Conservatives want the LGBTQ community dead. Corporations just want money. Hmmm I wonder which one is better... I love watching losers cry about colours whether it be the colours of the rainbow or the colour of a fictional characters skin. Just a hateful bunch in general with nothing better to do with their lives other than be mad about anything they can be.
These corporations want that hatred. That's how they sell their product to people who aren't typically fans.
When Amazons casts a black guy as an elf, they intend to get that outrage and then spread it so people who know nothing about Lord of the Rings feel the need to watch it out of a sense of social justice; because people that are criticizing it seem racist.
The hatred is literally their fuel to get money out of you. They don't care. Social media companies will post tons of shit this month about pride but also propagate rage-content because it's profitable for them. There is no "one is worse than the other", they are both intertwined.
I don't give a fuck if Morgan Freeman wants to play Benjamin Franklin. I fucking hate it when these corporations engage in neo-tokenism so they can sell to middle class white America so they feel like they're hip with the social causes while also creating a nuclear waste bin of ideologies that hide in the corners of the internet until the next mass shooting happens. Shit is disgusting.
Look, we are prepared to believe you at face value for this but it's really hard to when you guys keep voting for people who do. I don't blame anyone for having 0 faith in the conservative party when their leaders go around in political rallies gleefully boasting about how they're going to "eradicate transgenderism". I don't know what the hell we are supposed to think about that.
Historical characters should be portrayed accurately. I dont think anyone with an ounce of intelligence disagrees. Fictional characters looking different literally doesn't matter.
Nothing wrong with portraying historical characters accurately. The point a lot of people are not getting is that it’s also fine to not do that if you choose not to. Everyone has enough of a mental capacity to understand the fantastical or unrealistic aspects of any media they consume, but for some reason they can't get past this one, strangely.
It's just... who the hell cares? What's it to you? Nobody is being intentionally misled here. It's just an stylistic choice. Only way it bothers you is if you are a megapurist stickler, and the VAST MAJORITY of people are not.
Movie gun silencers have been violating the laws of physics for the last 80 years and nobody has said a thing, but Denzel Washington portraying a fictional european king is where we draw the line and start complaining? Is it any wonder this raises suspicions?
If it doesnt matter then why change it? To me it says more about the studios. They're saying, "we don't care enough about you to invest the time and money to create an original, interesting character or story so we'll just thrust you into this already successful franchise
Because the western media is dominated by white (for understandable, if completely amoral reasons), and seeing your non-white race represented on media feels nice. In the face of little boys and girls feeling nice, it's pretty brutish to complain about historical accuracy in something that's not a textbook or a documentary, and is just meant to entertain people, even non-whites. It doesn't take anything away from you, although it does make sense to feel frustrated when you feel corpos are pandering (bad!) to a changing climate (good!)
Most big studios nowadays pander to the investors, and investors are scared of anything new. Using material that's already been established and already has a fan base means that right away you'll have people watch your show or movie regardless of how trash it might be, so it's a much safer bet than something entirely new. It's for this reason that nowadays movies all try and create sequels and prequels and spin offs and cinematic universes.
Using old characters and changing their race is a symptom of this, not a cause. They're not creating new cool characters of color because they're not creating anything new at all anymore.
Again, I don't disagree? But that wasn't anywhere in this comment chain, the comment in question literally just said "historical characters", nothing about documentaries
Probably talking about the Cleopatra documentary, which, against their point, pretty much everyone agrees was awful.
In it they cast a black woman as Cleopatra, despite her iirc being of Greek descent. They also had a ton of other inaccuracies. I never watched it myself so I can only go off of what others have said.
The reason it doesn’t add to their point is that such a small minority was okay with it that it proves nothing about broader opinions about what’s okay regarding diversity inclusion. Of course I could be mischaracterizing their intentions, I just don’t see why they’d bring it up otherwise.
You have nothing but hyperbole. Are there hateful people, absolutely. Are gays being systemically erradicated or anything remotely like that happening? No... not even close. Not in the west. Tell me that about Ughanda... sure. Not here.
