• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Clickbait Cringe Marvel’s Kevin Feige confirms a transgender character is being introduced to the MCU

Dec 15, 2011
6,484
15,998
1,090
I realise I was perhaps a bit flippant in the way I asked, so apologies for that. But I am genuinely curious to hear your perspective on this. Because personally I just don’t understand what the overall motivation is. You say it’s indoctrination but to what end? Indoctrinating people to do what? Why is the issue of trans people specifically being used for this? What does people becoming more accepting of trans people achieve for these corporations?
You are putting words into my mouth - and that is part of the issue being demonstrated that this newest episode in a long line of episodes.
That this can be done so casually, such leaps of logic being made because some people have the temerity to question the crumbling argument is the indoctrination. It is the normalisation of suppression of any opposing position. Which leads to cultural tyranny.

It's equivalent to someone saying "The best qualified candidate for the position should be given the job"
And someone else responding "Why do you hate [X] people?"

And to make my position clearer: I care more about what's between people's ears than what's between people's legs.
 

Turnt

Member
Jul 21, 2018
346
504
300
You are putting words into my mouth - and that is part of the issue being demonstrated that this newest episode in a long line of episodes.
That this can be done so casually, such leaps of logic being made because some people have the temerity to question the crumbling argument is the indoctrination. It is the normalisation of suppression of any opposing position. Which leads to cultural tyranny.

It's equivalent to someone saying "The best qualified candidate for the position should be given the job"
And someone else responding "Why do you hate [X] people?"

And to make my position clearer: I care more about what's between people's ears than what's between people's legs.
Apologies for putting words in your mouth then. That wasn’t my intention. I really am just trying to understand why you think this and was trying to lay out some questions for you to help me understand.

So you’re saying that (and please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you here) in getting people to accept trans characters in media they suppress people rejecting this idea and therefore they become more susceptible to accepting other ideas in the future?

So why is this being done with trans characters in particular?
 
Dec 15, 2011
6,484
15,998
1,090
Apologies for putting words in your mouth then. That wasn’t my intention. I really am just trying to understand why you think this and was trying to lay out some questions for you to help me understand.

So you’re saying that (and please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you here) in getting people to accept trans characters in media they suppress people rejecting this idea and therefore they become more susceptible to accepting other ideas in the future?

So why is this being done with trans characters in particular?
My stance is a response to the ongoing promotion of identity-politic and obtusely politically correct narratives and the suppresion of reason and logic being applied to them.
Because, by definition, identity-politics and obtusely politically correct narratives eschew logic and reason on a number of levels.

This thread just so happens to reference a recent example.
There are plenty of others.

And in those plenty, I witness the same efforts to dismiss and suppress questioning the narrative with the NOTHING TO SEE HERE argument (gift-wrapped in various forms) from the same people who claim to be unbothered but whose supposedly indifferent words are betrayed by their vociferous actions to show that they are clearly bothered very much by those that won't stop asking questions they don't want asked.

Compared to the number of people and their mass of comments making overtly theatrical efforts at nonchalance and shrugging, I have made very few challenges to their efforts to stifle and misrepresent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya

The Elite

BOSS
Apr 8, 2006
68,346
848
1,580
Toronto
It doesn't seem like a big deal unless they turn it into one. If it becomes about showing how woke they are because they have a trans character then that will be a problem.
 

badblue

Member
Nov 25, 2012
943
806
750
Edmonton
I can't wait to see how they handle this.
If the make an existing established character trans, people will complain. If they don't use a trans actor, people will complain. If the don't use the right trans actor, people will complain (how dare you use a MtF for a FtM character). If the they don't mention the character is trans in movie dialogue enough, people will complain.

Sera is the only character they can use. If they are using her, maybe we can get Angela too?

Also, just looking up tran's marvel character. Loki is listed as genderfluid. Daredevil (earth-1045) had a sex change operation. Deadpool is listed as pansexual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

Turnt

Member
Jul 21, 2018
346
504
300
My stance is a response to the ongoing promotion of identity-politic and obtusely politically correct narratives and the suppresion of reason and logic being applied to them.
Because, by definition, identity-politics and obtusely politically correct narratives eschew logic and reason on a number of levels.

This thread just so happens to reference a recent example.
There are plenty of others.

And in those plenty, I witness the same efforts to dismiss and suppress questioning the narrative with the NOTHING TO SEE HERE argument (gift-wrapped in various forms) from the same people who claim to be unbothered but whose supposedly indifferent words are betrayed by their vociferous actions to show that they are clearly bothered very much by those that won't stop asking questions they don't want asked.

Compared to the number of people and their mass of comments making overtly theatrical efforts at nonchalance and shrugging, I have made very few challenges to their efforts to stifle and misrepresent.
Not exactly the direct answers I was looking for to help me understand that perspective but thanks for your time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sol_bad

poppabk

Member
Jan 21, 2008
11,369
285
1,115
USA
They have aliens, pretty simple to have an alien species that has the ability to change sex. Have that Mantis girl from GOTG have been born a man. Have her be confused about why other species can't change and have her feel empathy for people who can't change sex to match their gender. Have a few slightly awkward too literal Drax lines, and then have him accept in a too literal way, and then back on with the show.
 

KingGhidorah

Member
Jul 28, 2019
396
963
375
MCU is the next 'Get Woke Go Broke' victim

just to name a few of the more well-known franchises

- Ghostbusters
- Terminator
- Charlie's Angels
- James Bond <-- Next
- MCU <-- Next
 

BadBurger

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2019
556
756
415
DIsney and Marvel has a way of making big announcements like this then making the characters very minor, even background characters (like their first gay character in the MCU), and the moments fleeting.
 

