Anyone interested in discussing the social issues of DB?

[Vijay]

My post right now is based on OP which showed intention of divulging into racism, sexism etc

Toriyama for most part played safe. Despite exhibiting stereotypical cliches/racist overtones with Mr.Popo & Black Shogun, it was never overdone to the point of "ON YA FACE JERKS!!"

But TOEI glorifies those points almost exclusively

Take Doltacki from GT for instance. Never came across such disgusting hentai no yaaro in ANY anime series before & despite he never really did anything vulgar within the confines of DragonBall franchise, felt his character to be quite a mirror image of certain section of peoples in real life. Scary.

My 2 cents

[Gaffer Tape]

In terms of homosexuality, I'm glad it's not in Dragon Ball much; only Blue and Otokosuki come to mind, and they weren't around much.

I really dislike how the homosexual agenda is being pushed into all types of modern media so much.

Please leave sexual perversions out of DB.

Aaaaand here we go again. There's no mention in your post about the old man who shrinks himself down to spy on an underage girl going to the bathroom, but it being implied that a man is attracted to other men... now that's just perverted! The day that such attitudes are looked back on with the same derision and embarrassment as making people of different races use different water fountains is a day that cannot come soon enough.

[VegettoEX]

Agreed. While I'm all for nuance in opinions (we are all human, after all!), if you're not going to be thorough about it and would prefer to just come out as a bigot directly toward your fellow fans, please find another community to be a part of. You're not welcome here.

How's that for an agenda?

[Tyro]

Agreed. While I'm all for nuance in opinions (we are all human, after all!), if you're not going to be thorough about it and would prefer to just come out as a bigot directly toward your fellow fans, please find another community to be a part of. You're not welcome here.

How's that for an agenda?

I don't see how these people who are "coming out as bigots" are directing any kind of judgement towards anyone on this forum. It's not personal. It's not directed "toward your fellow fans." It's unlikely to come up outside this thread.

These people are already paying the price for what they've said. Their reputations will never be the same. But saying that they're not welcome when they bring up their beliefs in one of the only threads where this conversation is considered on-topic is absurd and childish. Some people have a problem with homosexuals, let's all pretend to be surprised by this.

And no, I'm not talking about myself here.

[VegettoEX]

But saying that they're not welcome when they bring up their beliefs in one of the only threads where this conversation is considered on-topic is absurd.

Look, I get the hilarity/irony here.

But we're going to draw a line somewhere, and that's basically it. Allowing the bigoted part of the discussion to stand free without a firm condemnation implies acceptance and agreement with the stance. And hey, very much firmly NO here from the people paying the bills.

[Ajay]

If it were my forum, I'd ban these disgusting people the second they hit post, so there's that. I think Mike's being lenient as it is.

[Tyro]

Allowing the bigoted part of the discussion to stand free without a firm condemnation implies acceptance and agreement with the stance. And hey, very much firmly NO here from the people paying the bills.

Who's "allowing" anything? Their opinions are called out every time, in multitude, and very maturely. That they're not even allowed to voice them in THIS thread is ridiculous. Might as well rename the thread "Please validate how I feel."

I mean, if these guys were going around the forum and bringing hatred up in random threads, yeah, go wild. Swing that ban hammer. But they're not. They're saying "I don't care for homosexuals and/or homosexual representation in media" in one thread where that's kinda-sorta what it's about.

[VegettoEX]

But that's NOT what was just said ("I don't care for homosexuals and/or homosexual representation in media"); it was far more than that. The instant you break out "pushing the agenda" it's a different beast. And, as Gaffer so perfectly pointed out, the hypocrisy of solely equating the existence of homosexuality as the perverted-ness to leave out... that says all that needs to be said, doesn't it?

If that's NOT what's being said, it certainly came across that way to multiple people (myself included), and I'd love to read a heartfelt retraction on that.

So again, yes: opinions are valid, we're all entitled to them, but if they're going to be wielded to essentially invalidate/condemn the very state-of-being of other fans, that's the line we're drawing.

I get where you're coming from. I really do. I really appreciate your input and your challenges. Thank you for that. I hope you can also understand where I/we/Kanzenshuu is/are coming from.

