It’s not that long of a video.
It seems as though you aren’t concerned with the executives plans, so long as they aren’t realized.
That’s fair, but so is expressing concern before.
To swing back to the Florida legislation, the time to act is now, not 10 years from now after we’ve indoctrinated a full generation and led countless children into an avoidable identity crisis.
sure. can’t always watch videos at my office though. If you don’t want to answer I can rewatch it tonight.
TV has this covered:
I’m pretty sure The Mighty Stu was an animator for SNL at the time and worked on The Ambiguously Gay Duo. #funfact
Other fun fact: I supported Disney last night, singing A Whole New World at a karaoke bar. It was unbelievable. Indescribable. Soaring, tumbling, and freewheeling.
I guess the most succinct way to put it, is that the “just don’t listen/attend/consume” notion, taken to its logical extreme, prevents a society from maintaining codes of conduct, mores, and social order at all, and fails to take human nature into account. It’s an infantile notion.
It might be as worthless as the lines, “Who are you to judge?” and “Who am I to judge?”
One of the funny things about that sketch is that there has, for quite some time now, been all kinds of depictions of gay and lesbian individuals across all forms of entertainment, some more ambiguous than others. That’s what the sketch was parodying, along with Batman and Robin dynamics that don’t even bring up sexuality, leaving it wide-open for interpretation by the audience.
That’s the difference between harmless “representation” and shoving it down people’s throats. Would Batman and Robin have been a better TV show if they stopped fighting crime every once in a while to actively demonstrate to the audience that they were gayer than a 3 dollar bill? Maybe an onscreen kiss or an allusion to sodomy would have enriched the program and helped shape a better world somehow, someway. Because that’s how I’m told you sow tolerance these days, by injecting your narrow political and social agenda into things that used to hold broad appeal unconnected to politics.
It seems to me that most modern forms of woke activism in entertainment simply turn something someone else built that used to have broad appeal into a vehicle for activism first, entertainment second. All of the stuff that starts out as woke art without a built-in audience just bombs.
That’s why there’s no woke Lord of the Rings, built from the ground up, but the woke are now hard-at-work to take something made by someone else, much like the Walt Disney Company, and turn it into a vehicle for woke activism. I’m bracing for a major dumpster fire that shits all over Tolkien’s vision with this new Amazon series, but that will be a separate thread topic I will create when the series inevitably drops and sucks, because it’s Amazon making it.
So what do you think is the appropriate response to morally repugnant behavior/views?
I know you weren’t asking me, but I think the appropriate response depends on what the behavior was and who is finding it repugnant.
I have news for you all. If your kids like Disney, they might already be gay. And I include those stupid comic book movies and Star Wars. Disney isn’t making kids gay, it’s attracting kids who are gay.
I don’t have any unique ideas, nor am I a historian. So from the little I know, I’m aware that societies used the following for what what caused public harm:
I can’t think of any other things implemented. Can anyone?
What kind of morality is being imposed is a different story.
Funny, I’ll grant you its probably intended as a witty tongue in cheek remark, but that’s the same type of reasoning I have heard pedophiles use for molesting young boys.He’s already gay and he didn’t know it, until he was abused.
1.5 debating maybe, especially since “generally understood” codes of conduct are not completely understood. Can connect with shame and might not really be separate
2.5 Shunning maybe, extreme shame - to the point of borderline exile possibly. Almost criminalization, but different, not codified
0.5 maybe, the eternal wrestling match over what the unwritten rules are or should be. With how much technology has changed over the past 100 years, there is a lot that is not generally understood
Very good points! @squating_bear
Pedophiles probably love Disney. Disney has always been a crap factory.
I’m glad someone else said it. That was pretty much my understanding growing up. It was a real shock finding out that normal-ish people are Disney fans, when I married my wife and vacationed with her family.
So I think what we’re actually talking about is clarity of the on-screen relationship for the viewer. And I think that there are many, many instances in film where it makes sense to leave relationship-related things a little bit ambiguous, and other times, it makes sense to give the viewer something cut and dry to understand the plot. And this doesn’t just apply to gay relationships, obviously. So yea, just forcing gay scenes into movies specifically for the sake of inclusion is dumb. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t ever happen. If straight kisses make sense in Disney movies, gay ones can too, IMO. I would not want ‘equal’ representation, as in like 50 50, because that would be pretty… misleading.
So in this context, I don’t think it makes sense for Disney to have ‘in your face’ homosexual relationships, unless that’s essential to the story they are telling. And to this point, as we’ve all acknowledged, Disney isn’t doing that. I think it’s also fair to say that, regardless of what was in the zoom call, we’re not going to see gay relationships as the FOCUS of many, if any, Disney movies in the near future. Certainly not in the animated world. I would guess that if it does happen, it’s going to be between a couple of cars, or animals, or some other non-human characters. I really, really don’t think that we’re going to see homosexuality shoved down our throats in a Disney movie anytime soon, if ever. It just wouldn’t fly with parents, and I think the smarter voices at Disney will prevail in that area, as Disney doesn’t have a ton of huge miss-steps in their history. There’s a reason they are as big as they are. If they were to go ‘all-in’ on the woke-ness, I’m confident they would lose their position in the market. I don’t really see that happening, although it is at least within the realm of possibilities.
More generally, outside of Disney (because we’re talking about ‘wokeism’ in general), I get where you’re coming from. I think Hollywood loves the super-gay stories more than the general public pretty often, but that’s not particularly interesting to me. That’s just a result of the demographic that is running Hollywood. I’m not exactly going to rely on the Oscar committees to inform me on what I should be Netflixing.
I’m not too optimistic about this either. Amazon misses more than they hit for sure. There are a few shows I’ve really liked on Amazon, but Netflix hits far more often. I thought The Boys was fucking awesome, I’m enjoying The Marvelous Mrs Maisel right now, and I thought the first season of Wheel of Time was good enough, considering how massive that series is and how hard it is to bring to the screen. Upload was good too. But nothing else comes to mind, which is pretty pathetic.
And not to derail this too much, but have you seen Kingdom? It’s on Amazon (used to be on Netflix). The MMA show, not the other Kingdom. One of my favorites.
I have thought up a simple solution to this. Invite them back into identifying as binary. It seems to just be a misunderstanding anyways. What is the other option to being non-binary, it’s binary right. So one can be binary or non-binary, which is a binary system. They have been included in the binary system all along without knowing it.
They always were binary, they just don’t believe this to be the case because the want to be special.
I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding you here. Are you saying you want to implement a binary system with the 0’s being non-binary and 1’s being binary? and then the 1’s are further characterized as male or female for 0’s and 1’s?
It was more of a logic joke. In that if one says they are non-binary, the only other option is binary, which is an option of one or the other, or a binary system. What you proposed would work.