Netflix to Employees: If you don't like our content, you can quit(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Netflix to Employees: If you don't like our content, you can quit
https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-to-employees-if-you-dont-like-our-content-you-can-quit-11652478092
409 comments
"you can't exclude half the political spectrum (either half)"
That is a changing dynamic. For one, the "halves" keep changing, sometimes it's more polarized and sometimes more moderate.
And during a lot of the 2010's, it was perfectly viable to exclude the conservative "half". They just didn't push back much, at least when it came to spending.
But now things are changing. In Florida, Disney World may be losing their special political status due to Disney's political posturing. That would have been unthinkable 5 years ago. Now, as you say, large companies have to worry about alienating anyone.
Whether this will cause further fracturing, or we go back to "drab and boring", I don't know.
There's also a young/old dynamic. Some companies feel safe appealing to young people, who they perceive as progressive. That may work, but young people are also unpredictable, so it's not necessarily a good long-term strategy.
That is a changing dynamic. For one, the "halves" keep changing, sometimes it's more polarized and sometimes more moderate.
And during a lot of the 2010's, it was perfectly viable to exclude the conservative "half". They just didn't push back much, at least when it came to spending.
But now things are changing. In Florida, Disney World may be losing their special political status due to Disney's political posturing. That would have been unthinkable 5 years ago. Now, as you say, large companies have to worry about alienating anyone.
Whether this will cause further fracturing, or we go back to "drab and boring", I don't know.
There's also a young/old dynamic. Some companies feel safe appealing to young people, who they perceive as progressive. That may work, but young people are also unpredictable, so it's not necessarily a good long-term strategy.
I think the quality of content is not related to whether is for or against some part of the population. As a matter of fact I find it quite dull and artificial when is so obsessively centered on some aspects like race or sexuality.
It reminds me of Don Quixote: it's a masterpiece of literature but I find different parts of varying quality. Some parts are eternal and you can relate to the glories and miseries of people from 500 years ago. Other parts, like when Don Quixote starts to ramble about honor, what is honorable or not, and so on and on, are quite boring. Not because honor is not important, we have laws nowadays about defamation after all, but you cannot make it the center of your life.
Making your content either offensive to some part of the population or making it all about some political agenda results in low quality content, IMHO.
It reminds me of Don Quixote: it's a masterpiece of literature but I find different parts of varying quality. Some parts are eternal and you can relate to the glories and miseries of people from 500 years ago. Other parts, like when Don Quixote starts to ramble about honor, what is honorable or not, and so on and on, are quite boring. Not because honor is not important, we have laws nowadays about defamation after all, but you cannot make it the center of your life.
Making your content either offensive to some part of the population or making it all about some political agenda results in low quality content, IMHO.
What is isn't going to do is make Netflix a partner to something really out there, like Blaze TV.
This entire change to their guidelines feels dishoenst. They paint it as their duty to encourage pluralism, but they in fact just want to platform just enough content on the sidelines to make off with the largest profit profit margins.
It's another surrender to the power of the almighty dollar. I'd much prefer if Netflix was smaller and other competitors were around to fill that hole in the market so I could, as they say, vote with my wallet. (That phrase is never a dismissive sham, I swear!)
This entire change to their guidelines feels dishoenst. They paint it as their duty to encourage pluralism, but they in fact just want to platform just enough content on the sidelines to make off with the largest profit profit margins.
It's another surrender to the power of the almighty dollar. I'd much prefer if Netflix was smaller and other competitors were around to fill that hole in the market so I could, as they say, vote with my wallet. (That phrase is never a dismissive sham, I swear!)
[deleted]
Fair enough. Seems pretty reasonable to expect your employees to be willing to work on what you ask them to work on, given that you're paying them and they voluntarily signed up to work for you. And as people who were able to get a job at Netflix, they surely had other options.
I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to hire someone to help produce documentaries and then expect them to produce “ow my balls”.
I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to hire someone to produce web sites in Flask/Vuex and then expect them to dedicate themselves to maintaining your PHP legacy systems.
I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to hire someone to produce web sites in Flask/Vuex and then expect them to dedicate themselves to maintaining your PHP legacy systems.
Are those things that specific people were actually promised in an explicit, demonstrable way when they were hired? It sounds like the kind of thing that people like to convince themselves they were promised because that's what they hoped and wanted to be true
Also, there's nothing in the article about this? - all the article talks about is some Netflix employees being upset that management didn't obey their wishes and pull Chapelle's special.
Also, there's nothing in the article about this? - all the article talks about is some Netflix employees being upset that management didn't obey their wishes and pull Chapelle's special.
I cancelled my Netflix account after the whole Cuties debacle. While visiting my friends I have noticed that Netflix content quality has been dropping sharply the last few years. Let's hope this exodus of customers and content creators will create a new, more interesting industry for the future.
Sidebar, but the "Cuties debacle" is nothing more than a moral panic. Cuties is a great movie about an immigrant kid struggling to cope with a broken home by escaping her parents and becoming a "normal French girl." She doesn't know how to fit in so she tries to gain acceptance with her non-immigrant school-friends by hyper-sexualizing herself. The story a searing criticism of the sexualization of children, not a celebration it. The dancing scene that everyone complains about is deliberately constructed to disgust the viewer, not to titillate them: you're meant to see it as the protagonist's lowest point, when they realize that they are pretending to be someone they're not in a bid to escape her parents' marital trauma. People got upset about it without seeing the movie. It's a great movie.
It's really hard to tell the difference between "intended to disgust the viewer" and "intended to tittilate the viewer with a fetish I don't share". I mean, any scene of sexualizing children is going to disgust me. How am I supposed to know which ones are meant that way?
(Also, consider the existence of exploitation films, which loudly proclaim how bad X is in order to have an excuse to show X to people who like seeing X.)
(Also, consider the existence of exploitation films, which loudly proclaim how bad X is in order to have an excuse to show X to people who like seeing X.)
There is art that blurs this line. Lolita, for instance, blurs this line. Cuties is not anything like that. The emotions you're intended to register are very, very clear. The camera keeps panning away from the kids to reveal the shocked, saddened parents, and after the routine finishes the girl breaks out into tears. It's a traumatic moment.
[deleted]
Maybe the "Cuties debacle" refers to the promotional imagery put out by Netflix with regards to the film. See here [0] a side-by-side comparison of the original poster for the film and the Netflix poster for the film.
People who only saw the Netflix poster could have a very different view of the movie and some might even refuse to watch the film.
[0] https://cdn.hobbyconsolas.com/sites/navi.axelspringer.es/pub...
People who only saw the Netflix poster could have a very different view of the movie and some might even refuse to watch the film.
[0] https://cdn.hobbyconsolas.com/sites/navi.axelspringer.es/pub...
I appreciate your points but I am not interested in watching a movie about the hyper sexualization of children or funding the service that provides it. Pedophilia is pedophilia no matter if it is satire, fiction or documented.
The movie is about the way that little girls grow up in the society that we all actually live in. If you're not interested in seeing honest representations of the the world you inhabit, no one's forcing you to look, but don't think your decision to close your eyes has anything to do with protecting little girls.
Its not a great movie, you don't need to see the whole movie in order to see enough to realize its fucking sick.
Blowhards like you love to complain about books they haven't read and movies they haven't seen.
I saw the whole movie and it is a regular coming of age movie as I remembered
Don't understand what is the fuss about it from the conservatives
Don't understand what is the fuss about it from the conservatives
They don’t want the truth? Like teens get horny and start questioning about sex, but instead of treating it with the proper bodily function it is let’s ignore it and promote scare tactics that still to this day are effective.
God forbid you don’t want to have a unplanned pregnancy or worse.
[deleted]
I actually think that Cuties was widely mischaracterised as a movie by people who didn't watch it and just reacted to what they thought the content of the movie was.
It's actually a good thoughtful coming of age movie that talks about important topics and actually criticises the culture of hypersexualisation of young girls.
It's actually a good thoughtful coming of age movie that talks about important topics and actually criticises the culture of hypersexualisation of young girls.
> hypersexualisation of young girls
Which is what the producers did to create it in the first place. Hence why it was unethical. I'm sure there are some snuff films with interesting character development too.
Which is what the producers did to create it in the first place. Hence why it was unethical. I'm sure there are some snuff films with interesting character development too.
I really don't understand why people are down voting you for this. The end does not justify the means. There are much better ways to tell the story of how young girls are hypersexualized without sexualizing the young girls in the process.
You don't have to watch a documentary on the Zodiac Killer and get presented with unedited video of him actually killing his victims to understand that he was an evil individual. And you don't have to watch:
> Frequent scenes of 11-year-old girls dancing lewdly where the camera pans in and zooms in on the children's buttocks and midsections (both still in skin-tight clothes) Close up shots of the girls dancing with their leg spread above their head while camera focus on crotch area. These views are fairly frequent.
> Four preteen girls mimic the dance movements they see in hip-hop/rap music videos including: slapping each other's buttocks, kissing their hands and then touching their crotches, rubbing their buttocks together, and making seductive faces while sticking their fingers in their mouth.
> Two young girls in bed view the dance routine of a rival dance team. One (considerably older) girl from the rival team, Sweety Swag, lifts her shirt and bra and fully exposes her right breast.
To understand that the sexualization of young girls is bad. All those descriptions are from the IMDB parents guide https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/parentalguide/nudity
You don't have to watch a documentary on the Zodiac Killer and get presented with unedited video of him actually killing his victims to understand that he was an evil individual. And you don't have to watch:
> Frequent scenes of 11-year-old girls dancing lewdly where the camera pans in and zooms in on the children's buttocks and midsections (both still in skin-tight clothes) Close up shots of the girls dancing with their leg spread above their head while camera focus on crotch area. These views are fairly frequent.
> Four preteen girls mimic the dance movements they see in hip-hop/rap music videos including: slapping each other's buttocks, kissing their hands and then touching their crotches, rubbing their buttocks together, and making seductive faces while sticking their fingers in their mouth.
> Two young girls in bed view the dance routine of a rival dance team. One (considerably older) girl from the rival team, Sweety Swag, lifts her shirt and bra and fully exposes her right breast.
To understand that the sexualization of young girls is bad. All those descriptions are from the IMDB parents guide https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/parentalguide/nudity
I've heard it quipped that there's no such thing as anti-war movie. No matter how searing the criticism, no matter how horrifying the violence: war simply looks good on the screen, and the spikes of adrenaline we get during a war film excite us. The same could be said of films with any form of taboo sexuality, even when done in the spirit of satire or social criticism.
> I'm sure there are some snuff films with interesting character development too.
The criticism is absolutely worth considering, regarding the ethics of production. But it's worth contrasting like-with-like (not to shut down the argument, but to try to define the boundaries):
- Was the production of "The Professional" or "Taxi Driver" ethical? Both films sexualized young girls; and in the former case, Natalie Portman found the experience (particular the response and aftermath) moderately traumatic, and explicitly avoided roles with any sexuality until her late twenties.
- Was Kubrick's directorial process ethical, particularly in regard to The Shining, where he was blatantly abusive to Shelley Duvall (charitably, to elicit the best performance)? If that instance is over the line, exactly how hard are directors allowed to be on actors, and how much explicit prior consent should be necessary for "method directing"?
- To what extent is child labor in film-making ethical to begin with? We've converged on 14 as the minimum age for W-2 employment (notwithstanding family businesses, kids with apps, kids with YouTube channels, and "off-books" tasks for pocket money). If hiring a kid for a movie is fine, why can't that same kid sweep floors at a gas station? We could say "because there's no other way to make realistic movies"; but that's not that different from "there's no other way to tell a story about coming-of-age in a hyper-sexualized world".
- To what extent should such limitations be a product of individual ethical choices, vs social norms / taboos, vs "market ethics" (boycotts), vs public law and policy (either in the sense of labor laws, or indecency constraints on expression)?
Again, not saying that criticizing the production of Cuties isn't valid, or appealing to the status quo, and definitely not making some backdoor argument against child labor laws or age-of-consent; just that these questions are larger in scope, and don't have obvious answers.
> I'm sure there are some snuff films with interesting character development too.
The criticism is absolutely worth considering, regarding the ethics of production. But it's worth contrasting like-with-like (not to shut down the argument, but to try to define the boundaries):
- Was the production of "The Professional" or "Taxi Driver" ethical? Both films sexualized young girls; and in the former case, Natalie Portman found the experience (particular the response and aftermath) moderately traumatic, and explicitly avoided roles with any sexuality until her late twenties.
- Was Kubrick's directorial process ethical, particularly in regard to The Shining, where he was blatantly abusive to Shelley Duvall (charitably, to elicit the best performance)? If that instance is over the line, exactly how hard are directors allowed to be on actors, and how much explicit prior consent should be necessary for "method directing"?
- To what extent is child labor in film-making ethical to begin with? We've converged on 14 as the minimum age for W-2 employment (notwithstanding family businesses, kids with apps, kids with YouTube channels, and "off-books" tasks for pocket money). If hiring a kid for a movie is fine, why can't that same kid sweep floors at a gas station? We could say "because there's no other way to make realistic movies"; but that's not that different from "there's no other way to tell a story about coming-of-age in a hyper-sexualized world".
