What makes the changes "degenerate", exactly?
Degererate: To decline or deteriorate from a previous state of moral or social excellence: In this sense, to "degenerate" means to fall from a higher or better state to a lower or worse state.
Identity politics, forced diversity, the demotion and denigration of straight white men, etc. is a degeneration of movies/shows.
There have been a massive amount of high quality TV shows since 2015.
Yes, there were some. But not nearly to the level and quality of the Golden Age of Television (1999-2015).
Why is your worldview in this instance, your vision for entertainment, more moral or higher quality than 'woke people'?
Morality has nothing to do with it. There is no objective standard here that I am appealing to. It is a matter of subjective values and preferences,
Why should that kind of TV be exiled? Should House of the Dragon, which you've lambasted, despite it's high reputation, be excommunicated? Euphoria (easily one of the highest rated teen shows of all time)? Sex Education? Many of the LGBT romance shows like Heartstopper and Young Royals? The Handmaids Tale?
I'm not asking for the exile of the shows. The ones that were created get to stay. I'm advocating for the exile of the people who make those shows, or people who contribute to making these shows woke.
By getting rid of these people the shows that will be produced will have a different flavor. Shows like Euphoria might never be made, which is fine by me, even though I watch it and like it. Shows like HotD would still be made exactly the way it is except it would have no minorities in it since it is a show about a race of people who are supposed to be albino white.
What makes modern TV in this case "shit"?
As I said in a previous post: "Everything, from the style, to the subject matter, to the way people speak, and the way they look."
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
Identity politics, forced diversity, the demotion and denigration of straight white men, etc. is a degeneration of movies/shows.
And how has denigration of straight white men become the norm in TV shows? Other than like, Velma, which was universally panned.
Yes, there were some. But not nearly to the level and quality of the Golden Age of Television (1999-2015).
Zero way you can objectively quantify this.
I'm not asking for the exile of the shows. The ones that were created get to stay. I'm advocating for the exile of the people who make those shows, or people who contribute to making these shows woke.
By getting rid of these people the shows that will be produced will have a different flavor. Shows like Euphoria might never be made, which is fine by me, even though I watch it and like it. Shows like HotD would still be made exactly the way it is except it would have no minorities in it since it is a show about a race of people who are supposed to be albino white.
So why shouldn't shows like Euphoria be made? Or Gay romance shows?
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
And how has denigration of straight white men become the norm in TV shows? Other than like, Velma, which was universally panned.
I don't mean just explicitly, I also mean in movies like The Matrix Resurrections, where the straight white male lead has to take a step back and let the powerful women take center stage. Another example is Terminator: Dark Fate where John Connor is killed off right in the beginning and forgotten about and then replaced by a Latina women who takes the spotlight.
Zero way you can objectively quantify this.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that we're not talking about some objective fact, but rather subjective opinion. Maybe if I continue saying it, it will eventually sink in. What do you think? Do you think it will sink in, or will you keep on asking the same incessant questions?
So why shouldn't shows like Euphoria be made? Or Gay romance shows?
They can be made, but the people who make them would no longer be in the mainstream, so we would still have them but they would be rare. Just like all white casts are rare today. I want to flip that. Less of the former and more of the latter.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
I don't mean just explicitly, I also mean in movies like The Matrix Resurrections, where the straight white male lead has to take a step back and let the powerful women take center stage. Another example is Terminator: Dark Fate where John Connor is killed off right in the beginning and forgotten about and then replaced by a Latina women who takes the spotlight.
Both relatively poorly rated movies.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that we're not talking about some objective fact, but rather subjective opinion. Maybe if I continue saying it, it will eventually sink in. What do you think? Do you think it will sink in, or will you keep on asking the same incessant questions?
Then to demand that the entertainment industry change to represent your own personal preferences is unbelievably selfish and narcissistic - and has nothing really to do with any particular ethical objection about 'wokeness' per se.
They can be made, but the people who make them would no longer be in the mainstream, so we would still have them but they would be rare. Just like all white casts are rare today. I want to flip that. Less of the former and more of the latter.
