DB/Fiction's Handling of Diversity

[Doctor.]

Sorry; have you been watching, like, America and Britain at all since the second half of 2016?

Voting to leave the EU or for Trump doesn't automatically qualify you as a racist or homophobe.

Also, people in this thread be like, "Why do punchline stereotypes in fiction matter?" As if popular fiction doesn't frame the way we view the world. For a bunch of people with cumulative millions of posts on a message board about a single comic series, people sure radically underestimate the weight popular storytelling has.

Sure, Dragon Ball has a huge impact world wide, but that's not the point. The point is that an author doesn't have to be forced to make a political statement he doesn't want to.

[Jinzoningen MULE]

That's not the case, the amount of racists, LGBT-phobes, etc. is so miniscule that it's not worth basing anything on.

Sorry; have you been watching, like, America and Britain at all since the second half of 2016?

Immigration isn't, and never has been a racial issue, if that's what you mean. If you're referring to something else, we could take it to PM's since it's off-topic. Only if you feel like it, of course.

[Cipher]

Immigration isn't, and never has been a racial issue, if that's what you mean. If you're referring to something else, we could take it to PM's since it's off-topic. Only if you feel like it, of course.

I'm just going to leave it right here that an administration rode its way to the White House on a platform that included proposing an actual ban on Muslims (which for many people, absolutely is a racial/appearance thing as much as a religious one), portraying blacks as criminal, and stripping away LGBT protections. There is currently legislation in effect or proposed to follow through on this rhetoric, and it enjoys enough popular and political support to gain traction. It's naive to uncouple immigration policy from xenophobia and scapegoating. There is much, much support for the idea that American communities should be founded on ethno-European culture; it's being expressed far, far more freely now that I can remember it ever being in my lifetime (that last bit actually came from an NPR piece I was listening to earlier today on a town that was looking for ways to keep its refugee program going; some of its residents were happy to put it on those terms and feel bold enough to say that on air).

Bigots, xenophobes, and people who will tolerate their practices if it's personally expedient are not a niche group. Shit, a major portion of the country was resisting the Civil Rights movement a single generation back.

Everyone should be keenly aware of this, whether this is supposed to be a Dragon Ball-only board or not.

[SingleFringe&Sparks]

Then let me make some semblance of a defense of his position. First, who is it that asks for the types of things he stated? It isn't the people who have enjoyed comics since they were kids and built them into the pop icons they are now. It is the people who have appropriated that culture as their own in order to change it to suit their agenda rather than enjoy it for what it is.

How can you say that it wasn't people who enjoyed comics? People who are reading them had to have had interest in them already. Batman, Wonder Woman Spiderman, Hulk and Superman are all household novelty and all early projects for children feature at least of those characters. You can only accuse someone of not enjoying something they don't know about, but that isn't likely or fair to those that are not apparently expected to like comics. It comes down to that old stereotype of girls only liking dolls and boys only liking action figures. The vice-versa is fraudulent because you didn't see the people who aren't already accounted for. There is no "agenda" to anything, its just people who want to see different creative directions, but do not know how to adapt that correctly into expanding the standard they want to challenge.

It is people who often times don't read them that make these requests of writers. And the connection between all these people is political ideology. It's not as crudely simple as, "These darn SJW's are ruining my comic books!" but it is not inaccurate.

This is a strong misconception that I dislike being thrown around. The presumption that said groups who make it more notable now that they have different opinions or interpretations upon ingesting the mediums are illegitimate because of the recent phenomenon about reflections of it? Those people were around since the industry started, they just weren't a target audience due to the way the market formally was. As far as I have seen it, it usually does boil down to the "these darn SJWs ruin everything" in means to shutdown even an unbiased discussion by those who prefer things to remain as consistent as what they're used to, even if what they're used to only suits their own expectations in bias. People who protest this aren't the ones who question the contrast of themselves and their ingestion of a medium; be it from the lack there of anything to criticize. The people I assume criticizing things now are the people who say have been tolerant of the aspects of characterization or concepts they disliked until it became open to question. You can't criticize something you haven't read. Obviously that is required to know what to criticize to begin with. A person can be wrong if they lack the full context or information on why things appear they way they do, but it impossible to assert that a person didn't read something if they are specifically criticizing an aspect beyond just the surface. For example, how would someone know there aren't any good Asian American Superheroes if you haven't read through other series that lack them in order to come to that exact conclusion?

