Conservative/Republican characters in movies/shows...

[titanfan]

If you have ever seen Glee, Will and Grace and Boy Erased. All of them were always mocking the bible. It was commendable that a gay director pushed his own progressive gay theme in the movie like the scene Bobby comes out to his family but still make Nightcrawler a convincing christian all in the same film, who practised what he preached.
Nightcrawler was a good conservative Christian.

I would argue that Glee and Boy Erased (and even W&G the later years) weren't meant for all audiences. They were catering to their viewers.

Boy Erased was about trauma from Gay Conversion therapy in which the people running a religious conversion therapy were the villains. Of course that was going to happen.

[jetengine]

I would argue that Glee and Boy Erased (and even W&G the later years) weren't meant for all audiences. They were catering to their viewers.

Boy Erased was about trauma from Gay Conversion therapy in which the people running a religious conversion therapy were the villains. Of course that was going to happen.

Conversion therapy literally kills 50% of its victims.

[Mister Mets]

I would argue that Glee and Boy Erased (and even W&G the later years) weren't meant for all audiences. They were catering to their viewers.

Boy Erased was about trauma from Gay Conversion therapy in which the people running a religious conversion therapy were the villains. Of course that was going to happen.

Do subsidiaries of NBCUniversal make these kinds of films for conservative audiences?

I should note that I'm not calling for films that support conversion therapy.

If it's a white person, sure.

But the US is a multi-ethnic country.

But it's mostly a hypothetical. And there's a reason the rules we make for this stuff is so narrowly defined.

I'm pretty sure buddhists know to use a different symbol.

I say that if a baker doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings, he should put a sign in his window saying so. Then see what happens, because these businesses are so often coy with their prejudices because they don't want to take a chance on having a preemptive boycott destroying their business.

That's not always going to happen.

There are plenty of places where obnoxious behavior against minority groups won't get you significant pushback from customers.

It's the very heart of the issue, the complaints are why are the liberals always the heroes and always shown to be right in the long run...the answer is because that's what history has shown us time and time again and your examples didn't disprove that.

Younger liberals may have a tendency to take credit for things they weren't actively involved in, like the 1960s Civil Rights movement, but that doesn't mean they should.

Backing diversity quotas in corporate boards, making it tougher for Asian-Americans to get into elite universities, banning private health insurance and guaranteed jobs regardless of skill/ work ethic might not be seen as the equivalent of marching in Selma.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Younger liberals may have a tendency to take credit for things they weren't actively involved in, like the 1960s Civil Rights movement, but that doesn't mean they should..

The GOP still crows, with no irony whatsoever, that they are the party that freed the slaves. So...

[Malvolio]

Do subsidiaries of NBCUniversal make these kinds of films for conservative audiences?

I should note that I'm not calling for films that ******* conversion therapy.

I'm pretty sure buddhists know to use a different symbol.

That's not always going to happen.

There are plenty of places where obnoxious behavior against minority groups won't get you significant pushback from customers.

This is typical of you, Mets. So because a thing doesn't ALWAYS happen, we shouldn't be concerned for the times when it DOES happen?

There was a pharmacy in my old neighborhood in Brooklyn that had a sign in its window that let everyone know that they would not carry the Morning-After Pill. While I disagreed with their policy, I did respect their willingness to tell people that in advance, regardless of whatever hit their business would have to take as a result.

[thwhtGuardian]

Do subsidiaries of NBCUniversal make these kinds of films for conservative audiences?

I should note that I'm not calling for films that ******* conversion therapy.

I'm pretty sure buddhists know to use a different symbol.

That's not always going to happen.

There are plenty of places where obnoxious behavior against minority groups won't get you significant pushback from customers.

Younger liberals may have a tendency to take credit for things they weren't actively involved in, like the 1960s Civil Rights movement, but that doesn't mean they should.

Backing diversity quotas in corporate boards, making it tougher for Asian-Americans to get into elite universities, banning private health insurance and guaranteed jobs regardless of skill/ work ethic might not be seen as the equivalent of marching in Selma.

