasn't so bigoted that wouldn't have happened. I'm not say that all criticism of diverse characters are, but denying that Marvel and DC receives that type of criticism when making diverse characters is just stupid.

This is also ignoring that writers are actually multiple people. And saying thay someone shouldn't be allowed to write a character the way they want because other people have screwed up in the past is just dumb. I mean, arguing that we can't have diverse characters because writers have fucked up with it in the past is like arguing that we can't have anymore ww2 movies because Enemy at the gates is a shit film.

13 hours ago, Jedishy said:

When you mess with what people love you better handle it with kid gloves and have dang good reasons for it. 

I disagree. The writers should be allowed to take some creative liberties with characters, especially if they're writing a new version of them. 

[Goat-kun 2,527]

20 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

I don't think it's fair to place wether or not the fandom agrees with the change over the quality of the writing. If it works within the IP is a decent requirement, I can buy that. But the quality of the writing should definitely matter more than what the establishment fandom thinks.

A popular IP is more than itself. It is also the fandom. Disregard this at your own peril.

20 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

Would the story be worse if he was? The answer to both of these questions are not necessarily. 

As for reasons for why such a chance would be made, 1) Maybe a non-white actor gave the best audition 2) Maybe the writers just wanted to include some representation of gay people.

Adaptations have made bigger changes to characters than their sexual orientation or race. Acting as if the character is gonna turn to shit just because they're gay instead of straight is just idiotic. 

"Oh but why don't they just write new characters that are gay?" 

You mean like they did with Tracer and soilder 76, because that generated no  outcry at all? "Oh but those were never confirmed to be gay from the start so they doesn't count". Alright, what about that one gay guy and that non-binary person from Apex Legends then,

In short, if you're gonna get shit from making a character gay, wether they're completely new or already established, then why not pick the one that's already a garentueed success?

That's kinda cheap. You seem to have an awful lot to say about converting straight white characters into something else but at the same time you have a problem with non-white characters being turned into white ones. Characters are not just an instrument to tell a story. They have recognizable behavior and physical features. That's why H-bro wants to continue MLP with Mane 6. They're recognizable. You see Pinkie, you know it's her. You see Tony Stark, you know it's him. Can you imagine Pinkie being green and a stallion? Having the same story as the original Pinkie wouldn't matter cause that just wouldn't be Pinkie to the, you guessed it, her fans. Can some characters be changed for the better with alterations? Of course. I've even given you a few examples, but those examples have nothing to do with the story. They have everything to do with the characters themselves as they are perceived. It's the specifics of those characters that allowed such a change to be a natural one.

 

As far as Overwatch is concerned, how long did it take for Blizzard to tell us who's gay? How did they do it? I already said I do not think that such a minor detail is forced diversity; however, I will say that it looks like a publicity stunt. Being gay is not something that needs an announcement.

 

 

Why are gamers mad about this? That requires a whole other debate. There's just so much history to unpack. The short version: gamers expect it to be forced diversity and the companies and gaming media will gladly reinforce that opinion.

 

So you don't care for the fans and you don't' care for a character's history cause muh oppression? How else am I supposed to interpret your final statement? Is it a guaranteed success?

20 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

How does it not? If you do something due to racism then surely it strives to achieve a political goal. I mean, removing representation purely for representation sake is equally politically motivated as adding representation purely for representation sake.

Also, so it's forced representation if I make a batman that's gay because I want there to be more gay superheroes but if I do so out of a hatred for straight people, it's not. That makes no sense. 

Really? How can not dating black people cause you're racist or you just find them unappealing achieve a political goal? That's my daunting intro into personal preferences, by the way. Artists have them, and they will obviously want to create stuff in line with those preferences.

 

 

Behold: you can have a preference for black people and thus it would be better from your perspective to make Batman black. Your move is not political and is thus not forced diversity. Make no mistake, you'd still be an egotistical a-hole for letting your own personal inclination get the better of you and thus you should not be working with anything other but your original IPs. If you're a professional you should be able to keep it in your pants while on the job. It's kinda similar to people who ship their OCs with Mane 6

Edited March 5, 2019 by Goat-kun
more gems were had

[Black Sabbath 2,486]

26 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

That's kinda cheap. You seem to have an awful lot to say about converting straight white characters into something else but at the same time you have a problem with non-white characters being turned into white ones.

