jessca048:
hello good afternoon guys.

I want to seek your opinions on this issue, what do you guys think about Disney's attempt at making a gay cartoon character in frozen. owing to the fact that children are their most viewers. should it be seen as something that is normal and nothing to worry about.

Who would you think wrote these words?!

"There are television sets in every home, every restaurant, every hotel room, and every shopping mall— now they're even small enough to carry in your pocket like electronic rosaries. It is an unquestioned part of everyday life. Kneeling before the cathode-ray god, with our TV Guide concordance in hand, we maintain the illusion of choice by flipping channels".(chapters and verses). 1

The writer was the man who founded the most famous public Satanist organization in America (the Church of Satan founded in 1966), Anton LaVey. He is also the author of a number of other books including "The Satanic Bible."

In all seriousness, LaVey continues to promote the religious significance of television, saying that:

... The birth of TV was a magical event foreshadowing its satanic significance. The first commercial broadcast was aired on Walpurgisnacht, April 30th, 1939, at the New York World's Fair. Since then, TV's infiltration has been so gradual, so complete that no one even noticed. People don't need to go to church any more; they get their morality plays on television.2


LaVey compares satellite dishes and antennas to church-top crosses and notes that TV has become, in effect, the major religion of the masses, even calling the television set the Satanic family altar.

In his book entitled The Devil's Notebook, published in 1992, LaVey espouses more of his Satanist philosophy and describes in detail how he sees television as the major mainstream infiltration of the new Satanic religion. He likens the entertainers and newscasters to the clergy of the TV religion, who use their cathode-ray pulpit to spread what he calls the word. He says that the local newscasters are the parish priests who are part of what he calls a church.

Certainly when looking at television today, one wonders how we have grown to tolerate such violence, sexual innuendoes, explicit sexual scenes, evolutionary humanism, profanity, and so on.

Anton LaVey sees television as the medium through which Satanism is being promulgated more and more. What then is Satanism? There are certainly different forms, but Satanism for LaVey boils down to the worship of man. It is nothing but evolutionary humanism (man is an animal and man sets the rules) which is the underlying philosophy of most television programming. No wonder LaVey characterizes television the way he does. As we will see, evolution is foundational to his Satanism.

Burton Wolfe, a priest in the Church of Satan, in the introduction to LaVey's Satanic Bible, states:

"Satanism's growing popularity has naturally been accompanied by scare stories from religious groups complaining that the Satanic Bible now outsells the Christian Bible on college campuses and is a leading causative factor in youngsters turning away from God."3

Certainly the philosophy of Satanism is alive and growing on college campuses.

Burton Wolfe claims that LaVey maintains that "evil" is "live" spelled backward and should be indulged in." He goes on to say that Satanism is a "blatantly selfish, brutal philosophy. It is based on the belief that human beings are inherently selfish, violent creatures, that life is a Darwinian struggle for survival of the fittest, that only the strong survive and the earth will be ruled by those who fight to win the ceaseless competition that exists in all jungles—including those of urbanized society."4

Read carefully what LaVey says in his Satanic Bible and The Devil's Notebook, and think about all the young people today who are devouring this material:

Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all!5
Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?
Is not "lust and carnal desire" a more truthful term to describe "love" when applied to the continuance of the race? Is not the "love" of the fawning scriptures simply a euphemism for sexual activity, or was the "great teacher" a glorifier of eunuchs? 6
What good are friends if they can't do you any good?
The hunter must hunt. The moment he stops he becomes the hunted.
Strive, reach, and take. Then you shall not be taken.7
The above could really be summarized as "eat or be eaten"; survival of the fittest; nature red in tooth and in claw—evolutionism!

USA Today in March 1993 carried a story entitled "Kids' aggression linked to TV." The article stated, "The more television they watch, the more violent and disobedient elementary-school children become, suggests a large study.... Worse problems show up in those who see two hours or more of TV a day ... MTV is linked to disobedient and argumentative behavior. Reality-based programs are tied to aggression—from bullying others to stealing and throwing temper tantrums."

Many other studies give frightening correlations between television programs and behavior. No wonder LaVey said "We can use TV as a potent propaganda machine. The stage is set for the infusion of true satanic philosophy and potent (emotionally inspiring) music to accompany the inverted crosses and pentagrams."8

Now I am not telling everyone to destroy his or her television sets. This tool can be used very effectively for the Lord.

However, the sad fact is that most parents have not recognized how humanistic and destructive most available programs are.

They haven't recognized that their children are being indoctrinated in what is, in effect, Satanist philosophy that man has a right to do whatever he wants.

In his Satanic Bible, LaVey quotes someone else as saying:

"Times have changed. Religious leaders no longer preach that all our natural actions are sinful. We no longer think sex is dirty--or that taking pride in ourselves is shameful--or that wanting something someone else has is vicious.... If you want proof of this, just look at how liberal the churches have become. Why, they're practicing all the things that you [Satanists] preach." LaVey goes on to say, "Satanists hear these, and similar statements, all the time; and they agree wholeheartedly."