- To what extent should such limitations be a product of individual ethical choices, vs social norms / taboos, vs "market ethics" (boycotts), vs public law and policy (either in the sense of labor laws, or indecency constraints on expression)?
Again, not saying that criticizing the production of Cuties isn't valid, or appealing to the status quo, and definitely not making some backdoor argument against child labor laws or age-of-consent; just that these questions are larger in scope, and don't have obvious answers.
I read all of your points and they are well made, then I switch app and watch tiktok and I see a totally different world where 14, 16, 17 years do not even need to be forced to expose and I wonder did they just get this way in the era of modern easy internet, or were they already like that? Then I remember all those movies with skimpy cheerleader outfits going back decades and wonder if we just make ado about nothing or did Hollywood change us?
No answer yet unfortunately.
No answer yet unfortunately.
Some backstory: Luc Besson directed "The Professional" (1994). His second wife was Maïwenn Le Besco, who was the model, but not the voice, for the Diva in "The Fifth Element" (1997), also directed by Besson. Maïwenn and Besson started dating when she was 15 and he was 31, they were married in 1992 when she was 16, and she had his child in January 1993. She later claimed that their relationship inspired "The Professional." They divorced in 1997 after Besson, 38, became involved with and then married "The Fifth Element" star Milla Jovovich, 21. Later in 2018 Besson was accused of rape by several women, though he denied the accusations and they were never proven in court.
I'm not sure whether the fact that the director of a movie with a pedophilic subtext was himself involved in an only-slightly-less pedophilic relationship in real life makes the movie itself less ethical to make or to watch, though it certainly doesn't make it any better. Maybe I'm saying that I'm skeptical that a creator who does some immoral thing can make a creation about that same thing with the context and discretion necessary not to glorify it.
I'm not sure whether the fact that the director of a movie with a pedophilic subtext was himself involved in an only-slightly-less pedophilic relationship in real life makes the movie itself less ethical to make or to watch, though it certainly doesn't make it any better. Maybe I'm saying that I'm skeptical that a creator who does some immoral thing can make a creation about that same thing with the context and discretion necessary not to glorify it.
would you be fine with a movie criticizing child pornography, but ending up doing a little bit of CP (fake, of course, but still CP)?
I guess the parent is making a similar comparison.
I am not that enraged by this, but I haven't watched the movie. I am very weary of any "think of the kids" outrage, it's usually bullshit...except the LGBTQ indoctrination at a young age, that is real. We ended up having 21% of young people to identify as LGBTQ. You can't convince me that this is the base rate and up until now 1 in 5 people were LGBTQ but were just afraid of coming out. https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup
I guess the parent is making a similar comparison.
I am not that enraged by this, but I haven't watched the movie. I am very weary of any "think of the kids" outrage, it's usually bullshit...except the LGBTQ indoctrination at a young age, that is real. We ended up having 21% of young people to identify as LGBTQ. You can't convince me that this is the base rate and up until now 1 in 5 people were LGBTQ but were just afraid of coming out. https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup
> I am very weary of any "think of the kids" outrage, it's usually bullshit...except the LGBTQ indoctrination at a young age, that is real
That is probably one of the most obviously not real moral panics you could possibly fall for.
> You can't convince me that this is the base rate and up until now 1 in 5 people were LGBTQ but were just afraid of coming out.
Why not? They use to not tell anyone because they were afraid of being murdered, that seems like the most obvious explanation, application of occams razor, etc..
That is probably one of the most obviously not real moral panics you could possibly fall for.
> You can't convince me that this is the base rate and up until now 1 in 5 people were LGBTQ but were just afraid of coming out.
Why not? They use to not tell anyone because they were afraid of being murdered, that seems like the most obvious explanation, application of occams razor, etc..
If my math is not wrong, the murder rate for trans people is actually lower than the general population
https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-tra...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/27/what-we-kno...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5227946/
https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-tra...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/27/what-we-kno...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5227946/
I mean, if you want to give his point a generous interpretation, replace murder with bullying/alienation/etc.
Seems rational that in a less hostile environment, a greater percentage of LGBTQ people would feel more comfortable exploring their sexuality and coming out as such.
Seems rational that in a less hostile environment, a greater percentage of LGBTQ people would feel more comfortable exploring their sexuality and coming out as such.
> if you want to give his point a generous interpretation
No need to be generous, it's a centuries long historic fact.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people
No need to be generous, it's a centuries long historic fact.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people
I agree. I just thought I’d sidestep any potential debate and reiterate the heart of the matter which should be impossible for anyone to deny.
being trans or gay is such a big thing, I don't really think you can hide from being trans...
It seems to me like it's being trivialized today, and some kids are pushed to say they are one just to be in trend with others.
Body dysmorphia is no joke, it's like saying: there were always these many anorexic girls, they were just too shy to show it.
> and some kids are pushed to say they are one just to be in trend with others
I don't believe this is generally true, and if it was true, I don't believe any doctors prescribing HRT are falling for it, and even if you proved a statistically improbable thing happened once or twice, the ratio of "trans kids hiding in the closet under coercion" to "cis kids pretending to be trans under coercion" would still be something like 999999:1.
I don't believe this is generally true, and if it was true, I don't believe any doctors prescribing HRT are falling for it, and even if you proved a statistically improbable thing happened once or twice, the ratio of "trans kids hiding in the closet under coercion" to "cis kids pretending to be trans under coercion" would still be something like 999999:1.
You don't need to seem much to realize the movie is sick and if you watched it and didn't think it was sick then there's something wrong with you.
I respectfully disagree. I haven't seen cuties, but I just watched the trailer. The movie may be a good thoughtful coming of age movie, but the trailer (at least in my opinion) did not characterize that at all. If I watch a trailer and it seems to indicate a movie that's about the sexualization of very young girls, I think it's perfectly fine for me to cancel my subscription without watching the movie. You may disagree with that sentiment, and that's fine, but I think that many people who did not watch the movie had seen the trailer and had a similar reaction that I just had.
I'm not sure you're disagreeing. It seems more like you are proving the parent post's point. You didn't watch the movie, yet you had an emotional reaction to it anyway, and used that to make a decision about the service. The parent isn't saying that's unethical or anything, just that the movie is being mischaracterized by people who did not watch it.
Because I choose not to watch something that implies it may be sexualizing young girls? So by this logic if you see a trailer for a movie that's highlighting the dangers of child pornography, but from the trailer it seems to be showing and possibly promoting child pornography, and I choose not to watch that because I don't want to unwittingly view a film that promotes child pornography, I have now unreasonably cast judgment on this film? I don't think that it's unfair for me to criticize a film if the way they promote it seems to insinuate it's a film about ethically horrendous and illegal material.
The producers created the trailer to promote the film. If the trailer looks like it's promoting ethically perverse material, I have every right to cast my judgment at that point and say this film is not for me.
I'm not going to sit through a film that seemingly promotes itself as the sexualization of young girls because someone told me that it has a good message at the end. And that's fine. And it's fine for people to cancel a subscription because of that presumption. I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to stuff like this.
The producers created the trailer to promote the film. If the trailer looks like it's promoting ethically perverse material, I have every right to cast my judgment at that point and say this film is not for me.
I'm not going to sit through a film that seemingly promotes itself as the sexualization of young girls because someone told me that it has a good message at the end. And that's fine. And it's fine for people to cancel a subscription because of that presumption. I'd rather be safe than sorry when it comes to stuff like this.
The marketing material for the movie was absolute dog water. I agree with your position there, but wish you'd take other sources and allow them to add color to your reaction to something you have only a single perspective on. Perhaps they could in form you that your reaction, based on bad information, is inaccurate. Perhaps you could use that realization as an opportunity to view the film yourself and come to your own conclusion based on the new information that your initial reaction was heavily biased based on an inaccurate portrayal of the material.
I'm genuinely curious then. Is the IMDB parents guide enough of an outside perspective for me to determine whether or not I want to watch a film? I'll frequently look it up to see if the film contains any material that I don't want to see, and I'll avoid the film if I get a bad perception from the parents guide. After reading the parents guide about this film it has only reinforced what I originally thought from the trailer.
I'm fine with watching a documentary that highlights the evils of the sexualization of young girls, but I'm not going to watch:
> Frequent scenes of 11-year-old girls dancing lewdly where the camera pans in and zooms in on the children's buttocks and midsections (both still in skin-tight clothes) Close up shots of the girls dancing with their leg spread above their head while camera focus on crotch area. These views are fairly frequent.
And much more content like that just to get to the conclusion that the sexualization of young girls is evil.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/parentalguide/nudity
I'm fine with watching a documentary that highlights the evils of the sexualization of young girls, but I'm not going to watch:
> Frequent scenes of 11-year-old girls dancing lewdly where the camera pans in and zooms in on the children's buttocks and midsections (both still in skin-tight clothes) Close up shots of the girls dancing with their leg spread above their head while camera focus on crotch area. These views are fairly frequent.
And much more content like that just to get to the conclusion that the sexualization of young girls is evil.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt9196192/parentalguide/nudity
There is a common saying in English that I'm sure you have heard of: "Don't judge a book by its cover". You keep doubling down on the cover even when knowledgeable people who have watched the movie tell you that you are mistaken.
So much hatred and misery in the world could be avoided if we figured out how to resist this impulse to judge from surface-level impressions.
So much hatred and misery in the world could be avoided if we figured out how to resist this impulse to judge from surface-level impressions.
Argument would have been more compelling if it had begun "Oh I see your point, so I just sat down and watched the whole movie and after that I still think..."
Yes, it is unreasonable to cast judgment on something you have no knowledge of. You may cast judgment on the trailer if you like, since you've seen that, but not the film, which you haven't seen. I don't find this complicated, having seen many trailers that don't accurately portray the films they're advertising, just as I've seen many books that shouldn't be judged by their covers.
Another way to interpret the GP is that even if the movie itself was a great coming-of-age story, the trailer Netflix made to promote it was disgusting and unacceptable. That seems reasonable enough to me.
(Note that I’ve watched neither the movie nor the trailer.)
(Note that I’ve watched neither the movie nor the trailer.)
Ok, that I'll concede, the trailer which I saw after watching the movie was really really bad. Very poor and tone deaf marketing.
This post is getting downvoted, but it does bring up an interesting point. The idea of judging a book by it's cover seems to be universally criticized. But especially with movie trailers, it can be unambiguously clear how the movie is being sold and what the intent is. I haven't seen Cuties or its trailer, so I'm not speaking specifically about it. But I would say trailers say quite a bit more about a movie than covers say about books. OP said that the movie was actually a criticism of child sexualization. If that's the case (which it may or may not be) and the trailer would generally be considered as instead selling child sexualization (which it may or may not), then there's something missing unless the trailer is being ironic, which seems unlikely given that the topic doesn't seem like a very appropriate subject for irony.
Read yourself.
Funny - I find Netflix content keeps getting better. Dark, Ozark, Unorthodox, Russian Doll, Sense8, Love Sex & Robots, The OA.
Not as good as HBO - but honestly it seems close. If anything - HBO's content seems to be on the decline more than Netflix. It's still top notch, but it used to be outstanding.
Netflix is really mastering the wide appeal & good enough content: 13 Reasons Why, Elite, Bridgerton, Bird Box, etc...
It seems like the shows everyone is talking about are always either HBO or Netflix.
Disney is obviously dominating in popularity at the box office with Marvel.
Not as good as HBO - but honestly it seems close. If anything - HBO's content seems to be on the decline more than Netflix. It's still top notch, but it used to be outstanding.
Netflix is really mastering the wide appeal & good enough content: 13 Reasons Why, Elite, Bridgerton, Bird Box, etc...
It seems like the shows everyone is talking about are always either HBO or Netflix.
Disney is obviously dominating in popularity at the box office with Marvel.
I wish more people would watch Dark. Horrendously underrated.
Dark was infuriating to watch. Visually stunning, great characters and performances, but ultimately an intentionally obfuscated and meandering story that only ends up disappointing you.
It's kind of similar to Westworld season 1 or Lost -- there's this style of storytelling where you drop a bunch of interesting clues to lead you towards possible theories about whats really going on, and then all of those threads are dropped on the floor as if they never mattered. I find it abusive and disrespectful to the viewer.
It's kind of similar to Westworld season 1 or Lost -- there's this style of storytelling where you drop a bunch of interesting clues to lead you towards possible theories about whats really going on, and then all of those threads are dropped on the floor as if they never mattered. I find it abusive and disrespectful to the viewer.
I think the first 2 seasons of world building was great in Dark, but unfortunately very few people are able to close such complex series well.
The notable exceptions being Vince gilligan for BB and hopefully BCS, and the Americans team.
The notable exceptions being Vince gilligan for BB and hopefully BCS, and the Americans team.
Unfortunately the dub for this one just wasn’t good enough to keep my attention. It constantly failed to match the expected tone of the scene to the degree that it pulled me out of the story and I shelved it. I, like a majority of Netflix subscribers, don’t enjoy movies with subtitles as it also destroys the immersion to be constantly reading. No doubt this is at least one of the primary drivers for its low penetration into the English zeitgeist.
[deleted]
Feels like (IME) there's a rather high incidence of discontent over decisions "from above" among the shows listed: The OA being cancelled, 13 Reasons having three seasons too many, speculation(?) that Dark's wonky pacing at the end was due to being approved for too limiting a number of episodes...