There is a culture in art currently that praises certain ideals and vehemently denounces those who violate them. There is much backslapping and praising when those ideals are met, but the second you step out of line all hell breaks loose. Just look at what happened to Joss Whedon with the Black Widow controversy (since Marvel was an example brought up). And again, this culture derives from political ideology.

You could easily say that about what qualifies as creativity or originality as well. Not all blacklash to something is founded on the same reasoning or basis for it. People can very well just push backlash out of the sake of having prejudice toward change, rather than actual criticism. People that tend to set these rules skew them to meet a bias they have for what solidifies expectations for how something is met, with no flexibility for actual improvement. It comes toward whether people criticize something based on its actual quality or if people are using bad writing or a bad approach to something as the means to push a prejudice against the intent of the direction.

If diversity occurs as a natural progression of an art form then that is fine and commendable. The problem is when a mob of politicized people with undue authority dictate the bounds of your expression and punish you for breaking them. I don't want any kind of art to become a watered down form of virtue signaling (I hate that phrase but it is correctly applicable) to satiate a groups politics. I don't think this is something worth dismissing simply because "SJW" gets brought up as a pejorative label.

Well what is the actual outcome that sets an agreeable goal post or example of the presence of diversity done right for people? I know my standards but most people against the concept have no examples, they claim it should be natural but do nothing but attack any attempt at it through the accusation of agenda solely by the fact of an attempt on sight. People hold higher standards for something they know they already don't want, over things they will be laxer on if they want to enjoy something with the intent on supporting it. Basically the difference between constructive criticism and people who have their own bigotries in mean of hating anything they don't already accept. I can also easily say the people who push prejudice against natural progression are equally being authoritative toward what counts to them and what doesn't count. Most often if they are prejudiced towards a proposition there is no leeway for it to better itself because of it. I also do find the term "SJW" a pejorative because its usage now is basically an politicized ad hominem. It invalidates someone who supports an idea within that field of thought, and immediately asserts a bias against what they say simply because its a trigger word for people who loathe their impressions of it. Ad hominems negative individual opinions, even if reasonable because you create an enemy out a certain held opinion or strawman of that perspective.

[Cipher]

For what it's worth, on that:

*snip*

It's people who read comics. You'll never see a more genuinely nerdy, media-ravenous bunch than the Tumblr crowd. Anyway, here we all are, longtime readers and viewers of Dragon Ball, discussing how it handles diversity, in which ways it's good in that regard, and in which ways it could be even better. We part ways in certain places, but this is a conversation among fans.

If anything, you'll find that people who read comics represent just as wide a range of politics and opinions as any other demographic. I'd be willing to go toe to toe with you right now on who's read more stacks of superhero nonsense, and I absolutely want them to be more representative and socially conscious. Don't be trotting in here with that talk if you don't know a John Byrne Superman from an Elliot S. Maggin. At the same time, there are plenty who fit the cloistered Comic Book Guy stereotype and cling unwaveringly to the status quo and apoliticized takes (which is crazy; superheroes are as political as a concept can get; but oh well). Anyway, don't misrepresent the conversation by portraying it as an outsider vs. insider debate.

[SingleFringe&Sparks]

For what it's worth, on that:

*snip*

It's people who read comics. You'll never see a more genuinely nerdy, media-ravenous bunch than the Tumblr crowd. Anyway, here we all are, longtime readers and viewers of Dragon Ball, discussing how it handles diversity, in which ways its good in that regard, and in which ways it could be even better. We part ways in certain places, but this is a conversation among fans.

If anything, you'll find that people who read comics represent just as wide a range of politics and opinions as any other demographic. I'd be willing to go toe to toe with you right now on who's read more stacks of superhero nonsense, and I absolutely want them to be more representative and socially conscious. At the same time, there are plenty who fit the cloistered Comic Book Guy stereotype and cling unwaveringly to the status quo and apoliticized takes (which is crazy; superheroes are as political as a concept can get; but oh well). Anyway, don't misrepresent the conversation by portraying it as an outsider vs. insider debate.