I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the forced diversity crowd not complaining about non-white characters turning white and the whitewashing crowd not complaining about white characters being turned to non-white.

28 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

Can you imagine Pinkie being green and a stallion? Having the same story as the original Pinkie wouldn't matter cause that just wouldn't be Pinkie to the, you guessed it, her fans.

But would it be a worse version of Pinkie? Again, not necessarily. 

 

30 minutes ago, Goat-kun said:

So you don't care for the fans and you don't' care for a character's history cause muh oppression?

No, I "don't care for the fans" as you put it because I think that every writer should be allowed to write a character however they want. As for the character's history, it's an adoption. They're bound to make bigger changes regardless. 

 

[TBD 17,254]

I have seen forced diversity being shoved down my throat, ects ects to the point I don't give a damn anymore. I mean why do we even be worry about some fictional world having diversity when we are freaking living in diversity? Get used to it people.

Edited March 5, 2019 by TBD

[Goat-kun 2,527]

2 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the forced diversity crowd not complaining about non-white characters turning white and the whitewashing crowd not complaining about white characters being turned to non-white.

And I have a problem with people regarding every instance the same way. Consider other factors.

2 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

But would it be a worse version of Pinkie? Again, not necessarily.

What you're trying to ask is: Would that be a worse character? I'm not asking how good that character could be within this limitless branching multiverse of ours, full of countless possibilities. The question is simple: Would that still be Pinkie? Can you even describe her? No, not her manic pixie stereotype. I want Pinkie!

2 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

No, I "don't care for the fans" as you put it because I think that every writer should be allowed to write a character however they want. As for the character's history, it's an adoption. They're bound to make bigger changes regardless.

You should get a job in games journalism. Somebody hire this person

 

Big changes are necessary. In fact, I'm one of the few people on this forum advocating for those bigger changes to G5 Mane 6. Still, if you want to write a character however you want, create one. For the rest of them you are not the creator but a caretaker. There is no successful IP without a fandom. They're the bees in the garden you've created. It's something you have yet to learn.

[Castle Bleck 19,325]

Miles Morales and Spider-Gwen (Spider-Man) are examples actually done well.

Whereas Amilyn Holdo and Rose Tico (Star Wars) are examples of what happens when you just hire some high-school stoners to do it.

Edited March 5, 2019 by A.V.

[Jedishy 3,548]

5 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

Again, writers have changed characters' personalities in the past, why can't they do so now?  

What it is about a characters sexuality that makes it unchangeable? Why are people fine with changing a character's motive, personality, power set and backstory but unable to handle the idea of said character suddenly being gay or straight? 

This is the last time I am going to explain this because at this point its just deliberate misunderstanding. It's not that it's massively different. People have complained when other things happen in the past. The difference is the tool bag studios, actors, and "fans" that call the complainers bigots for taking issue with it like they would any other freaking change to the beloved characters. Further its how it was done. In the past, if something was bad and people hated it or just hated change, in general, they did not get called bigots for it. It was not gramed in for diversity points in the past but because the authors thought it might make a good story. Combine it and you get why it matters. 

5 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

Again, maybe that wouldn't happen if a large part of the criticism wasn't so bigoted that wouldn't have happened. I'm not say that all criticism of diverse characters are, but denying that Marvel and DC receives that type of criticism when making diverse characters is just stupid.

Yea and I do not buy that a large part of it was bigoted. People rightfully hated the new GB and most of the complaints was how crappy it was and forced it felt and they got called bigots needlessly from the get go. Want proof Angry comic nerd says I am not reviewing that movie it looked like crap, mass media cries he is a bigot. Sorry but I dont buy this and I think its just one more hard SJW whinging point of oh you dont like a female in this role you must be a bigot. Not that they genuinely just hated the movie or that the person in it sucked or that they dont feel that a female gender swap works for the character. 

5 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

This is also ignoring that writers are actually multiple people. And saying thay someone shouldn't be allowed to write a character the way they want because other people have screwed up in the past is just dumb. I mean, arguing that we can't have diverse characters because writers have fucked up with it in the past is like arguing that we can't have anymore ww2 movies because Enemy at the gates is a shit film.

