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

[gamesquest1]

my friend, people nowadays get triggered about nearly everything.

that's it, I'm triggered

 

[DarthDub]

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.

And here we have the tolerant left. You just proved Mike's point on people being violent. Are you not self-aware enough to realize that maybe to get along, we shouldn't resort to violence. I can respect differing opinions, can you?

 

[SG854]

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.'

Businesses do not care about race or gender. Their main concern is money. Who ever can produce the most wealth for them. If blacks had an innate ability that makes them more effective over whites in certain jobs, then they would mostly hire blacks. Like the NBA. If women produced more wealth, or more effective in certain areas, or more likely to apply for certain jobs then they would get hired over men, and those jobs would be female dominant. Like in psychiatry, family medicine, pediatrics and gynecology. Hardly low paying minimum wage jobs.

When you hire 20 people to make music for you, but only 2 gets the majority attention, because they have quirks and talents that makes them stand out, then it is smarter to invest all your money on those 2 people, to advertise, promote and make prettier music videos, and mostly ignore the other 18 because that will generate you the most profits. Its better to invest in them to make them even better and produce you even more money. There is unequal investment, but when you have limited money, investing on what will generate you the most wealth is the smarter thing to do. Because if you invest in people who do not get much attention it will be costly and you will loose lots amounts of money.

Same applies with investing and hiring certain groups of people that have talents that will make you the most money.

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

Correct, there are studies where women are hired at a 2 to 1 ratio over men in STEM, and even start with higher pay then men with same qualifications. The reason is because they want to avoid lawsuits. Since women hardly go into STEM, women is like a rarity every business is trying to compete for, so they are more in demand. Having as many women as you can makes you look better when someone complains about sexism. You can claim see we have a bunch of women here we are not sexist. Business compete hiring women so they offer higher pay, and say come work for me instead of over there and we will give you more money.

Managers usually describe Women as walking lawsuits waiting to happen. They don't wan't hire women because women more often sue then men, but at the same time if they don't hire women, they would loose business because people would protest and not buy their products. Thats why twitter is full of businesses basically gloating and making a scene saying, see we treat women equally here we have lots of women.

 

[Minox]

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

There was a study done in Australia using blind recruitment that appeared to show that female candidates were being favored over male ones.

 

[dpad_5678]

No

And here we have the tolerant left. You just proved Mike's point on people being violent. Are you not self-aware enough to realize that maybe to get along, we shouldn't resort to violence. I can respect differing opinions, can you?

Except I'm not a violent person, but I won't allow my 6'3 towering Uncle to get away with abusing a 5'1 waitress (she was as tall as my sister, and she's 5'1). Normally I'd try to settle things verbally, but I've seen my very own flesh and blood have racial outbursts like these. No more. Alt Righties like him need to know their place. Everyone else > Racists.

Yes, and the left is the violent side. LAWL.

 

[Minox]

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.

How is violence going to teach your uncle anything? Using violence on someone that you disagree with to make them not do it again is just using fear tactics to force your will through.

 

[gamesquest1]

its all anecdotal, I have heard anecdotal evidence can just be called made up

I think sometimes people want to believe there is rampant racism everywhere to justify their outrage, I have a feeling if your uncle was a blatant racist you would have found out about it before you go chill out and haver a nice meal with them, let alone continuing to have your meal and only confronting him once you left, maybe all the racism is hiding in these peoples heads so they think everyone thinks like that

 

[dpad_5678]

How is violence going to teach your uncle anything? Using violence on someone that you disagree with to make them not do it again is just using fear tactics to force your will through.

I've tried having civilized discussions with them before, but I'm not taken seriously because they're devout Catholics (surprise surprise, lol) and I'm an agnostic. I got fed up with them feeling that they're above everyone. Eventually, non violent people have a breaking point as well and that was mine. He was charged and lost his job and IBM after I personally emailed his supervisor about the incident.

