Chinese anti-black racism

[Metaphor]

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

Toni misunderstood what you said, then you accused her of being dishonest...

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

...so please, get off the high horse here. Several posts wasted because you couldn't replace:
"You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make."

with

"You misunderstood what I was saying."

Toni has high animosity towards me, and has openly accused me of things she has no evidence for (like I want women to be strippers so they won't be competition for me in my office job). It is not any kind of stretch to imagine somebody who openly accuses me of having psychotic, demented ideas about women in the labour market could also straw man a claim I made.

I'll accept that Toni misunderstood my claim, but I do not accept I worded my claim ambiguously.

I didn't really misunderstand your claim (acknowledge that you later suggested a better wording):

I didn't suggest 'better wording', Jimmy Higgins did. And you are now claiming that in fact you didn't misunderstand at all: that I somehow actually claimed 'American television is saturated with LGBT characters'. I did not make that claim.

I was just sidetracked/interested in the idea of something I had not really paid much attention to.

Jimmy Higgins has a good point: Not only in this particular thread but in many others, you react in the extreme if I don't respond in the way that you feel you have a right to dictate I respond. In this case, I only responded to the part of your post that I found surprising

The 'part' of my post you found 'surprising' was not some part you can sever from the rest of the sentence, as I've explained in post 54.

and asked about just that part. I wasn't trying to do any kind of gotcha or anything else. What you wrote peaked my curiosity.

I don't have any particular animosity towards you, except that your habit of reacting so extremely whenever I fail to meet whatever expectation you think you have a right to demand and reply using only words that you approve of

No, I think it is common courtesy that you reply to what I've actually claimed, not what you have mistakenly think I claimed.

and only to exactly what you want me to address is ....a bit tedious. It distracts from actual communication and clarification of what is being said or meant. By either of us.

No.

Honestly Toni, if you cannot see why your reformulation of my statement was wrong and misrepresented it, I cannot see how we can hope to have any productive conversation whatever.

I DON'T see what I did as wrong.

In post 54, I explain to you why your reformulation was wrong. Not morally wrong, simply factually wrong. Please read post 54 and try to understand why your reformulation was wrong. I don't know what else to add.

 

[Toni]

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

Toni misunderstood what you said, then you accused her of being dishonest...

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

...so please, get off the high horse here. Several posts wasted because you couldn't replace:
"You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make."

with

"You misunderstood what I was saying."

Toni has high animosity towards me, and has openly accused me of things she has no evidence for (like I want women to be strippers so they won't be competition for me in my office job). It is not any kind of stretch to imagine somebody who openly accuses me of having psychotic, demented ideas about women in the labour market could also straw man a claim I made.

I'll accept that Toni misunderstood my claim, but I do not accept I worded my claim ambiguously.

I didn't really misunderstand your claim (acknowledge that you later suggested a better wording):

I didn't suggest 'better wording', Jimmy Higgins did. And you are now claiming that in fact you didn't misunderstand at all: that I somehow actually claimed 'American television is saturated with LGBT characters'. I did not make that claim.

I was just sidetracked/interested in the idea of something I had not really paid much attention to.

Jimmy Higgins has a good point: Not only in this particular thread but in many others, you react in the extreme if I don't respond in the way that you feel you have a right to dictate I respond. In this case, I only responded to the part of your post that I found surprising

The 'part' of my post you found 'surprising' was not some part you can sever from the rest of the sentence, as I've explained in post 54.

and asked about just that part. I wasn't trying to do any kind of gotcha or anything else. What you wrote peaked my curiosity.

I don't have any particular animosity towards you, except that your habit of reacting so extremely whenever I fail to meet whatever expectation you think you have a right to demand and reply using only words that you approve of

No, I think it is common courtesy that you reply to what I've actually claimed, not what you have mistakenly think I claimed.

and only to exactly what you want me to address is ....a bit tedious. It distracts from actual communication and clarification of what is being said or meant. By either of us.

