• Allonzee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 minutes ago

    If Republicans had their way, she’d be making the men in her party sandwiches and otherwise staying silent.

    Women, racial minorities, and log cabin Republicans are a special kind of “do you know who you’re standing with?” oddity.

    But then again Jews for Nazism(Association of German National Jews) were a thing too, until they’d outlived their usefulness as misleading tokens and it was their turn for a train ride and suddenly they weren’t.

  • kata1yst@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    They needed an “other” to reunify the fundamentalist Christian bloc against, since abortion isn’t seen by them as much of an issue these days to motivate their voters.

    And since they lost the battle of the 80s, 90s, and 00s against openly gay people and society is rapidly becoming more accepting of gay marriage, they had to shift their targets. Trans folks are an easy target because they seem so different and hard to understand. Surgeries, hormone treatments, bathrooms… Obviously interfering with ‘gods biological plan’ for themselves etc etc.

    It’s sickening. And once society manages to begin clearing the trans hurdle they will find another minority to target.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 minutes ago

      They needed an “other” to reunify the fundamentalist Christian bloc against, since abortion isn’t seen by them as much of an issue these days to motivate their voters.

      Winning can be the worst thing that happens to fascists. They defeated that enemy, and if they don’t find another, they may have to solve actual problems for a change.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 hour ago

      They, really, desperately, want to be able to roll back any gay rights. I think they are using trans (and “but the children!” arguments) as a wedge to do so.

      I think what gets them so very spun up is that culture changed, at least in their view. And by that, I mean that Hollywood seems to place something related to lgbtq in nearly every show, and so “culture” here means tv/movies/games. I sometimes wonder at the thinking behind this, it doesn’t seem to be helping them financially. It certainly seems to be building up a LOT of resentment and it shows up in our politics. Sure, maybe some of these big companies lose money on it in big ways with gigantic flops, but they can make it up elsewhere. I don’t know if the motivation is to annoy a large percentage of the country, knowing full well there is really nothing they can do about it, or if the motivation is worse than that, and if some of the big money wants to annoy enough deplorables that they’ll come out and vote for the likes of donvict, because it’s not like these deplorables have the power to change the content of movies/tv/games, and man, do some of them really, really resent that. It’s kind of bizarre because they blame Hollywood for having certain attitudes that they hate, but really, Hollywood doesn’t have nearly as much power as they seem to think…

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        49 minutes ago

        And by that, I mean that Hollywood seems to place something related to lgbtq in nearly every show, and so “culture” here means tv/movies/games

        LGBT people are something like 10-20% of the population. It would be insane for them to not be in a movie that has more than a handful of cast members. Why do you want your movies to show some weird unrealistic version of reality, one where queer people are just mysteriously absent? That’s pretty fucked up.

        I mean, sure, I could maybe see the argument for a period piece. Maybe it’s not too realistic to have a bunch of out queer characters in a drama set in Elizabethan England. But in something modern? Again, one in ten to one in five people is queer to some degree or another. Statistically speaking, if you select a cast at random of anything other than a handful of people, you’re going to have some queer people in that sample.

        Why do you want your movies/games to be less diverse than reality? Do you really need to live out some straight fetishistic fantasy that badly?

        The reason studios put LGBT content in movies and games is that a lot of people in the real world, aka their customers, are LGBT. If a studio rarely if ever did so, they would quickly and rightfully be labeled as “that bigoted studio that likes to pretend queer people don’t exist.”

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 minutes ago

          I think you missed what I was saying. Go back and re-read. I personally could care less. There are certainly instances I’ve seen where something just seemed to be done…let’s say, performatively and for a very small audience. To the point where it’s really breaking the fourth wall and stretches all credulity. I, personally, might roll my eyes, but I move on with it and I’m so unbothered by it.

          What I’m saying is that not all of America is at that point in this, and they clearly ARE very, very agitated by it. And they vent this anger onto the political scene. It also shows up in big losses for some of these companies, too. One cannot help but wonder what they are trying to accomplish. Some of the backlash they are creating seems to be almost deliberately done.

          I don’t want this to come of as me having the answers to what kind of representation should or should not be done in movies/tv/games etc…I’m just noting what is clearly playing out.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 hours ago

      And since they lost the battle of the 80s, 90s, and 00s against openly gay people and society is rapidly becoming more accepting of gay marriage, they had to shift their targets

      And if you lived through those fights and were paying attention, you can hear the exact same arguments again, just with the details filed off.

      • wisely@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        24 minutes ago

        It was glossed over because after WW2 being LGBT was still illegal so they transferred them from concentration camps to prisons instead.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        5 hours ago

        It’s glossed over because the entire LGBTQ+ community weren’t seen as valid to the Christian anglosphere, and neither were the gypsies or disabled really. This is at the time when sodomy was illegal in most of the west — you could be fired or arrested for being presumed gay — immigrants, the disabled, and poor were all completely ignored, and the majority couldn’t have cared less.

        Not a whole lot has really changed sadly.