Spain was that lol And everybody fight about that now thankfully in tv gay are common and even part of comical in same level hetero. But lol each time right wing won here comes We have to thing in children but only if is homo material
It’s not much different here, if our right wing is railing about “filth” on TV or in social media then 9 times out of 10 they mean they saw some gay/lesbian content they didn’t like.
I’d say with us it is certainly (a lot) more common now, but it looks like Spain may be slightly ahead of us then, as I wouldn’t say it is on the same level as straight content yet.
So any Spanish series/telenovela’s with hot actors playing gay guys you can recommend Mara?
Well there is I don’t follow many telenovela I know that a lot teens have at least a gay or bi protagonist nowadays I am more to comic shows that introduce now trans people gays people discovering is gay etc gay adoption and marriage stuff is common here as many gay comical or that There is also trans football players being accepted even some our laws are stupid Problem with telenovela are mostly no Spanish are from Hispano america were gays have a lot of problems
Edit @idonotlikeusernames in Google searching I am very happy to see several new telenovela are on air were protagonist are gay romance and several actor have admitted be Lgbt+ I had no idea as I am not viewer of them . Baby steps but steps nevertheless There are videos on YouTube as better m m romances on them
Okay, yeah that’s not quite so common these days. Every teen show now seems to have gays, lesbians and even some trans people in it, but most are still side or minor characters, with the lesbian/gay best friend being, according to some of my younger cousins, an increasingly popular trope too. But unless the show is specifically gay or lesbian focused we’re not quite the protagonists yet. And gay and lesbian friends still get less attention devoted to their love lives then the straight characters.
“Trans people aren’t people” is falsehood. “Blacks are subhuman” and “Jews must be exterminated” are falsehoods. More than that, they’re falsehoods which have incited actual violence against human beings and prop up domestic terrorist movements. Saying these things in public have consequences, and those consequences can often be measured in human lives.
If you knowingly try to sell medicine which has done nothing but kill a dozen people in the past, then you’re a criminal. If you knowingly try to sell an ideology which has done nothing but kill tens of millions of people in the past, you should be a criminal.
I live in a country with hate crime laws, and only the most unhinged wingnut would say I’m less free than the average American. The fact that certain harmful views are beyond the pale and have been agreed to be be beyond the pale strangles a lot of extremist movements in the crib (in fact, they often go to the United States, where audiences and laws are more receptive).
Arguably, if the US had the sort of commonly accepted, multi-partisan consensus on hate speech Canada does, the political atmosphere would be different, and Trump might have never made it as far as he did.
Then nobody here has it.
All rights are conditional, and they always have been - specifically based on the condition that your rights end where another person’s begins. Someone who wants unlimited freedoms for themselves is someone who wants everyone else in their power.
The only person with unlimited freedom is a tyrant.
A tyrant is sakled by their own absolutes. A state of absolute freedom as it was before society is a pure clashing of wills that leads to pure chaos and the absolute fear or being crushed. I know all the falacy social pact is but I have read the classics and see how anarchy revolutions are your liberty is limited by my own. rights don’t work in a vacuum.
I see the quantity of lgbt+ representation being mentioned a lot but what irks me more is the quality of it. I so far seen literally one tv show that has done it well. Frankly I’m not convinced that scarce representation is worse than caricaturization.
EDIT: For some reason I assumed it obvious that I meant the trans and/or nonbinary representation and not entire spectrum. Silly me.
Quality is always an issue too, but that is true even for straight women, a lot of my female friends, including our own Mara are often or even most times less than happy about the way the media depicts women. Particularly maybe in the latino societies where machismo and some manifestations of “toxic masculinity” are even more prominent.
But, yes, I certainly do agree with you about the quality. That’s another reason I’m on this site where many of the games allow me to shape my gay mc as I want and don’t force me to play a gay stereotype or caricature.
Before I begin, I just want to say that although I’m about to (somewhat) disagree with a lot of what you’ve said @Cataphrak, I respect your position and agree with the sentiment behind it.
What would that entail, though? Would it just be those who are actively propagating and encouraging violence in any of its forms through those ideologies? Would all the books that guide these ideologies be banned? Would booksellers who sell those books, and so are selling those ideologies, become criminals? Who would determine which ideology should be criminalized?
I support the general idea of what you mean, but I just feel like it would increase the chances of nationally banned books, political prisoners, and all the other not so pleasant stuff, especially with the rise of populism around the world – because what would happen if those extremists go into power, and there’s already laws in place to ban ideas they deem unwanted or that threaten their power? Sure it’s the slippery slope idea, but it’s already happening where places are growing bit by bit more authoritarian.
