Hmmmmm

To be clear:
1. I personally think Kora is bi sexual and on first viewing felt there were subtle recognitions for it, and fully interpret the ending as confirmation.
2. I do not know spongebob well as a character but I see no reason he could not, should not, or is not other than heterosexual.
3. I am not arguing these characters are or are not any specific orientation- I am stating that suggestion is not confirmation save for where we perceive or want to perceive it as such. If you believe spongebob is gay or pan or asexual or whatever- more power to you. I’m happy to recognize whatever sexuality he may be.

Why I mention these points is they are important for 2 distinct reasons.
1. We mustn’t conflate evidence of or suspicion of with proof of. This is dangerous thinking, and we are talking about a cartoon but- the processes of our logic and cognition, our behavior and perceptions- are not contextual in that sense. The path of logic we apply to a “frivolous” matter is the same that we apply to other matters. Seeing evidence of a conclusion we support as proof is a major problem in the world and is usually linked to seeing proof of what we do not support as merely evidence.

2. We should celebrate and be happy that huge strides are being made in inclusion and recognition. That people of differing views and backgrounds- in this case non Herero sexual, are being portrayed as positive and very prominent figures in media. That’s progress and we should not discount it or dismiss it. It may seem “silly” or “just a cartoon” but seeing yourself represented and embraced or an aspect of yourself that has been traditionally ignored or even vilified- that’s powerful. Important.

But as happy as I was both with the ending of legend of Kora, the relationship between her an Asami and what that meant, as well as the inclusion of it- myself and others do see work to still be done. A victory to be enjoyed but not a final victory. Chiefly, while its great they’d showcase non heterosexuality in a positive and prominent main character- and you have to start somewhere and build on change- networks and companies and creators are still often playing both sides or towing a fine line.

That is why I mention the ambiguity of this spongebob tweet. Nick did not confirm anything. They did not stand up and say: “spongebob is gay/asexual/etc.” they walked a very thin line right up to the precipice of saying it, and stopped short. Same with Kora. We are left the IMPRESSION that they are not heterosexual- but it’s still “too much” to explicitly go there. When Kora dates Mako, there is no ambiguity they are together. When Bugs Bunny or Johnny Bravo or Kim Possible or whatever character has a boyfriend/girlfriend/crush/whatever hetero relationship- we may not always see them kiss or what not- but it is usually made explicit what this character prefers or usually goes after. Companies don’t need to and generally don’t make tweets announcing a character is straight- and they certainly don’t feel a need to “hint” at it subtly.

As for creators- creators can say whatever they like. Creators can change things, look at the whole blade runner “is he isn’t he a replicant” saga and see actors and writers and directors over the years saying in one interview or one cut he is, then the same person saying he isn’t and so forth. JK Rowling is a contemporary example- is Harry actually a 40 year old man with a disease that makes him age backwards? Was Dumbledore actually Rasputin and betrayed the Czar because he’s a communist? Wait until her next tweet to find out. So one school says the creator is the all mighty authority in their creation and another says that the creator can shove it if they start saying kings that contradict or we don’t like.

And that is a boon to big companies- because the creator can say whatever they want and the company can disown it. Especially on properties that are no longer in production. “We had no idea and there was no evidence and if we knew...” plausible deniability. They can keep all but the most conservative and or right leaning folks happy- and appeal to progressive and more left leaning audiences, and they never have to take an actual position to do it- they can say “we value all
People..” and keep a neutrality or near neutrality that all but the most extremist or fundamentals on an issue can go along with.

By not defining a stance they allow you to decide what you believe- and that appeals to more people since John can believe a character is gay and Susie can believe otherwise and even if they argue- the studio isn’t taking sides, isn’t the “bad guy” to anyone or risking alienating anyone.

On the surface that’s great. Ambiguity in fiction can be wonderful. It’s how books tended to work- your imagination fills in the details as you see fit. That’s very inclusive because anyone can enjoy it. It is problematic however when it isn’t your intent to make people included, but it is your intent to capitalize on what you see as a social trend. It’s problematic when a characters creator intends them a certain way and you ignore, or actively seek to down play or repress that so that you can avoid upsetting people at you for supporting that. If you “support” something but are afraid to be seen in public with it unambiguously embracing it- that’s a problem. That’s you saying that “There’s morning wrong with who you are. Except what people think of you, and I don’t want to stand with you, I’ll stand behind you and come up when it is safe to. But keep up the fight...”

The other case here- is that ambiguity in fiction for the sake of inclusion is not so novel when the people we seek to include are bigots. We’ve talked about this before. The paradox of inclusion- for a society to be truly open and accepting, that society can not tolerate people who are not open and accepting.

Think of it this way- if you run a store, and you have 2 customers who always cause trouble, Dave and Jim. Dave has no issues with Jim. Dave just minds his business and tries to exist the same as everyone else. But every time Jim sees Dave, Jim causes problems. And it isn’t just Dave. Jim doesn’t like Sally. Jim doesn’t like Steve. Sometimes a new person comes in and Jim doesn’t like them for some reason. You want everyone to feel welcome in your store- but people don’t feel welcome when Jim is around. So Jim has to change or Jim has to behave himself, or Jim needs to go away right? You can’t really tell Dave- “Well... can you just try to avoid Jim and maybe wear a disguise so he doesn’t known it’s you?” And then say that to all the other people Jim hates? That’s a lot of people and a lot of trouble to cater to Jim’s problems with other people no?