What does that have to do with whether it's unrealistic to portray liberals as heroic more often than conservatives? I'm not sure it refutes the idea that liberals, historically speaking are on the right side of issues more often than conservatives which makes making them more heroic in media representations just a reflection of reality.

[Mister Mets]

This is typical of you, Mets. So because a thing doesn't ALWAYS happen, we shouldn't be concerned for the times when it DOES happen?

There was a pharmacy in my old neighborhood in Brooklyn that had a sign in its window that let everyone know that they would not carry the Morning-After Pill. While I disagreed with their policy, I did respect their willingness to tell people that in advance, regardless of whatever hit their business would have to take as a result.

I'm not sure of your point here.

I was articulating one of the "liberal" arguments for civil and criminal penalties against discrimination. In response to the argument that someone who discriminates openly will often be punished by customers, and therefore be financially punished if they choose to discriminate, it is worth noting that in many places this type of action will not cost them financially, as there aren't enough progressives among the customer base. In these cases, there is an argument for legal intervention.

The GOP still crows, with no irony whatsoever, that they are the party that freed the slaves. So...

Whether you think liberals should try this assumes you agree that this is a compelling and convincing argument for Republicans.

What does that have to do with whether it's unrealistic to portray liberals as heroic more often than conservatives? I'm not sure it refutes the idea that liberals, historically speaking are on the right side of issues more often than conservatives which makes making them more heroic in media representations just a reflection of reality.

The argument that liberals are historically on the right side of history neglects the times they have been on the wrong side, or made bad decisions even if they meant well.

When people try to take credit for decisions made before they were politically active, they make the assumption that they would have been Bobby Kennedy, and not Woodrow Wilson, and there's no way to know what your stand would be on an issue that wasn't settled.

The question of who is more heroic also does lead to one argument for conservatives, who are over-represented among groups of people who put themselves at personal risk (military, firefighters, etc.)

[jetengine]

Saying "Woodrow Wilson was a liberal" is like saying "Nazis were socialists"

[thwhtGuardian]

I'm not sure of your point here.

I was articulating one of the "liberal" arguments for civil and criminal penalties against discrimination. In response to the argument that someone who discriminates openly will often be punished by customers, and therefore be financially punished if they choose to discriminate, it is worth noting that in many places this type of action will not cost them financially, as there aren't enough progressives among the customer base. In these cases, there is an argument for legal intervention.

Whether you think liberals should try this assumes you agree that this is a compelling and convincing argument for Republicans.

The argument that liberals are historically on the right side of history neglects the times they have been on the wrong side, or made bad decisions even if they meant well.

When people try to take credit for decisions made before they were politically active, they make the assumption that they would have been Bobby Kennedy, and not Woodrow Wilson, and there's no way to know what your stand would be on an issue that wasn't settled.

The question of who is more heroic also does lead to one argument for conservatives, who are over-represented among groups of people who put themselves at personal risk (military, firefighters, etc.)

I think it's fairly easy to tell where you would have been on a past issue based on where you stand on current ones, for instance the same reasons one would ******* trans rights would hold true for the civil rights movement and the women's rights as well. It's simple logic.

But as I said, that's an aside not a real part of the equation here. Sure, liberalism has made mistakes, but more often than not(and more often than conservatives) the changes have been positive and that is going to have a natural effect on fiction and you've yet to show otherwise.

Also, the idea that those in law enforcement and the military tend to be conservatives is largely a myth; in actuality it breaks along similar lines as the populations they come from.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Mets, what have liberals been wrong about historically? I'd like examples, please.

[Kirby101]

Mets, what have liberals been wrong about historically? I'd like examples, please.

Let's look at were he sees liberals as wrong

Backing diversity quotas in corporate boards, making it tougher for Asian-Americans to get into elite universities, banning private health insurance and guaranteed jobs regardless of skill/ work ethic might not be seen as the equivalent of marching in Selma.

