homophobes and good ole MC posters sure did not disappoint.
Some days I hope one day we will progress to a society that more easily sees the larger picture of life, but then again, examples like this show otherwise.
The only thing that "triggered" me was killing off Bill before Joel and Ellie even got there. He was one of my favorite characters in the game and I loved his banter with Ellie. The gay love story was fine in itself, but ultimately just ends up feeling pointless.
sharemaybe they just don't like it.
are the not allowed to express themselves?
a whole episode dedicated to telling a love story was a pretty bad idea if you ask me. The fact that the couple is gay doesn't suddenly make it interesting or more entertaining
shareHow do people mess up something so straight forward....
shareIf pushing sexually deviant fetishes everywhere is your definition of "progress" then your "progress" is a bad thing that needs to be stopped.
shareYou think this episode showed a "sexually deviant fetish"?
The hilarious thing about the Last of Us story between Bill and Frank is that it subverts typical accusations and stereotypes about hedonistic LGBT relationships. It actually couldn't be more conventional and healthy if it tried.
I'm saying homosexuality itself is a sexual deviancy/fetish that should be kept in the shadows instead of being promoted as normal in the media. Whatever tactics they used in order to promote it on this specific episode are irrelevant.
shareWhy should it be "kept in the shadows"? What business is it of yours what art people want to make?
shareBecause I say it's a bad thing. The same way walking in public with your dick out is a bad thing. I don't start asking what business is it of mine whether someone wants their penis in public display or not.
You're asking what business is it of mine to have my own opinion, the answer is because I say so.
What business is it of theirs to push sexual deviancy into the public space? Should we just allow anything to be pushed out to the masses and call it "art"? Should pedo depictions be "art"? Do you draw the line at any point?
Then don't watch it. Why should you get to control the lives of other people? No-one is breaking into your home and forcing you to watch TV shows with gay people in it. This is completely incomparable to public street displays of nudity.
Go and move to Iran or Russia if that is the kind of society you want. You are a fascist.
Because I say it's a bad thing. The same way walking in public with your dick out is a bad thing. I don't start asking what business is it of mine whether someone wants their penis in public display or not.
You're asking what business is it of mine to have my own opinion, the answer is because I say so.
What business is it of theirs to push sexual deviancy into the public space? Should we just allow anything to be pushed out to the masses and call it "art"?
Should pedo depictions be "art"? Do you draw the line at any point?
Why should you get to control the lives of other people?
This is completely incomparable to public street displays of nudity.
You are a fascist.
So a TV show is somehow comparable to public displays of nudity?
Surely by your logic you're also against violence on TV
Your opinion here is the desolate minority.
Why should You? You're acting as if I should just sit down and accept this, why don't YOU sit down and accept the reverse? That's just a dishonest argument, whoever is in charge of the media is already by definition "controlling the lives of other people". The question is what to do with such control, not if it exists.
You know I brought up the example of public nudity because you asked something akin to "why should anything be controlled" to which I'm giving you different examples of things that are controlled. I'm sure you understand the original point/context of this comparison, you claimed there should be no limits to art but apparently you seem to have a problem with me artistically showing my dick in public.
You are imposing your values on others. If they reject your values they are "fascists"? If that's what a fascist is, sign me up.
The glorification of violence can be a problem but it's not something I have a problem with, no. Violence is a natural aspect of reality. The state exists to determine what is lawful violence. Sexual deviant fetishes are not a natural aspect of reality and I'm against their normalization as it will lead to a dysfunctional society.
You draw the line at pedos I draw it at gays. We're not so different.
"Whose lives am I trying to control?"
Everyone's. Mass media is a way to shape public opinion, by pushing homo acceptance ideology in these mass media, you are trying to normalize this behavior (they call it "representation").
"How am I telling you to "sit down and accept this"? "
You're telling me that I shouldn't voice my opposition to this while calling me a fascist. Look in the mirror dude.
"You are free not to watch it."
So? You're free not to watch people being raped, does that mean you shouldn't speak out against rape? Pointless.
"What you're proposing is to ban it."
Not really, I'm just saying it's wrong and we shouldn't accept it. Whether or not it should be banned is up to debate, I don't think there's a need to ban it if the oppression of those who are against it ceases.
"What values of mine am I imposing on you?"
Normalization of deviant behaviors.
"sex is also a natural aspect of reality"
The natural aspect of sex is that it serves as a reproductive function, leading to the formation of families. Deviant fetishes are abnormal.
"Mine is to do with child abuse. Yours is "i dun like it"
You are aware that homos are disproportionately more likely to be pedos right? These sexual deviancies go hand in hand.
Everyone's. Mass media is a way to shape public opinion, by pushing homo acceptance ideology in these mass media, you are trying to normalize this behavior (they call it "representation").
You're telling me that I shouldn't voice my opposition to this while calling me a fascist. Look in the mirror dude.
So? You're free not to watch people being raped, does that mean you shouldn't speak out against rape? Pointless.
Not really, I'm just saying it's wrong and we shouldn't accept it. Whether or not it should be banned is up to debate, I don't think there's a need to ban it if the oppression of those who are against it ceases.
Normalization of deviant behaviors.
The natural aspect of sex is that it serves as a reproductive function, leading to the formation of families. Deviant fetishes are abnormal.
"insisting it be banned makes you a fascist."
No it doesn't, there are plenty of things that are banned that have nothing to do with fascism. And so what if I said I was a fascist you think you win and that's the end of the argument? That's a very dishonest argument, the same way you call others fascist in order to end the argument I could do the same in reverse and call you a pedo. What's the point?
"Gay people existing, or gay people being depicted in a TV show does not harm your civil liberties. Rape being wrong has nothing whatsoever to do with if anyone is forced to watch it or not."