Nah sorry, it's not. First, you dont need to steal other works and blend them into something new to make it diverse. You can make new characters. So this argument falls flat right there. Second, they are from the same studio and if a company fails you time and again people tend not to trust it and do business again. So this would only work if it was actually a different studio making their own characters that we were talking about. 

5 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

I disagree. The writers should be allowed to take some creative liberties with characters, especially if they're writing a new version of them. 

Then they can deal with the complaints. You screw up what made me love a character for the sake of soothing the feelings of non fan whiners I am not going to be happy, I won't do business with ya, and will do all I can to ensure others do not. And seeing as the comics keep failing they will either learn the lesson or go out of business and the IPs can hopefully be picked up by someone that cares about the characters and the fans and not the loudest whiners in the room.

3 hours ago, Black Sabbath said:

4 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

Can you imagine Pinkie being green and a stallion? Having the same story as the original Pinkie wouldn't matter cause that just wouldn't be Pinkie to the, you guessed it, her fans.

But would it be a worse version of Pinkie? Again, not necessarily

 

Yes yes it would be worse. Why because if its not Pinkie to those who love her that is by definition a worse version of her. If I look at a comic pane and think that its Ironman wearing the Steel suit made by John Henry Irons and you tell me No that is Batman sorry that is a crap version of the Bat. 

Im sorry but change enough and its no longer the freaking character. If I was tall female and a lot more silent Id be my freaking sister and not myself. 

These people seem to hold no respect for the fans that love the series and appear to be advocating for the same tactics that have lead to declining sales and mass exoduses from comic franchies. Marvels comic sales are dive bombing because they ignored the fans. Keep calling people bigots if they want but it wont raise sales. 

[Guest]

If they are hiring people for creating media for reasons other than their merits and things they can bring to the table via skills and portfolio then that is a mistake, plain and simple. I don't think there is anything controversial about what I just said there either. You should be graded based upon the quality of what you produce.

As for the actual content? If you want to make content with any type of characters and you are doing it for the sole purpose of "that's the story I want to tell" and you tell it in a quality way... I see no issues. However, when you basically just slap a minority character in that is poorly made, no effort and tell us we're supposed to like it because if we don't we're racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic and that any criticisms to the quality are referred back to the aforementioned then it's a waste of time to pursue such a media creation. If you make low-quality garbage, then you deserve to be called out on it.

Sorry if this comes off as controversial, but I firmly believe that you should be graded upon quality.

[RDDash 19,163]

In my mind this type of complaint is artificial, and only serves to poke fingers at why is certain types of people are dominant in that movie, cartoon, tv-show or whatever. From a story telling point of view it doesn't really matter (unless it does) what the people look like on the screen, or how they behave socially.

[Thuja 3,658]

4 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

Being gay is not something that needs an announcement.

I'd have to disagree with that, not everyone looks like/acts like the stereotypical gay.  Being gay needs to be explicit sometimes.  We don't exist in public unless we state that we are not heterosexual or cisgender.  Humanity as a whole is Heteronormative, you're assumed het until proven otherwise.  That's also why a lot of het people complain when they're hit on by the same sex when at a gay club or at pride because in that small space, you're assumed LGBT+ until proven otherwise.  We as LGBT+ people do not exist in the public unless we actually announce who we are.  So yes, announcements are sometimes necessary and personally I'm glad that there's more diversity in the media.  Cisgender, hetero, white guys have more than enough representation in the media and I highly doubt that'll change any time soon.

[Olly 1,011]

I am bothered by the sheer number of properties that feel the need to shoehorn in characters that really have no reason to exist because they feel they need different types of people. Or when a movie like black panther gets nominated for an oscar when it had no right to be. It's incredibly obvious and insulting, and it does a disservice to us all. 

[Mesme Rize 15,683]

Well, it really depends on how you implement characters into these roles. I am always of the opinion that people should be chosen for their talent and qualifications and not because they look or act a certain way.