Germany has hate speech laws, and yet they’re dealing with a rise of far-right, and so are a lot of other nations with stricter free speech laws than the United States. You’re probably right that those laws do strangle movements in Canada – but I think a big part of it, as you mentioned, is because they have the US to go to – they’re able to the easy way out. What would happen if the US did decide to copy Canadian law? Canada’s far-right is increasing just like the rest of the world (perhaps less so), and I think it’d get worse because there’d be no close (in either geography or culture) place nearby to go instead.
I feel like that’s reducing the election to just a lack of hate speech laws/political atmosphere – but whoever people voted for, they all had their own concerns, be it economical, social, security, etc., and I feel that those concerns shouldn’t be brushed aside so easily even if they’re wrong or something I’d disagree with. Although I do wish we had a more multi-party system like Canada, if only for the rest of America who voted third party or didn’t vote at all.
As for rights being conditional – I agree and disagree, although I think it’s a matter of philosophy vs practicality, as well as determining what a “right” is to begin with. But I can say I agree with the quote above!
Right, I was gonna add that but I thought not since this can just be assumed. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are basic rights. Liberty only ends when it infringes on these rights. Freedom of speech infringes on none of them. None of the rights enshrined in the constitution do.
*Post is a little rambling but I tried my best to cover a few points that I feel people should consider.
@Cataphrak and I come from families that suffered at the hands of the far-right ideologues.
We have a visceral understanding of how violent, hate mongering words can turn into violence against innocent people. When I saw people march down Charlottesville, Virginia with Nazi flags chanting, “You will not replace us” it reminds me of the fact that the very ignorance and hatred they are brazenly supporting has real consequences and that the fact people can’t fully comprehend that in these cases that if you don’t confront the hatred and bigotry directly it will grow and fester. Censoring works, but it has to be backed up with vicious condemnation on all levels.
The rising right wing movements in Germany are not caused by hatred against Jews. It is a reaction caused by an influx of other. The fact that these people they are letting in have different customs, traditions, and heritage scares people. We all like to think that are better than that, that if a person looks different then us, we’ll still treat them normally. But we all have implicit bias in some form. All of this backlash is caused because of a lack of understanding, empathy, and no real desire to learn. Just look at a bit of my familial history to get a grasp on how perceptions and a lack of real action can cause significant problems.
A classic-case of dangerous censorship/whitewashing in regards to the past comes in when you look at modern Japan. My grandparents grew up in WW2 when the Japanese occupied the Philippines. To quickly summarise the cost of this occupation- they both lost family members, their homes, and friends who were senselessly slaughtered by the Japanese who believed and were indoctrinated that they were racially superior to other Asian races.
Every country the Japanese occupied suffered, but none suffered worse than China. The lowball estimate for deaths caused by the fighting, famine, and other causes is around 20+ million. The Japanese have had a policy of systemic censorship and whitewashing of these ugly truths in the decades that followed the “Great Pacific War.”
I do not blame their descendants, but the issues that created the hatred and misunderstandings that led to the mass death and destruction cannot be resolved if people are not willing to encounter the ugly. By censoring the worst damages and denying a free discourse the lessons that their descendants should learn- have not been. I don’t need every Japanese citizen I encounter to bow down and beg forgiveness to me for what their nation did. Nor, do I think they will. I just want them to understand what happened and for them to come to grips with it.
The main point with this text blob is this: censorship is necessary if people are not willing to learn about the conditions that led to the issue.
In Europe, the Holocaust was carried out against groups of people who were other. People who did not fit the vision and mould that the Nazi Government wanted perpetuated. A basic glance at those who were predominately targeted proves this: Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Communists, Socialists, and African-Europeans. These are all common scapegoats because they are other.
In Asia, the Japanese slaughtered indiscriminately because they believed they were racially superior to the other Asians and thus did not feel obligated to extend to them basic human decency. They prostituted the women of the conquered to their soldiers and did horrible experiments on POWs and ethnic peoples.
The concepts of being racially superior and creating division by reinforcing differences and weaponizing them must be countered. But, until enough people are willing to stand up and confront it face to face. I feel that they must be censored.
It entails the recognition of certain ideologies as inherently violent, specifically those who’ve been proven in the past to be ones which cannot achieve their goals except through violence. This is necessarily a reactive measure based on a reading of history, but that’s kind of the point. Free speech exists so that ideas, even unpopular ideas, can be debated in a hypothetical sense, but if a given idea has already proven to be disastrous for all involved, then allowing it room to breathe again is the equivalent of legalising lead-based paint for new construction.
A free society should censor only what has, in the past, invariably led to the destruction of free societies and the people who live in them. No more, and no less.
Concerns are one thing, who people blame for their problems is another, and it’s the socialisation received from far-right sources which drove many people to blame the other rather than the complex network of motivations, good intentions, and institutional breakdowns which have led us to this point.
