Elon Musk says he canceled his Netflix account — and urges his followers to as well

[RileyG]

Good grief. Netflix has always had content that required parental guidance, or that was inappropriate for children altogether. I would never sit a 10-year-old in front of Netflix and say "Watch whatever you want; I'll be back in a couple of hours." If you don't like the show, don't watch it.

My thoughts exactly! Adults can watch what they want and make choices about their own viewing habits!

 

[RileyG]

I am sure that between the alimony and child support, the kids are doing far better than kids who were raised as "theybies."

I’m sure they’re all pretty wealthy. I just cannot help but wonder what they think of their dad ic he’s present in their lives at all?

Oh well.

Not my monkey, not my circus.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I quoted the maker of the show, and based on their own words, this show in particular was more than just having a character.

So in this case, it's not merely that a gay character was in the show... it sounds like activism was the point.

I don't know how you get "activism was the point" from those quotes. Seems to me, the point was to make a cartoon about LGBT characters dealing with issues encountered by people (teens especially) in the LGBT community, and life in general, in the US. That's not "activism" - it's just a different demographic. There are shows where the whole cast is Black and the core themes are all about Black (American) culture - would you call those shows unrealistic or activist? Or do they just have a target audience?

 

[rambot]

I quoted the maker of the show, and based on their own words, this show in particular was more than just having a character.

Steele describes this as not just being simple representation, describing it as “meant to be in the structure and the bones of the show.”


And in another part of the interview:

TD: The original was supposed to be more of an adult cartoon, and I know it still has a curse word and references to porn in it. And I know that you were asked to take some of that out to make it more youth friendly. So I guess my question is: what was that decision like when you were making the Netflix show? Did you always want it to be more friendly for kids? Or were you originally thinking about making it adult-oriented like your original project?

HS: No, funnily enough the adult comedy was added to it. I didn’t pitch it as adult, and then Cartoon Hangover’s brand at the time was trying to make more adult cartoons, and then halfway through production they changed their mind because I think it demonetized their videos, and that was their whole business model. So it used to be a lot worse. There was some proper bad stuff in there.

So we took out what we could and we left in the stuff we did, and we still think it’s funny. And then the comic was more YA, I wouldn’t say adult, I guess more teen. It kind of set the tone of the show. No, I wanted it to be kind of kid friendly but see what we could get away with.


So in this case, it's not merely that a gay character was in the show... it sounds like activism was the point.

Given the demographic makeup of the characters, they swung the pendulum in the other direction when it comes to societally proportional representation.

As I noted from the synopsis of the show earlier. 80% of the main characters non-cis/non-straight...that doesn't represent demographic reality either.

You may be surprised to know that a lot of those people are ostracized in that particular culture group and so they tend to hang around each other. In other words, it's a show about a friend group of lgbtq.

So yeah, it makes 100% sense.

I don't know if you'd even encounter those kinds of ratios at a Sam Smith concert.

So we both haven't seen the show I guess.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't know how you get "activism was the point" from those quotes. Seems to me, the point was to make a cartoon about LGBT characters dealing with issues encountered by people (teens especially) in the LGBT community, and life in general, in the US. That's not "activism" - it's just a different demographic. There are shows where the whole cast is Black and the core themes are all about Black (American) culture - would you call those shows unrealistic or activist? Or do they just have a target audience?

It would depend on context, the issues they were regularly discussing, and whether or not they were trying to make any sort of political statement.

For example, the cast of Family Matters was all black, and I can recall one, maybe two?, episodes of that show that delved into some heavier racial issues, the rest was just regular old comedy about guy getting driven nuts by his nerdy/genius (but clumsy) neighbor.


Which is very different than a show like this:

Dear White People (TV Series 2017–2021) ⭐ 6.4 | Comedy, Drama

30m | TV-MA

www.imdb.com

 

[durangodawood]

Basically, when characters in shows deal with real life situations where politics currently intrudes, thats "activism".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Basically, when characters in shows deal with real life situations where politics currently intrudes, thats "activism".

Seems like it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Basically, when characters in shows deal with real life situations where politics currently intrudes, thats "activism".

Real-life situations like say, when you run away from home in your teens as a trans-masculine gay identifying person to go live in a magic theme park (that evidently employs everyone but straight people), and solve mysteries with your BIPOC neurodivergent lesbian friend who likes Muslim chicks, and an androgenous fallen angel?


Let's be honest here...

