Walking Dead introduces gay couple. Typical ignorant chaos ensues

[Matteo]

Ah, should have covered that. Under a different definition that I'm unaware of at the moment, you seem like a smart guy, maybe you'll know what I'm getting at - I think that the current political landscape is on in favor of emotional social justice movements. People growing up now aren't disciplined harshly (usually) and are very impressionable. So when the media is always making Gayness (if there was a better word LMAO) a thing on your TV. Almost like a quota. Like you NEED to have a token Gay person.

At this point though:

I can see and understand your point, but I disagree. All art - but especially film - is rudimentarily political. Some films are rather conspicuous about it, others more indiscernible, but all mediums of storytelling is a reflection of the social, cultural and economic climate of the society in which the work originated. The Australian New Wave movement of the 1970s, for example, captured and mirrored the ideological changes that the country was facing at the time. Namely, the increasing acknowledgment towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the nations collective and dismal understanding of what we did to these people. Even in American film, a lot of post-WWII films captured that post-modern philosophical mindset that was so prevalent in the 50s and 60s, particularly in regards to religion, faith and existentialism.

The Italian neo-realist movement of the 40s and 50s also widely reflected the real economic turmoil post-WWII Italy was enduring at the time. Films such as Bicycle Thieves and Umberto. D were all about encapsulating the financial hardship and devastation of Italy not only just after the second World War but also after the collapse and dissolution of its fascist system. Similarly, films and television today that feature LGBT characters (just like The Walking Dead) is reflective of our own progressive acceptance and understanding towards these people. It's really no different to all the other examples I cited.

To propound that the media is simply shoving this down our throats (i.e., being culturally imperialistic) is mostly groundless and rooted in simplicity. You're neglecting to examine over 100 years of film history where hundreds of works from all around the world have become mirrors to real life social conditions. The Western world most of us on this forum live in is becoming increasingly more progressive towards these once contentious and complex issues. Film and television is merely a reflection of that notion.

[Circled Square]

It's not as if this is a new thing. The Roman empire adapted a lot of acceptance related laws during the end of it's era. I'm not saying it led to it's downfall, but taboos are there naturally, and for a reason. It's normal to ostracize people who go against the norm. I think that art is reflective of a time constructed by the idea "what have you done for me lately", if the time the piece of art was made is set in a conservative one, it will reflect that. I don't think that justifies the bias towards it though. We can't just say "well this is how our times are I guess" *shrug* and ignore how it's being marketed as a secondary way of life. When it shouldn't be.

That last bit is completely opinionated of course, not fact. I loved reading that post though, don't necessarily 100% agree with it's motive.

[Hanley!]

I think the problem you're having is with seeing the previous state of affairs as the default. Therefore you presume that any change to that formula represents some push from the media. It seems that you feel that gay people are now over-represented on television. But they're not. It's just that there's more of them on television now than there have ever been before. But that's a good thing. Because a decade ago, they were absurdly underrepresented. They're probably still underrepresented to a certain extent.

Media is just catching up at the moment. It's become more acceptable to feature gay people and gay relationships on television because thankfully the majority of people are now mature and sensible and decent enough to treat gay people the same as anybody else. There are always going to be a few bigots trying to hold us back, and they'll always be loudest and most obnoxious people in the conversation. But these days, thankfully they're the minority.

So this push from the media is not some kind of conspiracy aimed at pushing a gay agenda down anyone's throat. How would that even work? Would the various television studios meet in secret and agree to feature more gay characters? And to what end? This is instead a natural increase in the amount of gay characters to try and match the amount that actually exist in real life. It's also an attempt to meet the demands of the television audience, many of whom want to watch characters like this. Gay viewers enjoy seeing romances they can relate to more strongly. As we all do.

I guess it makes some sense to be suspicious of change, but this is the same kind of attitude that has cranky old people whining and moaning at any kind of social progress because "things were better in the old days". Things weren't better in the old days, they were worse. We're getting more inclusive and that's a good thing.

