Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on March 18, 2017, 09:44:44 AM
-
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/weekend-box-office-beauty-beast-roars-163m-thursday-986898
Disney's new release of Beuty and the Beast has a now-obligatory gay character.
Beauty is also opening around the world and should earn at least $100 million overseas. It took in a strong $11.5 million on its opening day, debuting as the No. 1 film in all but one market (Slovakia, where it was the No. 1 non-local film). It is also doing well in Russia, despite a restrictive rating slapped on the film after Condon recently revealed that Gad's character, Gaston's sidekick, is gay.
WHY? Does making a secondary character gay add ANYTHING to the story? The story is a classic -- it dates to 1740, fer cryin' out loud. Somehow, it has managed to remain a classic fairy tale for 275 years without a gay character, and suddenly it's necessary to make one of the chorus gay? Pretty clearly it's just another in Hollywood's sequence of films aimed at brainwashing kids into accepting same-sex relationships as normal.
I know one new movie I won't be supporting.
-
I am pretty sure that elderly conservative white men are not the target audience for this movie.
-
I am pretty sure that elderly conservative white men are not the target audience for this movie.
I think that's sort of my point. They're changing the story to indoctrinate the target audience.
-
I think that's sort of my point. They're changing the story to indoctrinate the target audience.
Nailed it.
Same reason they gave Supergirl an adopted sister and made her (the sister) a lesbian on the current TV show.
And why activists have been lobbying - so far unsuccessfully - to make Captain America gay in the movies.
-
I felt robbed even after watching the trailer for this. There are a thousand reasons to pretend it doesn't exist, even before getting to the gay supporting characters.
-
Mucking with the heads of our kids, part of the effort to normalize pretty much everything.
-
WHY? Does making a secondary character gay add ANYTHING to the story? The story is a classic -- it dates to 1740, fer cryin' out loud. Somehow, it has managed to remain a classic fairy tale for 275 years without a gay character, and suddenly it's necessary to make one of the chorus gay? Pretty clearly it's just another in Hollywood's sequence of films aimed at brainwashing kids into accepting same-sex relationships as normal.
You mean sort of like Dr Who made it through eight incarnations before suddenly about 40% of the creatures in the entire time continuum suddenly became gay or bi?
-
So that wasn't obvious to everyone who watched the cartoon version?
Nobody causes homoerotic attraction in weak-minded, toadyish, secondary characters like Gaston!
-
So that wasn't obvious to everyone who watched the cartoon version?
Nobody causes homoerotic attraction in weak-minded, toadyish, secondary characters like Gaston!
There was a cartoon version in 1740?
Nobody ever tells me nutten'.
-
You should be happy. Of all the characters they made gay they went with a villain. A nasty, throat-slitting type of henchman that generates no sympathy whatsoever.
I'm surprised the professional gays aren't angry about that.
-
So that wasn't obvious to everyone who watched the cartoon version?
Nobody causes homoerotic attraction in weak-minded, toadyish, secondary characters like Gaston!
The cartoon character drooled all over the buxom tavern wenches...I must have missed the man crush.
-
Mucking with the heads of our kids, part of the effort to normalize pretty much everything.
Ah, that word the Left keeps using about Trump. They do more projecting than Uncle Henry after his vacation in Albuquerque.
I'm really surprised to see this much discussion of it now, since TV has spent at least the past 5 (or 10?) years making sure there are fabulous homosexuals at every turn of the dial.
-
I have bigger things to worry about than a character that was pretty fruity in the cartoon version just being said is gay. It's not like a gratuitous anal pounding scene to drive the point home. I mean *expletive deleted*it the chick is getting all hot and bothered for a *expletive deleted*ing Sasquatch where's the anger over normalizing beastiality?
Seriously, getting all uppity about this is no different than some snot nosed college kid being triggered over reference to someone's gender.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Seriously, getting all uppity about this is no different than some snot nosed college kid being triggered over reference to someone's gender.
