"You don't care about children!" & "Moral panic"

[SpicyMoth]

JKR retweeted something from TheAmazingAtheist being pro gender ideology.
I remember hearing of him before but remembered him being more "Anti-Social Justice Warrior" in terms of views so I was confused & looked into him more to try and make sense of it.

This took me down the rabbit hole of a subreddit called BreadTube, here is rule 2 of the sub;

" 2. Posts should be against the prevailing winds of the internet
BreadTube exists to promote content that goes squarely against mainstream political discourse, which tends to be pro-establishment (liberal or conservative), pro-capitalist, and pro-authoritarian. If a video could get uncontroversial primetime space on any mainstream outlet, it probably does not belong here."

So, me thinking "That seems a reasonable rule, maybe this is a place for actual discourse?" I delve a bit deeper and start looking at what people have posted.
Good grief was I wrong...
One of the top rated posts was a thread linking to this video; e
I'm not super far into the video, but what this woman is saying is just... Coming across as really quite patronising - As if by virtue of not agreeing with her, you're stupid and bigoted.

A lot of other posts seem to be specifically about this topic, and I've noticed a wave online of TRA's using this argument as well;
Basically saying that "Thinking of the children" is the argument being used today w/ gender ideology, and it's the same as the argument that homophobes used to use against gay people/gay rights.
That because people did this in the past and used that excuse for being against homosexuality, that it's happening again with trans people.

Now obviously we know that these two things are not the same at all, who you love has absolutely nothing in common at all with taking irreversible hormones and having surgeries performed on minors (That there is literal proof and evidence of in the form of detransitioner's).

But how do we escape this "Boy who cried wolf" situation that we're in?

Because it very much seems to echo that old children's story... Homophobes didn't like gay people so they lied and said "Oh but think of the children!" when there was never any threat. Then they did it with legalising gay marriage, again still no threat.

Now there's an actual threat to children's safety, and we're told we're lying. That we don't care about children. That we're hateful and phobic.
Meanwhile the number of destransitioner's is growing ever still, and despite this fact, despite the fact that they are living proof of the harm ideology can do, we're still lying and bigoted and we never really cared about kids...

Do they actually not believe us when we tell them our concerns, or are they just refusing to listen?
How do you even combat this?
How can there ever be any meaningful conversation when everything is taken in bad faith?
How can we show that we actually do care about the children in a way that would get through?
How can we show them that homosexuality and trans ideology truly are not the same thing? - Who you love vs. physically altering your body are literal worlds apart from one another, It seems completely mad to me to even compare them...

Ask Disney about why they do it. It's some kind of promotion anyway.

Im struggling to understand the concern here. What bad thing do you think will happen if children are introduced to gay characters?

Because it seems to me pretty obvious that this is only objectionable and scary if you, let’s say, have an irrational fear of gay people.

Its strange that this instance of misogyny and homophobia is under attack by the relentlessly homophobic and misogynistic Republicans in Florida. According to you they should be all for it.

I'm struggling to understand someone thinking it's fine in children's entertainment to have a, "not so secret gay agenda".

You think the kids want this? You think the parents want this? OK maybe some of the parents want this, but in general, parents want a "gay agenda" in family entertainment?

No. They just want them to be making good entertainment. Not trying to force their "gay agenda"!

@TraumatisedGooner
Lost a long reply :( , haiving to retype, so breaking it up onto pieces.

I'll try to answer your question here. To put words into your mouth I assume you're asking what's wrong with gay characters in movies? and I hope that represents your question in good faith. To that question in isolation I think the answer is nothing, it's perfectly natural and normal. But the question ignores the wider context of whats going on in culture and politics.

There's an agressive authoritarian push by progressives to make everything reflect their progressive values, and it's facing more and more pushback.

One topical example Netflix's Cleopatra making Cleopatra black while classifying itself as a documentary, which is meant to be a historical record not a fictional drama. It's not the first time Cleopatra has been portrayed by a different race actress. In 1963 Elizabeth Taylor a white western actress portrayed Cleopatra in a most expensive and lavish epic movie. The purpose and intent of this movie was not to push a political agenda, but to entertain and make money. The cast and audience were mostly white and western, but there was no intent to rewrite who Cleopatra was in history. Just sit back and enjoy the epic movie we spent a fortune making. This difference in intent between trying to make Cleopatra historically black and revise history and push progressive values for Netflix, versus big epic fictional entertainment is a key part of the context of being able to give a fuller answer to your question.

Another example is Dylan Mulvaney and Bud Light.
From a classically liberal point of view I support DM in whatever they want to do, it's their right. Also DM shouldn't get any harassment just for being themself.
But I do find it unfathomable that Bud Light marketing chose a male who acts this hyper exaggerated almost parody hyperactive ADHD pastiche of an american woman from several decades ago to represent and sell their crap beer to a predominantly working class white straight male market. It felt to me like a progressive values inspired "fuck you" to the people who buy their product. It appears that's how the customers feel too. Some women ( and men ) also find DM's womanface act just as offensive as most people find blackface.
It feels like part of the wider progressive imposition of progressive values upon society irrespective of how people feel about it.

I think DM could have easily been used in successful Bud Light marketing, but a lot more thought would have gone into it. e.g. DM walks into the most redneck dive bar you can imagine in their most fabulous getup. The whole bar freezes. The Jukebox even stops playing. Rednecks stop fighting each other. Dead silence. DM walks up to the bar with everyone watching. The walk takes an eternity, everyone is watching DM, you can almost see DM shrinking smaller and smaller under the scrutiny. DM gets up to the bar. The barman is flustered and well out of his depth, scared almost. The barman reaches for the one cocktail menu on the top shelf covered in a thick layer of dust. As the barman pull it down it falls apart, all the pages fall out, and disintegrate as they fall to the floor. The barman gulps and asks "What'll it be?". DM thinks for a moment and says "A Bud Light please". At that all the tension in the bar dissapates instantly, they all go back to fighting each other, the jukebox resumes playing. As the barman pours the Bud Light bar life returns to normal. Cut to 10 minutes later DM is sat at a table full of heavily tatooed and bearded bikers playing cards drinking her Bud Light with one hand and asking the biker next to her is this a good hand? DM ducks as a bar patron momentarily flies over her head having being thrown from a fight. End caption "If you drink Bud Light you're one of us."

The message being Bud Lite brings all sorts of different people together. The choice of Bud Light bridges the cultural gaps. I don't think an advert like this would have had the same negative reaction as the current situation. This is a different approch to "fuck you, you're a white bigot" which seems to be option A right now.

The wider progressive values seem to be it's not OK to be white, it's not OK to be a man, it's not OK to be a female woman, and it's definitely not OK to be straight. When you discriminate against people based on those characteristics the majority are not going to take it lying down. There will be pushback. Discrimination is bad in all forms, there are no good forms of discrimination based on those characteristics.
Tagged into the milder progressive values are extremist progressive values e.g. paedophillia is a sexuality just like any other and should be accepted just like any other. They never seem to know where the line that shouldn't be crossed is. Drag queens reading stories to kids fine, drag queens involving children in sexual performances that are adult appropriate but not child appropriate not fine.
Read stories to young kids to get them interested in reading great, read stories to kids as a rainbow dildo butt monkey not great.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/07/13/the-rainbow-dildo-butt-monkey-is-no-laughing-matter/

Really good point.

On to Disney given Disney movies have been mentioned.
Disney chose to get involved in politics. Politics especially today is very divisive and tribal. When you say "relentlessly homophobic and misogynistic Republicans in Florida" you tell me that whether or not you know it conciously you are aware of just how febrile and tribal it gets through your words, because you are engaging in the divisive rhetoric.
A hugely popular govenor doing his job, and Disney decides to get involved in this process and oppose his work. It's just a recipie for disaster. And why is a company that meant to operate in the best fiscal interests of shareholders out there acting as a political activist?
To the right the bill Disney tried to get involved in means let kids be kids, stop promoting all sorts of wierd sexual ideas and sexually explicit material to kids and let them grow up sexually at their own pace into their own sexuality without other trying to influence that. To the left the bill means "don't say gay" and genocide all non cis non straight people.
I think you have to see the answer to your question from others in this thread through the context of what I've written here. I doubt a single one of them cares about a gay character in a movie. What they do care about a company that meant to be a beacon of kids entertainment morphing into an activist organisation that has hitched itself onto a movement based on a set of progressive values that despite what I assume are good intents but results in racism, sexism, discrimination, pro peadophillia, the state taking over the role of the parents in raising children, decline in law and order, post apocalyptic american cities full of zombie homeless drug addicts, loss of freedom of speech, and the medical sterilization of proto gay young people, and unlimited illegal mass immigration.

I hope that answers your question @TraumatisedGooner
What's wrong with gay perople in movies? Nothing at all.
What's wrong with Disney? They have chosen to promote the authoritarin progressive values that don't know when to stop. Some people don't like this.
Disney are in lots of financial troubles anyway, so soon they won't matter.

@lechiffre55 I think you've captured and summarised how I feel as well pretty much exactly.
Well written, and explained -

It does make me sad though to see it laid out so concisely when I can already anticipate either the response, or the lack of any response...

I don't get why we can't have conversations about these things without someone from the opposing side coming in and going "So what you're saying is..." A la that infamous channel 4 Jordan Peterson interview and completely butchering what was actually said or intended with accusations of phobia, hatred.

