Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are banking that you will stop scrolling and maintain your membership for exclusive releases.
Comcast does the same thing. They have a catalog of 4000 movies. If you're browsing, the only way is to start at the beginning and scroll 4 at a time. You'll give up long before you get to the bottom. It would be lovely if they'd just offer a "random sort" as an option.
Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash
391–400 of 416 posts
Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm with you. I was genuinely asking.
Sorry this thread is swinging so hard between folks who clearly have an axe to grind with the lgbt community and people who are shocked it’s still this bad in 2022 that I’m just defensive by default.
Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Increasing pop politics seemingly shoe horned into everything I'd turn on People said the same thing in the 60s when Star Trek had the nerve to have a representative crew aboard the Enterprise and when they showed an interracial kiss.
People are saying that right now about the new Star Treks. And I don't think most disagree with the politics/social commentary, it's just so in your face/contrived that it ruins the show for many.
Again even back in the 60s with the original Trek “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”, they showed two races fighting because one was black on the left side and white on the right side and the other race was just to opposite - to show just how dumb racism was.
Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash
#394Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're looking at it somewhat backwards. Teens are welcome to experiment with identity - that's what teens do and have always done - but I know a shocking number of adults who didn't truly understand their own gender identity until well into their 30s, 40s, even 50s. Part of the reason for that is that without the internet, there was no place to find discussion about it beyond the typical binaries. I remember…
The conclusion I tried to shine a light on is that the hunt for an identity is ultimately fruitless, unsatisfactory, without end. I "was a punk" insofar as one can be what was a dynamic process in the 80s. The richest expression of identity, one that doesn't fit into the cookie cutters of music genre enthusiast or political firebrand (and the path of least resistance) is ultimately where one drops labels and responds…
Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are some good ways to have a political message in your content, and there are terrible ways, especially if it feels "shoe-horned". I'm not GP and am not precisely sure what was meant by pop , but I took it to mean "un-nuanced, insincerely-held". There are people such as yourself who seem eager to label "ugly minded" any questions about the quality of content that promotes A Message even if the Message is simpli…
If pop politics is something considered "insincerely-held" then how can the viewer/audience decide if something is pop politics. I got into an argument once with a few people a while back about gay rights and they dismissed my points as pop politics but it's hard to argue that you're being sincere when they don't believe you. And there isn't much nuance that you can give to the topic.
I don't know what happened in your conversation to make your interlocutors doubt your sincerity, but perhaps it had something to do with being unable to inhabit the point of view of someone with whom you disagree? Did you listen to them, or sputter and get angry?
For me, it's hard to overstate how much I support the right of people to be gay and have homosexual relationships (which are not the same thing, but I support them both). My perspective is that full social acceptance about homosexuality is a no-brainer. An ideal world would place no special emphasis on it, any more than a straight relationship. To my mind, having any negative opinion about it at all is reactionary and ignorant. And yet, there's nuance.
The State should have no opinion on nor legal category of marriage at all, either, IMO. "Gay marriage" should not be something that's legal or illegal, because neither should "straight marriage" be. Strictly, I don't support "gay marriage", not because of the "gay" but because of the "marriage". Imagine someone who agrees with my stance on "gay rights" but without nuance screaming at me because I don't support "gay marriage".
My support of homosexuality is part of a broader support for consent in general: just as no one ideally should have a say about whether 2 men have a homosexual relationship, no one ideally should have a say on whether sexual or romantic consent involves exchange of money. Every argument for homosexuality (or marriage) can also apply to prostitution, and it's unprincipled not to recognize that. Imagine someone without nuance screaming at me because I'm comparing homosexuality to prostitution.
Let's see how far down the rabbit hole goes.
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a small sect that gets a lot of publicity in the United States for holding protests against homosexuality, involving holding up signs that say "God hates ". It's hard to overstate how much I disagree with them about homosexuality, or anything, really, as an atheist. But what is the deal, there? Are they just homophobes? Is there rampant, latent desires amongst the congregation? There are lots and lots of articles talking about what they believe, and their Wikipedia page labels them as a hate group. But what do they say themselves about what they believe? Let us use them as an object lesson, to see how one might come, not to agreement, but at least to understanding, one's political opposition.