Yes it does, depictions of homosexuality are traumatizing to the unsuspecting audience and are wrong. I wouldn't have a problem if this show had a disclaimer saying it was a homo show so I would know to avoid it but you have the directors themselves saying they wanted to "trick" people into watching homo stuff and that's wrong. Simple as.
"And how are people currently being oppressed?"
If you speak out against these things in public you have your life destroyed by lgbt activists. Censorship in big tech platforms is also very high against people with those opinions. What you just did, labeling me a fascist or a nazi is basically giving a signal to others to ruin my life because I'm "evil". That is exponentially worse if you're a public person, doxxed and unable to get a job because of people like you.
"Christian TV shows and films are an imposition on me because they're trying to "normalise" Christianity"
Christian philosophy is the most relevant source of moral values in western civilization for many centuries, this is true regardless of you being a Christian or not. This means these values are already normal and taken for granted even by atheists. You can't erase historical context. But sure you can say it is an imposition I'm wondering what about jewish values are you allowed to talk about that? You know the authors pushing homo/pedo stuff are disproportionately jewish?
No it doesn't, there are plenty of things that are banned that have nothing to do with fascism. And so what if I said I was a fascist you think you win and that's the end of the argument? That's a very dishonest argument, the same way you call others fascist in order to end the argument I could do the same in reverse and call you a pedo. What's the point?
Yes it does, depictions of homosexuality are traumatizing to the unsuspecting audience and are wrong. I wouldn't have a problem if this show had a disclaimer saying it was a homo show so I would know to avoid it but you have the directors themselves saying they wanted to "trick" people into watching homo stuff and that's wrong. Simple as.
Laws are a derivation of morality and are basically a way to ban immoral behavior so you're calling any society that has law "fascist". You're just wrong.
The majority of people are probably disgusted by this but they have been conditioned not to externalize their opinion so any kind of polls and other ways to measure this are irrelevant until people are free to express their discontent without being subjected to life ruination by activists. This is like getting a poll in NK asking if Kim is the best person ever.
Even more important, it doesn't matter what "the majority thinks". Reality is reality. You can call me whatever you like just because you don't like my opinions, I don't care if you label me a fascist and a bigot, that's inconsequential to the point being made.
Also the link you posted doesn't address the point of homosexuality being traumatizing for the unsuspecting heterosexual audience at large, that would be something like this that explains how watching gays causes the same response as watching maggots: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2017.1328459
Laws are a derivation of morality and are basically a way to ban immoral behavior so you're calling any society that has law "fascist". You're just wrong.
The majority of people are probably disgusted by this but they have been conditioned not to externalize their opinion so any kind of polls and other ways to measure this are irrelevant until people are free to express their discontent without being subjected to life ruination by activists. This is like getting a poll in NK asking if Kim is the best person ever.
Also the link you posted doesn't address the point of homosexuality being traumatizing for the unsuspecting heterosexual audience at large, that would be something like this that explains how watching gays causes the same response as watching maggots: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2017.1328459
"Things are not prohibited by law because they are "immoral""
Wrong, that's the foundation of law. How would even the most tyrant king be able to uphold a code of law antithetical to the common moral code of his subjects. The golden rule is a basic moral understanding, the root of the tree of law.
"There are no victims."
Yes, there are victims. By normalizing unhealthy deviant behavior there is a cost on society at large, even the gays will suffer because of this. The story will play out over the rest of this century but rest assured that all of this cultural degeneracy is not without impact on what's to come. Whether that is the suicide of our completely demoralized society and its replacement with something new like Islam that will mercilessly throw you from the rooftops, or some sort of awakening that is hard to say, but things won't stay on this trajectory for long.
"Your rights end when your fist approaches my face."
Stop being unhinged, this is why you get so dramatic and call everyone a nazi, who said anything about fists?
"why are TV shows like Euphoria, Sex Education and Heartstopper highly successful?"
Successful is a highly subjective term. I never heard about them. Did they make a profit and therefore count as successful? I have no doubt lgbt community likes those shows, I guess that's what makes them successful? How much % of the actual population watches those shows? I guess that doesn't matter to your definition here.
"I am straight. I don't much care to watch two gay men kiss"
But they care to trick you into watching their weird sexual fetish. Funny how that goes. I would be glad with a compromise, some kind of lgbt symbol just like the red circle used to mean mature content so I know to avoid watching it. I respect them and they respect me.
This is of course too sensible and reasonable, not at all what the jewish directors are interested in. They want to push their agenda and that means tricking you into watching things that disgust you.
Wrong, that's the foundation of law. How would even the most tyrant king be able to uphold a code of law antithetical to the common moral code of his subjects. The golden rule is a basic moral understanding, the root of the tree of law.
Yes, there are victims. By normalizing unhealthy deviant behavior there is a cost on society at large, even the gays will suffer because of this. The story will play out over the rest of this century but rest assured that all of this cultural degeneracy is not without impact on what's to come.
Whether that is the suicide of our completely demoralized society and its replacement with something new like Islam that will mercilessly throw you from the rooftops, or some sort of awakening that is hard to say, but things won't stay on this trajectory for long.
Stop being unhinged, this is why you get so dramatic and call everyone a nazi, who said anything about fists?
Successful is a highly subjective term. I never heard about them. Did they make a profit and therefore count as successful? I have no doubt lgbt community likes those shows, I guess that's what makes them successful? How much % of the actual population watches those shows? I guess that doesn't matter to your definition here.
But they care to trick you into watching their weird sexual fetish. Funny how that goes. I would be glad with a compromise, some kind of lgbt symbol just like the red circle used to mean mature content so I know to avoid watching it. I respect them and they respect me.