KingGhidorah

Member
Jul 28, 2019
396
963
375
I'm absolutely not OK with this,

If I have a son who thinks he is a she and wants to be a transgender woman, I'd be absolutely devastated, I'd come to terms with it eventually and accept him/her, how long I would not know, but I would eventually accept her

But

If I have a perfectly normal son, who thinks it's cool to be transgender because of the school teachings, media exposure, the transgender superhero, I'd smack the fuck out of him and cut him off of this toxic western liberalism

accepting transgender is one thing, making it a trend is another thing........and media, movie studios, MCU are doing the latter
 
Last edited:

dottme

Member
Sep 28, 2013
1,386
491
585
I still need to see more even if I’m not a big Marvel fan anyway.
having a good trans character is fine. Quickly changing an existing character to be trans would be stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sol_bad

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
4,362
5,981
470
Well, at least we know Black Panther is safe.

This announcement should remove all doubt who is behind this agenda push; China.
 

iconmaster

Member
Jul 18, 2013
5,230
8,283
875
I hope it’s Green Lantern. She could even self-transition, allowing for some genital oddness.

But since we’re in superhero land, why not just have someone who can swap genders at will? Then it’s an ongoing plot device rather than an abnormality.
 

Reon

Member
Apr 2, 2019
155
231
225
MCU is the next 'Get Woke Go Broke' victim

just to name a few of the more well-known franchises

- Ghostbusters
- Terminator
- Charlie's Angels
- James Bond <-- Next
- MCU <-- Next
Oh my god I'm so nervous for the next James Bond movie after all of the rumor of the black chick taking on the role of 007 going forwards. James Bond has been a lifelong love for me and I really don't want to see it fall victim to the SJW menace nonsense.
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
4,167
2,439
1,485
My stance is a response to the ongoing promotion of identity-politic and obtusely politically correct narratives and the suppresion of reason and logic being applied to them.
Because, by definition, identity-politics and obtusely politically correct narratives eschew logic and reason on a number of levels.

This thread just so happens to reference a recent example.
There are plenty of others.

And in those plenty, I witness the same efforts to dismiss and suppress questioning the narrative with the NOTHING TO SEE HERE argument (gift-wrapped in various forms) from the same people who claim to be unbothered but whose supposedly indifferent words are betrayed by their vociferous actions to show that they are clearly bothered very much by those that won't stop asking questions they don't want asked.

Compared to the number of people and their mass of comments making overtly theatrical efforts at nonchalance and shrugging, I have made very few challenges to their efforts to stifle and misrepresent.
So much word salad.
So how would you put a gay or trans character in a film?
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
20,491
38,077
1,480
#FreeBrap
Have they said there will be a trans main character? I thought they had just said a trans character. Which for Disney usually means some small background character as a token gesture to that community, like the lesbian kiss in the new Star Wars. In the newest Avengers they hyped up that they were gonna have their first gay character and it turned out to be some guy Captain America talks to for a couple seconds.
I suppose you’re probably right. Regardless, it’s blatant pandering and I only see it getting worse from here.
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
4,167
2,439
1,485
I don’t think they should be putting gay characters in film. I think they can put characters who are gay in, and if you don’t understand the difference then you are the problem.
Is this real?
Pretend im an obtuse moron, shouldn't be too hard for you. What's the difference?
 

Singular7

Member
Jan 9, 2018
162
194
280
It doesn't matter how hard they push, the indoctrination won't be enough, since the rejection of the indoctrination is baseline to mankind.

Nobody will ever fully accept LGBTQ+, overweight people will never be beautiful, and you can't eliminate bullying.

History on repeat!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pel1300
Dec 15, 2011
6,484
15,998
1,090
So much word salad.
So how would you put a gay or trans character in a film?
Unlike some, I can substantiate my positions with logic and reason rather than merely trying to dismiss and stifle and misrepresent opinions that don't align with my preferences.

When I become a film-maker I'll decide what film to make and what characters should be in it.
I've a broader view which I've already detailed in this thread. The fact that narrow-minded people are dissatisfied with it and want to coerce me into baited avenues and set up implied positions isn't going to work on me. And please don't feign innocence. I've seen enough of your copy-and-paste arguments to recognise your set up for what it is.

Anyway, why are you bothered? There's nothing to see here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr

KingGhidorah

Member
Jul 28, 2019
396
963
375
I hope China and the rest of Asian countries reject this movie and push back hard against toxic western liberalism

this is getting fucking ridiculous
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pel1300

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
4,167
2,439
1,485
Unlike some, I can substantiate my positions with logic and reason rather than merely trying to dismiss and stifle and misrepresent opinions that don't align with my preferences.

When I become a film-maker I'll decide what film to make and what characters should be in it.
I've a broader view which I've already detailed in this thread. The fact that narrow-minded people are dissatisfied with it and want to coerce me into baited avenues and set up implied positions isn't going to work on me. And please don't feign innocence. I've seen enough of your copy-and-paste arguments to recognise your set up for what it is.

Anyway, why are you bothered? There's nothing to see here.
More word salad with zero substance. That's all your posts are. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
4,167
2,439
1,485
More zero-effort dismissals because someone isn't falling for your schtick.

Anyway, why are you bothered? There's nothing to see here.
Like I said, your posts never have any substance and you never clearly explain your position or thoughts on anything, ever.

Your first post in this thread is basically just a joke and then your 2nd post talks about people thinking "nothing to see here". If that 2nd post was aimed at me, I wrote a pretty lengthy post about my thoughts on the situation. Disney/Marvel haven't promoted anything about the Eternals having a gay character, they have simply answered questions when asked about it.

I mean, you also ask people to provide proof in the politics thread, like when you asked someone to provide proof on Trump cheating with a woman. You sit there on your high horse with your word salad but what proof do you have to back up your thoughts and feelings about this situation in regards to "Hollywood indoctrination"? How many movies out of literally hundreds per year contain gay/trans "indoctrination"? You sit there on your high horse saying that you'll make your own decisions for your own film but mock and belittle people who make their own creative choice to write a gay character in a script.

You talk about people valuing logic, if you ask me, jumping to over reactionary conclusions based on a 2 sentence answer that look less than 30 seconds to answer defies logic. You need more pieces of the puzzle before you can come to a definite conclusion. Waiting for the extra pieces of the puzzle is what I would call logical.