No.

Honestly Toni, if you cannot see why your reformulation of my statement was wrong and misrepresented it, I cannot see how we can hope to have any productive conversation whatever.

I DON'T see what I did as wrong.

In post 54, I explain to you why your reformulation was wrong. Not morally wrong, simply factually wrong. Please read post 54 and try to understand why your reformulation was wrong. I don't know what else to add.

I understand WHY you think I was wrong. Again, I only responded to one idea that I found interesting/surprising. It was not a reflection on your powers of reasoning or your writing capability or anything else except that I asked about one small fragment of what was written.


I did not intend to offend you or misrepresent you.

Think of it as if you were writing about your great aunt's preference for coffee over tea and during your writing, you mentioned her dog riding up on a bicycle. I would have asked about the dog on the bicycle and not discussed coffee or tea or your great aunt or American vs Australian preferences for hot beverages or anything else.

Yes, the whole dog riding a bicycle is hyperbolic and ridiculous but I'm trying to make a very, very obviously exaggerated example of why I might focus on only one part of your discussion, even if it is tangential or even trivial to your main point.

 

[Jarhyn]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

No. You dishonestly are accusing me of being required to respond entirely to the totality of whatever you write in exactly the form you prefer, retroactively, in some cases, in order to have a reason to rage explode.

I asked an honest question because it honestly had not occurred to me that US television is 'saturated' by gay characters. You mentioned it--yes in reference to American movies but that wasn't the part that I was curious about. It wasn't intended as a gotcha or anything else. I had never heard anyone even vaguely suggest that there were too many gay characters these days on tv or anything similar. So, any statement about LGBT representation saturating television caught my attention.

Someone who was actually interested in honest conversation would respond by either re-stating that in their opinion/according to this source/or data (link) supports OR by saying: I was only speaking in reference with tv compared with films.

I watch some television but honestly, very little in the 80's or 90's. Or earlier. I have a fairly narrow focus on what I like to watch and what I'm willing to allocate time to watch. In the last couple of years, I've watched more television than I ever have in my life but that's a pandemic thing, not a TV has gotten to be so interesting thing.

But referencing the 80's and 90's (and let's go back further than that) there were some obviously gay male characters whose sexual preferences were never even hinted at because sex was never hinted at. I'm thinking first of all: Uncle Arthur (portrayed by Paul Lynde an actor who was gay IRL) in the series Bewitched. As a child I had no idea but as an adult, it's fairly obvious that the character was gay but in a way that didn't actually reference his romantic life at all and in a way that allowed people who didn't care to know to not know. It wasn't that it was hidden--it just wasn't...mentioned. Lots of actors in TV shows from my childhood were gay, and lots of actors in Hollywood were and are gay. It kept a dark secret in those days because of 'morality clauses' and the McCarthy era and fears that the actor would no longer be believed as a romantic lead. Society was not quite ready for openly gay characters. But if you want to see a tiny glimmer of Hollywood recognizing that gay people did exist, you should watch Some Like It Hot, all the way to the end.

The earliest TV show I can remember when being gay was mentioned was Three's Company and that character was not gay but pretending to be. Honestly, I watched very little television when I was growing up and as a college student and a young adult, I didn't have a television-or want one, either.

I did google something like gay characters on US television and at least some of the ones they listed are definitely not gay but that's a quibble. Also a couple of shows where they mentioned that this character is gay but totally leave out their partner and another gay character on the show. There were also a LOT of shows I'd never heard of.

As for there being an increase in the number of LGBT characters on television over the last year or so: Possibly?

I also can't help but ask why Metaphor is so mad that there are LGBT characters on television.

I can't help but ask if Jarhyn's dishonest representation is because I'm on his ignore list again, and yet he can't resist responding to me indirectly, or if his prejudices overwhelm his reading abilities.

I did not say, nor did I imply, that I was 'mad' that there are LGBT characters on television.

