Author Topic: Just ... WHY?  (Read 7324 times)

lupinus

  • Southern Mod Trimutive Emeritus
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,178
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2017, 10:06:28 PM »
Those aren't really comparable.
Also, now I could be wrong, but I believe he wasn't gay in the cartoon. He just really looked up to the Gaston.
Whether you think it's ok or not, I don't think you can deny that they have been pushing it, along with all the other stuff.
Disney characters have, for YEARS, been thinly veiled gay characters. Including this one. Hell it's damn near their specialty. The only difference is they apparently just came out and said it.

I don't care for special snowflakism either, and sure there are places they push it. And in those I'd be right there with the folks calling BS. But this issue, not this thread but the issue, is looking for a reason to find outrage under every stone. We poke fun at the idiocy of it on the left, there's no reason to do the conservative version of it.
That is all. *expletive deleted*ck you all, eat *expletive deleted*it, and die in a fire. I have considered writing here a long parting section dedicated to each poster, but I have decided, at length, against it. *expletive deleted*ck you all and Hail Satan.

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,671
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2017, 02:38:33 AM »
There are much more troubling overtones being normalized in Disney stories, and Beauty and the Beast in particular, then the fact that it's OK to be gay.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,333
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2017, 09:17:11 AM »
Probably as spontaneous as the changing social attitudes and laws toward concealed carry, as opposed to a program of indoctrination through the NRA.


not sure if serious - You realize that's a very poor comparison, right?
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,333
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2017, 10:42:58 AM »
But how much of this sea change in attitude has been spontaneous, as opposed to being the result of a program of indoctrination through the schools, the media, and the entertainment industry? Let's face it -- the Bible still says that homosexuality is a sin, the Roman Catholic Church preaches against it, the Anglican Church (as opposed to the Episcopal Church USA) is opposed to it, and so are many Protestant denominations. So, if so many churches are against it, what's driving this generational acceptance if not active indoctrination?


That's an interesting question, as churches don't seem to have been driving popular opinion on morality for the last few decades. Then you ask yourself to what extent other institutions have been actively pushing the church to the cultural margins. (Not that the churches don't have their own failings to blame, as well.)
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

makattak

  • Dark Lord of the Cis
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,022
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2017, 11:16:34 AM »
But how much of this sea change in attitude has been spontaneous, as opposed to being the result of a program of indoctrination through the schools, the media, and the entertainment industry? Let's face it -- the Bible still says that homosexuality is a sin, the Roman Catholic Church preaches against it, the Anglican Church (as opposed to the Episcopal Church USA) is opposed to it, and so are many Protestant denominations. So, if so many churches are against it, what's driving this generational acceptance if not active indoctrination?

Americans estimate the percentage of the population that is gay at 25%.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/

You can claim that the changing attitudes came about spontaneously, but when I combine attitude change with the massive over-estimation of the numbers, I come up with a different result.

Might that be because it's been shoved in their face, incessantly, for the past 30+ years?



Partly this is because something that 1/4 of the population does, is clearly not abnormal. Think of people's reaction to left-handers. Most people think it's an oddity and are interested in how we deal with the world. (When they notice we're left-handed.) Left handed people are 3-5 times the gay population, but most Americans think it's less than half.
I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you also were meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2017, 11:21:56 AM »
Honestly, I think the "gay agenda" has reached it's high-water mark. Or actually peaked a year or two ago.

Mainly because it isn't a "gay agenda" insomuch as it's a "Leftist Agenda". Always looking for a vehicle to cry-bully with, or a group to champion. And they've ridden that horse about as far as it can go.

I think the biggest single indication it's run it's course was the Pulse nightclub shooting, where the collective mind of the Left seemed to undergo a small schism, and then ultimately gravitate more towards battling "Islamophobia" as the cause du-jour. And within Leftist/SJW circles, there was also a rising tide of blather about "gay privilege" that under "intersectionality" gays were often "too white" and "too rich", associated with gentrification of the new hip/trendy urban neighborhoods and displacing the original poor people of color... or whatever.

Aside from "Islam being the new black" focus seems to be on transgender now. Which is an even smaller weaker horse, gays being about 3% of the population, and transgender probably well <1%. Especially if you only count the "real cases", whether you think it's real or not. I just mean the ones who at least think it's real for them on a gut-level, and aren't just doing it as a form of counter-culture protest or to be edgy. (Androgeny has a long history of being cutting-edge fashionable, from the high heel shoe being menswear for horses/stirrups being edgy for women, to mop-top haircuts in the 60's with the Beatles etc.)

In comparison, Islam has got legs.. there being a few billion or whatever of them in the world. The Left won't run out of Muslims to use as SJW cannon fodder for some time. If ever.

In the specific instance of The Beauty and the Beast movie, the whole thing seems to be a case of the religious or social Right needing to pick it's battles better. Just by picking up the issue at all, and letting the press run with it, they've lost that battle IMO. By criticizing or opposing it, they're  generating "buzz". Invoking the theory of "there's no such thing as bad publicity". And having them "lose" if Disney's box-office receipts are big. Which they seem to be. And that weakens all of us where the fight belongs, like on the true libertarian/conservative issues of freedom of association and from association, like the "Christian bakers/gay wedding cake" type of issues.
I promise not to duck.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,622
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2017, 12:26:33 PM »
Americans estimate the percentage of the population that is gay at 25%.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/

You can claim that the changing attitudes came about spontaneously, but when I combine attitude change with the massive over-estimation of the numbers, I come up with a different result.

Might that be because it's been shoved in their face, incessantly, for the past 30+ years?



Partly this is because something that 1/4 of the population does, is clearly not abnormal. Think of people's reaction to left-handers. Most people think it's an oddity and are interested in how we deal with the world. (When they notice we're left-handed.) Left handed people are 3-5 times the gay population, but most Americans think it's less than half.
I haven't heard anyone think the gay numbers were that high.  I have heard a lot of people assume 10% or so.  I have heard more realistic numbers at less than 3% and maybe even down at 1% or less. 

Yes, hollywood and liberals in general have been pushing homosexuals as normal for decades.  It is one of a number of cultural themes Hollywood has pushed over the years. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,009
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2017, 12:40:13 PM »
According to one alternate lifestylist I know, the number of gay people in the US is actually very close to 100%, but 99% of them are in the closet and are unwilling to accept who they are.

In other words, this guy (my former coworker who was fired for sleeping on the job and who was in complete denial about it) truly believes that the hetero community is the minority, and the only reason it was "the majority" is organized religious brainwashing.

 :facepalm:
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

KD5NRH

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,926
  • I'm too sexy for you people.
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2017, 02:32:55 PM »
Which is an even smaller weaker horse, gays being about 3% of the population, and transgender probably well <1%. Especially if you only count the "real cases", whether you think it's real or not. I just mean the ones who at least think it's real for them on a gut-level, and aren't just doing it as a form of counter-culture protest or to be edgy.

I only count the ones who are truly not XX or XY, or are otherwise born with indeterminate genitalia, (and not correctly identified and adjusted long before they comprehend it) which, IIRC, is something under .08%, or 1 in 1250 people.

Fitz

  • Face-melter
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,254
  • Floyd Rose is my homeboy
    • My Book
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2017, 12:19:45 AM »
Mucking with the heads of our kids, part of the effort to normalize pretty much everything.

In a story glorifying Stockholm syndrome and bestiality, I don't think the gay character is the worst of it...
Fitz

---------------
I have reached a conclusion regarding every member of this forum.
I no longer respect any of you. I hope the following offends you as much as this thread has offended me:
You are all awful people. I mean this *expletive deleted*ing seriously.

-MicroBalrog

lupinus

  • Southern Mod Trimutive Emeritus
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,178
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2017, 08:17:45 AM »
In a story glorifying Stockholm syndrome and bestiality, I don't think the gay character is the worst of it...
But zomg teh gayz!
That is all. *expletive deleted*ck you all, eat *expletive deleted*it, and die in a fire. I have considered writing here a long parting section dedicated to each poster, but I have decided, at length, against it. *expletive deleted*ck you all and Hail Satan.

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2017, 11:12:58 AM »
In a story glorifying Stockholm syndrome and bestiality, I don't think the gay character is the worst of it...

And we have a winner...
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,333
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2017, 11:24:32 AM »
In a story glorifying Stockholm syndrome and bestiality, I don't think the gay character is the worst of it...


Bestiality not so much. The audience knows that he's basically a disfigured human, and (if Wikipedia's description of the plot is accurate on this point) the girl in the story also knows it. And it's not as if kids are going to go out and have sex with talking beast-men. (They're not real.) Besides, the "Beast" just represents a man with bad manners, or a hot temper, or whatever.

As for Stockholm syndrome, we could talk about that as a common theme, going back (at least) to Greek myth. And maybe it's not such a good thing. In any case, isn't his holding her hostage just a part of the whole beastliness thing?

But you know what? Those are integral to the story. If a parent doesn't want to subject their kids to those themes, then they're not going in for Beauty & the Beast to begin with.

Sorry, Scout. You do not have a winner.  =(
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

lupinus

  • Southern Mod Trimutive Emeritus
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,178
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2017, 11:43:38 AM »
So the beastiality and Stockholm syndrome are fine because they are core parts of the story. The entire story is formed around them but eh, whatever, it's totally cool.

But calling a spade a spade and making a minor bad guy character gay is part of the downfall of western civilization.

Gotcha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is all. *expletive deleted*ck you all, eat *expletive deleted*it, and die in a fire. I have considered writing here a long parting section dedicated to each poster, but I have decided, at length, against it. *expletive deleted*ck you all and Hail Satan.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,333
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2017, 01:03:43 PM »
So the beastiality and Stockholm syndrome are fine because they are core parts of the story. The entire story is formed around them but eh, whatever, it's totally cool.

But calling a spade a spade and making a minor bad guy character gay is part of the downfall of western civilization.

Gotcha.


