Why do people get so triggered about introducing LGBT characters into movies?

[TotalInsanity4]

What are you talking about? Please point me to any point in history where being gay was a normal occurrence.

Have you ever heard of King James

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

In the US, 4.1% currently identifies as LGBT (lol just gay was better) Why should gays be in %100 of the media? I don't make everyone include my culture.

Because, as we know, only one person can ever be in any piece of media at a single time

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

TL;DR Everyone being genetically similar makes diversity pointless. But genetic differences makes equality of outcome impossible.
So it's either equality or diversity. You can't have both.

Most of the time, when people say they want equality across a population, they mean they want equity: which is to say, taking into account the needs and differences in how a group is treated and basing treatment off of that

 

[Minox]

Virtually any film or show that has a romance subplot where the characters are straight. Which is to say, almost every Disney movie, nearly every Chick Flick (if not every single one), most fantasy adventure movies, quite a few historical fiction films, yadda yadda yadda

Pure romance films is hardly a shocker given that it's hard to create a romance plot without it being relevant (although I struggle to come to think of a movie where it's explicitly mentioned outright). But other than romance movies you will have to be more specific. Someone being interested in another person during the course of a movie does not require them to state their sexuality, that much ought to be obvious from acting alone.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Pure romance films is hardly a shocker given that it's hard to create a romance plot without it being relevant (although I struggle to come to think of a movie where it's explicitly mentioned outright). But other than romance movies you will have to be more specific. Someone being interested in another person during the course of a movie does not require them to state their sexuality, that much ought to be obvious from acting alone.

I guess I'm trying to figure out what film you're thinking of that there is a voice-over narration saying "this is Matt. He's gay, and he's interested in Chris." Because, like... Sexuality isn't an unnatural thing to come up in conversation, especially if there's an incompatible attraction. And most movies with LGBT characters that I've seen, it's either implied, or we find out when they end up with a love interest, anyway

 

[gamesquest1]

the issue is it usually ends up just being reverse stereotypes, every girls is a rocket scientist every guy shits a brick when he sees a screwdriver, if you actually wanted to get rid of stereotypes you would do so without still having to hang onto the stereotypes but flipping the roles, the reason why stereotypes exists is because there is a element of observable truth, when you try make a reverse stereotype it just comes across as agenda pushing..........not to say a girl cant be a mechanical engineer, but why does she always have to be THE BEST!!!!! , and they have to make it into a point and make sure that men fail to fix whatever they are working on and have a woman engineer come and belittle them like "oh guiz lol you left off the wing nut you noobz"

meanwhile we see a lot of stereotyping being pushed by the same people i.e "conservative all hate the gayz" and "men are all sexist pigs".....sure way to go "fighting" one side of the argument and propagating the other

 

[Minox]

I guess I'm trying to figure out what film you're thinking of that there is a voice-over narration saying "this is Matt. He's gay, and he's interested in Chris." Because, like... Sexuality isn't an unnatural thing to come up in conversation, especially if there's an incompatible attraction. And most movies with LGBT characters that I've seen, it's either implied, or we find out when they end up with a love interest, anyway

Actually, the reply I initially responded to claimed something to the effect that this kept happening in movies with straight characters - that's why I was asking for examples of such things.

 

[SG854]

Have you ever heard of King James

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Because, as we know, only one person can ever be in any piece of media at a single time

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Most of the time, when people say they want equality across a population, they mean they want equity: which is to say, taking into account the needs and differences in how a group is treated and basing treatment off of that

Which is what equality of opportunity does.

People will be treated differently, like being hired over others, because differences in traits that makes them better fit for those roles. They will produce more and be more effective. Quotas and affirmative action will be discriminatory and hire certain groups people less qualified over groups of people more qualified. Dividing roles based on your best talents will be more effective and produce more wealth. Its like giving a role to draw for Marvel comics to someone who can't draw at all because you want to increase diversity. People will see the ugly drawings and avoid buying the comics, then equals less money.

There will always be unequal outcomes especially if you take into account the Pareto Distribution.

 

[SimonMKWii]

Can people just accept one another?
We're civilised human beings, so can we please all just get along and coexist happily?
Issues like this shouldn't exist.
The issue shouldn't be "oh, there's an LGBT character in a movie, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it", it should be "oh, that movie's got terrible reviews, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it."

 

[Clydefrosch]

they're insecure, afraid of change and fear that maybe women and poc and women poc and people of varying sexuality might get inspired to change the world.

 

[gamesquest1]

simple minds make simple assertions.

 

[mikefor20]

Can people just accept one another?
We're civilised human beings, so can we please all just get along and coexist happily?
Issues like this shouldn't exist.
The issue shouldn't be "oh, there's an LGBT character in a movie, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it", it should be "oh, that movie's got terrible reviews, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it."

ok

1. Can people just accept one another? Acceptance is a two way street. The homo-phobics deserve acceptance too.
   
2. We're civilised human beings, so can we please all just get along and coexist happily? LOL no Rodney. Civilized? Please. People fight.
   