I'm not bothered, just hoping that at some point your posts contain some substance.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: AfricanKing

TheStruggler

Member
Apr 28, 2014
8,540
1,016
730
I'm fine having a trans character as long as they are built from the ground up and not some existing character already they decide to change ala overwatch where it seems they flip a coin to see if a character is straight, gay, bi etc after already establishing them
 
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
20,491
38,077
1,480
#FreeBrap
Apologies for putting words in your mouth then. That wasn’t my intention. I really am just trying to understand why you think this and was trying to lay out some questions for you to help me understand.

So you’re saying that (and please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you here) in getting people to accept trans characters in media they suppress people rejecting this idea and therefore they become more susceptible to accepting other ideas in the future?

So why is this being done with trans characters in particular?
Your questions weren't addressed to me, but allow me to have a crack.

Stories are important. They are a large part of how a society transfers its culture from one generation to the next. In particular, superhero stories are part of how we train our young men to be heroic and self-sacrificing for the greater good This is not the role of females for what should be obvious reasons. When you send young men to storm the beaches of Normandy, you want every one of them to consider themself a superhero. It is therefore important that we don't corrupt our stories, even if the need for masculine heroism and self-sacrifice aren't as readily apparent as they once were.

In Western culture, we value freedom, and this includes creators too. So, when someone strays from the cultural norms in telling a story, we don't see it as a problem; we see it as someone expressing their creative freedom and progressing culture. While the society at large can tolerate this to some extent, the culture begins to buckle under its own weight when the entire creative industry decides to be "different", ironically merging itself into a rainbow coloured blob in the process*. The main issue with all these so-called inclusion efforts from the big players like Disney is that they are done cynically to turn a profit. They are pandering to the masses who, at least in the mainstream media and on Twitter, appear to be demanding such creative changes and, in my opinion, are seeking to selfishly corrupt the wisdom of traditional Western stories stemming from Judeo-Christian values. Make no mistake, religion is part of this as it has throughout the entire evolutionary history of the human species been the cultural glue binding society together. Not just in the West, but every other culture on the planet, e.g. indigenous cultures such as Australian Aboriginals for whom dreamtime stories fill this role. Over the past several decades -- which is an incredibly small sampling window compared to our entire evolutionary history -- we have sought to distance ourselves from our Judeo-Christian roots. I've been a part of that myself because I am and always have been an atheist who has always hated the authority of Evangelical Christians holding what I thought were fairy tales over my head as a way of forcing me to conform to their will. But I never saw the cultural value in them until recently when I've begun to encounter the New Evangelicals: intersectional feminists and their indoctrinated cretins. Why are they relevant? Because they are where the trans and general rainbow obsessions are stemming from and they hold significant cultural power due to their occupation of academia and media. It's not a conspiracy theory; we have hard evidence via the Grievance Studies hoax and the earlier Sokal Affair.

You appear to have accepted the idea that people are inherently "equal" based on immutable characteristics, and I agree with this. However, where you and I seem to differ is that you treat transgenderism as an immutable characteristic, whereas I believe it can be in some cases where it is a developmental abnormality in utero, but in a growing proportion of cases it is simply adherence to a fashion trend stemming from the aforementioned occupation of academia and media by intersectional feminism (I previously made a thread outlining my thoughts here). Because I do not see the latter as an immutable characteristic, rather an ideological weapon wielded by people (typically males) towards the bottom of their respective social hierarchy, I do not afford them the same social benefits that I afford other groups such as minority races or homosexuals. Moreover, I support equality under the law, which was achieved long ago in the West. I do not support this modern gender communism that is seeking to "equalise" (hint: it's not real equality) everyone along their desired parameters in order to overthrow established cultural norms and usher in their intersectional revolution.

Every form of communism creates a power vaccuum that bad actors -- the typical villains of superhero movies who seek to bend society to their whim or destroy it altogether -- seek to fill. The corruption in this instance is that, due to a coupling of the above-described Western creative freedom and capitalism, the ones telling the stories (Disney et al.) are now catering to the villains who have filled the power vaccuum: intersectional feminists. They are pandering to people who have no skin in the game of fertility, which is the very reason we are on this planet. The meaning of life is to make more life, and all of our social structures and norms exist to promote it, including stories. Rainbow people are merely observers in this game, but they are not neutral ones, and that is why they have historically been marginalised. Raising children is expensive and requires inordinate amounts of self-sacrifice, and that is why society and stories have historically been tailored to breeders. I think many of us who have not been indoctrinated by intersectional feminist ideology recognise this creeping corruption of stories instinctively.

Now, is the transgender character described in the OP going to lead to the downfall of Western society? lol no, especially if it gets marginalized so Disney can pander more to our new Chinese overlords. But it's symptomatic of the bigger picture that I have just described: the corruption of stories by the new religion of intersectional feminism. And this bigger picture is what we are always discussing in these kinds of threads, no matter how many smoothbrains want to carry on with their "move along, nothing to see here" games and pretend that one non-standard character in isolation is the issue. If it turns out that they did decide to make a transgender superhero, I would oppose it, because transgenderism, especially the fashionable kind, is not something to aspire to. It has lifelong consequences, most importantly an inability to procreate if bottom surgery is undertaken, and therefore must not be thrust upon innocent, impressionable children who want to emulate their heroes. There is nothing heroic about transgenderism, and corrupting superhero stories in such a way undermines the very purpose of superhero stories outlined above because it encourages young males to reject masculinity and embrace femininity. Societies that give up their masculinity are doomed to fail.

*Fun fact: when you mix all of the colours of the rainbow together, you get white. There is a certain ironic poetry to the fact that the LGBT rainbow is a result of white European-derived culture deconstructing itself.
 
Dec 15, 2011
6,484
15,998
1,090
Like I said, your posts never have any substance and you never clearly explain your position or thoughts on anything, ever.
Incorrect. You have to go alllllllll the way to post 103, a little way up this page to find my position and thoughts.
But that's harder than flinging out vacuous dismissals and accusations, in spite of it being on the very same page your post is on.

Your first post in this thread is basically just a joke
My first post was both jokey and serious. Because, given the anaemic information provided and the projection and assumptions of familiar bad-actors that could be predicted to jump on this (that'd be you and some cohorts), I felt it would be enjoyable to subvert the assumption that the portrayal would automatically be a positive one. So I played up both sides of that equation referencing entirely relevant people that this community would know.