Why shouldn't they be "in the mainstream" exactly? And "all-white casts" have been rare in serialised TV for decades, even in the "golden age" as you refer to it.
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
Then to demand that the entertainment industry change to represent your own personal preferences is unbelievably selfish and narcissistic - and has nothing really to do with any particular ethical objection about 'wokeness' per se.
Now you're getting it. It is just as narcissistic to impose standards based on woke ideology.
All I want to do is to roll all of that back. Why? Because I prefer it that way. Is it selfish? Maybe, but a whole lot of people agree with me. Liberals only make up like 24% of the US population and The Wokerati are a smaller subset of liberals. It is reasonable to assume that non-liberals are probably not woke, and would prefer the same kind of media that I'm advocating for.
Why shouldn't they be "in the mainstream" exactly?
Because I say so.
And "all-white casts" have been rare in serialised TV for decades, even in the "golden age" as you refer to it.
Correct. And I want to reverse that trend. It doesn't have to be as prevalent as it was in the 80's and it doesn't have to be as much as post 2006, so lets split the difference and say that it should be about the level as it was in the 90's. It could be something like the Sopranos where all of the cast is white, but there are still minorities. Sopranos was good. That seems about right.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
Now you're getting it. It is just as narcissistic to impose standards based on woke ideology.
Who is "imposing standards"? People are just making shows you don't like, or setting up plot themes you don't like.
Because I prefer it that way. Is it selfish? Maybe, but a whole lot of people agree with me. Liberals only make up like 24% of the US population and The Wokerati are a smaller subset of liberals. It is reasonable to assume that non-liberals are probably not woke, and would prefer the same kind of media that I'm advocating for.
Then why don't they make it - if they have the numbers. And your interpretation of the data assumes that ONLY Liberals like "woke" TV shows. And significantly misunderstands that most people don't watch most TV in general. Very few shows gain a majority of the population audience, over time. Based on anecdotal experience, a lot of older-type conservative-leaning viewers just watch network police procedurals or dad-TV and have never had much interest in keeping up with TV or film, and won't really watch anything.
Because I say so.
And why should you get to decide that? What if Netflix, in your brave new world commissioned an LGBT romance TV show?
Correct. And I want to reverse that trend. It doesn't have to be as prevalent as it was in the 80's and it doesn't have to be as much as post 2006, so lets split the difference and say that it should be about the level as it was in the 90's. It could be something like the Sopranos where all of the cast is white, but there are still minorities. That seems about right.
And why is that right?
What's the argument to suggest that production companies and networks should be openly racist towards non-white people by deliberately excluding them?
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
Who is "imposing standards"? People are just making shows you don't like, or setting up plot themes you don't like.
https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-establishes-representation-and-inclusion-standards-oscarsr-eligibility
Then why don't they make it - if they have the numbers
Because they were pushed out of the industry. The Wokerati maybe small but they have taken over the levers of power in Hollywood and outside of Hollywood in HR departments of many companies and of course academia.
And why should you get to decide that?
Why not me?
What if Netflix, in your brave new world commissioned an LGBT romance TV show?
Then we would have an LGBT romance show. In my brave new world, hopefully they would be far and few between.
And why is that right?
Because I say so.
What's the argument to suggest that production companies and networks should be openly racist towards non-white people by deliberately excluding them?
They shouldn't be excluding them. They should just not include them in everything. In my brave new world (or old brave new world as it were), there would be all white shows, all black shows, and mixed shows. Many choices for everyone. There would no longer be only mixed shows.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-establishes-representation-and-inclusion-standards-oscarsr-eligibility
This is just for award ceremonies. Most films are too obscure or niche to ever be considered for this anyway.
Because they were pushed out of the industry. The Wokerati maybe small but they have taken over the levers of power in Hollywood and outside of Hollywood in HR departments of many companies and of course academia.
And the 'right' or 'conservative' can't produce parallel production studios? They have enough money to pump out hundreds of internet TV shows in studios, run news networks etc.
Why not me?
Why should anyone individually get to dictate how all TV and film is? Should I get to dictate it?
Then we would have an LGBT romance show. In my brave new world, hopefully they would be far and few between.