3. Issues like this shouldn't exist. Lots of things shouldn't exist. But they do.
   
4. The issue shouldn't be "oh, there's an LGBT character in a movie, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it", it should be "oh, that movie's got terrible reviews, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it." I have heard " There is not enough LGBT@#$% in this movie, TV show,network etc.. don't watch it. It's a two way street.

If you have a right to say or do whatever you want, than so does the other guy. You are not special.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

simple minds make simple assertions.

And damaged minds make the same bad decisions repeatedly.

 

[Clydefrosch]

Which is what equality of opportunity does.

People will be treated differently, like being hired over others, because differences in traits that makes them better fit for those roles. They will produce more and be more effective. Quotas and affirmative action will be discriminatory and hire certain groups people less qualified over groups of people more qualified. Dividing roles based on your best talents will be more effective and produce more wealth. Its like giving a role to draw for Marvel comics to someone who can't draw at all because you want to increase diversity. People will see the ugly drawings and avoid buying the comics, then equals less money.

There will always be unequal outcomes especially if you take into account the Pareto Distribution.

thats only true when opportunity was actually equal, but there's a whole decade old system in our everyday lifes that even with regulatory approaches still gives certain people better chances irrespective of their actual qualification. and over here, where whites are the majority, they almost exclusively favor white people.
opportunity isn't equal. it simply isn't. just because everyone is allowed to hand in a resume doesn't give them all an equal chance, even if they literally lived clone lives.
they had those studies in pretty much every country, fake application, same qualifications, the non-white ethnic sounding names get less invites.
it's not necessarily racism either, its natural to feel like you know Jonathan Smith better and feel his letter of application is more honest and trustworthy than that of Ahmed Hdiab. its only natural, but the decision in smiths favor isn't objective and hdiab is definitely going to have a harder time even getting the foot in the door unless he gives up his last name through marriage or whatever.

in tv and movies, its executives and managers only forwarding clients for certain roles (no one would forward a chinese american for the main part in any show that wasn't specifically asking for a chinese american, for example) and the same is true in the workplace.
you're ignoring that there's literally always thousands of people qualified enough to do literally any work. its not 'if we chose the female or the korean, we chose the worst applicant' its 'it literally doesn't fucking matter they're all good and will be underpaid, but our entire hiring structure is filled with aging old men that believe a woman cant get the same results a man can and a poc couldn't possibly show the same work ethics as me, a white dude, so we prefer the white dude.'

 

[mikefor20]

I would like to say I believe in equality, but you want a special kind of equality. One that protects you and your interests. Not one that protects everybody. I live in Sf Bay area. This equality shit is out of control here. You cant even have a men's room anymore. That's fine. Now men have to deal with the tampon can next to the toilet and the women have to deal with piss all over the seats 98% of the time so 1% can feel better about their lavatory selection.

 

[gamesquest1]

thats only true when opportunity was actually equal, but there's a whole system that even with regulatory approaches still gives certain people better chances irrespective of their actual qualification.
in tv and movies, its executives and managers only forwarding clients for certain roles (no one would forward a chinese american for the main part in any show that wasn't specifically asking for a chinese american, for example) and the same is true in the workplace.
you're ignoring that there's literally always thousands of people qualified enough to do literally any work. its not 'if we chose the female or the korean, we chose the worst applicant' its 'it literally doesn't fucking matter they're all good and will be underpaid, but our entire hiring structure is filled with aging old men that believe a woman cant get the same results a man can and a poc couldn't possibly show the same work ethics as me, a white dude, so we prefer the white dude.'

way to go stereotyping, personally from what I have seen most of the time men are more inclined to try hiring women while women are more inclined to try hiring women predominantly

everyone should get equal opportunity, it not anyones fault if 200 guys apply and only 1 woman and 2 guys get the job, the odds were on that outcome, but some people seem to think the woman should get a equal chance so its just a 1:1 chance completely disregarding that its not just 2 genders applying for a role, its 200 individual's, everyone should have a equal and fair chance, same goes for a role where there is 200 women and 1 man, he shouldn't get any special treatment just because they want to increase "diversity" and I'm pretty sure people would rage if that argument was made

and speaking from personal experience there was a trans guy in a place I used to work at, and they were TERRIBLE at their job, they kept leaving early, turning up late, being rude and disrespectful to people for no reason and the department boss was instructed by HR that in no uncertain terms were forbidden from issuing any sort of reprimanding as it would be painted as being transphobic.....no it wasn't transphobia, it was a shitty person who knew they had real special privileges and could do whatever they wanted

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Acceptance is a two way street. The homo-phobics deserve acceptance too.

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
-Karl Popper, 1945

 

[Clydefrosch]

way to go stereotyping, personally from what I have seen most of the time men are more inclined to try hiring women while women are more inclined to try hiring women predominantly

everyone should get equal opportunity, it not anyones fault if 200 guys apply and only 1 woman and 2 guys get the job, the odds were on that outcome, but some people seem to think the woman should get a equal chance so its just a 1:1 chance completely disregarding that its not just 2 genders applying for a role, its 200 individual's, everyone should have a equal and fair chance, same goes for a role where there is 200 women and 1 man, he shouldn't get any special treatment just because they want to increase "diversity" and I'm pretty sure people would rage if that argument was made

and speaking from personal experience there was a trans guy in a place I used to work at, and they were TERRIBLE at their job, they kept leaving early, turning up late, being rude and disrespectful to people for no reason and the department boss was instructed by HR that in no uncertain terms were forbidden from issuing any sort of reprimanding as it would be painted as being transphobic.....no it wasn't transphobia, it was a shitty person who knew they had real special privileges and could do whatever they wanted

there's so much nonsense in this.