(THE LAST QUOTE IS AN EXAMPLE OF, WHEN SOMEONE CURSES ANOTHER PERSON IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF MARRY, FOR ADVOCATING ABORTION WHILE THIS SOMEONE CURSING PROPAGATES, PROMOTES, PORNOGRAPHY. LOVES IT WHOLE HEARTEDLY AND A FORNICATOR AND AN ADVOCATE OF FORNICATION. YET, FEELS SOME SENSE OF RIGHTOUSNESS, CURSING IN THE NAME OF JESUS. THAT THE KIND OF RELIGIOUS FOLKS OF TODAY'S WORLD.

"The REAL ANTI-CHRIST is he who turns the wine of an original idea into the water of MEDIOCRITY" (Eric Hoffer)

. Filling in the gap................ Did you fill, HYPOCRITES or SATANS MASQUERADING AS HUMAN BEINGS?)

@Ednut1

This was written by a certain Kenneth Ham, very well researched. (Know the Enemy, a Critique of Anto Lavey's books)

Once again, am not asking anyone to go destroy their TV and e.t.c. JUST FIND A WAY OF CURING YOURSELF OF YOUR HYPOCRISY.

Anytime the issue Homosexualism comes up, 'Heterosexuals' who are themselves FORNICATORS and ADULTERERS are quick to come to feast as if not realising it's an extension of their choice of EVIL.

EVIL BEGETS EVIL!

Transcending oneself, a parting from the 'ANIMAL' in MAN/WOMAN, in an ascending and radiating order, heights of NOBILITY becoming truely HUMANE is a great imperative of the essence of being human.

Attainable not by RHETORICS, THEORETICAL VALIDATION but PRACTICE, working within a framework of LEGITIMATE EQUILIBRIUM of ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

"Let it be clear that it is EVIL that is opposed to GOOD and not inversely". (Frithjof Schuon)

MISEDUCATIONS:
its funny how we always think people have a choice in today's world. our tastes, preferences, likes, opinions and desires are always shaped by the media consciously or unconsciously. people have an illusion of choice.
the gay population is just 2% of the total population. yet that 2% must now force its tastes on the 98%. its hillarious.
its the tyranny of the minority whose vote doesnt even count. yet the majority chose a gvt that now pushes the vision of the minority

But they aren't forcing their tastes on you. Disney can decide whether the 2% is worth catering to. If their venture becomes a box office flop, they'll realize that the story is redundant. But if it becomes a hit, hurray. It means that the 98% doesn't think it can squash a minority just because they have the numbers to do it. Live and let live.

But Africans need not worry so much; homosexual gestures of endearment on Dstv are typically censored (I think). Other cable tv companies can follow suit. If someone goes out of their way to look for gay content, trust that they need it. They want to know that they aren't alone. And it's not television that made them the way they are. That's not to say that I do not agree with the fact that tv influences culture. I made the exact point in my earlier post.

ginika638:
Who gon corrupt gon corrupt. Do you know what kids do in boarding school? Then as kids, we didn't have access to tvs like today's kids yet my school then has the high number of gays.

true . There were gays in boarding houses den. Ssnior alex nearly raped me

This is a western issue. E no concern me. It is only if Nigerian local content tries the stunt I have a say in the matter.
Since our media is not interesting enough to capture children’s attention na siddon look I dey till further notice.

MissWrite:



But they aren't forcing their tastes on you. Disney can decide whether the 2% is worth catering to. If their venture becomes a box office flop, they'll realize that the story is redundant. But if it becomes a hit, hurray. It means that the 98% doesn't think it can squash a minority just because they have the numbers to do it. Live and let live.

But Africans need not worry so much; homosexual gestures of endearment on Dstv are typically censored (I think). Other cable tv companies can follow suit. If someone goes out of their way to look for gay content, trust that they need it. They want to know that they aren't alone. And it's not television that made them the way they are. That's not to say that I do not agree with the fact that tv influences culture. I made the exact point in my earlier post.

if they arent forcing their tastes on anyone why are liberals so vocal and aggressive in getting their agenda everywhere? why are movies that resist progressive ideas like homosexuality, Transgenderism etc threatened with boycots and ruin? because movies shape global opinion and humans are creatures that follow. if enough people accept an idea the remaining ones get bullied to follow or else are called bigots etc. in short; it ends with force.

MISEDUCATIONS:
if they arent forcing their tastes on anyone why are liberals so vocal and aggressive in getting their agenda everywhere? why are movies that resist progressive ideas like homosexuality, Transgenderism etc threatened with boycots and ruin? because movies shape global opinion and humans are creatures that follow. if enough people accept an idea the remaining ones get bullied to follow or else are called bigots etc. in short; it ends with force.

Are they really? Are they threatened with boycotts and ruin? This is brand new information to me. Tell me, what story was rejected and asked to be re-written because it did not have LGBTQ material? I must report this issue to management at once! ......I was under the impression that people voluntarily added this content to reach a wider audience and to tell a more complete story of human diversity. Which Is why there's usually only one gay character for every lot of heterosexuals. Unless it's a specifically LGBTQ story. I had no idea they were under some compulsion. Travesty! Submit the names to me; I know what to do with them.

MissWrite:


Are they really? Are they threatened with boycotts and ruin? This is brand new information to me. Tell me, what story was rejected and asked to be re-written because it did not have LGBTQ material? I must report this issue to management at once! ......I was under the impression that people voluntarily added this content to reach a wider audience and to tell a more complete story of human diversity. Which Is why there's usually only one gay character for every lot of heterosexuals. Unless it's a specifically LGBTQ story. I had no idea they were under some compulsion. Travesty! Submit the names to me; I know what to do with them.