A prime example right now is Captain Marvel. At first i was like "well, okay. The comic adaptation is kinda meh, but maybe they can spice it up like they did with Ant-Man." Then, they not only poorly chose Brie Larson, who in my opinion is not a good actress, but she only uses every possible minute to make her agenda as clear as possible. She says it's a "feminist movie" and she says that "white males should stay out of there." Girl, i don't give a fuck about your political believes. I just wanna go to a movie and have a good time. Sadly, you won't get my money now. It's not my fault that your dad wasn't the loving father that everyone had.

Bottom line, whenever you are women, black, latino, white, dog, cat, whatever. Show that you have talent and if you don't and just wanna spil you political stuff, get out.

Wanna have a good movie with a good female lead? Go and watch Alita: Battle Angel.

[CheeryFox 23,820]

3 hours ago, A.V. said:

Miles Morales and Spider-Gwen (Spider-Man) are examples actually done well.

Whereas Amilyn Holdo and Rose Tico (Star Wars) are examples of what happens when you just hire some high-school stoners to do it.

Exactly. If you hire no-talents it becomes a chore to watch. 

[Will Guide 21,360]

1 hour ago, Mesme Rize said:

Well, it really depends on how you implement characters into these roles. I am always of the opinion that people should be chosen for their talent and qualifications and not because they look or act a certain way.

There's a reason the trope "Ability over Appearance" exists. The appearance of the character doesn't really matter as much as the ability to portray the character.

[Steve Piranha 29,417]

 

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 4:47 PM, Thuja said:

I'd have to disagree with that, not everyone looks like/acts like the stereotypical gay.  Being gay needs to be explicit sometimes.  We don't exist in public unless we state that we are not heterosexual or cisgender.  Humanity as a whole is Heteronormative, you're assumed het until proven otherwise.  That's also why a lot of het people complain when they're hit on by the same sex when at a gay club or at pride because in that small space, you're assumed LGBT+ until proven otherwise.  We as LGBT+ people do not exist in the public unless we actually announce who we are.  So yes, announcements are sometimes necessary and personally I'm glad that there's more diversity in the media.  Cisgender, hetero, white guys have more than enough representation in the media and I highly doubt that'll change any time soon.

And here lies a problem with this ridiculous “representation” nonsense. That’s the problem, you define yourselves with not only a single, but a superficial trait, and demand characters with those there just for the sake of it. What’s better? A character whose MAIN trait is being black, hispanic, gay, bisexual, immigrant, or whatever and that’t It, or make a story of struggle about those, a journey to be on terms with it, etc?

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 5:08 PM, Olly said:

I am bothered by the sheer number of properties that feel the need to shoehorn in characters that really have no reason to exist because they feel they need different types of people. 

I’m okay with diversity, then again, what diversity SHOULD be something deeper, like character, or how maybe sexual orientation builds the character. You know, LIKE THE MANE SIX . I mean, if I were to watch a show like My Little Pony, where’s my male, hispanic, human character in the show ? Sounds ridiculous if you put it that way, don’t you think ?

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by PathfinderCS

[Thuja 3,658]

6 minutes ago, Steve Piranha said:

And here lies a problem with this ridiculous “representation” nonsense. That’s the problem, you define yourselves with not only a single, but a superficial trait, and demand characters with those there just for the sake of it. What’s better? A character whose MAIN trait is being black, hispanic, gay, bisexual, immigrant, or whatever and that’t It, or make a story of struggle about those, a journey to be on terms with it, etc?

And exactly how many character's one defining trait have been them being straight...?  I think it's perfectly fine that some character's only defining trait is one thing.  I doubt a lot of writers want to make these huge complex webs for ALL of their characters, that sounds INCREDIBLY tiring to do.  Not every character needs to have some deep and complex plot, some characters can be just gay or straight or whatever.  How many background characters have had their time in the light?  Especially from this show?  Are we going to spend an episode just going over the life of one of the taxi drivers from Manehattan?  No one ever questions why a girl falls in love with a boy but when it's a boy falling in love with a boy?  All of a sudden, we NEED to have some complex purpose and his motives or something from his background.  With het, cisgender characters these are never questioned, why can't it be the same for others?  We NEED diversity in our media because not everyone is a cisgender, heterosexual, white person and people are going to have to deal with it when they don't get the main stage for once.

