I see. It looks like you’re just getting upset, especially noticeable with the mimicry. I’ll just tell ya that ignorant people can be taught - its the stupid that can’t learn. This “antiquated ideology” was taught, and better ideology can in turn be taught.
Try to cool off, your intolerance is showing.
It’s not my job to teach them. They’re beneath me and many other people at this point. They’re free to teach themselves if they’d like but if they haven’t learned better by this point they just don’t want to.
And stop straight up lying by omission about what I said and I’ll stop mocking you, simple as that
Lying by omission? I simply performed the textual equivalent of interrupting a statement. Lying would be me typing up something that you didn’t say - which wasn’t the case. You’ll probably need to update your perception. If anyone wants to know what was said, they can lazily look up…
A contrarian. Petty, they call it?
Also, I don’t need to mock you to prove a point - you’re literally just hitting multiple nails on the head for me.
I’m done.
Hence the phrase
Reading comprehension not your strongest attribute, huh.
Character building doesn’t inherently require lead-up all the time. People don’t work like that, and good characterization strives to create the illusion that fictional characters are living people.
We have our traits and preferences, and it is not necessary for you to know one’s entire life story for those things to be validated. You don’t need to know that the initial catalyst for why I personally don’t like coconut, but you may learn one day that I will deny your crappy coconut cake when you serve it to me. And if you had the gall to try to sit me down to get me to tell you the life story leading up to the denial, I’d probably stop being friends with you out of sheer exhaustion. Like, who actually converses like that.
The same goes for fleshing out a character. We don’t need to know why Brigitte came to like cats, just that she does. We don’t need to know why Junkrat hates shrimp, just that he does. We don’t need to know the entire backstory for how Dva and Dae-Hyun became friends, just that they are.
This idea that every minor detail must be given years’ long foreshadowing is nonsense, and also fundamentally impractical. You literally cannot present the amount of foreshadowing you’re demanding out of characters’ development and random window dressings in any reasonable amount of time. Or, at the very least, it would require a level of preproduction that would be stupidly expensive and wasteful and unprecedented in mass media. “Okay, Torb has aardvarks. We have to leave breadcrumbs for three years.” Imagine this for the hundreds of little factoids we know about all of the cast, including characters not created yet.
Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.
Again, I don’t believe you have ever been as upset with random factoids about other characters as you are about Soldier’s sexuality. You didn’t care that it wasn’t foreshadowed that Junkrat loves boba tea, and you know it.
No, it wouldn’t be like saying Mercy is the leader of Talon. Because being the leader of any organization is not a human characteristic, it is something that a person does not something a person is. There is a difference.
Saying Soldier requires buildup to be gay, is akin to saying that he requries lore buildup to have blue eyes or white skin.
Now, as a result of the Bastet story, we know why.
I’m not trying to be flippant or make a contrived point, but what aspect? What about soldier would you have liked to see to make this feel better?
We did get a hint. It was an ambiguous hint, sure, and I don’t think a single person can honestly say they caught on, but that doesn’t make less of a hint.
Do you mean like soldier coming out? I don’t know. Some people love and respect the whole coming out thing, but in my opinion it’s just about the least organic way a queer person’s sexuality can be uncovered - primarily with reference to real life, but also in a fantasy world.
Generally when they’re first announced, no. But after much development, throwing a curveball is generally looked down upon.
You also don’t look into someone’s personal history and see what they’re thinking. That’s not how fictional characters work. You don’t just start throwing things at characters with the intent of “its more human” when in fact people experience things to become who they are. All I’m asking for is to see those experiences, not just have something shoved in my face for no reason.
So let me give you an example of something. Let’s say character A has never been to an amusement park. One day, Character A suddenly decides that going to amusement parks is their favorite thing to do in their recreational time even though they have never been to one. You’re telling me that this is good character development?
That’s wrong. There is a huge difference between real and fictional people. With fiction, you look into the history, or at least part of the history, of a person. You get to see why they are who they are. You see their opinions from an outside source and get to know them that way. With real people, you learn knew things about them and go from there. They tell you why they are who they are. If you base an opinion off of someone just because of some random fact you know about them, then you are looking literally skin deep at their personality and you’re looking at them as a 2 dimensional person.
I’m asking for why. Even if it’s not much, like a comic on Soldiers life before he became the scared old dad of Overwatch. How is it so wrong to feel that something is forced and want to have more back story on the subject to solidify the actual fact? I don’t like or dislike fictional characters based on their sexuality, but based on their entire person. How is it so wrong to want someone I like as a character be more than a checked box on Blizzards list of minorities and instead have an actual back story?
The only curveballs that get people mad are ones where the characters are confirmed LGBT. No one cared when it was suddenly revealed that Torb was in a heterosexual relationship and had a bunch of kids. No one cared when it was suddenly revealed that the name of D.Va’s mech was Toki. No one cared when it was suddenly revealed that Reaper was an avid cosplayer.
The ONLY time this “argument” comes up, the ONLY time people have been overwhelmingly mad at new developments in lore, has been with Tracer and Soldier being gay. Gee, I wonder why.
This isn’t analogous to what has gone on with Overwatch because you specifically said the character hasn’t ever been to an amusement park. You deliberately set up an actual plothole by giving established information and suddenly contradicting it. However, one of the characters remarking that BlizzardWorld- a map that was not available on launch- is indeed their favorite tourist destination, without any information established beforehand that they either did not like amusement parks or had never been to one, is not bad character development. It’s new information given to you. And it’d be dumb hair-splitting to ask “Where was the foreshadowing?!!” when there was no context to even mention amusement parks at launch, since- again- BlizzardWorld didn’t exist.
