Funny Events of the "Woke" world

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,066
964
118
Country
USA
Romance was never an issue in movies or products meant for children -
Romance was always an issue in these things. There have always been perfectly reasonable people saying that all of these things are inappropriate for children. The only thing that is different now to make LGBTQ issues exceptional is that the people making the pop culture believe that inserting sexuality into things is an actively virtuous thing to do.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,984
4,733
118
Romance was always an issue in these things. There have always been perfectly reasonable people saying that all of these things are inappropriate for children. The only thing that is different now to make LGBTQ issues exceptional is that the people making the pop culture believe that inserting sexuality into things is an actively virtuous thing to do.
Yep, all those people making a fuss about romance in Disney animated movies. Oh wait, that was absolutely fucking no one. You can point toward anything in a kids movie and find some idiot who thinks it's inappropriate for children, but don't fucking pretend like the litany of straight romances in Disney movies got even an ounce of the rage (and accusations of pedophilia and grooming) from conservatives as the very idea of a gay romance does.

All those "perfectly reasonable people" only really started to lose their minds over the issue of romance in kids media exactly now that there's attempts made at LGBTQ+ repesentation in said media, huh? Almost like they never really cared, but now they do cuz gay = sex. Don't give me this 'romance was always an issue, but the LGBTQ+ gets a free pass' bullshit.

This is nothing more than 'straight romance is good/gay romance is bad', any which way you try and spin it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,005
3,760
118
Well, there were stories that my kindergarden teacher was an actual witch, and that a monster lived under my bed, so anything is possible I guess.
Were they separate stories, or does the witch teacher have a connection with the monster under your bed?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,830
6,179
118
Country
United Kingdom
I don't think I can name a straight character who is basically fully defined by being straight and only talks about how straight they are. Even Johnny Bravo manages to have more of a character to him.
This would be because you're exaggerating it when it comes to gay characters, and downplaying it when it comes to straight characters.

Straight characters are far more often shown in romantic scenarios, sexual scenarios. Straight romantic plots are far, far more common. And Straight characters will talk about their romantic/sexual interests and pursuits far more frequently, too. Its not even close.

Look at Friends. An enormous amount of the plotlines, dialogue and characterisation surrounds romantic, relationship and sexual stuff. Its completely expected and goes unremarked. When a gay character shows romantic/ sexual interest even half as often as any character from Friends, they'll get labelled pushy and in-your-face.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,984
4,733
118
This would be because you're exaggerating it when it comes to gay characters, and downplaying it when it comes to straight characters.

Straight characters are far more often shown in romantic scenarios, sexual scenarios. Straight romantic plots are far, far more common. And Straight characters will talk about their romantic/sexual interests and pursuits far more frequently, too. Its not even close.

Look at Friends. An enormous amount of the plotlines, dialogue and characterisation surrounds romantic, relationship and sexual stuff. Its completely expected and goes unremarked. When a gay character shows romantic/ sexual interest even half as often as any character from Friends, they'll get labelled pushy and in-your-face.
This is what you'd call 'the not-gays'; where there's atleast one moment or line of dialoge where a main or side character proves their straightness for the audience. Usually the male characters.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,066
964
118
Country
USA
This is nothing more than 'straight romance is good/gay romance is bad', any which way you try and spin it.
It seems you are unwilling to believe any alternative. I'm sure you know in your mind that people got "explicit content" stamped on album covers. I'm sure you know they cut Elvis off at the waist before airing him on tv. You have to understand there are things people would rather keep hidden from children, but are choosing to treat one particular thing as exceptional. Yes, people would be upset at romance in Mr Rodgers, regardless of orientation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Yes, people would be upset at romance in Mr Rodgers, regardless of orientation.
Fred Rogers was married. Wasn't exactly a secret. And prudes shouldn't get to dictate content to the rest of us because they have shitty judgment of what is and is not appropriate.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,456
7,020
118
Country
United States
It seems you are unwilling to believe any alternative. I'm sure you know in your mind that people got "explicit content" stamped on album covers. I'm sure you know they cut Elvis off at the waist before airing him on tv. You have to understand there are things people would rather keep hidden from children, but are choosing to treat one particular thing as exceptional. Yes, people would be upset at romance in Mr Rodgers, regardless of orientation.
It's hilarious that you're comparing Elvis hip thirsting to teens to children's books about gay penguins
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,189
1,628
118
Country
The Netherlands
Romance was always an issue in these things.
Was it though? Lets take Disney for example which are the kids friendly movies most older generations would be familiar with. I don't think any movie ranging from sleeping beauty to Hercules and Meg ever became controversial because people thought the hero getting a girlfriend, or the heroine a boyfriend was inappropriate for children.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,012
665
118
Dude. A homophobe ATTACKS gay people (verbally and physically) over being gay. I said you didn't like gay things in movies. Then you pretends its the people who write gay people's fault. You just dont like it. That's fine. You can not like what you dont like. Just lie about writing skills when you were never going to like it
And yet others on your side were happy to imply or state I was a bigot.

You and others here were happy to try and take what I said and twist it and expand it to justify your preconceptions and beliefs that weren't based on fact or evidence.

So, if you are attack gay people over them being gay, that would make you a homophobe. Have you been doing that, do you think?

Most of your argument around this are strawman. Or you have one quote from one person and pretend everyone believes the same thing. If you don't want people to strawman you, stop doing it to others.
And yet as is being shown in this thread it seems it is more than one person believing it.

Funny you tell me to stop strawmanning when you've done it one per post at last so far. Hell you just did it now and didn't realise it.




Lastly 'I'm letting them just exist"... yeah, citation needed. You've said plenty of things to the opposite and nothing for this
Oh I'm sorry can you point me to where I said anything fucking like "All Gay people should be exterminated"

Oh right I never fucking have this is just you and others here showing your biases and unwillingness to actually engage beyond broad strokes culture war fighting BS.


People are allowed to voice opinions. It's you that's getting triggered by them
Oh you mean like trying to call others bigot for not blindly supporting whatever property.

Funny because I bet if I returned the favour and stated those people and fucking morons they'd be the first to run crying about how it's unfair and how I'm being nasty.

But no I'm apparently somehow obligated to sit and take the Bullshit because they're "On the right side of history" or some such BS claim.

No Fuck that shit I'm done playing nice.

You have stated that all gay people in movies are vapid and 2 dimensional. That 's an incredible statement that's highly unlikely to be true even in your mind. If you want to take it as me calling you a bigot, so be it.
In modern film aiming for mass appeal, yeh they kind of tend to be.

In weirder pieces not heavily studio controlled not so much (See Atomic Blonde)


Now, you're proabbly going to say, 'I didnt mean all gay people.' And I'm going to say, 'why did you say it then?'
Except I didn't say it. Another Strawman. You read that into what I actually said and are demanding I argue from that position.

You'll now argue that I totally did say that and I'll respond that I didn't and it's a personal incredulity fallacy on your part and you can either accept that you're wrong or keep yelling demanding I accept something that I'm not going to accept as my position and you can just get increasingly annoyed and invective about it.


Here's some other peer pressure you seemed to be worried about
Leo & Layla's History Adventures with Frederick Douglass | PragerU
I'll note that this is way more peer pressure than what you find in moviesI can pull up a hundreds more from conservative if you want. The whole point of being a conservative is following tradition which is just PEER PRESSURE from dead people.
If you want to see something that not related to media, go have a look at the discussion around climate change/coal. Or masks/vaccines. Or Ukraine. Or Brexit.

If you dont want to follow the peer pressure, fine man. Peer pressure from everywhere. That's how the world exists. It's not going to stop just because you realise it exists
So your argument is PragerU is more influential than fucking Disney?

Are you high right now?

I'm serious are you high now or when you wrote this hilarious drivel?

I don't think I've ever watched a Prager U video in my life, hell I forgot they event existed until you brought them up and didn't even know who the were until like 5 years ago at most when people started screeching about them being some evil Nazi organisation or something.