[Kamiccolo9]

There's a big difference between "I don't agree with the choices they've made," and "They are espousing sexual perversion and we need to follow the lead of Russia and Iran in exposing these people for the freaks they are," (which has been said in this thread.)

[gogeta97]

Allowing the bigoted part of the discussion to stand free without a firm condemnation implies acceptance and agreement with the stance. And hey, very much firmly NO here from the people paying the bills.

Who's "allowing" anything? Their opinions are called out every time, in multitude, and very maturely. That they're not even allowed to voice them in THIS thread is ridiculous. Might as well rename the thread "Please validate how I feel."

I mean, if these guys were going around the forum and bringing hatred up in random threads, yeah, go wild. Swing that ban hammer. But they're not. They're saying "I don't care for homosexuals and/or homosexual representation in media" in one thread where that's kinda-sorta what it's about.

But they are allowed to voice them in this thread. Multiple homophobic posts have been made(albeit by mostly the same user)and they're still up, the user isn't banned or anything like that. I'm against the overly-PC censorship as much as the next guy, but free speech goes both ways. Someone is saying something homophobic and people are calling them out for it. They're free to argue/defend their point(at least I think, no one seems to want to anyways though)but I hope you understand this is not just people saying "I don't LGBT representation in popular media matters" it's people saying "No queers in MY Dragon Ball" or talking about "muh gay agenda" and I hope you understand the difference between the two.

I also fail to see what makes you think this is a "please validate how I feel" thread. If you look through it you will see lots of different arguments being presented and people agreeing or disagreeing with them. In regards to the like, two(?)users who have made homophobic posts this is different from something like all these college speakers being run out of the colleges by protesters as they're not even allowed to make their point. But these people are, and they can continue to do so(within reason,although it's all up to the mods in the end).

[ABED]

free speech goes both ways

This is me just being my pendantic self, but free speech doesn't apply in this context. Everyone has every right to say what they want, but the owners of this forum don't have to give anyone the platform to say it. If Mike doesn't like what someone says or how they say it then decides to kick them off, he hasn't interfered with anyone's rights.

[gogeta97]

free speech goes both ways

This is me just being my pendantic self, but free speech doesn't apply in this context. Everyone has every right to say what they want, but the owners of this forum don't have to give anyone the platform to say it. If Mike doesn't like what someone says or how they say it then decides to kick them off, he hasn't interfered with anyone's rights.

You do know I was talking about the people who took issue with the homophobic posts right? I was saying that people are free to express their bigoted opinions but calling people out for it is also people expressing their free speech, so is the mods banning them.

[Zephyr]

There's a big difference between "I don't agree with the choices they've made," and "They are espousing sexual perversion and we need to follow the lead of Russia and Iran in exposing these people for the freaks they are," (which has been said in this thread.)

While I agree that there's a difference, I'd also say that people espousing the latter need every chance they can get to be persuaded away from those views.

In terms of homosexuality, I'm glad it's not in Dragon Ball much; only Blue and Otokosuki come to mind, and they weren't around much.

I really dislike how the homosexual agenda is being pushed into all types of modern media so much.

Please leave sexual perversions out of DB.

What even counts as "pushing the homosexual agenda"? I'm inferring from your post that you don't think that Dragon Ball is quite at the level of pushing it, but I'm not quite sure if that's because of their portrayal, or if that's because of how few of them show up. In either case, why shouldn't the "homosexual agenda" be pushed? If positive depiction and reasonable representation is "pushing an agenda", what's wrong with any gender, race, sexuality, age, etc.'s "agenda" being "pushed"?

And what makes homosexuality a form of perversion, let alone one somehow distinct from what Dragon Ball typically does? Heterosexuality isn't considered perversion, why should a different sexual preference? Is it because it is less common? What difference should that make? Now uncommon sexual interests are unworthy of dignified regard? It certainly can't be because homosexuality is unnatural, because it's 100% natural. Maybe you just believe that sexual conduct in general is just absolutely perverse, no matter what. Which would also be a really odd view to hold. Really not seeing anything worth condemning homosexuality over. Every attempt at justifying this view involves either false premises or huge leaps in logic.