So, yeah, having your ass handed to you by a 5'11 95lb 16 year old, losing your reputation, and losing your job should be a big wake up call that what you're doing does. not. work.

its all anecdotal, I have heard anecdotal evidence can just be called made up

I think sometimes people want to believe there is rampant racism everywhere to justify their outrage, I have a feeling if your uncle was a blatant racist you would have found out about it before you go chill out and haver a nice meal with them

Except he's not the only person in the family, and it wasn't a one-on-one dinner with him. There are some decent people in my family but most are trashy (I literally have to teach my younger cousins not to hate gay people, while the rest of my family, including their very own parents, are trying to teach them the opposite).
As I said, I don't support violence, but my generation (I'm 16, but I don't know what my generation is officially called) is much more educated than, say, people who were born in the 50's. I try to educate people are completely incompetent (ie racists, homophobes), and most of the time I do not succeed at doing so. If they want to be racist, fine. If they want to use the N word privately, fine. But once you start to racially abuse someone in front of me in public, you bet your ass there will be an issue.

TL;DR: I tried to educate them. They don't wanna hear it. They're no longer "ignorant", they're idiotic and a stain on society.

 

[gamesquest1]

I've tried having civilized discussions with them before, but I'm not taken seriously because they're devout Catholics (surprise surprise, lol) and I'm an agnostic. I got fed up with them feeling that they're above everyone. Eventually, non violent people have a breaking point as well and that was mine. He was charged and lost his job and IBM after I personally emailed his supervisor about the incident.

So, yeah, having your ass handed to you by a 5'11 95lb 16 year old, losing your reputation, and losing your job should be a big wake up call that what you're doing does. not. work.


Except he's not the only person in the family, and it wasn't a one-on-one dinner with him. There are some decent people in my family but most are trashy (I literally have to teach my younger cousins not to hate gay people, while the rest of my family, including their very own parents, are trying to teach them the opposite).
As I said, I don't support violence, but my generation (I'm 16, but I don't know what my generation is officially called) is much more educated than, say, people who were born in the 50's. I try to educate people are completely incompetent (ie racists, homophobes), and most of the time I do not succeed at doing so. If they want to be racist, fine. If they want to use the N word privately, fine. But once you start to racially abuse someone in front of me in public, you bet your ass there will be an issue.

TL;DR: I tried to educate them. They don't wanna hear it. They're no longer "ignorant", they're idiotic and a stain on society.

honestly if that was me I would have confronted him in the store and left and that's all there is too it, feel free to be a witness if the waitress wanted to press charges, but idk its seems like a weird messed up scenario, I can only judge from personal experience, being in a different country I guess there would be difference in culture , but I don't think I have ever heard anyone act like that in public except for weird drunk louts having arguments with people (and they generally don't seem like the kinda people who would be holding down a job or any position of power anyway)

 

[dpad_5678]

honestly if that was me I would have confronted him in the store and left and that's all there is too it, feel free to be a witness if the waitress wanted to press charges, but idk its seems like a weird messed up scenario, I can only judge from personal experience, being in a different country I guess there would be difference in culture , but I don't think I have ever heard anyone act like that in public except for weird drunk louts having arguments with people (and they generally don't seem like the kinda people who would be holding down a job or any position of power anyway)

Some (not most or all, but a good chunk) of Americans have absolutely no filter. They feel the first amendment entitles them to spew out ever abusive, disruptive, and aggressive thought or opinion that they have. I've seen it first hand in public many times.
How should I put this......
"I don't like xxx" = Free Speech
"N**ger" = Hate Speech

And yes, they drink a lot.

 

[FAST6191]

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."

Has anybody really been advocating for that in this thread or are you just doing a strawman?
Most people seem to be going with a variation on the theme of "write whatever characters you want, if you include them to fill some quota then historically there are an awful lot of examples of you ending with weakly characterised characters that add little to the story you are telling", some also find a problem with it on an intellectual level (see the equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome thing). I want good stories and weak characters and go nowhere plot threads and padding do not make for such a thing.

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.