This is of course too sensible and reasonable, not at all what the jewish directors are interested in. They want to push their agenda and that means tricking you into watching things that disgust you.
"There's always a distinction made between morality and legality."
No shit, genius. This is not a matter of opinion, law is based on morality this is objective reality if you disagree you're just wrong. That doesn't mean every random moral value is hard coded into law, just go google it or something it's really not a controversial thing just think for a little bit.
"No reason to believe this."
The "reason" is called having a logical mind.
"Islam is not growing at anywhere near the rate right-wing reactionaries claim."
I said "something new like Islam" as in something that I am not able to predict at the time.
"You have to right to do what you like, so long as you not prevent me others from doing what they like."
Who is preventing you? Is me expressing my disagreement towards your pedo-enabling lifestyle preventing you from doing anything? Do you think I'm the government or something?
"Euphoria was HBOs second most successful show"
Who cares? The people you quoted in your stupid article define "success" as the number of viewers HBO claims to be watching, try telling anyone your homo propaganda show is more "successful" than the Sopranos and a bunch of other shows. Oh you mean "at the time" so it's more semantics tricks "it was the most successful that week", okey very relevant.... Even if you were right (you aren't) who cares? This is irrelevant to the claim that most people are disgusted by these things.
"Why should I feel "tricked" anymore than I would if a straight couple kissed in the plot."
Because one form of affection is natural and the other is deviant and you should have to go out of your way to find deviant stuff (you still CAN, I'm not forbidding you)
"Yet more rampant antisemitism"
Are you really just that stupid or what? If I said something about the Italian mafia a few decades ago would I be antimediterranean or whatever meme term you're using? When you weaponize language like that it only reveals your intellectual cowardice.
Who is preventing you? Is me expressing my disagreement towards your pedo-enabling lifestyle preventing you from doing anything? Do you think I'm the government or something?
Who cares? The people you quoted in your stupid article define "success" as the number of viewers HBO claims to be watching, try telling anyone your homo propaganda show is more "successful" than the Sopranos and a bunch of other shows. Oh you mean "at the time" so it's more semantics tricks "it was the most successful that week", okey very relevant.... Even if you were right (you aren't) who cares? This is irrelevant to the claim that most people are disgusted by these things.
Because one form of affection is natural and the other is deviant and you should have to go out of your way to find deviant stuff (you still CAN, I'm not forbidding you)
Are you really just that stupid or what? If I said something about the Italian mafia a few decades ago would I be antimediterranean or whatever meme term you're using? When you weaponize language like that it only reveals your intellectual cowardice.
"being less successful viewing wise than Sopranos"
1) That's not true.
2) Noone cares.
3) Yes lgbt content is always a failure since its promoting deviant stuff so I consider it as a failure, define failure and success go ahead.
"I have no reason to regard two men kissing as "deviant"."
Ok. I do have a reason and have provided them earlier, so do other people. You not having a reason is irrelevant to me.
"If you suggested the Italian mafia runs the world and has an global cultural agenda, then yes."
If the italian mafia really was doing those things and I demonstrated it why would that be "antiblabla"?
3) Yes lgbt content is always a failure since its promoting deviant stuff so I consider it as a failure, define failure and success go ahead.
If the italian mafia really was doing those things and I demonstrated it why would that be "antiblabla"?
"This would be your own personal definition. Plenty of LGBT-focused content has actually been a critical success in terms of viewers and reception in TV and film. "
No it hasn't. Your metrics are all skewed, regular people are not allowed to publicly voice their opinion when it comes to these topics due to cancel culture. You have already demonstrated how this works in this conversation by calling me a nazi and implicitly inciting violence my way, now imagine how dangerous that is in real life. Even if it did, what does it matter?
"No, but you've not done that with Jews."
Cool, start noticing it yourself. This is perhaps the first time you notice it with this show, start paying attention and you will see it everywhere.
>No it hasn't. Your metrics are all skewed, regular people are not allowed to publicly voice their opinion when it comes to these topics due to cancel culture. You have already demonstrated how this works in this conversation by calling me a nazi and implicitly inciting violence my way, now imagine how dangerous that is in real life. Even if it did, what does it matter?
So the world is wrong and chefao is right. Why does Euphoria, Heartstopper and Sex Education have excellent ratings on IMDB? People are not afraid to downrate crap on IMDB. Velma has piss-poor ratings. Lord of the Rings (Amazon) has not great ratings. Why does it have very high viewing figures, as indicated by the sources I've given?
What violence have I incited your way?
>Cool, start noticing it yourself. This is perhaps the first time you notice it with this show, start paying attention and you will see it everywhere.
Your evidence here is "director is jewish therefore his only motives is to promote some zionist pro-gay agenda". It's blatant racism.
>So the world is wrong and chefao is right.
Yes. But it's not "the world" it's "your world".
>So the world is wrong and chefao is right. Why does Euphoria, Heartstopper and Sex Education have excellent ratings on IMDB? People are not afraid to downrate crap on IMDB. Velma has piss-poor ratings. Lord of the Rings (Amazon) has not great ratings. Why does it have very high viewing figures, as indicated by the sources I've given?
Only the people who are into gay stuff even watched that show to begin with? I didn't watch it and neither did a lot of people who have simply given up on these shows over the past years.
>What violence have I incited your way?
When you call someone a nazi or a fascist you are inciting violence. It's the same as when O'Reilly did the whole "baby killer" thing. Especially in today's day and age where violence and cancel culture against people who are anywhere on the right is so prevalent.
>Your evidence here is "director is jewish therefore his only motives is to promote some zionist pro-gay agenda". It's blatant racism.
Cool, I hope you hang around this site long enough so we can keep talking about all the other "coincidences" as they keep happening.
>Yes. But it's not "the world" it's "your world".