In a word, no.

In more words, there's no bestiality in the story. Even if there were, if you don't want to see a story about bestiality and Stockholm syndrome, then you wouldn't watch that movie to begin with. But it doesn't have bestiality, in any case.

What's actually happening is that you can't go see the film adaptation of a traditional fairy tale, whatever its merits, unless you also want to suffer through the gayisOK message that's been tacked onto it. They just gotta mess with stuff, don't they?
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,671
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #40 on: March 21, 2017, 01:39:53 PM »
I'm starting to think Fistful should just stay out of Movie Theaters.

I actually understand why you're annoyed, even if I disagree with you, but it's a little humorous that you seem to be upset that storytellers are using children's folklore to sell the storyteller's morality to children and teach them how to treat other people and interact with society. 


I'm pretty sure that's the WHOLE POINT of a Fairy Tale.  Treat people well and life is good, treat them poorly and you'l be a frog/beast/eyes clawed out by eagles/whatever.


lupinus

  • Southern Mod Trimutive Emeritus
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,178
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2017, 03:12:35 PM »

In a word, no.

In more words, there's no bestiality in the story. Even if there were, if you don't want to see a story about bestiality and Stockholm syndrome, then you wouldn't watch that movie to begin with. But it doesn't have bestiality, in any case.

What's actually happening is that you can't go see the film adaptation of a traditional fairy tale, whatever its merits, unless you also want to suffer through the gayisOK message that's been tacked onto it. They just gotta mess with stuff, don't they?
You do realize many of Disneys villains have been very wink wink nudge nudge gay right? There's literally nothing new here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is all. *expletive deleted*ck you all, eat *expletive deleted*it, and die in a fire. I have considered writing here a long parting section dedicated to each poster, but I have decided, at length, against it. *expletive deleted*ck you all and Hail Satan.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,333
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2017, 03:44:43 PM »
I'm starting to think Fistful should just stay out of Movie Theaters.

I actually understand why you're annoyed, even if I disagree with you, but it's a little humorous that you seem to be upset that storytellers are using children's folklore to sell the storyteller's morality to children and teach them how to treat other people and interact with society.  


I'm pretty sure that's the WHOLE POINT of a Fairy Tale.  Treat people well and life is good, treat them poorly and you'l be a frog/beast/eyes clawed out by eagles/whatever.


It will please you to know I've not been to a theater in at least 12 years, if not longer. As for me being "annoyed," or "upset," well if chiming in on an internet thread means I'm upset, then I guess we're both upset.

I think it's "a little humorous" that you didn't consider that maybe I'm allowed to be displeased by the false morality being peddled by our current fairy-tale movie magicians (heh - fairy tale; how appropriate!  :lol: ). I find it a little sad that anyone thinks it a kindness to encourage a sinner (say, a homosexual) to get comfortable in their sin. The way I learned it, that's a form of hatred.


You do realize many of Disneys villains have been very wink wink nudge nudge gay right? There's literally nothing new here


No. Such as?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 06:38:47 PM by fistful »
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,333
  • My prepositions are on/in
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

White Horseradish

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,792
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2017, 10:27:13 AM »
So... People are all hot and bothered over a gay character in a fairy tale...   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Whether or not Elvis is to blame, fornication has been normalized, and illegitimacy rates have soared.

You really should read Canterbury Tales if you think fornication is anything new...
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Robert A Heinlein

TommyGunn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,956
  • Stuck in full auto since birth.
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #45 on: March 28, 2017, 10:31:48 AM »
So... People are all hot and bothered over a gay character in a fairy tale...   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


You really should read Canterbury Tales if you think fornication is anything new...

Wife of Bath's Tale ....     :-X :lol:
MOLON LABE   "Through ignorance of what is good and what is bad, the life of men is greatly perplexed." ~~ Cicero

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,333
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #46 on: March 28, 2017, 11:00:01 AM »
So... People are all hot and bothered over a gay character in a fairy tale...   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


You really should read Canterbury Tales if you think fornication is anything new...


I read about fornication in a book much older than that. I think it was called Genesis or something.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

White Horseradish

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,792
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #47 on: March 28, 2017, 11:33:54 AM »
I read about fornication in a book much older than that. I think it was called Genesis or something.

Sure.

In Canterbury Tales, though, it's described as a pretty run of the mill thing.
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Robert A Heinlein

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,333
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #48 on: March 28, 2017, 02:29:47 PM »
Sure.

In Canterbury Tales, though, it's described as a pretty run of the mill thing.


I'm still not sure what that has to do with the recent "sexual revolution." Are you saying that Chaucer's literature is the norm to which we should aspire?
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

White Horseradish

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,792
Re: Just ... WHY?
« Reply #49 on: March 29, 2017, 01:41:59 AM »
I'm still not sure what that has to do with the recent "sexual revolution." Are you saying that Chaucer's literature is the norm to which we should aspire?

I am saying that what you seem to think is some new thing is actually centuries old. And it hasn't been the ruin of all everything that you are making it out to be.




Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Robert A Heinlein