That's actually not something I've ever heard expressed. Not saying it hasn't happened, but when I hear people complaining about these things happening in movies, I typically don't hear them blaming the government for it.
So then, who is being blamed?
A specific producer, a specific director, a specific person in charge of casting?
All of Disney, all of Hollywood, all of liberals???
There are many Republicans campaigning on anti-wokeness e.g. DeSantis, as if having a specific politician is going to stop the movie industry having gay actors or gay characters or people with non white skin.
DeSantis has even tried using his political power to attack Disney. (over reach? Much!) but doing this to appease his base on a perceived culture war.
Correct, which is why I mentioned that I'd like to see a reasonable middle ground on this. There's a big difference between "Detective novel where the main character happens to be gay" vs. the kind of stuff that's in the book "Flamer".
Personally I have no idea what is in the book "Flamer" never read it, never looked into it. Or a book called "Gender Queer", I know nothing about this book. So I personally have no opinion as to their suitability for teenagers in public schools.
...it's not that it's bad to break down certain barriers, it becomes problematic when people want go out in search of barriers that can broken down simply for employing the flawed logic of "rapid change for change's sake", sometimes for seemingly no other reason than just trying to "stay ahead of the curve"
When it comes to movies and books and stuff. There are huge amounts of them. How do people get the world interested in their specific book or movie? Controversy seems to get people interested. Trying to break social norms, trying to be shocking etc. Some book writers and movie makers will go down that path. It's their choice. Govt and politicians should stay out of it.
But sometimes, what is controversial to some, is just the norm to others.
For example, society is full of gay people in gay relationships, full of people in inter racial relationships, full of Trans people. So why would it even be considered anything other than normal to have these appear in contemporary books and movies?
It also could be considered controversial to think that mermaids should have white skin, so if all mermaids were depicted this way in a movie, shouldn't someone be asking why?
Which ever way the movie makers go, someone is going to consider something controversial.
But ultimately this is a private enterprise, not government, not political. The movie makers can do whatever they want. Individuals in the public can choose to watch it or not watch it. Their choice. So what.
I don't see what the big deal is. And I don't see what it is that people want to do about it.
There is no conspiracy, there is no agenda, no liberal takeover, it's just individuals deciding what movies to make, what cast to hire, what characters to have in their stories. So what.
With this particular topic (sex & gender), the trajectory of people seeking out changes to make on this would be the equivalent of if, in the realm of drugs, people said "Well, legalizing marijuana was a change, and it was a good change...therefore, all changes on the side of legalization are good, let's jump to advocating for the legalization of all these other drugs while simultaneously trying to scrap the age limits aspects"
Only that sex isn't outlawed. Gay sex isn't outlawed. Men in dresses isn't outlawed, women in suits isn't outlawed.
People aren't looking at these situations/changes based on context or individual merits anymore.
It's very much become a situation where it's been reduced to the superficial assessment method of
"Pushing for any change on this topic is good/bad" vs. "Trying to block any change on this topic is good/bad"
(largely driven by tribalism)
There are a great many people (myself included) that want small government, that want people to be able to make their own choices, that are accepting of diversity and equal rights. I think all barriers to equal rights should be immediately removed. It's not about finding limits or pushing boundaries, its not about trying to upset people. It's merely about just giving everyone equal rights.
It's not about political tribalism. I don't care who are liberals and who are conservatives. I don't care about what box people are trying to fit within.
Hypothetical, if I conducted a survey at Berkeley and asked the question "Do you think we should remove the books Gender Queer and Flamer from public Jr. High schools?" How many young progressives would I have to ask before I finally found one that said "Yeah, that's probably not appropriate material for 11-13 year olds"? (and was willing to give that answer in front of their peers)
Perhaps you would need to find people that have actually read the books and are aware of the content, words, pictures etc.
I reckon many people will likely defend or attack the books without knowing what is actually in them.
But if you got them to look at the controversial pages then you might get a real answer out of them.
And if I conducted a survey among people at a CPAC convention asking "Do you think it's okay for studios to include some gay characters in their movies/shows in order to have some additional representation, how many people would I have to go through before I got a "yes"? (and was willing to give that answer in front of their peers)
A better question might be, do they think government should set some rules and regulations as to what can be included in movies, e.g. should government be allowed to outlaw gay characters from movies and books?
It's kinda irrelevant on whether they think gay characters are OK or not OK. What is more important is their desire for govt to intervene or not.
The rapper/activist Killer Mike actually has a bit of sage wisdom on polarizing topics like these (and it was one he stated during a Black Voices summit when a Black conservative was on the same panel and was commenting that fatherless homes was one of the biggest issues facing the community and got booed). "You don't have to like the person, but don't hate the truth because you don't like the person who's tellin' it to you"
I don't get it though. Is this person grumbling or proposing some sort of change?
If change, then what change?
Are they saying they would outlaw divorce, or outlaw sex outside of marriage? or outlaw lesbians adopting children?
Ruy Teixeira (from the left) wrote a piece about what he called "The Fox News Fallacy", in which he talked about how it's a mistake for his fellow liberals to immediately disregard any position/idea just because it's mentioned by conservative pundit.
OK, I'm not sure how much of this goes on though.
George Will (from the right) wrote a column in which he explained why he was voting for Biden (the first time he'd ever voted for a Democratic president in his 80 years), he stated that the fact that republicans were more focused on "opposing the democrats than actually legislating" was, in his words, "highlighting the unimportance of republican control", and stated further, that when people are simply looking to oppose the other team: “They will have leisure time to wonder why they worked so hard to achieve membership in a legislature whose unexercised muscles have atrophied” because they get elected purely out of hatred for the other team.
I really don't like the USA political setup, when people no longer act gentlemanly then this is what your system gives you. A crippled government and a stagnating society. I wonder if this is what happened to Rome and led to their downfall?
Obviously George is a much more eloquent writer than most people, but the general gist of what he's saying in "common man terms" is "If you vote based on who agitates the other team the most, you're going to get bottom of the barrel representation"
Yes correct, people should vote for policies not trolls.
