Queerness in DB

[ABED]

If someone laughs, it's genuinely funny, and sometimes stereotypes can be used for great comedic effect. Chichi is often the stereotypical tiger mom. I don't think it's funny, but I'm sure many do.

Keyword sometimes, keyword not all the time. Women in DB do not appear or are involved exclusively as the punchlines, that's the difference. I've just said it in the post you quoted and posts before concerning similar discussions you were also taking part in.

It has nothing to do with DB in particular. Even if women were exclusively used as punchlines in DB, the stereotypical joke can still be funny. It might not be your humor, and it's not even mine, but humor is subjective. Even something I do find offensive, I might still find funny if the delivery is good.

[rereboy]

Are Roshi's perverted ways portrayed in DB in a vacuum? Nope. They are included next to 'vanilla' displays of (heterosexual) interest, pairings etc. Now, do the gay jokes in DB have a 'vanilla' counterpart?

Humor depends on it not existing on a vaccum. Without a context within the real world, it surely wouldn't be humorous, it would just be something that people wouldn't be able to understand.

Since humor is basically always about making fun of serious things, obviously humor is not about transmitting a political message or about what one might perceive to be the correct, fair social treatment. And to imply that a series should do that to be allowed to use humor is akin to suggest that "Home Alone" should have a clear obvious message stating that we shouldn't throw bricks at people's head from the 5th floor, which is ridiculous.

Well said. Now, if Spain references Portugal exclusively as a joke (while having both jokes AND legitimate, serious references about France for example) is that equal-oppurtunity honest real humor or something a bit less sincere?

Humor is not about equal opportunity. And what you described is very far from constituting twisted propaganda against any given country.

In fact, imo, you are just going out of your way to try to find any kind of problem with humor instead of just realizing that humor is built on making fun of serious things. There shouldn't be any "sacred cows", even if they mean very much to you personally. There will always be subjects that some people will take very seriously and will not find humor in it, but that doesn't mean that humor based on that is invalid or that shouldn't exist. Humor is beyond that.

[ekrolo2]

Just to bring it back to Home Alone, there is no "equal opportunity" there either. Every grown up in those movies (talking specifically about the first two) is a fuck up of some description. The kids parents forget about him twice, the other adults who actively deals with are barely competent crooks trying to kill him and the grown ups who help him most are weirdos and outcasts from society.

Where's the equality there? There isn't! I'd argue that makes things even funnier when everyone seemingly over the age of 10 is a dick, a moron, weirdo or some combination of the three!

[rereboy]

Just to bring it back to Home Alone, there is no "equal opportunity" there either. Every grown up in those movies (talking specifically about the first two) is a fuck up of some description. The kids parents forget about him twice, the other adults who actively deals with are barely competent crooks trying to kill him and the grown ups who help him most are weirdos and outcasts from society.

Where's the equality there? There isn't! I'd argue that makes things even funnier when everyone seemingly over the age of 10 is a dick, a moron, weirdo or some combination of the three!

Exactly. In fact, humor thrives on how "horrible" and on how "unfair" things are most of the time.

[Basaku]

If someone laughs, it's genuinely funny, and sometimes stereotypes can be used for great comedic effect. Chichi is often the stereotypical tiger mom. I don't think it's funny, but I'm sure many do.

Keyword sometimes, keyword not all the time. Women in DB do not appear or are involved exclusively as the punchlines, that's the difference. I've just said it in the post you quoted and posts before concerning similar discussions you were also taking part in.

It has nothing to do with DB in particular. Even if women were exclusively used as punchlines in DB, the stereotypical joke can still be funny. It might not be your humor, and it's not even mine, but humor is subjective. Even something I do find offensive, I might still find funny if the delivery is good.

Topic is on queerness in DB and you referenced Chi-Chi specifically. And such one-sided stereotypical humor is way more low-thought and low-effort and thus low-quality, and the delivery can only do so much. One would think a fan like you who's into quality first and foremost, as far as having the whole series end before it declines in quality, that would matter most but I guess it's not afterall.

[WittyUsername]

Honestly, being progressive is one of the last things the Dragon Ball franchise has ever been, and it's handling of LGBT individuals is no different in that regard. General Blue was not only presented as being stereotypically flamboyant, but the anime even made him out to be a pedophile.

Also, while it seems that the franchise may be giving queer representation a shot with Kale, it unfortunately seems like she's going to fall into the stereotypical "psycho lesbian" trope, given that she tried to murder Cabba for simply interacting with Caulifla.

[rereboy]

Topic is on queerness in DB and you referenced Chi-Chi specifically. And such one-sided stereotypical humor is way more low-thought and low-effort and thus low-quality, and the delivery can only do so much. One would think a fan like you who's into quality first and foremost, as far as having the whole series end before it declines in quality, that would matter most but I guess it's not afterall.