[Olly 1,011]

16 minutes ago, Steve Piranha said:

I’m okay with diversity, then again, what diversity SHOULD be something deeper, like character, or how maybe sexual orientation builds the character. You know, LIKE THE MANE SIX . I mean, if I were to watch a show like My Little Pony, where’s my male, hispanic, human character in the show ? Sounds ridiculous if you put it that way, don’t you think ?

 

Well for example, if a white writer creates a film script about the civil war and the movie has a majority or all-white cast I don't think "why aren't there any people of color"? is a valid complaint, and it's cheap to say, insert a black man as a general of the union army or something because the studio caved in to a few people's absurd demands (which often happens)

[Steve Piranha 29,417]

22 minutes ago, Thuja said:

And exactly how many character's one defining trait have been them being straight...?  

Yeah, because Batman’s most defining trait is that he’s straight and that’s the first thing I notice 

29 minutes ago, Thuja said:

  I think it's perfectly fine that some character's only defining trait is one thing.  

Unless if it’s something so superficial that is 

30 minutes ago, Thuja said:

  Not every character needs to have some deep and complex plot, some characters can be just gay or straight or whatever.  

Unless that’s their defining trait instead of just happening to be x thing. Then again, acknowledgement of the existence is fine, but if 3 for every 7 character is gay, there’s a stench of pandering .

41 minutes ago, Thuja said:

No one ever questions why a girl falls in love with a boy but when it's a boy falling in love with a boy?  .  With het, cisgender characters these are never questioned, why can't it be the same for others?  

Because that’s still a minority orientation, not the norm, and frankly, not all people, even among those who are okay with homosexuality, need to process the information. It’s not necessarily homophobia, it’s biological, and evolutionary. 

 

42 minutes ago, Thuja said:

  We NEED diversity in our media because not everyone is a cisgender, heterosexual, white person and people are going to have to deal with it when they don't get the main stage for once.

Maybe, but it has been done distastefully and with the sole intention of pandering. Quality over politics

[Thuja 3,658]

1 minute ago, Steve Piranha said:

Yeah, because Batman’s most defining trait is that he’s straight and that’s the first thing I notice 

Unless if it’s something so superficial that is 

Unless that’s their defining trait instead of just happening to be x thing. Then again, acknowledgement of the existence is fine, but if 3 for every 7 character is gay, there’s a stench of pandering .

Because that’s still a minority orientation, not the norm, and frankly, not all people, even among those who are okay with homosexuality, need to process the information. It’s not necessarily homophobia, it’s biological, and evolutionary. 

 

Maybe, but it has been done distastefully and with the sole intention of pandering. Quality over politics

You're deliberately avoiding my point but go off I guess...

People who are just there to be straight are just as superficial, you realize?  How many "love-interests" have come and gone without really any purpose?  Superficial.

Egads, how dare gay people hang out together, that totally doesn't happen in real life or anything...

I highly doubt we'll ever get the truest reason why there're LGBT+ people but here we are, if we've existed for this long, I'd say that's biological in and of itself.  Again, I'll say humanity is a Heteronormative society.

If you're having a hard time dealing with diverse representation in media, that's not really my issue.  It is not pandering if some characters are things that you personally are not.

[imawesome 449]

I don't like it. Whenever I see a token (insert used to be barely shown demographic here), I roll my eyes. Basically, if the character matters to the plot, I don't mind it. If their just there for people to say "Oh, look how diverse this movie is!" then yeah, I'm bothered by it. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by imawesome

[Steve Piranha 29,417]

13 minutes ago, Thuja said:

 

People who are just there to be straight are just as superficial, you realize?  How many "love-interests" have come and gone without really any purpose?  Superficial.

 

It would be, if it were their only defining trait

 

14 minutes ago, Thuja said:

 

I highly doubt we'll ever get the truest reason why there're LGBT+ people but here we are, if we've existed for this long, I'd say that's biological in and of itself.  Again, I'll say humanity is a Heteronormative society.

 

It is, but like you wrote, we are heteronormative. Heterosexuality is the norm, and guess what, it’s not a bad thing 

18 minutes ago, Thuja said:

 

If you're having a hard time dealing with diverse representation in media, that's not really my issue.  It is not pandering if some characters are things that you personally are not.

