Barbie and the conservative outrage machine : moviesandtv

[–] SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net 65 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems like no matter what the movie was like, it was never going to be for conservative men. Seems like a waste to dwell on it.

[–] serpentofnumbers@lemmy.dbzer0.com 76 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the fact that a lot of conservative men feel the need to be a part of or have an opinion on everything is not unrelated.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course it's related. It's a tautology. Conservatives wouldn't be conservative if they didn't fear everything and hate everyone. It's all they have.

[+] SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net -31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Huh. You feel that way about orthodox Jews and Chinese Confucians, huh?

I probably wouldn't say something like that about those conservative groups, but I guess I should really just be more open minded about such things.

[–] Lemmylefty@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What you’re trying to imply is that criticism of a Jewish culture is dangerous because others will claim it is inherently anti-Semitic. Those people are wrong and to be ignored: a deeply held religious and or cultural belief is not immune to criticism, and when it causes and encourages harm it deserves criticism.

To be open minded within this context is to be welcome to learning of how different attitudes and approaches to life can make things better beyond your personal upbringing. It means take the good whether or not it’s borne of your soil. It does not mean wide-eyed cultural relativism, regardless of what you think.

[+] SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net -12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Orthodox Jews and confucian Chinese are both deeply conservative because those ideologies are deeply conservative. I chose them because most people wouldn't say such a hateful thing about those two groups since they're not what you typically imagine when someone says "conservative".

The juxtaposition of attaching the original writers hateful generalization with communities with a history of being oppressed and the statement that I will try to be more open minded is supposed to be ironic, like "I'll be more open minded in the future and remember that Orthodox Jews fear everything and hate everything"

[–] Lemmylefty@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then you must not have been to New York, because that’s definitely known as a conservative, insular group.

A history of oppression does not negate one’s own. Or is a Jewish woman whose movements are controlled and constrained by the men in her community who say a pray of thanks that they were not born women not to be considered because her great aunts died in pogroms?

History is a guide. It is not a cosmic score.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you ever read Confucius? He's the very definition of blinkered conservatism. The guy thought the first emperors were morally pure.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

All religions are partly based on fear. Doesn't matter if it's orthodox Jews, orthodox Christians or orthodox Muslims or any other religion.

Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with being fearful. It might even be a valid approach to life in many ways.

However it does become a problem when it turns political. That's the moment when fear turns to hate.

This topic is about conservative politics. And my comment is on conservative politics. Not American Republicans, but conservative politics in general. The problem of hateful conservative politics is present everywhere in Europe and probably everywhere world wide regardless of religion. I find it quite disgusting that conservative politicians are abusing the religious fears to fuel their own hate.

All religions are also about peace, acceptance, love and respect. None of which are present in conservative politic.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

You're spot on. When you're used to being the focus of essentially every part of society, progress toward equality feels like oppression.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.one 50 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Stopped reading at the uncritical use of the word "transgenderism" and the unanalyzed repetition of the falsehood that Budweiser suffered financially from the Dylan Mulvaney thing (it didn't).

Not sure what fence the author is trying to sit on, but I'll take my opinion fluff pieces from people who aren't actively aiding the conservative culture war.

[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

Anyone quoting Breitbart is signaling their allegiance to fascism.

[–] Kushia@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What's the term for "woke" right wingers who worry about this stuff too much?

[–] Kerred@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I imagine a far right conservative would be terrified of barbie and for a good reason. Like what if their child ends up liking it? And they start learning on their own? And if they don't vote Republican when they grow up? (I.e. me after watching movies and watching shows that strayed me away from my mom's heavy conservative views)

Assuming tv and movies are a still hundred times more powerful than any political ad on forming younger opinions about stuff.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

Concern trolls.

[–] Hextic@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Breitbart is some woke as shit I'll tell ya what.

[–] Poob@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 year ago

Are we pretending Warner Bros. are on the left because they made a movie with some buzz words?

[–] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Shows who they are if they get outraged about a movie like this, but we all know they are always going to be outraged about something.

[–] Janoniem@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Reading comments on this and other topics, kbin is already as low iq as Reddit has become since 2016.

Going to delete my account.

[–] ruckblack@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

We'll miss your lurking, I guess

[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

No please don't. We need you

[–] 100thCatMarch@kbin.cafe 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The outrage machine may be bad, but they make for great unintentional killer posters.

[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I know pretty much nothing about this movie, but if i saw: Barbie, they won't be happy until we're all gay, i would absolutely walk in and watch it

[–] jayrod@lemmy.film 2 points 1 year ago

Locking for now. The discussion here has gone a bit off the rails.