[gogeta97]

And what makes homosexuality a form of perversion, let alone one somehow distinct from what Dragon Ball typically does? Heterosexuality isn't considered perversion, why should a different sexual preference? Is it because it is less common? What difference should that make? Now uncommon sexual interests are unworthy of dignified regard? It certainly can't be because homosexuality is unnatural, because it's 100% natural. Maybe you just believe that sexual conduct in general is just absolutely perverse, no matter what. Which would also be a really odd view to hold. Really not seeing anything worth condemning homosexuality over. Every attempt at justifying this view involves either false premises or huge leaps in logic.

But if we normalize homosexuality then we'll have to normalize pedophillia and beastiality too!

[RedRibbonSoldier#42]

And what makes homosexuality a form of perversion, let alone one somehow distinct from what Dragon Ball typically does? Heterosexuality isn't considered perversion, why should a different sexual preference? Is it because it is less common? What difference should that make? Now uncommon sexual interests are unworthy of dignified regard? It certainly can't be because homosexuality is unnatural, because it's 100% natural. Maybe you just believe that sexual conduct in general is just absolutely perverse, no matter what. Which would also be a really odd view to hold. Really not seeing anything worth condemning homosexuality over. Every attempt at justifying this view involves either false premises or huge leaps in logic.

But if we normalize homosexuality then we'll have to normalize pedophillia and beastiality too!

Technically those would be as natural, but they are much more harmful.

[successoroffate]

And what makes homosexuality a form of perversion, let alone one somehow distinct from what Dragon Ball typically does? Heterosexuality isn't considered perversion, why should a different sexual preference? Is it because it is less common? What difference should that make? Now uncommon sexual interests are unworthy of dignified regard? It certainly can't be because homosexuality is unnatural, because it's 100% natural. Maybe you just believe that sexual conduct in general is just absolutely perverse, no matter what. Which would also be a really odd view to hold. Really not seeing anything worth condemning homosexuality over. Every attempt at justifying this view involves either false premises or huge leaps in logic.

But if we normalize homosexuality then we'll have to normalize pedophillia and beastiality too!

But those two are crimes....homosexuality doesn't fall on that category.

[Zephyr]

And what makes homosexuality a form of perversion, let alone one somehow distinct from what Dragon Ball typically does? Heterosexuality isn't considered perversion, why should a different sexual preference? Is it because it is less common? What difference should that make? Now uncommon sexual interests are unworthy of dignified regard? It certainly can't be because homosexuality is unnatural, because it's 100% natural. Maybe you just believe that sexual conduct in general is just absolutely perverse, no matter what. Which would also be a really odd view to hold. Really not seeing anything worth condemning homosexuality over. Every attempt at justifying this view involves either false premises or huge leaps in logic.

But if we normalize homosexuality then we'll have to normalize pedophillia and beastiality too!

I know that you're being facetious with that, but the response has always puzzled me when used sincerely. Those two are always treated as inherently wrong, with no real logic behind the condemnation (pedophilia =/= child molestation/abuse). Normalizing an attraction to something (refraining from condemning someone simply because of their own un-chosen sexual inclinations) doesn't necessarily lead to an individual with such inclinations performing harmful actions as a result. In the same way that a heterosexual male is not condemned to harming women by being attracted to them, a homosexual man is not condemned to harming men by virtue of being attracted to them. The same, I believe, would necessarily apply to pedophiles and people who are into animals.

I mean, I could understand if there was just disgust there. Fundamental, reasonless, inherent disgust. Everyone has it for one thing or another. A lot of people have it for homosexuality. A lot of people have it for pedophilia. A lot of people have it for being-into-animals. It wouldn't surprise me if some had it for heterosexuality. Hell, a lot of people just straight up don't like the way Masako Nozawa's Goku voice sounds! Disgust is a natural thing to have, and I'm not going to judge anyone for being disgusted by something that I'm not. On the same token, I'm not going to judge someone for not being disgusted by something that I find repulsive.

However, being disgusted by something isn't sufficient to call it "bad" or "wrong". One's own individual personal taste is ultimately arbitrary (it's not chosen by us, and it can be infinitely varied), and it doesn't reflect how unnatural or harmful something actually is. I honestly wish people would stop pretending that it is, or adamantly insisting that they have valid reasons for a condemnation when it's simply raw, fundamental disgust. Conflating disgust with justified moral condemnation is a very dangerous road to go down. This, again, is why we need these sorts of discussions to happen more frequently, in society in general. The more people are encouraged to speak their minds and formulate arguments to justify their beliefs and sentiments, the better they can see which beliefs and sentiments are fundamental and reasonless, and which ones possess logical rigor that can be used persuasively. Subsequently, we can see which fundamental sentiments can be augmented by reasoning and argumentation, and which ones cannot.

[MrWalnut4]

But if we normalize homosexuality then we'll have to normalize pedophillia and beastiality too!

I know that you're being facetious with that, but the response has always puzzled me when used sincerely. Those two are always treated as inherently wrong, with no real logic behind the condemnation (pedophilia =/= child molestation/abuse). Normalizing an attraction to something (refraining from condemning someone simply because of their own un-chosen sexual inclinations) doesn't necessarily lead to an individual with such inclinations performing harmful actions as a result. In the same way that a heterosexual male is not condemned to harming women by being attracted to them, a homosexual man is not condemned to harming men by virtue of being attracted to them. The same, I believe, would necessarily apply to pedophiles and people who are into animals.

There is a fundamental objection to bestiality and pedophilia that you are missing here. While there are certainly people who find it disgusting and would rather have it illegal by that justification alone, the reason it is illegal in law is because of the inability to consent. An animal has no rational thinking ability compared to that of a human and no way of communicating even if it did. By this simple fact, it is impossible for an animal to give consent to a sexual act with a human. Therefore, a sexual act performed on an animal is tantamount to the rape/sexual abuse of said animal.

The same concept applies to pedophilia. A child does not have the mental capacity to give informed consent to a sexual act with an adult. Therefore, any sexual act performed on a child by an adult is rape/sexual abuse. The problem is, people often conflate those with fetishes of children and animals to those who participate in the sexual abuse of children and animals. I condemn those who take in part in those actions and pity those who live with part of their sexuality being considered monstrous. Finding non-destructive outlets for that part of their sexuality shouldn't be as demonized as it is in my opinion. I would rather they do that than participate in a truly destructive act toward a child or animal.

[Zephyr]

But if we normalize homosexuality then we'll have to normalize pedophillia and beastiality too!

I know that you're being facetious with that, but the response has always puzzled me when used sincerely. Those two are always treated as inherently wrong, with no real logic behind the condemnation (pedophilia =/= child molestation/abuse). Normalizing an attraction to something (refraining from condemning someone simply because of their own un-chosen sexual inclinations) doesn't necessarily lead to an individual with such inclinations performing harmful actions as a result. In the same way that a heterosexual male is not condemned to harming women by being attracted to them, a homosexual man is not condemned to harming men by virtue of being attracted to them. The same, I believe, would necessarily apply to pedophiles and people who are into animals.

There is a fundamental objection to bestiality and pedophilia that you are missing here. While there are certainly people who find it disgusting and would rather have it illegal by that justification alone, the reason it is illegal in law is because of the inability to consent.

I'm aware of that caveat, but I'm talking about the sexual preferences themselves, not acting on them. Whether or not acting on them is ever justified is another can of worms entirely, and I'm pretty much in agreement with you on those matters.

[WittyUsername]

Speaking of racism, this is kind of minor to bring up, but does anyone else feel that the recent situation with Frost sort of unintentionally promotes the idea of racism? Not only has every member of Freeza's race been portrayed as an evil scumbag, but Vegeta seemed to imply that every member of Freeza's race is probably like that, and no one else in the show even bothers to call him out for that.

Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but that seems to be imply that it's okay to judge people by other members of their race. Not the best message for kids. I'm guessing that's more on Toei than Toriyama, since they also portrayed General Blue as a pedophile.