You argue the whole point of conservatives is to follow tradition which is peer pressure from dead people, well weirdly enough if was a conservative government that took the UK into the EU originally. It was a conservative government in the UK that legalised gay marriage. It was a conservative politician in the UK that brought in compulsory schooling to stop kids being shipped off to work in the factories. Funny how that goes isn't it?

I'd say if modern progressiveness is about ripping up the past and trying to replace it claiming it's bad then you need to be careful that progress forward isn't towards and over a cliff.

Sure is. And that's fine because that's how Hollywood work. Always has been You aren't going to find anything of substance from there AND as I've stated previously, its only a problem for you now.... when the gays are in. Even when its been that way for over a century.
Is it fine though?
I mean that's actually an argument Jim Sterling has debunked before the whole "Well that's what they do" argument.
I mean guess we shouldn't have bothered with vaccines because viruses spread that's what they do right?


Who in the flying fuck would care except Robert Yang?
Oddly he has a fair following. Not quite Chuck Tingle levels but a decent sized one.

You know that you are saying that Hollywood should only follow a certain demographic (and definitely exclude others) because you don't want it put in front of certain demograpics. Also, you said mass appeal was bad above. Shouldn't you want normal movies to not disperse out to various demographics? This is a terrible argument
*Strawman alert*
*Fetches the flamethrower*

Quote me

I literally have already said in this thread I'd prefer a range of films for different demogrphic rather than pushing for mass appeal gruel. But apparently you chose to ignore that along with plenty of other things I've said just to try and drum home and drum up a stupid narrative. It's funny you talk of peer pressure and yet so fail to see how it's impacted you.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,830
6,179
118
Country
United Kingdom
And yet others on your side were happy to imply or state I was a bigot.

You and others here were happy to try and take what I said and twist it and expand it to justify your preconceptions and beliefs that weren't based on fact or evidence.
You said the mere presence of gay people in media isn't for you.

If you find a certain kind of person being present unpalatable, then you have a problem with that kind of person. What the fuck else do we call it when someone dislikes others for an innate characteristic of theirs? That's not misrepresentation of your position. You said it.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,012
665
118
If you want to discuss the impact of marketing a product like Barbie solely to girls, fine, but that's not what we're talking about here, and that's not what conservatives are aiming for with these bills targeting specifically the LGBTQ+ in classrooms, or people talking about the gay agenda being pushed.

Romance was never an issue in movies or products meant for children - heck, girls playing with fake babies that could actually pee was never an issue - until the prospect that it could be of the gay variety. Then all of a sudden romance is a concept children should absolutely not be exposed to.

Also, there were Barbie dolls in my kindergarden class, and it wasn't a sex den where little girls were getting groomed, it was just a classroom with toys. I mean, I know you're trying spin this around on me, but have some common sense, huh.
I dunno maybe, just maybe, and I could be wrong here but maybe shit like this is a bad idea to do


Especially when it turns out quite a few in that video get found out to be sex offender whose crime were going after kids.

I dunno maybe just maybe some people are a little put off by for example 8 year old drag acts that apparently at one point ended up heading towards burlesque and seeing some people who saw it go down (who were gay BTW) tell people about it because they found it crossed a line for them.

I dunno maybe it's me but maybe there's a concern over the idea that some people who happily yell and tweet things like "All Cis people are evil" and "Death to the disgusting breeders" on social media aren't the best people to be teaching kid or even setting the curriculum regarding it.

You know just like I'm sure no-one here (and to be clear me included) would want West Boro Baptist Church teaching kids of influencing the curriculum.

I don't know maybe some of the tales of people pushing the line a bit are getting people a bit concerned that other idiots are doing it too and aren't being found out so because some people can't use a degree of common sense everyone is now suffering.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,012
665
118
Yep, all those people making a fuss about romance in Disney animated movies. Oh wait, that was absolutely fucking no one. You can point toward anything in a kids movie and find some idiot who thinks it's inappropriate for children, but don't fucking pretend like the litany of straight romances in Disney movies got even an ounce of the rage (and accusations of pedophilia and grooming) from conservatives as the very idea of a gay romance does.