You are an Architect, it's a great privilege indeed because it's as well a mental training to see with the mind's eyes what others do not see and in not just a one point perspective but multiple points perspectives as HOLISTIC AS POSSIBLE both interior and exterior views, 'ESOTERIC and EXOTERIC'.

Don't apply this training to conceptualizing building designs alone but in the understanding of how this very 'VORTEX', our human affairs works by choice of designs.

Such application of privilege will save you from the INVISIBLE HANDS, THE MASTERS OF MANKIND who pull the GULLIBLES like marionette puppets.

Misswrite, there is this book. Called ' PROPAGANDA' it's a MASTER PIECE, written by the very 'ARCHITECT' of main stream media. It's very insightful.

Unless you have read that book, you will remain boxed in the half truth as to the Bolded in your quote.

Noam Chomsky a PROFOUND INTELLECTUAL since the 20th Century and still alive today, very much gifted with indepth understanding and discernment of the structural design behind the architecture of our 'VORTEX' by HIDDEN POWERS, had a talk at Z Media institute in June 1997. He expressed the following:

(Read carefully inorder to understand, ponder if you wish )

"The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.
So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.
This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.
His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.[/b]

—Noam Chomsky

(From Chomsky's "What Makes Mainstream Media
Mainstream": a talk at Z Media Institute, June 1997)

Chubhie, you once asked me to refer you to books that flourishes the intellect, moving our minds in closer proximity to ABSOLUTE TRUTH away from ILLUSION. Take your time to read 'PROPAGANDA' by Edward Bernays. If TRUTH is what you seek, your understanding of this book based on SINCERITY in the quest for GENUINE KNOWLEDGE will emancipate you further from the claws of THE MASTERS OF MANKIND who see us as mere malleable Clay they can knead at will.

Here is the http://www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html

A History of a Weapon: 'PROPAGANDA' By Edward Bernays.

Once again, "[b]Let it be clear that it is EVIL that is opposed to GOOD and not INVERSELY" (Frithjof Schuon, a mentor of mine in the Metaphics)

Another classic is the book by Noam Chomsky himself titled: MANUFACTURING CONTENT.

MissWrite:


Are they really? Are they threatened with boycotts and ruin? This is brand new information to me. Tell me, what story was rejected and asked to be re-written because it did not have LGBTQ material? I must report this issue to management at once! ......I was under the impression that people voluntarily added this content to reach a wider audience and to tell a more complete story of human diversity. Which Is why there's usually only one gay character for every lot of heterosexuals. Unless it's a specifically LGBTQ story. I had no idea they were under some compulsion. Travesty! Submit the names to me; I know what to do with them.

you have a lot to learn.

go and research why the movie MOONLIGHT swept all awards last year.

WORDWORLD:


You are an Architect, it's a great privilege indeed because it's as well a mental training to see with the mind's eyes what others do not see and in not just a one point perspective but multiple points perspectives as HOLISTIC AS POSSIBLE both interior and exterior views, 'ESOTERIC and EXOTERIC'.

Don't apply this training to conceptualizing building designs alone but in the understanding of how this very 'VORTEX', our human affairs works by choice of designs.

Such application of privilege will save you from the INVISIBLE HANDS, THE MASTERS OF MANKIND who pull the GULLIBLES like marionette puppets.

Misswrite, there is this book. Called ' PROPAGANDA' it's a MASTER PIECE, written by the very 'ARCHITECT' of main stream media. It's very insightful.

Unless you have read that book, you will remain boxed in the half truth as to the Bolded in your quote.

Noam Chomsky a PROFOUND INTELLECTUAL since the 20th Century and still alive today, very much gifted with indepth understanding and discernment of the structural design behind the architecture of our 'VORTEX' by HIDDEN POWERS, had a talk at Z Media institute in June 1997. He expressed the following:

(Read carefully inorder to understand, ponder if you wish )

"The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.
So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.
This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.
His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.[/b]

—Noam Chomsky

(From Chomsky's "What Makes Mainstream Media
Mainstream": a talk at Z Media Institute, June 1997)

Chubhie, you once asked men to refer you to books that flourishes the intellect, moving our minds in closer proximity to ABSOLUTE TRUTH away from ILLUSION. Take your time to read 'PROPAGANDA' by Edward Bernays. If TRUTH is what you seek, your understanding of this book based on SINCERITY in the quest for GENUINE KNOWLEDGE will emancipate you further from the claws of THE MASTERS OF MANKIND who see us as mere malleable Clay they can knead at will.

Here is the http://www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html

A History of a Weapon: 'PROPAGANDA' By Edward Bernays.

Once again, "[b]Let it be clear that it is EVIL that is opposed to GOOD and not INVERSELY" (Frithjof Schuon, a mentor of mine in the Metaphics)

Another classic is the book by Noam Chomsky himself titled: MANUFACTURING CONTENT.

Prof, Would make out time and read it.