I'm glad you grasped all that nuance.
What a shame I have to 'word-salad' it out to make it all clear to those who would seek to dismiss what was saying as some simple blasé joke.

and then your 2nd post talks about people thinking "nothing to see here". If that 2nd post was aimed at me, I wrote a pretty lengthy post about my thoughts on the situation.
You can assume this is all about you if it gives you the validation you clearly believe you deserve.
But you can write one word or you can write a thousand words. It hasn't taken me very long to see the length and breadth of your argument on these topics. Nor has it taken me very long to see the integrity - or lack thereof - in your engagement with everyone who challenges you. I've called you out on it before and you keep doing it. You keep doing it and I'll keep calling you out for it. If this complex chain of events is too difficult for you to follow then please ask a parent or guardian to help you out with the longer words.

Disney/Marvel haven't promoted anything about the Eternals having a gay character, they have simply answered questions when asked about it.
This has precisely no bearing on anything I've said or your shallow efforts to dismiss it.

I mean, you also ask people to provide proof in the politics thread, like when you asked someone to provide proof on Trump cheating with a woman.
No. Get it right:
I specifically ask for objective, verifiable evidence.
I ask for this when an accusation is asserted as evidence, or when an opinion is asserted as fact.

This is an incredibly low standard to set.
That we live in a time where the application of critical thinking is so rare and so upsetting to those who won't practice it is no justification to do away with it.
What is telling is how objectionable people find this base standard simply because proof and evidence and facts are such inconvenient obstructions to agenda and dogma and narrative.

You sit there on your high horse with your word salad but what proof do you have to back up your thoughts and feelings about this situation in regards to "Hollywood indoctrination"?
Every thread I've engaged in - where you have played your charade of shrugging, dismissing, objecting, disqualifying and yelping that "THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE". That there are there are so many of these threads is the substance to my argument.

That you dismiss substantiation that you don't like as 'word salad' (reading the detailed opinions of other is people is hard, why won't they just shut up and agree with you??) and that you, who are notoriously active in all those threads to the to point where you have earned yourself a reputation that multiple people call you out on - will try your virtual shrug and do the "THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE" when you've been there, making a scene, shows why you have no credibility.

How many movies out of literally hundreds per year contain gay/trans "indoctrination"?
If you actually wanted to engage with people you would read their posts which answer questions before you ask them.
But you don't do that. You'll quote someone, such as me, only to lazily dismiss what you're quoting as 'word salad'. Dismissing isn't the same as addressing. Dismissing in the manner that you are fond of doing is a practice of attempting to control the conversation. To silence and de-value the contributions of those that challenge you.

Because, if you had read and absorbed instead of dismissed and ignored, you wouldn't now be asking questions that have already been answered.
And, no, I'm not going to repeat things I've already stated just to jump through your lazy hoops. If you want the answer, read the posts that answer it. That's a pretty big IF though, isn't it?
And, no, I'm not going to gift-wrap my opinions into a rigid size and shape that you consider digestable. People with narrow views often fail the grasp the full meaning of those with broader views. You're just going to have to deal with that like a grown-up instead of a petulant name-calling child. If this notion is objectionable to you or offends you then I'm afraid you'll find my well of fucks runneth dry. Your sub-standard level of engagement and demonstrable lack of integrity puts your credit with me at zero. I owe you nothing.

You sit there on your high horse saying that you'll make your own decisions for your own film but mock and belittle people who make their own creative choice to write a gay character in a script.
This is a very telling amount of projection on your part.
I am not on my high horse about [shock horror] making my own decisions about my own things.
I was responding to a deliberately leading question and refusing to be lead. Because I know what leading questions are designed to do. They are not some subtle and Machiavellian work of intellectual under-appreciated genius. They are obvious set-ups that are dishonestly presented as innocuous questions. Those employing them advertise more about their own methods than they realise.

As for "mock and belittle people who make their own creative choice to write a gay character in a script." I haven't done this.
In fact, there is not enough substance provided in this topic to hang such mockery on.
There has been no evidence of creative choice.
There has been no mention of a character.
There has been no evidence of a script.
All that has been declared is the identity politic.

Again, you simply can't stick to what has been said without extrapolating or adding things into it in an effort to prop up your petulant, wafer-thin argument.
And, as others have pointed out to you, the issue is that NOTHING is known other than the identity politic and that, when going with what is known (rather than fabricating contexts and details that have no evidence or proof (uh oh!) to support them) and that celebrating such hollow sycophancy (again) is as worthwhile as you arguing the quality of the Emperor's New Clothes when everyone can see he doesn't have a stitch on.

This has even been pointed out to you by others on this page.
You, in your typical display of dismissal and 'no u' level of engagement have decided that the best way for your pretence at having a valid argument is for you to be regarded as ignorant.
The "Treat me like I'm an idiot" ploy is not subtle, it's not clever but it's far closer to the truth than the one making the demand would ever admit to.
WE KNOW you're being dishonest when you play that setup.
WE KNOW you're being lazy.
WE KNOW you're trying to get your challenger to do all the work for you, just so you can be dismissive.

WE WILL, however, treat you like an idiot.
Be careful what you wish for.

You talk about people valuing logic, if you ask me, jumping to over reactionary conclusions based on a 2 sentence answer that look less than 30 seconds to answer defies logic. You need more pieces of the puzzle before you can come to a definite conclusion. Waiting for the extra pieces of the puzzle is what I would call logical.
What a good job I didn't do any of that then.
What a shame you haven't read my posts properly.
What an idiot (see above) you are to set up straw-men fallacies so obviously and so abundantly.

I'm not bothered, just hoping that at some point your posts contain some substance.
Yes. Of course.
Your multiple posts attempting to stifle and cut-down views that don't align with yours in this thread, and in every other thread I've seen where this type of evidence is shown, shows how spectacularly unconvincing your "I'm not bothered" protests are.

