197
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
197 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19308 readers
2269 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They needed an "other" to reunify the fundamentalist Christian bloc against, since abortion isn't seen by them as much of an issue these days to motivate their voters.
And since they lost the battle of the 80s, 90s, and 00s against openly gay people and society is rapidly becoming more accepting of gay marriage, they had to shift their targets. Trans folks are an easy target because they seem so different and hard to understand. Surgeries, hormone treatments, bathrooms... Obviously interfering with 'gods biological plan' for themselves etc etc.
It's sickening. And once society manages to begin clearing the trans hurdle they will find another minority to target.
They, really, desperately, want to be able to roll back any gay rights. I think they are using trans (and "but the children!" arguments) as a wedge to do so.
I think what gets them so very spun up is that culture changed, at least in their view. And by that, I mean that Hollywood seems to place something related to lgbtq in nearly every show, and so "culture" here means tv/movies/games. I sometimes wonder at the thinking behind this, it doesn't seem to be helping them financially. It certainly seems to be building up a LOT of resentment and it shows up in our politics. Sure, maybe some of these big companies lose money on it in big ways with gigantic flops, but they can make it up elsewhere. I don't know if the motivation is to annoy a large percentage of the country, knowing full well there is really nothing they can do about it, or if the motivation is worse than that, and if some of the big money wants to annoy enough deplorables that they'll come out and vote for the likes of donvict, because it's not like these deplorables have the power to change the content of movies/tv/games, and man, do some of them really, really resent that. It's kind of bizarre because they blame Hollywood for having certain attitudes that they hate, but really, Hollywood doesn't have nearly as much power as they seem to think...
LGBT people are something like 10-20% of the population. It would be insane for them to not be in a movie that has more than a handful of cast members. Why do you want your movies to show some weird unrealistic version of reality, one where queer people are just mysteriously absent? That's pretty fucked up.
I mean, sure, I could maybe see the argument for a period piece. Maybe it's not too realistic to have a bunch of out queer characters in a drama set in Elizabethan England. But in something modern? Again, one in ten to one in five people is queer to some degree or another. Statistically speaking, if you select a cast at random of anything other than a handful of people, you're going to have some queer people in that sample.
Why do you want your movies/games to be less diverse than reality? Do you really need to live out some straight fetishistic fantasy that badly?
The reason studios put LGBT content in movies and games is that a lot of people in the real world, aka their customers, are LGBT. If a studio rarely if ever did so, they would quickly and rightfully be labeled as "that bigoted studio that likes to pretend queer people don't exist."
In Ancient myth: Zeus, Apollo, Asclepius, Athena, Dionysis, Hephaestus, Hermes, Orpheus, Pan, Tantalus, Theseus, Ganymede, Callisto...
In lit: Edward Albee, WH Auden, Francis Bacon, Balzac, Aphra Behn, Judith Butler, Byron, Truman Capote, Catullus, Jean Cocteau, Noel Coward, Emily Dickenson, Daphne du Maurier, Foucault, Ginsberg, Gogol...
Like pick a year, find a queer.
It appears to be 5.5% of the population.
If their population were small, disproportionate representation can still have a positive impact for awareness. That being said, I think a big reason for the representation is the percentage of people in the arts that is LGBT is greater than the general population. It would be tough making content and looking in the eyes of so many creatives while not including characters like them in stories.
Side note:
All the recent period pieces I've seen have LGBT characters. I'm going to use this as a moment to advertise My Lady Jane. It's not an entirely accurate depiction of the story of Lady Jane Grey (for obvious reasons), but it was an entertaining show.
But on the other hand, over half my friends are queer and it rarely comes up. Maybe if your movie is a romance it would be relevant who is fucking who, but if you wouldn't make it relevant for a straight person, why focus on it for a gay person? Like, gay James Bond would have to be fucking hot dudes left and right, obviously. But gay ~~Robin Hood~~ err ~~Indiana Jones~~ err ~~Shrek~~ err ~~Barry B. Benson~~... Why the fuck do they all have romantic plotlines??
Every movie nowadays has a shitty romance subplot tossed into it
I think you missed what I was saying. Go back and re-read. I personally could care less. There are certainly instances I've seen where something just seemed to be done...let's say, performatively and for a very small audience. To the point where it's really breaking the fourth wall and stretches all credulity. I, personally, might roll my eyes, but I move on with it and I'm so unbothered by it.
What I'm saying is that not all of America is at that point in this, and they clearly ARE very, very agitated by it. And they vent this anger onto the political scene. It also shows up in big losses for some of these companies, too. One cannot help but wonder what they are trying to accomplish. Some of the backlash they are creating seems to be almost deliberately done.
I don't want this to come of as me having the answers to what kind of representation should or should not be done in movies/tv/games etc...I'm just noting what is clearly playing out.
Winning can be the worst thing that happens to fascists. They defeated that enemy, and if they don't find another, they may have to solve actual problems for a change.
And if you lived through those fights and were paying attention, you can hear the exact same arguments again, just with the details filed off.