WORDWORLD:


You are an Architect, it's a great privilege indeed because it's as well a mental training to see with the mind's eyes what others do not see and in not just a one point perspective but multiple points perspectives as HOLISTIC AS POSSIBLE both interior and exterior views, 'ESOTERIC and EXOTERIC'.

Don't apply this training to conceptualizing building designs alone but in the understanding of how this very 'VORTEX', our human affairs works by choice of designs.

Such application of privilege will save you from the INVISIBLE HANDS, THE MASTERS OF MANKIND who pull the GULLIBLES like marionette puppets.

Misswrite, there is this book. Called ' PROPAGANDA' it's a MASTER PIECE, written by the very 'ARCHITECT' of main stream media. It's very insightful.

Unless you have read that book, you will remain boxed in the half truth as to the Bolded in your quote.

Noam Chomsky a PROFOUND INTELLECTUAL since the 20th Century and still alive today, very much gifted with indepth understanding and discernment of the structural design behind the architecture of our 'VORTEX' by HIDDEN POWERS, had a talk at Z Media institute in June 1997. He expressed the following:

(Read carefully inorder to understand, ponder if you wish )

"The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.
So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.
This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.
His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.[/b]

—Noam Chomsky

(From Chomsky's "What Makes Mainstream Media
Mainstream": a talk at Z Media Institute, June 1997)

Chubhie, you once asked men to refer you to books that flourishes the intellect, moving our minds in closer proximity to ABSOLUTE TRUTH away from ILLUSION. Take your time to read 'PROPAGANDA' by Edward Bernays. If TRUTH is what you seek, your understanding of this book based on SINCERITY in the quest for GENUINE KNOWLEDGE will emancipate you further from the claws of THE MASTERS OF MANKIND who see us as mere malleable Clay they can knead at will.

Here is the http://www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html

A History of a Weapon: 'PROPAGANDA' By Edward Bernays.

Once again, "[b]Let it be clear that it is EVIL that is opposed to GOOD and not INVERSELY" (Frithjof Schuon, a mentor of mine in the Metaphics)

Another classic is the book by Noam Chomsky himself titled: MANUFACTURING CONTENT.

you guys can write for Africa

MISEDUCATIONS:
you have a lot to learn.

go and research why the movie MOONLIGHT swept all awards last year.

....


We all have a lot to learn. You did not give me that list of stories rejected for lack of LGBTQ content.

I liked Moonlight a lot. It made me very emotional; and I cannot fault the fact that it won three oscars. But I think it's very disingenuous of you to find the fact that the LGBTQ story won 3 oscars when La La Land won 6 that year. I would say it was La La land that swept up the awards last year and not Moonlight. Why did La La Land sweep up the awards? Is there a potential conspiracy theory here?

WORDWORLD:


You are an Architect, it's a great privilege indeed because it's as well a mental training to see with the mind's eyes what others do not see and in not just a one point perspective but multiple points perspectives as HOLISTIC AS POSSIBLE both interior and exterior views, 'ESOTERIC and EXOTERIC'.

Don't apply this training to conceptualizing building designs alone but in the understanding of how this very 'VORTEX', our human affairs works by choice of designs.

Such application of privilege will save you from the INVISIBLE HANDS, THE MASTERS OF MANKIND who pull the GULLIBLES like marionette puppets.

Misswrite, there is this book. Called ' PROPAGANDA' it's a MASTER PIECE, written by the very 'ARCHITECT' of main stream media. It's very insightful.

Unless you have read that book, you will remain boxed in the half truth as to the Bolded in your quote.

Noam Chomsky a PROFOUND INTELLECTUAL since the 20th Century and still alive today, very much gifted with indepth understanding and discernment of the structural design behind the architecture of our 'VORTEX' by HIDDEN POWERS, had a talk at Z Media institute in June 1997. He expressed the following:

(Read carefully inorder to understand, ponder if you wish )

"The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.
So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.
This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.
His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.[/b]

—Noam Chomsky

(From Chomsky's "What Makes Mainstream Media
Mainstream": a talk at Z Media Institute, June 1997)

Chubhie, you once asked men to refer you to books that flourishes the intellect, moving our minds in closer proximity to ABSOLUTE TRUTH away from ILLUSION. Take your time to read 'PROPAGANDA' by Edward Bernays. If TRUTH is what you seek, your understanding of this book based on SINCERITY in the quest for GENUINE KNOWLEDGE will emancipate you further from the claws of THE MASTERS OF MANKIND who see us as mere malleable Clay they can knead at will.

Here is the http://www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html

A History of a Weapon: 'PROPAGANDA' By Edward Bernays.

Once again, "[b]Let it be clear that it is EVIL that is opposed to GOOD and not INVERSELY" (Frithjof Schuon, a mentor of mine in the Metaphics)

Another classic is the book by Noam Chomsky himself titled: MANUFACTURING CONTENT.

Thank you for the many words. I need to sit down for this.

MissWrite:




Thank you for the many words. I need to sit down for this.

Courtesy of 'WORDWORLD'. Cheers!

MISEDUCATIONS:
in that spirit then lets make porn happen in disney movies and no one should complain coz hey, "No one is forced to watch!"

Gay people are not faking it! If you know nothing about something please do some research. This is exactly how your fore fathers killed twins while thinking they were cursed.

If it's that way, then they should blacklist everything religious from their media too because not everyone is religious.

