Submitted 2 weeks ago by Hickak@lemmy.world to [deleted]
The answer is yes.
It was a pattern when you asked ~4 months ago, and when you asked five weeks ago, and when you asked two weeks ago, and when you asked about Zendaya specifically 3 days ago. At this point the more curious pattern is you asking about this over and over.
Wow. You either have a very good memory, or you have a lot of time.
In their defense, there are no stupid questions in this community.
…Although yeah that is hella repetitive. If I’m looking at their history right they haven’t talked about a single other thing for the last 3 months. Not even comments or a random
You uh, you doing a study or something Hickak? There an answer you’re looking for specifically?
It’s a pattern.
I know it seems strange from the anti-cancel-culture contingent of society, but it’s a real thing.
anti-cancel-culture
They’ve always been fine with cancel culture as long as they’re the ones doing the canceling.
Their entire political philosophy can be boiled down to an Uno Reverse card.
A Disney film or series was going to have a trans character. That’s no longer a thing. Guess why.
The series in question is Pixar’s Win Or Lose
Now it is just Lose.
I was just remembering the response to the little mermaid, seems like it’s a big target
Yes. Any movie or series with a minority member as the protagonist is attacked for being “woke” even if their minority status isn’t a plot point. There is no winning, if their minority status is the focus of the movie, people complain that there isn’t anything else to the character, if their minority status isn’t the focus, people ask why they have to be a minority if it adds nothing to the story.
People complain about remakes changing a character’s race and say they should make new and original characters for that race, but when they are featured in new and original stories, people still complain.
The only “grain of truth” I would say to the “woke movies” claims etc… Is that sometimes, studios will use minority casting, as a substitute for coming up with a good story or doing anything actually original in the plot. IE a shit movie with a diverse cast is still a shit movie.
I would suppose it also ties down to the fact that, actually trying to represent more people as a push, also started around the time that, movie costs scaled up so much that investors aren’t willing to go in on a movie that isn’t a sequel or remake of something that everyone has already seen. Movies now are more diverse, and 90% of them are crap, but the correlation isn’t causation, and that’s demonstrable by the fact that movies that have all straight white characters, are as bland and unoriginal as the ones that the right blames DEI for why they suck.
But yes… in short DEI, affirmative action, and whatever they called it before has always been the scapegoat for why everything gets worse.
I’d say it’s strongly correlated for those who attack minority representation to be right-wing, but the converse correlation is not as strong.
Yes to both. Yes, RWNJs do carry on about it all the time. But there is also a lot of fake outrage about things that either did not happen or were only brought up by a few people.
Pretty much every social media and news post where somebody “slams” something or someone has a high chance of either being completely made up or came from a 4chan thread.
"Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” – G. Michael Hopf
This best part of that quote, is that it’s the conservatives and the right-wing that are the weak men.
Weakness in that context is not about being physically strong or working hard. Its weakness that has allowed the owner class to siphon money from the workers for decades. That’s the weakness.
The blue color men from several generations ago were strong. They put in place worker protections, they gave us the minimum wage, they made it so single income could support a family. They fought, and sometimes died, for the worker.
And this made soft little boomer and younger conservative babies, who in their softness thought that they were special and hard-working, and that collective action wasn’t needed. They allowed Union protections to be stripped away because they, in their individualism, thought they didn’t need it.
And now we’ve realized that we need to be strong again, and fight again, to make up for what those weak ass babies lost us.
And we’re bitter about it.
precisely. the quote isnt necessarily wrong, but it always gets bandied around by people that cant differentiate between having a backbone and having (somebody elses) stick up their ass
I fixed it for you:
Nah. Those are not my words. It’s a quotation. You may not have experienced those in your long life.
Did you actually read the list of contradictory statements you’ve written.
Bless.
TimeTraveler@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Is it a pattern for right-wing people to attack
films, series and animations with protagonists fromminority groups? Or is this an exaggeration?Fixed it for you
The answer is “yes, no exaggeration!” To both
If they aren’t white, straight man, then it’s a DEI hire
If it’s the person is a white, straight man, then it’s that they have to work with people that aren’t
We’re going back to Shakespearean times when only men could be on stage