A great SciFi show that is diminished by Diversity - Dark Matter (2024) Discussion

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

So literally "any black person being cast in anything is woke"

>Then there is Blair Caplan:
https://www.tvinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/amanda-brugel-tiff.jpg
played by Amanda Brugel, a particularly repulsive character who stands out like a sore thumb.

Why? Because you don't think she's attractive?

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Smith_(investor)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Steward

Do you genuinely think this sort of hatemongering will convince anyone of anything?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

So literally "any black person being cast in anything is woke"

No retard, not every black person in the cast makes it woke. However the blacks have to be in their proper place. Like gangsters and drug dealers. Not CEOs running Fortune 500 tech companies. That strains credulity. It doesn't mean that there weren't a few black billionaires in real life, there were, but it's very rare.

Do you genuinely think this sort of hatemongering will convince anyone of anything?

Yes, I genuinely think that.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>No retard, not every black person in the cast makes it woke. However the blacks have to be in their proper place. Like gangsters and drug dealers. Not CEOs running Fortune 500 tech companies. That strains credulity. It doesn't mean that there weren't a few black billionaires in real life, there were, but it's very rare.

Except there are black scientists and businesspeople and normal people in real life. Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

>Yes, I genuinely think that.

Then you are a tinybrained little manchild as well as a hateful fascist. Your other examples at least highlight some degree of lunacy from elements of the left. This is you just whining like a little bitch that black people exist.

And explain what the problem is with Amanda Brugel, fuckface.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

I sense a chimp out...

Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

And explain what the problem is with Amanda Brugel, fuckface.

She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww. She should put a brown paper bag over her head when she's out in public.

Then you are a tinybrained little manchild as well as a hateful fascist. Your other examples at least highlight some degree of lunacy from elements of the left. This is you just whining like a little bitch that black people exist.

LOL, I would applaud your wit, but it seems to have taken a leave of absence.
Now come on fuckface, chimp out for me! That's right. There you go.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Get this through your thick fucking skull you autistic shit — I don't give a fuck about your questions. I'm under no obligation to answer them. They are beneath me. As are you. The only reason I talk to you at all is because it gives me an opportunity to engage in a little trolling. That's it. That is the measure of you. Now run along you pest. Go bother somebody else

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

I'll do what I like, and I'll take your refusal to answer them this time as you being too stupid to reply to them.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

No, you'll do what I like — you'll shut the fuck up.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

I'll try again.

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Nope, try again.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

No problem.

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Nope. Your questions are shit. Ask better questions. Questions that are worth my time.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Explain how the questions are shit. Is it better than the stunning criticism of "person in tv show is ugly therefore bad" that you have? Or your insinuation that black people can only be gangsters?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

If you don't know why your questions are shit then I can't help you. You're simply out of your depth.
You're going to have to work harder. Think more. Come back when you have better questions.
Right now you're just wasting my time.

How's it feel to be known for being a pest? To be compared to a bloodsucking tick? A parasite?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

They're not shit. You're just making excuses for being a moron. They directly address and challenge your claims. I will repeat.

---

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

ZZZzzzzZZZZzzz
Boring!
Too long, didn't read.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 6 months ago

So another woke show. Shocker.

I like that genre and Joe is an OK actor.

Sometimes I take interest in shows because of their cast and plot but gets ruined with the PC/Woke preaching.

Anything above a 2 on the 'woke scale' is a no-go regardless of the cast and storyline.

What woke rating would you give this between 1-5?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>So another woke show. Shocker.

It's woke because it depicts black people existing? Is that where you're at now?

>Sometimes I take interest in shows because of their cast and plot but gets ruined with the PC/Woke preaching.

There's no "PC/woke" preaching in this show. People are just people in it. That's it.

However, Leighton is actually gay (or at least one of them in one reality is depicted as gay or bisexual) so I assume you want this show banned by law, right?

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 6 months ago

Black people existing has nothing to do with it.

Is there any gay/queer activity?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>Black people existing has nothing to do with it.

That's literally the OPs argument. He is complaining that the show depicts black people (and specifically that it depicts a successful black person entrepeneur/scientist).

>Is there any gay/queer activity?

There are no sex scenes, but Jason goes to Leighton's apartment and sees that he obviously had sex with a man the night before as he's still there and walks out naked.

Should Dark Matter therefore be banned?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Oh, no it's not a woke show at all. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. The show is great. There is no woke bullshit in it. It's just that it has a diverse cast. In other words, there are black people in roles that are not believable. If this was made 15 years ago it would have a better cast that would be mostly White. But because of forced diversity, you have these coloreds shoehorned in that feel out of place. When I see them on screen it takes me out of the story. But aside from that, it's a great show. Probably my favorite show on right now.

Woke rating:
1 (low)

If you're into scifi, and parrallel universes and quantum thingamajigs, then you'll love this show.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 6 months ago

Thanks, that sounds watchable.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Dark Matter depicts the afterwards of gay sex.

You have said that anything that depicts LGBT people should be banned.

Why shouldn't Dark Matter be banned, by your logic?

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 6 months ago

You said that there are no gay/queer scenes.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

But a gay person is depicted. You have expressed support for LGBT bans a la Russia. Why shouldn't Dark Matter therefore be banned, by your logic?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

There are no gay scenes. There is a scene where the main character visits a friend and you see a naked man sleeping on his couch. It implies that the friend is gay. Before that scene there was no indication that he was gay. And aside from that one scene, it is never mentioned again.

But yes, if we lived in an ideal world that scene would not be in there, and people like Skavau would be in work camps along with the other undesirables.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Except the many black entrepeneurs, scientists, and businesspeople that exist in real life. In addition, Leighton clearly was bought up rich in all universes - so his position in life is even more likely. It's also set in Chicago which has a 30% black population.

And how is Blake "out of place" other than you not liking her?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

We should give them all reparations in the form of a one way ticket back to Africa.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Not an answer to any of my points. I take it you're too stupid to answer them, as usual. And most Black Americans are not from Africa - and there's no reason that any country there would accept them.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Your questions are too stupid and too boring to bother with. I gave you the correct answer to the correct question.
Pay attention. Maybe you'll learn something.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

You gave me an answer to a question I didn't ask. Many black entrepeneurs, scientists, and businesspeople exist in real life. In addition, Leighton clearly was bought up rich in all universes - so his position in life is even more likely. It's also set in Chicago which has a 30% black population.

---

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Not interested. Your questions are pedestrian and irrelevant.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

You gave me an answer to a question I didn't ask. Many black entrepeneurs, scientists, and businesspeople exist in real life. In addition, Leighton clearly was bought up rich in all universes - so his position in life is even more likely. It's also set in Chicago which has a 30% black population.

---

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

I gave you an answer to a question you should have asked.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

A nonsense answer negated by the fact that no African country would accept it anyway.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

What evidence do you have that Africa won't accept African-Americans?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Why would they? Why would specific African countries (Africa is not a single country) accept millions of people who don't want to be there? Who don't even speak the languages they speak in many cases and don't share any similar culture with anyone there now?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

There are many countries in Africa. Are you telling me that not a single one would accept African-Americans? Not even if we gave them some Popeye's chicken?
That's nonsense. You have no evidence for such a claim.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

No, they wouldn't. It would heavily destabilise their country. There are roughly 40 million African-Americans in the USA. It's an obvious non-starter. You haven't given a single reason why because you're too stupid to answer questions about your philosophy. I will repeat my prior questions again:

----

Many black entrepeneurs, scientists, and businesspeople exist in real life. In addition, Leighton clearly was bought up rich in all universes - so his position in life is even more likely. It's also set in Chicago which has a 30% black population.

---

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Your questions are a waste of my time.
And you've provided no evidence that African countries would reject African-Americans.
All you've given me is a bunch of conjecture and baseless assertions.
Fail.
Do better.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

No, they wouldn't. It would heavily destabilise their country. There are roughly 40 million African-Americans in the USA. It's an obvious non-starter. You haven't given a single reason why because you're too stupid to answer questions about your philosophy. I will repeat my prior questions again:

----

Many black entrepeneurs, scientists, and businesspeople exist in real life. In addition, Leighton clearly was bought up rich in all universes - so his position in life is even more likely. It's also set in Chicago which has a 30% black population.

