It was the pressing down of any disagreement or question, it was the constant threat of violence, it was the destruction of the careers and lives of countless people (and the consequent evisceration of the entertainment industry), it was the the removal of choice for vaccines, it was the inflamation of racism, it was the neutering of law enforcement, it was the numbing of meritocracy, it was the dismantling of the spirit of quite a few cities (and the accompanying declining property values), it was the collapse of a political party, it was the crushing of common sense (particularly in the young), it was the ruin of university value, it was the end of trust in the media, it was the fostering of the most selfish era in modern society.
It was fascism, intolerance, and decidedly un-American. It was shameful and despicable.
It was not “bad tweets.”
FLORIDA SHERRIF: If you throw a brick, a firebomb, or point a gun at one of our deputies, we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains at because we will k*ll you graveyard de*d."
This might be the single greatest scene Disney ever produced.
From a time before the postmodern subversion of these stories tried to convince us all that there was no evil, just different degrees of power.
Words are not violence. When you pretend that views that oppose your own are violence, you are justifying the use of actual violence towards the speaker.
Gender ideology’s reliance on tropes and slogans like ‘words are violence’, its constant rationalisation and justification of using force against opponents and its preference for enforcing compliance through fear rather than permitting debate, are straight out of fascism’s playbook.
‘The function of propaganda is . . . not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.’
The words are Hitler’s, but I must have seen trans activists say the same thing, barely rephrased, a thousand times. Your movement seeks to remove rights from others. It is anti-truth and critical thinking, pro-violence, pro-dehumanisation of those who disagree with you, and you are so lacking in self-awareness you cannot see that you are precisely what you pretend to hate.
The response to Covid fundamentally and permanently changed my view on many countries, individuals, institutions, and humanity as a whole.
It doesn't matter how many years pass. Too much was revealed and my memory is long.
For the uninitiated, much of film production over the past 10-15 years has gone the way of "checking boxes" in plot and casting. There has never been anything wrong with characters and/or plots that check these boxes. However, much of the box-checking of the past decade has been done at the expense of actual good filmmaking. And that is unacceptable.
Here are some of the various boxes:
Gay
Black (Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, etc)
Trans
Gay relationship
Trans relationship
Interracial relationship
Invisible disabilities that no one will try to fix
Visible disabilities that they are upset about
Again, these are fine characteristics and/or themes, but these films/series make two mistakes with them.
1. They focus on the obstacles instead of the drive-to-triumph. Audiences don't care to watch people wallow in what the character believes is their obstacle. But viewers CAN relate to the universal theme of triumphing in spite of the odds against oneself. No audience wants to watch pity parties.
2. Many of these "box-checking" films are simply not well-done films. Any characters or themes are fine if the filmmaking is outstanding. This is not a mutually-exclusive situation, and yet many feel that the box-checking is sufficient enough. It's not. You must also make a great film.
2a. Another mistake that has been made is championing inadequate films/series because the filmmaker themself checks boxes. This does the filmmaker a disservice, cheats the audience of good films, and betrays the art of filmmaking.
The focus should be on the art itself. The commitment to inclusion is implicit: If your film is outstanding, no one cares what kind of "human container" it came out of. A one-legged, albino Eskimo with two gay mommies, or a 67-year old white male. It just doesn't matter. The audience doesn't care and the resulting film doesn't care.
It's the art that matters. And that talent is indiscriminate when it was assigned. It didn't care what the human container looked like; it just was planted and lives there.