Anyone interested in discussing the social issues of DB?

[VegettoEX]

Because it's interesting to compare history to current times and perhaps learn something from it...? Because we don't live in a bubble and have the convenience, ability, and rationale to put it all in context?

[Cipher]

I don't understand. Why are we applying current social standards to a franchise from 30 years ago?

We're not. We're discussing our feeling toward them as audiences now. There's no part of this thread where people are asking Toriyama to go back and change the manga or calling him a bad person or something.

EDIT -- What the endlessly reasonable VegettoEX said.

EDIT EDIT -- I guess I disagree a little with the opening post that it necessarily has to "redeem itself" as a franchise, since, again, thirty years ago, but it'd certainly be cool if it used its staggering popularity to--like--include a gay character who wasn't Blue or Otokosuki or something. Not the end of the world if it doesn't, given just how far afield any of its relationships are from its focus, but you know, whatever.

[successoroffate]

I don't understand. Why are we applying current social standards to a franchise from 30 years ago?

We're not. We're discussing our feeling toward them as audiences now. There's no part of this thread where people are asking Toriyama to go back and change the manga or calling him a bad person or something.

EDIT -- What the endlessly reasonable VegettoEX said.

The Poster said the Franchise should find a way to redeem itself for "its past views." I sit here and still don't know what those views are. And is not just changing, it means adding something that maybe the author doesn't want to, but "you have to" to make a group happy? Really?

EDIT: I just read your comment again, yeah I agree with the redeeming thing.

[Cipher]

The Poster said the Franchise should find a way to redeem itself for "its past views." I sit here and still don't know what those views are. And is not just changing, it means adding something that maybe the author doesn't want to, but "you have to" to please a group? Really?

Oops. Snuck that one in with an edit. I think the opening poster would just rather not have the series' last word on a marginalized demographic be the inclusion of a couple of stereotypes, one of whom is really ridiculous. I don't see Toriyama going out of his way to do anything socially motivated in his work -- ever (which is why we got those kinds of thoughtless inclusions in the first place) -- but it's not an unreasonable thing to hope for or want.

[VegettoEX]

I don't see Toriyama going out of his way to do anything socially motivated in his work -- ever (which is why we got those kinds of thoughtless inclusions in the first place) -- but it's not an unreasonable thing to hope for or want.

I think that's a great analysis and I wish I had more to add to it so I'll just keep typing words until there comes a point that I miraculously have something else to say and whoops hasn't happened yet.

Did I break our own posting rules there? I think I did. *issues an account strike against self*

[successoroffate]

The Poster said the Franchise should find a way to redeem itself for "its past views." I sit here and still don't know what those views are. And is not just changing, it means adding something that maybe the author doesn't want to, but "you have to" to please a group? Really?

Oops. Snuck that one in with an edit. I think the opening poster would just rather not have the series' last word on a marginalized demographic be the inclusion of a couple of stereotypes (one really ridiculous one), and that's a fair thing to hope for. I don't see Toriyama going out of his way to do anything socially motivated in his work -- ever (which is why we got those kinds of thoughtless inclusions in the first place) -- but it's not an unreasonable thing to hope for or want.

Yeah, I agree. If he decides to do it, that's different.

[Kamiccolo9]

I find it strange that the response of so many is "I don't think we should be talking about that."

Interesting that so many who rail against censorship of a cartoon get uncomfortable when this kind of conversation comes up.

[Soppa Saia People]

How's the show homophobic?

It's not about LGBT's 24/7.

More like Otokosuki exists. Also love how on the internet the moment you say something like "That's offense" or "That's homophobic" some people (mostly idiots) are "SJW SJW SJW", like f*** off if you do that.

[rereboy]

I find it strange that the response of so many is "I don't think we should be talking about that."

Interesting that so many who rail against censorship of a cartoon get uncomfortable when this kind of conversation comes up.

Because it's going much beyond what is actually there. It's like seeing an humorist bringing up a stereotype of a person of another country on a joke and starting a serious debate about the humorist being against foreigners or not in response. If I saw that type of response over that situation, I also would get pretty uncomfortable over the lack of sense of humor and excess of PC (political correctness).

I also don't see what censorship has to do with it. Those who oppose censorship usually do so because they want the original preserved as a matter of principle and because they aren't willing to let PC interfere with that principle. Meanwhile, those who don't see the point in debating about these issues regarding Dragon Ball usually don't see the point in that because such a topic is something that goes way beyond what is actually there in Dragon Ball that at most uses stereotypes and the notion of those ideas for lighthearted humor, and they also aren't willing to let PC interfere with that. If anything, they are coherent because both aren't willing to let PC interfere too much in these matters.

[floofychan333]

How's the show homophobic?

It's not about LGBT's 24/7.

It doesn't need to have a million gay characters. All I am saying here is that having an LGBT character not portrayed offensively would make me respect Dragon Ball more.

[floofychan333]

I don't understand. Why are we applying current social standards to a franchise from 30 years ago?

We're not. We're discussing our feeling toward them as audiences now. There's no part of this thread where people are asking Toriyama to go back and change the manga or calling him a bad person or something.

EDIT -- What the endlessly reasonable VegettoEX said.