[+] small44@lemmy.world -10 points 1 year ago

Vivaldi browser bypasses restrictions to access Bing Chat since June 8

[+] PolarPerspective@discuss.online -24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Keep in mind this works both ways. The progressive outrage machine is arguably even more active than the conservative machine. Look at the reaction to Sound of Freedom. An extremely neutral movie when you consider the politics of its content. But the main actor is a conspiracy theorist, so I guess that means the movie is a far right propaganda vehicle? By that logic most movies are far left propaganda vehicles.

A similar phenomenon has always followed Trump around. Media gets insane hits for anti-Trump content. Some people built entire careers off of reporting on his tweets. The more shocking and exaggerated they could make the content, the more money came flooding in. That's why so much of the coverage of Trump was sensationalized and uncharitable. It's also why moderates couldn't help but root for him. There's only so much the established powers that be can lie about someone before you want to support him regardless of his character flaws. It helped that his policies were generally great, focusing on anti-war and populist market adjustments.

This is why you should always take the news with a grain of salt. They're all out to make money, and they all have agendas.

[–] reclipse@lemdro.id 2 points 1 year ago

They're all out to make money

[+] SJ0@lemmy.fbxl.net -20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Wish I could give more than one upvote given that the balanced view you present is obviously controversial amongst a Reddit crowd.

I think the other thing that maybe people need to remember is that there's pretty much always someone further left than you, and there's a good chance they consider you a conservative. There's always another further out there idea, and in that way a lot of people who used to be lefties turned into conservatives simply by not picking up on the new thing. Then it's guilt by association, instead of just being one tick less progressive, people end up getting tired with all of the worst brushes.

Another thing that is a reality that isn't going to make a lot of people happy is virtually every culture has conservatives of some kind. There are conservatives in africa, and in asia -- there's a lot of conservatives in Asia in fact. There's conservatives amongst the Jews, there's conservatives amongst the Indians and in the Middle East. And not all of that conservatism comes from one place.

The world is a lot more complicated than people seem to think, and we're starting to see that coming to fruition because not everyone who opposes Western liberal conservatism is a western liberal.

[+] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Not to mention the “progressives” reaction to Matt Walsh’s movie “what is a woman?”

[–] Kabloink@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Matt Walsh’s movie “what is a woman

I didn't know who Matt Walsh was, but Googling him these tweets are the first things that popped up. I can see why people react badly to him.

This is a good time to remember that feminism has killed far more people than the atomic bomb. It is perhaps the most destructive force in human history. Trans ideology, its off shoot, is competing for the title.

I was already looking forward to watching Oppenheimer but then I saw a bunch of people on Twitter complaining that it mostly features white men and it isn’t inclusive enough and now I’m even more looking forward to watching it

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

bOtH sides tHoUgH!!!

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Just because there are two sides doesn't mean they both have points worth listening to."

I'm well aware of what the right's "side" is. It's bigoted and out of date. Unless they suddenly start accepting people for who they are I don't need to give them any more of my time or thoughts. That's not being "dug in" or "stubborn", it means I'm saying no to hating people and they need to change their stance if they want to get me to vote for them ever again.

[+] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless they suddenly start accepting people for who they are

Ironic considering the people that won't accept themselves for who they are.

Adults can be trans all they want, call yourself whatever gender you want - just stop experimenting on children with surgeries and drugs.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Jesus what a stupid take, to actually believe that liberals are "experimenting on children". Seriously. Stop and really really think to yourself if that's happening. What, is this some horror movie with a terrified child with a single bulb swinging overhead, while the doctor evilly rubs his hands together. "Ah ha, yes, now to destroy traditional America evil laugh"

Surgeries, gender altering surgeries, are usually held off until 18, and if they're not I really don't understand why the government needs to have a say in something that a parent and child decide on. Drugs, puberty blockers have no long term effects and even then again, why does the government need to step in and say what a doctor should or not prescribe when the parents have been informed. and even then these are usually the minority of trans kids, and even then most parents do in fact have rules in place to wait until 18.

You know really what most liberals want? For people to be comfortable with themselves. To not have big government tell them that if they feel more comfortable wearing jeans and a tshirt over a dress that they should be allowed to. That if a child says "I don't like playing with monster trucks, can I play with a doll instead?" that we can say yes, absolutely you can.

I truly don't understand how anyone can be against that. I really don't understand why people think they need to have a say in how other people raise children. This all from the party of "small government", but then demands that they raise children a certain way.

But I'm sure by now you've completely ignored my point, and you have more fox news rage bait responses readied up to fire back at me. Please, tell me how you want big federal government to tell us what to do.

[+] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Jesus what a stupid take, to actually believe that liberals are “experimenting on children”.

