Gender Identity Is Total Nonsense

[Elliott]

5 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@ElliottNo shit its a 30 min tv show. Its cherry picking action, still really what happened to the cops. the criminal are not actors. Youre basically saying its not real cause I didnt see the cops use the shitter. Its not real cause I didnt see the cop go home and jerk off before bed.

No, the article goes into how they disproportionately showed black people clips, and no boring ones, no peaceful interactions.

Is CNN news reality?

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Hojo]

@Elliott Were the crimes they were commiting real? Or was it staged?

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Hojo said:

@Elliott Were the crimes they were commiting real? Or was it staged?

We were talking about scripted shows, "we need less gay people", by the way.

Do you not change behavior at all in front of a news camera crew?

Are the crimes on CNN news real, or staged? How many times have you been robbed by a black person? That's reality.

What if there's a show in which they only show white people being racist, no white hosts, every single white person that's on video surveillance is being racist. We air this show for 5 years on prime time, not one video of a white person not being racist. REAL live surveillance videos, no actors.

Why was it called Cops? Because it followed cops? It should have been called Criminals, do you disagree? Why didn't it show a normal day? Aired for 25 years, lots of 30 minutes to squeeze in normal days.

Is CNN news reality/realistic?

 

I'm done talking to you

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Hojo]

@ElliottGood lets keep it that way.

[Hatfort]

4 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

I brought that statistic up. I said it was LGBTQ narratives. 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/netflixs-promotion-of-lgbt-themes-to-kids-pervasive-report.html

If you turn on Netflix you will see the most wild things. A small woman effortlessly beating up 20 bodybuilders, gay people injected into the storyline for obviously no reason at all other than to push it, "them" pronouns. Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that if you scroll Netflix for a few days half the stuff is going to be this. You can't avoid it.

You brought it up, but the comment I was responding was saying that 40% of the media was trans, so I responded to her about it. Here is the context.

Quote

What issue do you have with "trans"?

Quote

My issue is thats its a 1 percent population thing thats in 40 percent of media. Here are somethings that gemini says effect 1 percent of population.

This been clarified, here the problems I see with what you say.

About your problem of seeing women defeating men, which is not LGTBQ, by the way. Fiction is often not realistic, so we can see movies like 300, where 300 men defeat an army of thousands, or the John Wick movie series, where one man beats an incredible amount of well-trained men without ever a bullet getting him. They are not realistic, we all know it, and we don't care. Your only problem is when women do these incredible feats, but that's a you problem, the writers of these stories are not targeting them exclusively for you as a viewer. The audience is varied, just get over it.

Then the supposed 40% of Netflix being LGTBQ is not really like that either. Like the example I gave before, if only 5% of Squid Game series is about a trans person, who is not the main character, and the other 95% are cisgender, but you still place the whole thing in the LGTBQ 40% bucket, this number is a manipulation of the real representation that's happening. Let's make a comparison, the 40% of the plates I eat contain carrots, but the total quantity of carrots in them is 5%, I won't say or imply that 40% I eat are carrots, that would be misleading. So when you measure fairly, there's no such overrepresentation, that's where I'm getting into.

Man, be honest, I don't recall even one example of characters using the them pronouns, it's not really something you see often. It's more of a complaint among mostly right-wing conservative commentators when you hear about it. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Hatfort

[Twentyfirst]

4 hours ago, Elliott said:

What percent of actors do you think are gay? You're literally watching a gay industry. You're probably actually gay yourself because straight people like me don't watch tv(a highly gay industry. Were straight boys in drama club at your school?)

Your 'logic' is like complaining that there are too many handicap people in the handicap olympics.

I don't remember TV and movie ever being gay. I think it used to be frowned upon or made fun of on TV. I just brought up this statistic because I saw a study about it randomly a week ago.

So you don't think it's strange for one percent of the population to own half of the screen real estate?

[Twentyfirst]

18 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

About your problem of seeing women defeating men, which is not LGTBQ, by the way. Fiction is often not realistic, so we can see movies like 300, where 300 men defeat an army of thousands, or the John Wick movie series, where one man beats an incredible amount of well-trained men without ever a bullet getting him. They are not realistic, we all know it, and we don't care. Your only problem is when women do these incredible feats, but that's a you problem, the writers of these stories are not targeting them exclusively for you as a viewer. The audience is varied, just get over it.

It's new though. When I was growing up female heroes weren't portrayed so unrealistically as they are now. So it has definitely changed recently. 

18 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Then the supposed 40% of Netflix being LGTBQ is not really like that either. Like the example I gave before, if only 5% of Squid Game series is about a trans person, who is not the main character, and the other 95% are cisgender, but you still place the whole thing in the LGTBQ 40% bucket, this number is a manipulation of the real representation that's happening. Let's make a comparison, the 40% of the plates I eat contain carrots, but the total quantity of carrots in them is 5%, I won't say or imply that 40% I eat are carrots, that would be misleading. So when you measure fairly, there's no such overrepresentation, that's where I'm getting into.

 

Bro nobody knows what cisgender is. You are in a bubble.

[Elliott]

57 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

I don't remember TV and movie ever being gay. I think it used to be frowned upon or made fun of on TV. I just brought up this statistic because I saw a study about it randomly a week ago.

So you don't think it's strange for one percent of the population to own half of the screen real estate?

You think acting and producing plays is more a straight guy thing? You were in drama club in high school? The arts ARE 'gay', you disagree?

Edited 10 minutes ago by Elliott

[Hatfort]

1 minute ago, Twentyfirst said:

It's new though. When I was growing up female heroes weren't portrayed so unrealistically as they are now. So it has definitely changed recently. 

Bro nobody knows what cisgender is. You are in a bubble.

Yeah, it's true that now more females get the unrealistic portrait that was exclusive for men before. So what? It's unrealistic in both cases. You only have a problem when females are portrayed like that, but as said, these fictional stories are not targeted exclusively at you, so get over it. 

Don't lie, anyone who's online enough these days in the US politics field knows what cisgender means. 

[Twentyfirst]

50 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You think acting is more a straight guy thing? You were in drama club in high school? The arts ARE 'gay', you disagree?

Why would straight people want to pay for entertainment to watch gay relationships?

Netflix has genres for everything. Horror, comedy, drama, crime. Why do they have to insert LGBTQ into every genre rather than just create an LGBTQ genre on its own?

[Elliott]

4 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Why would straight people want to pay for entertainment to watch gay relationships?

Then..... don't 🤷‍♂️

Actual straight people like me don't watch shows, shows are categorically gay even with no gay character. It's gay to make a play or show. You might actually be gay. They say homophobes are usually just repressing gay feelings.

New things are interesting, which sells and entertains.

Edited 6 minutes ago by Elliott

[Twentyfirst]

47 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Yeah, it's true that now more females get the unrealistic portrait that was exclusive for men before. So what? It's unrealistic in both cases. You only have a problem when females are portrayed like that, but as said, these fictional stories are not targeted exclusively at you, so get over it. 

Don't lie, anyone who's online enough these days in the US politics field knows what cisgender means. 

Not true. There are realistic and unrealistic male portrayals and people appreciate the realistic ones more.

The world is big beyond this US politics lunacy. Out of 8 billion people only 100 million have heard of "cisgender".

[Twentyfirst]

Just now, Elliott said:

Then..... don't 🤷‍♂️

I know I don't have to pay. I was asking you why would someone want to pay? For what reason?

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

I know I don't have to pay. I was asking you why would someone want to pay? For what reason?

Non homophobes find gay and trans to be a new thing, so, entertaining, interesting. It's new. A fad.

Edited 4 minutes ago by Elliott