True, you can't assert a presumed consensus toward the ethnicity or orientation ratios of people who read dragonball here, so who is someone to define what the standard of a "true" fan should be if that standard is already based on just themselves and their friends? As it relates to the comic issue, people who just assume they are the only true reflection of a fandom and those in masses are presumed to be socially identical to themselves by default, is why that claim that "these people don't read X" is fallacious. There are nerds of all backgrounds, its just those whom are not expected to be in the presumed audience are going to not be seen as credible if they aren't of the homogenized image of that audience if the majority of who is in the fiction, is supposed to reflect the majority of its presumed readers. Like how in early comics, every presented character created was a blonde, middle aged adult. Are we going to just say the fanbase is expected to just be blonde, middle-aged adults? Are kids who aren't represented in the pre side-kick era who read comics not true fans because kids weren't there yet? Sounds like the prejudiced logic I hear. They only create characters outside of what is already there in order to expand the marketing to a wider audience. Thus you got the side-kick Robin and Bucky.

[rereboy]

Voting to leave the EU or for Trump doesn't automatically qualify you as a racist or homophobe.

It doesn't, but the reasons for why one votes to leave the EU or votes for Trump might. And unfortunately, much of their platform was built on hate and fear towards others who are not them or are not like them and if one votes purely or mostly based on that, well...

[Basaku]

If you believe Toriyama's intent is malicious, then why do you follow the series? The series is a representation of Toriyama's mind. Not only is he allowed to portray anyone the way he wants, he's not forced to change his viewpoint on whatever the subject. Are you expecting Toriyama, and thus the series, to change to accomodate your needs? That won't happen, especially not with someone like Toriyama.

Yes I'm expecting him to sit on Kanzenshuu all day long with Google Translator and frantically make notes based on my posts so he can improve for the next Super arc. Sorry but what is this nonsense? We're all on Dragon Ball discussion forums posting opinions on the franchise, story, characters etc. all day long. Are you making it an argument with every post you read and ask the author "why are you posting this? are you expecting Toriyama to take your opinion and change this or that?" Get a better argument because this is as weak as it can get. And no, I don't even think he was malicious, but did he (at least used to) have little thought on his LGBT characters? Obviously, it's clear as day and night. When he writes women for example, or talks about writing them in interviews, it's obvious he puts some thoughts into it even if the end result is that he admits he's not very good at it and sometimes gets bored with his female characters. But his LGBT characters in Dragon Ball so far amount to nothing but 2 stupid punchlines and that's all there is to it, trying to make it more is pointless and comedy gold definitely it ain't either.

Making awfully big assumptions on what I may find offensive and what I may find funny right here. Also making an assumption in regards to my sexual orientation, as this is one of those "You're straight so you don't know what it's like" type of arguments, when you don't have sufficient information to assert whether or not I'm straight.

No sweetheart, I'm making very safe assumptions what would your reaction be if a lesbian-focused story like this came to be and I would roll my eyes reading it too because it would be just as stupid as Dragon Ball's track record of presenting LGBT characters.

[Doctor.]

[Yes I'm expecting him to sit on Kanzenshuu all day long with Google Translator and frantically make notes based on my posts so he can improve for the next Super arc. Sorry but what is this nonsense? We're all on Dragon Ball discussion forums posting opinions on the franchise, story, characters etc. all day long. Are you making it an argument with every post you read and ask the author "why are you posting this? are you expecting Toriyama to take your opinion and change this or that?" Get a better argument because this is as weak as it can get.

Completely different situations. Toriyama killing off Piccolo or making Vegeta job or whatever doesn't say anything about Toriyama's character. You were implying that Toriyama was portraying LGBT characters in a malicious manner. Which would mean Toriyama's views on LGBT characters are malicious. My question wasn't a matter of "if you don't like this plot point, then leave" rather it was a question of "if this personally offends you, then why are you still here?" One is much more severe than the other.

I don't even think he was malicious, but did he (at least used to) have little thought on his LGBT characters? Obviously, it's clear as day and night. When he writes women for example, or talks about writing them in interviews, it's obvious he puts some thoughts into it even if the end result is that he admits he's not very good at it and sometimes gets bored with his female characters. But his LGBT characters in Dragon Ball so far amount to nothing but 2 stupid punchlines and that's all there is to it, trying to make it more is pointless and comedy gold definitely it ain't either.

I don't understand what your point is, then. If he's not being malicious nor is he offending you, why should he include any more LGBT characters at all?