I’m having a hard time dealing with the media trend pandering people that eat, drink, sleep, and breath whatever identity politics they have for the sake of it.

You know what are minorities as well? Hispanic, single, no desire to get married, and don’t want children. Let me look for one of those.*checks mirror*, oh, there’s one . Well, guess what, neither of those are the norm, but I don’t care if they become one or not, because I’m both more than those, and a lifestyle  

[Thuja 3,658]

1 minute ago, Steve Piranha said:

It is, but like you wrote, we are heteronormative. Heterosexuality is the norm, and guess what, it’s not a bad thing 

I’m having a hard time dealing with the media trend pandering people that eat, drink, sleep, and breath whatever identity politics they have for the sake of it.

You know what are minorities as well? Hispanic, single, no desire to get married, and don’t want children. Let me look for one of those.*checks mirror*, oh, there’s one . Well, guess what, neither of those are the norm, but I don’t care if they become one or not, because I’m both more than those, and a lifestyle  

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, what I'm trying to say is that that doesn't have to be the ONLY thing because it's not.  Heteronormativity is not purely a bad thing but there're some flaws.

It's not overly pandering to someone who isn't the "norm" just for having a few characters who are not.  Again, not every character needs to have some grand purpose in whatever plot that's going on.  Hey, sorry for making an assumption about you, on my part!!  Just because you're not wanting diversity in your media doesn't mean that some other people part of your same demographic want the same things as you do.  Again, I don't think that every character in a plot needs to have some complexity to them, that just sounds like far too much work.  I doubt very many people want to write about their character having tea with just about everyone just to learn their background, motives and ambitions.

[Mesme Rize 15,683]

13 minutes ago, Thuja said:

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, what I'm trying to say is that that doesn't have to be the ONLY thing because it's not.  Heteronormativity is not purely a bad thing but there're some flaws.

It's not overly pandering to someone who isn't the "norm" just for having a few characters who are not.  Again, not every character needs to have some grand purpose in whatever plot that's going on.  Hey, sorry for making an assumption about you, on my part!!  Just because you're not wanting diversity in your media doesn't mean that some other people part of your same demographic want the same things as you do.  Again, I don't think that every character in a plot needs to have some complexity to them, that just sounds like far too much work.  I doubt very many people want to write about their character having tea with just about everyone just to learn their background, motives and ambitions.

As a Bisexual myself, i don't feel the need for some sort of representation in movies, TV or video games, because it makes them seem a bit obnoxious when they constantly say "Hey, look at me. I am Bixexual. Please love me." Sure, i exaggerate, but the point here is that not everyone in the LGBT community wants representation. Most of us want to live a normal life and i for one pretty much do that, without being seen obnoxious with the people who are around me.

[Thuja 3,658]

2 minutes ago, Mesme Rize said:

As a Bisexual myself, i don't feel the need for some sort of representation in movies, TV or video games, because it makes them seem a bit obnoxious when they constantly say "Hey, look at me. I am Bixexual. Please love me." Sure, i exaggerate, but the point here is that not everyone in the LGBT community wants representation. Most of us want to live a normal life and i for one pretty much do that, without being seen obnoxious with the people who are around me.

I know that most media outlets get it kinda wrong but at least we're finally getting something...  I know that not everyone wants representation, that's perfectly fine, you do you.  Some of us would love some though, we want our gender identity/sexual orientation to actually be normalized.  It's perfectly normal to not be cisgender or heterosexual, just because it's not the "usual" does not make it different or strange.  I'd love it if someone one day can just say "I'm gay" without having doubt cast on them, not having to worry about someone punching them for holding their partner's hand in public, etc.  A world where a person can bring their partner home for the first time and not have any potential problems with their parents would be ideal.  I think getting representation in media is an important step towards that because some people only learn about LGBT+ things from the media they consume.   I mean, how many people are more comfortable with people like us because of the media they've seen.  That can be a double edged sword though but it usually depends on how the media portrays them.  I'd rather have the obnoxious "Hey, I'm Bisexual, please love me!!" instead of the bisexual who kinda has this rape-y vibe going about them and their sole purpose is to "seduce" the protagonist.