Oh Wikipedia is a scholarly source these days? Sorry, when a group thinks simply disagreeing is "hate speech" I no longer take anything they present seriously. Like a Wikipedia article stating hate crimes exist as a response to questioning the statement that conservatives want gays dead. Cmon people the brain is a muscles and yall are experiencing atrophy.
Well I disagree with people in this thread and it's being treated like bigotry. So yall are proving the point. Also pointing out that hate crimes happen doesn't make the statement that conservatives want gays dead any less stupid or somehow factual. You know jaimacans are pretty well know for their disapproval of the gay community. You think they largely vote republican in this country? Muslims also famously oppose this community. You think Muslim Americans are mostly voting republican? But the spooky white conservative wants you dead? Nope... just sick of hearing the constant grievance stack.
It's really hard to understand how "other minority groups that have bigoted views" not voting for Republicans has anything to do with the conversation..
You're saying because Republicans manage to alienate almost every minority, then all those minorities should agree on every issue?
Really can't follow what Muslims and Jamacians not voting republican could possibly have to do with the LGBT community. Just because all three groups are treated like shit by the conservatives doesn't mean they agree with each other??
A lot of Muslims do vote Republican. My mom and I are pretty much the only people in our Pakistani family that aren't conservative. Both of my mom's siblings are actually pretty supportive of Trump even. There would actually be way more PoC voting Republican if the party's racism wasn't so blatant.
Seems like a vocal minority even as far as right leaning people is concerned though. It’s certainly more accepted here than in a generous chunk of the world. Most of Asia and the Middle East have a much lower rate of acceptance in particular. The US seems to mainly be outperformed by Canada and Western Europe though. Then when you break down state to state it varies a lot however. Although, a lot of the high population city’s seem to be very accepting despite being in an otherwise red state.
The fact that bigotry of the norm world doesn't justify yours nor any other bigotry.
The fact that goups that suffer with bigotry cash also have their bigots or be have systemic bigotries themselves still doesn't justify your favored bigotry.
And in fact, the main reason does better than most other nations of because LGBT, women and allies have fought and often died for their rights.
The freedom and improvement of the lives of marginalized groups is not a gift from society, it's right fought for with blood.
Things didn't got better in the US, things WERE MADE BETTER by the exact types of movements and discourse you are trying to undermine by concern trolling about the side of the world the US bombs regularly.
I never said this information justified any bigotry. Just saying that your average American isn’t as hateful as some people on this site would have you believe.
I mean, very extreme bigots have been elected for very high positions, so even if the averge conservative isn't a bigot, they are very willing to put bigots in power positions, and that is very concerning.
It might be a "vocal minority", but if that numerical minority has institutional power, they are power majority.
That’s true, and I don’t think they should be supported. But I feel like things are shifting more and more progressively even in red circles overall. I wish acceptance would move much faster considering it’s people’s livelihoods on the table.
So you don’t want them dead, you just want them to live in the shadows so it feels as though they don’t exist, because you love personal freedom so much?
I mean I kind of get it. I don’t want hateful bigots like you dead, I just don’t want me or anyone else to ever have to hear from you ever again! The world would be better off if it were as though you didn’t exist (not saying you shouldn’t though! 🤭)
Haha. Ya. Once again you prove your side is hateful. Every decenting opinion is bigotry. You're intellectually crippled by fear of opinions. I don't cram my views on everyone I pass. People don't look at me and know my sexuality... as it should be. Feel free to only define yourself in the act of sex... super progressive and healthy.
Not wanting to hear about something constantly is not wishing it doesn't exist but be intellectually dishonest and pretend that the responses I've gotten haven't been hateful. I have my opinions but any opinion that isn't 100% endorsement is bigotry. It's gotten incredibly tired. But sure say how you actually wish I didn't exist or close to it... sure sure. Unhinged and intellectually dishonest behavior. But extremists can't see that they themselves are extreme. 🤷♂️
As someone who grew up around many conservatives (in Canada. Can't speak to American conservatives) you're right... Technically. My parents would never want someone dead... But they would like them to stop doing such outrageous things as holding hands in public, daring to appear on television, and not realizing that by loving who they love, or being who they are, they are apparently sinning.