Does Metaphor feel badly represented? Is Metaphor just mad because the gay folks are no longer conforming to Stonewall era stereotypes? Or that they have sexualities that were entirely unknown by popular culture in the 1980's?

Oh, the humanity!

Does Jarhyn actually give a fuck about the answer to any of these questions?

To be honest, no snark intended, but you often come across as angry or outraged when you write posts. I can understand why he wrote that you were 'so mad.'

Metaphor seems so put out by people interpreting the shape of an expression as being a layer of communication, a part of it's framing, and one that generally encodes "mad" as regards Metaphor.

Oftentimes, like now, it transitions following the recognition to indignation.

I would very much like to know why metaphor feels so compelled to write with so much obvious vinegar about so many LGBT characters appearing on television, even after the vast majority of media in our world is completely devoid of such, even with this recent uptick.

Eventually, people will get tired of it, and someone else will have a chance to finally be "seen" for better or worse, and maybe it swings down to 6-9%.

As to why I have him on ignore, I frequently show ignored content to get context, but honestly I can only stand so many idiotic posts at a time. Metaphor's posts are quite brain-rotting in general.

 

[Toni]

Sidebar: I googled LGBT characters on TV and because I couldn't think of many lesbian characters on TV, I googled that separately and BOY is there a lot of TV I've never even heard of much less watched.

 

[Toni]

Meanwhile I await excreationist's next post of an AI's censoring of the Star Wars poster based on Chinese standards.

China is very racist, period.

My wife has a relative that doesn't want some more distant relatives to know that my wife married outside her race--he sees that as a negative that reflects negatively on him. (And I'm white, not black!)

That's silly, you can't discriminate against me, I'm white.

The point is that it's not confined to blacks. There's some pretty major racism against anyone who isn't Chinese.

I know, I get it, but there is a lot more beneath the layers. I can only imagine being black or Hispanic in America and reading that from a White person.

If the OP's right about the Chinese being racist against blacks, them actually keeping the black guy and kicking off Chewbacca makes it more of an insult.

You know, personally, I think Finn was worse than Jar Jar Binks, by a good deal. His character, or lack of any, was one of the worst things in the latest trilogy. If only Rose had let him die, or killed him straight up instead of shocking him, or if he actually died after getting split open like a T-day turkey by Kylo... we literally had all these chances to end Finn... and nothing came of them! Oi!

So if we must erase anyone... Finn would be a great choice.

I liked Finn despite the fact that he was underdeveloped....I thought Cassian was kind of a waste.

 

[ZiprHead]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

"Nearly 12%." Hardly constitutes as "saturated".

Oops, sorry. I guess I'm late to the game.

 

[TomC]

I would very much like to know why metaphor feels so compelled to write with so much obvious vinegar about so many LGBT characters appearing on television, even after the vast majority of media in our world is completely devoid of such, even with this recent uptick.

This is quite the sort of dishonest mischaracterization that gets people like metaphor and me angry.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know, personally, I think Finn was worse than Jar Jar Binks, by a good deal. His character, or lack of any, was one of the worst things in the latest trilogy. If only Rose had let him die, or killed him straight up instead of shocking him, or if he actually died after getting split open like a T-day turkey by Kylo... we literally had all these chances to end Finn... and nothing came of them! Oi!

So if we must erase anyone... Finn would be a great choice.

I liked Finn despite the fact that he was underdeveloped....I thought Cassian was kind of a waste.

Finn was straight up comic foil for an 8 year old to enjoy, really Star Wars has always been more for kids than adults. I remember being young enough when Ewoks didn't make me role my eyes.

Honestly, the entire third trilogy was a waste, for so many reasons.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would very much like to know why metaphor feels so compelled to write with so much obvious vinegar about so many LGBT characters appearing on television, even after the vast majority of media in our world is completely devoid of such, even with this recent uptick.

This is quite the sort of dishonest mischaracterization that gets people like metaphor and me angry.
Tom

I'm not certain why people are getting so angry over vinegar. Vinaigrette, okay, but vinegar? Grow thicker skin!