---

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

That's not an answer. Now answer my question:
Why would letting African-Americans into African countries destabilize them? Especially if we also provide the Africans with fried chicken from Popeye's and maybe even throw in an IFM loan?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

No, they wouldn't. It would heavily destabilise their country. There are roughly 40 million African-Americans in the USA. It's an obvious non-starter. You haven't given a single reason why because you're too stupid to answer questions about your philosophy. I will repeat my prior questions again:

----

Many black entrepeneurs, scientists, and businesspeople exist in real life. In addition, Leighton clearly was bought up rich in all universes - so his position in life is even more likely. It's also set in Chicago which has a 30% black population.

---

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Once again you haven't answered my questions and you failed to produce any credible evidence for your claims. You're just repeating the same nonsense over and over. You're simply not a serious person. You're incapable of having a serious conversation, you're out of your depth.
All you've demonstrated with your nonsensical posts is that you are a pest. Like a bloodsucking mosquito. A creature that not even God can love.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

No, they wouldn't. It would heavily destabilise their country. There are roughly 40 million African-Americans in the USA. It's an obvious non-starter. You haven't given a single reason why because you're too stupid to answer questions about your philosophy. I will repeat my prior questions again:

----

Many black entrepeneurs, scientists, and businesspeople exist in real life. In addition, Leighton clearly was bought up rich in all universes - so his position in life is even more likely. It's also set in Chicago which has a 30% black population.

---

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Don't care. Answer my questions.

No, they wouldn't. It would heavily destabilise their country. There are roughly 40 million African-Americans in the USA. It's an obvious non-starter. You haven't given a single reason why because you're too stupid to answer questions about your philosophy. I will repeat my prior questions again:

----

Many black entrepeneurs, scientists, and businesspeople exist in real life. In addition, Leighton clearly was bought up rich in all universes - so his position in life is even more likely. It's also set in Chicago which has a 30% black population.

---

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Fuck you and your questions. You can stick them up your arse.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

Don't care. Answer my questions.

No, they wouldn't. It would heavily destabilise their country. There are roughly 40 million African-Americans in the USA. It's an obvious non-starter. You haven't given a single reason why because you're too stupid to answer questions about your philosophy. I will repeat my prior questions again:

----

Many black entrepeneurs, scientists, and businesspeople exist in real life. In addition, Leighton clearly was bought up rich in all universes - so his position in life is even more likely. It's also set in Chicago which has a 30% black population.

---

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Sorry I didn't read it. Can you post it again?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

No problem.

No, they wouldn't. It would heavily destabilise their country. There are roughly 40 million African-Americans in the USA. It's an obvious non-starter. You haven't given a single reason why because you're too stupid to answer questions about your philosophy. I will repeat my prior questions again:

----

Many black entrepeneurs, scientists, and businesspeople exist in real life. In addition, Leighton clearly was bought up rich in all universes - so his position in life is even more likely. It's also set in Chicago which has a 30% black population.

---

>Black scientists are very rare. Most blacks don't have what it takes to make it in STEM fields. They don't have the IQs for it. If it wasn't for affirmative action there would be almost no blacks in academia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_G._Fryer_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_James_Gates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_E._Gilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Greenaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Jefferson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Jackson_(chemist)

I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_inventors_and_scientists#List

And again, you didn't answer my question: Not every black person in life is a gangster or drug dealer. Are you genuinely arguing it's wrong to ever depict black people as ever being anything but that?

Are you so stupid that you can't see questions I ask and I have to repeatedly prod you to get answers?

>She's ugly, black, and looks like Wokie. Eeeww.

So zero actual criticism. Literally just "black person in my media". That's it. That's the substance of your criticism? You think she's ugly? You think this opinion will somehow convince people of your position to implement bans of black people in media?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Thanks that's better. I'll be sure to read it carefully and I'll get back to you shortly with all the answers you seek. Stand by...

reply

[–] emori (3661) 6 months ago

This show is not woke. Like at all. OP has problems and should get help. Or it's a troll post.

People like him are actually turning this whole "fight with wokeness" into joke. It used to be "they insert stupid wokeness in this". Now its "every show and movie with women and black people = woke" in their minds.

I used to watch occasionally those Nerdrotic and Critical Drinker youtube videos. They were fun. But now it's "woke woke woke everywhere" with them even when there isn't. And it's boring. They literally see every black and woman in lead and supporting roles as woke. And every their review just looks the same.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) 6 months ago

99% of all shows and films are woke even if at a level-1. I have watched numerous shows where diversity is forced.

The fact that you don't recognize wokeness means that you are indoctrinated and brainwashed by it.

Fact: Hollywood policy is based on CRT/DEI.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

>99% of all shows and films are woke even if at a level-1. I have watched numerous shows where diversity is forced.

Give me some examples of some 'level-1' forced diversity in modern TV.

reply

[–] emori (3661) 6 months ago

It's one thing when there is forced annoying wokeness. I don't like it too. But we see how OP and many other "anti-woke warriors from their moms basement" now literally scream "Wokenes" every time they see woman or black person in any role. LOL.

They literally have one black guy in small supporting role here. And lead roles are white family. And he complains about "wokeness" and that black guy does not look smart enough to run that company. When Joel Egerton looks like he is too dumb to tie his shoe laces. And like he was drinking non stop for a month. Yet show tell us he is some super brilliant science guy.

People like OP are turning fight with wokeness into a joke. And it's not only him. I noticed it with other anti-woke whiners on Youtube. It's impossible to watch their video anymore. Every woman in lead role in anything is woke now for them. As if only Man can be lead and be interesting. But even here where white man is lead - they found a way to whine. LOL.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

The reason we complain about blacks and women is because there is a push to "center" them in stories and "de-center" White males. So anytime you see a black character or a strong independent woman in a movie/TV show, it is more than likely due to an agenda being pushed. The only time you can be sure that an agenda is not being pushed on you is if you have a story with a strong straight White male in a same race relationship playing the lead in a show/movie with a mostly White cast.

reply

[–] emori (3661) 5 months ago

Well you have white family in this show. Why you keep whining? LOL

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Because I hate diversity. And there are gay black guys and ugly queer looking colored women.

reply

[–] emori (3661) 5 months ago

I honestly can't tell if you are left wing troll who laughs at right wingers. Or you are serious with this.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

I am both left wing and right wing.
When it comes to economics, I am a socialist. When it comes to woke culture, I am a fascist nazi.
And when I say Wokes should be rounded up and purged from society, I am only semi-trolling.
I consider them degenerate subhuman vermin. And here, I'm not trolling. I am serious. I really do hate them with every fiber of my being.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>The reason we complain about blacks and women is because there is a push to "center" them in stories and "de-center" White males.

The main character in this is white. The other main character in this is a woman.

Do you think white men should just be the only people cast in TV shows?

>So anytime you see a black character or a strong independent woman in a movie/TV show, it is more than likely due to an agenda being pushed.

No evidence for this whatsoever. Do you just think women should never be depicted as 'independent' (whatever this is supposed to mean)

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Yes. White people should be the only people in TV shows and movies. Coloreds should be shipped off back to Africa and Beaners back south of the border. Pajeets back to India and Chinese... Well they can stay, because they keep their mouths shut and don't complain about racism.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Sounds pretty gay of you to only want to see men in everything.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Why you being homophobic? You're being very insensitive to our homosexual brothers and sisters.
Do better.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Pretty obvious basic bitch reply. I'm not being homophobic. I'm pointing out that you for as someone who wants to slaughter all LGBT people, you do seem to desire to see nothing but men in everything you watch.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Why do you woke degenerates have to make everything sexual?
Sounds to me like you're a deviant. Just another reason why you're on the list.
The far right is rising and they are coming for people like you.
Where are you going to go when you get expelled from Europe?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Are you making threats?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Nope. I'm just making fun of you.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

I'm reporting your posts to the mods. That was 100% a threat. I don't care how seriously you meant it. It is against the servers TOS.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

No it wasn't. You said that I'm a bloodthirsty fascist, so I'm playing into that.
It's not my fault that you're autistic and can't tell the difference.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

You announced your fascism openly to other people on the forum before I even spoke to you.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Yeah, so?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Boop!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_dwpAW0gl1k

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

I'll just repeat myself. So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Boop!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_dwpAW0gl1k

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

I'll just repeat myself. So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

You want to get booped again?
Ok, you asked for it.
NO! NO! BAD GIRL! BOOP!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_dwpAW0gl1k

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

I'll just repeat myself. So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Sit! Stay!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

I'll just repeat myself. So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

What?
Can you repeat it again? I couldn't hear you.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

No problem. So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Ah thanks. I heard you this time. But you said nothing worth hearing. So I'm going to ignore you.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Ignored.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

That's it. Keep repeating yourself.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

No problem. I'll await you to address the fact that you're not playing it, or you're just larping as a fascist to everyone.