They don't want them dead. They just don't want any of the LGBTQIA+ "lifestyle/behaviors" to exist. :)
Many conservatives (I’d doubt most, but many) literally would like them to die though, to be clear. That’s why gay clubs are shot up periodically, always by angry freedom-haters with conservative beliefs.
A mass shooter being trans has no more to do with why they committed the mass shooting than their height or shoe size. Taking that incident as reason be suspicious of trans people generally would be akin to being suspicious of anyone who’s 6’6 because there was a mass shooter who was 6’6.
But if you just can’t get past this way of thinking, I’d ask: what’s your take on how this is the exception and the overwhelming majority of mass shooters are cis white men?
You are projecting. My point in asking your take on the trans shooter massacring kids in a Christian elementary school is to bring attention to the logic in your previous comment.
You can’t have it one way and not the other. If the cis white male shoots up a gay club and is therefore targeted against gays (I agree with you), then a trans kid shooting up a Christian elementary school is targeted against Christians. Both are targeted. Both are wrong.
If you think that shooting a gay club is targeted, but the Christian school is just “a mass shooter who happens to be trans” then your thinking is inconsistent and I hope you are able to recognize that.
Being trans isn't an ideology any more than being cis is. Rightwing beliefs that gay/trans are bad (and at the extreme end, that they shouldn't exist) are ideology. I hope you can see how inconsistent it is to compare these two as though they are both ideologies.
The reason I know the gay club shootings are often targeted is because the shooters usually make it very clear that they hate gay people on social media or by some other means.
As for the specific case of the Nashville shooting, they still don't know the motive. So I also hope you can see how you are making assumptions based on no evidence to say they targeted a Christian school specifically because they were targeting Christians. Is it possible a trans person could resent Christians due to so many Christians citing their religion as a reason for their hatred of lgbt+ people, wanting to pass legislation that take away their rights? Sure. But it still wouldn't be because they were trans. A cis person could hate the church for the exact same reason on behalf of trans people. Do you also see the flaw in your thinking there that being trans is somehow a crucial part in that shooting, even in the hypothetical scenario where they intentionally targeted Christians?
I can see your points, so thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts. Unfortunately, I do also see you making excuses or affording benefit of the doubt for the Trans shooter despite it being no less atrocious than a gay club shooting.
Admitting we don't know the motive in the Nashville shooting isn't giving them the benefit of the doubt. The investigators literally have not found a motive yet. You assuming you do know the motive is the only assumption being made between us. I even offered that your assumption may turn out to be correct, and showed that it still wouldn't implicate trans people in any general way since a cis person could've committed the same crime with the same anti-Christian motive.
The hysteria in conservative media about "trans terrorism" following that shooting was clearly just seizing an opportunity to further stoke fear and hatred against trans people, so it's hard to take any discussion about any of this as one made in good faith and not just made to further muddy the waters with the implication that since a trans person committed a mass shooting, that means something bad about trans people generally.
You don’t want lgbtq people dead, but youll vote for it if it comes bundled with lower taxes, which amounts to the same thing. Do you not understand that thats the same? Also, is DeSantis “far right”? Because you could very much make the argument he wants lgbtq people dead and he is only behind Trump for presumptive Republican presidential nominee. That seems pretty mainstream to me. Find a remotely mainstream liberal politician with similarly extreme views
Tell yourself whatever you want, but if you pay lip service to being ok with LGBT people and still vote republican you are voting for book bans, gag rules on teachers, and targeting LGBT businesses and events, then it’s extremely disingenuous. People don’t find you repulsive because “huuurrr conservative bad” it’s because you vote for heinous shit
As in actually going out and shooting them? Only a few elected politicians, church leaders, their entire congregations, the constituents who voted for them, etc.
As in "happy to see them bleed out or starve on the street because you made it legal for people to withhold care and basic social services from them"?
554
u/LordAppleton Jun 01 '23
At least the pandering makes conservatives upset.