 

[TomC]

I would very much like to know why metaphor feels so compelled to write with so much obvious vinegar about so many LGBT characters appearing on television, even after the vast majority of media in our world is completely devoid of such, even with this recent uptick.

This is quite the sort of dishonest mischaracterization that gets people like metaphor and me angry.
Tom

I'm not certain why people are getting so angry over vinegar. Vinaigrette, okay, but vinegar? Grow thicker skin!

OK.
Those of us who don't respond well to being lied about should "grow thicker skin".

I would say "I don't understand why @Jarhyn and @Toni and similar IIDB posters do that so regularly."
But I'd be lying if I did.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would very much like to know why metaphor feels so compelled to write with so much obvious vinegar about so many LGBT characters appearing on television, even after the vast majority of media in our world is completely devoid of such, even with this recent uptick.

This is quite the sort of dishonest mischaracterization that gets people like metaphor and me angry.
Tom

I'm not certain why people are getting so angry over vinegar. Vinaigrette, okay, but vinegar? Grow thicker skin!

OK.
Those of us who don't respond well to being lied about should "grow thicker skin".

I would say "I don't understand why @Jarhyn and @Toni and similar IIDB posters do that so regularly."
But I'd be lying if I did.
Tom

Oh goody... I understood that post. I don't understand why you responded to my post so seriously though. But I guess beggars can't be choosers.

 

[Toni]

I am honestly unaware of lying with reference to any exchange between Metaphor and myself or any other poster.

I frequently disagree with a lot of posters and often say so. But I don’t lie about them.

In this thread, I simply asked a very straight forward question about a statement that surprised me. Full stop. I had no idea it would be controversial or antagonistic in any way.

I am aware that I sometimes interpret things differently than some other people. That is not lying. That’s me having my own perspective.

I am very rarely ever interested in parroting back a response in the format someone insists MUST be used. That’s not lying.

Every person posting on this forum or anywhere on the internet or in real life sometimes misinterprets something someone else writes or says. That’s not lying, sometimes all of us impute motives that are not there. Sometimes some or all of us infer motives or meanings that were not intended. Those motives or meanings are sometimes present even if the writer or speaker was not consciously aware of the other meaning. Or sometimes there was no unconscious or secret or hidden meaning.

The best thing to do is to simply ask if that’s what someone meant. And to take them at their word.

 

[TomC]

I would very much like to know why metaphor feels so compelled to write with so much obvious vinegar about so many LGBT characters appearing on television, even after the vast majority of media in our world is completely devoid of such, even with this recent uptick.

This is quite the sort of dishonest mischaracterization that gets people like metaphor and me angry.
Tom

I'm not certain why people are getting so angry over vinegar. Vinaigrette, okay, but vinegar? Grow thicker skin!

OK.
Those of us who don't respond well to being lied about should "grow thicker skin".

I would say "I don't understand why @Jarhyn and @Toni and similar IIDB posters do that so regularly."
But I'd be lying if I did.
Tom

Oh goody... I understood that post. I don't understand why you responded to my post so seriously though. But I guess beggars can't be choosers.

But you didn't respond to it.
You responded to a dishonest mischaracterization of what he posted.


Why do you think that IIDB posters like you and Toni and Jarhyn so regularly respond with deceit and mischaracterization?

I have a very confident opinion.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

No. You dishonestly are accusing me of being required to respond entirely to the totality of whatever you write in exactly the form you prefer, retroactively, in some cases, in order to have a reason to rage explode.

I asked an honest question because it honestly had not occurred to me that US television is 'saturated' by gay characters. You mentioned it--yes in reference to American movies but that wasn't the part that I was curious about. It wasn't intended as a gotcha or anything else. I had never heard anyone even vaguely suggest that there were too many gay characters these days on tv or anything similar. So, any statement about LGBT representation saturating television caught my attention.

Someone who was actually interested in honest conversation would respond by either re-stating that in their opinion/according to this source/or data (link) supports OR by saying: I was only speaking in reference with tv compared with films.

I watch some television but honestly, very little in the 80's or 90's. Or earlier. I have a fairly narrow focus on what I like to watch and what I'm willing to allocate time to watch. In the last couple of years, I've watched more television than I ever have in my life but that's a pandemic thing, not a TV has gotten to be so interesting thing.

But referencing the 80's and 90's (and let's go back further than that) there were some obviously gay male characters whose sexual preferences were never even hinted at because sex was never hinted at. I'm thinking first of all: Uncle Arthur (portrayed by Paul Lynde an actor who was gay IRL) in the series Bewitched. As a child I had no idea but as an adult, it's fairly obvious that the character was gay but in a way that didn't actually reference his romantic life at all and in a way that allowed people who didn't care to know to not know. It wasn't that it was hidden--it just wasn't...mentioned. Lots of actors in TV shows from my childhood were gay, and lots of actors in Hollywood were and are gay. It kept a dark secret in those days because of 'morality clauses' and the McCarthy era and fears that the actor would no longer be believed as a romantic lead. Society was not quite ready for openly gay characters. But if you want to see a tiny glimmer of Hollywood recognizing that gay people did exist, you should watch Some Like It Hot, all the way to the end.

The earliest TV show I can remember when being gay was mentioned was Three's Company and that character was not gay but pretending to be. Honestly, I watched very little television when I was growing up and as a college student and a young adult, I didn't have a television-or want one, either.

I did google something like gay characters on US television and at least some of the ones they listed are definitely not gay but that's a quibble. Also a couple of shows where they mentioned that this character is gay but totally leave out their partner and another gay character on the show. There were also a LOT of shows I'd never heard of.

As for there being an increase in the number of LGBT characters on television over the last year or so: Possibly?

I also can't help but ask why Metaphor is so mad that there are LGBT characters on television.

I can't help but ask if Jarhyn's dishonest representation is because I'm on his ignore list again, and yet he can't resist responding to me indirectly, or if his prejudices overwhelm his reading abilities.

I did not say, nor did I imply, that I was 'mad' that there are LGBT characters on television.

Does Metaphor feel badly represented? Is Metaphor just mad because the gay folks are no longer conforming to Stonewall era stereotypes? Or that they have sexualities that were entirely unknown by popular culture in the 1980's?

Oh, the humanity!

Does Jarhyn actually give a fuck about the answer to any of these questions?

To be honest, no snark intended, but you often come across as angry or outraged when you write posts. I can understand why he wrote that you were 'so mad.'

Nevertheless, upon reading the words I actually wrote, there is simply no room to make the claim I was 'mad' about LGBT characters on television. It seems just another post that Jarhyn has used to fling accusations and baseless speculations at me, then never respond to any correction.

It's entirely possible I'm on his 'ignore' list, so he does not see what I write but feels compelled to respond to second-hand interpretations of it, which is bad. It's also entirely possible I'm not on his 'ignore' list, he can see what I write and could have responded directly, but chooses to speculate and write about me as if I were not in the same conversation, which is worse.

From this side of the internet, I understand Jarhyn's slightly hyperbolic characterization of you as being 'mad' about the representation of gay characters. I understand that YOU don't understand it. I wonder if you understand that you very frequently come across as being VERY OUTRAGED at.....stuff?

I frequently am very outraged at stuff. That doesn't mean I'm outraged at...things I'm not outraged at.

Side note: I always am a little shocked/surprised that so many non-Americans are so familiar with so much American TV. Especially the tv shows of the 60's-80's which were not particularly good, with the exception of I Love Lucy and some of the variety shows. Oh, and All in the Family, which I had a really hard time watching because my dad was basically a small town Archie Bunker. Funny on tv isn't necessarily fun to live with....