Doing something about the overwhelming majority of white males on corporate boards is bad.
Helping more minorities get into elite Universities is bad, and notice how conservatives single out deserving Asians. But they say nothing about the undeserving white elites, like Jared Kushner, George W Bush and Donald Trump, who buy spaces all these Asian students should get.
Universal Healthcare is evil if it effects the bottom line of the Insurance Companies. Profit over lives, the GOP cry.
And again, giving impoverished people jobs is bad, but board rooms and a White House full of the most unqualified people you could find is A-OK. So giving idiot nephew a s job, good. Helping someone get out of poverty, bad.

[80sbaby]

Backing diversity quotas in corporate boards, making it tougher for Asian-Americans to get into elite universities, banning private health insurance and guaranteed jobs regardless of skill/ work ethic might not be seen as the equivalent of marching in Selma.

YIKES!! I hope there's more context to this...

[Tuck]

I think it's fairly easy to tell where you would have been on a past issue based on where you stand on current ones, for instance the same reasons one would ******* trans rights would hold true for the civil rights movement and the women's rights as well. It's simple logic.

Fred Phelps was a highly active civil rights attorney in the 1960s.

Frederick Douglass didn't ******* women's suffrage.


(Ok, that's a super weird censor.)

[The Overlord]

Some more conservative X-Men stories...
- A mutant group has a base of operations in a major city, and they're seen as gentrifiers.
- A mutant uncovers the truth behind a major scandal, and it makes liberals look bad.
- A mutant teenager becomes an eco-terrorist.
- It turns out the Chinese have a massive team of mutants, posing a major threat to the world order.
- A mutant wants to change the world, but the deep state won't let him.

While mutants are often a metaphor for civil rights, it's complicated by the idea that many are ultimately more valuable than ordinary people. We don't really think gay people or racial minorities are smarter or better than anyone else, but most mutants can accomplish so much more than the typical person, which is going to raise some difficult questions for anyone worried about income inequality.

It's a fair point that some of the arguments of conservatives (standing up for yourself, independence) can seem selfish. It can be a matter of perspective.

I don't think it's difficult to do a story about someone who doesn't want to compromise their principles. A Man For All Seasons is a great example of that.

It would probably be difficult to do a story about a baker opposed to gay marriage. But what about the lawyer defending the principle?

The Deep State? Are the X-Men getting help from Q?

Except they are selfish because conservatives often do not seem to not care about the rights of others.

The NRA never seems to go to bat for guys like Philando Castile, conservative politicians use militarized police and racial gerrymandering to take away freedom from others.

Should I empathize with protesters who may spread Covid-19 because they want soda refills?

You want to empathize with the lawyer presenting the baker, but that is still pretty hard when the baker has no real sympathetic values, where he either seems like a holier than thou religious zealot or some hypocrite who denies a gay couple a cake, but spends his spare time watching porn.

I've never claimed Reagan was perfect. The question was about what he did well.

FDR did a lot of stuff well, but he still had the internment camps.

Personal responsibility applies for individuals who did something wrong. If Lee Atwater were running for Senate, there could be a lot of questions to ask him. But he's been dead for nearly thirty years.

Lee Atwater is dead, but his legacy lives on with the fact the GOP has made itself a home for bigotry:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...blicans-066643

As long as the GOP panders to bigots, they will always be the party of Lee Atwater, and conservatives denying the problem seem to lack the personal responsibility they want to apply to others, such deflections do not deserve respect, sort out your own house before being so crtical of others.

Also, I like elements of FDR policies, but I do not worship political idols, I think redlining was very damaging to African Americans and the fact that private banks use redlining guidelines to deny loans to minorities is a big reason why I do not agree with conservative economics because they seem to not want to do anything for it.

I believe in ideas, not politicians and I think flaws in every politician should be examined. I think Reagan is a bad President, I do not like or respect him.

This is pretty difficult to determine, since there are many allegations where we don't know the truth either way.

William Stryker ordered people killed.