Dragon Ball is a simple, straight-forward, action-adventure manga, aimed mostly at kids and teenagers, not a complex adult novel that dwells deep into characters and real world issues or a manifesto on social issues or a declaration in a political rally.

[Basaku]

Humor depends on it not existing on a vaccum. Without a context within the real world, it surely wouldn't be humorous, it would just be something that people wouldn't be able to understand.

Since humor is basically always about making fun of serious things, obviously humor is not about transmitting a political message or about what one might perceive to be the correct, fair social treatment. And to imply that a series should do that to be allowed to use humor is akin to suggest that "Home Alone" should have a clear obvious message stating that we shouldn't throw bricks at people's head from the 5th floor, which is ridiculous.

Humor is not about equal opportunity. And what you described is very far from constituting twisted propaganda against any given country.

In fact, imo, you are just going out of your way to try to find any kind of problem with humor instead of just realizing that humor is built on making fun of serious things. There shouldn't be any "sacred cows", even if they mean very much to you personally. There will always be subjects that some people will take very seriously and will not find humor in it, but that doesn't mean that humor based on that is invalid or that shouldn't exist. Humor is beyond that.

Is the context of the real world singular for every person? Even in the same country? You forget real world is nuanced, not black and white. The same year in the same country that Toriyama was drawing Otokosuki, Naoko Takeuchi had legitimate lesbian couple in the main cast of her breakout mainstream manga, next to 'stereotypical' gay jokes.

Of course it's far from twisted propaganda, but there's grayer area between brilliant humor and twisted propaganda. Just because one ain't dirrect opposite of another doesn't mean automatic praise/approval or hate. Shade, mean jab, not-nice innuendo, average quality, subpar quality, mediocrity, not bad but low-effort. These are all equally valid critiques.

But you are going out of your way to have no one ever say anything except full approval or praise towards any aspect of Dragon Ball you personally find unimportant in your real life political/social views, all while calling for "no PC" and no "scared cows".

And again, the problem ain't the jokes themselves, but their existance as the sole example of a particular subject while virtually every other topic in DB gets varied treatement. The dumb jokes, the brilliant jokes, the serious stuff, the average stuff etc.

Dragon Ball is a simple, straight-forward, action-adventure manga, aimed mostly at kids and teenagers, not a complex adult novel that dwells deep into characters and real world issues or a manifesto on social issues or a declaration in a political rally.

There's nothing complex in having a 'vanilla' average gay character next to gay jokes. ANd what were you just saying about 'no sacred cows'? Doesn't suddenly apply to "the gays" when it comes to normal/average portrayal?

[rereboy]

Is the context of the real world singular for every person? Even in the same country? You forget real world is nuanced, not black and white. The same year in the same country that Toriyama was drawing Otokosuki, Naoko Takeuchi had legitimate lesbian couple in the main cast of her breakout mainstream manga, next to 'stereotypical' gay jokes.

That's not what I was talking about at all.

Of course it's far from twisted propaganda, but there's grayer area between brilliant humor and twisted propaganda. Just because one ain't dirrect opposite of another doesn't mean automatic praise/approval or hate. Shade, mean jab, not-nice innuendo, average quality, subpar quality, mediocrity, not bad but low-effort. These are all equally valid critiques.

Unless it's blatant twisted propaganda, that logic just amounts to a witch hunt.

As for the critiques, you are not criticizing the actual humor, you are criticizing the subjects the humor was built on, aka the underlying issues.

In other words, you want to discuss wether it's a appropriate for humor to be based on certain subjects, at least without an adjacent clear political statement that you agree with right beside it.

The problem is, if we followed that logic, there wouldn't be humor at all because every single subject is something that at least some people in the world think is something not humorous or something that shouldn't be made fun of.

Humor doesn't exist to be "controlled" and it's certainly not your job to dictate what subjects are appropriate for humor to use and whether humor requires political statements to be valid. Only in countries with dictatorial regimes there's an actual serious effort to enforce and prevent people from using humor based on certain subjects.

But you are going out of your way to have no one ever say anything except full approval or praise towards any aspect of Dragon Ball you personally find unimportant in your real life political/social views, all while calling for "no PC" and no "scared cows".

I never once praised Dragon Ball's humor. I just stated that it was, in fact, humor, and that humor is built in making fun of serious things. The only one going out of his way to find a issue here is you. It's obvious that you care deeply about these issues, but the way you are going about them is not good at all.

And again, the problem ain't the jokes themselves, but their existance as the sole example of a particular subject while virtually every other topic in DB gets varied treatement. The dumb jokes, the brilliant jokes, the serious stuff, the average stuff etc.

In other words, like I've already talked about, you have nothing to say about the humor itself, just about the underlying subjects.

There's nothing complex in having a 'vanilla' average gay character next to gay jokes. ANd what were you just saying about 'no sacred cows'? Doesn't suddenly apply to "the gays" when it comes to normal/average portrayal?