No sweetheart, I'm making very safe assumptions what would your reaction be if a lesbian-focused story like this came to be and I would roll my eyes reading it too because it would be just as stupid as Dragon Ball's track record of presenting LGBT characters.

I honestly wouldn't care if a story like that came out. It's not my story, I'm not going to dictate what the writer should personally believe in. I may not agree, but I'm not going out of my way to complain about it.

It doesn't, but the reasons for why one votes to leave the EU or votes for Trump might. And unfortunately, much of their platform was built on hate and fear towards others who are not them or are not like them and if one votes purely or mostly based on that, well...

It's impossible to quantify what the main reason Trump was ellected is. I know plenty of people who voted for Trump not because they agree with his views, but because they didn't want Hillary to win.

[Basaku]

Completely different situations. Toriyama killing off Piccolo or making Vegeta job or whatever doesn't say anything about Toriyama's character. You were implying that Toriyama was portraying LGBT characters in a malicious manner. Which would mean Toriyama's views on LGBT characters are malicious. My question wasn't a matter of "if you don't like this plot point, then leave" rather it was a question of "if this personally offends you, then why are you still here?" One is much more severe than the other.

No, you were the one implying that I already totally concluded that he's vile and malicious about it. I considered it one of the possibilities along with lack of care/thought, close-mindeness or just stupid humor. I won't know for sure 'cause I dont sit inside his head. And given by the evidence displayed in Dragon Ball, anyone got full right to wonder. It's not my fault nor am I at blame here for anything. The author who exclusively used LGBT characters as punchlines is responsible. And he's not making art that he puts back in the drawer just for himself, he's sending it out and "charging for it", absolute fair game to ciriticize and question his artistic choices and motivations behind.

I don't understand what your point is, then. If he's not being malicious nor is he offending you, why should he include any more LGBT characters at all?

Humans display more emotions and motivation than just love/hate kind/malicious extremes you know? Grey areas, complex reasoning, or a simple lack of care/education. It's REALLY not that hard to understand.

And why shouldn't he include normal LGBT characters? Eagerly anticipating what you're gonna come up with as an arugment.

I honestly wouldn't care if a story like that came out. It's not my story, I'm not going to dictate what the writer should personally believe in. I may not agree, but I'm not going out of my way to complain about it.

Here you are at it again. In what universe complaining about art/fiction automatically equals to dictating the author how should he fix/change it? No one even considers the possibility that he will EVER ready any of this in any form at any time. And if by some unexplicable reason he ever reads any complaints like mine, so what? Nobody is puttung a gun to his head dictating changes. He will do as he wants regardless. I complain because I can, because I purchase his art and I'm actively making him richer. Good enough reason? No? Too bad. I'm gonna keep praising what I like in the franchise and criticizing what I don't like just as every person on the forums does. And if you don't care aboutthis subject as much as you proclaim, what exactly are you doing in this thread getting all bothered by my complaining?

[Doctor.]

The author who exclusively used LGBT characters as punchlines is responsible. And he's not making art that he puts back in the drawer just for himself, he's sending it out and "charging for it", absolute fair game to ciriticize and question his artistic choices and motivations behind.

Nobody said you were at fault, but blaming Toriyama just showcases you're trying to find someone to blame for leaving you uncomfortable, instead of admitting Toriyama's humor is not for you. You know that women example you keep giving? Yeah, same man who also drew a one-shot where the lead heroine gets raped twice and becomes a prostitute because she liked the money. Is he trying to make some political statement here? "Women are all whores who only care about money!" No, he's making a joke. Is it funny? Is it tasteless? That's up to your standards to decide. Likewise, his portrayal of LGBT characters is, again, a joke.

.

And why shouldn't he include normal LGBT characters? Eagerly anticipating what you're gonna come up with as an arugment.

He doesn't want to? It's legitimately that simple. His work, his vision.

Here you are at it again. In what universe complaining about art/fiction automatically equals to dictating the author how should he fix/change it? No one even consider the possibility that he will EVER ready any of this in any form at any time. And if by some unexplicable reason he ever reads any complaints like mine, so what? Nobody is puttung a gun to his head dictating changes. He will do as he wants regardless. I complain because I can, because I purchase his art and I'm actively making him richer. Good enough reason? No? Too bad. I'm gonna keep praising what I like in the franchise and criticizing what I don't like just as every person on the forums does. And if you don't care aboutthis subject as much as you proclaim, what exactly are you doing in this thread getting all bothered by my complaining?