Game of Thrones had a horrible final season. The first six seasons were maybe the best in all of television.
It's rare for a TV series to be excellent and stay excellent it's entire life.
This doesn't really seem unique to Netflix.
There's a ton of movies, shows, books - where the first installment is outstanding and the rest are trash.
My favorite example as a kid was Maze Runner. The first book has terrible prose - but is actually pretty well paced and a good story. The second two are utter garbage (fun fact: the editor quit after the first book AND the publisher dropped the author when the first one was the next best selling sci Fi / fantasy since Harry Potter... That's how bad the sequels were).
This happens more times than not.
It's rare for a TV series to be excellent and stay excellent it's entire life.
This doesn't really seem unique to Netflix.
There's a ton of movies, shows, books - where the first installment is outstanding and the rest are trash.
My favorite example as a kid was Maze Runner. The first book has terrible prose - but is actually pretty well paced and a good story. The second two are utter garbage (fun fact: the editor quit after the first book AND the publisher dropped the author when the first one was the next best selling sci Fi / fantasy since Harry Potter... That's how bad the sequels were).
This happens more times than not.
(Can't edit) Ah, how did I forget, in this context, about the suicide being censored out of the first season of 13 Reasons Why, years after its release?[1]
That was along with the addition of 1) a disclaimer in the form of the actors talking directly to the viewer before the first episode and 2) an intertitle after every episode reminding of it, again with narration from the actors. 3) Trigger warnings before episodes were also added, but to no surprise at this point. What I certainly haven't seen before is such mutilation of a work as accompanying it with material so expressly immersion-breaking!
A song in the soundtrack was also replaced for reasons unknown, but I suppose that falls more into the general topic of silent alterations to published media that online consumption facilitates, an entire discussion to be had on its own.
[1] https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=378736
That was along with the addition of 1) a disclaimer in the form of the actors talking directly to the viewer before the first episode and 2) an intertitle after every episode reminding of it, again with narration from the actors. 3) Trigger warnings before episodes were also added, but to no surprise at this point. What I certainly haven't seen before is such mutilation of a work as accompanying it with material so expressly immersion-breaking!
A song in the soundtrack was also replaced for reasons unknown, but I suppose that falls more into the general topic of silent alterations to published media that online consumption facilitates, an entire discussion to be had on its own.
[1] https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=378736
Yeah, I find Netflix content to be fairly high quality. I often have to watch a couple of pilots before I find something that hooks me, but I always find something. And I'll recommend Maniac to anyone who will listen...
The OA is amazing... to bad they cancelled it!
>... quality has been dropping sharply the last few years ...
This is the same trajectory that Disney is taking. They are losing subscribers also as people are becoming tired of the agenda driven content.
This is the same trajectory that Disney is taking. They are losing subscribers also as people are becoming tired of the agenda driven content.
What agenda is being driven by The Mandalorian or Encanto? Disney puts out great content year after year.
The agenda clearly written on their website.
https://insidethemagic.net/2022/03/disney-exec-commits-to-50...
https://insidethemagic.net/2022/03/disney-exec-commits-to-50...
Thanks for answering I guess.
Are they losing subscribers?
"Disney+ added 7.5 million subscribers in Q2, while Netflix struggles." [1]
[1] https://www.investors.com/news/disney-earnings-q2-disney-sto...
"Disney+ added 7.5 million subscribers in Q2, while Netflix struggles." [1]
[1] https://www.investors.com/news/disney-earnings-q2-disney-sto...
I canceled over the recent price hike, but I think happened was that Netflix got too good analytics, so while their scripts all hit the good points, it feels very bland.
Then of course the classic stuff they use is classic because it is good, so the average will go down as they no longer have access to it.
Then of course the classic stuff they use is classic because it is good, so the average will go down as they no longer have access to it.
Same here. The 365 days movie was quite atrocious and borderline porn.
I noticed a sharp decline in quality when Netflix started with their own original content, some of it was good but most of it was mass produced low quality trash.
But it also an inherit problem with any movie streaming service that wants to have fresh content, you have to fill the content bucket with something and mass produced low quality stuff is both cheaper and faster to produce.
But it also an inherit problem with any movie streaming service that wants to have fresh content, you have to fill the content bucket with something and mass produced low quality stuff is both cheaper and faster to produce.
To be fair, HBO has consistently had an awesome catalog whereas Netflix has been unfulfilling for what feels like years.
FWIW Daphne's sister Becky said “Dave was the biggest bright spot for Daphne” before her suicide.
“Blaming Dave is beyond the wrong thing to do, “He helped her and let her be comfortable while talking with him. She had many demons; Dave Chappelle was NOT one of them.”
Source: https://nypost.com/2021/10/11/dave-chappelle-is-an-lgbtq-all...
“Blaming Dave is beyond the wrong thing to do, “He helped her and let her be comfortable while talking with him. She had many demons; Dave Chappelle was NOT one of them.”
Source: https://nypost.com/2021/10/11/dave-chappelle-is-an-lgbtq-all...
> if you don’t like that, you can quit.
Someone will be doing layoffs soon and want people to leave voluntarily
Someone will be doing layoffs soon and want people to leave voluntarily
More like they don’t want to waste their time on managing lot of prima-donnas.
Quite possibly, but if you had a labor shortage you would waste your time managing the prima-donnas for lack of alternatives. If you're about to do layoffs anyway, no need.
What labor shortage? In software engineering or other organizations? It's certainly not the former, at least not for companies of any notability (e.g. Netflix). I work for a well-known company, not as big as FAANG but well on its way and at least as big as any other major tech company in the news. Our engineering shortage is due to the artificial bar we set for hiring. Our recruiters each have dozens of resumes and applications to sift through on a given day. Far less than 1% of these ever make it to a tech screen, and I think the rate of our panel interviews is in the low double-digit percent of that figure. There isn't an engineering shortage. There's a shortage of engineers that don't meet some incredibly stupid, ego-driven arbitrary gate-keeping policies.
> There's a shortage of engineers that don't meet some incredibly stupid, ego-driven arbitrary gate-keeping policies.
I suggest you hire people who don’t meet the bar and see what happens. The reason your recruiters have dozens of resumes to sift through is because software engineers make bank and that’s not a secret. Most of those resumes will be people who don’t even understand what software engineering really entails and the extent of their experience will be editing a vb macro and taking an online Python course.
> Far less than 1% of these ever make it to a tech screen, and I think the rate of our panel interviews is in the low double-digit percent of that figure.
The majority of people who get rejected at this phase just nearly literally can’t program. I’m an engineering manager so I sit on on-sites once or twice a week and people with long careers that look good on resumes end up not being able to squeeze out trivial code because they haven’t actually programmed for 5+ years.
> There isn't an engineering shortage.
There absolutely is. You’re right that there isn’t a shortage of people who want the paycheck though.
I suggest you hire people who don’t meet the bar and see what happens. The reason your recruiters have dozens of resumes to sift through is because software engineers make bank and that’s not a secret. Most of those resumes will be people who don’t even understand what software engineering really entails and the extent of their experience will be editing a vb macro and taking an online Python course.
> Far less than 1% of these ever make it to a tech screen, and I think the rate of our panel interviews is in the low double-digit percent of that figure.
The majority of people who get rejected at this phase just nearly literally can’t program. I’m an engineering manager so I sit on on-sites once or twice a week and people with long careers that look good on resumes end up not being able to squeeze out trivial code because they haven’t actually programmed for 5+ years.
> There isn't an engineering shortage.
There absolutely is. You’re right that there isn’t a shortage of people who want the paycheck though.
My goodness, I’ve been in this industry for 15 years, have been an EM and am currently a TL on my team. I’ve seen what you’re referring to, but you are grossly exaggerating the issue. In my current role we have had candidates we really want rejected at the second pass review for “fit”, “culture” and “ambition/greatness/accomplishments” reasons which are entirely arbitrary (“he dropped out of a PhD program”, “his undergrad school isn’t that great”, “her ‘proudest accomplishment’ didn’t impress me”, etc.)
There absolutely isn’t an engineering talent shortage, in spite of the horde of people looking for a paycheck.
There absolutely isn’t an engineering talent shortage, in spite of the horde of people looking for a paycheck.
I am not exaggerating. We have never rejected for facile reasons like that. The only “culture” rejection we had was a candidate who became verbally aggressive in a technical interview.
Perhaps your technical bar is very low so you can afford to be picky? If so, your company sounds super fucked up. You’re willing not hiring candidates for dumb reasons when hiring is difficult.
Perhaps your technical bar is very low so you can afford to be picky? If so, your company sounds super fucked up. You’re willing not hiring candidates for dumb reasons when hiring is difficult.
I really enjoy it when techies show their egos and contempt, without having the full picture. I'm speaking with an EM where I work now, who just insulted my entire team and the rest of the engineering organization, and puffed himself up with his resume (which essentially consists of various CTO/VP/Director level positions one failed or small-time startup after another). I'm half tempted to report him to HR, to be honest, because his pointless antagonism serves no purpose other than to stroke his own ego by deriding his peers and venting his spleen.
An artificial shortage is still, functionally, a shortage.
It doesn't really matter whether there aren't enough candidates, or there are plenty of candidates but they all wipe out during interviews - the result is still an inability to hire at the desired rate, and in that situation you don't court massive layoffs without a reason.
It doesn't really matter whether there aren't enough candidates, or there are plenty of candidates but they all wipe out during interviews - the result is still an inability to hire at the desired rate, and in that situation you don't court massive layoffs without a reason.
This is not true. People that are not aligned with the company's values create negative enterprise value.
An excellent business decision.
This + their hiring freeze and also Meta and Twitter freezing hiring, along with people displeased with Apple’s remote work policy.
Google and Microsoft are probably raking in top talent at bargain prices right now.
Google and Microsoft are probably raking in top talent at bargain prices right now.
Because top talent has no clue what Google or MS would/should value them at?
I don't think the brains of top talent stop working when they are unhappy with certain aspects of their current job. Also not with respect to their total compensation.
I don't think the brains of top talent stop working when they are unhappy with certain aspects of their current job. Also not with respect to their total compensation.
They shouldn't shy away from controversial content for fear of offending people.
They will of course, and I think few people actually have a problem with the general principle of shying away from controversial content if you drill into the specifics. For instance, I think fairly few would be surprised or offended at Netflix refusing to stream Triumph of the Will.
Their core demographic is offended though.
I'm not offended by their content, I just think the quality declined faster than they've raised prices. That's why I cancelled. Most of their original content is about as exciting and predictable as talking to a GPT-3 bot.
Yeah, I'm getting pretty close. I use it barely enough to justify the cost. We'll see after Russian doll season 2
Is it? If this easily offended demographic were really so big the execs at Netflix are not so stupid to alienate them. The more mundane reason is this demographic is very tiny though they may be very vocal.
It’s vocal, for sure, but it’s not that tiny. You can’t simply dismiss the concerns of 10-30% (+ allies) of your potential audience.
You can if it undermines and alienates the other 90-70%.
I'm not suggesting Nf should. But one persons offended is another's appealing. The volume of a voice is independent of its depth & breadth.
I'm not suggesting Nf should. But one persons offended is another's appealing. The volume of a voice is independent of its depth & breadth.
Who is this 10-30%? There aren't that many trans people. Who are you referring to?
It's good for engagement. Get everyone talking about the latest Netflix controversy. Release Cuties and piss off all the stupid uptight conservatives who don't understand it's just a coming-of-age story, then release a Chappelle comedy special and upset all the right-thinking leftists who don't understand it's actually pro-trans.
Then no matter whether you go to get your daily Two Minutes Hate in, all you see is NETFLIX NETFLIX NETFLIX NETFLIX NETFLIX everywhere.
Then no matter whether you go to get your daily Two Minutes Hate in, all you see is NETFLIX NETFLIX NETFLIX NETFLIX NETFLIX everywhere.
They shouldn’t be surprised if their userbase fades away, taking its stock price with it, then.
Again I see no evidence this is the case. Why would they self destruct like that? Their recent woes don’t have anything to do with “offending” people though some would like to believe that to push a narrative.
Negative PR — ineffectively countered — for Cuties and Dave Chapelle will have long term effects on customer and employee sentiment. They will see the problem in hiring first, which you may not be able to see clearly externally at first.
Why shouldn't they ?
Because films are art?
Major studios give creative concessions to foreign markets like China in order to be allowed into their film market. It was incredibly naive of Netflix to think they were too big that they could ignore feedback and input from strong audience bases. You can't build a mass market product based on servicing the needs of a woke minority in a functional market. The market will quickly remind you of this mistake when you don't have any more investors pumping funds into the business.
They need more than an ad-supported tier to come out of this. In the midst of a shaky market and lowest ever subscription numbers, they have no choice but to cater to all walks of audiences if they are to survive.
And spend less on shows, I was seeing crazy budgets to the tune of $30M per episode[0] on the new upcoming season of Stranger Things. That's now bad for the bottom line.
[0] https://decider.com/2022/04/21/stranger-things-season-4-30-m...
They need more than an ad-supported tier to come out of this. In the midst of a shaky market and lowest ever subscription numbers, they have no choice but to cater to all walks of audiences if they are to survive.