That's how I downloaded sausage party so my kid bro will watch out of boredom U devised to see it first (we normally watch movies together) and boom!!! My eyes almost popped out ... I deleted it permanently

MISEDUCATIONS:
if they arent forcing their tastes on anyone why are liberals so vocal and aggressive in getting their agenda everywhere? why are movies that resist progressive ideas like homosexuality, Transgenderism etc threatened with boycots and ruin? because movies shape global opinion and humans are creatures that follow. if enough people accept an idea the remaining ones get bullied to follow or else are called bigots etc. in short; it ends with force.

Yes, even I will boycott such piece of show of inhumanity.

The other day a kid was bullied to the extent that he committed suicide, why? He told his classmates that he was gay.

What about we bully all the Christians? What about we put a bullet in the skull of anyone who claims to be a Christian? What about such density of hate and discrimination filling earth?

You guys always term those you don't agree with as the evil ones and hand them over to your fairy tale Satan. If it were like that, there would always be war between all the religions because you guys never see eye to eye. You see the other as the infidel.

Yes, people have to accept the idea because it's more real than a fairy tale of a sugar daddy in heaven. Gay people are not faking it. There are humans who are really gay. Accepting the idea is accepting reality because this is not a fairy tale.

If we are cool with people ramming fairy tales down our throat calling it the truth, then you MUST be educated to tolerate those who are gay, trans, etc. You and every kid MUST fūcking be taught to tolerate people because that is the only thing that has sustained humanity. That is the main truth, TOLERANCE!

PS: I am more straight than any fūcking human on this forum, but I know the key to humanity: TOLERANCE!

Dasherz:
That's how I downloaded sausage party so my kid bro will watch out of boredom U devised to see it first (we normally watch movies together) and boom!!! My eyes almost popped out ... I deleted it permanently

WORDWORLD:


Courtesy of 'WORDWORLD'. Cheers!

Thanks for sharing; that was a good read. And I agree wholeheartedly: propaganda is a very potent tool in shaping culture. Truth be told, you cannot escape propaganda. It starts with what you're being told as a child by your parents at home. Religion and the multimedia are agents of propaganda that influence us soon afterwards. It is sociocultural conditioning. It stands to reason then that our current culture is a product of propaganda as well(as used in the text: information). And our current culture is heteronormative because these were the stories that were propagated and popularized for ages. They are the stories that have shaped our thinking and expectations.

If heteronormativity is a product of propaganda (as every homogenous culture must be a product of external conditioning) how does it then have such irrefutable merit? And why must we now stop the propaganda from allowing diversity when it is that same propaganda that excluded these naturally occurring tendencies in the first place?

There are two variables to be considered here: biology and sociology; interior and exterior. The interior is the construct of the individual, and the exterior is the social construct. The individual would find fulfilment in expressing their biology (interior) but social conditioning may put them at variance with that if their preferences are prohibited. Imagine creating an artificial environment where, via propaganda, homosexuality were touted as the only acceptable form of being. A heterosexual person would ultimately feel caged because the exterior cannot change the interior. Social conditioning cannot change biology. It can only force a person to suppress their biology at the expense of their happiness. Since you already started with the Architecture metaphors, there is a popular phrase that comes to mind right now: Form follows function; instead of function follows form. Designing spaces from inside out allows a building spread out organically. Naturally. Truthfully. Working from the outside in, is a sculptural approach that is concerned with political correctness and keeping up appearances at the expense of functional fluidity; often creating awkward spaces that greatly compromise use. By that, I mean that biology must be considered when we chose to apply propaganda to condition our environment.

What Disney want to do is to be more inclusive, so that everyone feels accepted. They are not imposing the gay culture on heterosexuals because they would still cater to a heterosexual audience by telling their numerous sappy love stories featuring princes and a princesses (or some modern derivative). They already deviated from the predominantly white characters to include Arabian and Chinese characters (in Jasmine from Aladdin and Mulan) and they are also contemplating featuring an African princess after the success of Marvel's Black Panther. Does that mean that white people should suddenly feel threatened by some crazy notion that black people want to impose their culture on the world? I think that's just silly. It's all in the interest of diversity and finding new niches that can rake in substantial profits. If anyone seems to be imposing on the other, it is heterosexuals who expect gays to conform to their lifestyle and not the other way round. Gay people only want to be allowed to be themselves. They don't want stories to preclude heterosexuality, they only want stories to stop excluding gays. Why does this matter? Stories give us something to look up to. They make us hopeful. And everyone deserves to see a world of possibilities.

It is expected that there would be more gay people once there is more acceptance in society. But that is only because they would feel safe to come out of hiding.

MissWrite:



Thanks for sharing; that was a good read. And I agree wholeheartedly: propaganda is a very potent tool in shaping culture. Truth be told, you cannot escape propaganda. It starts with what you're being told as a child by your parents at home. Religion and the multimedia are agents of propaganda that influence us soon afterwards. It is sociocultural conditioning. It stands to reason then that our current culture is a product of propaganda as well(as used in the text: information). And our current culture is heteronormative because these were the stories that were propagated and popularized for ages. They are the stories that have shaped our thinking and expectations.