[Westcoastvibes]

Ah, should have covered that. Under a different definition that I'm unaware of at the moment, you seem like a smart guy, maybe you'll know what I'm getting at - I think that the current political landscape is on in favor of emotional social justice movements. People growing up now aren't disciplined harshly (usually) and are very impressionable. So when the media is always making Gayness (if there was a better word LMAO) a thing on your TV. Almost like a quota. Like you NEED to have a token Gay person.

At this point though:

I can see and understand your point, but I disagree. All art - but especially film - is rudimentarily political. Some films are rather conspicuous about it, others more indiscernible, but all mediums of storytelling is a reflection of the social, cultural and economic climate of the society in which the work originated. The Australian New Wave movement of the 1970s, for example, captured and mirrored the ideological changes that the country was facing at the time. Namely, the increasing acknowledgment towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the nations collective and dismal understanding of what we did to these people. Even in American film, a lot of post-WWII films captured that post-modern philosophical mindset that was so prevalent in the 50s and 60s, particularly in regards to religion, faith and existentialism.

The Italian neo-realist movement of the 40s and 50s also widely reflected the real economic turmoil post-WWII Italy was enduring at the time. Films such as Bicycle Thieves and Umberto. D were all about encapsulating the financial hardship and devastation of Italy not only just after the second World War but also after the collapse and dissolution of its fascist system. Similarly, films and television today that feature LGBT characters (just like The Walking Dead) is reflective of our own progressive acceptance and understanding towards these people. It's really no different to all the other examples I cited.

To propound that the media is simply shoving this down our throats (i.e., being culturally imperialistic) is mostly groundless and rooted in simplicity. You're neglecting to examine over 100 years of film history where hundreds of works from all around the world have become mirrors to real life social conditions. The Western world most of us on this forum live in is becoming increasingly more progressive towards these once contentious and complex issues. Film and television is merely a reflection of that notion.

After reading this post I came to the conclusion that I should have stayed in school longer, and that I hope someone places my testicles in a blender before I ever attempt to get in any serious debate with you.

My hats off to you sir, you truly are one smart ass son of a bitch.

[Matteo]

The assertions @Circled Square is postulating in this thread may sound conspiratorial, but I feel the need to further explicate on his ideas if only for clarification's sake. The notion of a powerful minority group forcing something down our throats and dictating our cultural, economic and political tenets is not something to dismiss and shrug off. It's actually a salient subject in political philosophy, and many of the greatest philosophers and political scientists such as Michel Foucault, Iris M. Young, Antonio Gramsci and Noam Chomsky have addressed it extensively.

Cultural imperialism, depending on which theoretical framework you view it under, promotes the idea that the ruling elite, the commanding few set the 'culture'. So when one examines the cultural dynamics of a society – what it values, what it condemns, what is right, what is wrong, what is taboo, what is progressive - this is all fundamentally a product of a dominant groups culture. For example, during Mao's tyrannous regime in China, the cultural values espoused by the ruling elite were uncontrollably imposed on the general population, and this all became part of their seemingly normal culture. One of my favourite intellectuals Iris M. Young has argued that this has also happened in Western democracies, albeit structurally and subtly, almost without our awareness because it operates and functions within existing institutions and systems. It's fascinating stuff, really.

With that being said, cultural imperialism can not be used to explain what we're discussing in this thread. Not at all. But I felt the need to share it, anyway.

[Twister]

I fail to see why a gay kiss on a TV show is even an issue in this day and age. I despair at the human race sometimes.

[SortaCreative]

I fail to see why a gay kiss on a TV show is even an issue in this day and age. I despair at the human race sometimes.

BECAUSE I GOT DEM AIDS FROM WATCHING.

[Hanley!]

Also, I have to say that the idea that people just act bigoted online for fun is pretty ridiculous. If people have any inclination towards acting bigoted, it's because they genuinely are. If these people weren't really prejudiced then they wouldn't want to risk offending homosexuals online either. And they definitely wouldn't enjoy doing so.

