3 ms·
>Is it "representation" if it's only seen by people who want to see it? Why is that objectionable? It's not like people don't know about queer or trans people
by Banana699 5y ago
>Is it "representation" if it's only seen by people who want to see it?
Why is that objectionable? It's not like people don't know about queer or trans people and tiktok is shielding them from knowing, people know and just aren't interested. Forcing people to watch things they aren't interested in only makes them resentful and fed up with them, instead of simply uninterested. Interest can't be demanded.
- spijdar 5y agoI don't think it's objectionable, I just think it's relevant to the discussion. I think most people use the word "representation" to mean a topic or idea being seen/floated within a larger audience, e.g. "representation" is having <x> actor in a Hollywood blockbuster (for the purpose of, say, exposing more people to a positive image of <x>). This doesn't seem like representation to me. That said, if the goal of representation is just to provide more media/content for people who like <x>, then yes, this is representation. That's not how I think of the word, but words don't have concrete meanings in the real world.
- read_if_gay_ 5y agoDo you support minority quotas or any other measures intended for diversity?
- Banana699 5y agoNo, quite honestly I think they are stupid (and was called a homophobe for that once). Having minority characters in itself is perfectly okay, overcompensating in the other direction and flooding people's media with people that barely make up 10% of the population in a misguided attempt to "promote tolerance" is bizarre. Coupled with the fact that supporters of this idea all seem to share a very moralistic attitude and jump at the opportunity to call any critic the most extreme names they can come up with, that makes the idea pretty weak in my eyes.