If it's a supposed to be a show for young people that's stated intent was to be a comedic show about solving mysteries, then the gender identity and sexual orientation are irrelevant. If people want to some representation fine... but if those two aspects are getting shoehorned into the plot regularly, and the intent is "we need to make sure kids see this as normal, because the adults in their life may not be guiding them down our preferred ideological path", then that is a form of activism.


If someone made an animated & simplified adaptation of Atlas Shrugged that was designed to appeal to the 10-16 demographic, and then tried to play it coy and say "no no, it's not activist at all, it's just a story about a railroad owner and an inventor trying to keep their family businesses alive", most of us would call BS on that, because clearly the intent of that work is to persuade people to a particular way of thinking about certain issues, simply by virtue of who the various protagonists and antagonists are in the story.

 

[BCP1928]

Real-life situations like say, when you run away from home in your teens as a trans-masculine gay identifying person to go live in a magic theme park (that evidently employs everyone but straight people), and solve mysteries with your BIPOC neurodivergent lesbian friend who likes Muslim chicks, and an androgenous fallen angel?


Let's be honest here...

If it's a supposed to be a show for young people that's stated intent was to be a comedic show about solving mysteries, then the gender identity and sexual orientation are irrelevant. If people want to some representation fine... but if those two aspects are getting shoehorned into the plot regularly, and the intent is "we need to make sure kids see this as normal, because the adults in their life may not be guiding them down our preferred ideological path", then that is a form of activism.


If someone made an animated & simplified adaptation of Atlas Shrugged that was designed to appeal to the 10-16 demographic, and then tried to play it coy and say "no no, it's not activist at all, it's just a story about a railroad owner and an inventor trying to keep their family businesses alive", most of us would call BS on that, because clearly the intent of that work is to persuade people to a particular way of thinking about certain issues, simply by virtue of who the various protagonists and antagonists are in the story.

No, it's to present a different way of thinking to the audience for their consideration. That's what stories are all about.

 

[RileyG]

Don't like a show? Don't watch it. Problem solved

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Don't like a show? Don't watch it. Problem solved

With regards to peoples' children and what they watch, that hasn't been a reasonable expectation for quite some time.

In the era of smart phones and streaming services "if you don't like it, just don't let your kid watch it" isn't exactly practical.

And the fact that it's a show (where the creator even said "Hangover’s brand at the time was trying to make more adult cartoons, and then halfway through production they changed their mind because I think it demonetized their videos, and that was their whole business model. So it used to be a lot worse. There was some proper bad stuff in there.

So we took out what we could and we left in the stuff we did, and we still think it’s funny. And then the comic was more YA, I wouldn’t say adult, I guess more teen. It kind of set the tone of the show. No, I wanted it to be kind of kid friendly but see what we could get away with."

...combined with the fact that it's rated Y7 (which means that even if a parent enabled parental controls, it still wouldn't catch it), would indicate to me that perhaps "kids will watch it behind their parents back without them knowing" was baked into model.


It was a challenge even in the mid-late 90's

https://cdn.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Media_and_Developing_Child/Media_and_TV_in_the_Home/19980628_TV_and_home_report.pdf

The numbers 2 & 3 shows survey respondents said their parents said they're not allowed to watch was South Park and the Simpsons (right behind the Jerry Springer show)... and as luck would predictably have it, they listed South Park and the Simpsons as their 2 favorite shows. Which would indicate there's a mismatch between what shows parents didn't want their kids to watch, and what they were actually watching.

That mismatch certainly hasn't been alleviated by smart phone access and streaming services.

When my parents wanted to make sure I didn't watch South Park (hint: I still did), they simply didn't let me use the TV during the timeslot when they knew it aired (but every kid has that one friend with "cool" parents who will let everyone watch it, so it was as simple as "I'm going over to hang out a Shawn's house" - and not being a snitch)

With smart devices and streaming services, it's never been easier to watch stuff without parents knowing.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, it's to present a different way of thinking to the audience for their consideration. That's what stories are all about.

It's not to present a "different way of thinking for consideration", it's to present a certain way of thinking to steer person in one direction or the other.

The creator of the show is a self-proclaimed "queer-activist"... in my experience, activist types (especially ones making content for younger people to consume) never take a "I'm going to give a completely balanced objective portrayal for consideration, and then let the audience make up their own minds"

It'd be like expecting someone at "PETA Kids" (yes that's a thing) to make kids content that gives a balanced view on the pros/cons of all of the various diets, so they can consider it for themselves. ...they're clearly going to be presenting content in a way that steers the impressionable consumer towards a specific viewpoint.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It's not to present a "different way of thinking for consideration", it's to present a certain way of thinking to steer person in one direction or the other.