I've engaged with more sincerety than you are due.
It's good to see your "Why don't you just let other people have their opinions" effort that you directed at me earlier (a cute "why don't you just fuck off" plea) is something you're so ready to put into practice yourself.

Go back and read my response to that. You've shown me to be quite the prophet.
 
Last edited:

Turnt

Member
Jul 21, 2018
346
504
300
Your questions weren't addressed to me, but allow me to have a crack.

Stories are important. They are a large part of how a society transfers its culture from one generation to the next. In particular, superhero stories are part of how we train our young men to be heroic and self-sacrificing for the greater good This is not the role of females for what should be obvious reasons. When you send young men to storm the beaches of Normandy, you want every one of them to consider themself a superhero. It is therefore important that we don't corrupt our stories, even if the need for masculine heroism and self-sacrifice aren't as readily apparent as they once were.

In Western culture, we value freedom, and this includes creators too. So, when someone strays from the cultural norms in telling a story, we don't see it as a problem; we see it as someone expressing their creative freedom and progressing culture. While the society at large can tolerate this to some extent, the culture begins to buckle under its own weight when the entire creative industry decides to be "different", ironically merging itself into a rainbow coloured blob in the process*. The main issue with all these so-called inclusion efforts from the big players like Disney is that they are done cynically to turn a profit. They are pandering to the masses who, at least in the mainstream media and on Twitter, appear to be demanding such creative changes and, in my opinion, are seeking to selfishly corrupt the wisdom of traditional Western stories stemming from Judeo-Christian values. Make no mistake, religion is part of this as it has throughout the entire evolutionary history of the human species been the cultural glue binding society together. Not just in the West, but every other culture on the planet, e.g. indigenous cultures such as Australian Aboriginals for whom dreamtime stories fill this role. Over the past several decades -- which is an incredibly small sampling window compared to our entire evolutionary history -- we have sought to distance ourselves from our Judeo-Christian roots. I've been a part of that myself because I am and always have been an atheist who has always hated the authority of Evangelical Christians holding what I thought were fairy tales over my head as a way of forcing me to conform to their will. But I never saw the cultural value in them until recently when I've begun to encounter the New Evangelicals: intersectional feminists and their indoctrinated cretins. Why are they relevant? Because they are where the trans and general rainbow obsessions are stemming from and they hold significant cultural power due to their occupation of academia and media. It's not a conspiracy theory; we have hard evidence via the Grievance Studies hoax and the earlier Sokal Affair.

You appear to have accepted the idea that people are inherently "equal" based on immutable characteristics, and I agree with this. However, where you and I seem to differ is that you treat transgenderism as an immutable characteristic, whereas I believe it can be in some cases where it is a developmental abnormality in utero, but in a growing proportion of cases it is simply adherence to a fashion trend stemming from the aforementioned occupation of academia and media by intersectional feminism (I previously made a thread outlining my thoughts here). Because I do not see the latter as an immutable characteristic, rather an ideological weapon wielded by people (typically males) towards the bottom of their respective social hierarchy, I do not afford them the same social benefits that I afford other groups such as minority races or homosexuals. Moreover, I support equality under the law, which was achieved long ago in the West. I do not support this modern gender communism that is seeking to "equalise" (hint: it's not real equality) everyone along their desired parameters in order to overthrow established cultural norms and usher in their intersectional revolution.

Every form of communism creates a power vaccuum that bad actors -- the typical villains of superhero movies who seek to bend society to their whim or destroy it altogether -- seek to fill. The corruption in this instance is that, due to a coupling of the above-described Western creative freedom and capitalism, the ones telling the stories (Disney et al.) are now catering to the villains who have filled the power vaccuum: intersectional feminists. They are pandering to people who have no skin in the game of fertility, which is the very reason we are on this planet. The meaning of life is to make more life, and all of our social structures and norms exist to promote it, including stories. Rainbow people are merely observers in this game, but they are not neutral ones, and that is why they have historically been marginalised. Raising children is expensive and requires inordinate amounts of self-sacrifice, and that is why society and stories have historically been tailored to breeders. I think many of us who have not been indoctrinated by intersectional feminist ideology recognise this creeping corruption of stories instinctively.

Now, is the transgender character described in the OP going to lead to the downfall of Western society? lol no, especially if it gets marginalized so Disney can pander more to our new Chinese overlords. But it's symptomatic of the bigger picture that I have just described: the corruption of stories by the new religion of intersectional feminism. And this bigger picture is what we are always discussing in these kinds of threads, no matter how many smoothbrains want to carry on with their "move along, nothing to see here" games and pretend that one non-standard character in isolation is the issue. If it turns out that they did decide to make a transgender superhero, I would oppose it, because transgenderism, especially the fashionable kind, is not something to aspire to. It has lifelong consequences, most importantly an inability to procreate if bottom surgery is undertaken, and therefore must not be thrust upon innocent, impressionable children who want to emulate their heroes. There is nothing heroic about transgenderism, and corrupting superhero stories in such a way undermines the very purpose of superhero stories outlined above because it encourages young males to reject masculinity and embrace femininity. Societies that give up their masculinity are doomed to fail.

*Fun fact: when you mix all of the colours of the rainbow together, you get white. There is a certain ironic poetry to the fact that the LGBT rainbow is a result of white European-derived culture deconstructing itself.
Thanks, man. I appreciate the time and thought you took with this. I hope Schrödinger’s Cat doesn’t think I was trying to troll or provoke him since I really was just trying to understand his stance. And your post has helped me understand where you’re coming from and is structured in a well thought out way and makes a bunch of interesting points.

Just to elaborate a little on my own thoughts on trans people since you touched on what you thought my perspective was. Personally I’m kinda neutral on it. I’m an able bodied, straight white guy so I tick all the boxes on some people’s “privilege cards”. I don’t really “get” what being transgender means in the way that I can try and imagine what it means to be gay, a woman, have a disability or be another race though. So I have a hard time fully understanding what that experience must be like. So I guess I just give transgender people the benefit of the doubt and go along with what they say. From my own first hand experience with transgender people they just seem to me like every day people trying to get by and live their lives. So if they want me to use a particular pronoun for them then it doesn’t hurt me to do that so then why not. I know there’s a lot of talk on here and other places about people being forced to use requested pronouns and I don’t agree with people having to do that, if people don’t want to then they shouldn’t have to and enforcing it would be a worrying direction to head down. But I also don’t think that’s something that really occurs too often in the real world. News media tends to just highlight those stories because they’re hot button issues for people on both sides. Anyway, I’m now rambling a bit.

I still don’t quite get the part about it being an intentional ploy by corporations like Disney. I can get the argument that they’re just doing it to make money. There’s probably some study they’ve done that shows that having a transgender character results in X amount more publicity and gets you more money from demographic Y. But I just don’t see the argument that they are doing it to actively push an agenda. If more people becoming trans is something that would cause society to fail then why are they pushing for it? I take a pretty cynical view about corporations but I don’t think there’s a boardroom of people sitting around discussing how they can bring about the downfall of society. I think they are purely driven by profit. That they’re amoral not immoral. To me that’s the simpler answer rather than some grand conspiracy.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
20,491
38,077
1,480
#FreeBrap
Thanks, man. I appreciate the time and thought you took with this. I hope Schrödinger’s Cat doesn’t think I was trying to troll or provoke him since I really was just trying to understand his stance. And your post has helped me understand where you’re coming from and is structured in a well thought out way and makes a bunch of interesting points.

Just to elaborate a little on my own thoughts on trans people since you touched on what you thought my perspective was. Personally I’m kinda neutral on it. I’m an able bodied, straight white guy so I tick all the boxes on some people’s “privilege cards”. I don’t really “get” what being transgender means in the way that I can try and imagine what it means to be gay, a woman, have a disability or be another race though. So I have a hard time fully understanding what that experience must be like. So I guess I just give transgender people the benefit of the doubt and go along with what they say. From my own first hand experience with transgender people they just seem to me like every day people trying to get by and live their lives. So if they want me to use a particular pronoun for them then it doesn’t hurt me to do that so then why not. I know there’s a lot of talk on here and other places about people being forced to use requested pronouns and I don’t agree with people having to do that, if people don’t want to then they shouldn’t have to and enforcing it would be a worrying direction to head down. But I also don’t think that’s something that really occurs too often in the real world. News media tends to just highlight those stories because they’re hot button issues for people on both sides. Anyway, I’m now rambling a bit.

I still don’t quite get the part about it being an intentional ploy by corporations like Disney. I can get the argument that they’re just doing it to make money. There’s probably some study they’ve done that shows that having a transgender character results in X amount more publicity and gets you more money from demographic Y. But I just don’t see the argument that they are doing it to actively push an agenda. If more people becoming trans is something that would cause society to fail then why are they pushing for it? I take a pretty cynical view about corporations but I don’t think there’s a boardroom of people sitting around discussing how they can bring about the downfall of society. I think they are purely driven by profit. That they’re amoral not immoral. To me that’s the simpler answer rather than some grand conspiracy.
I think your heart is in the right place and you're coming from a place of attempted empathy and understanding, but you must realise that this also lays a foundation for people who would take advantage of your good nature for their own benefit. I always like to think of these things in terms of incentives, i.e. who benefits if we change social norms. In this case, if we establish a social standard that allows another person to control which words you use based on their identity, this gives them power over you, and it incentivises people who are otherwise powerless in society to adopt that identity themselves. This is why I think there are two classes of trans people: those who have a legitimate developmental disorder due to abnormal hormonal exposure in utero (natural/biological transgenderism), and those who abuse the empathy and understanding afforded to the first class for their own benefit (nurtural/social transgenderism). The latter class are, in my observation, almost always weak, feminised males at the bottom of the masculine social hierarchy who cannot compete for a mate in the game of fertility. Their adoption of the transgender identity and attempted overthrow of social norms is, in a way, a perverse form of revenge on a society that has rejected them. In many cases, the reason they are weak and feminised is because they were raised without a masculine role model. This is typically the father, but superheroes play this role to an extent too. So, in a society where we have ever-increasing rates of single motherhood thanks to the rise of feminism, we need more masculine superheroes, not less. We should not be pandering to the nurtural/social transgenders because it is a chosen identity, not an immutable one they were born with, and they therefore do not deserve the empathy that they are trying to blackmail out of society. It is purely self-motivated and not in line with the heroism and self-sacrificial qualities that superheroes are supposed to embody.

Regarding Disney, I don't know if they are doing it more because the entertainment industry has been infiltrated by intersectional feminists or because they think it's the best way to make money. The latter is undoubtedly a major factor, if not the dominant one, but I can't really quantify the influence of the first because I don't have enough data. I suspect both are in play to some degree, but I'm not saying that there's a grand conspiracy between intersectional feminists and entertainment corporations like Disney, rather than intersectional feminists have seized a large enough share of mainstream culture that Disney now sees it as the path of least resistance for profit. On this note, I can't reconcile your two comments: 1) "if more people becoming trans is something that would cause society to fail then why are they pushing for it?", and 2) "I take a pretty cynical view about corporations...". I would've thought the cynicism towards corporations noted in point 2 would explain point 1. That is, corporations are purely self-motivated and they are going to chase profit irrespective of the impact on society. I doubt they give much thought, if any, to the long-term cultural impact of the stories they are telling, and I don't think they should have to because that's not the role of corporations in a free market. So, I'm personally at an ideological crossroads: I can see a problem that could potentially bring about the downfall of Western society if left unchecked, but the most obvious solutions are authoritarian intervention ala China which I am fundamentally opposed to. The only potential solution that addresses the problem while allowing me to stick to my principles is the one that has been staring us in the face the entire time: organised religion. Specifically, traditional Christianity. While I don't want to have to adhere to religion myself, I think the masses do need it to provide them direction and meaning in life, otherwise they stray towards much worse ideologies that crop up to fill the void. Essentially, in doing away with the oppression of traditional religion, we have unwittingly handed the cultural reigns over to corporations who, by their very nature, must submit to mob rule in a free market. While I have no love for the first group, I dislike the second even more, so I think it's a matter of picking the least bad option at this point.

