381–390 of 416 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good concert!?
Look, I like music and just used it as an example of something that simply couldn’t happen two generations ago. The idea that artists like her can sell out shows in every city to a fanbase of queer women used to be unheard of. If you want a less niche example my hometown’s pride used to be less than 1000 people in the 80’s and now is half a million.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it truth or is it being force fed down children’s throats? How can the Western world go from a ~2% homosexuality rate to 20% in two generations? It appears we both have a different perspective on how we got here.
The parent is probably referring to the Gallup poll in February which found a significant uptick in Americans who identify as LGBT+. Gallup doesn't make any bones about it, the bulk of the uptick was in Gen Z women identifying as bisexual. They also didn't hesitate to observe that the bulk of bisexual-identifying people eventually settle into a heterosexual relationship. So in point of fact we haven't had a 10x incre…
This makes sense until you understand the realities of the dating scene for bisexual women.
1. If you're young and have the highest rates of wlw your dating pool it's only 20% of women but 95% of men. So supposing bisexual women are choosing randomly among their dating pool it's not at all shocking they end up with way more men on average.
But it's not random and made even worse by
2. Women aren't taught how to approach other women and initiate a romantic relationship -- this is where the memes of "we've been best friends for years who are obviously pining over one another" and "useless lesbians" come from.
3. Women, having basically all experienced the discomfort (to put it lightly) of unwanted sexual attention from men, don't want to inflict that on others and so are more apprehensive hitting on other women.
4. And even if a woman does have the confidence she has to face the reality that 4/5 women she hits on will be straight and in general wlw are super apprehensive about hitting on people they don't already know are wlw. The rejection of confessing to your crush who turns out to be straight it mortifying and getting as is getting an "ew no" at a bar. It's fine, I'm fine.
5. Bisexuals in general tend to not hang around queer spaces as much.
6. Bisexuals tend to not have as much of a "gay aesthetic" as lesbians and so are harder to identify in social settings.
7. There are lesbians that wont date bisexual women because they have the same biphobia the rest of the world does, that they're straight women experimenting and will end up with a man.
Source: Am a bisexual woman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be the agenda of, say, talking about birds while not mentioning climate doomerism constantly? Is there some bird lobby we should be aware of?
Destruction of natural habitat is a problem, pretty much everywhere on earth. If you're watching a show about birds, it probably covers where they live. If you like seeing birds, you probably care about them being around in the next 50 years. There is more to environmentalism than just climate change. I am obligated to point out that climate change will also change habitats, which will negatively impact many bird pop…
You can come up with negativity about how X is being ruined or is awful in some way or another for every X.
The almond milk in your coffee uses scarce California water supplies, cows are mistreated and use water and produce methane, coffee farmers are threatened by global warming and have these other environmental concerns, Starbucks employees are mistreated and have these union issues, you drove a car to get coffee and emitted this much carbon, coffee is addictive and has these awful side effects, strip malls and big corporations ruin local economies... and on and on and on. Pick a topic and you can ramble on about awful things as though being "woke" about it and mentioning it at every opportunity makes anything better.
It's cheap proselytizing for a certain morality and doubtful actual impact of mentioning it over and over in shallow ways that don't actually explain much to people who mostly already know. It's pointless and should be avoided. If you want to make a documentary about destruction of habitat, go do that, people will watch. But maybe stop trying to shoehorn it in at every possible opportunity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> competition is worse for consumers in some respects here The implicit assumption here is that without competition, we'd have all (or most) of the same shows, just on a single service. I don't think that's true. I think competition between streaming services largely on the basis of original content has produced a lot of good shows that we wouldn't have seen otherwise. It seems to me like there's a lot more variety i…
A shift in the competitive landscape might encourage distributors to integrate better with aggregators or meta-interfaces of various sorts. Or directly with one another, in some fashion. > Would all of the Star Wars content on Disney+ even have been made if Disney couldn't put it on Disney+, for example? I think the strongest argument in favor of the current arrangement is that monopolies yield rents, which (might!)…
That's a big "might" there, isn't it equally possible that eventually distribution will converge on a single platform? It's much easier for that kind of thing to happen with streaming than with, say, theaters.
> I think the strongest argument in favor of the current arrangement is that monopolies yield rents, which (might!) mean more money for production.
But there is no monopoly right now. I don't think you can slice an industry as thinly as "Star Wars TV shows" and say Disney has a monopoly there. Disney does not have a monopoly in the streaming market, no-one does. They have a monopoly in the same way Walmart has a monopoly on Walmart brand toothpaste, I guess.
At most you can say it's an oligopoly, which I somewhat agree with and yes, it seems like it could be improved.
> However, I think in a world where no production companies could own streaming platforms, production companies would probably... you know, still produce lots of content, since selling content would be their main way of making money, and you can't sell what you don't have.
If the government bans production companies from distributing their shows, mandating middle men and lower profit margins for the producers, that decreases the incentive to spend as much on production. And it's not clear that forcing a distribution middleman into the transaction is going to lower prices. After all, when Netflix raised prices, people left despite Netflix's "monopoly" on Netflix Original content.
Either of us could be right, it would be great if we could find some data, or some example from another industry to get a clearer picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more that Netflix just has poor execution on a lot of shows. When telling a story on TV, you often want to cut the story to the bone such that it can be understood quickly and entertain without confusing the viewer with side tangents that aren't central to the story. If a non-story-essential element is too prominent then the viewer might feel it's boring
This happened to Doctor Who. Too much emphasis on LGBTQ rather than good stories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Much more emphasis on whatever fresh sexual and gender identities happen to be in vogue right now, apparently for no purpose other than to preach about them to the viewer. People were been just as dismissive about interracial kiss in the 60s. About gay relationships in the 70s and 80s. Evolve or become a dinosaur.
What if the societal trends were in the opposite direction? Should you evolve or become a dinosaur then too? If so, why bother caring at all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it scares you that people are willing to air their discontent about not liking preachy political messages in their entertainment, I'm not sure what to take from that. Personally I think having a diverse set of views in a public forum was the whole point of having public forums.
>Personally I think having a diverse set of views in a public forum was the whole point of having public forums. The comment you responded to had a view that was diverse enough for you to comment on it.
I'm not interested in having one-way discussions, especially if it's run by "the most scared wins". Clearly there's bounds to that, but the view expressed above was not something I'm interested in, and I don't think I'm alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it scares you that people are willing to air their discontent about not liking preachy political messages in their entertainment, I'm not sure what to take from that. Personally I think having a diverse set of views in a public forum was the whole point of having public forums.
No, the complaints are about seeing black people and gay people on tv. That somehow makes people sad, maybe because they’re secretly gay?
They absolutely did not mention of black or gay people. You are straight-up wrong about that.
It's nearly impossible to take the content of your message seriously, given the way you mischaracterize their actual statement.