No, there are proportionally more white guys on television than there are in the real United States.
You are absolutely correct. On television shows written
for and
by "white guys," there tend to be more "white guys."
Shocking, innit?
This still doesn't explain why it's basically become required that these same shows now toss "token gay guys" into the mix all of the sudden.
The vast majority of us "white guys" would prefer that they not be there.
You are assuming that white people are insecure losers who can't watch a television show unless the main character is also white. Maybe it was true in the past, maybe its still true with you, but everyone else is moving on.
Right, because I'm not just
dying to watch a television show about a Satan worshiping lower class lesbian black woman named Zooboomafu, I'm a backwards bigot.
Gotcha. :roll:
If one of the Starks or Lanisters were gay that might be true. Tyrell and Renly had less that half and hour of screen time combined in 30 hours of show.
He has roughly the same amount of screen time or more than the character represented by my own avatar. A character, I might add, who just so happens to actually have a fully fleshed out role in the book, and who actually is central to the story without anyone needing to rewrite the plot in order to justify his continued presence on the show.
What has Ser Loras' expanded role contributed to the story other than sweaty gay sex scenes meant to serve as award bait for P.C. critics?
He's not even an especially good actor, for crying out loud.
Keeping characters fresh in the viewers mind requires they appear on screen.
Which totally explains why the Mountain has been completely screwed out of his role in the story, right?
Easily one of the most memorable and frightening characters in the entire series is basically treated by the writers as being an expendable extra, while the totally superfluous gay sex scenes that roughly 90% of the audience has no interest in seeing are allowed to remain.
Yup. I can totally see why that change needed to be made. :roll:
Pretty much all the sex scenes in GOT are superfluous, but superfluous sex scenes are how HBO earns that premium channel pricing.
I actually agree here. However, that doesn't change the fact that there was no need for such a large degree of emphasis to be put on Renly an Loras' relationship in the first place.
It was done pretty much exclusively because it was the "politically correct" thing to do.
Television ratings track age and gender, not sexual orientation. Its quite clear that HBO has a significant gay audience however based on the success of the Liberace movie and their green-lighting of a new gay dramedy show.
In other words, you have no evidence to present.
Having 1 in every 25 people on a show be gay is hardly "pouring out of the woods".
Having a "token gay" character on almost every new show on television certainly is. I'm sorry, but that is simply more "gay" than is strictly necessary or called for.
Do you think Friends would've been much improved by the addition of such a character, or Seinfeld? What about the new Battlestar Galactica?
The absence of gay characters certainly wasn't missed on any of those shows. As a matter of fact, it honestly would've felt out of place if they had been present.
You are so prejudiced you think there is some kind of hard limit on the number of non-white non-hetero characters and that one minority can only replace another minority during the casting. Its especially stupid given that sexuality has nothing to with ethnicity and one could even be both Latino and gay simultaneously.
You continue to miss the point.
The fact that producers insist on shoehorning homosexuals into mainstream television, but no other minority group, simply highlights the political nature of the movement.
The primary concern is pressing the homosexual agenda, not promoting "diversity."
You seriously just implied that black characters should be segregated to their own channels. Way to live the Carolina stereotype.
The simple fact of the matter is that most black audiences and white audiences come from completely different backgrounds and cultural frames of reference, and so have completely different tastes in television programing.
As such, it makes sense, from a marketing and consumption standpoint, to specifically tailor programing to either one audience or the other, and not crap out horrible franken-shows which ineffectually attempt to pander to both at the same time.
Think back to my comparison between Seinfeld and Will and Grace. Both were great shows, and they catered to entirely different audiences. That was perfectly fine.
The reason the producers of today insist on combining the two in horrible abominations like Glee is precisely because they
don't want viewing audiences to be able to escape from homosexual media messages. They want their audience to have to deal with homosexuals regardless of whether they want to or not.
That is what I object to.
Are you really so narcissistic that you think gay characters are put on shows just to spite you?
No, but I think that left wing television writers and producers are narcissistic enough to view it as being some kind of sacred duty to push such characters onto viewing audiences as often as possible in the interests of promoting some misplaced notion of "equality."