"You don't think children can CATCH gay do you?!"
insert shocked, aghast face here

No. No one has said that or thinks that, or has even presented that argument?
Really wish people would stop paraphrasing other's arguments to fit their presumption that anyone who disagrees is a hateful bigot, it got old a looong long time ago.

You can't just make something up as if that's what we're saying, and then argue with us over it when no one thinks that :/

Republicans in Florida have nothing to do with the redefinition of lesbian to include men and the chastisement of same-sex oriented women who refuse to do dick though, or the attempted moves to allow men into women-only spaces and facilities, sports, and prisons. The trans rights activists behind those moves are misogynist and homophobic. Perhaps in a different way to the political right in the USA, but misogynist and homophobic nonetheless.

lechiffre55 are you in advertising? I'd enjoy that ad!

@lechiffre55 Sorry for not responding immediately -- one of the downsides of representing a minority position on a forum like this is an overwhelming amount of responses.

I'm not going to respond to everything you've written because the conversation will just explode in length, so I'm going to focus on the comments you made about Disney rather than your comments about the representation of Cleopatra or Dylan Mulvaney. I find it quite hard to respond at all because I feel like we're a million miles apart on the basics, but here goes:

I find the idea that Disney are part of an 'aggressive authoritarian push' utterly bewildering. To my eyes Disney have historically done a very bad job of representing gay people, and indeed if we were having this conversation just ten years ago there would be almost nothing to discuss at all. They were, and still are, behind the times.

I do not think it is aggressive or authoritarian to embrace gay people as part of our world. You say that you don't think there's anything wrong with gay people being included in films but, in practice, when Disney portray gay people your response appears to be: 'not like that'.

The argument you make is quite familiar to me because it echoes arguments made about video games (which is the industry I work in). There's been a lot of backlash to games as they have started to (1) build games that aren't targeted at young straight white men and (2) feature characters and protagonists that aren't young straight white men. The complaint is simple: "keep politics out of video games". My response to people making that complaint is very simple: there's no such thing as apolitical media. What people see as apolitical is simply what fits with their own politics.

Disney's films are not apolitical, because there is no such thing. Many of their most famous films orient around 'princess' characters. The earliest examples of these films reinforce traditional values that feel very outdated today. The earliest examples of princesses are white damsels in distress that have little agency waiting to be saved by a prince. Over my lifetime these tropes have broken down, reflecting societal advances. In the 90s Disney introduced their first princesses that weren't white. Frozen subverts the expectation of a prince saving the day. Moana doesn't even feature a prince, or romantic theme.

I firmly believe the progress described above is a positive thing for the girls and boys that grow up watching these films. I don't see why it is any different now that Disney are starting to incorporate gay characters more regularly. I think most people would say that Disney are behind the times in representing LGBT characters. Surely if they were truly pushing an aggressive, authoritarian agenda, major LGBT characters would be all over their output. Alas, if you look across the gamut of their biggest productions Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and Disney's animated films you will find few gay characters, no gay protagonists and no trans characters.

Disney aren't 'pushing'. They're being pulled. Not by a sinister force. But by the knowledge that society, for the most part, embraces diversity, and that they have masses of fans and employees that reflect society's diversity.

This is what they wanted to achieve when they tried to muddle the distinction between sexuality and 'gender identity'.

Disney aren't 'pushing'. They're being pulled. Not by a sinister force. But by the knowledge that society, for the most part, embraces diversity, and that they have masses of fans and employees that reflect society's diversity.

It sure seems like "pushing" when they are talking about a, "not so secret gay agenda". Again, I don't believe kids want this, and I don't believe many parents want this. I think rather that they just want Disney to be making good quality family entertainment.

As for video games, I think video games should be made for everyone. So "diversity" is fine. But that doesn't mean you can push a diversity agenda everywhere, without potential pushback from some of your customer base. If the people making the games have different political values to many of their customers, that's a possible issue.

Like I'm all for making new games, and seeing if there is a market for them. But if you try to mess with people's favourite franchise, then sure some people may object to that.

One example would be Rockstar Games removing "transphobic" content.

There is no way that gamers want GTA to go woke!

You can steal cars, murder people, deal drugs, have sex with prostitutes, but you can't joke about the trans?

You really think the average gamer that plays GTA wants this nonsense being pushed on them?

The complaint is simple: "keep politics out of video games". My response to people making that complaint is very simple: there's no such thing as apolitical media. What people see as apolitical is simply what fits with their own politics.

I'm not sure I really agree with this, (e.g. how is Tetris political?), but let's ignore that issue anyway.