>Only the people who are into gay stuff even watched that show to begin with? I didn't watch it and neither did a lot of people who have simply given up on these shows over the past years.
How do you know only people "into gay stuff" watched this stuff? Euphoria was HBOs second most successful show ever before The Last of Us.
Sex Education is one of Netflixs most watched TV shows. Why is this?
>Lord of the Rings (Amazon) has not great ratings. Why does it have very high viewing figures, as indicated by the sources I've given?
Because it's LOTR which has a huge fanbase.
Why did Last of Us viewing figures keep increasing?
>Cool, I hope you hang around this site long enough so we can keep talking about all the other "coincidences" as they keep happening.
What 'coincidences'? I'm sorry the TV and film industry has a progressive leaning. Sometimes it leans too far and we get garbage like Velma, but at the same time, almost no modern entertainment of repute is right-wing or socially conservative.
Social conservatives have almost zero modern culture.
>Sex Education is one of Netflixs most watched TV shows. Why is this?
What are you talking about, that's not even in their top 10. What is even your point by saying that netflix claims these shows had a relatively high viewership by people subscribed to their service this means what exactly?
From a quick search the number of people subbed to netflix (according to them) in the US is something around 20% of the population.
Do you understand there's a whole universe of 50+% out there who have checked out? I am speaking in their behalf.
>What 'coincidences'? I'm sorry the TV and film industry has a progressive leaning. Sometimes it leans too far and we get garbage like Velma, but at the same time, almost no modern entertainment of repute is right-wing or socially conservative.
I guess it's impossible for you to think about a world where movies aren't meant to be propaganda pieces for "the progressives" or "the conservatives" and are just meant to be art where people can get away from the world. And because they think like you do, it's why everything sucks these days.
>What are you talking about, that's not even in their top 10. What is even your point by saying that netflix claims these shows had a relatively high viewership by people subscribed to their service this means what exactly?
It means that clearly people do not find it innately anathema.
https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a25939758/netflix-you-sex-education-bird-box-viewing-figures/
Netflix is the most subscribed service globally.
>Do you understand there's a whole universe of 50+% out there who have checked out? I am speaking in their behalf.
Do you think that the 80% of the population not subbed to Netflix have "checked out", and if so, did so specifically because they don't like woke content?
>I guess it's impossible for you to think about a world where movies aren't meant to be propaganda pieces for "the progressives" or "the conservatives" and are just meant to be art where people can get away from the world. And because they think like you do, it's why everything sucks these days.
Not what I meant. Most TV shows aren't progressive or conservative. But since you characterise any TV show that shows LGBT people in a positive light as "progressive", and many are successful, that means that "go woke go broke" isn't really an inherent thing in terms of TV.
It is true though that the alt-right sphere who rant on online TV shows are barely creatives. Almost every single modern music group or project, tv, film, video game would be more identifiable as being socially progressive than conservative. There's a reason the Daily Wires creative content is a joke.
>Do you think that the 80% of the population not subbed to Netflix have "checked out", and if so, did so specifically because they don't like woke content?
No not the 80%, there's of course very young and very elderly people that don't really count here, but this idea that the whole nation and the whole world is glued to netflix is ridiculous, many people simply don't care and are checked out of pozzed media and yes I think many of them are annoyed by it and don't watch it anymore because of that, I know I am one of them and I know many others who are the same and watch mostly older stuff.
>Not what I meant. Most TV shows aren't progressive or conservative. But since you characterize any TV show that shows LGBT people in a positive light as "progressive", and many are successful, that means that "go woke go broke" isn't really an inherent thing in terms of TV.
I never said anything about "go woke go broke". I don't think that's true at all it's just a cringe cope by conservatives. You can alienate a vast population and still be profitable. I will voice my discontent and so will others.
>It is true though that the alt-right sphere who rant on online TV shows are barely creatives. Almost every single modern music group or project, tv, film, video game would be more identifiable as being socially progressive than conservative. There's a reason the Daily Wires creative content is a joke.
I know plenty of creatives who I have no idea if they are "right" or "left". I don't care. Those are the ones I like. You seem to think all of them are progressive for whatever reason. Also it's hilarious you bring up the Daily Wire as some kind of representative of right wing values when it's a gatekeeper organization run by jews. Oh oops I said the J word again, here I am noticing patterns and what mafia is running the show on both sides.
>No not the 80%, there's of course very young and very elderly people that don't really count here, but this idea that the whole nation and the whole world is glued to netflix is ridiculous, many people simply don't care and are checked out of pozzed media and yes I think many of them are annoyed by it and don't watch it anymore because of that, I know I am one of them and I know many others who are the same and watch mostly older stuff.
That wasn't what I was inferring. Netflix has the plurality of customers (at least in most countries, not quite sure regarding USA specifically).
>I never said anything about "go woke go broke". I don't think that's true at all it's just a cringe cope by conservatives. You can alienate a vast population and still be profitable. I will voice my discontent and so will others.
So put up with it? Free market and all, right?
If the older audience that wants old network style shows prominenty in the 80s and 90s are an active, large, paying market - then why don't we see more of those shows being made now?
>I know plenty of creatives who I have no idea if they are "right" or "left". I don't care. Those are the ones I like. You seem to think all of them are progressive for whatever reason. Also it's hilarious you bring up the Daily Wire as some kind of representative of right wing values when it's a gatekeeper organization run by jews. Oh oops I said the J word again, here I am noticing patterns and what mafia is running the show on both sides.
Jews who now apparently peddle socially reactionary positions? Or are you leaning into the anti-semitic trope that Jews like to play social groups against each other?
If you speak out against these things in public you have your life destroyed by lgbt activists. Censorship in big tech platforms is also very high against people with those opinions. What you just did, labeling me a fascist or a nazi is basically giving a signal to others to ruin my life because I'm "evil". That is exponentially worse if you're a public person, doxxed and unable to get a job because of people like you.