And spend less on shows, I was seeing crazy budgets to the tune of $30M per episode[0] on the new upcoming season of Stranger Things. That's now bad for the bottom line.
[0] https://decider.com/2022/04/21/stranger-things-season-4-30-m...
So Activision-blizzard has been mired in controversy for several years now. Lawsuits, scandals, etc. A lot of content creators have quit producing content for their games and people wonder if Blizzard can recover. IMHO Blizzard is one good release away from people forgetting all these controversies.
Netflix has thrown money at creating original content. If you look at some of their releases it's clear they've had more money than they know what to do with. Money will only take you so far. I agree they needed to do this. I disagree with how they've gone about it.
This has forced them into price hikes. In their most profitable markets they're now losing subs. The share price is like 75% off its peak.
How does this relate to Activision? Easy. If things were going well at Netflix (eg the share price was hitting new heights, sub numbers were up) I guarantee you no one would care about any of this. But things aren't going well and that foments dissent.
So while employees may have legitimate complaints (and they do) the main story is that things aren't going well at Netflix and they may have overspent themselves into a really tough spot. I know I no longer perma-subscribe to Netflix. It's more expensive than HBO. I'll pay for 1-2 months a year to catch up and that's it.
I fully expect Netflix to stem this kind of bleeding at some point by only having 6 month or annual subscriptions or those will be at the current price and the monthly price will be $20+.
Netflix has thrown money at creating original content. If you look at some of their releases it's clear they've had more money than they know what to do with. Money will only take you so far. I agree they needed to do this. I disagree with how they've gone about it.
This has forced them into price hikes. In their most profitable markets they're now losing subs. The share price is like 75% off its peak.
How does this relate to Activision? Easy. If things were going well at Netflix (eg the share price was hitting new heights, sub numbers were up) I guarantee you no one would care about any of this. But things aren't going well and that foments dissent.
So while employees may have legitimate complaints (and they do) the main story is that things aren't going well at Netflix and they may have overspent themselves into a really tough spot. I know I no longer perma-subscribe to Netflix. It's more expensive than HBO. I'll pay for 1-2 months a year to catch up and that's it.
I fully expect Netflix to stem this kind of bleeding at some point by only having 6 month or annual subscriptions or those will be at the current price and the monthly price will be $20+.
This is what being placated feels like. They're only interested in a very one-sided depiction of "diversity".
It's somewhat surprising how quickly Netflix has given up on their "progressive"values, which probably they thought were the right path to making more money, as soon as they found out they can actually be detrimental to them.
Now they have new values! Free speech, and they think they are a very serious topic that must be treaded carefully and thoughtfully. Because values are very important, not profit.
But you can be sure that if showing 10 year olds in a bikini was profitable, and society wasn't shocked by this, we'd have some new made up value supporting doing so.
Now they have new values! Free speech, and they think they are a very serious topic that must be treaded carefully and thoughtfully. Because values are very important, not profit.
But you can be sure that if showing 10 year olds in a bikini was profitable, and society wasn't shocked by this, we'd have some new made up value supporting doing so.
I now know, that if I lived in Ancient Rome I wouldn't have been wind swept by Christianity and converted, or If I lived in Salem I wouldn't have hunted witches. This is a religion we are dealing with. A mob and a stupid time in history to live. Netflix pays very well, you shouldn't need to protest at work. Grow up.
> We let viewers decide what’s appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or voices
This is a funny take on it. Of course Netflix censors specific artists and voices by choosing to just not produce their content.
This is a funny take on it. Of course Netflix censors specific artists and voices by choosing to just not produce their content.
What they mean is they want the selection of content to be done by the people specifically hired and empowered to select content, using the official channels created specifically for this selection process. What they don't want is mobs of workers lower on the totem pole trying to impose their will on management through walkouts/etc.
I broadly agree that some people, mostly on more extreme ends of the political spectrum, are trying to censor views they disagree with in a way that is potentially dangerous for a free society.
However, I strongly believe that every employee of a company (and every shareholder) carries a small amount of the moral culpability for their company's actions. To purposefully choose an extreme example, would you be willing to help develop spyware for Russia to hack into phones and surreptitiously monitor communications, if your company asked you to do it?
One of the most fundamental problems in society right now is that we've decided corporations should be exempt from any kind of ethical standards. A corporation's responsibility is to make as much money as possible, we say. If it makes money, we can't expect them to do anything else.
Corporations, of course, are imaginary constructs which cannot truly be responsible for anything. Luckily, they are staffed by people, who should have just as much of a moral compass as any other human being. Your moral compass should not evaporate the moment you walk through the company door.
However, I strongly believe that every employee of a company (and every shareholder) carries a small amount of the moral culpability for their company's actions. To purposefully choose an extreme example, would you be willing to help develop spyware for Russia to hack into phones and surreptitiously monitor communications, if your company asked you to do it?
One of the most fundamental problems in society right now is that we've decided corporations should be exempt from any kind of ethical standards. A corporation's responsibility is to make as much money as possible, we say. If it makes money, we can't expect them to do anything else.
Corporations, of course, are imaginary constructs which cannot truly be responsible for anything. Luckily, they are staffed by people, who should have just as much of a moral compass as any other human being. Your moral compass should not evaporate the moment you walk through the company door.
"every employee of a company (and every shareholder) carries a small amount of the moral culpability for their company's actions"
At the same time, we shouldn't moralize about every disagreement or different perspective. Some things are morally neutral. Like a comedy special that doesn't advocate violence against anyone.
At the same time, we shouldn't moralize about every disagreement or different perspective. Some things are morally neutral. Like a comedy special that doesn't advocate violence against anyone.
I agree with your points. Right or wrong, it seems plainly evident that the reputation of a company will rub off on the workers. It's logically in the interests of workers to protest against company decisions that will harm their own reputations. But it's also logically in the interest of management to maintain control over the direction of a company, so they're going to push back whenever workers try to have their way.
My point above is simply: This isn't a battle of censors vs anticensors; it's a power struggle between workers vs managers. Workers want power to guide content, but Netflix management wants to keep that power for themselves. Netflix management are not anticensors. The power to censor is being contested, not opposed.
My point above is simply: This isn't a battle of censors vs anticensors; it's a power struggle between workers vs managers. Workers want power to guide content, but Netflix management wants to keep that power for themselves. Netflix management are not anticensors. The power to censor is being contested, not opposed.
Very well put. We each have some small effect on the world and we should stay mindful of it. Especially with the amount of power a corporation (read large group of people) can have on the world.
Netflix is giving them a way out of perceived culpability by asking them to leave though.
> What they don't want is mobs of workers lower on the totem pole trying to impose their will on management through walkouts/etc.
The horror lol.
The horror lol.
Getting censored because we think there is no demand is very different to getting censored because 1 person at the company doesn't like your work or opinions or something...
It's the difference between being the censor, and being the censored. Both sides in the dispute want to be the censor, neither wants to be the censored.
I think the best years are over for Netflix.
The hard awakening is here to make content that the users want and they are a movie/tv content company, not a „tech company“.
Their Engineering Blog is great, some really great projects, but sometimes and even more and more there are projects that left me asking: „Why so complicated“
At scale everything is a problem, but some „solutions“ seem „well we have staff, money and time for nice funny stuff“ vibe.
Like inventing batch jobs, but more complicated
The hard awakening is here to make content that the users want and they are a movie/tv content company, not a „tech company“.
Their Engineering Blog is great, some really great projects, but sometimes and even more and more there are projects that left me asking: „Why so complicated“
At scale everything is a problem, but some „solutions“ seem „well we have staff, money and time for nice funny stuff“ vibe.
Like inventing batch jobs, but more complicated
This wasn't a good look on Netflix employees back then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMPp6kdXUek
I don't really see how this is news. That is how companies work. Don't like what the company is doing? Leave... Any job is weighing the positives vs the bad.
Finally.
Netflix feels like the discount dvd bin at walmart now. Hulu seems like a much better option these days.
Based. The pendulum has begun its return swing
[deleted]
I can't help but feel this is aimed at trans activists who protested the Chappelle special. I think he went too far at a couple places, but that's what comedians do.
I don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists. I have problematic issues (bipolar, recovering alcoholic) but I don't go around demanding the world accommodate me and calling people who won't listen to me haters.
I don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists. I have problematic issues (bipolar, recovering alcoholic) but I don't go around demanding the world accommodate me and calling people who won't listen to me haters.
The Chapelle special acts opposite from its criticism. People are already generally discriminatory to the idea of trans. Chapelle brings this to the front, and makes a number of compelling arguments for why it's "real". Yes, he makes a number of poor arguments about the trans "community" (it's not one community), but if he were to be on stage talking up everything trans nobody is going to listen. People can have opinions without being evil.
> I don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists.
You say you're part of several vulnerable populations, but you don't ask the world to "accommodate" you - but the complains trans people have about Chappelle are not about 'making their lives easier.'
Where transphobia (or any prejudicial viewpoint) comes into play is refusing to take vulnerable populations' viewpoints seriously. When trans people point out that they are at much greater risk of violence and also point out studies on how rhetoric contributes to dehumanization promotes violence - you need to take the idea that this isn't "what comedians do" because the impact of saying things about different groups will be different.
Transphobia isn't "disagreeing with trans people" - in this case it's not taking peoples' views seriously because they are trans. When you say "I have problems too but I don't bother people about it" - you suggest that your problems are similar to trans peoples'. It is explictly illegal to discriminate against you for your mental health conditions, but trans people have far fewer protections[1]. Considering that Texas just recently criminalized being trans under the age of 18, I would really ask you to consider if that view is correct and how it makes you look to say it.
Edit: I got a little ramble-y - in general: oppression is possible when vulnerable populations' descriptions of why and how they are treated worse are not taken seriously. People in vulnerable populations can be wrong (like all of us!) - but in order to point that out in a way that doesn't promote oppression you have to start your disagreement from a point where what you are disagreeing with is a position that the vulnerable population agrees they hold.
[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/depression-ptsd-other-men...
You say you're part of several vulnerable populations, but you don't ask the world to "accommodate" you - but the complains trans people have about Chappelle are not about 'making their lives easier.'
Where transphobia (or any prejudicial viewpoint) comes into play is refusing to take vulnerable populations' viewpoints seriously. When trans people point out that they are at much greater risk of violence and also point out studies on how rhetoric contributes to dehumanization promotes violence - you need to take the idea that this isn't "what comedians do" because the impact of saying things about different groups will be different.
Transphobia isn't "disagreeing with trans people" - in this case it's not taking peoples' views seriously because they are trans. When you say "I have problems too but I don't bother people about it" - you suggest that your problems are similar to trans peoples'. It is explictly illegal to discriminate against you for your mental health conditions, but trans people have far fewer protections[1]. Considering that Texas just recently criminalized being trans under the age of 18, I would really ask you to consider if that view is correct and how it makes you look to say it.
Edit: I got a little ramble-y - in general: oppression is possible when vulnerable populations' descriptions of why and how they are treated worse are not taken seriously. People in vulnerable populations can be wrong (like all of us!) - but in order to point that out in a way that doesn't promote oppression you have to start your disagreement from a point where what you are disagreeing with is a position that the vulnerable population agrees they hold.
[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/depression-ptsd-other-men...
You're bringing the law into this but I'm not. That's a different issue. I support laws for trans people to have equal rights.
The world won't stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that. Just last night I was watching Amazon's Bosch and the lead character called someone a "worthless alcoholic." As Vonnegut used to write, "so it goes."
The world won't stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that. Just last night I was watching Amazon's Bosch and the lead character called someone a "worthless alcoholic." As Vonnegut used to write, "so it goes."
I mean, fair enough, we can set the law aside.
Again, my point is that trans people are not complaining about "people saying negative things" in a vacuum. They are complaining about a specific situation that is happening which goes beyond just the context of the Chapelle special. I don't believe you are actually responding to the most common trans critique of Chapelle and, in not doing that, you dismiss the actual critiques they are making.
Let me put it this way: we don't have to agree about if the Chapelle special is a problem (I don't happen to worry too much about it but I understand why people are angry). But, I want you to imagine that the loudest and most alarmist trans folks are correct - Chapelle is helping a trend of violence against trans people. If that were the case (which again, is not exactly my belief tho things are pretty bad out there) disagreeing with them would be supporting violence against them. The best way, in my view, to avoid accidentally supporting that kind of thing is to start your personal thoughts (and public arguments) from the POV of the vulnerable community. That's how we can all avoid accidentally erasing an important critique.
Again, my point is that trans people are not complaining about "people saying negative things" in a vacuum. They are complaining about a specific situation that is happening which goes beyond just the context of the Chapelle special. I don't believe you are actually responding to the most common trans critique of Chapelle and, in not doing that, you dismiss the actual critiques they are making.
Let me put it this way: we don't have to agree about if the Chapelle special is a problem (I don't happen to worry too much about it but I understand why people are angry). But, I want you to imagine that the loudest and most alarmist trans folks are correct - Chapelle is helping a trend of violence against trans people. If that were the case (which again, is not exactly my belief tho things are pretty bad out there) disagreeing with them would be supporting violence against them. The best way, in my view, to avoid accidentally supporting that kind of thing is to start your personal thoughts (and public arguments) from the POV of the vulnerable community. That's how we can all avoid accidentally erasing an important critique.
