Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

[flagged]



I can see some of the things you listed as potentially pushing an agenda (like "all white guys being bad", whatever that means) but showing a normal "mixed-race gay couple" or the "single mother ending up in a mixed-race relationship" is pushing some agenda? What agenda would that be, that there can be a mixed-race gay couple and they are just normal, kind and loving people? Do we need a TV show to tell us that?

You're saying it's annoying to see that when you want to relax and watch a movie. You cannot relax watching a movie where there's a mixed-race gay couple? Why?


> but showing a normal "mixed-race gay couple"

For an international audience this is very obvious in your face propaganda. It's hard to miss it or ignore it, when you only see this in US shows and nowhere else.


When the demographics in a production reflect the demographics of the place it's made, that's not propaganda.


Do the math at how many shows have LGBT characters there are, then go look at how many there are in the US. The numbers are hilariously overrepresented. Groups like native Americans on the other hand are sorely underrepresented.


How many conservative white old people are cutting the cord versus the younger tech savvy people? I think that's something that might need to be looked at as well, which might explain the discrepancy. I mean sure there are conservative young people, but they probably aren't watching those shows and are probably watching either other things on Netflix or consuming content elsewhere like Philo with has a lot of "History" Channel conservative bent shows and things like LivePD. The biggest networks in the US are all conservative leaning. I think people are just not used to seeing new content outside the bubble they grew up with. On a sad note, I really miss the days when History Channel had solid history shows instead of the weird mostly garbage factually reality shows they have now.


Right, but they don't.

You don't have 25% single mothers, 25% blacks, 50% gay Asian couple.


Not an American here. Propaganda of what exactly?


Every piece of art contains some sort of message. What distinguishes this type of message from other messages, what makes this propaganda and why other messages aren't? Is it that any message which shows something which you don't consider "representative" would qualify as propaganda?


Propaganda in general is an attempt to influence how you should judge something or feel about something instead of letting you make your own judgements and feelings. It's not that complicated, movies and tv shows always have lots of propaganda in them, some of it is accidental, cultural, but mostly it's a top down effort.


> You're saying it's annoying to see that when you want to relax and watch a movie. You cannot relax watching a movie where there's a mixed-race gay couple? Why?

Looks like you're the one saying that, uh?

Look.

In the movie I mentioned, there are a handful of people that find themselves in the house.

- single mother who drinks while pregnant - gay, mixed-race couple #1 - black guy who ends up with single mother (mixed-race couple #2) - evil Trump supporter - bunch of bad white guys #1 (those two that make a mess) - bunch of bad white guys #2 (everyone else who tries to kill everyone)

The fact that every single minority MUST be represented in every single movie—despite the fact that this makes the story less believable or even weaker is what's annoying. Not to mention changing established characters (like Ghostbusters, Terminator, Little Mermaid) to make them black women.

Back when I grew up, we had Will Smith who was basically every kid's idiol in Europe, and he was black. We had Ripley from Alien who was a believable female role. We had Priscilla with trans protagonists. No one complained, all those characters worked. Now, every movie seems to be just an excuse to virtue signal. It's all politics. I want to watch a movie, not be indoctrinated by a corporation about whatever politics they're into.


> The fact that every single minority MUST be represented in every single movie—despite the fact that this makes the story less believable or even weaker is what's annoying. Not to mention changing established characters (like Ghostbusters, Terminator, Little Mermaid) to make them black women.

In what way is that particular story less believable because it shows minorities? Is it showing minorities in a context (geographical and time) where you have 100% information that it's very different from the reality of that context? Is this particular movie supposed to show a factually based representation of that context?

If an owner of some IP decides to change the racial, ethnic, etc profile of some character as they were represented previously in said franchise it doesn't take away from the franchise (imagine that they didn't release anything new), you can still watch the older movies that you enjoy. Similarly to how if a new video game is released in a series which is very different (or simply bad, quality wise) from the previous games in the series, it doesn't take away from you the previous titles, you can still enjoy the previous games all you want.

> Back when I grew up, we had Will Smith who was basically every kid's idiol in Europe, and he was black. We had Ripley from Alien who was a believable female role. We had Priscilla with trans protagonists. No one complained, all those characters worked. Now, every movie seems to be just an excuse to virtue signal. It's all politics. I want to watch a movie, not be indoctrinated by a corporation about whatever politics they're into.

I find that as a very naive and simplistic view of said movies. There was politics back then too in said movies, you just didn't notice it or cared about it, you took those things for granted. This is the essential problem with this type of complains, you assume that what was before/you grew up with was the "gold standard" and so making drastic changes to that is somehow bad (and I'm not talking just about minority representation in media, I see this in almost every context with people over a certain age). You should probably see how people complained the first time a black person was on TV, the complains are very similar.