I would just say, you can push whatever politics you like in video games or movies, just:

(1) do it with new characters and new stories. So you invent something new and see if there is a market for it. You don't take over someone else's popular work, and try to use it as a vehicle to push your own politics.

(2) you probably shouldn't be pushing controversial politics or religion on children, unless it's a specialised work where the parents know exactly what they will be getting.

how is Tetris political?

Some shapes aren't allowed to fit in, even if they identify as being the right dimensions...? So exclusionary! ;o)

Oops, forgot to add that I agree with your post, Porcelina!

Ah, you got me. 😁

Disney's films are not apolitical, because there is no such thing. Many of their most famous films orient around 'princess' characters. The earliest examples of these films reinforce traditional values that feel very outdated today. The earliest examples of princesses are white damsels in distress that have little agency waiting to be saved by a prince. Over my lifetime these tropes have broken down, reflecting societal advances. In the 90s Disney introduced their first princesses that weren't white. Frozen subverts the expectation of a prince saving the day. Moana doesn't even feature a prince, or romantic theme.

I firmly believe the progress described above is a positive thing for the girls and boys that grow up watching these films.

Here's a counterpoint from a Disney fan I found quite compelling. Basically the gist being that the modern Disney protagonist is all "me, me, me". Indeed they're very much about this modern idea of personal "identity", arguably at to the detriment of a broader good. Maybe it's progressive in some directions, but is it regressive in others?

Key part for on that starts at 10:57, but it's worth watching the whole thing.

@TraumatisedGooner
The set of points weren't different points for you to respond to but trying to explain a wider societal context through which this pushback has arisen. Without considering that context a discussion can't be had as been proven over and over. It's just two sides with their fingers in their ears shouting la la la I can't hear what you are saying. If you are prepared to look at the wider context as I laid out above you'll at least understand the opposing view even if you don't agree with it. If you want to discuss in good faith, and I'd love a good faith discussion, then I think you're going to have to listen to that wider context argument because it was the crux of what I wrote. It's the one point I'm trying to make. The one thing that worries me is where I mentioned Disney's direct attempt to politically oppose the elected govenor of Florida's legilsalative process, you appear to have missed that completely. If we are not going to do the la la la can't hear you thing then you will have to address that.
On the video game front, great a common interest. I've been playing and sometimes making video games since my late teen years and I'm in my 50s now, so video games have been a huge part of my life. In all that time I don't ever remember a video game company trying to get involved in direct political opposition to an elected representative doing their job. The closest thing I can think of is video game companies trying to stop the EU regulating against gambling lootboxes ( EA's sense of pride and accomplishment ), or battles with anti monoply regulators e.g. Microsofts' purchase of Activision Blizzard King. All of those examples are based purely on business and making money. None are a direct campaign to oppose legislation based on ideological reasons as Disney has done.
There has always been a thing in video games and movies/TV where if you make it good people don't give a fuck who or what the characters are. Examples : Alien, one of the best movies of all time, main character is a woman. Metroid's main character Samus Aran possibly trans. Tomb Raider on the original Playstation, main character a woman. There are innumerable video games and movies/shows where the main character represents diversity. And the good ones have been with us for decades. But when the purpose is not to make something good, but just to insert a token minority they usually end up shit because the creativity stopped right after "hey lets make the main character xxxxxxxx". Netflix's Cleopatra is a classic example of this. Hey let's make a "documentary" about Cleopatra and lets make her black now.
There's tons of room for new characters with new stories that can be told from a fresh point of view, but there seems to be this need by progressives to rewrite history and old beloved fictional characters purely for the purpose of politically inserting a different race, sex, or sexual attraction. Let's give Henry the 8th a black wife, Shakespeare was black didn't you know? Let's make Cleopatra black. When this clumsy ham fisted political self insertion is removed the output is just so much better. The huge success of Aloy and the Horizon series. Sable was stunning. Tchia and Season A letter to the future look amazing and I can't wait to get around to playing them. These all are great examples of original creations and don't rely on co opting and rewriting something for a political insert.
It feels very much to some that Disney is going down this path of the political rewrite. Lets remake xxxx and make the characters xxxxxx instead. It's low effort, clumsy, preachy, and mind knumbingly dull. It reminds me of when I used to watch star trek next generation as a kid and whenever Wesley Crusher turned up in an episode I knew at that point that the episode was just going to get all preachy and boring, big sigh from young me. There is a way to tackle social issues intelligently that makes the audience think, the problem is the writer has to believe the audience is smart enough to think, but not all writers believe this, some writers believe the audience is stupid and needs to be told what to think.

For an example of how not to preach at the audience, but to present them with a situation that makes them think for themselves ( and staying with star trek ).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield
Don't get too hooked ok the black/white as skin colour, that episode was screened during the middle of the cold war and even China and Russia were going at it hammer and tong.