No, that is your argument. If objectionable (for whatever reason) representation is preferable to no representation at all, it follows minority groups shouldn't take exception to that representation if the alternative is none at all.
You still don't get it do you.
It's up to the people actually affected by something to decide, as individuals, how they feel about it.
There are plenty of reasons why a queer person might decide that "objectionable" representation is worse than nothing. The problem with you trying to make that determination is that living in a world with no queer representation wouldn't hurt you in any way. You are not capable of understanding why that choice is difficult.
All I have ultimately said is that queer people don't tend to get terribly angry about tokenistic representation. That is an observation, not a prescription. It's not a statement of how people should feel, it's an observation of why they do. Queer discourse on media tends to be very cynical, because straight-dominated culture is perpetually disappointing.
But really that's a false dichotomy as three other clear alternatives easily present themselves, which have already been discussed in this sub-thread: that corporations stand behind their ESG talking points for once, that corporations should be impressed to provide quality representation, or that audiences should refuse to patronize produced content. Not that any of those three are seriously discussed or urged by anyone but "bad faith" critics, and when they are, are quickly suppressed or dismissed because it isn't profitable for any participating party.
There is a fundamental contradiction here. On one hand, you want people to stop patronizing media you think is bad. On the other hand, you want them to continue to talk about it. Why continue to emotionally invest in something you openly acknowledge is unworthy of that response? What "good faith" reason is there to do that?
And here we are. "You have no right to an opinion if you aren't in that group"/"it's okay to like problematic things".
I explicitly pointed out, in order to preempt this, that it's perfectly reasonable to have or express an opinion. What you probably shouldn't do is tell people who are actually affected how they are "supposed" to feel, because that comes across as incredibly patronizing.
"You can't use psychadelics as tools of control and indoctrination unless you can". My dude, really?
You'll notice the word "tried."
The CIA also "tried" for decades. It didn't work. You can't use psychedelics to control people's behaviour or "brainwash" them because the effects are really unpredictable. You can torture people on psychedelics but that's just a particularly innovative form of torture.
Also, the Angel's Trumpet actually exists. It's a type of nightshade which contains scopolamine. The effects of bliss as shown, while quite silly, are far more consistent with deliriants like scopolamine than with psychadelics. In short, it seems like an extremely obvious and intentional reference. Scopolamine has also been used pretty extensively as a truth syrum and a date-rape drug because it can make people sleepy, suggestible and easy to manipulate, unlike psychadelics which make people unpredictable and emotional.
And the Manson family wasn't a hippie cult. It was a white supremacist doomsday cult masquerading as hippies.
Who gave you the idea that those things are not compatible with one another?
Evangelical Christianity? "I was an addict but found Jesus, and he ate my sins/healed my spiritual wounds" is Rote Evangelical Preacher Backstory 101.
You're referring to the idea of being born again. However, that is not what has happened to Faith at all. Jesus isn't really a part of what's going on here, in fact he's pretty much absent from the entire thing because explicitly identifying the baddies as Christians might make people upset.
Okay, now you're just playing the Kevin Bacon game but with the Crusades.
At the time the kingdom of Prussia was founded, many of its inhabitants had been on the receiving end of a crusade within living memory. I really, really doubt crusade nostalgia was a particularly strong factor in their national symbolism.
Weren't you just talking about how Manson targeted vulnerable young women and used them as tools in his cult, and how that was proof of his misogyny and male chauvinism?
Manson's misogyny was an explicit part of his belief system, like his racism. It was not something he went to any great pains to hide, and neither did he particularly need to, as his beliefs about women were pretty normal at the time. His ideal of womanhood was an "empty vessel" who would be completely compliant and obedient, and he intentionally targeted very young women (often literal children) because he recognized them as easier to control and manipulate and, consequentially, as closer to this ideal.
Taking away that internal rationality, monstrous as it is, makes the reference shallow.
Again with trying to frame all cults as religious in nature.
Again, the term "cult" is essentially meaningless. The fewer limitations we impose on it, the more meaningless it becomes.
Okay, I feel like this has gotten mean and dumb, so let me concede a bit.
I think that I do get the point you're trying to make, and I appreciate that it's a very difficult and intangiable thing to convey. Because it seems like what you're trying to say is that FC5 captures a general feeling or vibe that feels authentic, and to a large extent I agree. It conveys a view of the world that at first seems disparate but which feels holistic even if it's not always easy to explain in any detail why the individual manifestations are interconnected.
Because yeah, I've been using aesthetics as a criticism to imply that the game is not really saying anything, but that's a pretty reductive view of aesthetics. You can't really talk about art without talking about how art makes you feel, and yeah, in that regard the game does have something interesting going on when it can be bothered to hold an emotional tone. But if it was trying to say anything deep or real about why people fall into white supremacy or how cults form, I don't think aesthetics cut it. There comes a point where you have to be brave enough to say (or show) what you mean out loud.