Other Random question of the day

[AppleJuice]

Yeah I think so. I think Legend of Zelda was one of those same character AU type deals originally.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Random question of the day:

Why do people on the internet use the personal lives of YouTubers as an excuse to be assholes?

 

[Idea]

I'm not sure what you mean

 

[Merciless Medic]

It's the whole idea of toxic fanbases, but instead with something you'd see from anime or video games, apply it to a "celebrity" in the eyes of the internet masses. Many Youtubers talk about their lives to get their audience closer to them. However, if they don't cultivate their own fans' behaviors, their fans can start hating on others the YouTuber disagrees with, attacking them on social media platforms until their YouTuber wins.

This is really dangerous. People do this because they feel empowered, like an army. Keyboard warriors are already a thing, and this just gives them more of an excuse to start typing up insults and become toxic to everybody else but then put their YouTuber on a pedestal, thinking they can do no wrong because they have gone through so much. Sadly, it is because the people themselves have brainwashed themselves into thinking that their idol can do no wrong, when that isn't true. I don't use the term brainwash lightly. If we enjoy someone's content and get so sucked into these people's lives and start trying to incorporate our own selves into these lives, we'll end up getting lost ourselves and becoming nothing more than an assimilated guardian made by the masses of those who have also gotten lost idolizing someone and protecting them from harm. You start to see these people as love interests or best friends and that may be the case. But we are just their audience at the end of the day (unless you have actually met them in person and formed a bond with them), so we shouldn't start attacking our idol's "enemies" or people they disagree with. It can make the YouTuber look bad.

I have seen quite a few channels get bombarded with hate comments from a raid of people just because these channels disagreed with a larger and more toxic YouTuber.

EDIT: I just realized I generalized and forgot another portion of fans. The other portion of fans who haven't brainwashed themselves on accident still feel like their YouTuber deserves a chance at an argument, so they'll try to win the argument for them. XD It doesn't usually work.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

I'm not sure what you mean

I'm talking about people who use a YouTuber's tragic life experiences in an argument as a way to justify their own toxic behavior.

Random question of the day:

Has 2020 truly made us realize how much we hate celebrities and how much we need essential workers?

 

[saniachan]

Has 2020 truly made us realize how much we hate celebrities and how much we need essential workers?

Well, I've been not a big fan of celebrities to begin with, so...

 

[Crayons]

I don't think it has

 

[Idea]

I wouldn’t say so, no. But I do think plenty of people gained a new appreciation for certain services, and I’d say more “non-essential” ones than “essential” ones.

 

[Owlbear]

Has 2020 truly made us realize how much we hate celebrities and how much we need essential workers?

Not everyone hates celebrities.

As for the second part of your question, obviously not. Just look at the amount of people who are against paying them a livable wage.

 

[Emeraude]

I don't think so. People tend to focus on what directly impacts them. I'm more likely to see someone complaining that they have to wear a mask in the store than worrying about the employees.

 

[Macintot]

No, for everyone's big talk, people don't really hate celebrities. Otherwise they wouldn't be celebrities anymore. Everyone still fawns over Keanu Reeves and buys Billie Eilish's latest album and watches Jon Favreau's newest series. And if the current celebrities fall out of favor, new ones will replace them as long as people care about entertainment media and hold entertainers in such high regard. And if society decides that another profession(s) is the most publicly exceptional and admirable, say soldiers like in WWII or artists in the renaissance, the standouts in those fields will become the new celebrities.

As for essential workers, I would say it's a mixed bag. People did begin to realize how dependent we are on grocery store workers and line cooks and delivery drivers, but eventually that awareness took a back seat to settling back into the status quo. Genuinely making change is hard, especially when that change is uncomfortable for yourself.

 

[Doomevil]

I treat celebrities like any other person and I understand they all have their flaws and strengths. Sure, some get addicted to the spotlight a little too much and they can be out of touch, but that's par for the course when you have a lot of fans. For essential workers, I still don't think people realize how much we depend on essential workers for everything, even in a crisis. I think once people are aching to go back to normalcy, it'll return to the same status quo before 2020, only we'll end up with more jobs lost because of the pandemic. We're basically playing a game of moving one step forward and two steps back whenever a year like 2020 happens.

 

[Jannah]

Random question of the day:

Is liberty gradually being flushed down the toilet by the world's governments?

There was never liberty to begin with for the majority of the world's population.

 

[Jannah]

I'm talking about people who use a YouTuber's tragic life experiences in an argument as a way to justify their own toxic behavior.

Random question of the day:

Has 2020 truly made us realize how much we hate celebrities and how much we need essential workers?

I never liked celebrities so nothing has changed for me.

 

[The Dreamer of the Lore]

Nope. Nothing has truly changed for essential workers, they arent being properly paid yet.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Random question of the day:

Why is it that usually the third movie in a franchise is a bad one?

 

[Crayons]

Random question of the day:

Why is it that usually the third movie in a franchise is a bad one?

Because they have run out of ideas by then.

 

[SpazTheButcher]

Random question of the day:

Why is it that usually the third movie in a franchise is a bad one?

Depends on Franchise, in Rambo: third movie is good, In most movies: The first two movies were so good that the third one could never live up to everyone's expectations, like the final Star Wars movie

 

[Jannah]

Lack of ideas probably.

 

[AlexneushoornTheGreat]

Random question of the day:

Is unneccessary LGBT theming in media considered pandering to said community?

 

[Owlbear]

Random question of the day:

Is unneccessary LGBT theming in media considered pandering to said community?