So...assume the most extreme views are correct and start forming our own personal thoughts based on this assumption. Just in case they do turn out to be correct. I'm just not buying that.
Side note: I have yet to see a satisfying definition for this sense of the word "erasing". As best I can tell, it's just an emphatic way of saying "disagreeing with a position of personal importance to X".
Side note: I have yet to see a satisfying definition for this sense of the word "erasing". As best I can tell, it's just an emphatic way of saying "disagreeing with a position of personal importance to X".
If you want to see the TERF mindset, and I recognize that the word is thrown around too easily, check out Lily Cade’s speech against trans people. It does advocate for violence.
There are also very real statistics and accounts of violence against trans people. The numbers are shy in comparison to COVID deaths, but you have to account for the number of people who do transition and do not hide it.
Is this priority #1 in the world? No. But we could all show some more god damned humanity to people.
There are also very real statistics and accounts of violence against trans people. The numbers are shy in comparison to COVID deaths, but you have to account for the number of people who do transition and do not hide it.
Is this priority #1 in the world? No. But we could all show some more god damned humanity to people.
No, if you want to actually understand the radical feminist position on this (and other topics), read the works of radical feminists, not furious ranting blog posts.
I'd recommend these books to start off with - two classics, for the historical perspective, and two more recent ones, that discuss the modern transactivist movement that's so controversial right now:
* Janice Raymond, The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male
* Sheila Jeffreys, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism
* Julie Bindel, Feminism for Women: The Real Route To Liberation
* Kara Dansky, The Abolition of Sex
I'd recommend these books to start off with - two classics, for the historical perspective, and two more recent ones, that discuss the modern transactivist movement that's so controversial right now:
* Janice Raymond, The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male
* Sheila Jeffreys, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism
* Julie Bindel, Feminism for Women: The Real Route To Liberation
* Kara Dansky, The Abolition of Sex
> The problem of transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence.
> All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves.
You mean that book by Janice Raymond?
> So, what I think is very fascinating is that there's a connection between the very jolly Blair government and their Gender Recognition Act and Iran. They love transgenderism because it does help to get rid of this serious problem of homosexuality and it enforces gender. Right? So we do need to be fighting, I think, transgenderism as a state 'project' in terms of gender.
That's uh, Sheila Jeffreys being delusional about how supportive the UK government is towards trans people because Iran's very exceptional asymmetry in how accepting they are of trans people and not gay people.
Counter suggestion: Read Gender Trouble.
> All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves.
You mean that book by Janice Raymond?
> So, what I think is very fascinating is that there's a connection between the very jolly Blair government and their Gender Recognition Act and Iran. They love transgenderism because it does help to get rid of this serious problem of homosexuality and it enforces gender. Right? So we do need to be fighting, I think, transgenderism as a state 'project' in terms of gender.
That's uh, Sheila Jeffreys being delusional about how supportive the UK government is towards trans people because Iran's very exceptional asymmetry in how accepting they are of trans people and not gay people.
Counter suggestion: Read Gender Trouble.
That is indeed an abhorrent speech, and it includes an unambiguous, direct call to violence.
There are indeed very real statistics of violence against trans people. Also abhorrent and inhuman.
In what way would you say we are failing to show humanity to trans people that we _are_ showing to other groups of people whose identities cause them to be the subject of humor as well as the victim of deadly hate crimes?
There are indeed very real statistics of violence against trans people. Also abhorrent and inhuman.
In what way would you say we are failing to show humanity to trans people that we _are_ showing to other groups of people whose identities cause them to be the subject of humor as well as the victim of deadly hate crimes?
> So...assume the most extreme views are correct and start forming our own personal thoughts based on this assumption
This mis-represents what I said.
This thread started with "how to disagree without being accused of being bigoted."
You can form your beliefs however you like. That's a different situation than being in conversation with another person. If you "respond" to someone in a way that does not acknowledge the content of what they said, they may reasonably accuse you of not taking them seriously. There are many reasons to not take someone seriously - including having bigoted views. If you want to avoid being accused of being bigoted, I find it helps to acknowledge (even to just say you don't buy them) even the most extreme views of someone in a vulnerable population. It is polite and it keeps you in conversation with the other person.
If you don't want to be in conversation with someone then, of course, you don't need to acknowledge what they say - but they may be upset with you and accuse you of bias. That's just...life.
I think it's good practice to be skeptical of the views held by powerful people and give more slack to more marginal views I find less credible, but that's a personal belief and it has limits.
> I have yet to see a satisfying definition for this sense of the word "erasing". As best I can tell, it's just an emphatic way of saying "disagreeing with a position of personal importance to X".
It's choosing to make a public statement on an issue in a way that leaves out ('erases') something that an impacted group thinks. How big a deal that is depends on the groups involved and the seriousness of the topic.
For example, when okareaman said "[t]he world won't stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that" they are implying that trans people are upset about people saying negative things. That is probably true - but that's not the complaint about Chapelle's jokes. By pretending that the complaint is simpler (and focused on personal preference rather than an environment of violence and criminalizing of trans identity) - they 'erase' those complaints in how they discuss it. Another example could be when people ignore the different economic conditions that Millennials and Baby Boomers face and complain that any lack of Millennial success is due to personal flaws. We could talk about more extreme examples, but I hope this makes what I mean clearer.
This mis-represents what I said.
This thread started with "how to disagree without being accused of being bigoted."
You can form your beliefs however you like. That's a different situation than being in conversation with another person. If you "respond" to someone in a way that does not acknowledge the content of what they said, they may reasonably accuse you of not taking them seriously. There are many reasons to not take someone seriously - including having bigoted views. If you want to avoid being accused of being bigoted, I find it helps to acknowledge (even to just say you don't buy them) even the most extreme views of someone in a vulnerable population. It is polite and it keeps you in conversation with the other person.
If you don't want to be in conversation with someone then, of course, you don't need to acknowledge what they say - but they may be upset with you and accuse you of bias. That's just...life.
I think it's good practice to be skeptical of the views held by powerful people and give more slack to more marginal views I find less credible, but that's a personal belief and it has limits.
> I have yet to see a satisfying definition for this sense of the word "erasing". As best I can tell, it's just an emphatic way of saying "disagreeing with a position of personal importance to X".
It's choosing to make a public statement on an issue in a way that leaves out ('erases') something that an impacted group thinks. How big a deal that is depends on the groups involved and the seriousness of the topic.
For example, when okareaman said "[t]he world won't stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that" they are implying that trans people are upset about people saying negative things. That is probably true - but that's not the complaint about Chapelle's jokes. By pretending that the complaint is simpler (and focused on personal preference rather than an environment of violence and criminalizing of trans identity) - they 'erase' those complaints in how they discuss it. Another example could be when people ignore the different economic conditions that Millennials and Baby Boomers face and complain that any lack of Millennial success is due to personal flaws. We could talk about more extreme examples, but I hope this makes what I mean clearer.
Separately from my other reply, I'm curious whether you'd agree with the statement that the solution to bad speech is more speech. Because along with the most extreme views tend to come the most extreme solutions, most commonly suppressing undesirable speech. Boycotts are the most widely accepted ways of achieving this, but they don't usually work when the public doesn't agree with the boycotters.
And it's clear (to me anyway) that if one believes speech leads to violence, and if less extreme measures don't achieve the results you want, one will eventually attempt to have speech such as Chapelle's comedy routine legally defined as incitement of violence.
It is decidedly not incitement, according to the current legal definition, which I endorse. What do you think?
And it's clear (to me anyway) that if one believes speech leads to violence, and if less extreme measures don't achieve the results you want, one will eventually attempt to have speech such as Chapelle's comedy routine legally defined as incitement of violence.
It is decidedly not incitement, according to the current legal definition, which I endorse. What do you think?
> It's clear (to me anyway) that if one believes speech leads to violence, and if less extreme measures don't achieve the results you want, one will eventually attempt to have speech such as Chapelle's comedy routine legally defined as incitement of violence.
I don't think this follows from the current jurisprudence on speech at all. I.e. we have a long a successful-ish tradition of sorting out speech that does or does not lead to violence without making blunt judgements like you describe. There's a long legal history of untangling legally censurable speech from speech that might incite violence but that incitement is not clear enough to use the law to restrict it.
I do not personally feel that Chapelle's comedy routine invokes violence (FWIW I have never spoken to anyone else before, it just did not seem like a big deal) - the root of this thread was "I feel like I can disagree with someone without being hateful" and I was just pointing out how they could do that (and also that the view they disagreed with wasn't generally held by the group they attributed it to). So...if you don't want to be viewed as transphobic, it's a bad strategy to claim staw-man the arguments trans people are making.
That said there's a lot to talk about here and clearly I haven't been fully successful in communicating what I want!
In general, I would say that the idea of "a solution" to bad speech is kind of questionable. Speech acts are part of a tapestry of ideology and rhetoric that can be engaged to all sorts of ends. Treating it as an isolated action feels out of sync with reality to me. Different kinds of bad speech will have different responses - often depending on how much power and influence the speaker has. For instance, there are many people who advocate pretty extreme reactions to Chapelle that I don't think are warranted - but the chance of them going into effect seem very small so I don't spend much time on it. It's not enough info to just look at the text - you have to also look at context.
P.s. sorry for the late response, I had a busy day yesterday.
I don't think this follows from the current jurisprudence on speech at all. I.e. we have a long a successful-ish tradition of sorting out speech that does or does not lead to violence without making blunt judgements like you describe. There's a long legal history of untangling legally censurable speech from speech that might incite violence but that incitement is not clear enough to use the law to restrict it.
I do not personally feel that Chapelle's comedy routine invokes violence (FWIW I have never spoken to anyone else before, it just did not seem like a big deal) - the root of this thread was "I feel like I can disagree with someone without being hateful" and I was just pointing out how they could do that (and also that the view they disagreed with wasn't generally held by the group they attributed it to). So...if you don't want to be viewed as transphobic, it's a bad strategy to claim staw-man the arguments trans people are making.
That said there's a lot to talk about here and clearly I haven't been fully successful in communicating what I want!
In general, I would say that the idea of "a solution" to bad speech is kind of questionable. Speech acts are part of a tapestry of ideology and rhetoric that can be engaged to all sorts of ends. Treating it as an isolated action feels out of sync with reality to me. Different kinds of bad speech will have different responses - often depending on how much power and influence the speaker has. For instance, there are many people who advocate pretty extreme reactions to Chapelle that I don't think are warranted - but the chance of them going into effect seem very small so I don't spend much time on it. It's not enough info to just look at the text - you have to also look at context.
P.s. sorry for the late response, I had a busy day yesterday.
> If that were the case (which again, is not exactly my belief tho things are pretty bad out there)
The point is, this is a very big if.
The point is, this is a very big if.
I don't think it's in a comedians job description to take anything seriously
[deleted]
>It is explictly illegal to discriminate against you for your mental health conditions
If the mentally ill are so privileged, it's ironic that people have fought for generations to not be defined as such (e.g. in the DSM).
If the mentally ill are so privileged, it's ironic that people have fought for generations to not be defined as such (e.g. in the DSM).
I agree with your points but his particular joke was about transphobia vs racism. That trans and gay people can turn on their white privilage in a second to attack black people, including using cops to attack black people, knowing cops are trained to fear black people and use excessive force against them.
Of course he isnt taking into account people who are both black and trans but in only this one case, you need to actually understand the joke first.
All that said, Netflix is also wrong because as employees of Netflix the people will be linked to this content weather they like it or not and it doesnt matter what content you are talking about weather its The Bodyguard(Islamophobic), Dave Chapelle(Transphobia), Squid Game(anti capatilist or anti communist depending on whi you ask) or probably the worst, Cuties(GOP and Qanon has diluted this word, but pedophilia). If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved.
Overall this is a complex issue with multiple layers and I say this all as a hardcore leftist.
Of course he isnt taking into account people who are both black and trans but in only this one case, you need to actually understand the joke first.
All that said, Netflix is also wrong because as employees of Netflix the people will be linked to this content weather they like it or not and it doesnt matter what content you are talking about weather its The Bodyguard(Islamophobic), Dave Chapelle(Transphobia), Squid Game(anti capatilist or anti communist depending on whi you ask) or probably the worst, Cuties(GOP and Qanon has diluted this word, but pedophilia). If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved.
Overall this is a complex issue with multiple layers and I say this all as a hardcore leftist.
> If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved.
Like working for a tobacco company, your name and reputation will be tarnished by that association. The solution is obvious: don't work for that company.
Or maybe Netflix will start to implement solutions like those used by the pornography industry; hire sys admins, programmers etc under a shell company that doesn't share the name of the main business. So rather than putting "Software Developer at Pornhub.com" on your resume, you can put tell people you worked for "MindGeek".
Like working for a tobacco company, your name and reputation will be tarnished by that association. The solution is obvious: don't work for that company.
Or maybe Netflix will start to implement solutions like those used by the pornography industry; hire sys admins, programmers etc under a shell company that doesn't share the name of the main business. So rather than putting "Software Developer at Pornhub.com" on your resume, you can put tell people you worked for "MindGeek".
ipspam(1)
It’s transphobic in the “hydrophobic” sense. I don’t think he merely pushes back on activists; I find he delegitimizes the movement altogether.