Incest is a harmful act, fumbling genitals matching your own can be just as loving and whatnot as fumbling genitals not like your own. To that end your analogy fails. If it is a perversion then what is it a perversion of? Nature? Pah we ignore that all the time. Religion? Who cares, it is of less and less relevance by the day and most countries purposely distance their law making aka ethics from it.

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.

While it certainly makes you a dick I am at a loss for what charges could be pressed in that instance, and indeed I would be troubled at there being the ability to press charges for basic words.

 

[Sliter]

I just think that it's bad when they get a straigth character and make a " new version that is LGBT" instead of a new character at all...

or even worse, when they do it, with a bad reference... like the last power rangers 2017 movie, Trini was lgbt there, but why? if it had to be someone must be Billy! the actor was gay and bullied for it back there, he deservered that reference...
This way it look ttally forced, since looks like they haventt even thinked about it lol

 

[dpad_5678]

While it certainly makes you a dick I am at a loss for what charges could be pressed in that instance, and indeed I would be troubled at there being the ability to press charges for basic words.

Gets order, realized he was given Coors Light instead of Heineken, and he got a cheese steak instead of the ravioli he ordered.
Sits up, gets way too close to the waitress (12 inches, I'd say) and says in a not-so-loud yet no-so-quiet voice "Of cousre a n**ger's gonna get my order wrong."
His body language was very strange; it's like he's in a permanent state of intoxication (always sweating, can't maintain proper eye contact, slight stumble while walking).

He was charged with Harassment and Disturbing The Peace. Should've gotten jail time, but Florida's a state full of idiots.

I just think that it's bad when they get a straigth character and make a " new version that is LGBT" instead of a new character at all...

or even worse, when they do it, with a bad reference... like the last power rangers 2017 movie, Trini was lgbt there, but why? if it had to be someone must be Billy! the actor was gay and bullied for it back there, he deservered that reference...
This way it look ttally forced, since looks like they haventt even thinked about it lol

I agree 100%, although nothing in that movie made any sense at all.

 

[xpoverzion]

Has anybody really been advocating for that in this thread or are you just doing a strawman?
Most people seem to be going with a variation on the theme of "write whatever characters you want, if you include them to fill some quota then historically there are an awful lot of examples of you ending with weakly characterised characters that add little to the story you are telling", some also find a problem with it on an intellectual level (see the equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome thing). I want good stories and weak characters and go nowhere plot threads and padding do not make for such a thing.



Incest is a harmful act, fumbling genitals matching your own can be just as loving and whatnot as fumbling genitals not like your own. To that end your analogy fails. If it is a perversion then what is it a perversion of? Nature? Pah we ignore that all the time. Religion? Who cares, it is of less and less relevance by the day and most countries purposely distance their law making aka ethics from it.


While it certainly makes you a dick I am at a loss for what charges could be pressed in that instance, and indeed I would be troubled at there being the ability to press charges for basic words.

"if it is a perversion (being gay) then what is it a perversion of??"

Incest is a detrimental perversion because if everybody started doing it, the population would be severely hindered with genetic disorders. Nature makes it so that this is obvious, and to be avoided by intelligent creatures. Being gay... Well let's just say that if everybody was gay, then the human species would go extinct!! That makes it more of a perversion, and threat to the vitality of a species than incest. So for this reason, nature has it built into us innately to view it as a perversion. And don't give me the argument that nature creates gays, so nature must be selecting for it in some way. Nature also creates pedophiles, down syndrome, and 1000's of other diseases and mental disorders. Homosexuality is just another mistake among many that nature can make.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

How is violence going to teach your uncle anything? Using violence on someone that you disagree with to make them not do it again is just using fear tactics to force your will through.