If you don't want something changed, then why are you complaining? People complain because they want change. It's irrelevant whether or not they believe said change is going to happen, complaining comes from a wish to change something. You have your right to complain just as I have my right to debate you.

You should calm down, I'm not bothered at all, I don't see what makes you think that. I didn't say I didn't care about the subject, I wouldn't care in the context you provided, if a work is published where men are ridiculed in favor of lesbianism. As in, I wouldn't be bothered by it. Artistic expression is a topic I care very much about.

[rereboy]

It's impossible to quantify what the main reason Trump was ellected is. I know plenty of people who voted for Trump not because they agree with his views, but because they didn't want Hillary to win.

I didn't dispute that. However, what I stated is an important factor and to ignore it is naive, even if we don't know the exact "numbers". Campaigns run partly or mostly on fear and hate will not only attract people who are drawn to that but will also generate, by itself, fear and hate, which has a great potential to create conflict.

And why shouldn't he include normal LGBT characters? Eagerly anticipating what you're gonna come up with as an arugment.

Because people don't need to have political statements in their work.

[Dbzfan94]

People are getting way too heated and this discussion is barely even about Dragon Ball anymore.

[Basaku]

You know that women example you keep giving? Yeah, same man who also drew a one-shot where the lead heroine gets raped twice and becomes a prostitute because she liked the money. Is he trying to make some political statement here? "Women are all whores who only care about money!" No, he's making a joke. Is it funny? Is it tasteless? That's up to your standards to decide. Likewise, his portrayal of LGBT characters is, again, a joke.

We've been through this many times already. I don't need to question his jokes about women because next to the funny or unfunny female jokes (depending on each individual opinion) there are legitimate full-fledged female characters drawn and written in a respectful way. Same reason I don't need to question or raise an eyebrow even a bit reading any of Naoko Takeuchi lesbian jokes, regardless how overused/dated/easy they can be (and they get reaaaaaaally banal multiple times in Sailor Moon manga) because next to her cheap lesbian jokes she writes & draws legitimate full fledged lesbian characters of various kinds. Simple. But when it comes to Toriyama and LGBT, it's only the jokes.

Nobody said you were at fault, but blaming Toriyama just showcases you're trying to find someone to blame for leaving you uncomfortable, instead of admitting Toriyama's humor is not for you.

Yes you are. You're trying to say I'm at fault that I don't get Toriyama's absolute gold of a LGBT comedy and that you are the one who knows exactly what his intentiones with Blue+Otokosuki+lack-of-normal-LGBT-characters were and that you absolutely know he was just joking and had wonderful feels for the LGBT characters and I'm at fault for complaining and how dare I even do it.

If you don't want something changed, then why are you complaining? People complain because they want change. It's irrelevant whether or not they believe said change is going to happen, complaining comes from a wish to change something. You have your right to complain just as I have my right to debate you.

And? Once again you're makig it out as if wanting something to be different/changed is inherently bad for some unexplicable reason. No 2 people are the same, that means anything we do other would think about doing less or more differently even if they mstly really like what we did. Yes you got all the rights, so do I, and that includes criticizing something I don't like in Toriyama's work, you really need to accept it along with the fact that not everyone shares your views on exact motivations of Toriyama in every artistic choice he made which again, you don't know exactly either so stop trying to act like you do.

Artistic expression is a topic I care very much about.

It seems that you care about it only if it suits you and your idea of the creation process and the reasoning behind it. Any other alternative and you're trying to paint the opposing party as inherently wrong and unjustified in expressing their opinion at all.

Because people don't need to have political statements in their work.

The existance of LGBT people is not a political statement, it's a simple fact and aspect of the human race. What people don't need is your political agenda to try and hide/erase their existance.

[rereboy]

The existance of LGBT people is not a political statement, it's a simple fact and aspect of the human race.

Sure, and if said characters appeared naturally in Toriyama's work, great. But if he (or any other author) goes out of their way specifically to include them, then he would be doing it to make a point, and that point is politically in nature. And no author needs to do that.

[Doctor.]