When you put it that broadly, you could make that argument about literally any piece of media ever produced. Ultimately, what this comes down to is that the message is one that you (and others) find objectionable.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

When you put it that broadly, you could make that argument about literally any piece of media ever produced. Ultimately, what this comes down to is that the message is one that you (and others) find objectionable.

I don't think that's an accurate statement... I think there are plenty of shows that existed that don't have the underlying goal of creating the next generation of issue-specific political allies.

Did shows like Full House or Step By Step give off the vibe that they were trying to convince kids to get on one side or the other of a political issue?

There's even some shows that do delve into some politics (but provided a balanced view) that exist.

One of those shows that I love (Parks and Rec) featured what I would consider the "balanced perspective". Leslie was clearly on the left, Ron Swanson was clearly on the right, and when they'd have their political dust-ups, sometimes she was right, sometimes he was right. They'd take turns being the "voice of reason"


Even going back to "All in the Family"... that show was pretty balanced in that they acknowledged the more extreme viewpoint of each side from that era.

Archie: The hard-headed staunch conservative who wants things to be like the "good old days" and is easily agitated by any form of change.
Michael (Meathead): A college-educated unemployed activist-type who lives in Archie's house for free, eats his food, and repays him by calling him a bigot in front of company.

 

[durangodawood]

Real-life situations like say, when you run away from home in your teens as a trans-masculine gay identifying person to go live in a magic theme park (that evidently employs everyone but straight people), and solve mysteries with your BIPOC neurodivergent lesbian friend who likes Muslim chicks, and an androgenous fallen angel?

Thats more a complaint against the genre that against any specific show. You can address real life experiences and feelings in a semi-fantastical setting, right? Especially in animation.

Let's be honest here...

If it's a supposed to be a show for young people that's stated intent was to be a comedic show about solving mysteries, then the gender identity and sexual orientation are irrelevant. If people want to some representation fine... but if those two aspects are getting shoehorned into the plot regularly, and the intent is "we need to make sure kids see this as normal, because the adults in their life may not be guiding them down our preferred ideological path", then that is a form of activism.

I like your everything's activism definition. Basically convincing people that your pov is a valid experience and trying to move the culture a bit. Thats very inclusive of you!

If someone made an animated & simplified adaptation of Atlas Shrugged that was designed to appeal to the 10-16 demographic, and then tried to play it coy and say "no no, it's not activist at all, it's just a story about a railroad owner and an inventor trying to keep their family businesses alive", most of us would call BS on that, because clearly the intent of that work is to persuade people to a particular way of thinking about certain issues, simply by virtue of who the various protagonists and antagonists are in the story.

Yes we've already learned from you that everything remotely polemical or even personal is "activist". We need to rethink Melville and Dostoyevsky for sure. They were definately trying to convince us of certain outlooks that went against the grain of their worlds.

As for Atlas Shrugged, good luck with that. I cant think of a more dreary watch for kids.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't think that's an accurate statement... I think there are plenty of shows that existed that don't have the underlying goal of creating the next generation of issue-specific political allies.

Nah, see, you said:

It's not to present a "different way of thinking for consideration", it's to present a certain way of thinking to steer person in one direction or the other.

Own your arguments.

Literally every piece of media is created to share a perspective and influence the people consuming it. That is, indeed, the whole point of media.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Literally every piece of media is created to share a perspective and influence the people consuming it. That is, indeed, the whole point of media.

And if the piece of content isn't intended to influence people, the advertisements that fund it are.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

• Elon Musk urged his followers to cancel Netflix for the "health of your kids" on Wednesday.
• Musk's posts come amid criticism by some online of a Netflix animated show featuring a teenage protagonist who is trans.
• It's unclear whether a significant number of Netflix users have canceled.

Elon Musk had a message for his social-media followers on Wednesday morning:

"Cancel Netflix for the health of your kids."

Elon Musk says he canceled his Netflix account — and urges his followers to as well

Elon Musk's posts come amid some online criticism of the Netflix animated show, "Dead End: Paranormal Park," and its creator.

www.businessinsider.com

No one should cancel "because Musk says so".

What one should do is impartially evaluate the content and determine whether its ideas and agenda are what he wishes his kids to consume, if kids watch. Some never had it anyway as they don't want to pay for it. (me).