Here, you just went so far out of your way to find an issue with what I was saying that I don't even fully understand what you are trying to say.

[Basaku]

Unless it's blatant twisted propaganda, that logic just amounts to a witch hunt.

No, it's called a critique.

"Hey, what you thought about my work?"
"..."
"Was it brilliant"?
"..."
"Was it horrible?"
"... I can't say because if I say in middle that would be witch hunt"

Please.

As for the critiques, you are not criticizing the actual humor, you are criticizing the subjects the humor was built on, aka the underlying issues.

In other words, you want to discuss wether it's a appropriate for humor to be based on certain subjects, at least without an adjacent clear political statement that you agree with right beside it.

No, I want to discuss whether it's appropirate to use certain subject exclusively as the punchline while every other subject is not exclusively used as such.

In other words, like I've already talked about, you have nothing to say about the humor itself, just about the underlying subjects.

In same words, like I've already talked about, I'm pointing to using 1 subject exclusively as the punchline while every other subject is not exclusively used as such.

Here, you just went so far out of your way to find an issue with what I was saying that I don't even fully understand what you are trying to say.

Yeah you do. You ran with kids show excuse against 'vanilla'/averege gay characters being present right after after 'defending' the palce of gay jokes in such show because "no sacred cows". That's just hipocrisy. Gay jokes exclusively in the show like this is great for you but normal gay character ain't. That's conservative sacred cow sprinkled with agenda because not only you want normal gay characters to be excluded, you want the exclusion to be accompanied by jokes presenting exclusively joked about view of homosexuality.

[ABED]

Topic is on queerness in DB and you referenced Chi-Chi specifically. And such one-sided stereotypical humor is way more low-thought and low-effort and thus low-quality, and the delivery can only do so much. One would think a fan like you who's into quality first and foremost, as far as having the whole series end before it declines in quality, that would matter most but I guess it's not afterall.

Delivery of a joke is EVERYTHING. This is all very abstract. I could very well find an abhorrent joke funny if delivered the right way. It doesn't matter if the joke has little effort if someone finds it funny. A laugh is a laugh. Please don't twist my words.

In same words, like I've already talked about, I'm pointing to using 1 subject exclusively as the punchline while every other subject is not exclusively used as such.

It sucks when that happens, but it doesn't mean the jokes can't be funny.

[rereboy]

No, I want to discuss whether it's appropirate to use certain subject exclusively as the punchline while every other subject is not exclusively used as such.

Any type of work that includes humor doesn't have to tackle a subject or view from every viewpoint before it can make humor out of that specific subject or view, nor does it have to tackle every single subject it deals with from every viewpoint. Following that notion, any series that includes humor would be considered automatically invalid because it obviously didn't tackle every subject from every possible viewpoint.

You keep talking about some kind of abstract fairness but, like you've been told, humor is not about fairness. We talk about fairness when we talk seriously about issues, but humor is never about talking seriously about issues.

Honestly, the impression I get from you is that you are simply "crusading" for these issues, which makes you go "all out" even in stuff like Dragon Ball and humor... but, like I said, that isn't good. You are basing your comments more on how you think society should be regarding those issues than anything else, which causes you to mix and confuse it all together... The issues, the humor, the freedom of the authors... You see it all from how you think those issues should be instead of stepping back and trying to think about all these factors from an impartial, objective point of view. But, anyway, I've already stated what I wanted to say and I don't want to repeat myself, so I conclude my participation in the topic here. Have a nice day.

[Basaku]

No, I want to discuss whether it's appropirate to use certain subject exclusively as the punchline while every other subject is not exclusively used as such.

Any type of work that includes humor doesn't have to tackle a subject or view from every viewpoint before it can make humor out of that specific subject or view, nor does it have to tackle every single subject it deals with from every viewpoint. That notion is so illogical that, following that notion, any series that includes humor would be considered automatically invalid because it obviously didn't tackle every subject from every possible viewpoint.

You keep talking about some kind of abstract fairness but, like you've been told, humor is not about fairness. We talk about fairness when we talk seriously about issues, but humor is never about talking seriously about issues.

Honestly, the impression I get from you is that you are simply "crusading" for these issues, which makes you go "all out" even in stuff like Dragon Ball and humor and like I said, that isn't good. Anyway, I've already stated what I wanted to say and I don't want to repeat myself. Have a nice day.

It doesn't need to tackle every subject from every possible viewpoint. It's only needs not to make it exclusively a joke.

If this is what you call crusading or going all out than damn, what must be your take on radical left vs radical right arguing. But at least it's something consistient. Any kind of discussion, the smallest critique or questioning that doesn't fit your view gets labeled as extreme crusade showing how radically in opposition you are. I'm not the one who's making a certain impression here.