[Sumac]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

I don't agree with the SJW ideology, but I can atleast respect their embrace of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, which is why they are winning in the West. While many conservatives whine about liberals shutting them down and taking control of big companies, those very liberals are rapidly increasing their power and controlling the dominant narrative.

I wish the cause being advanced was different, but might always makes right.

Respecting idiotic and toxic movements embracing totalitarian style, which in the future will be the cause of their downfall, is an amazing display of an ignorance. Like a double display of ignorance.

If "might was always right" you'd still be living in a cave and fire would have been the greatest achievement you've ever seen in your life.

Think about it, why it is not the case and maybe you'll figure out, why "might makes right" is a retarded way of thinking.

Originally Posted by Galactus

It's certainly true that one Disney exec wants to include more LGBTQ content in Disney productions. She is talking about it openly like it's a completely normal thing because it's a completely normal thing.

Cannibal also talks about eating people as it is a normal thing.
it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Also Disney should totally be doing this.

A cold shower for you: there is a difference between understanding that racist stereotypes are bad (or will be viewed as bad in the future) and praising mental illness and pandering to mentally ill people and attention whores.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Over the years Disney as a company has cottoned on that the children will generally be more progressive than their parents so there's been a movement within the company to try and stay ahead of that. A good example of this is The Princess and the Frog which flopped at the time but several years on developed a cult following and dolls of Tiana are among the highest selling because little Black girls actually like the idea there's a princess that looks like them.

What it has to do with made up genders? Or trans?

Originally Posted by Galactus

Taking all that into account Disney can't afford not to have any LGBTQ representation. That being said being Disney it very likely be highly santised. It will be like a character with two dads or a best male friend that's kinda effeminate and it it will be treated as completely normal which it is. Nothing that a young person wouldn't see by going outside and living their life in 2022. The only secret agenda here is the corporation will be inclusive if it makes them money and hopefully there is some sincerely good intentions from the creative staff.

There is a difference between young people and kids.
Don't dilute that line or I might get suspicious about your motives.

Originally Posted by Galactus

You're not going to stop people (particularly young people) advocating for progressive change by giving them a common cause like a war. Iraq and Afghanistan didn't stop people in the Western world pursuing Social Justice causes and it famously didn't stop it during Vietnam. Having international problems has never prevented people wanting to solve domestic ones.

You have a very lousy understanding of history, which is a common problem for zealots on both Left and Right.
Of course, if you understood history in a proper manner, you won't be a zealot supporting most ludicrous ideas, but here we are.

There is a significant difference, between social movements of the past and thing manufactured by zoomers and their corporate overlords today. Social movements of the past have developed organically, as a response to various external and internal events.

Movements observed nowadays are shallow and artificial, because, if you check their stated goals, they already have achieved most of them. And, because, their "outrage" and definitions and very hypocritical and change almost daily, on the basis of what is more popular today, which doesn't happens with "organic ideologies". But it is a sure sign of a "totalitarian ideology", where being part of the mainstream beliefs, inside a party is more important than ideological consistency and coherence.

To put it simply, modern "movements" are not response for any urgent humanitarian crisis inside societies, but manufactured outrages and "struggles" by the circles and people interested in obtaining / preserving their clout and power by manipulating society.

Like a person above, you are making a mistake, by applying modern definitions and interpretations to ideas that existed before your time. Which is a good sign of you being on the wrong side of history, mate.

Originally Posted by Galactus

BTW a pansexual is someone who is attracted to all genders.

Gender is a social construct, i.e. set of stereotypes. Making it a separate and special sexuality is retarded, because: a) it has nothing to do with sexuality and b) because, 99,9% of people attracted to various stereotypes, which mean "pansexual" can be applied to 99,9% of humanity, which makes it meaningless.

Originally Posted by Galactus

The difference between them and bisexual people is that bisexuals often have a preference of one sex over the other and often don't consider trans people. Pansexuals generally don't have a preference at all and are open to all consenting adults. As I understand it for pansexuals it's more about the personality of the person than the physicality.

So what you are saying "pansexuals" are no different in any way than normal people and are just attention whores, who label themselves with a made up sexuality, just to get asspats and praise.
Thanks for confirming my point.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Considering that no one on this thread knew that don't you feel a bit silly ranting about it. You could have at least looked it up before yelling pedophile.

Your statement rings hollow, my learned friend, considering that above you've just stated that, you, yourself, not even sure, what "pansexual" means. So thanks for educating us about your ignorance. Again.