Only an American could be surprised. Many countries outside America have government-mandated programming rules that enforce a minimum percentage of content produced in that particular country, because America dominates entertainment production so thoroughly. Australia has rules, imposed not only on its public broadcasters but private channels as well, that x% of prime time programs must be Australian-produced. Many marginal shows were produced to fill this quota. There are also quotas for kid's shows.

Note that Australians are so used to American accents little kids mimic them from YouTube videos. Think about that kind of cultural domination. I bet not many kids in America could do an Australian accent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would very much like to know why metaphor feels so compelled to write with so much obvious vinegar about so many LGBT characters appearing on television, even after the vast majority of media in our world is completely devoid of such, even with this recent uptick.

This is quite the sort of dishonest mischaracterization that gets people like metaphor and me angry.
Tom

I'm not certain why people are getting so angry over vinegar. Vinaigrette, okay, but vinegar? Grow thicker skin!

OK.
Those of us who don't respond well to being lied about should "grow thicker skin".

I would say "I don't understand why @Jarhyn and @Toni and similar IIDB posters do that so regularly."
But I'd be lying if I did.
Tom

Oh goody... I understood that post. I don't understand why you responded to my post so seriously though. But I guess beggars can't be choosers.

But you didn't respond to it.
You responded to a dishonest mischaracterization of what he posted.

I mean, that is just evidence you don't read what I write. Vinegar... Vinaigrette... it wasn't even remotely subtle. So either you didn't read what I wrote... or you browsed bits and respond to the part that made you get all vinegar'd up.

Why do you think that IIDB posters like you and Toni and Jarhyn so regularly respond with deceit and mischaracterization?

I can't speak for Toni and Jarhyn, but I was raised by wolves.

I have a very confident opinion.

I'm confident of that as well.

 

[Metaphor]

I understand WHY you think I was wrong.

You were wrong. Not 'I think'.

If your entire post had not opened with 'Is American television saturated with queer characters?', I'd have said nothing. Yet, it did open with that, as if it were something I had expressed.

Again, I only responded to one idea that I found interesting/surprising.

No. You didn't respond to the idea that American television is saturated with queer characters because I did not express that idea.

Think of it as if you were writing about your great aunt's preference for coffee over tea and during your writing, you mentioned her dog riding up on a bicycle. I would have asked about the dog on the bicycle and not discussed coffee or tea or your great aunt or American vs Australian preferences for hot beverages or anything else.

I did not express the idea that you are claiming to have responded to.

Yes, the whole dog riding a bicycle is hyperbolic and ridiculous but I'm trying to make a very, very obviously exaggerated example of why I might focus on only one part of your discussion, even if it is tangential or even trivial to your main point.

I did not express the idea that you are claiming to have responded to.

 

[Toni]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

The boulders part is the part I responded to.

Yes, it was part of a larger sentence but the idea of ‘queer’ characters being saturated or over represented or whatever in American television struck me as interesting. I had not noticed or considered that.

This was not an attempt at anything except to get more information.

The End.

 

[Metaphor]

I really just want to know why Metaphor seems to want less representation in films.

Perhaps I seem to want it because Jarhyn can't even be bothered to read what I write, but only gets a second-hand interpretation from people responding to me.

And even though he doesn't read what I write, he cannot help himself but respond to what he imagines I wrote.

 

[Metaphor]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

"Nearly 12%." Hardly constitutes as "saturated".

Oops, sorry. I guess I'm late to the game.

You are. You also evidently did not read much of the preceding thread.

 

[Metaphor]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

The boulders part is the part I responded to.

Yes, I know.

Yes, it was part of a larger sentence

No, that it was merely part of a larger sentence is not the point. You can respond to a partial sentence where the rest of the sentence does not fundamentally alter the part of the sentence fragment you are responding to.

but the idea of ‘queer’ characters being saturated or over represented or whatever in American television struck me as interesting. I had not noticed or considered that.

This was not an attempt at anything except to get more information.

The End.

Well, I gave you more information.