So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Good girl.
Someone is getting a jerky treat.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Here's another jerkey treat.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Don't you think you've had enough jerkey treats for one day?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

So you're not "playing into it" because I accused you of it. You openly endorsed fascism to another user.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

I'm going to take some time to carefully think about what you said and I will answer you promptly.
Stand by...

reply

[–] emori (3661) 6 months ago

Well then stop watching shows and movies. And go watch -pre-woke old movies. LOL.
Whining and crying on Internet will not help.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

That is what people are doing. But many of us have loved TV and film our entire lives and now we no longer have anything to watch because it is all being ruined in the service of some woke agenda to "de-center" White males. Presumably because we're too privileged.
So what, you expect us to just sit there quietly while the thing we've loved our entire lives is being destroyed in front of our eyes? That we should just accept it and nod our head?
No asshole. I will never stop complaining. In fact, even if the wokeness in the media stops it won't be enough for me. The only way I'll be satisfied is when all the woke subhuman vermin is punished for the damage they have done. When they are all rounded up and purged from society, that is when I'll stop complaining. Until then, I'm going to complain, so you better start getting used to it. There is a lot more coming. And a lot more after that.

reply

[–] emori (3661) 5 months ago

Crying on internet from moms basement will not help.
Woke people who make decisions dont care about your crying.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Really? You're going to go with that old chestnut? "Mom's basement"?
Embarrassing.

Live shamed, die empty.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>That is what people are doing. But many of us have loved TV and film our entire lives and now we no longer have anything to watch because it is all being ruined in the service of some woke agenda to "de-center" White males. Presumably because we're too privileged.

Are you not watching Dark Matter? You can't watch it somehow? There are plenty of TV shows and films that centre white males. Dark Matter is one of them. The protagonist is a white man from a white family.

>So what, you expect us to just sit there quietly while the thing we've loved our entire lives is being destroyed in front of our eyes? That we should just accept it and nod our head?

We're in a golden-age of content. It's not "being destroyed" except in your own head.

>When they are all rounded up and purged from society, that is when I'll stop complaining. Until then, I'm going to complain, so you better start getting used to it. There is a lot more coming. And a lot more after that.

What do you mean "rounded-up" and "purged" from society? Are you throwing out more threats of retributive violence again?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

No one is talking to you.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Don't care. This is an open forum. I'll do what I like.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Settle down, no one is stopping you. But we are under no obligation to engage with you or respond to your incessant questions.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

I didn't say you were. But I will reply all the same.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

ok then.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

I (the OP) wrote this above as a response to another commenter:
Oh, no it's not a woke show at all. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. The show is great. There is no woke bullshit in it. It's just that it has a diverse cast. In other words, there are black people in roles that are not believable. If this was made 15 years ago it would have a better cast that would be mostly White. But because of forced diversity, you have these coloreds shoehorned in that feel out of place. When I see them on screen it takes me out of the story. But aside from that, it's a great show. Probably my favorite show on right now.

Woke rating:
1 (low)

If you're into scifi, and parrallel universes and quantum thingamajigs, then you'll love this show.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7061) 6 months ago

I thought you people didn't see race.

Also, "colored"? Lazy bait.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

You people? What do you mean You people?
I'm a White supremacist, so yes, I see race.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

This guy does. He's an actual fascist.

reply

[–] emori (3661) 6 months ago

Is this post for real? LOL.

I actually have a problem with Joel Edgerton and think he was miscast. He just looks too dumb to be this super smart science guy. He looks like drunk uncle from local bar. And he is not a good actor.
Show would be better with another actor.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

Yes, this post is for real.
Although you do have a point about Joel Edgerton. I think he is a wonderful actor, but you're right, he does not look like a smart science guy.

reply

[–] emori (3661) 6 months ago

He is supporting actor. Not lead.

He has no charisma to be lead. people usually just don't notice him in supporting roles. He just ....there.

I don't care about his character and his struggles. Because I don’t feel connection to him. Bad Evil Jason is kinda ok. He does look fine as asshole. But Good Jason is just so boring and lifeless. I really don't care about him finding his family.

And I don't like his son either. Actor is boring and charisma free too.

Casting in this show is actually bad. It's like all characters are miscast. Even Jennifer Connelly. She is pretty and looks fantastic for her age. But again - lacks charisma and acting talent. I don't feel her character and don't care about her. She always look wooden and aloof. That's why her career never took for for A-list status.

I like this show because I like all sci-fi and I like parallel universes.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 6 months ago

I think you're right that the cast as a whole could be better. Everyone, not just the blacks, feel out of place.
Having said that, I still really like them (the White cast members). The evil Jason is definitely more interesting to watch, but I like the milquetoast Jason as well. It's a good contrast. The son I agree could be better, but he's fine for the most part. And you're spot on about Jennifer Connelly, but I always had a thing for her so her performance doesn't bother as much as it would if I wasn't biased.

Despite the poor casting choices, this show really is good. It's one of the best shows on right now. Especially if you're into sci-fi.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 6 months ago

The OP is a would-be murderous fascist.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Seig Heil!
o/

reply

[–] DarthAckbar (2039) 5 months ago

LOL!

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

LOL!

reply

[–] kellmandy (65) 5 months ago

Woah. What an incredibly ignorant, racist thing to say. This is the ugliest post I think I have ever come across. America had a Black President you idiotic fool - you really don't think a black person could run a Fortune 500 company? This series wasn't being "inclusive" and "woke" - it was just literally depicting realistic characters within a science fiction premise. I honestly cannot fathom how you get through life being such a clueless individual.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

I am racist so...

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Interesting to bring up the Black President because you could argue that was the birth of forced diversity in the form we have today.

You will never educate these fools they can't see they are contributing to the collapse of society and the funny thing is they think they are protected now but will have a huge shock coming when once they have served their purpose our overlords will swiftly and easily discard of them and then they will really know suffering

I can't wait

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Who are these "overlords" and how will we all suddenly be discarded? What is it we're supposed to be educated about here?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Obama was literally the birth of forced diversity. He was the one who implemented forced diversity in the federal government which eventually spread to the private sector.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/18/executive-order-13583-establishing-coordinated-government-wide-initiativ

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

It doesn't matter who they are, the fact of the matter is that they exist, and they have meetings, they have plans, goals and agendas that need to be fulfilled. And amongst other things they use media by far the most because of it's reach and influence on people.

And one thing is for sure, none of Equality and diversity promotion actually has anything to do with Equality or Diversity

But plebs like you buy into it and get your little signs out to protest not being able to wiggle our willies in public

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

What "agendas" are these that they need to be fulfilled?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

I shouldn't really have to answer since most intelligent people are already aware of this and don't need explaining but i will bite.

To dismantle the structure of society, degrade and demoralize it so that they can build it back up again with compliant slave types who are really easy to control, don't ask to many questions and are happy with eating shit.

No offence but your kind

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>To dismantle the structure of society, degrade and demoralize it so that they can build it back up again with compliant slave types who are really easy to control, don't ask to many questions and are happy with eating shit.

And you're basing this based on what evidence? And how is this even happening? What would the methods of control be exactly?

That TV shows and films have more non-white characters, or directors, writers or showrunners than they used to?

>No offence but your kind

How am I this kind?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

I said what i said. All evidence is out there you either choose to see it or you don't.

I am not here to lecture you, i have read plenty i am not wasting my time to sit and draw up an exhaustive list for you.

I have read the rest of the thread and a lot of this has already been explained to you but you seem to like repeating yourself because you don't like the answers you get

'What would the methods of control be exactly?' Are you serious?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>I said what i said. All evidence is out there you either choose to see it or you don't.

I don't give a fuck what you claim. You make claims on a public forum and someone might ask you to back your shit up. I will ask again.

And you're basing this based on what evidence? And how is this even happening? What would the methods of control be exactly?

That TV shows and films have more non-white characters, or directors, writers or showrunners than they used to?

>I have read the rest of the thread and a lot of this has already been explained to you but you seem to like repeating yourself because you don't like the answers you get

You mean an actual piece of shit fascist on this thread "explained" his position about how little he thinks of black people, and that black people being in anything is wrong?

>'What would the methods of control be exactly?' Are you serious?

Yes, I am.