If heteronormativity is a product of propaganda (as every homogenous culture must be a product of external conditioning) how does it then have such irrefutable merit? And why must we now stop the propaganda from allowing diversity when it is that same propaganda that excluded these naturally occurring tendencies in the first place?

There are two variables to be considered here: biology and sociology; interior and exterior. The interior is the construct of the individual, and the exterior is the social construct. The individual would find fulfilment in expressing their biology (interior) but social conditioning may put them at variance with that if their preferences are prohibited. Imagine creating an artificial environment where, via propaganda, homosexuality were touted as the only acceptable form of being. A heterosexual person would ultimately feel caged because the exterior cannot change the interior. Social conditioning cannot change biology. It can only force a person to suppress their biology at the expense of their happiness. Since you already started with the Architecture metaphors, there is a popular phrase that comes to mind right now: Form follows function; instead of function follows form. Designing spaces from inside out allows a building spread out organically. Naturally. Working from the outside in, is a sculptural approach that is concerned with political correctness and keeping up appearances at the expense of functional fluidity; often creating awkward spaces that greatly compromise use. By that, I mean that biology must be considered when we chose to apply propaganda to condition our environment.

What Disney want to do is to be more inclusive, so that everyone feels accepted. They are not imposing the gay culture on heterosexuals because they would still cater to a heterosexual audience by telling their numerous sappy love stories featuring a prince and a princess (or some modern derivative). They already deviated from the predominantly white characters to include Arabian and Chinese characters (in Jasmine from Aladdin and Mulan) and they are also contemplating featuring an African princess after the success of Marvel's Black Panther. Does that mean that white people should suddenly feel threatened by some crazy notion that black people want to impose their culture on the world? I think that's just silly. It's all in the interest of diversity and finding new niches that can rake in substantial profits. If anyone seems to be imposing on the other, it is heterosexuals who expect gays to conform to their lifestyle and not the other way round. Gay people only want to be allowed to be themselves. They don't want stories to preclude heterosexuality, they only want stories to stop excluding gays. Why does this matter? Stories give us something to look up to. They make us hopeful. And everyone deserves to see a world of possibilities.

It is expected that there would be more gay people once there is more acceptance in society. But that is only because they would feel safe to come out of hiding.

Hmmmmmmm....an interesting response which I hope that as long as we maintain the principle of MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING, our discussion will serve as an EDUCATION and ENLIGHTENMENT making us to see the REAL IMAGE a result of exploration, in search of the ABSOLUTE and not CARICATURE, a result of Conditioning of our minds.



Will get back to you. I love this!

MissWrite:



....


We all have a lot to learn. You did not give me that list of stories rejected for lack of LGBTQ content.

I liked Moonlight a lot. It made me very emotional; and I cannot fault the fact that it won three oscars. But I think it's very disingenuous of you to find the fact that the LGBTQ story won 3 oscars when La La Land won 6 that year. I would say it was La La land that swept up the awards last year and not Moonlight. Why did La La Land sweep up the awards? Is there a potential conspiracy theory here?

go and read about The Sesame Street controversy. how they reaisted the calls to include gay characters. thats just one of dozens.

MISEDUCATIONS:

go and read about The Sesame Street controversy. how they reaisted the calls to include gay characters. thats just one of dozens.

You're kidding me, right? You mean Sesame Street was urged to include gay characters and it was resisted? When did this happen? And why isn't it listed as at least one of the dozen controversies in several articles specifically about 'Sesame Street controversies'? Or was it that gays wanted inclusion of gays and heterosexuals shut it down while Sesame Street was only an innocent bystander waiting for the skirmish to end?

First: Was Sesame Street ever boycotted or did it ever come to ruin (at any point in time) over the refusal to reflect gay characters? No.

Now: it was, in fact, heterosexuals who demanded the exclusion of two very fundamental characters of the show - Ernie and Bert, who were publicly perceived as a gay couple because they lived together and were really close like that. The homophobic public ran campaigns in 1993 for those characters to be banned from the show for their homosexuality (these are two characters that have been a part of the show since the pilot episode in 1969) , and the producers had no choice but to publicly state that Ernie and Bert were just good friends. So, who really is the bully here?

MissWrite:


You're kidding me, right? You mean Sesame Street was urged to include gay characters and it was resisted? When did this happen? And why isn't it listed as at least one of the dozen controversies in several articles specifically about 'Sesame Street controversies'? Or was it that gays wanted inclusion of gays and heterosexuals shut it down while Sesame Street was only an innocent bystander waiting for the skirmish to end?

First: Was Sesame Street ever boycotted or did it ever come to ruin (at any point in time) over the refusal to reflect gay characters? No.

Now: it was, in fact, heterosexuals who demanded the exclusion of two very fundamental characters of the show - Ernie and Bert, who were publicly perceived as a gay couple because they lived together and were really close like that. The homophobic public ran campaigns in 1993 for those characters to be banned from the show for their homosexuality (these are two characters that have been a part of the show since the pilot episode in 1969) , and the producers had no choice but to publicly state that Ernie and Bert were just good friends. So, who really is the bully here?

take this search phrase to google and read:

‘Sesame Street’ Responds To Call For Bert & Ernie To Wed

obaataaokpaewu:
Lincoln Loud's best friend that has 2 father's ( black and white)

Them McBride family

MISEDUCATIONS:

take this search phrase to google and read:

‘Sesame Street’ Responds To Call For Bert & Ernie To Wed

This is it below. A civil response to an appeal, without repercussions; Sesame Street did not get boycotted or come to ruin over this. It did not even stir enough dust to make it into the list of Sesame Street controversies.