Which, disclaimer, I do think anyone should be free to do. But people who are offended must be free to share their thoughts as well, then.
It’s akin to saying alcohol addiction isn’t a real addiction. It’s not that you’re making fun of alcoholics, the idea of an alcohol addict, or the behavior and recovery of an alcohol addict — You’re instead devaluing the idea that someone can be addicted to alcohol, falsifying their reality.
Sure, many people can laugh at that, but it’s only going to be the people who can’t relate. The people who have never been familiar with or been victim to substance abuse can probably laugh at the idea that you can just “stop drinking right now, there, problem solved, now what was so hard about that?” because the idea is so foreign to them.
Humor will always be divisive, which means as a comedian you alone wield the responsibility for where that line will be drawn. Chapelle intentionally draws it on personal identity.
I think we can support better comedy than that. Anyone can make an in-crowd; A great comedian makes you the subject and makes you laugh about it too.
Which, disclaimer, I do think anyone should be free to do. But people who are offended must be free to share their thoughts as well, then.
It’s akin to saying alcohol addiction isn’t a real addiction. It’s not that you’re making fun of alcoholics, the idea of an alcohol addict, or the behavior and recovery of an alcohol addict — You’re instead devaluing the idea that someone can be addicted to alcohol, falsifying their reality.
Sure, many people can laugh at that, but it’s only going to be the people who can’t relate. The people who have never been familiar with or been victim to substance abuse can probably laugh at the idea that you can just “stop drinking right now, there, problem solved, now what was so hard about that?” because the idea is so foreign to them.
Humor will always be divisive, which means as a comedian you alone wield the responsibility for where that line will be drawn. Chapelle intentionally draws it on personal identity.
I think we can support better comedy than that. Anyone can make an in-crowd; A great comedian makes you the subject and makes you laugh about it too.
You should read up on Bedlam Hospital and learn more about how privileged we are to not be born in that place and time. Trans people don’t have the same luxury of safety today.
I don't think that supports your argument, I think you actually would be justified to ask the world to accommodate you.
No more alcohol consumption in movies then? Romcom heros can't enjoy champagne at their wedding in the end of the movie, because that doesn't accommodate recovering alcoholics who suffer in the mainstream culture of drinking during special occasions?
I understand the logic of that, but I don't think the industry should actually go through with that. Such well-meaning content restrictions would unduly restrict artistic expression. Content warnings about alcohol/drug use should be sufficient to warn away anybody who (understandably!) wants to avoid that sort of content.
I understand the logic of that, but I don't think the industry should actually go through with that. Such well-meaning content restrictions would unduly restrict artistic expression. Content warnings about alcohol/drug use should be sufficient to warn away anybody who (understandably!) wants to avoid that sort of content.
Not sure what that steep price is you would pay to 'accommodate' trans people? It requires nothing on your part except for acknowledging and respecting their existence.
Where did they say they weren't acknowledging or accomodating trans people? Original comment clearly acknowledges trans people exist?
OP very clearly writes that they "don't think it's transphobic to push back on trans activists" who, unlike him, "demand the world accommodate".
Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to 'push back against'.
If you don't like the thought of buttfucking, don't. If you don't like the thought of people who identify differently from their biological sex, don't. If you don't like the thought of eating kale, don't. It's simple, it costs you nothing. Nothing at all.
Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to 'push back against'.
If you don't like the thought of buttfucking, don't. If you don't like the thought of people who identify differently from their biological sex, don't. If you don't like the thought of eating kale, don't. It's simple, it costs you nothing. Nothing at all.
> Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live. Seems like not a hard thing to do, and not something one would have to go out of their way of to 'push back against'.
But OP is letting them live. Unless you are alleging OP is running around killing trans people??
But OP is letting them live. Unless you are alleging OP is running around killing trans people??
Your comment, like speech in general I admit, doesn't tell the whole truth.
"Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live."
This isn't true as they are asking that comedians to not make jokes about them. Dave Chapelle nor any comedian that I know of go around saying trans people should not be allowed to live. Or have I missed something?
"Again, the only 'accommodation' that is asked is to just let them live."
This isn't true as they are asking that comedians to not make jokes about them. Dave Chapelle nor any comedian that I know of go around saying trans people should not be allowed to live. Or have I missed something?
Shifting goalposts, are we, after your 'clearly' comment did not even contain a grain of truth about what OP posted?
And yes, you are missing something. Go ahead and watch Chapelle. The issue isn't that he makes a joke about trans people. Sure, I'd assume people in general may not like having jokes made at their expense, but that's not the issue. The issue is that Chapelle dedicates a whole special to argue that their cause isn't worthy to be supported. As much as I like Chapelle and his amazing ability to do hour-long stand-ups where he doesn't even tell jokes and yet you're mesmerized, I'll have to side with the 'punching down' argument. This campaign of his will not age well.
I understand his frustration, and, in his words, jealousy, to see how far LGBTQ+ rights have come compared to the much older issue of Black rights, but that's a really poor justification to rant against the former.
Just imagine that same setup to watch someone rant for an hour against women suffrage, or gay or Black rights, etc. Sure, some will like this.
And yes, you are missing something. Go ahead and watch Chapelle. The issue isn't that he makes a joke about trans people. Sure, I'd assume people in general may not like having jokes made at their expense, but that's not the issue. The issue is that Chapelle dedicates a whole special to argue that their cause isn't worthy to be supported. As much as I like Chapelle and his amazing ability to do hour-long stand-ups where he doesn't even tell jokes and yet you're mesmerized, I'll have to side with the 'punching down' argument. This campaign of his will not age well.
I understand his frustration, and, in his words, jealousy, to see how far LGBTQ+ rights have come compared to the much older issue of Black rights, but that's a really poor justification to rant against the former.
Just imagine that same setup to watch someone rant for an hour against women suffrage, or gay or Black rights, etc. Sure, some will like this.
Ricky Gervais does a whole special taking the mick out of Christianity. Do you also think he shouldn't be allowed to do that?
Or is it only trans people you don't think people should be able to joke about?
Or is it only trans people you don't think people should be able to joke about?
> The issue is that Chapelle dedicates a whole special to argue that their cause isn't worthy to be supported.
Why is that an issue?
Their cause is to enact a redefinition of "woman" and "man" (and in some contexts, "female" and "male") in terms of so-called gender identity, rather than sex.
This is a sweeping, fundamental change to how most people understand those terms, and there is growing evidence of some very negative outcomes of doing so.
Of course there will be pushback on this. And it's not a bad thing to do so.
Why is that an issue?
Their cause is to enact a redefinition of "woman" and "man" (and in some contexts, "female" and "male") in terms of so-called gender identity, rather than sex.
This is a sweeping, fundamental change to how most people understand those terms, and there is growing evidence of some very negative outcomes of doing so.
Of course there will be pushback on this. And it's not a bad thing to do so.
Not correct, it harms people and they attempt to convert others which can result in harm to your family and friends.
Nobody's trying to convert your family, you're just trying to stop your family from knowing LGBT people exist.
zionic(1)
Is it OK to have sports leagues that exclude biological males in order to promote athleticism among biological females?
For me that's the only interesting discussion to be had here. Separation into female and male leagues were installed partially because of sex (so that it's fairer), but initially mainly because of gender (women must not do the same fun things we do).
Then again, it is 'unfair' that Simone Biles has the physique she has that fits to her chosen sport better than mine; Michael Phelps likewise; Alex Honnold processes fear differently from most of us, etc.
Then again, it is 'unfair' that Simone Biles has the physique she has that fits to her chosen sport better than mine; Michael Phelps likewise; Alex Honnold processes fear differently from most of us, etc.
> Separation into female and male leagues were installed partially because of sex (so that it's fairer), but initially mainly because of gender (women must not do the same fun things we do).
I don't know all the history of it so I won't make claims about how it started. But what you're saying does not describe the reality of highschool sports as I experienced it.
I was a competitive swimmer in highschool; the team was split 50/50 between boys and girls. We all swam in the same lanes of the same pools, swimming the same practice given by the same coaches. Virtually all of us were taught how to swim by the same woman. The only separation was the locker rooms, and the competitive events during meets. The events were the same, 100m, 500m, etc, but segregated by sex. The performance gap post-puberty was immense. The fastest girl on my team, an incredible outlier with Olympic ambitions, was slower than about 5 of the guys. If the sport were blind to sex, the team probably would have had a 90/10 ratio, rather than 50/50. This would be grossly unfair to women.
I don't know all the history of it so I won't make claims about how it started. But what you're saying does not describe the reality of highschool sports as I experienced it.
I was a competitive swimmer in highschool; the team was split 50/50 between boys and girls. We all swam in the same lanes of the same pools, swimming the same practice given by the same coaches. Virtually all of us were taught how to swim by the same woman. The only separation was the locker rooms, and the competitive events during meets. The events were the same, 100m, 500m, etc, but segregated by sex. The performance gap post-puberty was immense. The fastest girl on my team, an incredible outlier with Olympic ambitions, was slower than about 5 of the guys. If the sport were blind to sex, the team probably would have had a 90/10 ratio, rather than 50/50. This would be grossly unfair to women.
To add to this, the Women's Olympic Ice Hockey teams of the US and Canada -- both professional and highly skilled teams, have been known to practice against high school level and/or high school aged boys teams and both national teams don't always win either.
I am not saying any of this to discredit the hard work and skill these women have accomplished, but at the end of the day biology is biology.
As an avid hockey fan, I think that the two sexes play a similar, but slightly different styled game (male professional leagues allow contact unlike female leagues), but I think we should celebrate and enjoy the differences each style that hockey or any game has to offer.
I am not saying any of this to discredit the hard work and skill these women have accomplished, but at the end of the day biology is biology.
As an avid hockey fan, I think that the two sexes play a similar, but slightly different styled game (male professional leagues allow contact unlike female leagues), but I think we should celebrate and enjoy the differences each style that hockey or any game has to offer.
What they said and what you said were the same except their claim about how it started.
I see no contradiction between our posts.
Are there people passing laws to fuck with people with bipolar disorder? Are there people telling you that you’re incorrect or even mentally ill because you identify as a recovering alcoholic?
You clearly don’t have mental illness or a drug addiction. Yes, absolutely, you are severely discriminated against with either of those. People see you as utterly unreliable, weak, and unworthy of the kinds of respect afforded to able minded people.
This is why you never, ever, ever take advantage of "mental health" or "addiction" resources provided by your employer.
It doesn't matter what they tell you about confidentiality. Just get the care you need through your insurance and avoid the potential honeypot.
Edit: This comment is heavily biased towards an American audience where at will employment, and health insurance rather than government benefit, are the norm.
It doesn't matter what they tell you about confidentiality. Just get the care you need through your insurance and avoid the potential honeypot.
Edit: This comment is heavily biased towards an American audience where at will employment, and health insurance rather than government benefit, are the norm.
bradlys(1)
Do people tell you that you are not really an addict or mentally ill, that that's not even a thing, and that it's just a phase you grow out of once you simply make up your mind?
[edit] Ok, got it. I don't mean to question anyone's personal experience, and sorry that this is what's happening to you.
Also, I don't want to 'rank' the degree of marginalization different groups experience, that's not at all what I'm after. Ideally, none of this would exist and everyone would just live happily ever after.
What I mean is that I don't see a national debate, through politicians or 'celebrities', that deny the existence of, say, alcoholism.
But again, I don't mean to imply that those groups don't suffer. Also, I can just be wrong.
[edit] Ok, got it. I don't mean to question anyone's personal experience, and sorry that this is what's happening to you.
Also, I don't want to 'rank' the degree of marginalization different groups experience, that's not at all what I'm after. Ideally, none of this would exist and everyone would just live happily ever after.
What I mean is that I don't see a national debate, through politicians or 'celebrities', that deny the existence of, say, alcoholism.
But again, I don't mean to imply that those groups don't suffer. Also, I can just be wrong.
Most of the time they just dismiss your experiences, pretty overtly.
Yes.
This comment screams of lack of awareness. We actively drug test people for jobs and deny them employment. It is literally baked into the acceptable reasons to discriminate against people. The stigma is massive. It has been changing primarily because white, suburban people have been losing family members to opioid overdoses, but the stigma is still very real in most the country.
I've lost a lot of friends. I've had people tell me they can't stand me because their Dad was an abusive alcoholic. I lost a job because of a manic episode. I know it's hard for normies to understand so I have compassion for their lack of understanding.
really bro? there are plenty of laws that fuck with alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts, etc, and every single civilized society in the world does everything they can to prevent children, teens and young adults from picking up those habits. and it is also perfectly acceptable to express negative feelings about addicts in general
as for bipolar disorder and other such things, at least it is acceptable to call them what they are - mental illnesses, and to suggest to get treatment
as for bipolar disorder and other such things, at least it is acceptable to call them what they are - mental illnesses, and to suggest to get treatment
Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. Wanting something to be different doesn’t actually make it different.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dyspho...
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dyspho...
There's an important distinction here. To quote that page:
> Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics.
Being transgender is not the same as having gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the (sometimes) associated distress. It is effectively an administrated diagnosis, without it many trans people would not be able to access treatments they need.