Christian philosophy is the most relevant source of moral values in western civilization for many centuries, this is true regardless of you being a Christian or not. This means these values are already normal and taken for granted even by atheists. You can't erase historical context. But sure you can say it is an imposition I'm wondering what about jewish values are you allowed to talk about that? You know the authors pushing homo/pedo stuff are disproportionately jewish?
I think by labeling people fascist/nazi/bigots you are weaponizing language and inciting violence, specially when you clearly have no clue what those words mean. You think someone is a fascist if they are in favor of laws, you are a ridiculous person.
You use these terms as weapons to make you "win" the conversation because you expect the other person to go on the defensive but I already told you I don't care, so you can just address the arguments instead of attempting to dodge into this nonsense.
I have never said I want the state to ban all depictions of homosexuality, what I want is for people to be free to express their disgust and discontent without being victimized by the lgbt activists so that what will naturally happen is it will stay in the shadows, you might remember me using that expression earlier on and it was there for a reason.
Yes you talk about Christian shows but you don't talk about Jewish shows. Why is that? Why are you allowed to oppose Christian values and that's all fine and good but if I point out objective facts about Jewish value influencing these shows I'm a something-something? Oh it's "repulsive" now? I think that's just you projecting your bigotry sweetie, what if the polls said otherwise? Get real...
I think by labeling people fascist/nazi/bigots you are weaponizing language and inciting violence, specially when you clearly have no clue what those words mean. You think someone is a fascist if they are in favor of laws, you are a ridiculous person.
I have never said I want the state to ban all depictions of homosexuality, what I want is for people to be free to express their disgust and discontent without being victimized by the lgbt activists so that what will naturally happen is it will stay in the shadows, you might remember me using that expression earlier on and it was there for a reason.
Yes you talk about Christian shows but you don't talk about Jewish shows. Why is that? Why are you allowed to oppose Christian values and that's all fine and good but if I point out objective facts about Jewish value influencing these shows I'm a something-something? Oh it's "repulsive" now? I think that's just you projecting your bigotry sweetie, what if the polls said otherwise? Get real...
"I know precisely what fascism, nazism meansand bigotry means."
No you don't but it doesn't matter, who cares. I just wanted you to know it's a coward and despicable tactic to use as you are implicitly advocating violence against said person. It's meaningless when talking anonymously since I can just call you out on it I don't care what those words mean to you.
"What "Jewish shows"?"
The guys who wrote this show we're talking about right now are jewish, buddy. Careful don't look it up you might become a "nazi" or something if you notice things.
No you don't but it doesn't matter, who cares. I just wanted you to know it's a coward and despicable tactic to use as you are implicitly advocating violence against said person. It's meaningless when talking anonymously since I can just call you out on it I don't care what those words mean to you.
The guys who wrote this show we're talking about right now are jewish, buddy. Careful don't look it up you might become a "nazi" or something if you notice things.
"Calling you an authoritarian, or a fascist, or a theocrat is not advocating violence."
Yes it is. When you call someone a fascist or a nazi you are stamping them with the "evil" label and letting everyone know it's ok to do violence against that person. It's weaponized language. Since we are anon here I don't care but I just wanted you to know it's disgusting and cowardly to behave like that.
"So therefore it's a Jewish thing is it? Every single time a person of Jewish ancestry writes a show they therefore are doing it to promote some agenda? What even are you proposing the end goal is?"
It's very disproportionately a jewish thing yes. Jews don't want the different cultures and ethnicities of the world preserving their identity because they ludicrously believe this leads to their genocide therefore they want to promote anything that destroys those cultures in order to turn everything into "one". You don't have to believe me but maybe start looking it up whenever you see things that are self-destructive being promoted in the media and see if there's a jew behind it. We have been conditioned to think it's wrong to criticize the jewish mafia when there is really no good reason why.
Yes it is. When you call someone a fascist or a nazi you are stamping them with the "evil" label and letting everyone know it's ok to do violence against that person. It's weaponized language. Since we are anon here I don't care but I just wanted you to know it's disgusting and cowardly to behave like that.
It's very disproportionately a jewish thing yes. Jews don't want the different cultures and ethnicities of the world preserving their identity because they ludicrously believe this leads to their genocide therefore they want to promote anything that destroys those cultures in order to turn everything into "one". You don't have to believe me but maybe start looking it up whenever you see things that are self-destructive being promoted in the media and see if there's a jew behind it. We have been conditioned to think it's wrong to criticize the jewish mafia when there is really no good reason why.
"This response is also ironically rather snowflakey of you."
Ok, I guess I'll just copypaste your answer when gays are being thrown off rooftops, I mean you're ok with violence apparently right.
"How does TV shows that show the existence of gay people "destroying culture"? How is it trying to turn everything into "one"? "
You just keep on being dishonest over and over again. What's your problem? You asked me a broad question about jewish influence in media and their agenda/ideology and I answered honestly and you just bring it back to gays as if I was making a specific point instead of a broad one.
Can you see how you are a dishonest person who engages in bad faith?
Since you want to bring it back to the specifics (make up your mind) gay relationships are by definition destructive, society can only thrive on the shoulders of strong reproductive families who have an inherent interest in protecting the future for their children. Gay relationships are cultural suicide and funny enough that is demonstrated on this episode itself as these 2 gays end up just dying and leaving no children behind so they lived a pointless existence from an evolutionary and societal perspective. They have pretty much no impact whatsoever on the future of the world, meanwhile the people who are reproducing and having real families do, through their offspring.
