And as a final note, I get annoyed at how people talk about "diversity" like it's some singular thing when what it really is is acknowledging the stories and experiences of people who aren't considered societies default. Is some of that gonna be bad? Obviously, because a decent chunk of everything is bad. But people need to stop using the fact that there are bad examples of diversity being introduced into popular properties as justification that it shouldn't be there.
I think from my perspective it's the often misguided attempts to address diversity that are as much a part of the problem: e.g. the BBC's approach is to supplement the almost entirely white male Oxbridge-educated upper-middle-class types with people who may look visibly different in whatever regard but are still elite university PPE graduates from upper-middle-class wealth. Contrasted to a century ago when it was realised that in putting that class of person into officer roles and writing off the nasty smelly common poor people as cannon fodder was both leading by incompetence and a massive waste of talent. But it seems to have been un-realised in recent decades.
I digress slightly, but my point is that it's hard to get right and easy to get wrong; and that the attempts to seem earnest while actually changing nothing are a bit part of why it's viewed slightly suspiciously. And that suspicion is wrong when it comes to this thing being done properly, but I think a degree of wariness is understandable.
Also the subject of "I do broadly agree that letting governments decide what is and isn't "grossly offensive" can go bad if the government in question is allowed too much discretion on the issue": er, yes, I recall a certain porcine prime minister doing that sort of thing and being rather vague on the detail but determined that it should be the law anyway. And then unwittingly (because he was good at being a lackwit) demonstrating that he considered it something that didn't apply to him.