The pages goes on with:
> The diagnosis was created to help people with gender dysphoria get access to necessary health care and effective treatment. The term focuses on discomfort as the problem, rather than identity.
> Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics.
Being transgender is not the same as having gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is the (sometimes) associated distress. It is effectively an administrated diagnosis, without it many trans people would not be able to access treatments they need.
The pages goes on with:
> The diagnosis was created to help people with gender dysphoria get access to necessary health care and effective treatment. The term focuses on discomfort as the problem, rather than identity.
We live in a country that stigmatizes, under-researches, and under-treats most mental disorders.
Most people who think pointing out "gender disphoria" is a "mental illness" is a good point would be shocked and disappointed when they find out what the standard treatment for patients with gender disphoria is.
Most people who think pointing out "gender disphoria" is a "mental illness" is a good point would be shocked and disappointed when they find out what the standard treatment for patients with gender disphoria is.
is Alcoholism a mental illness - https://www.portstluciehospitalinc.com/ufaqs/is-alcoholism-a...
Yes. According to the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), alcoholism, or alcohol use disorder (AUD), is a diagnosable mental illness.
Yes. According to the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), alcoholism, or alcohol use disorder (AUD), is a diagnosable mental illness.
The DSM is a book full of things that (a particular group of) academic doctors think should be considered to be illnesses. It's previously included homosexuality and "gender identity disorder" (transgenderism).
It's a not a bad source, obviously, but being in a book does not make things diseases or not.
That said, in my (medical) opinion, alcoholism and other addictions are much better to be considered (and treated) as diseases.
It's a not a bad source, obviously, but being in a book does not make things diseases or not.
That said, in my (medical) opinion, alcoholism and other addictions are much better to be considered (and treated) as diseases.
You minimise it as "being in a book". The book is: "a publication by the American Psychiatric Association for the classification of mental disorders". Are you part of the psychiatric field?
What I was trying to point out is that the relationship should be:
"is a mental health condition" infers "is in the DSM"
Raster than:
"is in the DSM" infers "is a mental health condition"
That said, the DSM is a good reference for finding out what the APA consider to be a legitimate condition.
I'm not a psychiatrist. But I do diagnose and treat mental health conditions most days at work.
"is a mental health condition" infers "is in the DSM"
Raster than:
"is in the DSM" infers "is a mental health condition"
That said, the DSM is a good reference for finding out what the APA consider to be a legitimate condition.
I'm not a psychiatrist. But I do diagnose and treat mental health conditions most days at work.
well thanks, you probably didn't see that what I posted was in response to the question "Are there people telling you that you’re incorrect or even mentally ill because you identify as a recovering alcoholic?"
Correlation is not causation.
We've had recovering-alcoholic presidents (USA), but it'd be very difficult to see a trans president anytime soon. The intensity of ostracization is not at the same level.
(e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Alcohol_abuse )
(e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Alcohol_abuse )
> it'd be very difficult to see a trans president anytime soon.
People would have said the same thing about the likelihood of having a gay president 15-20 years ago. Instead, we had an openly gay and married presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg, do quite well in the last election with his homosexuality not being a major point of the conversation.
The amount of progress on gay rights and the public's perspective on LGBTQ rights has been extremely fast. I think (and hope) that you are wrong and that society will be ready for a trans president much sooner than you anticipate.
People would have said the same thing about the likelihood of having a gay president 15-20 years ago. Instead, we had an openly gay and married presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg, do quite well in the last election with his homosexuality not being a major point of the conversation.
The amount of progress on gay rights and the public's perspective on LGBTQ rights has been extremely fast. I think (and hope) that you are wrong and that society will be ready for a trans president much sooner than you anticipate.
There are order of magnitude 15x as many gay people as transgendered people, so you’d expect by chance alone that it would be quite rare for a transgender person to be elected to a role that is contested every 4 years and changes every 5 years on average.
I think society will be ready long before the statistical chance of an otherwise front-runner happening to also be transgender is likely to be satisfied.
I think society will be ready long before the statistical chance of an otherwise front-runner happening to also be transgender is likely to be satisfied.
BTW, that was literally the joke Dave made. That progress on LGBTQ rights was so fast that they can still use their white privilage against people who look like Dave if they are both white and LGBTQ+. Meanwhile people who marched with MLK jr had to march again in 2020 after Geroge Floyd's murder and in the 90s after Rodney King and again recently due to voting rights and racist redistricting laws.
Dave's mistake was he didnt take into account people who were part of both minority groups and face opression on two counts.
[deleted]
I disagree. In particular, there is not a gay president. How did Pete Buttigieg do well? He dropped out, ranking behind Biden and Sanders. In other words, he was supported by but a fringe group. Just him running means nothing.
It will be a while before a trans president is a realistic prospect. The U.S. have yet to elect a female leader of the country 40 years after that was a thing in the UK, and 20 years after Germany. The U.S. now have an openly gay secretary of transportation, hardly a key position in the administration. Germany had their openly gay vice-chancellor and secretary of state a decade ago.
It will be a while before a trans president is a realistic prospect. The U.S. have yet to elect a female leader of the country 40 years after that was a thing in the UK, and 20 years after Germany. The U.S. now have an openly gay secretary of transportation, hardly a key position in the administration. Germany had their openly gay vice-chancellor and secretary of state a decade ago.
Well, yes, - there are lots of people who do this. And no, the law is not particularly kind to those who are alcoholics or have mental illnesses.
Except that quite a few people with bipolar disorder and addiction issues would say they are mentally ill.
Seems like part of the general pattern of “if you are not with us you are against us” attitude. Now a days it’s not enough to not be for-[some injustice], you have to be actively anti-[some injustice] and tell the world that you are. Otherwise you are a bad person.
The main point being raised by trans activists is "please let us live our lives and not be horrible to us". There's really not a whole lot more to it than that.
So if somebody's "pushing back" on that, I think it's pretty fair to call them transphobic.
So if somebody's "pushing back" on that, I think it's pretty fair to call them transphobic.
There is a lot more. You are forced to list pronouns, declare your gender at conferences, read daily articles about trans people in all major newspapers.
Prospective Supreme court justices have to delegate the definition of "woman" to a biologist.
And you'll be called transphobic at the slightest infraction of the ever growing set of rules.
The whole rainbow movement exists to gain positions, money and power and to have a free pass to yell at dissenters.
Prospective Supreme court justices have to delegate the definition of "woman" to a biologist.
And you'll be called transphobic at the slightest infraction of the ever growing set of rules.
The whole rainbow movement exists to gain positions, money and power and to have a free pass to yell at dissenters.
It really feels like there is real split in the "trans-community". Between those who actually just want to identify with their new gender quietly and get on with their lives. With only people around them accepting them.
And then the online and it's allied that push for all sort of weirdness and political visibility and gains.
Many don't have much issues at least those to air in public about first one. The later one seems to aim in places also ruin things that they enjoy. Just for signalling and power.
And then the online and it's allied that push for all sort of weirdness and political visibility and gains.
Many don't have much issues at least those to air in public about first one. The later one seems to aim in places also ruin things that they enjoy. Just for signalling and power.
When exactly have you been forced to list your pronouns?
At work you often are. For example, many top tech employers force you to add your pronouns on your mail signature.
Which employers, specifically? I work for AWS and they do not have such a requirement. Doing so is completely voluntary.
zionic(3)
If you're accusing me, be good enough to be specific.
"please let us live our lives... not a lot more to it"
But there is more to it. There are issues about women's sports, public education, the ethics of irreversible medical procedures on minors without an objective diagnosis, etc.
You explicitly avoided the controversy, and it's not really fair to do that.
But there is more to it. There are issues about women's sports, public education, the ethics of irreversible medical procedures on minors without an objective diagnosis, etc.
You explicitly avoided the controversy, and it's not really fair to do that.
I do really think that what most trans activists (and most trans people) want is "please let us live our lives". That said, I'm in Australia, and maybe things are really different wherever you are.
Of course, "live our lives" includes trans kids being able to live their lives too, being safe at their school, etc. And trans people should be able to play sport if they like, it's a healthy thing to do.
As far as social sport goes, I personally prefer mixed sport, but I think that the excitement over trans people playing in women's leagues is unnecessary. At the professional level, I can understand a need for a bit more precision, but my understanding is that the international sporting bodies have regulations and they (the sporting bodies) don't seem to think there's a big issue.
As far as "irreversible medical procedures on minors" goes... (and this is the one that spurred me on to reply) ...it's just not a thing.
And again, I'm in Australia, but I'm pretty sure this applies globally. To my knowledge, we simply do not perform reassignment surgery on children.
The WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) guidelines (available here: https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/SOC%20V7_... ) clearly state that one of the criteria for surgery is being "the legal age of majority to give consent for medical procedures in a given country"
Of course, "live our lives" includes trans kids being able to live their lives too, being safe at their school, etc. And trans people should be able to play sport if they like, it's a healthy thing to do.
As far as social sport goes, I personally prefer mixed sport, but I think that the excitement over trans people playing in women's leagues is unnecessary. At the professional level, I can understand a need for a bit more precision, but my understanding is that the international sporting bodies have regulations and they (the sporting bodies) don't seem to think there's a big issue.
As far as "irreversible medical procedures on minors" goes... (and this is the one that spurred me on to reply) ...it's just not a thing.
And again, I'm in Australia, but I'm pretty sure this applies globally. To my knowledge, we simply do not perform reassignment surgery on children.
The WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) guidelines (available here: https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/SOC%20V7_... ) clearly state that one of the criteria for surgery is being "the legal age of majority to give consent for medical procedures in a given country"
"[irreversible medical procedures on kids] it's just not a thing"
Even if not done much today, it's certainly an issue. For instance, see this doc from the US HHS (a federal department):
https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/gender-affir...
"May include medical, surgical... For children and adolescents...crucial to overall health".
Logically, it kind of has to be an issue, right? Current medicine isn't even close to being able to change the sex of an 18 year old. So some people will want to start a lot earlier in a lot more cases. And people will push the boundaries with hormones, which in kids absolutely will cause irreversible changes.
So I stand by my claim that you are unfairly dismissing the controversial aspects of the argument.
Even if not done much today, it's certainly an issue. For instance, see this doc from the US HHS (a federal department):
https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/gender-affir...
"May include medical, surgical... For children and adolescents...crucial to overall health".
Logically, it kind of has to be an issue, right? Current medicine isn't even close to being able to change the sex of an 18 year old. So some people will want to start a lot earlier in a lot more cases. And people will push the boundaries with hormones, which in kids absolutely will cause irreversible changes.
So I stand by my claim that you are unfairly dismissing the controversial aspects of the argument.
> the Chappelle special. I think he went too far at a couple places, but that's what comedians do.
I want him to stop doing trans jokes because he's not good at them. They aren't funny. As far as I can tell, they are attempts at cheap shock humor that might make sense for a new comedian to try to get some headlines, but not something someone with fame and talent should have to stoop to.
I want him to stop doing trans jokes because he's not good at them. They aren't funny. As far as I can tell, they are attempts at cheap shock humor that might make sense for a new comedian to try to get some headlines, but not something someone with fame and talent should have to stoop to.
Right. This memo is directed at offended Netflix employees, not offended [ex]Netflix customers. Conservatives on facebook complaining about Netflix being too woke and weird (Cuties, etc) isn't what this memo is about. This is about netflix management reasserting their position of power (particularly with respect to content selection) over netflix workers.
It's also a reaction to the Spotify Joe Rogan drama.
> but I don't go around demanding the world accommodate me
I think you'd feel very different about what this sentence really means if people maliciously assumed you were drunk driving or a pedofile just because you wore a budweiser shirt.
Or if there were plans for laws making bipolar specialists illegal, or outlawing non-christian addiction programs.
Or if there were laws forbidding teachers from mentioning that psychological disorders in general (but especially bipolar) exist and required them to snitch on you to your parents and the state if it were suspected that you were bipolar.
I think you'd feel very different about what this sentence really means if people maliciously assumed you were drunk driving or a pedofile just because you wore a budweiser shirt.
Or if there were plans for laws making bipolar specialists illegal, or outlawing non-christian addiction programs.
Or if there were laws forbidding teachers from mentioning that psychological disorders in general (but especially bipolar) exist and required them to snitch on you to your parents and the state if it were suspected that you were bipolar.
[deleted]
on trans issues:
one thing that struck me is how different views on transgenderism are in the US, for example, than my country.
In my country, transgender actually FOUGHT for the right to NOT be counted as a man or a women, and finally won the right to be counted as a third gender, with the rights that follow it.
That mean that, the slogans here are NOT, for example, that "Transwomen are Women" but instead, "transwomen are TRANSwomen" (i.e. don't lump them with man/women, labels which are considered cis-specific.) or that they demanded SEPERATE bathrooms for their gender, and DON'T want to be forced to be use men/women bathrooms.
Such opinions would be considered extremely transphobic in the US, but are what trans-people actively fought for here.
I'm not saying my country is a beacon for LGBTQ+ rights, simply pointing out that issues that the western Transgender community face (Gender Identifications issues from TERFs, or bathroom related panics) would simply be a non-issue here because the clash simply doesn't arise in the first place!