Only if you assume speech is nothing more than empty air. Words have power, we wouldn’t be here talking about this if they didn’t. If you convince someone with your freedom of speech to kill someone else, you are, in fact, using your freedom of speech to infringe upon someone else’s right to life, and indeed, if you use your words to hire a hitman, you are in fact, criminally liable. If you conspire to commit a crime with someone else, you are criminally liable.
If the crime you are conspiring with others to commit is genocide, you are criminally liable.
Not exactly, I was using it as an example that allowing racist and violent demagogues a platform to spread hate speech and malicious lies is a really bad idea, and these people should be silenced to protect the rest of us who don’t want to be made second-class citizens, defined out of existence, or exterminated.
Thanks for the advice, though.
Are people in US in genuine threat of being made second-class citizens, defined out of existence or exterminated? If so, then we’re criminally misinformed here in Europe. And if so I don’t think freedom of speech or regulations of speech would do any good.
People are literally being murdered in public for being leftist, or Jewish, or for standing up for Muslims, and there’s no small amount of evidence that those people doing the murdering were radicalised by far-right media figureheads.
History has taught us that the difference between a population ruled by blanket antipathy towards a marginalised group and a population complicit in the mass murder of that marginalised group is, at best, the outcome of a single election.
White nationalists/supremacists/neo-nazis/whichever term you prefer they’re all equally shitty are a big problem in America. Hell, we had a nazi run for office in my home state of Illinois - Republican Arthur J. Jones (that’s not hyperbole, by the way, he literally describes himself as a former leader of the American Nazi Party) in the midterm elections (and lose) not that long ago. And despite this and being disavowed by the GOP he won 26.5 percent of the vote in his district. Not to mention we have sympathizers in congress. Just look at Steve King.
The Trump administration is trying to establish a legal definition of gender where you are either male or female depending on the genitalia you were born with, with any unclear cases determined by genetic testing. That’s the most notable thing I was thinking of. Any of our American trans forum-goers could probably enumerate the issue of LGBT rights in America much better than I could if you’re curious.
Yes. The US government under the Trump Administration has issued an intent to ensure that trans people are required to be labelled the sex of their birth on legal documentation, no matter where they are in their transition. If there is any confusion (someone intersex for one example) genetic testing is meant to be done to ‘clear things up’. In essence, the administration intends to ensure that anyone trans (or intersex, because fuck them apparently) is required to permanently be labelled by their birth.
Not only is that incredibly shitty, it is also dangerous. In a country where cops are always defended for their shitty behavior, you’d be giving the worst of them even more ways to hurt us. Take me, for example. I’m legally female, look female, sound female, and my hormones are female. Everything but an annoying growth I’ll get rid of soon is female. If a cop pulls me over there’s no risk or confusion.
Now assume everything I said is still true, minus legal identification. Now I’m legally a man named Nicole. Still look, sound, and in nearly every way am a woman, but my past still defines me. Any police officer, employer, airport official, bartender, or tattoo artist I go to now knows a secret I try desperately to keep. All of this, by the way, is before I bring up the bathroom law several states of tried to pass. Such a law would also require I use the men’s bathroom on top of everything else.
The right also has its own narrative of grievance, and both sides are absolutely convinced that their narrative is the legitimate one. In a true democracy no one side can guarantee permanent control, so the tools you give the state to suppress the other side will inevitably be turned against yours as well. The left too has its dangerous ideologies, the place to draw a line isn’t always clear, and there will always be those in power who stand to gain from drawing those lines in ways that make political opposition illegal.
Absolutely, and compared to far-right ideologies, they have almost no grip on the civic discourse. American political culture is skewed heavily towards the right, but that’s an artificial bias, not a natural one. The American political mainstream goes from slightly right of centre to “within spitting distance of fascism” because there is a long tradition of official and unofficial marginalisation not just of the dangerous parts of the far-left, but the parts of the left which I’d consider equivalent to “mainstream Republicans” (Hard Democratic Socialists and even some moderate MLs).
If anything, the fact that the far left (censored) are reduced to a laughingstock, while the far-right (uncensored) are shaping policy, sinking its claws into a third of the country, and actually killing people seems to be an argument for censoring dangerous ideologies.
The Nazis ran over a protestor and harass people on a daily basis. They attacked an Asian actress for daring to play a character on Star Wars for Christ’s sake.
If you want to play this game, there’s also the fact they support an ideology that wants to “peacefully” ethnic cleanse me out of the USA to defend the White Race from being assimilated or “marginalized.”
Every single concept that is slightly different and people want to embrace they decry for being special snowflakes yet they demand that their interests, customs, and traditions be held on some pedestal.
The people who buy into the alt-right or “War on Christmas” have been special snowflakes long before anyone else and they always were willing to harass, intimidate, and bully people into submission or subservience.