All those "perfectly reasonable people" only really started to lose their minds over the issue of romance in kids media exactly now that there's attempts made at LGBTQ+ repesentation in said media, huh? Almost like they never really cared, but now they do cuz gay = sex. Don't give me this 'romance was always an issue, but the LGBTQ+ gets a free pass' bullshit.

This is nothing more than 'straight romance is good/gay romance is bad', any which way you try and spin it.
Pretty sure there were objection to Britney Spears and the Spice girls causing sexualisation in youth or something to take off.

So yeh it's actually not new. I'm sure there was some rage over some stuff in Disney like the whole supposed secret Whispers in Aladin etc.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,012
665
118
This would be because you're exaggerating it when it comes to gay characters, and downplaying it when it comes to straight characters.

Straight characters are far more often shown in romantic scenarios, sexual scenarios. Straight romantic plots are far, far more common. And Straight characters will talk about their romantic/sexual interests and pursuits far more frequently, too. Its not even close.

Look at Friends. An enormous amount of the plotlines, dialogue and characterisation surrounds romantic, relationship and sexual stuff. Its completely expected and goes unremarked. When a gay character shows romantic/ sexual interest even half as often as any character from Friends, they'll get labelled pushy and in-your-face.
Ok then if you so believe I'm exaggerating then provide examples.

Provide data and examples to support your argument.

Being more common doesn't mean the characters have been reduced to that. The plots happen as part of other plots quite often and are far more incidental things.

Friends has a lot of plots about se and romance but each character is still a character. If I asked people to define the characters in Friends and talk about them and character people could.

meanwhile Bill basically got to be a Lesbian as most of her character.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,012
665
118
Fred Rogers was married. Wasn't exactly a secret. And prudes shouldn't get to dictate content to the rest of us because they have shitty judgment of what is and is not appropriate.
And I (fan of sex and violence in media) shouldn't be arguing for kids media to adhere to my tastes.

Jesus we literally have age rating systems to deal with this crap.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,830
6,179
118
Country
United Kingdom
Ok then if you so believe I'm exaggerating then provide examples.

Provide data and examples to support your argument.

Being more common doesn't mean the characters have been reduced to that. The plots happen as part of other plots quite often and are far more incidental things.

Friends has a lot of plots about se and romance but each character is still a character. If I asked people to define the characters in Friends and talk about them and character people could.

meanwhile Bill basically got to be a Lesbian as most of her character.
Except again, you're just exaggerating it for one side and downplaying it for the other. Romance and sex actually came up for Bill far less than it did for Rose or Clara/Rory, for instance. Or literally any character from Friends. But you noticed it and exaggerated it, because you have a weird hang-up.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
6,012
665
118
You said the mere presence of gay people in media isn't for you.
Why is it meant to be for me?

If you find a certain kind of person being present unpalatable, then you have a problem with that kind of person. What the fuck else do we call it when someone dislikes others for an innate characteristic of theirs? That's not misrepresentation of your position. You said it.
Because often in media characters get reduced to that one characteristic by shitty writers who want everyone to know how progressive they are because they wrote a gay character.

It comes to something when the flower knight in Game of Thrones is better written and less of a walking stereotype than some characters in media.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,830
6,179
118
Country
United Kingdom
Why is it meant to be for me?
When someone said "not for me", it means they dislike it. You specifically dislike the presence of people with certain characteristics, which is pretty much textbook prejudice.

Because often in media characters get reduced to that one characteristic by shitty writers who want everyone to know how progressive they are because they wrote a gay character.

It comes to something when the flower knight in Game of Thrones is better written and less of a walking stereotype than some characters in media.
That doesn't happen to gay characters at any greater rate than straight characters. Sexuality makes up less of their depiction than it does for straight characters. But you're moaning about it specifically, and solely, with gay characters, because you have a weird hang-up.