And how am I "this kind"?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Are you a bot? or a fat chick?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Since you ignored everything I asked, I assume because you're too much of a dumbass to actual back your conspiracy bile up - I'll just repeat myself.

----

>I said what i said. All evidence is out there you either choose to see it or you don't.

I don't give a fuck what you claim. You make claims on a public forum and someone might ask you to back your shit up. I will ask again.

And you're basing this based on what evidence? And how is this even happening? What would the methods of control be exactly?

That TV shows and films have more non-white characters, or directors, writers or showrunners than they used to?

>I have read the rest of the thread and a lot of this has already been explained to you but you seem to like repeating yourself because you don't like the answers you get

You mean an actual piece of shit fascist on this thread "explained" his position about how little he thinks of black people, and that black people being in anything is wrong?

>'What would the methods of control be exactly?' Are you serious?

Yes, I am.

And how am I "this kind"?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Is a black person being cast in a TV show as a prominent character somehow indicative of this "dismantling" of society by the elites that you claim is planned to happen?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Do think it's normal for every other show or commercial to show mixed race relationships or a Tranny, two gays whatever when that is not an accurate reflection of society.

Do you not find it interesting how the number of children and teenagers transitioning or turning Gay in the last ten years has sky rocketed?

Or do you not notice or give a fuck. Do you also know that most of these kids have deep depression or become suicidal when they realize how stupid they have been and feel shame

It's all in our heads nothing to see here carry on

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>Do think it's normal for every other show or commercial to show mixed race relationships or a Tranny, two gays whatever when that is not an accurate reflection of society.

I'll await data that every other show (50% of them) depicts interracial couples and especially data that every other show depicts a "tranny". I've watched a lot of modern TV shows, and I recall only a handful of trans-characters in any of them - and some of them were only support or guest characters.

>Do you not find it interesting how the number of children and teenagers transitioning or turning Gay in the last ten years has sky rocketed?

It has a lot to do with massively increased social acceptance as much as anything else. Many people identifying as LGBT always were, they just were in the closet.

But I'll ask AGAIN specifically my original question and bring it back to the show. Dark Matter has a black man as character. They're actually not really even a main character.

Does the fact that Dark Matter has a black man as a character suggest that he was cast as part of a plot to "dismantle" society by the elites?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

It has a lot to do with massively increased social acceptance as much as anything else. Many people identifying as LGBT always were, they just were in the closet.

That's bullshit that's what they peddle out to sugar coat them glorify and normalize the life in entertainment aimed at impressionable and confused children.

With the Black guy it's a small part of a bigger issue where time again they cast black people as the powerful boss types and we hardly ever see them in negative lights anymore so it rings untrue and a collective 'here we go again' and it becomes so irritating that people tune out and lose faith in films or TV.

It's the cucking of the indigenous and with each occurrence it's them saying 'what you gonna do about it'

So all we can really do is moan online and say its bullshit and i am not buying their shit

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>That's bullshit that's what they peddle out to sugar coat them glorify and normalize the life in entertainment aimed at impressionable and confused children.

I'll await evidence from you on this claim.

>With the Black guy it's a small part of a bigger issue where time again they cast black people as the powerful boss types and we hardly ever see them in negative lights anymore so it rings untrue and a collective 'here we go again' and it becomes so irritating that people tune out and lose faith in films or TV.

This is just not true. As I said, I've watched a lot of modern TV shows and there are a number of black people in villainous, or anti-hero/villainous roles.

And Leighton in Dark Matter is not a "powerful boss type". He's not even close to being a fucking hero. Have you actually watched the show?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

'I'll await evidence from you on this claim'

You clearly aren't able to use your own mind and need everything broken down and spoonfed to you with charts and pictures which are all easily manipulatable.

No i haven't watched it i was only mildly curious. I don't watch a lot of TV anymore because it's filled drivel and it hurts my brain, i mainly watch really old things now when the propoganda wasn't so pronounced or it was at least much better hidden

You watch a lot of TV though so you must be more of an expert in whats going on in the world than i am

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>You clearly aren't able to use your own mind and need everything broken down and spoonfed to you with charts and pictures which are all easily manipulatable.

You make claims, you back them up.

>No i haven't watched it i was only mildly curious. I don't watch a lot of TV anymore because it's filled drivel and it hurts my brain, i mainly watch really old things now when the propoganda wasn't so pronounced or it was at least much better hidden

And therefore you are in position to make any comment about modern TV because you know absolutely nothing about it.

>You watch a lot of TV though so you must be more of an expert in whats going on in the world than i am

When it comes to the portrayal of black people in TV, or how many transpeople are in it, absolutely I am. Why should I listen to you over my lying eyes, exactly?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

I know it's fucking Shite lol the Film industry is going under Cinemas closing down because they can't draw a crowd any more.

And TV has always been the inferior sibling to film

They just don't give a shit anymore we don't matter to them the message comes first and all creativity has been sucked away

'You make claims, you back them up'

I did back them up i showed you the correlation between Gay culture being poromoted and glamourized with the rise in confused, depressed young people

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

I'm sorry you had the misfortune of interacting with Skavau. He is a known pest on these forums. He harasses everyone and badgers them to provide scientific studies for every statement they make. He is very likely autistic.
You are better off ignoring him unless of course you're like me and enjoy the sport of trolling autistic people.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

You mean asking dumbass people like you to back up your obviously bullshit claims?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Yeah. Stop talking, okay, Slick?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

I'll do whatever the fuck as I like, as you know. If you don't like it, put me on ignore.

Lucia openly admits they know fuck all about modern TV, yet they still make utterly bogus claims.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

iLl dO wHaTeVeR tHE fUCk aS i LiKe!
Yes, I know. I know. No need to throw a temper tantrum.

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

I can't resist biting unfortunately even though it can get mentally testing very quickly.

Whats your guess on demographic?

i am torn between middle class black kid bet 18-24 or Fat White girl.

If he is white male over 30 then he has serious problems

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Are you going to answer my questions, or just hurl abuse, or are you too much of a dumb fuck to actually address my points?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Well I have talked to them before, way more times than I should have. There are entire threads dedicated to our back and forth. For a brief time I also thought that they are a female, but they have said that they're a male. They/He is from the U.K. so I assume he is White, then again, the U.K. is now a third world shithole where Whites are quickly becoming a minority so it's possible that he is of the darker persuasion.
My best guess is he is a straight White male between the ages of 20-40.
I never hear him talk about old TV shows from the 80's so based on the TV shows he talks about I would say he is in his 30s. But that is just a guess.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>I never hear him talk about old TV shows from the 80's so based on the TV shows he talks about I would say he is in his 30s. But that is just a guess.

TV was nowhere near the quality than it is now in the 1980s. TV was low-budget, camp, generic in the 1980s for the most part.

And I am white.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

I agree, but me and many others here still watched TV in the 80's and 90's. We bring up shows like the A-Team or Highlander that we've watched when we were kids. You never talk about those kinds of shows so I assumed that you were either to young to see them or you were not born yet. The first shows I heard you talking about are all from the early 2000's. That would make sense if you were born in the late 80's/early 90's. But if I'm wrong then feel free to correct me.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

You must "address his points" and/or "provide evidence for your claims" otherwise he is going to have an autistic moment and chimp out.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

People who refuse to back up their claims just prove that they are full of shit.

Lucia apparently thinks literally any depiction of a gay person or black person in any TV show is inherently wrong, no matter how minor and passing.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

The depiction of a gay person or a black person is wrong, and it's gross. There are always exceptions and some high quality shows can get away with it, but if we lived in a perfect world 99% of all shows would be straight and White.

o/

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

And this is a highly minor opinion pretty much exclusively held by fascist fucks like yourself. Most people do not care to that level. Even anti-woke critics on youtube do not come anywhere near to claiming shit like that.

Your ideal authoritarian world would destroy media. How much fucking culture did Nazi Germany export during its time period? Or Fascist Italy? Or Francoist Spain?

Totalitarian shitholes develop almost no meaningful media.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Other anti-wokes have a higher tolerance for wokeness, I don't. I'm all out of tolerance. So for me if it ain't straight White, it ain't right.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

And you are literally a tiny minority of one and speak for almost no-one.

Your ideal authoritarian world would destroy media. How much fucking culture did Nazi Germany export during its time period? Or Fascist Italy? Or Francoist Spain?