They are a modern church, living in the 21st century, and they have a website. I won't link to it, because the URL has a slur, but I spent quite a lot of time on their website, inhabiting their beliefs, laying aside judgment, just to really understand what's going on. It's hard to summarize it all, but a single quote from their FAQ is instructive:
Q: I was taught that the Bible says that God loves everyone. Why do you say that God hates people?
A: The Bible teaches that God hates people. The notion that "God hates the sin but loves the sinner" is unbiblical. For example: “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity.” (Psalm 5:5). Here is a list of additional Bible examples of the hatred of God towards people....
To understand - and remember, this is not about understanding WBC per se, but about exploring this concept of nuance even about something we both agree fervently - to understand what the WBC is saying, here, it's necessary to really inhabit this idea that: a) The Bible is a guidebook on how to get into Heaven. b) God, not humanity, defines what is good and wholesome c) The consequences for misinterpreting this guidebook are literally catastrophic.That you and I do not share these beliefs is not the point. That we might find them abhorrent misses the point. This is the world that these people inhabit: God is a real and terrifying force that will torment you for all eternity for even slight transgressions of a cryptic, contradictory set of rules. To their mind, these protests are a kindly, generous act, to literally save people from eternal torment.
These congregants live their lives under the thumb of a cruel, capricious, supernatural tyrant. I, personally, cannot bring myself to feel anger towards them. Only genuine horror and pity, that they inhabit such a world view.
Now, circling back to the beginning, a rhetorical question: Can you, yourself, describe why you support "gay rights"? If you cannot get beyond "there is no nuance, it's just right", it could be that you come off as insincere because you accept no challenges to your perspective. Are you afraid that you might hear something that would change your mind? If not, be generous to your opposition, hear them out. Inhabit their perspective. Mull it over. There's really nothing to be afraid of.
Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> For me it's hard to not draw the conclusion that heterosexual young people want to be allies and are declaring themselves as bisexual and perhaps experimenting a bit as a show of support. 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 a…
I still feel like there's something weird going on with the recent surge specifically in bisexuals. Most other LGBT identities are in the low single digits as a percent of US population and have ticked up slowly over time (L and G roughly doubled going from Gen X to Gen Z). But with bisexuals you have a 9x increase in the same time period. If it was just a matter of people in previous generations keeping their mouths shut because of discriminatory attitudes in society, you would think that bisexual identification would tick up at about the same rate as the other identities. Something else must be going on.
Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
All social justice movements have a trend phase, unfortunately this one is leading to life altering surgeries and suicides.
This is so backwards, wrong, dangerous. And crazy that it is a comment on this forum.
We have differing standards of backwards, wrong , and dangerous. Are either of us right? I think we are right in our own heads because we are individually seeing different perspectives. But the important part is to not silence one’s ability to discuss such ideas.
Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never knew this. Is it taught to users anywhere? How did you find this feature? Netflix's UX is fucking terrible. Even when they do something right, they do it wrong.
Oh you’re totally right, the feature isn’t advertised at all. I just found it one day searching. I can’t blame you for not knowing about it.
“I hate autoplaying videos!” If you hate it so much why not going it he settings and turn it off. A quick Google search will help you.
“I want an A-Z list for Netflix” Again a quick Google search will show you a way.
Re: Netflix’s big power clash and rivalries behind the crash
#400A pile of mid tier content that i'd flick through before exiting out after an episode Automatic previews Increasing pop politics seemingly shoe horned into everything I'd turn on Horrible comedians that were akin to ted talks/lectures or made for people who don't actually enjoy stand up comedy. Documentaries that were more ideological than interesting Signing and hiring ex politicians Searching is a chore and recomme…
This is exactly why I stopped watching Netflix.