I mean you overstate how common they are now in terms of shows like Heartstopper and Young Royals.
Because I say so.
This is petulant. This is literally just you going "nuh uh".
They shouldn't be excluding them. They should just not include them in everything. In my brave new world (or old brave new world as it were), there would be all white shows, all black shows, and mixed shows. Many choices for everyone. There would no longer be only mixed shows.
You've said that the level of representation of ethnic minorities should be *under* their prevalence in the general population - which would likely necessitate actors being turned down purely because they aren't white.
And no, you speak as if you want choices to diminish for progressives (as it were).
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
This is just for award ceremonies. Most films are too obscure or niche to ever be considered for this anyway.
It's but one example of the industry imposing diversity, inclusion, equity (D.I.E) standards. These standards are being imposed everywhere, even beyond just Hollywood. Many companies across the board have similar standards. In the entertainment industry the result is that media is woke.
And the 'right' or 'conservative' can't produce parallel production studios? They have enough money to pump out hundreds of internet TV shows in studios, run news networks etc.
I believe the right is trying to do that. However, the right is also a minority. What we need is for the silent majority to rise up and create a parallel industry, but it's not as easy as it sounds. There are many obstacles to doing that. The current players would use their power to stamp that out. There were many studios back in the day, and a huge diversity of movies. Now everything has been absorbed by just a handful of corporations. That's why there is so little choice.
Why should anyone individually get to dictate how all TV and film is? Should I get to dictate it?
Not individually. People of like minds should get together and make it happen. You can be a part of it, or you can be on the other side with the degenerates.
This is petulant. This is literally just you going "nuh uh".
No, this is literally me telling you why things should be the way I want them to be. Like any advocate worth their salt, I'm on a mission to reshape reality. And why shouldn't I be? After all, there are plenty of people out there who share my traditionalist views.
And no, you speak as if you want choices to diminish for progressives (as it were).
Fuck progressives.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
It's but one example of the industry imposing diversity, inclusion, equity (D.I.E) standards. These standards are being imposed everywhere, even beyond just Hollywood. Many companies across the board have similar standards. In the entertainment industry the result is that media is woke.
And that's up to companies. They're choosing to do that. No-one is imposing anything on them.
I believe the right is trying to do that. However, the right is also a minority. What we need is for the silent majority to rise up and create a parallel industry, but it's not as easy as it sounds.
There's tons of choice in modern entertainment. In the 90s, most TV was just mostly shitty police/legal/medical procedurals and sitcoms. The acting was generally worse, the budgets were poorer, it was overall crappy. It improved a fair amount in the 00s (mostly due to HBO and AMC) but it wasn't until streaming services established themselves that TV properly diversified.
Also, streaming has splintered - not merged. Part of the criticism of the modern streaming environment is that there are too many companies, not too few. No monopolies.
Plus foreign productions have exploded in quality and accessibility now.
Not individually. People of like minds should get together and make it happen. You can be a part of it, or you can be on the other side with the degenerates.
And what makes them "degenerate"? And I don't pick a side here. I just want quality TV. I don't care about the demographics.
No, this is literally me telling you why things should be the way I want them to be. Like any advocate worth their salt, I'm on a mission to reshape reality. And why shouldn't I be? After all, there are plenty of people out there who share my traditionalist views.
Didn't you deny being a traditionalist to me?
Fuck progressives.
So "choice for me but not for thee" is it
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
And that's up to companies. They're choosing to do that. No-one is imposing anything on them.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/blackrock-adds-diversity-target-us-boardrooms-2021-12-14/
No, it's not companies, it's one company (BlackRock) with a woke agenda using their power to impose their ideology on other companies.
And what makes them "degenerate"?
I already explained it twice, but here we go again, maybe this time it will stick:
...their style, their message, the way they speak, and the way they look. In addition to that, the fact that they shoehorn minorities and people of the alphabet into everything.
Didn't you deny being a traditionalist to me?
No, I am far left on economics, libertarian on civil liberties (freedom of speech, guns, and the right to privacy). I'm moderate on social issues, for example I am for abortion and gay right (equality under the law), but I believe in traditional family values and traditional gender roles. While I am a moderate by normal standards, I would probably be considered conservative on social issues by Wokies.
So "choice for me but not for thee" is it
No, choice for everyone but progressives, if by progressives we mean the Wokerati. The Wokerait are not human beings so rights don't apply to them.
They are not entitled to a choice.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
No, it's not companies, it's one company (BlackRock) with a woke agenda using their power to impose their ideology on other companies.
Where does this say Blackrock is imposing standards for the cast of TV shows and films?
I already explained it twice, but here we go again, maybe this time it will stick: ...their style, their message, the way they speak, and the way they look. In addition to that, the fact that they shoehorn minorities and people of the alphabet into everything.
What about "how they speak"? Referring to anything specific here? This is just vague. What shows are you referring to?
I believe in traditional family values and traditional gender roles. While I am a moderate by normal standards, I would probably be considered conservative on social issues by Wokies.
Opinions on people who don't adhere to 'gender norms' but aren't trans?
No, choice for everyone but progressives, if by progressives we mean the Wokerati. The Wokerait are not human beings so rights don't apply to them.
This is the literal language of fascism. Dehumanising an ideological opponent. If you reject them as human, then I assume you think they're fair game and can be treated anyway possible?
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
Where does this say Blackrock is imposing standards for the cast of TV shows and films?
I was rebutting your assertion that companies are free to do as they want. As that article shows, that clearly is not the case. The point is that a similar thing is happening across the board, movie studios included. Naturally it will seep into media and be reflected on screen.
What about "how they speak"? Referring to anything specific here? This is just vague. What shows are you referring to?
Yes it's vague. It's not something you define, it's something that you know when you see it, not unlike Wittgenstein's example of the definition of a "game." While it is difficult to offer a precise definition of what constitutes a game, the concept is universally recognized.
There are subcultures for example and they all have their own language, their jargon, their slang. There is a certain way of speaking that is recognizable as liberal or conservative or woke. And in the media, a lot of the characters that are written speak like someone who's woke.
Opinions on people who don't adhere to 'gender norms' but aren't trans?
I find people who don't adhere to gender norms to be repulsive. I generally want to avoid them. I prefer not see or hear from them or about them.
This is the literal language of fascism. Dehumanising an ideological opponent. If you reject them as human, then I assume you think they're fair game and can be treated anyway possible?
LULZ
Don't take everything so seriously. Are you an autist? You kind of sound like you're on the spectrum.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
I was rebutting your assertion that companies are free to do as they want. As that article shows, that clearly is not the case. The point is that a similar thing is happening across the board, movie studios included. Naturally it will seep into media and be reflected on screen.
Again, you have to demonstrate that companies are being pressured into it by outside companies rather than over time adopting practices themselves.
I find people who don't adhere to gender norms to be repulsive. I generally want to avoid them. I prefer not see or hear from them or about them.
So is being a tomboy "repulsive" or "woke", exactly?
Or a feminine man?
Is this woman wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQNtGoM3FVU - is this woke? Is it against gender norms for women to be in metal? Or this woman:
https://youtu.be/TplbifmulaY?t=5399 (timestamped)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV1zJZj6gUU Or this black metal female vocalist
The 80's was well known for 'gender-bending' aesthetics throughout the gothic, punk, and glam scenes.
Don't take everything so seriously. Are you an autist? You kind of sound like you're on the spectrum.
So you don't really think they're not human (or not to be treated as such)?
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
Again, you have to demonstrate that companies are being pressured into it by outside companies rather than over time adopting practices themselves.
The article I gave you demonstrates that. I mean, do you not understand how it works? It's not like someone says "you need to do this", instead they offer guidelines. It's your "choice" if you want to implement them or not. If however you fail to implement them then Blackrock will not invest in your company, so you will do it, because it is profitable.
So is being a tomboy "repulsive" or "woke", exactly?
Or a feminine man?
Personally I find some tomboys to be ok, but others repulsive.
As for feminine man, I wouldn't go as far as calling them repulsive, but I do find them comically weird.