Believe it or not, it appears to be doing quite a bit for the white supremacist community. I've seen stories of key players in the movement being effectively forced out of society by various figures, including losing job interviews, family, and the ability to go anywhere without fear of being tackled (I'd pull up some sources but Google doesn't want to give me anything except Richard Spencer when I type in "alt-right afraid of being punched")

 

[Old]

Believe it or not, it appears to be doing quite a bit for the white supremacist community. I've seen stories of key players in the movement being effectively forced out of society by various figures, including losing job interviews, family, and the ability to go anywhere without fear of being tackled (I'd pull up some sources but Google doesn't want to give me anything except Richard Spencer when I type in "alt-right afraid of being punched")

Beating down nazis - both figuratively AND literally - is not only a pleasure it's a DUTY! Hell, I've got buddies online that regularly 'out' these pigs, causing them to lose their jobs/homes/lives/etc. K-A-R-M-A!

That spencer gif is a favorite. Never gets old. I hope it's one of (many) things that plays on a continuous loop in the dotard's cell.

 

[Dominator211]

While we have come a long way in tolerating LGBTQ people. But it is still not perfect we need to work together and people that cant support them are blind to tolerance and as long as those people prevail there will be more intolerance.

 

[FAST6191]

"if it is a perversion (being gay) then what is it a perversion of??"

Incest is a detrimental perversion because if everybody started doing it, the population would be severely hindered with genetic disorders. Nature makes it so that this is obvious, and to be avoided by intelligent creatures. Being gay... Well let's just say that if everybody was gay, then the human species would go extinct!! That makes it more of a perversion, and threat to the vitality of a species than incest. So for this reason, nature has it built into us innately to view it as a perversion. And don't give me the argument that nature creates gays, so nature must be selecting for it in some way. Nature also creates pedophiles, down syndrome, and 1000's of other diseases and mental disorders. Homosexuality is just another mistake among many that nature can make.

"If everybody started doing it"
Same could be said of any number of things (if everybody gave up farming, if everybody decided to do one speciality, if everybody focused on their career until they were 50 and thus infertile...). It is not the case though.

Incest has demonstrable and immediate negative effects, fumbling genitals matching your own does not have any above and beyond baseline.
Your analogy still fails.

Equally on nature selecting for it then there is that argument too (the grandparent effect/it takes a village to raise a child, general notions of specialisation and more all go into that one), not that I care about it here.

"So for this reason, nature has it built into us innately to view it as a perversion"
That sounds like something we can test for. Anecdotally I have seen multiple kids ask and by utterly nonphased by people with matching genitals show affection, some of which went on to grow up and find themselves heterosexual) which would point at it being a learned behaviour at least a far as observing. What happens when you consider it for yourself may be a different thing.

"is just another mistake among many that nature can make"
In psychiatry you will tend to find disorders described with lines like "[description of behaviours] which is causing harm or distress to themselves or others". Given no real additional harms or distress is observed in many people fumbling matching genitals we appear to have trouble reaching disorder levels.

Beating down nazis - both figuratively AND literally - is not only a pleasure it's a DUTY! Hell, I've got buddies online that regularly 'out' these pigs, causing them to lose their jobs/homes/lives/etc. K-A-R-M-A!

That spencer gif is a favorite. Never gets old. I hope it's one of (many) things that plays on a continuous loop in the dotard's cell.

Political violence is not a good thing, and I absolutely can not support it when violence is not threatened or happening first.

 

[Old]

While we have come a long way in tolerating LGBTQ people. But it is still not perfect we need to work together and people that cant support them are blind to tolerance and as long as those people prevail there will be more intolerance.

"Tolerating", eh? Rather condescending/uninformed wording. Or, you could simply do the normal/psychologically sound thing, and just not give a shit what consenting adults do with their genitals.

It's terribly disheartening that we are still even having this conversation in 2018, ffs, tsk tsk tsk....'thanks' yet again, rust belt/culturally backwards mindsets, sigh....
"Them darned QUEERS make me awful uncom'ferble!!"

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Political violence is not a good thing, and I absolutely can not support it when violence is not threatened or happening first.

I'd normally agree, except that any violence coming to white supremacists/alt-right/nazis is retaliatory in nature, considering their ideology calls for entire subsets of the population to be wiped out