Consider the following quote which is the origin of the concept of the god-shaped hole:

“What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.”
- Blaise Pascal, Pensées VII(425)

I regard the MCU and other such modern, corrupted superhero stories to be the empty print of an infinite abyss.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Turnt

ManaByte

Member
Jun 10, 2004
23,839
9,423
2,235
42
Southern California
mcucosmic.com

Despite recent reports, Marvel Studios chief Kevin Feige did not intend to confirm that a transgender character will appear in an upcoming film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, two sources tell Variety.
While Feige’s answer appeared to respond to the specific question about a trans character, two sources close to the studio tell Variety that Feige only intended to respond to the first part about LGBT+ characters, and he did not mean to imply that a trans character will be coming to the MCU “very soon.”
Fake clickbait news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

Turnt

Member
Jul 21, 2018
346
504
300
On this note, I can't reconcile your two comments: 1) "if more people becoming trans is something that would cause society to fail then why are they pushing for it?", and 2) "I take a pretty cynical view about corporations...". I would've thought the cynicism towards corporations noted in point 2 would explain point 1. That is, corporations are purely self-motivated and they are going to chase profit irrespective of the impact on society. I doubt they give much thought, if any, to the long-term cultural impact of the stories they are telling, and I don't think they should have to because that's not the role of corporations in a free market.
If you don’t mind I’m just going to respond to this part. (Partly because I just wanted to understand the perspective and I’m getting that from what you’re saying but also because it’s getting late as fuck here and I need to be up early tomorrow). I feel like we are actually on a similar position here. By pushing for it I meant in the sense of that being the explicit intended goal of what they are doing, which seemed to be what Schrödinger’s Cat was saying he thought was the case. To use a totally separate example, let’s say a chemicals company ends up poisoning a nearby water supply because of their practises. It’s a horrible thing to have happened but it seems neither of us would think that the company who owns the plant set out with the end goal being to poison the water supply. They just probably decided to cut some costs on their safety measures and it was an unintended outcome as a result of them trying to save some money. At worst maybe they’re apathetic about it happening but I don’t think they’re twirling their moustaches like cartoon villains over it, right? So what I don’t get is the idea of Disney actively wanting to harm society and that being the driving motivation. You mentioned about thinking intersectional feminists have worked their way into influential roles but if they are in fact working on an agenda that’s not just profit based then they’re probably still doing something they think is for the best.

I just think with a lot of issues it’s easy to view the other side as acting in a purely malicious way. But that’s not really the case.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
20,491
38,077
1,480
#FreeBrap
If you don’t mind I’m just going to respond to this part. (Partly because I just wanted to understand the perspective and I’m getting that from what you’re saying but also because it’s getting late as fuck here and I need to be up early tomorrow). I feel like we are actually on a similar position here. By pushing for it I meant in the sense of that being the explicit intended goal of what they are doing, which seemed to be what Schrödinger’s Cat was saying he thought was the case. To use a totally separate example, let’s say a chemicals company ends up poisoning a nearby water supply because of their practises. It’s a horrible thing to have happened but it seems neither of us would think that the company who owns the plant set out with the end goal being to poison the water supply. They just probably decided to cut some costs on their safety measures and it was an unintended outcome as a result of them trying to save some money. At worst maybe they’re apathetic about it happening but I don’t think they’re twirling their moustaches like cartoon villains over it, right? So what I don’t get is the idea of Disney actively wanting to harm society and that being the driving motivation. You mentioned about thinking intersectional feminists have worked their way into influential roles but if they are in fact working on an agenda that’s not just profit based then they’re probably still doing something they think is for the best.

I just think with a lot of issues it’s easy to view the other side as acting in a purely malicious way. But that’s not really the case.
I think that's usually right regarding the chemicals company.

I'm not saying that Disney is being willfully evil and deliberately trying to harm society. I'm saying that they're following the path of least resistance to profit, which in current_year appears to be in pandering to the noisy intersectional crowd who I believe to be the narcissistic, self-interested, malicious ones. The downfall of capitalist society is that corporations must kowtow to the mob, and the mob is easily corrupted.
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
4,167
2,439
1,485
Incorrect. You have to go alllllllll the way to post 103, a little way up this page to find my position and thoughts.
But that's harder than flinging out vacuous dismissals and accusations, in spite of it being on the very same page your post is on.
Post 103 contains your thoughts about the "nothing to see here" people. It doesn't discuss the actual topic on hand.

My first post was both jokey and serious. Because, given the anaemic information provided and the projection and assumptions of familiar bad-actors that could be predicted to jump on this (that'd be you and some cohorts), I felt it would be enjoyable to subvert the assumption that the portrayal would automatically be a positive one. So I played up both sides of that equation referencing entirely relevant people that this community would know.

I'm glad you grasped all that nuance.
What a shame I have to 'word-salad' it out to make it all clear to those who would seek to dismiss what was saying as some simple blasé joke.
:D

You can assume this is all about you if it gives you the validation you clearly believe you deserve.
But you can write one word or you can write a thousand words. It hasn't taken me very long to see the length and breadth of your argument on these topics. Nor has it taken me very long to see the integrity - or lack thereof - in your engagement with everyone who challenges you. I've called you out on it before and you keep doing it. You keep doing it and I'll keep calling you out for it. If this complex chain of events is too difficult for you to follow then please ask a parent or guardian to help you out with the longer words.
There are probably 3-5 people in this thread who simply don't care and aren't affected by this news. And you seem to primarily stick to the politics forum and Clown World thread. Your highest engagement in off topic is in threads that I post in. Of course I'm going to assume it's aimed at me.

This has precisely no bearing on anything I've said or your shallow efforts to dismiss it.
Everything you have typed in this thread has no bearing on the topic on hand.

No. Get it right:
I specifically ask for objective, verifiable evidence.
I ask for this when an accusation is asserted as evidence, or when an opinion is asserted as fact.