The gay community did not pressure Sesame Street to include gay characters, Bert and Ernie were always a part of the show. Because of the public perception that these characters were homosexuals, the gay community asked Sesame Street to corroborate that perception with a wedding between the two. Because 2011 is a long way from 1993 where LGBTQ rights and representation in the media are concerned; and they felt that Sesame Street might be ready to give Ernie and Bert that narrative. But Sesame Street had already stated in 1993, that these were just good friends. A wedding would indicate that 'good friends' like Ernie and Bert are simply closeted gays. Sesame Street did not spurn the gay community for the request, this response below (emphasizing that Ernie and Bert aren't even human, and are devoid of any sexual orientation) suggests that they do not wish to get sucked into taking sides with homosexuals and heterosexuals.

MissWrite:



This is it below. A civil response to an appeal, without repercussions; Sesame Street did not get boycotted or come to ruin over this. It did not even stir enough dust to make it into the list of Sesame Street controversies.
i
The gay community did not pressure Sesame Street to include gay characters , Bert and Ernie were always a part of the show. Because of the public perception that these characters were homosexuals, the gay community asked Sesame Street to corroborate that perception with a wedding between the two. Because 2011 is a long way from 1993 where LGBTQ rights and representation in the media are concerned; and they felt that Sesame Street might be ready to give Ernie and Bert that narrative. But Sesame Street had already stated in 1993, that these were just good friends. A wedding would indicate that 'good friends' like Ernie and Bert are simply closeted gays. Sesame Street did not spurn the gay community for the request, this response below (emphasizing that Ernie and Bert aren't even human, and are devoid of any sexual orientation) suggests that they do not wish to get sucked into taking sides with homosexuals and heterosexuals.

pertitions are a form of force and only a naive person would call a pertition "the gay community asked".

the Sesame Street controversy must show you how c artoons are used to push an agenda.
you should see why it matters that Disney has a gay storyline coming out now.
these stories influence kids. now go google this phrase:
"9 year old boy commits suicide over his sexual orientation."

then tell me: at 9 yourself were you even thinking of sex? let alone your sexual orientation.
cases like this will only increase. and any parent who thinks otherwise to the sexualization of kids will be called bigoted.its a form of force

MissWrite:



Thanks for sharing; that was a good read. And I agree wholeheartedly: propaganda is a very potent tool in shaping culture. Truth be told, you cannot escape propaganda. It starts with what you're being told as a child by your parents at home. Religion and the multimedia are agents of propaganda that influence us soon afterwards. It is sociocultural conditioning. It stands to reason then that our current culture is a product of propaganda as well(as used in the text: information). And our current culture is heteronormative because these were the stories that were propagated and popularized for ages. They are the stories that have shaped our thinking and expectations.

If heteronormativity is a product of propaganda (as every homogenous culture must be a product of external conditioning) how does it then have such irrefutable merit? And why must we now stop the propaganda from allowing diversity when it is that same propaganda that excluded these naturally occurring tendencies in the first place?

There are two variables to be considered here: biology and sociology; interior and exterior. The interior is the construct of the individual, and the exterior is the social construct. The individual would find fulfilment in expressing their biology (interior) but social conditioning may put them at variance with that if their preferences are prohibited. Imagine creating an artificial environment where, via propaganda, homosexuality were touted as the only acceptable form of being. A heterosexual person would ultimately feel caged because the exterior cannot change the interior. Social conditioning cannot change biology. It can only force a person to suppress their biology at the expense of their happiness. Since you already started with the Architecture metaphors, there is a popular phrase that comes to mind right now: Form follows function; instead of function follows form. Designing spaces from inside out allows a building spread out organically. Naturally. Truthfully. Working from the outside in, is a sculptural approach that is concerned with political correctness and keeping up appearances at the expense of functional fluidity; often creating awkward spaces that greatly compromise use. By that, I mean that biology must be considered when we chose to apply propaganda to condition our environment.

What Disney want to do is to be more inclusive, so that everyone feels accepted. They are not imposing the gay culture on heterosexuals because they would still cater to a heterosexual audience by telling their numerous sappy love stories featuring princes and a princesses (or some modern derivative). They already deviated from the predominantly white characters to include Arabian and Chinese characters (in Jasmine from Aladdin and Mulan) and they are also contemplating featuring an African princess after the success of Marvel's Black Panther. Does that mean that white people should suddenly feel threatened by some crazy notion that black people want to impose their culture on the world? I think that's just silly. It's all in the interest of diversity and finding new niches that can rake in substantial profits. If anyone seems to be imposing on the other, it is heterosexuals who expect gays to conform to their lifestyle and not the other way round. Gay people only want to be allowed to be themselves. They don't want stories to preclude heterosexuality, they only want stories to stop excluding gays. Why does this matter? Stories give us something to look up to. They make us hopeful. And everyone deserves to see a world of possibilities.