I'm not saying that now there isn't a more active effort around introducing more minority representation into media, it obviously is so, I'm only arguing against that being a bad thing on its own and/or saying that didn't happen before. If this is more important to the studios than making good quality movies then obviously the quality will suffer, but that's not special in any way to the minority representation push.


> I'm not saying that now there isn't a more active effort around introducing more minority representation into media, it obviously is so, I'm only arguing against that being a bad thing on its own and/or saying that didn't happen before.

I did not happen before, at this scale. It's a new thing. And it's annoying.

> If this is more important to the studios than making good quality movies then obviously the quality will suffer, but that's not special in any way to the minority representation push.

Looks like it is. Look at the backslash with movies such as Star Wars, Ghostbusters, etc., where they take established characters and alienate fans by changing an established character that was a white male into a black woman (007, have you heard he's now a black woman?).


Assuming the companies involved do not give a damn (I'm not sure exactly about what, so I'll assume LGBT and non-white people and/or rights), they (and their friends and families) still find themselves represented in a work of fiction.

Feeling like you belong in the world is a core need of every human being. This recognition has a worth in itself; even if the company did nothing else (e.g. political lobbying, donations, supportive hiring practices, structural changes to the business), this is still something of value for this audience.

There's a weird paradox here. You object to entertainment getting too ideological, but then you indicate that companies should somehow reflect their ideologies (or lack thereof) in their output.

(I'm loath to use marketing cynicism, but the shorter version is: you're not the target audience.)


Sorry, is your point that the target audience of movies is now blacks and gay couples instead of everyone?

Why am I not the target audience of movies anymore?


You point to a hypothetical alternative: "instead of everyone".

The underlying assumption is that, when you (and characters you do not object to) were portrayed in mass media entertainment, everyone was covered too.

The target audience isn't just black people and gay couples: it's black people, gay couples, and those who do not object to the aforementioned groups.

ceejayoz 62 days ago [flagged]

I wasn't aware fetal alcohol syndrome was part of the progressive agenda.


[flagged]


[flagged]


I don't get what you mean.


[flagged]


[flagged]


[flagged]


Why is everyone a white supremacist by default nowadays?

What I said is a common critique of content coming out in the past few years.

Even if it wasn't, you can also have 1 talking point in common with white supremacists without being a white supremacist..?


> Even if it wasn't, you can also have 1 talking point in common with white supremacists without being a white supremacist..?

There's an old joke.

"You see that pier on the lake out there? I built that pier with my bare hands. Drove the pilings against the tide of the sand, plank by plank. But do they call me MacGregor the pier builder? No. But you fuck one goat..."


>What I said is a common critique of content coming out in the past few years.

It's only common in certain circles and we all know exactly which ones.


As far as I can tell, the term "virtue signalling" has never been used to express an idea of any substance. It seems to be a way of name-calling ideas that the user of the term is unwilling to engage on in terms of substance.


Not really. It's obvious that Netflix or any other corporation doesn't care about minorities, gay rights, women, or what have you.

They're just pandering to younger generations who are (as it's always been) more liberal, and right now have more disposable income—which is what companies are after.

The action of showing off how progressive these companies are while at the same time not giving a damn is what virtue signalling is (at least, to me).

I actually have similar ideas to the ones that are being pushed, ex., I don't oppose mixed-race couples, gay couples, etc. It's just annoying for everything to be about that nowadays.


> Not really. It's obvious that Netflix or any other corporation doesn't care about minorities, gay rights, women, or what have you.

Can you back that up? Since it's "obvious" it should be very easy.

I'm not familiar with Netflix's internal benefits but I am familiar with another big tech company's benefits and they go out of the way to guarantee equal benefits to same sex couples, beyond what the state/federal law provides (which results in the company spending more money out of pocket to provide those benefits so they match what state/federal provides to heterosexual couples). Or how in interviews it's very strongly emphasized to avoid any discussion, question, etc from which one can infer marital status, sexual orientation, parenthood, etc.

That shows to me that the contrary is valid and I suspect Netflix to not be far from that since it competes for the same talent pool in the same geographical location.


Do I really have to back that up?

Corporations go make their products in countries where there are no labor laws, where they make people and even children work 16 hours/day, to make your shoes for 50c and then sell them back to you for $50.

Do they care about minorities? Why don't they open a factory in some depressed area in the States instead of going to China?

Do they care about gay rights? Why don't they denounce/boycott Muslim countries where they have the death penalty for being gay?

Do they care about women? Why do they support factories where women work 16 hours and are regularly harassed?

Companies are pandering to liberal kids with left-wing, progressive ideas because they want their money and they are the demographic most willing to give it to them. In the process, they annoy everyone else—including people who don't care about politics, or don't live with their parents and understand what actual problems people have. Unfortunately I'm in the second group.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: