A bit of facial hair and there are lads I know would definitely describe him as a bear.
The question you have to ask is, since episode three of the Last of Us revolves around two characters falling in love after an initially distrusting relationship, would it have bothered you if they had been male and female?
If your answer is no, and I strongly suspect it would be, then that, my friend, is the very definition of homophobia.
What would be the purpose of the episode if it were?
Youâve lost me again.
The question is pretty simple. Would you have even given the Last of Us Ep 3 a second thought if the two lovers had been straight? Would the Angelâs (in Dark Materials) even registered a blip on your Daily Mail-o-meter had one of the been a woman (which is a bit weird anyway, as I thought they were clearly androgynous)?
I think if you are honest, youâd have to say no.
You and your assumptions. The episodes are pointless and only exist to scream diversity. Amazing how the left always go isty phobie when people point this shit out.
Popular culture is overflowing with straight relationships that add little to any plot beyond signposting that the character is a human being. You donât have a problem with them, or probably even register them as a thing. If straight characters are allowed to have relationships in drama, then so are gay characters.
If you donât want to be described as homophobic, donât say homophobic stuff.
1 Like
I donât, as you well know. But feel free to make baseless accusations.
I know to you it doesnât feel homophobia - no one likes having a mirror held up like this - but honestly, consistently moaning about gay characters in dramas is pretty homophobic.
Itâs not box ticking or virtue signalling. Itâs representing people. There are gay people out there, believe it or not. It OK to see them on TV.
1 Like
Iâm very glad youâre here to put me right on my closet homophobia, stupidity and bigotry. What would I do without you?
Probably really offend some gay people, but then say it was their problem not yours.
1 Like
Can you tell me under what circumstances a gay character on TV would be acceptable to you?
1 Like
If they were a corrupt lefty Labour MP who gets murdered in the first scene?
1 Like
Any real life situation that has relevance to the story. The only purpose to show (as an example) a loving relationship is if that relationship or love is tested in some way or important to the story. Episodes 2 and 7 have zero relevance to the story.
Anyway, this back and forth is pointless and this is the UK politics thread. You should be pointing this out, not me.
Iâll setup a BBC thread and a âWhy Modern Media is Woke as Fuckâ thread in the next few days. We can joust there.
How do you feel about the Bond films? The character bonks more than a few throughout them that serve no purpose to the story in reality.
So a character canât be incidentally gay then? They can only be gay if the story needs them to be gay?
Hi. Iâm not from this planet. Iâve been reading this thread in an attempt to ascertain the political customs of Earth. I think I understand your legal system, but please let me know if I have it wrong. As I understand it, the entire ritual takes place on your television. A priestess appears to bake cakes. Some earthlings are startled by her size. A throng of supernatural beings descend from heaven. Some of these engage in same sex activity. Then the high priest known as Gary Lineker returns to your television to make the sacred pronouncements for that seasonâs edicts. Is that it?
3 Likes
I occasionally jump in here to get the lowdown on politics back home.
Chubby cake bakers and gay angels.
Got the main points sorted!
4 Likes
Youâre being deliberately obtuse here. Weâre specifically talking about ep 3 and ep 7 of TLOU here. Episodes almost entirely about not gay characters but their relationships which add zero to the overall story. If they were straight, trans, dwarfs even Welsh itâs still pointless. The fact they are gay is there purely to virtue signal.
Anyway, enough in the politics thread. Doubt this will be the last word though.
TL:DR
The BBC is full of woke box ticking nonsense because a show on Channel Four hired a presenter who is slightly larger than youâd normally see, and a show on HBO had some gays.
I think thatâs about the gist of it.
OK, Iâll make this my last word here until the next Tory scandal. Tuesday it is then.
That you see episode three of LOU as virtue signalling not only shows your casual bigotry and homophobia (although you obviously would reject it as this), but also that you are incapable of understanding the narrative choices at work.
Spoilers ahead.
The fact that the two leads turning out to be gay is essential to the episode. If the Bill finds a woman in the trap, or vice versa, then the expectation, based on decades of cultural norms, is going to be that they will fall in love - thatâs what straight people of roughly the same age tend to do in films and on the telly.
With two men, suddenly that changes the dynamic. There is an air of tension to the narrative, as our expectations take a different turn. Weâre immediately wondering who will betray who. Is there going to some sort of struggle? Is Bill going to regret taking in this stranger.
This is why the scene at the piano is so amazing. Itâs incredibly nerve wracking, as Bill drops his defences to show him how to play the song properly - youâre on tenterhooks waiting for the betrayal, until the writers totally flip your expectation, and it becomes a touching and romantic story of the two characters finding love in the midst of everything else thatâs going on. Itâs a rollercoaster.
So thatâs an example of a story where a gay relationship is essential to the narrative, and one where a gay relationship is entirely incidental. You didnât approve of either of them. You see why itâs easy to reach the conclusion that there some deeper issue going on.
3 Likes