1. your anecdotal anecdote about female and male hiring practices is based on what exactly?

2. make up a fantasy situation to prove your point much? come on, there's like 2 or 3 sectors out of the hundreds of tousands of jobs where such an application pattern could happen sometimes.
almost any job is open for any gender and applications by gender rarely exceed the 40 to 60 distribution.

also not even quotas for diversity don't turn that opportunity into a 50 50 chance for the one woman either. besides quotas not being kept on a regular basis to begin with, no one hires anyone like that. even if the goal is to increase diversity, if the only diverse applicant was unfit, but they found 2 guys going miles beyond what they were looking for, they'd hire the guys and go for another round of hiring.

2.2. childcare and elderly care jobs, those that until recent years were like 96% female, have looked more for male workers too and no one raged about that.

3. even more anecdotal evidence, what in the world would being trans have to do with that work ethic? i would bet you literally all my belongings that if you looked deep inside, you'd have dozens more of bad workers that weren't trans.
also, i don't believe that story either. that's not how protection rights work.


and in all that, lets please not ignore that 'the best gets the job' hasn't exactly been reality 100 years ago either, when there was no issue about women in the workplace at all.

 

[xpoverzion]

Because for a lot of people, gay is an immoral perversion, whether you are a religious nut, or an athiest. Just like incest, no need to be normalizing such a perversion. How would you like it if the movies started normalizing relationships between brother and sister? Or mother and son, etc.... One could take the gay argument here and say that these related family members are two consenting adults, who love each other, and aren't hurting each other, or anybody else. With the thourough libtardisation of society, it wouldn't surprise me if incest becomes the next movement that everybody supports with pride marches.

 

[gamesquest1]

there's so much nonsense in this.

1. your anecdotal anecdote about female and male hiring practices is based on what exactly?

2. make up a fantasy situation to prove your point much? come on, there's like 2 or 3 sectors out of the hundreds of tousands of jobs where such an application pattern could happen sometimes.
almost any job is open for any gender and applications by gender rarely exceed the 40 to 60 distribution.

also not even quotas for diversity don't turn that opportunity into a 50 50 chance for the one woman either. besides quotas not being kept on a regular basis to begin with, no one hires anyone like that. even if the goal is to increase diversity, if the only diverse applicant was unfit, but they found 2 guys going miles beyond what they were looking for, they'd hire the guys and go for another round of hiring.

2.2. childcare and elderly care jobs, those that until recent years were like 96% female, have looked more for male workers too and no one raged about that.

3. even more anecdotal evidence, what in the world would being trans have to do with that work ethic? i would bet you literally all my belongings that if you looked deep inside, you'd have dozens more of bad workers that weren't trans.
also, i don't believe that story either. that's not how protection rights work.


and in all that, lets please not ignore that 'the best gets the job' hasn't exactly been reality 100 years ago either, when there was no issue about women in the workplace at all.

yeah I do have several other examples of bad workers, except there wasn't ever any pushback from HR to avoid firing/disciplining them for their behaviour and because of that its never got to the point where everyone in the office was like "wtf how are they still here" but I guess its easier to just say "nah that's not been documented by a carefully crafted study so it didn't happen" lived experience is good when it suits I guess

 

[dpad_5678]

ok

1. Can people just accept one another? Acceptance is a two way street. The homo-phobics deserve acceptance too.
   
2. We're civilised human beings, so can we please all just get along and coexist happily? LOL no Rodney. Civilized? Please. People fight.
   
3. Issues like this shouldn't exist. Lots of things shouldn't exist. But they do.
   
4. The issue shouldn't be "oh, there's an LGBT character in a movie, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it", it should be "oh, that movie's got terrible reviews, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it." I have heard " There is not enough LGBT@#$% in this movie, TV show,network etc.. don't watch it. It's a two way street.

If you have a right to say or do whatever you want, than so does the other guy. You are not special.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



And damaged minds make the same bad decisions repeatedly.

Accepting homophobes would be counteracting LGBT rights. I don't accept racists, homophobes, etc.
My Uncle called a black waitress a n*gger at a restaurant when she got his order wrong. Wanna know how I accepted that?
After we left, I punched him in the face in the parking lot, walked my ass back into the building, and assisted the waitress in pressing charges.

And no, networks are not boycotted for simply not including LGBT characters. They're boycotted if they explicitly mention a stance AGAINST any gay, trans, etc person, which they should be.

 

[J-Machine]

personally i only care if it feels forced or like they did it blatently for the marketing. shoe horning in a minority is just as bad as not having them represented on purpose imo

 

[leonmagnus99]

my friend, people nowadays get triggered about nearly everything.