Nick Fuentes isn't that relevant. He's barely old enough to drink. He seems to be disavowed by the Republican party and conservative media. It could be interesting to tell a story about a screw-up like that, but he is somewhat sui generis.

A key thing to keep in mind that most changes suck. That's a major flaw in the change=progress argument.

The vast majority of things we could do will have worse outcomes. It would be a change to fill a fuel tank with orange juice, use a computer monitor as a surfboard, or light paintings on fire. These would be bad ideas.

Was the civil rights movement a bad change? Was legalizing gay marriage a bad change? It seems like conservatives just assume the status quo is great and seem to ignore who is being left behind by the status quo.

Fuentes is still a real person, so would be writing a character similar to him be a ''mustache-twirling villain''? In the past, an active bigot like Trump would be considered fringe in the conservative movement, now he is the face of that movement, is Fuentes becoming more popular in the conservative movement really that unrealistic?

Also with the rise of right-wing terrorism in the US, Stryker is not unrealistic either:

https://www.businessinsider.com/extr...-report-2019-1

well, if conservatives are inclined to resist change... and if "change" is conflated with "progress", and "progress" is equated with "good"... then conservatives are obviously the embodiment of "evil". right? this seems to be the basic argument that most people keep returning to.

sure, people stop just short of calling conservatives "evil". but it's not hard to read between the lines. and if you're going to declare that conservatives are evil then what is the 'right' thing to be done about them? should they even be allowed to have an influence the future of society?

sure, the US government was founded as a secular institution... but to imply that there was no religious influence at all in it's foundation is intellectually dishonest. it was also just another incremental step in the direction that had already been established in Europe hundreds of years earlier. namely that the state and the Church ARE separate and are to occupy two different spheres of influence. sure, SOME of the founding fathers would have had no use for religion and wanted it reduced in power as much as possible... but others would have been more open to that idea and embraced religion. we're talking about dozens, if not several hundred people!

a lot of modern atheists seem to think the US government was founded as a strictly secular state and was created as such to protect the state from the evil encroachments of religion... this is the act of them reading their modern motives and thoughts on to the past. historically, the freedom of religion is encroached upon by the power of the state far more often than the other way around. England had been actively suppressing Catholicism for well over a hundred years by the time the United States was founded. the planned separation was supposed to be in the best interests and health of both "the Church" and "the State". but, to be more specific, it was meant to benefit the Individual who might not have much allegiance or investment in either one. and, of course, the idea of the Individual even having value didn't really exist until after a hundreds years long dialogue between Christians, Jews, and secular scholars codified that as a philosophical idea.

another frustrating trend I see is that people are moving away from the idea of "limited government", which seems to be a really important part of "liberal philosophy". and by that, I mean, that people are fighting for more influence and control over the ever-increasing power of the State... but most people don't seem to be questioning whether the State should really have that much power to begin with. the power is only considered 'evil' when the other side has it. as if somehow, merely having that much power at all, wasn't a corrupting influence on the people who wield it. it's like pretending that a knife is just a piece of fruit as long as the proper people are holding it.

There are several problems with the supposed limited government ideology:

1. A lot of the people who claim to be for limited government are hypocrites who use religion, racial gerrymandering, militarized police to take away freedom other people.

2. Limited government seems ill-suited to deal with this pandemic.

3. Conservative ideology is actually extremely wasteful, they tolerate a ton of waste and pork in defense spending and Canada spends less of its GDP on health care than the US does.

Fred Phelps was a highly active civil rights attorney in the 1960s.

Frederick Douglass didn't ******* women's suffrage.


(Ok, that's a super weird censor.)

Was Phelps still a liberal when he began his anti-gay rights crusade?

[jetengine]

Fred Phelps was a highly active civil rights attorney in the 1960s.

Frederick Douglass didn't ******* women's suffrage.


(Ok, that's a super weird censor.)

Actually Douglass was fine with Womans suffrage, he just thought that you couldnt simultaneously sell Womens suffrage and Emancipation so went for the better deal.