The ways they are trying to turn everything into one is by pretending as if deviancy and normalcy are the same, by pretending all races, ethnicities, cultures are the same. Gay relationships are just one example of this ideology in action, in the grand scheme of things this is just one aspect of it. We should not pretend as if people being gay or simply just choosing a non-reproductive lifestyle are the same as people who put out the effort to have families and who are building the future of the world. It's not the same, one of those things is objectively positive and the other is, at most, neutral.
Ok, I guess I'll just copypaste your answer when gays are being thrown off rooftops, I mean you're ok with violence apparently right.
You just keep on being dishonest over and over again. What's your problem? You asked me a broad question about jewish influence in media and their agenda/ideology and I answered honestly and you just bring it back to gays as if I was making a specific point instead of a broad one.
Since you want to bring it back to the specifics (make up your mind) gay relationships are by definition destructive, society can only thrive on the shoulders of strong reproductive families who have an inherent interest in protecting the future for their children. Gay relationships are cultural suicide and funny enough that is demonstrated on this episode itself as these 2 gays end up just dying and leaving no children behind so they lived a pointless existence from an evolutionary and societal perspective. They have pretty much no impact whatsoever on the future of the world, meanwhile the people who are reproducing and having real families do, through their offspring.
The ways they are trying to turn everything into one is by pretending as if deviancy and normalcy are the same, by pretending all races, ethnicities, cultures are the same.
Gay relationships are just one example of this ideology in action, in the grand scheme of things this is just one aspect of it. We should not pretend as if people being gay or simply just choosing a non-reproductive lifestyle are the same as people who put out the effort to have families and who are building the future of the world. It's not the same, one of those things is objectively positive and the other is, at most, neutral.
"People calling you an authoritarian or fascist is the same as calling for gay people to be thrown from rooftops?"
Yes. Both are a call for violence.
"await evidence that the changing of attitudes in modern TV and film regarding LGBT (and other groups) is specifically down to Jews."
I already provided the evidence for this one instance, the director of this show is jewish.
"There's no real evidence that an increased acceptance of LGBT people has any meaningful impact on reproduction rates."
Gay people can't reproduce. It really is that simple. I didn't state any correlation between one and the other that's you doing it because you are a dishonest person. If gays can't reproduce then their relationships are by definition destructive to the fabric of society. Is it a big deal? Not really. Should it be encouraged and normalized? No.
"What makes being LGBT "deviant" except that it's less common (assuming that is terms of reference you are using "deviant")"
Everything I have already stated prior, read it again.
"I didn't choose to be straight. I just am. I don't find men attractive. Do you think gay people somehow always just 'choose' to find people of their own sex attractive?"
How did you get to that absolute dumb idea from the part you quoted? Read it again and do it honestly instead of being a dumbass
>Yes. Both are a call for violence.
No they are not. Me calling you a fascist or authoritarian is not calling for violence.
>I already provided the evidence for this one instance, the director of this show is jewish.
So because he's Jewish by ancestry that means his only purpose is to promote whatever the "Jewish agenda" is? This is textbook anti-semitism.
>Gay people can't reproduce. It really is that simple. I didn't state any correlation between one and the other that's you doing it because you are a dishonest person. If gays can't reproduce then their relationships are by definition destructive to the fabric of society. Is it a big deal? Not really. Should it be encouraged and normalized? No.
The worst nations on earth for birth rates right now are China, Korea and Japan. China is pretty homophobic. Korea and Japan are *okay* but not great. Russia has also kinda average child replacement rates (comparable to western europe) amongst ethnic Russians and it's incredibly homophobic.
And what constitutes "normalisation", and what in your mind should be done about that?
>No they are not. Me calling you a fascist or authoritarian is not calling for violence.
In this context where I am anonymous it's not, but in a different context yes it is calling for violence. It's the same as when O'Reilly called an abortion doctor a baby killer and some guy ended up killing him. I don't care about you making up excuses or justifying it, I am just happy to let you know you're a scumbag for throwing those labels on people.
>So because he's Jewish by ancestry that means his only purpose is to promote whatever the "Jewish agenda" is? This is textbook anti-semitism.
This is one of many many examples of jewish people being over-represented in these positions and pushing for a certain type of ideology. Start paying attention and you'll see it everywhere. Again, you are using these weaponized meme words like antisemitism that don't mean anything, shame on you.
>The worst nations on earth for birth rates right now are China, Korea and Japan. China is pretty homophobic. Korea and Japan are *okay* but not great. Russia has also kinda average child replacement rates (comparable to western europe) amongst ethnic Russians and it's incredibly homophobic.
1) Any stat coming out of China is unreliable.
2) The word "homophobic" is another weaponized meaningless term, it's impossible to engage in rational conversation with someone who utilizes dishonest weaponized meme terms like these. It's the same as if I start calling you a nigger or a faggot in the middle of the conversation for no reason, so already your whole point is senseless.
3) My point had nothing to do with the current situation when it comes to birthrates, you missed the point entirely. The birthrate problem is multidimensional and mostly caused by contraceptives and pornography, among other lesser causes. My original point was that gay people can't reproduce therefore their sexuality is by definition abnormal and shouldn't be promoted and pushed as normal. The current demographic problem
>In this context where I am anonymous it's not, but in a different context yes it is calling for violence. It's the same as when O'Reilly called an abortion doctor a baby killer and some guy ended up killing him. I don't care about you making up excuses or justifying it, I am just happy to let you know you're a scumbag for throwing those labels on people.
Don't suggest fascist ideas, and perhaps people won't call you fascist.
>This is one of many many examples of jewish people being over-represented in these positions and pushing for a certain type of ideology. Start paying attention and you'll see it everywhere. Again, you are using these weaponized meme words like antisemitism that don't mean anything, shame on you.