Is this woman wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQNtGoM3FVU - is this woke? Is it against gender norms for women to be in metal? Or this woman: https://youtu.be/TplbifmulaY?t=5399 (timestamped)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV1zJZj6gUU Or this black metal female vocalist
In my opinion none of that is woke, just terrible repulsive music that I would prefer never to hear again.
The 80's was well known for 'gender-bending' aesthetics throughout the gothic, punk, and glam scenes.
Yeah, I wasn't a fan of that in the 80's
So you don't really think they're not human (or not to be treated as such)?
No, of course not, I just think that we should set up an advanced AI system that combs through the internet, identifies every woke retard, so we can locate them, round them all up and exile them to an island somewhere in the eastern Indian Ocean.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
The article I gave you demonstrates that. I mean, do you not understand how it works? It's not like someone says "you need to do this", instead they offer guidelines. It's your "choice" if you want to implement them or not. If however you fail to implement them then Blackrock will not invest in your company, so you will do it, because it is profitable.
For board members.
In my opinion none of that is woke, just terrible repulsive music that I would prefer never to hear again.
But those women are clearly not adhering to their sex stereotypes. Is that a bad thing? Should they be ostracised, "cancelled"?
Yeah, I wasn't a fan of that in the 80's
This is a weirdly prudish mentality. Why does it matter to you that people like to dress-up or act in a way that is not stereotypical?
Also, the global popularity of Eurovision must annoy you
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
But those women are clearly not adhering to their sex stereotypes. Is that a bad thing? Should they be ostracised, "cancelled"?
They're close enough. They look like relatively normal women to me, a little weird, but acceptable. In my brave new world it is unlikely that they would get sent to a gulag. Maybe just a reeducation camp.
This is a weirdly prudish mentality. Why does it matter to you that people like to dress-up or act in a way that is not stereotypical?
Tell me, what do you find repulsive? How would you feel if that which you find repulsive was something that became a part of your daily existence? Would it bother you? Would you ignore it? Would you complain about it? Your insights on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
You also never answered the question of whether you are an autist? Are you an autist?
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
They're close enough. They look like relatively normal women to me, a little weird, but acceptable. In my brave new world it is unlikely that they would get sent to a gulag. Maybe just a reeducation camp.
I mean memes aside (I assume), women doing harsh vocals in extreme metal is not really feminine - so why would you excuse them by your logic?
Tell me, what do you find repulsive? How would you feel if that which you find repulsive was something that became a part of your daily existence? Would it bother you? Would you ignore it? Would you complain about it? Your insights on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
I have no idea why you find people dressing in sex stereotype subversive ways repulsive. And I can't think of anything in terms of attire, or aesthetics that people might wear that I would find repulsive.
And no, I'm not autistic.
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
I mean memes aside (I assume), women doing harsh vocals in extreme metal is not really feminine - so why would you excuse them by your logic?
I'm feeling merciful. I'll let them slide.
I have no idea why you find people dressing in sex stereotype subversive ways repulsive. And I can't think of anything in terms of attire, or aesthetics that people might wear that I would find repulsive.
There is no rhyme or reason to it. We can't help what we find repulsive. I don't like cockroaches, I don't know why, perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. I don't know why I find gender-bending repulsive, I just do.
And no, I'm not autistic
Hmm, you come across like an autist. Perhaps you have OCD?
You have that kind obsessive focus and persistence that I associate with autists and people who have obsessive and compulsive tendencies.
It's nothing to be ashamed of. I have OCD. That is how I am able to sit on this site for 24 hours straight writing to fellow Moviechatters.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
I'm feeling merciful. I'll let them slide.
Legit question: Why?
There is no rhyme or reason to it. We can't help what we find repulsive. I don't like cockroaches, I don't know why, perhaps it's an evolutionary thing. I don't know why I find gender-bending repulsive, I just do.
And have you considered this is a "you" problem, rather than other people's? I definitely don't think most of society gives a fuck about people dressing up or presenting in ways that subvert sex standards. Other than Christian fundies or Muslims.
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
Legit question: Why?
Because the first one looked kind of attractive. So she gets a pass. The second was meh, but not repulsive. The third one I would prefer never to see or hear again, but I don't think she should be disappeared because she produces terrible music.