Women wouldn't feel threatened by transwomen, because they would never want to step into each other's territories in anyway.
I am not sure what the ideal is, just that western trans community might need to look at a global view and realize that perhaps what they consider transphobic, are actually sought-for rights by members of their own community in the East, and how they can better move forwards in this regards.
----
also, I do need to highlight that rules do not translate into ground realities, which are often bleak regardless of legislation. Discrimination and violent attacks are rampant here, we are in no way a utopia.
but here are some links which might better explain what I was trying to convey:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pakistan-s-1st-trans...
https://www.reuters.com/article/Pakistan-transgender-census/...
https://www.npr.org/2012/09/03/160496712/pakistans-transgend...
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pakistan-issues-land...
one thing that struck me is how different views on transgenderism are in the US, for example, than my country.
In my country, transgender actually FOUGHT for the right to NOT be counted as a man or a women, and finally won the right to be counted as a third gender, with the rights that follow it.
That mean that, the slogans here are NOT, for example, that "Transwomen are Women" but instead, "transwomen are TRANSwomen" (i.e. don't lump them with man/women, labels which are considered cis-specific.) or that they demanded SEPERATE bathrooms for their gender, and DON'T want to be forced to be use men/women bathrooms.
Such opinions would be considered extremely transphobic in the US, but are what trans-people actively fought for here.
I'm not saying my country is a beacon for LGBTQ+ rights, simply pointing out that issues that the western Transgender community face (Gender Identifications issues from TERFs, or bathroom related panics) would simply be a non-issue here because the clash simply doesn't arise in the first place!
Women wouldn't feel threatened by transwomen, because they would never want to step into each other's territories in anyway.
I am not sure what the ideal is, just that western trans community might need to look at a global view and realize that perhaps what they consider transphobic, are actually sought-for rights by members of their own community in the East, and how they can better move forwards in this regards.
----
also, I do need to highlight that rules do not translate into ground realities, which are often bleak regardless of legislation. Discrimination and violent attacks are rampant here, we are in no way a utopia.
but here are some links which might better explain what I was trying to convey:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pakistan-s-1st-trans...
https://www.reuters.com/article/Pakistan-transgender-census/...
https://www.npr.org/2012/09/03/160496712/pakistans-transgend...
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pakistan-issues-land...
Trans people in Pakistan fought for the state to recognize a traditional 3rd gender. Most European cultures and offshoots don't have an equivalent.
1 of the biggest issues now in the US is if trans youth should receive any affirming treatment. Even puberty blockers. Calling them a 3rd gender wouldn't change the sides.
1 of the biggest issues now in the US is if trans youth should receive any affirming treatment. Even puberty blockers. Calling them a 3rd gender wouldn't change the sides.
Dave Chapelle is a hero. Downvote me all you want but drawing a distinction between sex and gender is pure delusion at best and a mental disease at worst.
bryans(1)
jancsika(1)
efleeus(2)
theossuary(3)
badwolf(1)
zionic(7)
As if Netflix is not filled with woke propaganda already...
Note: Expect sentiment downvotes in HN
Note: Expect sentiment downvotes in HN
Some examples? And could you please define “woke propaganda”?
Asking because the term is used to mischaracterize a broad range of views by, ironically, large scale propaganda / fear mongering outlets.
Asking because the term is used to mischaracterize a broad range of views by, ironically, large scale propaganda / fear mongering outlets.
Have you not seen their content lately? I wouldn't say it's woke propaganda, but a lot of their content is clearly trying to tick the diversity boxes.
It's a global company -- they need to make and provide content to a global audience.
How about providing unbiased content that show both sides?
Shows like Netflix's "Midnight Mass" and "Messiah" (questions on faith) or HBO max's "The Staircase" (objective & subjective truth) are the minority.
Shows like Netflix's "Midnight Mass" and "Messiah" (questions on faith) or HBO max's "The Staircase" (objective & subjective truth) are the minority.
Snowpiercer (series): Gave up after the main plot focused on maintaining a lie, not discovering a truth (conventional screenwriting).
Other examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/pwp3t4/im_tired_of...
Eventually got tired of Netflix's money cow strategy by sacrificing quality - buying original ideas and ruining them with more seasons for the sake of engagement: Designated Survivor, Money Heist, etc. Piggybacking on categories that rate higher on IMDB: Korean copycats, cheap documentaries, reality shows.
They know how to cater to public sentiment because biased reviews lead to higher ratings, hoping the brainwashing is not apparent - recent drop in subscribers proves them wrong.
Other examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/pwp3t4/im_tired_of...
Eventually got tired of Netflix's money cow strategy by sacrificing quality - buying original ideas and ruining them with more seasons for the sake of engagement: Designated Survivor, Money Heist, etc. Piggybacking on categories that rate higher on IMDB: Korean copycats, cheap documentaries, reality shows.
They know how to cater to public sentiment because biased reviews lead to higher ratings, hoping the brainwashing is not apparent - recent drop in subscribers proves them wrong.
> Snowpiercer
So your example of woke propaganda is content made for other services that Netflix later acquired non-exclusive rights to?
> after the main plot focused on maintaining a lie, not discovering a truth (conventional screenwriting)
I have no idea what this means. I followed your reddit link thinking maybe it would explain what you're talking about, but "snow" appears nowhere on the page.
So your example of woke propaganda is content made for other services that Netflix later acquired non-exclusive rights to?
> after the main plot focused on maintaining a lie, not discovering a truth (conventional screenwriting)
I have no idea what this means. I followed your reddit link thinking maybe it would explain what you're talking about, but "snow" appears nowhere on the page.
The series overthrows a lie, but supplants it and feeds another one.
Screenwriting is complicated, but if you want to know more details focus on the "midpoint", where the truth/thesis is stated.
Essentially movies or series are sort of discovery tools to reveal an audience a certain truth - there is no point on being consistently lied to...
https://trendguardian.medium.com/anatomy-of-great-movies-bd9...
Screenwriting is complicated, but if you want to know more details focus on the "midpoint", where the truth/thesis is stated.
Essentially movies or series are sort of discovery tools to reveal an audience a certain truth - there is no point on being consistently lied to...
https://trendguardian.medium.com/anatomy-of-great-movies-bd9...
Snowpiercer (the TV show) was made by TNT, and is available on Netflix and HBO (at the very least). Why focus on popular content they recently purchased as an example? It's really weak.
This doesn't disprove the original argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> Snowpiercer: Gave up after the main plot focused on maintaining a lie, not discovering a truth (conventional screenwriting).
What do you mean by this? The "geo-engineering backfired and made the world too cold" setting of the story? I found the movie schlocky and ham-fisted, but generally entertaining in a dumb-movie sort of way. I'm not sure what you mean by maintaining a lie and discovering truth.
What do you mean by this? The "geo-engineering backfired and made the world too cold" setting of the story? I found the movie schlocky and ham-fisted, but generally entertaining in a dumb-movie sort of way. I'm not sure what you mean by maintaining a lie and discovering truth.
Colin in Black & White
Hollywood series
When I understand it right, is not the whole point of this change that also topics which are not "woke"/left can also show up?
Not sure if I get it completely :)
Not sure if I get it completely :)
[deleted]
Good for Netflix.
Coca-Cola, Disney and others have recently been reminded that businesses are there (wait for it....) to make money for their owners!
Business should be professional and all about business. Politics belongs elsewhere.
Coca-Cola, Disney and others have recently been reminded that businesses are there (wait for it....) to make money for their owners!
Business should be professional and all about business. Politics belongs elsewhere.
I can’t think of anything worse for a company like Netflix than the woke crowd coming for them. Isn’t every horror movie filled with violent hate and evil?
Meanwhile, the long standing normalized usual suspects (e.g., the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street, poverty, etc.) get a free pass? And the proud woke believe Netflix is an evil worth expending energy on? Talk about doing the usual suspects a favor.
If anyone wants to exercise their consumer-ness and cancel their Netflix subscription, they should. But cancel culturing Netflix while real issues continue to run free and unchallenged undermines "woke" in the eyes of anyone reasonable.
Note: This isn't a knock on the idea of woke, or even cancel culture. It's about priorities.
If anyone wants to exercise their consumer-ness and cancel their Netflix subscription, they should. But cancel culturing Netflix while real issues continue to run free and unchallenged undermines "woke" in the eyes of anyone reasonable.
Note: This isn't a knock on the idea of woke, or even cancel culture. It's about priorities.
The woke horde is already inside Netflix and running the show.
It’s not about bad tactics it’s about bad targets.
[deleted]
"Hey, offending people sells and we're in it for the money...". If this bothers you, chant "we're in it for the money" until it doesn't. If it still bothers you, get outta here.
Disney offends some people (seriously, as an ex-employee, I was astounded the degree to which some supposedly adult people insisted on being offended by cartoons made for children.)
Facebook actually has a business model based on encouraging people to offend each other and make money off everyone standing around to watch, where Netflix does nothing even remotely close.
Fox News literally manufactures offenses on a daily basis and encourages people to be offended.
Netflix is so completely bland and generally inoffensive compared to so many other things out there, it seems funny to me to call it out and point fingers at Netflix as some kind of example.
Facebook actually has a business model based on encouraging people to offend each other and make money off everyone standing around to watch, where Netflix does nothing even remotely close.
Fox News literally manufactures offenses on a daily basis and encourages people to be offended.
Netflix is so completely bland and generally inoffensive compared to so many other things out there, it seems funny to me to call it out and point fingers at Netflix as some kind of example.
I find the idea that you shouldn't offend people odd and pretty recent. For example, when I was growing up, my mother would say "We have a G rated household." Meaning: in our household we could not watch any movies or TV shows that would not be rated G. As you might imagine, Netflix hosts lots of content that my parents would find offensive. Likewise, religious people might find pro-atheist content on Netflix offensive, anti-porn people offended by Netflix's borderline softcore pornography, political groups might be offended by various documentaries, and so on.
You really cannot hold a diverse selection of content and avoid offending people. Why is avoiding offending people now supposed to be important for Netflix?
You really cannot hold a diverse selection of content and avoid offending people. Why is avoiding offending people now supposed to be important for Netflix?
I don't think that offending people is truly the first principle. If that were the case there would be zero content. The attempt is to not be offensive to the specific sensitivities a specific group that is vocal in popular culture and that supposedly has the power to take down your brand. It would be interesting to see if that group really has power if all companies would stand up against them instead of folding.
We used to have the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority and relatively universal radio/tv enforcement of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words, so there was a time (the 30s-60s) when the impulse was to censor everything to the lowest common denominator. It's not that recent a phenomenon.
It's worth noticing that the FCC regulations were aimed at broadcasts when children were up (6am-10pm), in an effort to protect kids, not adults. Also, those regulations existed on the limited resource of public airwaves. There is no reason you couldn't start the Hardcore Porn Cable Network other than it would flop. There is no reason to use time-based filtering anymore, so making non-G rated content available 24/7 is no longer an issue.
I think what they’re saying is that the caution needed to avoid offending anyone would be too much of a handicap in the goal of making content that people like.
I know there are specific examples where a person could say “so THIS couldn’t have been avoided?” But as a general policy, they’re saying that they’re going draw their line for what’s acceptable at a place that isn’t intentionally trying to offend, but is sometimes going to end up letting something through that does.
I know there are specific examples where a person could say “so THIS couldn’t have been avoided?” But as a general policy, they’re saying that they’re going draw their line for what’s acceptable at a place that isn’t intentionally trying to offend, but is sometimes going to end up letting something through that does.
Why are they surprised when the org begins to resemble the content?
When Netflix sells outrage, why are they shocked when they cultivate internal outrage?
When Netflix sells outrage, why are they shocked when they cultivate internal outrage?
99.9% of Netflix content isn’t outrageous in any way. There’s a lot of attention for letting famous comedians do their usual routines in a recorded special, but we’re talking about less than 10 hours of television in a library of like 20,000 hours of Netflix originals.
> 99.9% of Netflix content isn’t outrageous in any way.
You could say that's only because it has become the new norm. The Simpsons was considered to be controversial at first.
You could say that's only because it has become the new norm. The Simpsons was considered to be controversial at first.
'Was', heh. Bart makes delinquency look cool and in the 90s I personally saw a fair few young boys my own age emulating Bart and getting into trouble for it. I think the Simpsons is appropriate for teenagers, but not much younger.
And then came Family Guy, making the Simpsons seem like pretty mellow family fare in comparison.
Well, yes, this is a much needed clarification for the people working there who think edgy comedy is despicable. Now they know they have the option not to work at an edgy comedy factory, instead of posting about it on Twitter and taking a day off to protest on Twitter.
So basically the newspaper industry for the past century or so, too?
In the last part of the 20th century, the utterly drab and lackluster Three-Letter Networks were drab and lackluster in part because they were trying to avoid offending as large a portion of the population as possible. But, with way more than 3 networks competing now, you can't be drab and get anyone's attention. Which means either you have content that's offensive to lots of people, and hope that it is offset by other content that appeals to those people, or you shrink down to a niche provider that appeals only to a much smaller portion of the population.
The third factor is that many companies cannot get financing or keep up their share prices unless they can pretend they will be as big as Facebook, so just existing in your little niche may not work well either. Unstoppable force meets immovable objects...