So if some actor complains about something deplorable, and then there is a huge manufactured fake backlash, is it always ok to write “The actor created controversy by…”?
It is objectively controversial. People were offended by the things Zegler said - the film was being relentlessly mocked online years before its release. The backlash to the film isn’t just about it being Disney live action remake slop and you haven’t been paying attention at all if you think this is the case.
It is absolutely VITAL that we call out news media that are supposedly neutral like the BBC. If they accept fascist talking point as a valid opinion in discussion, we have already lost.
Again - this is netural reporting. The “fascists” won the election with a majority in Zegler’s country. The first step towards dealing with this societal problem is accepting that is not just some tiny fringe movement that will disappear if you close your eyes hard enough.
But the BBC calling her comments “controversial”? That’s problematic at least. She opposed genocide and illegal occupation and opposed an authoritarian strongman gaining power. That is not a controversial comment in a liberal democracy and the founding values of the western democracy. That BBC article is garbage.
They are objectively controversial positions, though. It doesn’t matter how much you agree with them, others clearly do not and it has led to heated public debate. That is literally the definition of controversial:
The so-called “liberal democracy” in which she lives is currently being run by the “authoritarian strongman” whose mission is seemingly to disrupt and dismantle many of those “founding values”. So again, reality is quite different to how you are presenting it. Calling the article garbage because it stated basic facts instead of subscribing to your fantasy land interpretation of current events is very silly.
RIP, this was a good project.
I’d argue that it’s not really Zegler’s fault… Not that there’s anything special about her performance, but there isn’t really anything wrong with it, either.
What’s not her fault? The article isn’t about her performance in the film, it’s about the pushback and resulting pile-on from conservatives to her casting and public comments prior to release.
It didn’t “hit you” that the Korean creator of a Korean video game might not have English as his first language? Yikes…
You are ignoring the bit where this was a private conversation. They wouldn’t need to laugh along with jokes at their expense because, in the context you are discussing, they would never even be aware that the jokes were made.
Is this a copypasta?
I watched ‘Internal Affairs’ (1990). Quite a strange film that seems to be following some pretty typical story beats for the first half but gets weirder and less coherent as it goes on. Richard Gere always struck me as a somewhat unlikeable actor because he played these really smarmy leading man roles but after watching this I realised that his inability to deliver convincing emotions actually works perfectly when he is playing a villain. I really liked Andy García in this too, he comes across as a lot more genuine and emotionally sincere which further enhances Gere’s performance.
It’s objectively true. Why their personality has developed in that way could be down to any number of things, many of which should be examined more closely, but ultimately the individual needs to take responsibility for anything to change. Everyone has personality flaws, everyone can work on them over time. I have zero tolerance or sympathy for people suffering from a loser/victim mentality, it’s pathetic and cowardly behaviour.
This article is not actually suggesting Gen Z find YouTubers or whatever more entertaining than films and TV series, as the replies seem to have (mis)understood. This is about Gen Z finding social media figures more trustworthy and relatable than Hollywood stars and social media advertising being more influential than advertising on TV, which are not particularly surprising or interesting insights. Similarly, social media being a more affordable form of entertainment compared to streaming is not a new talking point.
Are people watching TV shows and old movies thinking this is real-life, and the only way to get a girl is to take her out in an expensive car for a fancy dinner because this is what “everyone” does? That’s not reality.
Judging by some of the responses in this thread, yes it seems like younger generations of men have completely warped ideas and expectations when it comes to dating and relationships. Which I guess just further proves that this has absolutely nothing to do with “boo hoo I’m poor” and a lot more to do with having a fucked up personality. Like you, I am in a 12 year relationship and almost all of my “dates” (and I use that word in quotations because I think people have a weird misconception that a date needs to be something expensive and unique) with my partner were just walks along the beach where we talked a lot. We also went to a movie one time and ate some cheap takeaway (we both paid). That’s literally it.
so long as the social expectation is that straight dating generally requires men to spend on women over the reverse.
It’s not. In the western world this is a myth based on extremely outdated gender and family stereotypes. Some women prefer to have men pay, some prefer to pay themselves, some don’t really care. It’s not a hard rule you can use as an excuse to give up.
All it requires is that the dude not have the money to spare, regardless of how women are doing.
Even if you actually have to spend money on the date, which is not guaranteed, how much do you think you need to be spending? Why do you think dating needs to be expensive? Again, you are living by these weird rules you’ve invented that make dating seem far more difficult than it is in reality.
Couple that with the tendency for women to tend to strongly preference men who are wealthier or higher status than themselves
This is just straight up incel cope. You cannot put all women in a box like that and then wonder why you are struggling to meet anyone. Again, it is a fantasy you have invented so that you don’t have to try. Try not making massive assumptions about people you literally know nothing about and you might actually have some success.
I bring this point up because, as toxic as incel culture is, I rarely see it tied back to the shitty economy. Just people pointing fingers at each other as though the Male Loneliness phenomenon were entirely the result of people’s personalities.
Because it is. Women aren’t magically getting rich while all the men go bankrupt. Thinking you are lonely because you are poor is a cope fantasy that is 100% due to some kind of personality flaw you are harbouring.
Not sure why you’re being mass downvoted, this is objectively true. Making even slightly controversial public statements in today’s world, particularly within the entertainment industry, makes it very easy for people to publish ragebait articles and videos about you and your work. Algorithmic social media rewards anger and hate, so there is a clear financial incentive driving this. If you are a professional working in this industry you owe it to yourself and your work to not rock the boat unless you have a very good reason to do so. Not everything has to be some kind of deep cultural moment with an inspiring social message behind it.
You might enjoy some of Woo Min-ho’s films. ‘Drug King’ (2018) is a biopic about a Korean drug lord in the '70s, while ‘Inside Men’ (2016) is a political thriller focusing on corruption in modern Korean society (criminal organisations influencing politicans and the judicial system). I’d also recommend Na Hong-jin’s ‘The Yellow Sea’ (2010), which is about a Yanbian taxi driver who falls into the criminal underworld after racking up huge debts via his gambling addiction.
But many people don’t want to have everything completely public
This isn’t true at all. Most people do not care about privacy; those that do are an extreme minority. You (presumably) and I are part of that minority yet even we still comment here, in a public space. The issue with forums has never been about privacy because most are content with pseudonymity. It is a big mistake to think we need to cater to the extreme minority in the privacy space when tackling big issues that involve a majority who do not care.
Discord is far worse in this context, though. Much of reddit is still publicly visible and is still indexed by some search engines, even if it could be better. Discussions from years ago are still visible and provide useful information to many (this is part of the reason “search term + reddit” became such a popular query template). When communities move to Discord, many of their conversations become completely private to anyone who isn’t a member. The conversations move quickly and there is no easy way for people to reference past information. I get that people on Lemmy hate reddit and it’s popular to circlejerk about it, but forums being replaced by things like Discord and Telegram that aren’t equivalents at all has been much more damaging.
This would be amazing!
thicc af