That's not what I said at all.
Your own words,
Morever, at the end of the day the basic reality of the situation comes down to a choice between shallow representation and no representation. If someone is really angry that their favourite corporate slop pipeline features a tokenistic gay kiss when the alternative is.. not having that gay kiss, it's pretty obvious that isn't really a good faith criticism.
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. All I did was transpose the argument to minstrelsy, and the gay stereotypes upon which
Will and Grace's "humor" were founded, which is itself comparable to minstrelsy.
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.
The point is, you don't get to decide how angry other people should be. You can point out that media depictions of black people are rooted in minstrel show stereotypes, but you're not the one being stereotyped so your opinion doesn't really matter. It's possible to appreciate or enjoy characters rooted in those stereotypes, it's possible to be the type of person being stereotyped and still find the depiction enjoyable, comforting or flattering. It's possible to enjoy weak or tokenistic representation because it has personal meaning to you, while also being aware of what it is. It's kind of up to the individual how angry they want to be about it.
Just stay in your lane. It isn't too hard.
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".
Nah, I'm perfectly well within my remit to form my own opinions of corporations' and people's behavior vis-a-vis minority groups, and make my decisions whether or not to consume or criticize content based upon them.
And form opinions of others', based upon inconsistent and faulty advocacy which more often than not implies clout-chasing or profit-seeking over honesty.
In other words, if a corporation has a shitty history representing a minority group, and pretends to overcome that history by creating content with shitty representation, and then a group of people defend that content and its shitty representation by defaming critics and suppressing critics that can't be defamed without ever actually addressing that criticism, I'm perfectly well within my rights to conclude defenders are dick riding for clout and cash.
Generally, it's more effective if the post you link to actually evidences the thing you're saying.
Yes, my three-year-old post warning against BreadTubers isn't evidence of...my having warned you all about BreadTubers for years.
But let's deal with the big issue here. You seem to be struggling with the concept of individuality.
Said by the person treating critics of this content as a monolithic right-wing hive consciousness. See,
this inconsistency is what I'm calling out.
Nothing.
Nothing will happen to you. Noone will kick down your door or attack you in the street. You will not be sent to a reeducation camp. People might be angry with you, because you're financially supporting someone who is materially harming them, but again, you don't get to decide how angry other people should be. You aren't actually affected in any way.
Tell that to the people who were put on blacklists, doxxed, and harassed for playing Hogwarts Legacy. That is, when you aren't trucking out the "there is no cancel culture just consequence culture" canard.
Plenty of people have talked about their complex feelings towards Harry Potter, about how important it has been to them personally even as they feel alienated from its creator. We've gone through this process before with people like Orson Scott Card. There's plenty of cultural space in which to have those discussions.
No, there isn't. There's just echo chambers. Those aren't cultural spaces to have discussions, they're subcultural spaces to have one's biases confirmed.
Psychedelics have been used for religious purposes since before human history.
And by cults as recruitment and indoctrination tools.
It's very difficult to use psychedelics as a tool of control because they're extremely unpredictable and also non-addictive. Aum Shinrikyo were the only cult I can think of that deliberately tried to use psychadelics in this way, mostly as a way to enhance torture or get people to have religious experiences. The Manson family used psychadelics because they were hippies.
"You can't use psychadelics as tools of control and indoctrination unless you can". My dude, really?
And the Manson family wasn't a hippie cult. It was a white supremacist doomsday cult masquerading as hippies. You of all people should know well cults mask, that's kind of the entire methodology.
Faith being based on Charles Manson would be pretty tasteless and frankly a bit disgusting. If anything she is a representation of Manson's followers, who were mostly vulnerable women whom he recruited at an extremely young age. Manson's philosophy was openly misogynistic and viewed women as possessions.
And yet, here we are. Grotesquery is an effective tool.
However, her backstory as a recovered drug addict is also reminiscent of another cult, specifically the one everyone conveniently forgets.
Evangelical Christianity? "I was an addict but found Jesus, and he ate my sins/healed my spiritual wounds" is Rote Evangelical Preacher Backstory 101. Have you ever been inside a single church in the Midwest or South? Damn near every fucking preacher says shit like this; were I you, I'd have said it doesn't mean anything
because it's so common and cliche.
But nope, you just had to go for the gold there and inadvertently point out how little you actually know about evangelical Christianity. I grew up with this ridiculous shit.
The iron cross is a national emblem of Germany. Again, it is still used by the German military today. Previously, it was a common national emblem of Prussia, because the state of Prussia was a direct evolution of the Teutonic state and retained much of its symbolism. The Nazis didn't adopt it because it was reminiscent of the crusades, it was the existing emblem of the German military.
Okay, now you're just playing the Kevin Bacon game but with the Crusades. And, you're admitting the symbol retained its symbolism through those degrees of separation. You really need to start thinking about what you're actually saying, here.
Firstly, the stolen nuclear weapon stuff is fan theory.
"Fan theory". Right, that it's heavily supported and implied by the game's content just doesn't matter.
Secondly, a multi-racial militia doing bad things to random people does not characterize them as white supremacists.
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?
All you are doing here, I hope you realize, is inflating the expectations you are currently failing to meet.
You're the one who anted up here claiming authority whilst failing to identify or acknowledge the symbolism in the game, and when directly confronted on it are now trying to argue it doesn't matter.
The term "cult" has no clear definition. It was popularized by the counter-cult movement specifically as a way to demonize the groups they targeted and distance them from "real" or "legitimate" religion. Deciding what is and isn't a cult is, frankly, a useless exercise. I'm only using the term because NRM is clunky.
Again with trying to frame all cults as religious in nature.
Okay. But evangelical Christianity represents a quarter of the US population, so why the fuck is it so important to pretend that the Branch Davidians or the Manson Family are some crucial piece of the far-right puzzle?
Well I'm already late for work writing this point, so I'll cut straight to the chase: those people vote and have a lot of money to throw around, and they provide cover, legitimacy, and support to dangerous zealots. You forget the early '90s
also saw the rise of the religious right in the US, and the massive backlash the Clinton administration faced from it for its response to Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the militia movements. They only tried to distance themselves
in the public eye, to mask themselves because otherwise they'd face legal and criminal consequences
too.
Or to put it another way, they may not have the balls to blow up a government building themselves, but they'll merrily goad someone else into it, watch it happen, applaud behind closed doors while condemning it in front of the cameras, and start work grooming the next round of domestic terrorists.
en.wikipedia.org
