d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Covid "relief" Hoax
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Dec 27 2020 01:43pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Dec 27 2020 01:34pm)
Which is something that puzzles me.

Because Hollywood donates millions of dollars to the DNC every year.

The GOP should be telling them to shove it.


:rofl:

Large media companies are economically conservative. Viacom couldn't give two shits about anybody's rights. However, they know that token wokeness after it's already popular will make money, so they let their actors and directors do that.
Member
Posts: 49,894
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 3.88
Dec 27 2020 01:45pm
Screw Hollywood and the riaa.
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Dec 27 2020 02:43pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Dec 27 2020 02:43pm)
:rofl:

Large media companies are economically conservative. Viacom couldn't give two shits about anybody's rights. However, they know that token wokeness after it's already popular will make money, so they let their actors and directors do that.


Sub 70-IQ opinion
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Dec 27 2020 03:16pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Dec 27 2020 02:43pm)
Sub 70-IQ opinion


The same parent companies own things from every side of the political spectrum. Fox and Nat Geo were totally opposed on their climate change coverage. The parent company doesnt care as long as it makes money, and what makes money is playing to both sides in their programming and lobbying for oppressive conservatism on the back end.
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Dec 27 2020 03:29pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Dec 27 2020 03:25pm)


Ummm no shit? That's why they did it?

If you think Hollywood is liberal then you've just been brainwashed. All the parent companies are conservative in their desire for legislation because those are the policies that concentrate money into large companies.
Member
Posts: 54,180
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Dec 27 2020 06:29pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ 27 Dec 2020 19:15)
I love that the president is actually fighting for more money for normal people, but I hate that he waited until the last minute to actually fight for it instead of doing this weeks or months ago.


This 100%. Now that the realization slowly sinks in that he really lost the election, Trump finally channels his inner populist again. Too little, too late, just an ineffectual publicity stunt.



Quote (Thor123422 @ 27 Dec 2020 22:29)
Ummm no shit? That's why they did it?

If you think Hollywood is liberal then you've just been brainwashed. All the parent companies are conservative in their desire for legislation because those are the policies that concentrate money into large companies.


As usual, we need a two-dimensional model of political ideology. Hollywood is economically conservative, yes, but at the same time, it is socially (ultra-)liberal.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 27 2020 06:30pm
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Dec 27 2020 11:06pm
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Dec 27 2020 06:29pm)
This 100%. Now that the realization slowly sinks in that he really lost the election, Trump finally channels his inner populist again. Too little, too late, just an ineffectual publicity stunt.

As usual, we need a two-dimensional model of political ideology. Hollywood is economically conservative, yes, but at the same time, it is socially (ultra-)liberal.


Its only socially liberal because it makes money. They only become liberal after an issue has gained popular acceptance and they do it for money. If they were truly the liberal vanguard we would be seeing a ton more movies with minority representation but its still pretty rare in most media.
Member
Posts: 54,180
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Dec 28 2020 04:30am
Quote (Thor123422 @ 28 Dec 2020 06:06)
Its only socially liberal because it makes money. They only become liberal after an issue has gained popular acceptance and they do it for money. If they were truly the liberal vanguard we would be seeing a ton more movies with minority representation but its still pretty rare in most media.


This is patently false. For example, Hollywood started adding gay figures to the cast of a ton of its movies/series back in the 90s, when there was still a stigma surrounding homosexuality and a vast majority of Americans was still rejecting gay marriage. The contrary of your statement is true in this case: the embrace of openly gay characters in cinemas and TV contributed to the change in public opinion on this issue which took place between the late 90s and the early 2010s.

Also, how on earth can anyone unironically claim that movies with minorities are pretty rare in most media in 2020? Like... seriously?!? :lol:
Nowadays, virtually every major movie or commercial and most TV series feature at least one minority cast member, often times a lot more than just one. Similarly, a ton of roles in recent films based on classic material (e.g. superhero adaptations) cast minority actors for roles which were white in the source material. Dito when it comes to female representation (e.g. the remake of Ghostbusters with an all-female cast, Ocean's 8, the Batwoman and Supergirl series, etc.), or the specific effort by film studios to add LGBTQI* characters to their films.


And last but not least, the NBA, NASCAR, the NFL all lost some viewership and thus money because of their emphasis of "woke" themes in recent years. Maaaaybe that's still the correct move in the long run, purging an aging viewership and replacing it with a younger, more lucrative one which will yield higher returns in the coming years or something like that - but it's definitely not self-evident or a no-brainer that Hollywood going socially super-liberal is the positioning which will make them the most money. At the very least, it's a bold and risky strategy to go fully woke and deliberately alienate parts of one's core audience.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 28 2020 04:32am
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Dec 28 2020 05:30am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Dec 28 2020 04:30am)
This is patently false. For example, Hollywood started adding gay figures to the cast of a ton of its movies/series back in the 90s, when there was still a stigma surrounding homosexuality and a vast majority of Americans was still rejecting gay marriage. The contrary of your statement is true in this case: the embrace of openly gay characters in cinemas and TV contributed to the change in public opinion on this issue which took place between the late 90s and the early 2010s.

Also, how on earth can anyone unironically claim that movies with minorities are pretty rare in most media in 2020? Like... seriously?!? :lol:
Nowadays, virtually every major movie or commercial and most TV series feature at least one minority cast member, often times a lot more than just one. Similarly, a ton of roles in recent films based on classic material (e.g. superhero adaptations) cast minority actors for roles which were white in the source material. Dito when it comes to female representation (e.g. the remake of Ghostbusters with an all-female cast, Ocean's 8, the Batwoman and Supergirl series, etc.), or the specific effort by film studios to add LGBTQI* characters to their films.

And last but not least, the NBA, NASCAR, the NFL all lost some viewership and thus money because of their emphasis of "woke" themes in recent years. Maaaaybe that's still the correct move in the long run, purging an aging viewership and replacing it with a younger, more lucrative one which will yield higher returns in the coming years or something like that - but it's definitely not self-evident or a no-brainer that Hollywood going socially super-liberal is the positioning which will make them the most money. At the very least, it's a bold and risky strategy to go fully woke and deliberately alienate parts of one's core audience.


This is where you get into tokenism versus real representation. There were gay people in some shows in the 90's, but most of it was under the rug. It was "queer coded", or limited to a single episode. Hell just look at this list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_1990s_American_television_episodes_with_LGBT_themes) and compare that to the deluge of characters, seasons, and shows in the 90's.

Depends how widely you define "minority". Females aren't minorities bro, and the fact that you think that you needed to include female ghost busters as "minority representation" really shows that the mindset I'm describing is still alive and well in how you and others perceive media. Having a group of women do something is still considered "political" and just speaks to my point. Similarly, having explicitly gay characters isn't nearly as common as you think it is. Like, was there even a gay avenger? I kind of got those vibes from Captain Marvel but it wasn't really stated. Black and Asian representation is definitely "there", although Asian actors face their own challenges, but minority representation as a whole is not at the level you think it is.

NBA, NASCAR, NFL have been suffering for years before the recent "oh they went woke". Even so, they may be an anomaly because sports (especially NASCAR) appeals to a conservative demographic. Still, not really a counter point to bring up something that's already failing, isn't Hollywood, and that appeals to a specifically conservative fanbase, and may well have been an exit of more liberal people because they definitely didn't just "go woke", because the explicit backlash against the wokeness preceded that.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12345Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll