We’ve all seen it. “Blah mah women bad, bad because another woman.”
It’s a problem now. You’re not allowed to criticise a movie with a woman in it because it’s got a woman in it, and now you’re a misogynist, even if it’s terrible and the fact is got a woman in it is irrelevant.
See the all female remake of Ghostbusters.
Also there’s a certain amount of (I hate to use the word) woke washing. Where studios are trying to show how progressive they are by having women as the main lead and then going “look how progressive we are we’ve got women”, rather than just having a women play in good well written roles, which would be actually progressive.
This is a bad faith argument in itself. Nobody is censoring you for having opinions. State your opinions clearly without retreating to a persecution complex, and if people find your arguments valid they’ll engage with them.
That’s is a bad faith arguement. People are censored for their opinions all of the time, they may not be arrested but they will lose their job or worse, I’m not talking about actual censorship I’m talking about the court of public opinion.
That’s not called censorship, that’s called consequence (and like you said, court of public opinion). Censorship means they wouldn’t have been able to make their shitty remark in the first place. The consequence of public opinion is a result of having been free to say what they want to begin with. Sounds more like you want no consequences for actions and that’s a very different thing.
It’s a problem now. You’re not allowed to criticise a movie with a woman in it because it’s got a woman in it, and now you’re a misogynist, even if it’s terrible and the fact is got a woman in it is irrelevant.
See the all female remake of Ghostbusters.
Also there’s a certain amount of (I hate to use the word) woke washing. Where studios are trying to show how progressive they are by having women as the main lead and then going “look how progressive we are we’ve got women”, rather than just having a women play in good well written roles, which would be actually progressive.
This is a bad faith argument in itself. Nobody is censoring you for having opinions. State your opinions clearly without retreating to a persecution complex, and if people find your arguments valid they’ll engage with them.
That’s is a bad faith arguement. People are censored for their opinions all of the time, they may not be arrested but they will lose their job or worse, I’m not talking about actual censorship I’m talking about the court of public opinion.
That’s not called censorship, that’s called consequence (and like you said, court of public opinion). Censorship means they wouldn’t have been able to make their shitty remark in the first place. The consequence of public opinion is a result of having been free to say what they want to begin with. Sounds more like you want no consequences for actions and that’s a very different thing.
rainbow capitalism in a nutshell.