The reason you see more racism, sexism and homophobia online is because of anonymity. People have more freedom to say what they think online, because they won't be held accountable for it. So they're free to say what they're thinking. And many of them think some pretty disgusting things.

You don't have to be kicking the shit out of homosexuals on the street to be homophobic either. People are homophobic to various extents. If you want homosexuals to be treated differently at all, that's homophobia. Some cases are just worse than others. If someone thinks homosexuals deserve to be left alone, but that they shouldn't be allowed to kiss in public then that's homophobia. If someone sympathises with homosexuals, but complains when they're shown on television then that's homophobia too. It's not just about playing nice with these people, it's about treating them as equals.

[Twister]

As always Hanley put it better than I ever could.

The way I see it is, if it was a man and a woman kissing - there would be no issue. It's just two people kissing, right? So why do people get all funny when the two people kissing happen to be of the same gender? Who exactly is it hurting?

[Circled Square]

What an informative thread. I don't agree with Hanley saying that this progressive "acceptance of everything" is a good thing. It weakens us, sure we don't live in a Darwinian world, It'd be awful if we did - but these things that come up in the media nowadays, like for example, transsexuality, are things that hurt our chances of survival as a species. Approaching things like that with the notion that we should accept these things as if they're just the way it is, is not the right way to deal with it. It's as if saying that these people may have a mental illness is the equivalent to flinging your shit at them and calling them fags. Matteo said it best in this thread IMO, using historical examples that I personally wanted to use, just wasn't confident on my knowledge of the subject. It's certainly an interesting topic of discussion, and goes well beyond "b-b-but you hate gay people?" attitude that some people may have to the topic. We don't live very long, so it's easy to believe the past is always wrong. You've got to realize though, we've taken one step forward and two steps back throughout our history.

[Hanley!]

^^ No. No we haven't. That's stupid.

[Circled Square]

^^ No. No we haven't. That's stupid.

Yes we have, lol? Would you consider dropping a bomb over Japan to be a step forward or step back? Woud you consider the reliance on technology all the time to be a step forward, or step back? I don't live long - I'm looking into the immediate future. Millennials aren't benefiting from it 100%. It's caused laziness.

[Hanley!]

^^ No. No we haven't. That's stupid.

Yes we have, lol? Would you consider dropping a bomb over Japan to be a step forward or step back? Woud you consider the reliance on technology all the time to be a step forward, or step back? I don't live long - I'm looking into the immediate future. Millennials aren't benefiting from it 100%. It's caused laziness.

You'll live a lot longer than you would have a century ago. So yeah, that's definitely one step forwards and two steps back.

We're becoming more medically advanced all the time, helping people to live longer. We're becoming more multi-cultural, and are better able to understand each other. We're becoming more tolerant, which lets people be more open and live happier lives. Violence and crime, while still huge problems, are on the decline. Technology is helping us to become a more advanced and evolved society every year.

But you don't really believe the stuff you say anyway, do you? I don't expect a straight answer, but I don't think it's a coincidence that you mostly hang out in the most controversial threads and always have the most controversial opinions. You talk in circles and don't really ever seem to have any clear message or point. You just get people riled up for the fun of it, I imagine.

[Circled Square]

If you don't like my posts, I don't care. I've only been here a couple of weeks, not even. To make a sweeping statement like I just hover around the controversial threads is stupid. Probably an assumption made because of my Hitler sig and difference of opinion. I even admit that I don't present things the way I mean to all the time. That's the part of learning different opinions, drawing out a conversation. Matteo for example provided great posts in response to what I said. A reaction to my post. I think this thread is a fine example of what a different opinion can bring to a discussion. It broadened it out. Nobody is riled up, this is a message board on the internet.

Again: If the mods think my posts are a negative to the site, they can ban me. I don't care. I like it here but if they don't want me here they can get rid of me pretty easily.