It is considerably different, of course.
-
It is considerably different, of course.
I'm sorry zomg the gayz!!! is a trigger, damn.
When the gay character has a gratuitous anal pounding scene call me. But outrage over this? Ffs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
That's cute, but it hardly justifies your weak attempt at moral equivalence.
-
What's cute is getting all worked up and in an outrage over a non issue. It's a freaking cartoon character. Zomg the cartoon character is kinda apparently gay. Mind indoctrination of the childrens! Threat to western culture and good ol apple pie!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What's cute is getting all worked up and in an outrage over a non issue. It's a freaking cartoon character. Zomg the cartoon character is kinda apparently gay. Mind indoctrination of the childrens! Threat to western culture and good ol apple pie!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Um. There's no denying the indoctrination has been working. Have you not noticed this in the past decade or two? Are you trying to say that the entertainment industry is not engaging in propaganda on this issue? Do you think attitudes about homosexuality have not changed in the past twenty years?
I thought everyone knew these things by now. It's certainly fait accompli.
-
Fistful, I think the reality is that the majority of Americans under age 40 and perhaps even older have no problem with gay people or see a religious prohibition against them. Whether you call that propaganda or changing social mores is a question for the individual. I fully expect that in the years to come, as the older people die off who have issues over the gays, discrimination against gays will increasingly come to be seen as old-fashioned and somewhat embarrassing, just as with old Uncle Fred ranting about black people at Thankgiving. It certainly is now, in my profession of healthcare. Let us make a note to revisit this thread in 20 years to see which sociological prediction comes to pass.
-
"the gays" :rofl:
MillCreek, what I've been noticing over the past few years is the way those moral panic artists that have been laughed to scorn for decades have turned out to be more or less correct. People said stuff like "They got the women wearin' pants now, and pretty soon nobody'll know who's a boy and who's a girl," and now such predictions have come true. They said, "That Elvis Presley's shaking hisself around on stage, and pretty soon all them kids'll be a-fornicatin' and havin' babies out o' wedlock." Whether or not Elvis is to blame, fornication has been normalized, and illegitimacy rates have soared.* Twenty years ago, lupinus's comments may not have been so obviously ignorant. It was still an open question whether media messaging would sway public opinion. Now, however, that question has been answered, and very publicly.
This isn't to suggest that entertainment media are the only factors at work. Many other institutions have been pushing the same line.
As for the notion that heterosexism is just a form of "discrimination" that will go away, once all the bad old people die; you've got it backwards. One side of the culture war is engaged in a passing fad, but let's not kid ourselves about which one.
*Soared for some demographics more than others, of course.
-
Um. There's no denying the indoctrination has been working. Have you not noticed this in the past decade or two? Are you trying to say that the entertainment industry is not engaging in propaganda on this issue? Do you think attitudes about homosexuality have not changed in the past twenty years?
I thought everyone knew these things by now. It's certainly fait accompli.
You're absolutely right.
Screw Disney. If you need me I'll be watching cartoons staring a cross dressing rabbit, and incompetent hunter, a half dressed pig, and their assorted friends .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Don't you guys know that the gay way indoctrination people are in league with the cursive matters crowd?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
-
You're absolutely right.
Screw Disney. If you need me I'll be watching cartoons staring a cross dressing rabbit, and incompetent hunter, a half dressed pig, and their assorted friends .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
-
Fistful, I think the reality is that the majority of Americans under age 40 and perhaps even older have no problem with gay people or see a religious prohibition against them. Whether you call that propaganda or changing social mores is a question for the individual. I fully expect that in the years to come, as the older people die off who have issues over the gays, discrimination against gays will increasingly come to be seen as old-fashioned and somewhat embarrassing, ...
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?
-
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?
Probably as spontaneous as the changing social attitudes and laws toward concealed carry, as opposed to a program of indoctrination through the NRA.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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...