Do you think "Jewish people" all specifically root for and push one particular ideology, and any instance where some Jewish producer in entertainment who may be specifically ideologically inclined is because has Jewish ancestry?
>1) Any stat coming out of China is unreliable.
What stat? Their birth rates? This widely reported. Why would they lie? China is outright homophobic. Are you aware of their laws?
>2) The word "homophobic" is another weaponized meaningless term, it's impossible to engage in rational conversation with someone who utilizes dishonest weaponized meme terms like these. It's the same as if I start calling you a nigger or a faggot in the middle of the conversation for no reason, so already your whole point is senseless.
The terms are not remotely the same. Those are racial slurs, where as "homophobic" is a judgement about your attitude towards gay people.
>3) My point had nothing to do with the current situation when it comes to birthrates, you missed the point entirely. The birthrate problem is multidimensional and mostly caused by contraceptives and pornography, among other lesser causes.
Work-life balance and lack of disposable income is by far the most common denominator. You are aware of South Korea and Japan's crippling work culture, right? I think pornography is pretty banned in South Korea, ironically.
>Don't suggest fascist ideas, and perhaps people won't call you fascist.
What do you think are "fascist ideas"? How does not liking gays somehow relates uniquely to 1930's Italy?
>Do you think "Jewish people" all specifically root for and push one particular ideology, and any instance where some Jewish producer in entertainment who may be specifically ideologically inclined is because has Jewish ancestry?
No. Noone thinks it's "all", that's your oversimplification of things. If we go back a few decades and I say there's a problem with the Italian mafia subverting our society that doesn't mean I'm saying ALL Italians have some sort of genetic defect that causes them to be mafiosi. Isn't it interesting how we can freely talk about one but not the other?
>What stat? Their birth rates? This widely reported. Why would they lie? China is outright homophobic. Are you aware of their laws?
They lie, we lie, the truth is we can't really trust any stat coming from there. I already told you the word homophobic has no meaning so I don't know what you mean here and it doesn't really matter so it's irrelevant.
>The terms are not remotely the same. Those are racial slurs, where as "homophobic" is a judgement about your attitude towards gay people.
Phobia means irrational fear of something. Someone saying they don't want gayness to be promoted has nothing to do with a phobia as it is not a fear and it's not even irrational. Any sentence that utilizes that word is without meaning.
>What do you think are "fascist ideas"? How does not liking gays somehow relates uniquely to 1930's Italy?
Probably your desire to see Jewish people thrown out of the TV and film industry.
>No. Noone thinks it's "all", that's your oversimplification of things. If we go back a few decades and I say there's a problem with the Italian mafia subverting our society that doesn't mean I'm saying ALL Italians have some sort of genetic defect that causes them to be mafiosi. Isn't it interesting how we can freely talk about one but not the other?
So every Jewish person specifically in Hollywood? Again, is a Jewish producer or showrunner in Hollywood who happens to make a socially progressive piece of fiction doing it because they're Jewish and trying to peddle a particular worldview? Italian Mafias were a problem (or once a bigger problem) but they were never the only mafias around, and no-one suggested purging a sector of society of Italians because of it.
>They lie, we lie, the truth is we can't really trust any stat coming from there. I already told you the word homophobic has no meaning so I don't know what you mean here and it doesn't really matter so it's irrelevant.
China has anti-gay laws.
And their declining birth rate is widely known and corroborated by tons of sources.
>Phobia means irrational fear of something. Someone saying they don't want gayness to be promoted has nothing to do with a phobia as it is not a fear and it's not even irrational. Any sentence that utilizes that word is without meaning.
The etymology of words aren't usually completely literal. I can say "homomisia" if you like, if the "phobic" part is objectionable.
>Work-life balance and lack of disposable income is by far the most common denominator. You are aware of South Korea and Japan's crippling work culture, right? I think pornography is pretty banned in South Korea, ironically.
If income was really the biggest problem then none of the poor people of the past would've had so many kids as they did. It is of course one of the dimensions of the problem, I don't deny that but I believe access to contraceptives and porn to be the biggest game changers compared to the realities of previous generations. I'm sure they can still get porn in SK by using vpns and some kind of black markets but I didn't know they banned porn, I'll look it up. I would say that children today are seen as a burden instead of a help and many people lack the will to want to build their own families to begin with. It's a crisis of meaning and purpose caused by technological advancements.
>If income was really the biggest problem then none of the poor people of the past would've had so many kids as they did. It is of course one of the dimensions of the problem, I don't deny that but I believe access to contraceptives and porn to be the biggest game changers compared to the realities of previous generations.
Third-world countries have more kids because the cultures there are much more domestic and agricultural. And a lack of contraceptions.
Poor people in Korea live quite differently to poor people in Nigeria. The cultures are fundamentally different.
>I'm sure they can still get porn in SK by using vpns and some kind of black markets but I didn't know they banned porn, I'll look it up. I would say that children today are seen as a burden instead of a help and many people lack the will to want to build their own families to begin with. It's a crisis of meaning and purpose caused by technological advancements.
Sure.
But this doesn't have much to do with porn. I am sure South Koreans who know how can get porn, but restricting it seems to make little difference.
Your thoughts on Koreas and Japans crippling work culture potentially contributing to this?
>Third-world countries have more kids because the cultures there are much more domestic and agricultural. And a lack of contraceptions.
>Poor people in Korea live quite differently to poor people in Nigeria. The cultures are fundamentally different.
Yes, not only that but as you get rid of infant mortality the whole idea of having tons of kids stops making sense. The technological advancements are multi-faceted so I would never say this topic can be explained by one thing alone however I will say contraceptives are for sure the biggest factor. This is a material barrier that avoids the consequences of what is mostly inevitable biology for most humans. It is what it is.
