Loki

To be fair, Disney is engaging in some politics here, as usual. If you'd asked them when Thor was released about Loki's gender they would have, unequivocally, said he was a straight, white, American male. They're cynically responding to changing societal norms in order to sell their stupid shitty products. Tokenism and rainbow capitalism aren't solutions to social issues and I feel like most people see through this shit. Obviously, they have money people on their end doing the work to figure out which of these fake positions they can take to either earn/lose money but I feel like it's just transparent.

Maybe. But if they had said back in the day that Thor was unequivocally a straight, white, American male, they'd have done so for the same reasons. Because that'd be the most profitable pandering to the audience of that year.

I don't see the difference.

Yeah, that's the point. They are a money making machine, they say the words that make the money machines go brrrrrrr. They have no values.

chaos said:

Obviously, they have money people on their end doing the work to figure out which of these fake positions they can take to either earn/lose money but I feel like it's just transparent.

Click to expand...

I dont think it requires the appearance of being genuine. Its about acknowledging their perceived influence and power. The authoritarian doesnt care how sincere you are while you kiss xher ring, xhey just need to make sure you bow really low while you kiss it.

"They" aren't claiming anything as "theirs". There is no "them". This is a cynical corporate marketing strategy related to a retelling of a thousand year old god myth, who is not human. It's the same exact thing as it was before. You can be butthurt if you like, but even that plays directly into their marketing strategy. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Terms like "genderfluid" don't mean anything when applied to a literal shapeshifting god who has been both man and woman, mother and father, in his various stories.

chaos said:

Yeah, that's the point. They are a money making machine, they say the words that make the money machines go brrrrrrr. They have no values.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see where the money is coming from then, because it sure as fuck isn't normal consumers. Get woke go broke isn't just an overused slogan, its true. These companies do have values (forced values maybe), and they are putting them ahead of financials. As these companies go further left with their faggot woke shit, they lose more and more money (at least from the financials the Public is allowed to see) So, the question is WHY? What are they getting in return, and from who, to take these fringe liberal stances.

Brodhi said:

I'd like to see where the money is coming from then, because it sure as fuck isn't normal consumers. Get woke go broke isn't just an overused slogan, its true. These companies do have values (forced values maybe), and they are putting them ahead of financials. As these companies go further left with their faggot woke shit, they lose more and more money (at least from the financials the Public is allowed to see) So, the question is WHY? What are they getting in return, and from who, to take these fringe liberal stances.

Click to expand...

It might be nice to think that it's just the children who are wrong and that surely these companies must be losing money hand over fist due to woke virtue signaling. I'd say I'd like to see data on that, but tbh I don't care.

Outside The Dome here, the left hates this virtue signaling shit as well, except in as much as it produces right wing tears. These companies literally have no values, only money. They don't care. Even this particular stance they took here. They don't understand, or care about, whatever the fuck people think genderfluid means in reference to human and society. Using terms like this gets all the pols fighting and linking articles and puts the name of their (probably shitty) show or movie out there in the world in a way that no traditional marketing campaign could.

I dont understand why is sexuality even needs to be identified. Remember when comics were for kids? I never once wondered what a comic book characters sexual identity was when I was a kid. Now we are beating kids over the head with this shit when they still cant even read yet.

Animosity said:

I dont understand why is sexuality even needs to be identified. Remember when comics were for kids? I never once wondered what a comic book characters sexual identity was when I was a kid. Now we are beating kids over the head with this shit when they still cant even read yet.

Click to expand...

When I was a kid, the only comics addressing sexuality really were indie comics, even then not well in most cases. They address it more now but it's more like performative representation. Like Rowling saying that Dumbledore is gay, despite that not being present in the text, and then having further opportunity to clarify that with the movies and still really not. Rowling writing a strong character not defined by their sexuality who happened to be gay would have been great. Instead she put on a gay minstrel show. Or that cringe as fuck marvel x-men reboot with heroes like Snowflake and Fatass or whatever, that was just awful. I realize I'm for sure an outlier here when I say that I do actually think representation is important. But this kind of stuff isn't the answer, it's just insulting.

Similar with Loki. The character himself is more interesting from the stories because he doesn't operate under the same rules we expect. He can be a woman, a man, a horse, whatever. Boiling that down to "he's genderfluid" is just dumb, and inaccurate. But people are talking about it.

While you guys are bogged down in horse cock, I thought the first episode was really solid. Premise they laid out has a ton of potential

I enjoy that Loki is a 'smart' villain. He takes the opportunity to watch his prime timeline to the end and quickly figures out that he has no place now. It helps that Tom Hiddleston could read the damn phone book and be both authoritative and smarmy at the same time.

never watched or read harry potter, this is what i think of now when it comes to shape shifting

Cybsled said:

While you guys are bogged down in horse cock, I thought the first episode was really solid. Premise they laid out has a ton of potential

Click to expand...

Sorry bro, besides my abiding love of horsecock I got hoodwinked by the interesting debut of Wandavision and that ended poorly so I've been waiting for more reviews/episodes to come out.

I might just be too old for marvel shit anymore, idk, anything they put out is either just cape shit or interesting premise that devolves into cape shit.

Brodhi said:

I'd like to see where the money is coming from then, because it sure as fuck isn't normal consumers. Get woke go broke isn't just an overused slogan, its true. These companies do have values (forced values maybe), and they are putting them ahead of financials. As these companies go further left with their faggot woke shit, they lose more and more money (at least from the financials the Public is allowed to see) So, the question is WHY? What are they getting in return, and from who, to take these fringe liberal stances.

Click to expand...

Its actually extremely hard to measure the effect of these things in terms of marketing data. Most of these decisions are made simply due to the culture around the people in charge. And currently most of these places are absolutely dominated by fairly extremely Liberal lobbying groups. Effectively people looking to push an ideological agenda pay people to attend social functions (Or throw them) in order to get in the ear of the shot callers; they also market their approval as being defacto approval of their ideological grouping (Your product is gay approved!)

This industry used to be dominated by family values yokels, and Christian groups. Studios used to invite those groups in to pass movies by them for approval. Now its all SJW based groups. Some of the family values groups literally rebranded to 'feminist' groups to push the same stuff---namely censoring sex on TV. Its why you hear the same rhetoric you used to from conservative groups now in feminist bullshit; its just a different set of reasons. Instead of "think of our children, how will they be corrupted!"---its "think of objectifying the poor women!"---same end result.

In short, a lot of this stuff happens because of people with an agenda who can afford to push their values. That used to be the church/christian groups and some pro-America groups (Military contractors), now its all pretty much big capital groups (Who push a lot of this messaging because SJW themes are great for everything capital likes, like free labor movement across borders, or a divided middle class that bickers among itself rather than focusing on them.)

Zweischneid said:

Maybe. But if they had said back in the day that Thor was unequivocally a straight, white, American male, they'd have done so for the same reasons. Because that'd be the most profitable pandering to the audience of that year.

I don't see the difference.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the difference is those reasons tended to support am ideology that created a homogeneous, nationally unified culture that, while exploited for imperial gain, and maximized productivity--at least could stand united in order to demand concessions from those exploiting it.

Now the reasons tend to support an ideology that is actively dividing the culture in order to prevent attempts at material self improvement of the citizens within that culture (in exchange for vague fulfillment of identity)...Mainly because their labor is too expensive and they got uppity during the great recession and almost came together to reign in the plutocrats of this country.

One is pandering that makes America stronger. The other is pandering that actively weakens it. These are not the same thing. That's like saying a cold is the same as ebola because hey....they are both just viruses.

Disney put that out there to ruin forum threads about the show.