But when it comes to Toriyama and LGBT, it's only the jokes.

I still don't see what's wrong with this. We're just gonna go in circles until you give me an answer as to why this is inherently wrong.

Yes you are. You're trying to say I'm at fault that I don't get Toriyama's absolute gold of a LGBT comedy and that you are the one who knows exactly what his intentiones with Blue+Otokosuki+lack-of-normal-LGBT-characters were and that you absolutely know he was just joking and had wonderful feels for the LGBT characters and I'm at fault for complaining and how dare I even do it.

Nobody said it was good comedy. I'm sorry if you can't interpret it as jokes, but it's obvious enough. The situation is comedic, facial expressions, dialogue and character reactions all point towards it.

I never said Toriyama has wonderful feelings about LGBT people. I don't think I even expressed myself as to how I believe Toriyama's views on LGBT people are. I'm saying that his views, whatever they are, don't show in his work, because the only way he portrayed LGBT characters were through stereotypical jokes. It's like saying Family Guy is racist because it shows a black guy mugging someone. Easy comedy doesn't show someone's true views on a subject.

And? Once again you're makig it out as if wanting something to be different/changed is inherently bad for some unexplicable reason.

Not at all. I'm asking you "What does changing the portrayal of LGBT characters improve on?" and you don't seem to have an answer, instead just saying that not having normal LGBT characters in Dragon Ball is a bad thing for some reason.

Yes you got all the rights, so do I, and that includes criticizing something I don't like in Toriyama's work, you really need to accept it along with the fact that not everyone shares your views on exact motivations of Toriyama in every artistic choice he made which again, you don't know exactly either so stop trying to act like you do.

You seem not only to be completely misunderstanding my points but getting unecessarily flustered about all this.

It seems that you care about it only if it suits you and your idea of the creation process and the reasoning behind it. Any other alternative and you're trying to paint the opposing party as inherently wrong and unjustified in expressing their opinion at all.

Again, how did you come to this conclusion? Nothing I've said is inconsistent.

[Basaku]

The existance of LGBT people is not a political statement, it's a simple fact and aspect of the human race.

Sure, and if said characters appeared naturally in Toriyama's work, great. But if he (or any other author) goes out of their way specifically to include them, then he would be doing it to make a point, and that point is politically in nature. And no author needs to do that.

Denying their existance or exclusively caricaturing it is political, or born out of it. Ackowledging their existance and its variety is reality. Feels versus reals. It feels political to include them only because you're used to politically-crated unnatural state where their existance has been denied or caricatured. But feels are not reals.

It's like saying Family Guy is racist because it shows a black guy mugging someone. Easy comedy doesn't show someone's true views on a subject.

No, once again you're resosting to the same excuse of "it's tough-love comedy". Family Guy also has "normal" black characters (in the context of a satire show), as do South Park with minorities and LGBT characters. Joan Rivers would roast gay community like no one else and no one questioned her motivations, she was comedy gold and it all didn't happen randomly, it's because through her life, stage acts, interviews and charitable work everyone knew her respect and connection for the community while keeping it comedic and tough-love real on the stage.

I'm asking you "What does changing the portrayal of LGBT characters improve on?" and you don't seem to have an answer, instead just saying that not having normal LGBT characters in Dragon Ball is a bad thing for some reason.

It makes it a better written portrayal of the LGBT characters because it's closer to reality? Even most fantastical and ficional prose grounds itself and comes from real. Ohh and it's always more fun & entertaining when there's more variety so when you only have 1 group as characters over and over as nothing but stupid jokes, it gets boring, overplayed, predictable etc. It;s more fun that Goku & Vegeta are different kind of characters with different kind of attitudes towards love/romance, different fighting style and different jokes. Variety is fun fun fun

Again, how did you come to this conclusion? Nothing I've said is inconsistent.

Indeed, it's all consistient in the way that you're claiming the full knowledge what is pure comdey in Dragon Ball as in Akira Toriyama's reasnoning, what is not, what shouldn't be questioned etc.

[Doctor.]

No, once again you're resosting to the same excuse of "it's tough-love comedy". Family Guy also has "normal" black characters (in the context of a satire show), as do South Park with minorities and LGBT characters. Joan Rivers would roast gay community like no one else and no one questioned her motivations, she was comedy gold and it all didn't happen randomly, it's because through her life, stage acts, interviews and charitable work everyone knew her respect and connection for the community while keeping it comedic and tough-love real on the stage.