-
In a story glorifying Stockholm syndrome and bestiality, I don't think the gay character is the worst of it...
But zomg teh gayz!
-
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...
-
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. =(
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/03/27/there-it-is-neil-degrasse-tysons-take-on-beauty-and-the-beast-is-as-hot-as-youd-expect/
-
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...
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
You remember how you brought up that 14th-century literature that talked about fornication being "run of the mill"? And didn't I respond with an example of a much older, and more influential book that said the same thing? (Ya know, the book of Genesis, where people get so randy and violent that God drowns the whole world, and starts over, and then firebombs that city with all the gay bars?)
I brought that up as a way of saying that I don't think it's a new thing. Cultures change over time, sometimes improving in some aspects, sometimes devolving in others. While I don't think the so-called sexual revolution is the end of everything (like it was for Sodom), we're clearly suffering some severe consequences.
-
While I don't think the so-called sexual revolution is the end of everything (like it was for Sodom), we're clearly suffering some severe consequences.
Well, you are suffering. Other people are enjoying them.
=D
-
Oh, I'm doing alright. My wife and I both come from intact families, and we haven't participated in the "revolution," so we've been spared. My wife gets the victims in her Sunday school class every Sunday morning. Poor kids.
-
[wipes condescension off of the monitor]
I know plenty of fornicators that are doing just fine, have intact families, and well adjusted, bright children.
Not sure why your Sunday School is attracting so many victims, but I suspect you'd find the root cause to be habits other than just sexual activity outside wedlock. There is ample evidence that one can engage in sex outside the bounds of a church sanctioned marriage not be harmed, damaged, or otherwise victimized.
-
Yeah, people recover from all sorts of mistakes. I don't recall anyone saying that doing one wrong thing automatically wrecks your whole earthly existence. I don't think anyone said that all misfortune is traceable to just one behavior. Or if they did, it wasn't me.
That doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious problems to which those behaviors contribute.
-
Perhaps I was too oblique.
Pre-marital sex isn't a mistake. It is, often, a useful tool in building a long term relationship, it can go a long way in teaching people to be emotionally involved with others in a healthy way, and is often very useful in learning to deal with the flood of hormones and emotions that late teen/early 20's years bring to humans.
Like many other useful, healthy behaviors, there are risks, and can be consequences that should be fully understood, and considered before engaging in that activity. The fact that negative outcomes can exist doesn't mean that the positive effects aren't there, or shouldn't be pursued.
You are wrong on this subject, and too poorly educated on it to realize it. Which is kinda sad.
Speaking solely for myself, I had sex with a number of young ladies before marriage, don't regret any of the relationships, and am still friends with a couple of them. That behavior takes nothing away from the intimacy and love of my marriage. The very idea of treating relationships I had with young women while we were both still growing up and finding out who we wanted to be as mistakes is insulting. Both to me, and to the ladies, whom you don't know, who shared intimate parts of their growing up with me. The arrogance of such is amazing.
When that arrogance is coupled with the smug religious overtones that you (knowingly or not) imbue in most of APS's discussions of a sexual nature it takes on an even more insulting nature.
I'm not actually upset with you, even while being insulted, because there's no real point. My point of view effectively won the culture war on this topic decades ago. I'm simply pointing out to you how rude and insulting you are being. Many of your posts make it seem like you don't really realize how you're coming across to people who might not share your experiences or point of view. I also think you tend to conflict correlation and causation among any issues, or societal ills, associated with sexuality.
-
Having a different perspective than you is not an insult, and I won't claim that you've insulted me or my religion, just because you don't agree with me.
This, on the other hand:
You are wrong on this subject, and too poorly educated on it to realize it. Which is kinda sad.
You say this, yet complain that I am arrogant and condescending. It seems like you would want to rethink that.
Unfortunately, there's no way to debate differing viewpoints on anything important without implying that someone you don't know did something wrong.