Totalitarian shitholes develop almost no meaningful media. Do you accept this?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

No need to bring up Nazi Germany. Most shows and movies were straight and White here in the U.S. for nearly a 100 years and we did just fine. It is only in the last 20 years that we've had diversity and only in the last 10 years that we've had forced diversity.
When it wasn't forced it was tolerable, but once it became forced, everything went down hill. And just because there are still quality shows being made does not mean that diversity is a good thing. These shows are great despite being diverse not because of it.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>No need to bring up Nazi Germany. Most shows and movies were straight and White here in the U.S. for nearly a 100 years and we did just fine.

USA wasn't a totalitarian state during that period, and it was competing with other nations with similar levels of social and cultural restrictions who also progressed at similar rates.

I'll ask again: Do you accept that totalitarian dictatorships (which seems to be what you want) develop almost no meaningful media? Why do you think the USSR had such shit soft power? Or China now? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Iran?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

No, totalitarian dictatorships do not develop media that is as good as the U.S., a liberal democracy. And a totalitarian dictatorship is not what I want. But that is what might be necessary in order to purge Wokes and their ideology from society. And because I hate them more than I can describe in words I would be willing to go down that road even if it's not something I want. But I still have faith in the people. I believe/hope that they will reach a breaking point and stand up to the Wokes and marginalize them without the need for the state to intervene.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>No, totalitarian dictatorships do not develop media that is as good as the U.S., a liberal democracy. And a totalitarian dictatorship is not what I want.

You have expressed repeated support for a fascist dictatorship. This means that your ideal world has no culture, no tv, no movies, no music of any value or anywhere near the value or quality of contemporary media now. Liberal and progressives and the left, relative to the mean fucking carry and dominate all media in every society. Right-wings, reactionaries and conservatives have always been artistically pathetic.

> But that is what might be necessary in order to purge Wokes and their ideology from society. And because I hate them more than I can describe in words I would be willing to go down that road even if it's not something I want.

And "wokes" aren't going anywhere. Because why the fuck would they? They're people just like you.

>But I still have faith in the people. I believe/hope that they will reach a breaking point and stand up to the Wokes and marginalize them without the need for the state to intervene.

And how should they be marginalised, exactly? What is it you consider "woke" at base?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

My support for fascism is just a measure of how much I hate the cultural left. If Wokes were marginalized and treated like the vermin they are, like they used to be treated, then my support for fascism would vanish.

And "wokes" aren't going anywhere. Because why the fuck would they? They're people just like you.

I don't consider them to be people. And I believe that they will go away.

And how should they be marginalised, exactly? What is it you consider "woke" at base?

We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them. And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.
For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281
Now imagine if we went beyond just this and called out Wokes for being woke everywhere they show their face. Everywhere they agitate for their ideology. That is how you marginalize them.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>My support for fascism is just a measure of how much I hate the cultural left. If Wokes were marginalized and treated like the vermin they are, like they used to be treated, then my support for fascism would vanish.

And how would that happen?

>I don't consider them to be people. And I believe that they will go away.

How will they "go away"? Where will they "go away" to?

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them. And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.
For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281
Now imagine if we went beyond just this and called out Wokes for being woke everywhere they show their face. Everywhere they agitate for their ideology. That is how you marginalize them.

Why wouldn't the state arrest that man for harassing them? Since you don't want the state to get involved, that is what would happen.

And what the fuck does who someone chooses to date have to do with anything?

You continue to be a hateful, vile, pea-brained fascist, anti-american scumbag piece of shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hateful piece of shit.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

There you go, chimp out for me. LULZ

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

I see you're too much of dumbass to respond to any of my points as usual.

Remember, you've already accepted I'm completely justified in talking to you like you're a piece of shit.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

LULZ
Another day another chimp out.

You're still under the mistaken assumption that I am talking to you in earnest, like you are a normal person worthy of respect. You are not. I only interact with you for sport.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

As usual, no answers. I will repeat.

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hateful piece of shit.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

I rEpEaT!!!!
hErP a dErp

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

As usual, no answers. I will repeat.

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hateful piece of shit.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Notice: Daily Interaction Limit Reached

You have reached the allotted limit of interactions for today on account of you being an insufferable cunt. Please come back tomorrow for more conversations. Thank you for your understanding.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

As usual, no answers. I will repeat.

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hateful piece of shit.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Notice: Daily Interaction Limit Reached

You have reached the allotted limit of interactions for today on account of you being an insufferable cunt. Please come back tomorrow for more conversations. Thank you for your understanding.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

As usual, no answers. I will repeat.

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hateful piece of shit.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Notice: MESSEGE BOX IS FULL

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

As usual, no answers. I will repeat.

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hateful piece of shit.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Notice: MESSEGE BOX IS FULL

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

As usual, no answers. I will repeat.

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hateful piece of shit.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

ERROR

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

As usual, no answers. I will repeat.

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hateful piece of shit.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Windows_9X_BSOD.png

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

As usual, no answers. I will repeat.

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hateful piece of shit.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

https://fossbytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/true_face_of_bsod_by_buba_kl-d4sg3iw.jpg

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

As usual, no answers. I will repeat.

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hateful piece of shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

And I repeat: You have expressed repeated support for a fascist dictatorship. This means that your ideal world has no culture, no tv, no movies, no music of any value or anywhere near the value or quality of contemporary media now. Liberal and progressives and the left, relative to the mean fucking carry and dominate all media in every society. Right-wings, reactionaries and conservatives have always been artistically pathetic.

You are for the desolation of media into nothing but puppet content by the state.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Are you triggered?
Chimp out for me!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Are you going to address my points there or not?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

aRe yOu gOinG tO aDdrEsS muh pOiNtS?!!!?!!?

HHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are a self parody at this point.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

So no then, you're not. I'll just repeat:

You have expressed repeated support for a fascist dictatorship. This means that your ideal world has no culture, no tv, no movies, no music of any value or anywhere near the value or quality of contemporary media now. Liberal and progressives and the left, relative to the mean fucking carry and dominate all media in every society. Right-wings, reactionaries and conservatives have always been artistically pathetic.

You are for the desolation of media into nothing but puppet content by the state.

Any comment there whatsoever? Disagree with anything there or not?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Notice: Daily Interaction Limit Reached

You have reached the allotted limit of interactions for today on account of you being an insufferable cunt. Please come back tomorrow for more conversations. Thank you for your understanding.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Oh back to this again, are we? If I hadn't insulted you, would you have responded to my points?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Notice: Daily Interaction Limit Reached

You have reached the allotted limit of interactions for today on account of you being an insufferable cunt. Please come back tomorrow for more conversations. Thank you for your understanding.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Oh back to this again, are we? If I hadn't insulted you, would you have responded to my points?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

As usual, no answers. I will repeat.

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hateful piece of shit.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Notice: Daily Interaction Limit Reached

You have reached the allotted limit of interactions for today on account of you being an insufferable cunt. Please come back tomorrow for more conversations. Thank you for your understanding.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

As usual, no answers. I will repeat.

>We've covered this before. Through various means of social pressure and institutional power. If we got rid of all protection for for "marginalized" groups then it would open the door for discrimination against sexual and racial minorities. Then we would no longer have to cater to them.

A black person being in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you dumbass piece of shit. A gay person being portrayed in a TV show is not "inherently catering to them" you simpleton. It's just incidental. Gay people happen to exist, and thus may happen to be depicted in things just like anyone else might. Are you genuinely this fucking stupid?

>And the cultural left would lose its power. In addition to that we would be able to treat the Wokes like the vermin they are. Calling them out on their bullshit everywhere they go.

Which means what, in practice? "Wokes" or progressives just, for the most part, do ordinary things in public. Go shopping. Go to their jobs.

>For example, here is a video where a person harasses a woman for dating a Pajeet.
https://x.com/prowhitelad/status/1808746726636888281

So you think it should be legal to continually harass someone purely for who they date?

You really are a vile, evil, hatef

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

[deleted]

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

[deleted]

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>I know it's fucking Shite lol the Film industry is going under Cinemas closing down because they can't draw a crowd any more.

We're talking about TV, not cinema. Completely different right now.

>And TV has always been the inferior sibling to film

Not anymore.

>They just don't give a shit anymore we don't matter to them the message comes first and all creativity has been sucked away

How the fuck would you know this when you don't watch any modern TV?

>I did back them up i showed you the correlation between Gay culture being poromoted and glamourized with the rise in confused, depressed young people

No, you just asserted that the only reason there are more gay people in public is due to some sort of cultural propaganda of sorts, rather than general organic liberalisation of the population over various decades making it more likely that LGBT people are coming out.