Nah. I mean, nobody considers unneccessary hetero romance theming to be pandering to the straights.

Also, what would you classify as "unnecessary" LGBT+ theming?

 

[Merciless Medic]

Also, what would you classify as "unnecessary" LGBT+ theming?

I assume it's changing the sexuality of a character at the very end of a series or movie without giving them an actual reason or event that sparked the change whether it was shown or not. Like, there are a few characters I have seen in media (of which I don't remember) that were straight for the longest time, and then they all of a sudden switch sexualities at the very end.

Granted, it happening to an LGBT+ character where they go from whatever sexuality they have to being straight at the end of a series or film for no reason is also rather irritating because there is no build up or an event that we saw that sparked the change.

That's what I'm meaning. It's fine to have characters be portrayed as any of the LGBT+ and I think the craze for it has died down since the movement a few years back. But during that movement, I have seen quite a few characters go from straight to "whoop I'm [insert completely different sexuality they never expressed or grow into here] now".

Random question of the day:

Is unneccessary LGBT theming in media considered pandering to said community?

There is a big difference between "pandering to" and "supporting" said community.

It is fine if you have characters be a part of the LGBT+ or have themes in a series or movie that revolve around the character who is LGBT+ and the plot surrounding that character. A film or media that supports the LGBT+ community lifts the characters who are LGBT+ up, show the problems they face in society (whether it is in our own society or one made from fantasy, but it has to be relatable), and giving them a happy ending with road blocks in the way they have to solve or get over. If you fit this model on literally any other character, it should work the same way (just give them different problems if they aren't LGBT+). Make their lives realistic and something people in that community can look up to and hopefully take something from that movie. They also don't bash on anyone who is not LGBT+ and make them relatable or at least realistic, as well (granted, there is always that one homophobe in an LGBT+ centered piece of media. While that is realistic, I'd rather not see a homophobe and just see how society and stigma are played, as well, as I find that more realistic nowadays). While there are those people who do care or get uncomfortable a little bit when they are with someone who is of a different sexuality, there are others who don't care what sexuality you have just as long as you are a decent person and give respect when it's due, and then there are others who try to understand those who are not like them.

Pandering to a community is, like what I have stated above, changing a character's sexuality when there is no explanation, reason, or build up of such. It is also putting so many stereotypes in a movie that it becomes a gigantic trope itself and puts everyone in a bad light because of how generalized they are. It is like looking through what society sees and it just doesn't fit well. That's if you fail on supporting/pandering to the community. Another is making all the characters LGBT+ or not a cis-hetero as good people and making all the cis-hetero people one- or two-dimensional cardboard cut-outs or make them look and/or act extremely gross or wrong that no sane person would ever do. That is virtue signaling (which is basically showing off, in this example, that you "understand" the plights of the community and try to convey this by making it disgustingly unrealistic that it looks like you are trying way too hard and still trying to make yourself look like a good person in doing so).

There are other examples, but they are controversial at best, so I would rather go through the more obvious ones.

 

[Crayons]

Um... excuse me? What is unnecessary about being LGBT+ inclusive???

I assume it's changing the sexuality of a character at the very end of a series or movie without giving them an actual reason or event that sparked the change whether it was shown or not. Like, there are a few characters I have seen in media (of which I don't remember) that were straight for the longest time, and then they all of a sudden switch sexualities at the very end

This is the only bad way to have positive LGBT+ representation. If a straight character is straight don't shoehorn the gay into them. This only ever happens with female characters presumably because male hollywood producers are less terrified by the idea of wlw than mlm since it doesn't threaten their fragile masculinity. I think this is getting less common now than it was in the 2000s and early 2010s. Back then it was everywhere.

LGBT+ representation is NOT pandering. No, no, no, no, no. The straight white male has been pandered to for decades by always being the focal point and hero role. Time for that to stop and let other people get a chance to have tv shows/movies made about them.

 

[Idea]

Is unneccessary LGBT theming in media considered pandering to said community?

As with many things with stories, I would say "necessity" isn't particularly a relevant factor. Like a character doesn't have to need to be gay for their inclusion to not be pandering. A character can just...be gay. I think the problem starts when that's the only leg you have to stand on though, or when you start using it as an excuse to cudgel against legitimate criticism, and pandering starts when you try to make a character's superficial elements the selling point as opposed to actual elements of the movie. A trailer for a movie about a character exploring their sexuality or overcoming oppression isn't pandering, or at least isn't necessarily pandering. A trailer which seems to bank entirely on the gender of the character on-screen when movie is intended to be about something else entirely is pandering.

Well, it's a lot more complex than this, namely the concentration can be a factor as well, but fundamentally pandering is a question of intent. Saying something is or isn't pandering can only be identified if you could read the mind of the people making the product. That said, while representation is not bad of course, but lets not kind ourselves, 99% of the reason a company does anything is for profit. I'm of course not saying it's the case every time, but for companies and hollywood and possibly others entities that aren't coming to mind right now, pandering isn't the anomaly, pandering is the default state, for any aspect of their marketing, PR and general stances on issues.

 

[The Dreamer of the Lore]

Random question of the day:

Is unneccessary LGBT theming in media considered pandering to said community?

Well, I dont feel is pandering to have LGBT+ characters on a story or them being the point of the story. I believe is pandering when you try to change solid characters to fit in the spectrum to get more viewers. Having character variety is never bad. I believe is pandering when you pull out a change that makes absolutely no sense for the sake of viewership.