Family Guy portrays everyone in a negative light. I didn't give the best example, but, regardless, the point is that two characters being portrayed as a stereotypical joke is too low of a number to extrapolate whatever feelings Toriyama may have on the subject. All we know is that he joked about the subject twice. His views on LGBT people as, well, people, positive or negative, are not being represented in his writing. This isn't a bad thing.

It makes it a better written portrayal of the LGBT characters because it's closer to reality? Even most fantastical and ficional prose grounds itself and comes from real. Ohh and it's always more fun & entertaining when there's more variety so when you only have 1 group as characters over and over as nothing but stupid jokes, it gets boring, overplayed, predictable etc. It;s more fun that Goku & Vegeta are different kind of characters with different kind of attitudes towards love/romance, different fighting style and different jokes. Variety is fun fun fun

But sexuality has nothing to do with Dragon Ball. Claiming variety for the sake of variety isn't a valid argument. If the show focused a lot on romantic relationships and sexuality, then you'd have a point. As it stands, this is a fighting show, it doesn't have LGBT characters because Toriyama either doesn't want to, never thought of including them, or feels their sexuality has no relevance to the story.

Indeed, it's all consistient in the way that you're claiming the full knowledge what is pure comdey in Dragon Ball as in Akira Toriyama's reasnoning, what is not, what shouldn't be questioned etc.

Except I'm not. I'm giving my own interpretation and explaining my own opinion on the subject. I never once said "No, fuck you, I'm right and you're wrong, shut up and accept it", you just chose to take it personally.

[rereboy]

Denying their existance or exclusively caricaturing it is political, or born out of it. Ackowledging their existance and its variety is reality. Feels versus reals. It feels political to include them only because you're used to politically-crated unnatural state where their existance has been denied or caricatured. But feels are not reals.

A work that doesn't include native americans isn't automatically denying their existence just because it doesn't include them.

A work that includes a sterotypical joke about a russian isn't automatically having malice towards russians.

This is true for whatever group of people the case is about.

You are free to assume that they do, but that's simply not accurate. It's stretching and twisting what's there to the breaking point.

Also, any statement/point/message intended to influence in order to try to bring about change (no matter what that change actually is) is political in nature.

[Basaku]

Family Guy portrays everyone in a negative light. I didn't give the best example, but, regardless, the point is that two characters being portrayed as a stereotypical joke is too low of a number to extrapolate whatever feelings Toriyama may have on the subject. All we know is that he joked about the subject twice. His views on LGBT people as, well, people, positive or negative, are not being represented in his writing. This isn't a bad thing.

Yes, for all we know it could be. But given that it's the only examples in the franchise of LGBT characters, it's absolutely no surprise to be questioned. And everything an artist does represents them one way or another.

But sexuality has nothing to do with Dragon Ball.

Goku & Chi-Chi, Vegeta & Bulma, Krillin & 18 (core plot critical developement!). Countless Kamesennin sexual jokes being one of the stamples of the series. Magazines with girls in bikinis. Slow-motion scenes with boobs jiggling. Goku grabbing Chi Chi's crotch to check whether she has a penis or a vagina. Sorry, but are you serious? Heterosexuality. Is. Sexuality.

Except I'm not. I'm giving my own interpretation and explaining my own opinion on the subject. I never once said "No, fuck you, I'm right and you're wrong, shut up and accept it", you just chose to take it personally.

Not using vulgar words doesn't mean you didn't claim it to be pure good-spirited comedy without any malice. You did as you disagreed and got bothered by even considering that it could be less than pure-hearted comedy.

A work that doesn't include native americans isn't automatically denying their existence just because it doesn't include them.

A work that includes a sterotypical joke about a russian isn't automatically having malice towards russians.

This is true for whatever group of people the case is about. You are free to assume that they do, but that's simply not accurate. It's stretching and twisting what's there to the breaking point.

But if the world of arts & enterianment collectively excludes and/or exclusively caricatures them then yes it is born out of politics because their existance is a simple fact of human species. Denying the reality is not "the natural state". And that's what's been happening for the most part in arts & entertainment in XX century, thankfully on the course to reverting back to normal nowadays.