>But this doesn't have much to do with porn. I am sure South Koreans who know how can get porn, but restricting it seems to make little difference.
I would be careful using this information to imply it would have the same effect on different societies (namely western ones) but it is interesting and worth noting, I am curious what the young men in these countries have to say about ease of access to porn.
>Your thoughts on Koreas and Japans crippling work culture potentially contributing to this?
It makes sense that it would be a factor but on the other hand there are plenty of other countries in the west who also have very low birthrates with a different work culture. Actually the 2022 birthrate list on the wiki lists countries such as Greece, Portugal, Italy and others all below Japan.
My opinion on this is that for the first time in human history we now have to justify not entering the door of pure rational nihilism that previous generations were mostly not aware even existed, having to justify the good reasons on why building a family is a worthwhile project.
Anyway this is a bit outside the scope of hating the gays which is what I am here to do lol
>Yes, not only that but as you get rid of infant mortality the whole idea of having tons of kids stops making sense. The technological advancements are multi-faceted so I would never say this topic can be explained by one thing alone however I will say contraceptives are for sure the biggest factor. This is a material barrier that avoids the consequences of what is mostly inevitable biology for most humans. It is what it is.
But why is Korea/Japan so much worse than the western world? (or especially Korea)
>Anyway this is a bit outside the scope of hating the gays which is what I am here to do lol
Contraception, pornography, work culture, general societal change. All of these influences to birth rate have nothing to do with being gay.
>But why is Korea/Japan so much worse than the western world? (or especially Korea)
It's not that much worse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate
>Contraception, pornography, work culture, general societal change. All of these influences to birth rate have nothing to do with being gay.
Yes but while this is an interesting topic it has nothing to do with my original point of gayness by definition being abnormal since it doesn't lead to healthy reproductive behavior.
If you want to be abnormal then be abnormal, I don't care. Just don't pretend and create this fantasy where the abnormal is normal.
>Yes but while this is an interesting topic it has nothing to do with my original point of gayness by definition being abnormal since it doesn't lead to healthy reproductive behavior.
If you want to be abnormal then be abnormal, I don't care. Just don't pretend and create this fantasy where the abnormal is normal.
I mean it is abnormal on a statistical level, but there's nothing special or harmful about it. You don't like TV shows about gay people? Just don't watch them.
>My original point was that gay people can't reproduce therefore their sexuality is by definition abnormal and shouldn't be promoted and pushed as normal. The current demographic problem
-has way more to do with straight people not having kids, not people seeing gay people on TV
The current demographic problem is unrelated.
>And what constitutes "normalisation", and what in your mind should be done about that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(sociology)
Homossexuality and other deviant behavior shouldn't be normalized. We can start by making gay marriage illegal again for example and replacing the jews in hollywood who keep pushing these agendas. You would have to ask someone with political ambitions what should be done, I wouldn't know exactly.
>Homossexuality and other deviant behavior shouldn't be normalized. We can start by making gay marriage illegal again for example
What would that do?
>and replacing the jews in hollywood who keep pushing these agendas. You would have to ask someone with political ambitions what should be done, I wouldn't know exactly.
"Replacing"? Who should enforce this? You're in favour of banning people with Jewish ancestry from making movies? This is a 100% early-days nazi germany move.
What if someone else who isn't of jewish ancestry makes a TV show with gay people in it?
"The vast majority of people now have sex for pleasure, straight or homosexual."
The reason sex evolved to be a pleasurable activity is to incentivize the species to reproduce. When straight people have non-reproductive sex it's still an activity that might lead to reproductive sex in the future so it serves a purpose as it creates an intimate bond between the reproductive couple. Homosexual sex is different in that it can't serve any reproductive function ever and is therefore abnormal.
"pedophile claims:"
Believe what you want. I don't care to look this up as it grosses me out. Google these days is heavily curated to give you results reflecting a certain ideology so your 5 seconds google search is irrelevant. There are plenty of homos out there admitting to being molested as kids and that trauma being the reason they became gay in the first place. It's disgusting.
It really is this simple. If everyone magically turned homosexual over night and we stopped all heterosexual relationships then mankind would die out as there would be no baby making. This fact alone means homosexuality is abnormal and its why we evolved to have a disgust response to it. Instead of you respecting my disgust response, you revel in shoving your deviant sexuality in everyone's faces for whatever reason instead of keeping it private. You can laugh at me for doing nothing about it and just complaining but one day in the future when you are being thrown out of rooftops (it is inevitable btw) may you remember this moment when you had the upper hand and could have done the right thing and remember that you deserve it.
The reason sex evolved to be a pleasurable activity is to incentivize the species to reproduce. When straight people have non-reproductive sex it's still an activity that might lead to reproductive sex in the future so it serves a purpose as it creates an intimate bond between the reproductive couple. Homosexual sex is different in that it can't serve any reproductive function ever and is therefore abnormal.
Believe what you want. I don't care to look this up as it grosses me out. Google these days is heavily curated to give you results reflecting a certain ideology so your 5 seconds google search is irrelevant. There are plenty of homos out there admitting to being molested as kids and that trauma being the reason they became gay in the first place. It's disgusting.
It really is this simple. If everyone magically turned homosexual over night and we stopped all heterosexual relationships then mankind would die out as there would be no baby making. This fact alone means homosexuality is abnormal and its why we evolved to have a disgust response to it.
Instead of you respecting my disgust response, you revel in shoving your deviant sexuality in everyone's faces for whatever reason instead of keeping it private.
You can laugh at me for doing nothing about it and just complaining but one day in the future when you are being thrown out of rooftops (it is inevitable btw) may you remember this moment when you had the upper hand and could have done the right thing and remember that you deserve it.
Would the larger picture in life include people with opinions different than yours? Your post seems to suggest otherwise.
share