So when we cater to bigots we aren’t telling them they need to change, we are telling them that we will accommodate their way of thinking. We will make concessions. That’s problematic.

Of course- there in lies the paradox right? The bigot is wrong because they are telling this Gay person: “you shouldn’t exist as you are.” That’s a problem. But- if we are trying to rid ourselves of bigots- we are telling the bigot: “you should t exist as you are.” So we are guilty of the same crime no? If we say bigots should be marginalized and excluded and condemned and not portrayed in media, that their ideas or ways of life are destructive to society and can’t be allowed... isn’t that what bigots are saying about gays or whoever else? We say the bigot is ignorant, incapable of civilized thought, mentally abhorrent... isn’t that what bigots often say about those they have problems with?

But here is a key difference- here is a key example. Murder. Murder is literally saying: “you shouldnt exist.” It is the most direct and literal expression of that sentiment. If a person is a murderer- what do we do with them? One way or another we remove them from society, and if possible and practical wr try to rehabilitate them right?

So that old thought exercise: “if you kill a killer for killing, shouldn’t you be killed for killing them?” We can apply it here- but generally, the consensus is that at the least, we cannot tolerate a society where people who kill others in a way that is disruptive to society and the ability of the general person to enjoy their life, are allowed to exist within that society. You can WANT to kill a person, think about it. You cannot say you will. You cannot act on it. Because when a killer kills it is arbitrary. There is no justification.

That’s the key here. When we apply bigotry to bigots, when we say “I will not tolerate you intolerance,” we are not acting in an arbitrary fashion. We are reacting to a threat to the ability of people to freely live and conduct themselves in their personal lives as they see fit. The bigot seeks to use society as a tool to dictate your personal life and being. Rejecting bigotry of the arbitrary sort is seeking to stop a person from interfering with the personal affairs of others.

It comes down to an issue of dominion. Where an individual exercises power over another’s ability to conduct their affairs on arbitrary grounds. You may think and feel as you like. You may share whatever thoughts you wish in private confidence with those who care to listen. When you advocate or forward the repression of others on a social level however, society by its nature has a responsibility to stop you.

So let’s look at this from another angle. Let’s call the view that not tolerating bigots is bigotry- it’s hypocritical let’s say. Ok- then to make it NOT a double standard we have 2 choices- we could ALL agree to tolerate ALL bigotry- but... if we tolerate all bigotry that also means we must tolerate bigotry from people who hate bigots. So if we agree to those terms- nothing changes.

The second choice- would be to say that those who hate bigots will agree to stop their intolerance of bigots, as long as bigots stop their intolerance of whosever they are bigoted against. So that just brings us to and end where we no longer have any bigots right? If there are no more people intolerant of other groups, we have no need for intolerance of intolerance and so the whole mess is gone. Unless someone suddenly becomes a bigot after this “peace” is declared- and that couldn’t be tolerated could it- as they had broken a truce.

So it doesn’t matter which way you slice the pie. We either end up right back here, or we end up in a world free from bigotry. The latter is less likely than the former. It is a fight that doesn’t end- but we can see there truly isn’t a paradox.

So that establishes why one cannot tolerate intolerance in a tolerant society. An alternate view is to include bigots. Outside of the most extremist views with “purges” and “morality police” and indoctrination- we shouldn’t completely shut bigots out. Firstly, these exiles from society will (and have in the present day) find each other in exile and form enclaves that are free from reason or any difference of perspective. Echo chambers where their existing resentment and just.. sadness as human beings, is reinforced is reinforced by their rejection from society, and the presence of a large group whom are almost exclusively like minded creates an impression to them that they are in the majority or that they can’t be wrong if so many feel the same. These voices, without a moderator or outside influence, build up and escalate as they seek to reject the society that rejected them. That’s how you get things like the Tea Party or the Communist movements.

So we do need some way to keep these people in society, without being exposed to different people and healthy ideas there is little to no chance that on their own they will just wake up one day and decide their world view is flawed. They need to be shown, often a long and draining process that may not always have perfect results- but can lead to vast improvements. Taking these improvements over generations we could possibly one day greatly diminish, practically defeat the common prejudices of our time. Or at least create a society that can rise above what they know to be flawed or primitive impulses such as those.

So again, and in conclusion- it’s a big step in the right direction to see companies and media more readily acknowledging different groups and traditionally marginalized groups- but we do need more from them. We need to do better, be better critical thinkers and be more aware and honest with our perceptions and cognition, and from them we need more than hinting or suggesting- we need them to step up and stand besides these people and not behind them. Acknowledge social and individual progress and celebrate it, but in auditing such things also so acknowledge and accept that we can and should still ask for more. Always more until we are to where people can just be people and we don’t need to celebrate when they are allowed to exist anymore.