So Soldier being gay isn’t a curveball or plothole, because there was no information given beforehand about his orientation one way or another. People merely assumed he was straight because they got suckered in by the military stereotypes and thus now feel some type of way for being wrong.
…
You want a “why” on why Soldier is gay? He was born like that, as are all other gay folk. There, I’ve saved Michael Chu a headache from people begging him on his social media accounts to answer how in the world a military man could possibly be into other men.
Actually no, that’s not even remotely true. People get mad over everything. It just seems like they only get mad over LGBT topics because it’s controversial so it gets more attention.
I’m pretty sure people got upset that he wasn’t legitimately in a relationship with his turret.
This is also false, because Reaper cosplaying is one of my favorite aspects of overwatch.
Actually, many people still want to know more about Pharaoh’s dad, Sym’s family, Torb’s wife, etc. Once again, it only seems like people only get upset at that stuff because it’s controversial and for some reason gets more attention. That doesn’t mean that it’s the only time it happens.
You either are ignoring the point or completely missed it and are thus trying to force a different point out of the example.
You do realize that the example wasn’t based on overwatch, but a random ambiguous character from I just made up in my mind, which is why “Character A” is was their name, not “Ana” or “Tracer” or “Junkrat”.
Once again, it wasn’t even based on overwatch. Also, a lead up to an event isn’t always foreshadowing, especially not in the case of fiction.
That’s actually exactly why it’s a curveball. Just the same as Reaper being straight is a curveball. The fact that there was no indicative information, or any information for that matter, on the subject means that it is a “curveball”. No matter what the sexuality is.
I am in the military and know many members who are part of the LGBT community, so I know for a fact that all military members aren’t straight. So it feels “wrong” to me because of the suddenness without any lead up.
I want to know his history. What lead to him realizing his sexuality? You do know that not everyone suddenly knows they’re gay the second they’re born, right? What lead to him actually meeting the person in the photo? You do know that people don’t just meet and fall in and out of love spontaneously, right? I want backstory instead of just “he’s gay because we say he’s gay”.
Why aren’t you mad that it wasn’t foreshadowed properly?
The reason it’s controversial is because a large contingent of gamers don’t like LGBT folks. If Soldier had a fling with a woman no one would care.
I’m not ignoring the point. Your example was irrelevant. You said “Imagine if X character never went to Y place, then suddenly proclaimed Y place was their favorite place to visit. Isn’t that weird?” That literally isn’t how Overwatch’s lore is developed. How it’s developed is every now and again we suddenly learn things like Y place happens to be X character’s favorite place to visit.
A curveball is simply when an expectation is subverted. The only way you could’ve expected anything from literally no information is if you already had a preconceived notion on these characters’ orientations. Which is your fault for assuming.
Okay, and that’s a story for another day. But the fact that you didn’t get that story today doesn’t mean the reveal itself is wrong, same as you’re obviously not demanding Blizzard make an entire short story/comic/animation/whatever specifically devoted to Reaper’s sewing abilities.
i also think soldier is the safe choice
making a black or ethnic character gay is much more touchy cause i’m pretty sure there is more cultural homophobia in non western countries (no matter what some activists want you to believe)
It’s the easiest choice ,soldier wasnt “diverse” before ,now he is.
I also will posit that if this had been a full comic and didnt come accross as cheap fanfic,this wouldnt have seem so low effort
Russia is a first-world country that is currently forcing LGBT people into concentration camps, sooooo. Let’s not be stereotypical.
do we count russia as a western country? I didnt.
Talking about america and europe mostly,smaller countries in europe have more issues ,butr are often 2nd world countries as well
Russia is considered a western country.
now you’re just splitting hairs,i still posit that there is less homophobia in western countries then some other ones.
I dont count russia.
But also the severity of what happens when you are gay,even IF there is a homphobe is much less in the’ west (as a whole,there is still issues and problems that gays face,obviously)
…I’m not splitting hairs. Russia is routinely considered part of the western world. If you’re just boiling this down to the United States (let’s be real; you don’t mean all of the Americas) and Europe, well, that’s not even all of the western world either.
i’m talking conversationaly,i’m n,ot writing a report,dont split hairs
So talking conversationally simply means saying whatever you feel regardless of whether or not it’s right? It’s really not that big of a deal. The whole point was not to stereotype.
in general what i wrote is correct
for every homophobe in the west you get a multiple of them in africa or in russia or other places (that i didnt count as western due to the adversarial nature it has)
it IS a first world country,but that doesnt make it the west.
(wikipedia: There is debate among some as to whether [Latin America] as a whole is in a category of its own. Whether [Russia] should be categorized as “East” or “West” has been “an ongoing discussion” for centuries.
Since there has been a debate about this for centuries i dont think we will solve that issue here in this forum,lets agree to have different interpretations. BUT i now clarified I DONT consider Russia the west ,so read my statement with that in mind.
As a gay person there is a much higher chance of death compared to western countries where you sometimes still get harmed,but on the whole it is less.
Stereotypes exist for a reason. There is no stereotype of a blond tall japanese man, Japanese usually are smaller and have dark hair. Not all stereotypes are bad, its just an observation,not condemnation .