Not sure what this has to do with your absurd claim that interracial relationships and transpeople comprise main characters in literally every other show.

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Black people don't bring anything positive to society. They are lazy and would rather choose crime as opposed working hard. They are also diabolical fathers so create more generations uncivilized people into an already overpopulated world.

Prisons are overwhelmed by them and the general public are affraid of them.

But in TV and film world they are wise and noble people of respect and honour.

It's insult to injury and complete manufactured reality.

I don't actually think they have ran out of ideas they just can't execute anything the way they want because they are forced into these terrible casting choices and need to promote all the queer agendas

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>Black people don't bring anything positive to society. They are lazy and would rather choose crime as opposed working hard.

Ah, so there we have it. Just unabashed feckless racism. You simply don't think that black people should be portrayed in TV show positively at all. Is that right?

>But in TV and film world they are wise and noble people of respect and honour.

They are also antagonists and anti-villains and anti-heroes. I've already told you this. You admit you do not follow modern TV at all - so how in the flying fuck would you pretend to know this?

>I don't actually think they have ran out of ideas they just can't execute anything the way they want because they are forced into these terrible casting choices and need to promote all the queer agendas

How the fuck would you know this when you don't watch any modern TV?

And what "queer agenda"? You made the claim that every other show portrays transpeople. Based on what evidence?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Not racism but statistical fact. I take people as i find black or white but as a culture it speaks for itself

Gay people have deviant filthy minds and are literally perverts. Pedophiles in a lot of cases also so no i dont endorse exposing children to their way of life call me crazy

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>Not racism but statistical fact. I take people as i find black or white but as a culture it speaks for itself

There is no singular "black culture".

And I'll ask again: You simply don't think that black people should be portrayed in TV show positively at all. Is that right?

>Gay people have deviant filthy minds and are literally perverts.

How are they "literally perverts"?

What makes their minds "deviant filthy"?

>Pedophiles in a lot of cases also so no i dont endorse exposing children to their way of life call me crazy

Plenty of christians and right-wing evangelicals and priests have been caught diddling children.

But this is NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU: You made the claim that every other show portrays transpeople. Based on what evidence?

And how would you pretend to know ANYTHING about modern TV when you freely admit you don't watch it?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Well whatever you want to call their 'way of life' mooching around every weekday in groups, trying to fuck white women, dealing drugs, thieving and hurting people. The ghettos that now exist in once peacful areas our grandparents lived happily.

Gay=Perverts- Um do you understand the definition of the word pervert

'Plenty of christians and right-wing evangelicals and priests have been caught diddling children'

So Gay pervert pedo's??

I am not completely retarded i am aware of Television i just see a trailor or watch 10 minutes and can figure out it will be laced with garbage and so turn it over to somwthing more stimulating

I am not giving you a list of every trans person on a tv show much as you like if i get really bored i will see what i can draw up ok but not this second. Also you don't have to take literally my use of EVERY OTHER episode literally. It's a lot ok way more than necessary..Enough people notice and get repulsed and annoyed

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>Well whatever you want to call their 'way of life' mooching around every weekday in groups, trying to fuck white women, dealing drugs, thieving and hurting people. The ghettos that now exist in once peacful areas our grandparents lived happily.

And you think every single black person in every single country always does this all the time?

Or even just in the USA? And to the point where it becomes automatically unacceptable to portray black people on TV?

>Gay=Perverts- Um do you understand the definition of the word pervert

"a person whose sexual behaviour is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable."

What makes it unacceptable? "Abnormal"? I mean, in the strict sense of it being *less common*. But so is being left-handed. Is being left-handed "perverted"?

>So Gay pervert pedo's??

Not necessarily. Many pedophiles don't necessarily prey on people of the same sex.

>I am not completely retarded i am aware of Television i just see a trailor or watch 10 minutes and can figure out it will be laced with garbage and so turn it over to somwthing more stimulating

And what shows have you figured out are "laced with garbage", exactly?

>I am not giving you a list of every trans person on a tv show much as you like if i get really bored i will see what i can draw up ok but not this second.

Can you even name me any? Remember, you claimed that it's so common as to be in literally every other TV show. If that's so, you should be able to easily name some.

It's not "a lot". As I said, I've watched a lot of modern TV shows and it is not common to see transpeople. Why should I believe you when my own experience directly contradicts it?

Is this TV show lacking in creativity?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrwycJ08PSA

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

This is a few but certainly not complete list of some TV shows featuring LGTB characters.

Fosters - Stef Adams Foster / Lena Adams Foster
Godless - Mary Agnes McNue / Callie Dunne
Good trouble - Alice Kwan / Sumi Liu
Grey's Anatomy - Callie Torres / Arizona Robbins and her leg
NCIS: Hawaii - Kate Whistler / Lucy Tara
Person of Interest - Root / Sameen Shaw
Supergirl - Alex Danvers / Kelly Olsen
Skam - Eva Kviig Mohn / Noora Amalie Sætre
Skins - Naomi Campbell / Emily Fitch
Sense8 - Nomi Marks / Amanita Caplan
Station 19 - Maya Bishop / Carina DeLuca
Black Sails - Max / Anne Bonny
Atypical - Casey Gardner / Izzie
Glee - Brittany Pierce / Santana Lopez
How to Get Away with Murder - Connor Walsh / Oliver Hampton
Warrior Nun - Ava Silva / Beatrice Baptiste
Carmilla - Laura Hollis / Carmilla Karnstein
Bomb Girls - Betty McRae / Kate Andrews
A League of Their Own - Carson Shaw / Greta Gill
Dickinson - Emily Dickinson / Sue Gilbert
Dead to me - Jen Harding / Judy Hale
Owl House - Luz / Amity ( weh :) )
Orphan Black - Cosima Niehaus / Delphine Cormier
Arcane - Vi / Caitlyn
The Haunting of Bly Manor - Dani Clayton / Jamie
The 100 - Clarke / Lexa
Rookie Blue - Gail Peck / Holly Stewart
Dickinson - Emily Dickinson / Sue Gilbert
Our Flag Means Death - Stede / Blackbeard
Will & Grace (Will and ....)
Happy Endings (Max and ...)
Please like me (Josh and ...)
The Real O'Neals (Kenny and ...)
Brothers & Sisters (Kevin and ....)
Friends from College (Felix and ...)
The New Normal (Bryan and ...)
Schitt's Creek - David Rose / Patrick Brewer
Queer as Folk - Brian Kinney / Justin Taylor
How to Get Away with Murder - Connor Walsh / Oliver Hampton
Sex Education - Otis Milburn and various characters :)
Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist - Mo / Perry Haskins
Torchwood - Captain Jack Harkness / Literally anyone / anything
Hollywood 2020 - (Archie and ...)
Transatlantic 2023 - Varian Fry / Thomas Lovegrove
Angels in America - Louis Ironson / Prior Walter
Years and Years 2019 - Dan
Cruel Summer -

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>This is a few but certainly not complete list of some TV shows featuring LGTB characters.

You specifically said TRANSGENDER originally. You said that every other show has TRANSGENDER characters. Most of the characters here referenced are not transgender. They're just gay or bisexual. And there's nothing wrong with them being so.

And these are shows over a 10+ year period, most of whom have many more straight characters. So what's your point?

Also, Will and Grace is literally a sitcom about two gay men. Of course they're gay.

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

LOL you are moving the goalposts now

The point was queer and mentally perverse characters lacing TV i just said word trans i couldn't give a fuck what list they belong too it's all repulsive and i just gave you a small but already exaustive list.

And there is plenty more where that came from. It's fucking disgusting and only appeals to weak minded or degenerates.

Noticed you picked out Will and Grace i thought you might that was an obvious one to try and defend your point but it got suck up with the rest of the copy and paste but the title of the thread is tv shows featuring LGTB but not as a main theme or character.

So basically pink slips, they suck you in with something familiar or interesting an an then once you are settled in they expose you to the queer porn

It's kind of like grooming

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>LOL you are moving the goalposts now

So, no, not every other show does show transgender people?

TV shows tend to have large casts. Potentially 20+ main and supporting characters if they go on long enough. About 5% of the population, roughly, is LGBT. That means it is statistically likely just demographically for 1 or 2 characters in a TV show to be gay.

>The point was queer and mentally perverse characters lacing TV i just said word trans i couldn't give a fuck what list they belong too it's all repulsive and i just gave you a small but already exaustive list.