This is an incredibly low standard to set.
That we live in a time where the application of critical thinking is so rare and so upsetting to those who won't practice it is no justification to do away with it.
What is telling is how objectionable people find this base standard simply because proof and evidence and facts are such inconvenient obstructions to agenda and dogma and narrative.
You ignore questions from myself and T Turnt , you avoid discussing your real thoughts and using your critical thinking on the topic of this and similar threads. You'd rather just sit there and belittle and annoy people.

Every thread I've engaged in - where you have played your charade of shrugging, dismissing, objecting, disqualifying and yelping that "THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE". That there are there are so many of these threads is the substance to my argument.

That you dismiss substantiation that you don't like as 'word salad' (reading the detailed opinions of other is people is hard, why won't they just shut up and agree with you??) and that you, who are notoriously active in all those threads to the to point where you have earned yourself a reputation that multiple people call you out on - will try your virtual shrug and do the "THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE" when you've been there, making a scene, shows why you have no credibility.
I don't really care what you or anyone else on GAF think of my credibility. I'm not going to change my train of thought just to appease anyone that has beef with me. I know very well that I'm at odds with O oagboghi2 , C cryptoadam , Nymphae Nymphae and matt404au matt404au . We just think differently. Just because I generally don't agree with them doesn't mean that I never agree with them. I like and agree with some of the things they say. Their credibility doesn't diminish either just because I disagree with them the majority of the time.
I don't know anyone on here in real life and I don't judge people until I meet them in person.

If you actually wanted to engage with people you would read their posts which answer questions before you ask them.
But you don't do that. You'll quote someone, such as me, only to lazily dismiss what you're quoting as 'word salad'. Dismissing isn't the same as addressing. Dismissing in the manner that you are fond of doing is a practice of attempting to control the conversation. To silence and de-value the contributions of those that challenge you.

Because, if you had read and absorbed instead of dismissed and ignored, you wouldn't now be asking questions that have already been answered.
And, no, I'm not going to repeat things I've already stated just to jump through your lazy hoops. If you want the answer, read the posts that answer it. That's a pretty big IF though, isn't it?
And, no, I'm not going to gift-wrap my opinions into a rigid size and shape that you consider digestable. People with narrow views often fail the grasp the full meaning of those with broader views. You're just going to have to deal with that like a grown-up instead of a petulant name-calling child. If this notion is objectionable to you or offends you then I'm afraid you'll find my well of fucks runneth dry. Your sub-standard level of engagement and demonstrable lack of integrity puts your credit with me at zero. I owe you nothing.
You ignore questions that are asked of you. As I mentioned above, you ignored what Turnt asked of you and just go on your own writing spree talking about nothing. You actually accused him of putting words in your mouth. It was you who said it's indoctrination by the Hollywood studios, or at least if you go through the history of your posts in this topic it's the only conclusion one can come to. If it was a misunderstanding you did absolutely nothing to clear up the misunderstanding and explain what you meant about indoctrination. You didn't provide any "verifiable evidence" of Hollywood and it's indoctrination or indoctrination in general.

This is a very telling amount of projection on your part.
I am not on my high horse about [shock horror] making my own decisions about my own things.
I was responding to a deliberately leading question and refusing to be lead. Because I know what leading questions are designed to do. They are not some subtle and Machiavellian work of intellectual under-appreciated genius. They are obvious set-ups that are dishonestly presented as innocuous questions. Those employing them advertise more about their own methods than they realise.

As for "mock and belittle people who make their own creative choice to write a gay character in a script." I haven't done this.
In fact, there is not enough substance provided in this topic to hang such mockery on.
There has been no evidence of creative choice.
There has been no mention of a character.
There has been no evidence of a script.
All that has been declared is the identity politic.

Again, you simply can't stick to what has been said without extrapolating or adding things into it in an effort to prop up your petulant, wafer-thin argument.
And, as others have pointed out to you, the issue is that NOTHING is known other than the identity politic and that, when going with what is known (rather than fabricating contexts and details that have no evidence or proof (uh oh!) to support them) and that celebrating such hollow sycophancy (again) is as worthwhile as you arguing the quality of the Emperor's New Clothes when everyone can see he doesn't have a stitch on.

This has even been pointed out to you by others on this page.
You, in your typical display of dismissal and 'no u' level of engagement have decided that the best way for your pretence at having a valid argument is for you to be regarded as ignorant.
The "Treat me like I'm an idiot" ploy is not subtle, it's not clever but it's far closer to the truth than the one making the demand would ever admit to.
WE KNOW you're being dishonest when you play that setup.
WE KNOW you're being lazy.
WE KNOW you're trying to get your challenger to do all the work for you, just so you can be dismissive.

WE WILL, however, treat you like an idiot.
Be careful what you wish for.
Did you do more than read the ops topic? Did you watch the 54 minute interview? Have you looked up or researched anything about the Eternals movie and it's characters? There is plenty that is known about this movie in general. If you do your research you'll learn that the creatives have very much total freedom on their films since at least Civil War, there is plenty of evidence of this on the internet.
You are mocking the "nothing to see here" people and by extension mocking the whole fact that there would/could be a trans character in an MCU film.

What a good job I didn't do any of that then.
What a shame you haven't read my posts properly.
What an idiot (see above) you are to set up straw-men fallacies so obviously and so abundantly.
awww
The Internets favourite thing to say when there is nothing else to say. Straw-man.
Quoting a BBC article, mocking "nothing to see here" people and then citing indoctrination as an issue is very much an over-reaction based on very little facts on the particular character vaguely mentioned.

Yes. Of course.
Your multiple posts attempting to stifle and cut-down views that don't align with yours in this thread, and in every other thread I've seen where this type of evidence is shown, shows how spectacularly unconvincing your "I'm not bothered" protests are.

I've engaged with more sincerety than you are due.
It's good to see your "Why don't you just let other people have their opinions" effort that you directed at me earlier (a cute "why don't you just fuck off" plea) is something you're so ready to put into practice yourself.

Go back and read my response to that. You've shown me to be quite the prophet.
And ....... you're not trying to stifle, cut-down and ridicule my views? Weird how having a two way conversation can only have someones views stifled in only one direction.

*EDIT*
And will you look at that, there really is NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
 
Last edited: