How is what you’re imagining any better than simply “gays womens diableds good” as a lazy and simple answer, so you can put the blame for society’s problems on other people, and take no responsibility for learning and growing as people yourselves?
On the one hand, having representation limited to villainous roles is bad. (See early depictions of black people and think about “Cowboys vs. Indians”)
On the other hand…there are plenty of women in villainous roles. I can also think of a few notable gay and disables villains.
Hell, Breaking Bad is a great example of having all of them, and even though it aired before “woke” became a bad word to some people, nobody ever complained about it being too progressive or anything.
I can also think of a few notable gay and disables villains.
Basically every Disney animated movie? Sure the villains weren’t boning other dudes or anything, but there was a lot of “queer coding” going on.
The trick is to not imply that someone is a villain because of their gender, gayness, ethnicity, etc. Villain that happens to be gay, whatever. Villain that’s gay and really creepy about it and seemingly motivated by their gayness to be evil… yeah that’s really bad.
But I think things have improved a lot. Giancarlo Esposito is the villain in basically everything now, and I don’t think anyone is complaining. The dude is just really good at playing villains, so why not? It’s not his ethnicity that makes him a villain, it’s just that he’s really good at playing a cold and calculating sociopath and people enjoy his performance.
…as a lazy and simple answer, so you can put the blame for society’s problems on other people, and take no responsibility for learning and growing as people yourselves?
It’s bad because, exactly as you have displayed, people will hyper focus on trigger words, while ignoring everything else that gets said.
Ok, but your original comment was pretty much a non-sequitor.
Saying that it’s bad to say that those groups of people are bad doesn’t mean that anyone is saying that those groups of people are good as a simple answer. But frankly, saying those groups are good is probably a better answer than saying they’re bad.
We have homophobes, misogynists, and ableists, so there are definitely people who explicitly think those groups are bad.
Meanwhile, the people advocating for the rights of those groups are not saying that all people in those groups are virtuous and can do no wrong… they’re advocating for equal rights and opportunities.
Besides. I’m fine with “women are good” being the starting point rather than “women are bad”…lol
It’s only a non-sequitur if you hyperfixate on the part inside quotes while ignoring the central thrust: That attempting to reduce large populations down to simple catch phrases will never end well in the long run. Too many people argue fervently over how we should label broad segments of society, to the point that they attack anyone suggesting that they shouldn’t be doing that by assuming those people must just want the opposite, but equally reductive, perspective to be true.
As I recall, the comment you replied to said that we shouldn’t label broad segments of the population in a certain way. Then you said we shouldn’t label broad segments of the population in a different way.
As I mentioned, homophobia, misogyny, and ableism are all well-documented phenomenon. The original comment suggested those things are bad. Since they involve labeling broad strokes of the population as bad (specifically, gay people, women, and people with disabilities), I take it you’re opposed to those things?
How is what you’re imagining any better than simply “gays womens diableds good” as a lazy and simple answer, so you can put the blame for society’s problems on other people, and take no responsibility for learning and growing as people yourselves?
But this is more case of “gays women disabled people exist”
Assholes: “how could you!? All stories should be about me, and only me!”
When they are rarely or never the bad guys, they are saying more than just that they exist.
It’s impossible to regularly be the bad guy if you are not regularly an acting participant of the story, or even in a position of power.
Do you actually believe Princess Peach is “women are better” propaganda? Nice stats you got…
On the one hand, having representation limited to villainous roles is bad. (See early depictions of black people and think about “Cowboys vs. Indians”)
On the other hand…there are plenty of women in villainous roles. I can also think of a few notable gay and disables villains.
Hell, Breaking Bad is a great example of having all of them, and even though it aired before “woke” became a bad word to some people, nobody ever complained about it being too progressive or anything.
Basically every Disney animated movie? Sure the villains weren’t boning other dudes or anything, but there was a lot of “queer coding” going on.
The trick is to not imply that someone is a villain because of their gender, gayness, ethnicity, etc. Villain that happens to be gay, whatever. Villain that’s gay and really creepy about it and seemingly motivated by their gayness to be evil… yeah that’s really bad.
But I think things have improved a lot. Giancarlo Esposito is the villain in basically everything now, and I don’t think anyone is complaining. The dude is just really good at playing villains, so why not? It’s not his ethnicity that makes him a villain, it’s just that he’s really good at playing a cold and calculating sociopath and people enjoy his performance.
How is what you’re doing not a lazy, oversimplified excuse to avoid having to actually look at others as real people?
Threads like this are really helpful for identifying unreachable people (yes, I mean you)
Why is it wrong to say women, gay people, and people with disabilities are good?
In media, there are villains who are women, gay, or who have disabilities, so it’s not like they’re exclusively “good guys”…
It’s bad because, exactly as you have displayed, people will hyper focus on trigger words, while ignoring everything else that gets said.
Ok, but your original comment was pretty much a non-sequitor.
Saying that it’s bad to say that those groups of people are bad doesn’t mean that anyone is saying that those groups of people are good as a simple answer. But frankly, saying those groups are good is probably a better answer than saying they’re bad.
We have homophobes, misogynists, and ableists, so there are definitely people who explicitly think those groups are bad.
Meanwhile, the people advocating for the rights of those groups are not saying that all people in those groups are virtuous and can do no wrong… they’re advocating for equal rights and opportunities.
Besides. I’m fine with “women are good” being the starting point rather than “women are bad”…lol
It’s only a non-sequitur if you hyperfixate on the part inside quotes while ignoring the central thrust: That attempting to reduce large populations down to simple catch phrases will never end well in the long run. Too many people argue fervently over how we should label broad segments of society, to the point that they attack anyone suggesting that they shouldn’t be doing that by assuming those people must just want the opposite, but equally reductive, perspective to be true.
As I recall, the comment you replied to said that we shouldn’t label broad segments of the population in a certain way. Then you said we shouldn’t label broad segments of the population in a different way.
As I mentioned, homophobia, misogyny, and ableism are all well-documented phenomenon. The original comment suggested those things are bad. Since they involve labeling broad strokes of the population as bad (specifically, gay people, women, and people with disabilities), I take it you’re opposed to those things?