Why is it "all repulsive"?

>And there is plenty more where that came from. It's fucking disgusting and only appeals to weak minded or degenerates.

Why is it "degenerate"?

Most of those shows aren't about gay people specifically, or LGBT issues, they just so happen to have some gay characters. They all also have more straight characters.

I've seen many of the shows you referred to.

>Noticed you picked out Will and Grace i thought you might that was an obvious one to try and defend your point but it got suck up with the rest of the copy and paste but the title of the thread is tv shows featuring LGTB but not as a main theme or character.

Why is it a problem if a TV show has an LGBT character at all?

>So basically pink slips, they suck you in with something familiar or interesting an an then once you are settled in they expose you to the queer porn

What "queer porn" do those shows expose people to exactly? I've seen many of them.

What are you even claiming here? That those shows deteroriate into gay porn or something?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

This is of randonm comments i swear i haven't made them up

Literally any show nowadays they all throw in a lgbt character to get green lit

Came here to say this. I can’t think of a recent show without lgbt characters

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>Literally any show nowadays they all throw in a lgbt character to get green lit

How do you know the LGBT characters were "thrown in" to be greenlit? Many are TV shows based on books that already included in the source material LGBT characters.

>Came here to say this. I can’t think of a recent show without lgbt characters

You can't think of a recent show *full stop*. You haven't watched ANY of them.

As I said: Most of those shows aren't about gay people specifically, or LGBT issues, they just so happen to have some gay characters. They all also have more straight characters. Is that a problem?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Yes do you really not grasp what we are talking about?

I thought you were maybe slightly intelligent albeit with a completely different point of view that i hate.

But you really are annoying you just keep going and going you know god damn well what we are talking about but you won't accept it because you can't accept that it's true. Because you are probably gay or black, i am sorry about that

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>Yes do you really not grasp what we are talking about?

Why is it a problem? Most people don't care about this. You might, but other people don't. LGBT people are just people like you or me.

>But you really are annoying you just keep going and going you know god damn well what we are talking about but you won't accept it because you can't accept that it's true. Because you are probably gay or black, i am sorry about that

I am neither gay nor black.

As I asked: How do you know the LGBT characters were "thrown in" to be greenlit? Many are TV shows based on books that already included in the source material LGBT characters.

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Thats the whole point dumb ass.

They aren't about these things but they slip them in anyway

Even though it's a really small percent of an unfortunately afflicted part of life

They blend them in with 'normal' people and have it seem like no big deal in order to convince stupid people that it isn't. that's called brainwashing

Why do you think they don't come out straight away? it's not because they get abused thats the soft palletable answer.

It's because they have deep shame because they know it's wrong and would be straight if they could

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>They aren't about these things but they slip them in anyway

What do you mean "slip them in"? Those shows also depict straight relationship too, but they're not "about them" either. Did they "slip them in" too as well?

>Even though it's a really small percent of an unfortunately afflicted part of life

It's about 3-5% of the population. As I said: TV shows tend to have large casts. Potentially 20+ main and supporting characters if they go on long enough. About 5% of the population, roughly, is LGBT. That means it is statistically likely just demographically for 1 or 2 characters in a TV show to be gay.

>They blend them in with 'normal' people and have it seem like no big deal in order to convince stupid people that it isn't. that's called brainwashing

Why is it a big deal in the first place? What's the big deal if you discovered a work colleague was gay? Or if you discovered a friend was gay?

>Why do you think they don't come out straight away? it's not because they get abused thats the soft palletable answer.

Some people do come out "straight away". Why is it you think some don't?

>It's because they have deep shame because they know it's wrong and would be straight if they could

How do you even pretend to know this?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

not arguing with you anymore

you are a moron

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Not an answer, will copy and paste.

>They aren't about these things but they slip them in anyway

What do you mean "slip them in"? Those shows also depict straight relationship too, but they're not "about them" either. Did they "slip them in" too as well?

>Even though it's a really small percent of an unfortunately afflicted part of life

It's about 3-5% of the population. As I said: TV shows tend to have large casts. Potentially 20+ main and supporting characters if they go on long enough. About 5% of the population, roughly, is LGBT. That means it is statistically likely just demographically for 1 or 2 characters in a TV show to be gay.

>They blend them in with 'normal' people and have it seem like no big deal in order to convince stupid people that it isn't. that's called brainwashing

Why is it a big deal in the first place? What's the big deal if you discovered a work colleague was gay? Or if you discovered a friend was gay?

>Why do you think they don't come out straight away? it's not because they get abused thats the soft palletable answer.

Some people do come out "straight away". Why is it you think some don't?

>It's because they have deep shame because they know it's wrong and would be straight if they could

How do you even pretend to know this?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

These lists i got from LGTB section on Reddit. The last comment lol

You

Schitt's Creek

The Office

Only murders in the building

The Midnight Club

Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt

Little Fires Everywhere

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend

Umbrella Academy

Modern Family

How to get away with murder

Orange is the new black

Orphan Black

Actually most recent shows have some.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>Actually most recent shows have some.

Again: You specifically said TRANSGENDER originally. You said that every other show has TRANSGENDER characters. Some of the characters here in the shows referenced are not transgender. They're just gay or bisexual.

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Theres more lol i have barely scratched the surface and this has only taken me 5 minutes

Guardian (2018)

The Untamed

Gotham

Heroes

Killing Eve

Lucifer

Once Upon a Time

Shadow & Bone

The Boys

The Handmaid’s Tale

The Sandman

The Witcher

Word Of Honor

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Okay so?

I've seen many of these. The gay characters (most of the examples you refer to are not trans) are supporting characters. The shows are not about gay people.

Are you saying it's inherently unacceptable to ever portray a gay person in anything ever?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

lol it's all making sense now.

You watch all the gay shit. And i don't just mean shows with gay characters. If the show has been compromised from the start by added said characters and narrative threads you can bet the creators don't have backbone or conviction to make the Art they want.

So as a viewer understanding this i can tell relatively quickly if this is a show that deserves my attention or respect.

You have lower standards and have been sucked in good and proper

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>You watch all the gay shit.

What do you mean by this? I don't care if there are gay characters in shows I watch.

>And i don't just mean shows with gay characters.

You're wrong. I don't watch explicitly LGBT-focused content.

>If the show has been compromised from the start by added said characters and narrative threads you can bet the creators don't have backbone or conviction to make the Art they want.

What shows are you referring to that have been compromised by this, specifically?

>You have lower standards and have been sucked in good and proper

You have no idea about what shows I like.

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

What shows are you referring to that have been compromised by this, specifically?

All the ones i listed plus ever single show that is made today containing one. Most writers don't sit down and think i must have gay character. its forced.

You have no idea about what shows I like.

I do because you literally just said you watch most of the shows from an LGTB reddit post

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>All the ones i listed plus ever single show that is made today containing one. Most writers don't sit down and think i must have gay character. its forced.

How do you know every gay character was forced?

>I do because you literally just said you watch most of the shows from an LGTB reddit post

That's not a list of LGBT shows. That's a list of shows that happen to have LGBT characters. And I haven't watched all of them, I've watched some of them.

The Handmaid's Tale is not an LGBT show, but something like Heartstopper is. See the difference?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

The point is you watch a lot of shows that are on LGTB lists and are also watched by them.

A handmaids tail for example as you said is decent show but then slips in a few gay plots here and there and people overlook it and accept it, like yourself.

I myself once i get to that point get turned off can see what they are trying to do and reject the show.

Severence and a few exceptional shows will get a begrudging pass though

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>The point is you watch a lot of shows that are on LGTB lists and are also watched by them.

That's just a list of shows that have some LGBT characters. They aren't explicitly "LGBT" anymore than Severance, a show you also watched, is.

>A handmaids tail for example as you said is decent show but then slips in a few gay plots here and there and people overlook it and accept it, like yourself.

Okay. So? It's not an LGBT show though, is it? That it has some lesbian characters doesn't make it LGBT themed.

>I myself once i get to that point get turned off can see what they are trying to do and reject the show.

Gay people are just people and exist like you and I. They're not "trying" to do anything. In their mind, it's already normalised - and in Handmaids Tale it actually makes perfect sense to show LGBT characters more than most other shows. A detail.

>Severence and a few exceptional shows will get a begrudging pass though

Why?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Because it's not normal but that is my and whether you like to admit it or not the majority of straight peoples opinion. Like i said its a perversion of the mind and while i do actually sympethize with the ones who are ashamed i don't think it should be promoted and certainly not taught to little children, that is just sinister and abhorrent.

So it's all these real life issues that are compounded by having it thrown in our face every two seconds in some tv show which is supposed to be an escape.

And it is forced there are 2 or 3 Countries in the EU Hungary is one Poland the other who have refused to add it to curriculum and won't accept gay pride and they are being made to suffer because of it. What happened to running your country in accordance to the will of the people that is true Fascism my friend

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>Because it's not normal but that is my and whether you like to admit it or not the majority of straight peoples opinion.

So what? Being left-handed isn't normal. Liking death metal music isn't normal.

>Like i said its a perversion of the mind and while i do actually sympethize with the ones who are ashamed i don't think it should be promoted and certainly not taught to little children, that is just sinister and abhorrent.

Why is it a "perversion of the mind"?

Define "promoting" homosexuality.

>So it's all these real life issues that are compounded by having it thrown in our face every two seconds in some tv show which is supposed to be an escape.

This is a "you" problem. Not anyone else's. That it takes you out of it is your problem.

>And it is forced there are 2 or 3 Countries in the EU Hungary is one Poland the other who have refused to add it to curriculum and won't accept gay pride and they are being made to suffer because of it.

Hungary has a lot of other issues with the EU, but they can just leave if they don't like it.

Poland booted out their conservative government.

>What happened to running your country in accordance to the will of the people that is true Fascism my friend

Who is stopping Poland or Hungary from that?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Mate being left handed is not the same as wanting another man to stick his dick up your ass. Or to lick his hairy asshole.

Or to go to public parks and toilets to lurk around and have sex with any tom Dick or Harry.

Once you have thoughts like that running around your brain it begs the question what else might they be thinking.

They are very crude in how they talk as well a lot of smut talk and letting everyone know what they get up too

To me Homosexuality is the in the same league as beastiality or necrophillia

DISGUSTING!!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>Mate being left handed is not the same as wanting another man to stick his dick up your ass. Or to lick his hairy asshole.

Plenty of men want to stick their dick up a woman's asshole, or lick her clit. Why could this be so described as inherently less disgusting from an objective point of view? Just because you personally find it ick doesn't make it wrong.

>Or to go to public parks and toilets to lurk around and have sex with any tom Dick or Harry.

And you think that's an integral part of being LGBT? Plenty of straight people sleep around and have sex in public places.

>Once you have thoughts like that running around your brain it begs the question what else might they be thinking.

Plenty of straight people are horny. Do you question what they're thinking?

That something is icky to you doesn't make it wrong. I'm not gay. I find two men having sex to look at repellent. Doesn't make it evil.

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Mate your Gay fair enough i get it now. I am sorry if i offended you but it's how i feel. Someone older than you when you were 12 or 13 showed you some gay porn and asked you to do something and now you are confused.

Think of it this way, do you think Gay people get turned on by watching straight people have sex? no so why would the opposite not be true also

I am not explaining how its promoted wtf are you on about they are in every tv show we have been over this.

Gay people are a part of society, true unfortunately. And they can be shown in TV from time to time when appropriate. Or have their own shows no problem at least we know where we stand then and have choice but just throwing one into every show is annoying

And we know why, they will keep going and going until we submit to them. And the what? they will add something else Pedophiles? its not that far fetched believe me we already had the Kevin Bacon film where they made him sympethetic

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

And, if you will, define "promoting LGBT".

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

💯

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>Mate your Gay fair enough i get it now. I am sorry if i offended you but it's how i feel. Someone older than you when you were 12 or 13 showed you some gay porn and asked you to do something and now you are confused.

No, I'm not gay.

I said at the end that I'm not gay.

>Think of it this way, do you think Gay people get turned on by watching straight people have sex? no so why would the opposite not be true also

I didn't say you should be turned on by watching gay people have sex. Do you think every single TV show that depicts a gay person automatically shows gay porn?

>I am not explaining how its promoted wtf are you on about they are in every tv show we have been over this.

Is simply depicting a gay person, writing one into a show in itself inherently "promotion"?

>Gay people are a part of society, true unfortunately. And they can be shown in TV from time to time when appropriate. Or have their own shows no problem at least we know where we stand then and have choice but just throwing one into every show is annoying

Under what circumstance is it "appropriate"?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that a majority of straight people are upset by seeing gay people in a show?

Also, this is a free speech matter. Screenwriters can do whatever the fuck they like with or without your permission.

>And we know why, they will keep going and going until we submit to them.

Submit in what sense? What is it you think is somehow planned?

>And the what? they will add something else Pedophiles? its not that far fetched believe me we already had the Kevin Bacon film where they made him sympethetic

This is a 20 year old film. Is that your example, your argument here?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Too many questions

Overbearing

Pick your favourite and ill have a go

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

Is simply depicting a gay person, writing one into a show in itself inherently "promotion"?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>They just don't give a shit anymore we don't matter to them the message comes first and all creativity has been sucked away

Do you think these shows are unoriginal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrwycJ08PSA (Dark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0QwBp_da28 (The Expanse)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEQP4VVuyrY&t=12s (Severance)

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Severance was outstanding one of my fav shows of recent years, same goes for Dark.

But these are exceptions the general standard in writing has declined. They don't respect peoples intelligence as much and everything is over explained a lot. Plus the general dialog is more corny now

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>Severance was outstanding one of my fav shows of recent years, same goes for Dark.

Severance has two gay characters in it and a black character in it. Why did you tolerate that show?

Dark has a trans-character. They were minor, but they had them.

>But these are exceptions the general standard in writing has declined. They don't respect peoples intelligence as much and everything is over explained a lot. Plus the general dialog is more corny now

I can name more modern shows than them two in the same mould.

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

I know they did sadly it's almost unavoidable nowadays but like i said those were exceptional shows and the actor was legendary Christopher Walken so what you gonna do.

I only saw the first season of Dark i don't remember trans character

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>I know they did sadly it's almost unavoidable nowadays but like i said those were exceptional shows and the actor was legendary Christopher Walken so what you gonna do.

Also, you claimed to not watch modern TV shows. You watched them.

So what exactly was wrong with Milchick in Severance? He was also a black character in a villainous role. I thought you said black people are only ever portrayed as heroes?

>I only saw the first season of Dark i don't remember trans character

https://dark-netflix.fandom.com/wiki/Bernadette_W%C3%B6ller

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

Ha, that was literally the same way I felt about Severance. On the one hand having another homo on screen is disgusting, on the other hand it's Christopher fucking Walken who is awesome. That is why Severance gets a pass.

What Skavau doesn't seem to understand is that these great shows are great despite the woke LGBTQ propaganda and not because of it.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>What Skavau doesn't seem to understand is that these great shows are great despite the woke LGBTQ propaganda and not because of it.

How is simply portraying a gay person in and of itself inherently LGBT propaganda? They exist in the real world.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

They exist in the real world.

Unfortunately.

It doesn't mean we have to show them in the media. They should be invisible like they used to be. Back in the closet.
We should neither hear nor see them.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

That is not what I asked you.

To most screenwriters, gay people just are. There's no motive attached to writing them into a show. How is simply portraying a gay person in and of itself inherently LGBT propaganda?

>We should neither hear nor see them.

No reason to think this is a majority view at all.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

By portraying them on screen you are normalizing them. This is propaganda. They should not be normalized. They should be treated like the social deviants that they are. This is the only way they should be portrayed on screen.

No reason to think this is a majority view at all.

No reason not to.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 5 months ago

>By portraying them on screen you are normalizing them.

They are already "normalised". The writers don't even think about this. It just *is*. No different than writing anyone else. They aren't motivated by anything. You are projecting how you see LGBT people and assuming that they think the same, but on the opposite side.

>They should be treated like the social deviants that they are. This is the only way they should be portrayed on screen.

Plenty of gay people are not "social deviants" (whatever you mean by that), and exist in normal life.

>No reason not to.

Plenty of highly successful LGBT-themed TV shows or TV shows with LGBT characters directly contradict you.

And all polling.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 5 months ago

I think you responded to the wrong post. Were you trying to respond to Skavau?

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 5 months ago

Yes i was, my bad i always like adding to the bottom rather than scattered

reply

[–] fortrus (90) 4 months ago

Wow. This has to be the most racist post ever made. Shame.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3414) 4 months ago

The most racist post ever? Really? LOL
I assure you I have written ones far more racist than this.

reply