And have you considered this is a "you" problem, rather than other people's? I definitely don't think most of society gives a fuck about people dressing up or presenting in ways that subvert sex standards. Other than Christian fundies or Muslims.
I've considered it. If it was just me then it would be a "me" problem. I don't think it's only me though. And I don't think it's only the Christians and Muslims either. I suspect that it would be like more than half of the US. And if the majority of people have a problem with you then it becomes a "you" problem.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
Because the first one looked kind of attractive. So she gets a pass. The second was meh, but not repulsive. The third one I would prefer never to see or hear again, but I don't think she should be disappeared because she produces terrible music.
I assume your objection to this is not based on "do i find them attractive". They're not behaving in stereotypical feminine ways.
I've considered it. If it was just me then it would be a "me" problem. I don't think it's only me though. And I don't think it's only the Christians and Muslims either. I suspect that it would be like more than half of the US. And if the majority of people have a problem with you then it becomes a "you" problem.
Zero evidence for this whatsoever. There's no real evidence for any societal "disgust" in wider western culture for women who don't conform to feminine stereotypes, or even men who aren't masculine. Also, it's only going to be fundie Christians.
And have you heard of tyranny of the majority?
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
I assume your objection to this is not based on "do i find them attractive". They're not behaving in stereotypical feminine ways.
No but it factored into my decision of whether they should be sent to a gulag. Being attractive helped her case. She was spared.
Zero evidence for this whatsoever. There's no real evidence for any societal "disgust" in wider western culture for women who don't conform to feminine stereotypes, or even men who aren't masculine. Also, it's only going to be fundie Christians.
Can you provide evidence that contradicts my claim?
And have you heard of tyranny of the majority?
I've heard of it. Never was in favor of it before, but maybe I was wrong.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
No but it factored into my decision of whether they should be sent to a gulag. Being attractive helped her case. She was spared.
I genuinely want to know if you think there is something wrong with women engaging in a traditionally masculine activity such as metal
Can you provide evidence that contradicts my claim?
No. But you're just assuming that it's the case. Given the rich success of popular musicians and celebrities that defy sex norms, I'd wager no-one cares.
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
I genuinely want to know if you think there is something wrong with women engaging in a traditionally masculine activity such as metal
Nope. I don't think there is anything wrong with it.
But you're just assuming that it's the case. Given the rich success of popular musicians and celebrities that defy sex norms, I'd wager no-one cares.
I have some reasons for assuming it. To me it seams reasonable to assume that people who are not woke liberals would probably be repulsed by it. I don't know for sure, but that is my impression. If only 24% of the country can be considered liberal, then the majority of people would probably find gender-bending off-putting.
Do you have any contradicting evidence that gives me a reason to change my mind?
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
Nope. I don't think there is anything wrong with it.
From your perspective: Why?
I have some reasons for assuming it. To me it seams reasonable to assume that people who are not woke liberals would probably be repulsed by it.
Based on what? Artists and entertainers and actors that have present against their gender expectations long predate "wokeism". Many national treasures and popular actors, musicians and performers don't conform to sexual stereotypes.
I don't know for sure, but that is my impression. If only 24% of the country can be considered liberal, then the majority of people would probably find gender-bending off-putting.
Since when does not identifying as liberal mean you finding gender-bending "off-putting"? Also 24% being self-identified as Liberal doesn't mean 76% are conservative - nor conservative to the point of being reactionary. By your logic abortion should be objected by the majority in the USA, because most people are not liberal by identification - but this is not true.
Do you have any contradicting evidence that gives me a reason to change my mind?
The history of modern popular culture. And that you're operating from a presupposition that suggests the average American is some victorian prude. By your logic, most Americans should also find any and all depictions of the occult/satan in culture to be "repulsive".
In addition, here's a more relevant polling question:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/24/more-americans-now-socially-liberal-than-conservative-for-first-time-poll-finds/?sh=4519a73d48d8
The old "liberal" vs. "conservative" polling classifiers in US vernacular often could imply economic positions, not social positions.
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
From your perspective: Why?
No real reason. I just didn't get that visceral negative reaction when I saw the video. I could have, but I didn't. Perhaps you could provide some other examples, then we could pinpoint exactly where the boundaries are. That way we could determine who belongs in the gulag.
Based on what? Artists and entertainers and actors that have present against their gender expectations long predate "wokeism". Many national treasures and popular actors, musicians and performers don't conform to sexual stereotypes.
I think that individuals tend to approach the acceptance of gender bending on a case by case basis, often taking into consideration the artistic talent of the performer. For instance, individuals may generally disapprove of gender bending, yet may still admire artists like David Bowie due to his exceptional musical abilities. This can be extrapolated to various other musicians, actors, and performers. However, if a non-celebrity were to engage in gender bending behavior in a public space, their actions might not be so well-received. It depends on the context.
In addition, here's a more relevant polling question: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/06/24/more-americans-now-socially-liberal-than-conservative-for-first-time-poll-finds/?sh=4519a73d48d8
The old "liberal" vs. "conservative" polling classifiers in US vernacular often could imply economic positions, not social positions.
I am unsure about the intended meaning of the article you shared. I hold socially liberal views on many topics such as abortion, gay marriage, and LGBT rights, and I'm even a fan of David Bowie, yet I still personally find the concept of gender-bending to be repulsive. It would not surprise me if the majority of people in the United States shared this sentiment.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
No real reason. I just didn't get that visceral negative reaction when I saw the video. I could have, but I didn't.
My point is that I thought you were suggesting that women should only do and behave in 'feminine' ways and men, similarly, in 'masculine' ways.
I think that individuals tend to approach the acceptance of gender bending on a case by case basis, often taking into consideration the artistic talent of the performer. For instance, individuals may generally disapprove of gender bending, yet may still admire artists like David Bowie due to his exceptional musical abilities. This can be extrapolated to various other musicians, actors, and performers. However, if a non-celebrity were to engage in gender bending behavior in a public space, their actions might not be so well-received. It depends on the context.
I still hold that most people do not care about gender-bending.
I am unsure about the intended meaning of the article you shared. I hold socially liberal views on many topics such as abortion, gay marriage, and LGBT rights, and I'm even a fan of David Bowie, yet I still personally find the concept of gender-bending to be repulsive. It would not surprise me if the majority of people in the United States shared this sentiment.
Define "gender-bending" though. Is just a woman into gothic rock and who has an eccentric, dark fashion sense "gender-bending"? Is a man who has long hair "gender-bending"? Is a woman who doesn't wear make-up "gender-bending"? Is man who does, "gender-bending"?
Your "look at how few Liberals are polling data!" is a general tag that could refer to people who identify as such for economic reasons, where as I've given you polling based on social attitudes.
By your logic of how you read polling data, most Americans should also be against occult/satanism aesthetics.
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
My point is that I thought you were suggesting that women should only do and behave in 'feminine' ways and men, similarly, in 'masculine' ways.
Yes, that would be my preference. This is more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule.
I can be flexible here.
I still hold that most people do not care about gender-bending.
I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but based on my experience, I believe otherwise.
Define "gender-bending" though. Is just a woman into gothic rock and who has an eccentric, dark fashion sense "gender-bending"? Is a man who has long hair "gender-bending"? Is a woman who doesn't wear make-up "gender-bending"? Is man who does, "gender-bending"?.
Define "game".
I can only give you examples:
https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/rockcms/2022-12/221212-Sam-Brinton-al-1301-2b56d0.jpg
https://s3.r29static.com/bin/entry/d7e/0,1013,2595,2595/x,80/2174190/image.jpg
https://dwgyu36up6iuz.cloudfront.net/heru80fdn/image/upload/c_fill,d_placeholder_them.png,fl_progressive,g_face,h_450,q_80,w_800/v1541610162/them_jacob-tobia-explains-the-history-of-the-word-genderqueer.jpg
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/XXUpVGKAVPdTBBTl0kljC7Ure4k=/0x0:2084x3876/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:2084x3876):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19728550/chorus_final_01.jpg
These are all excellent candidates for the gulag, at the very least a reeducation camp.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
Yes, that would be my preference. This is more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule.
So you're okay with women in metal? Is there something wrong, in your mind, if a woman is primarily into 'masculine' hobbies?
Define "game".
I mean I gave some specific examples here: women not wearing makeup, men with long hair, (or women with shaved hair)
I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but based on my experience, I believe otherwise.
Do you therefore think that most Americans are against satanic/occult/dark aesthetics based on your same reading of the opinion polling?
These are all excellent candidates for the gulag, at the very least a reeducation camp.
These just look tacky. The objection from many here wouldn't necessarily be "men should be short back and sides, gruff" or "women should wear skirts". It's just they look a bit stupid. It has nothing to do with trying to be masculine or feminine.
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
So you're okay with women in metal?
I'm okay with women in metal.
Is there something wrong, in your mind, if a woman is primarily into 'masculine' hobbies?
I believe it's perfectly fine, and even admirable, to have women who take an interest in traditionally masculine hobbies.
I mean I gave some specific examples here: women not wearing makeup, men with long hair, (or women with shaved hair)
Women with shaved heads are excellent candidates for reeducation camps.
Do you therefore think that most Americans are against satanic/occult/dark aesthetics based on your same reading of the opinion polling?
I don't know for sure. I would say that they are probably not down with anything satanic, but are probably indifferent to the occult and dark aesthetics
These just look tacky. The objection from many here wouldn't necessarily be "men should be short back and sides, gruff" or "women should wear skirts". It's just they look a bit stupid. It has nothing to do with trying to be masculine or feminine.
More women should wear skirts.
As for the degenerates in the pictures above, they will be sent to the gulag and receive one bowl of gruel per day.
.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
I'm okay with women in metal.
Seems inconsistent.
Women with shaved heads are excellent candidates for reeducation camps.
Why?
I don't know for sure. I would say that they are probably not down with anything satanic, but are probably indifferent to the occult and dark aesthetics
Why would someone make the distinction if they're averse to satanist aesthetics?
Anyway I'm done here as it's clear you're otherwise just not bothering to be serious.
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
Seems inconsistent.
How so?
[Women with shaved heads are excellent candidates for reeducation camps.]
Why?
Because they look like degenerates and degenerates belong in gulags and/or reeducation camps.
Why would someone make the distinction if they're averse to satanist aesthetics?
People have eclectic and nuanced views about a lot of things. While some people might not make a distinction, others would for all sorts of reasons.
Anyway I'm done here as it's clear you're otherwise just not bothering to be serious.
https://youtu.be/fMYQNPfUgI0?t=8
I am being serious, but I'm also being playful. It's my jocular nature.
But suit yourself.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
How so?
Because Metal is a historically fundamentally masculine artform and you've said you're against women doing that sort of thing, or you did initially.
If you unironically think women with shaved heads should be in gulags or "re-education camps" I frankly don't want to talk to you.
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
Because Metal is a historically fundamentally masculine artform and you've said you're against women doing that sort of thing, or you did initially.
I don't have a problem with women doing masculine things, it's more about how they look. It's more about aesthetics.
If you unironically think women with shaved heads should be in gulags or "re-education camps"...
No, just ironcially. But seriously, a little bit of reeducation wouldn't hurt.
...I frankly don't want to talk to you.
Suit yourself. No one is coercing you into engaging in discourse with me. You initiated the conversation, and like Noam Chomsky I adhere to the principle of responding to every remark, inquiry, and objection that comes my way. I don't run away from anyone. I won't stop until you stop.
And my name's not Frank.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
You know a lot of black women have shaved hair or cut very short, right?
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/[email protected]
So why should you get to dictate how people look?
reply
share
InquiringMind (2272)
2 years ago
You know a lot of black women have shaved hair or cut very short, right?
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/[email protected]
Ugghghh! Forget the reeducation camp, this one is going straight to the gulag. And no bowl of gruel for her/him/Xim/Xer/they/them.
So why should you get to dictate how people look?
Why shouldn't I. I have the right to criticize anyone and everyone, and advocate for them to be put into a reeducation camp. And in a Democracy, if I convince enough people, they will be sent to one.
Do you not believe in Democracy.
reply
share