What would you call it? It's using drugs for reasons they're not approved for, to do surgeries that have massive lists of complications and even without complications will require literal daily care for the rest of their life, when there are no long term studies done on either of these things. The long term effects of "puberty blockers" are unknown. It's literal experimentation at this stage because there have been no long term studies. How is it not experimenting? We do know however that they're not 100% reversible - you just need to look at many transgender people that took them to see that. Boys that were "girls" that are now sterile thanks to taking puberty blockers and HRT, etc.

Surgeries, gender altering surgeries, are usually held off until 18, and if they’re not I really don’t understand why the government needs to have a say in something that a parent and child decide on.

"Usually" doesn't cut it. You don't understand why life altering elective surgeries shouldn't be government regulated? A child cannot consent to these surgeries or treatments. They do not have the mental capacity to do so. Let me ask you this - would you let a 10 year old get a tattoo? What if they really want it, and their parents are ok with it? You think they should be able to go and get a nice big dragon tattoo on the side of their head?

puberty blockers have no long term effects

This has been disproven time and time again. You can't just "pause" puberty and then have it pick up right where it left off, it doesn't work that way, physically or mentally. The NHS for example changed their literature from "The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible" to "Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be. It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.". Other countries have now started doing the same. Why would they be doing this if "the science is settled"?

To not have big government tell them that if they feel more comfortable wearing jeans and a tshirt over a dress that they should be allowed to. That if a child says “I don’t like playing with monster trucks, can I play with a doll instead?” that we can say yes, absolutely you can.

The problem is that no one is telling kids that if they're a boy they have to play with a monster truck, but one side are saying "if you play with a monster truck you must be a boy, so if you're a girl we should start you on puberty blockers right away!". The "liberals" are the ones using stereotypes of "if you are comfortable wearing jeans and a tshirt over a dress then you must be a boy", not the other way around.

I really don’t understand why people think they need to have a say in how other people raise children.

Really? So you would be ok with parents teaching their kids that black people should be slaves, that it's ok for adults to have sex with them, and that they can go and murder the next door neighbours cat if they want to? No one should have a say in that or be against it?

Please, tell me how you want big federal government to tell us what to do.

So you're just anti-government? Do you object to murder being illegal? That's letting the "big federal government to tell us what to do" isn't it?

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 0 points 1 year ago

Okay most of these are in fact just conservative talking points. A couple hypotheticals for you then.

A 16 year old male has felt like a female since they were 8. They have worn dresses, they went by another name, they do not want to be male. They have asked their parents for oh, 4 years to be put on blockers to help them lower their voice and cut down on facial hair, they legitimately want this. Let's just assume the drugs are 100% safe, as safe as drugs ever can be. Would you be okay with this?

Follow up then, who decides when the drugs are safe? Is it when your family doctor says they are? When the FDA says they are (or whoever your equivalent is)?

Reason I switch this to hypotheticals is because the argument isn't about if they are safe or not, it's about consent. If drugs/procedures are safe is already well defined in all of our governments. You're right, a 10 year old can't get a tattoo because there is no need for a 10 year old to get a tattoo. But should it be allowed for a 17 year old who has fully swapped to female after 9 years of acting as one? I'm legit asking you if they should. and if you're answer is no, why is it no, truly?

I'm asking this way because really I'm trying to get you to see our side, that it's not as "crazy" as conservative media is making it out to be. You actually already agree with us for the most part, that people should be allowed to dress and act the way they want, and honestly that's 90% of what they're fighting for, literally just to exist, to not be demonized. This one bit here is honestly just a small concern to most liberals, but it's been blown waaaaay out of proportion by the media. To me it's a detail, a footnote in the argument on the trans rights movement.

I actually think you and I are closer on this than the news articles would have us believe. My personal belief is that if the drugs are safe and approved by doctors, and they are reversible, I would let my kids go on them. I, as a parent, would not let them have anything irreversible done until they were 18. Personally I would sit them down and say something like "I completely understand, and I understand that you are in high school and feel like this is forever, but I want you to go into this with a full clear head knowing you made the right decision, not because of what factors in school make you want, but because you yourself want it", and personally would have them hold off until 18. Anything reversible is fine, but again I think we agree, kids are fickle, I know I was, I thought long greasy hair was totally in. It was not.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -3 points 1 year ago

You can think whatever you want about him, that's not the point. The point was that the actual movie was basically him giving "experts" enough rope to hang themselves with, and hang themselves they did. It was about pointing out the absurdity of the situation, a situation where not even the people spouting the views could give answers.

[–] Eleazar@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

Remember when Velma pissed everyone off equally and there was a brief moment of bipartisan unity? That was fun.

[–] AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Fuck you

Movies and TV Shows