My bad for ignoring the first part - not all steps forward lead to an advancement all around. You can't say...hey, we live longer, that means everything is progressing forward. I believe in levels of importance but I don't see your point.

[Messiah]

How are we not progressing forward?

[Circled Square]

How are we not progressing forward?

We are, in most areas. This thread is about a social issue - in my opinion, we're not looking at all social issues the right way. I don't want to elaborate because there's already a thread about sexuality going on right now - but my point is: You can't say, hey we're doing this thing right, we must be doing ALL things right.

Maybe we should have racism thread because with the current trend of controversial threads it would be an interesting read.

[PorkChop]

Maybe we should have racism thread because with the current trend of controversial threads it would be an interesting read.

No thanks.

[Circled Square]

Maybe we should have racism thread because with the current trend of controversial threads it would be an interesting read.

No thanks.

ok

[Matteo]

using historical examples that I personally wanted to use

There are plenty more examples to substantiate my assertion, too. Japanese films after WWII largely reflected the social, political and cultural climate of the broken and devastated state - a period in time in which the people of Japan were trying to find their sense of 'identity' and position in the post-war world order, particularly after the ruthlessly grim and inhumane acts of their Imperial army. Traditional family values in Japan at this time also endured through prodigious social change, and films like Tokyo Story, I Live in Fear, and Late Spring were direct representations of this.

Science fiction American films of the 1950s and 1960s were also reflections of the United States' political infrastructure at the time. As the Western world were becoming increasingly pandemic and trepidatious about the (frankly hyperbolic and groundless) prospects of communist expansion, films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Them! and The Thing From Another World became mirrors for these real life sentiments (albeit under sci-fi genre conventions). Fast forward twenty years, and the huge onset of conspiracy thrillers in American film, from Marathon Man to The Conversation to All the President's Men to Logan's Run to The China Syndrome were all direct results of the political landscape of 1970s United States (i.e., the fervent Vietnam dissension, the Watergate scandal, the notion of challenging and not trusting your government, the counterculture movement, etc).

Take a look at Vietnam, too. It wasn't until the early-to-mid 1970s where the contentious and infamous proxy war began to enter the public consciousness for what it really was - an unjust, ideologically motivated conflict that essentially all revolved around Western hegemony in communist-dominated Indochina. Once these political sentiments were becoming more prevalent and widespread in the Western world, we saw films like Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, Taxi Driver, The Boys in Company C, The Odd Angry Shot, Platoon and Causalities of War come out. All of which were very cynical and critical of the conflict, a candid reflection of what many in the political establishment and in general society were ardently propounding at the time.

Also, let's not forget about the Czechoslovak New Wave. As the country was experiencing heavy political turmoil, dissension and backlash from its people, we saw various films that were very radical and very aggressive in their denunciations of the state and its practises. Consequently, various films from this movement were expurgated or outright banned from the public. Again, these films, if you've seen them, were mirrors and reflections of the actual political upheaval that was occurring in the country at the time.

Above were just a few more examples where films and movements were artistic products of the respective political, economic and cultural environments in which the work originated. I could very much continue with other films and other cinematic movements such as the New Queer Cinema or the New French Extremity or the French New Wave or German Expressionism or Poetic Realism, but I feel as if I have made my point clearly.

[ShaneOfan]

How are we not progressing forward?

We are, in most areas. This thread is about a social issue - in my opinion, we're not looking at all social issues the right way. I don't want to elaborate because there's already a thread about sexuality going on right now - but my point is: You can't say, hey we're doing this thing right, we must be doing ALL things right.

Maybe we should have racism thread because with the current trend of controversial threads it would be an interesting read.

But the reverse is, just because not everything on a social level is perfect doesn't mean we are not making progress. The face that 60 years ago a black man would not be allowed to drink from the same water fountain or sit at the same table as a white man shows progress. The idea that now interracial marriage is allowed across the U.S. shows progress. The idea that now over 70% of taxpayers can marry who they love regardless of what is in their underwear shows progress.