EDIT EDIT -- I guess I disagree a little with the opening post that it necessarily has to "redeem itself" as a franchise, since, again, thirty years ago, but it'd certainly be cool if it used its staggering popularity to--like--include a gay character who wasn't Blue or Otokosuki or something. Not the end of the world if it doesn't, given just how far afield any of its relationships are from its focus, but you know, whatever.

I'm glad that there are a few people here who are actually willing to discuss the issues and not make excuses here. Thank you Cipher and VegettoEX.

[Cipher]

Because it's going much beyond what is actually there. It's like seeing an humorist bringing up a stereotype of a person of another country on a joke and starting a serious debate about the humorist being against foreigners or not in response. If I saw that type of response over that situation, I also would get pretty uncomfortable over the lack of sense of humor and excess of PC (political correctness).

I also don't see what censorship has to do with it. Those who oppose censorship usually do so because they want the original preserved as a matter of principle and because they aren't willing to let PC interfere with that principle. Meanwhile, those who don't see the point in debating about these issues regarding Dragon Ball usually don't see the point in that because such a topic is something that goes way beyond what is actually there in Dragon Ball that at most uses stereotypes and the notion of those ideas for lighthearted humor, and they also aren't willing to let PC interfere with that. If anything, they are coherent because both aren't willing to let PC interfere too much in these matters.

Kamiccolo9 was rightfully pointing out the disconnect between the attitudes of "I think people should be able to use their art to say shitty things" and "I do not think people should point out those are shitty things." The reality is, of course, that people should be able to do both, but no one's actually arguing for censoring Dragon Ball or tamping down some set of deeply held beliefs Toriyama has in the first place, so it hardly matters.

While we're at it, I would like to point out that the phrase "politically correct" is a a staggering victory of socially conservative rhetoric that gained use primarily through rightwing writing in the late 1980s and early '90s. It has its routes in the concept of "political morality" (morality as defined by a state or populous), ostensibly, but in its modern usage it's been selected for maximum impact in borrowing the connotations of "political"--that is, at worst dogmatic and censuring, at best vaguely dishonest--and the rigidity of "correctness." It's a masterfully chosen phrase if your demographic benefits from downplaying the kind of institutional critique that acknowledging more marginalized groups encourages. It successfully paints those asking for more honest representation as being dishonest. Imagine for a second what a different conversation we'd have if someone had rushed to coin the phrase "empathetic speech" or something like that instead.

tl;dr: Words are important and dictate the way we see the world.

I'm glad that there are a few people here who are actually willing to discuss the issues and not make excuses here. Thank you Cipher and VegettoEX.

Any time! It's too bad kunzait_83 took off again recently, because I know he'd have a thing or two to say on this as well. He runs an '80s and '90s Dragon Ball art Tumblr that he's occasionally used to haul off on the "escapism-only" attitudes that sometimes shut these discussions down (whose escapism is it if you're gay, a woman, etc.?, and even then, ignoring representational issues ain't cool).

This is the part where I reiterate again that Dragon Ball's not that bad (often pretty good with women, even) and largely excusable for its time, but that these things are still worth discussing.

[successoroffate]

How's the show homophobic?

It's not about LGBT's 24/7.

It doesn't need to have a million gay characters. All I am saying here is that having an LGBT character not portrayed offensively would make me respect Dragon Ball more.

Well, for the sake of argument..wouldn't Namekians be enough to meet your definition of a LGBT Character properly portrayed?

[Hellspawn28]

Android 18 was a central and serious antagonist. Videl is a (relatively) great fighter and the only human in Dragonball besides the Tournament Announcer to see through the Z fighters (albiet very thin) ruse.

Dragon Ball is a series market to young boys in Japan. The male characters are always going to have a bigger role than the female characters. Look at a series like Kamen Rider and Super Sentai, it's the same too. The male characters have a bigger role than the female ones because the show is made for younger boys.

[RedRibbonSoldier#42]

Android 18 was a central and serious antagonist. Videl is a (relatively) great fighter and the only human in Dragonball besides the Tournament Announcer to see through the Z fighters (albiet very thin) ruse.

Dragon Ball is a series market to young boys in Japan. The male characters are always going to have a bigger role than the female characters. Look at a series like Kamen Rider and Super Sentai, it's the same too. The male characters have a bigger role than the female ones because the show is made for younger boys.

Yes, i'm aware. I'm actually not sure why you quoted me; i was just saying that the ones we do have are good.

[sintzu]

All I am saying here is that having an LGBT character not portrayed offensively would make me respect Dragon Ball more.

Why should a kids show be dealing with that ?

[Kamiccolo9]

All I am saying here is that having an LGBT character not portrayed offensively would make me respect Dragon Ball more.

Why should a kids show be dealing with that ?

Why would an LGBT character just be for adults?

[sintzu]

Why would an LGBT character just be for adults?

Because adults can tell right from wrong while kids just copy whatever they see.

[Hellspawn28]

Is LGBT as big of a issue in Japan compare to the US? I support equal rights for everyone, but Dragon Ball is made for the Japanese audience and I don't think kids in Japan won't be into social issues of the real world or understand them.

[Kamiccolo9]

Why would an LGBT character just be for adults?

Because adults can tell right from wrong while kids just copy whatever they see.

So having an LGBT character in the show is "wrong?"