It is expected that there would be more gay people once there is more acceptance in society. But that is only because they would feel safe to come out of hiding.

you are so naive.
here is a Hollywood afticle on the issue :

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/finding-dory-frozen-lgbt-characters-898354

#GiveElsaAGirlfriend to 'Finding Dory': The Online Push for LGBT Characters in Animated Movies
3:43 PM PDT 6/2/2016 by Mia Galuppo
"It's going to get harder and harder to ignore this drumbeat," says GLAAD's Sarah Kate Ellis about the recent Internet-backed call for LGBT representation in animated films.
In the new trailer for Pixar's Finding Dory , there is a brief five-second scene of two women being shocked by a pacifier-sucking octopus that has taken up residence in a stroller once occupied by (presumably) their toddler.
After the trailer debuted, the internet paid no mind to the aquatic invertebrate with an oral fixation, but instead turned its spotlight on the two women. Many took to Twitter and other social media platforms to call them the first same-sex couple seen in a children's animated film, with multiple news outlets reporting on their would-be groundbreaking appearance.
While Disney did not respond to The Hollywood Reporter's request for comment about whether the women in the trailer are, in fact, a couple, the Finding Dory incident comes on the heels of a social media campaign that called for Walt Disney Animation to make one of its most popular princesses in recent memory LGBT.
In May, there was a social media push for Elsa, of Frozen fame, to become Disney's first lesbian princess. The hashtag #GiveElsaAGirlfriend started to trend, with people calling for the sequel to the massively popular Disney feature to include the studio's first prominent LGBT relationship. Frozen 2 will see the return of directors Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck but does not yet have a release date.
"I think we have reached a point of 'enough is enough,'" GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis told THR.
GLAAD declined to comment on the possible LGBT representation in Finding Dory , since its members had not yet seen the film in its entirety, but Ellis did talk about the importance of having LGBT representation in kid's animated features. She said: "These portrayals help real LGBT youth to recognize that they aren't alone and validate their identity."
Other animation studios have already featured LGBT characters in small ways.
2012's ParaNorman featured the first openly gay character in an mainstream animated film. The final scenes of the zombie thriller from Portland-based Laika — the stop-motion company also responsible for Box Trolls and the upcoming Kubo and the Two Strings — saw the jock character Mitch, voiced by Casey Affleck, talking about his boyfriend.
And ahead of its 2014 release, DreamWorks Animation's How To Train Your Dragon 2 made headlines when director Dean DeBlois confirmed that one of the dragon-loving Vikings would come out as gay. After witnessing a marital spat between two other Vikings, Gobber the Belch mutters, “This is why I never married. This and one other reason." The line was ad-libbed by actor Craig Ferguson.
When asked whether Disney could be apprehensive about including LGBT characters in its animated features, Ellis offers: "When you look at the global market, so many of the big studios look to the international box office and there are a number of LGBT issues abroad, so they want to be careful not to be cut out of countries." She adds: "You have a two-year [movie] pipeline and you have a lot of money on the line and then you have one weekend to make up that money."
Three of the top 20 highest-grossing films at the worldwide box office are animated features. Universal's Minions and Pixar's
Toy Story 3 both boast grosses above $1 billion, with Frozen is the ninth highest grossing film of all time, with a global box office of $1.27 billion.
"Films are so important because, not only do they reach small towns in America, but they do reach globally and what comes out of Hollywood is our biggest cultural export," explains Ellis. "We have been pushing them for years at GLAAD but now social media and the community is pushing them on it. It's going to get harder and harder to ignore this drumbeat."

MissWrite:


Are they really? Are they threatened with boycotts and ruin? This is brand new information to me. Tell me, what story was rejected and asked to be re-written because it did not have LGBTQ material? I must report this issue to management at once! ......I was under the impression that people voluntarily added this content to reach a wider audience and to tell a more complete story of human diversity. Which Is why there's usually only one gay character for every lot of heterosexuals. Unless it's a specifically LGBTQ story. I had no idea they were under some compulsion. Travesty! Submit the names to me; I know what to do with them.

look how gays wanted Captain America to be gay:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/05/captain-america-civil-war-steve-rogers-sharon-carter-bucky-barnes?mbid=social_twitter

Is This the One Flaw in the Otherwise Great Captain America: Civil War?
by JOANNA ROBINSON
MAY 8, 2016 8:50 PM
003  
his post contains spoilers for Captain America: Civil War . If you haven’t seen the film yet or don’t want to be spoiled on anything, now is that time to go. Spoilers ahoy after one more firm warning from Cap.
If you’re not deep into internet culture, you may be unaware of the intensely devoted section of the Captain America fan base who consider Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), not Peggy Carter ( Haley Atwell ), to be the true object of Steve Rogers’ (Chris Evans ) affection. Oh but they’re out there. Just search Bucky/Steve and you’ll see what I mean. But make sure you have the safe search mode switched on first.
When Captain America: Civil War directors Joe and
Anthony Russo went on a publicity tour for the latest installment in Marvel’s
Avengers franchise, they were very careful not to throw cold water on the popular fan theory that Steve “Captian America” Rogers and Bucky “The Winter Soldier” Barnes were more than friends. “People can interpret the relationship however they want to interpret it,” Joe Russo said while visiting China. “People have interpreted that relationship all kinds of ways, and it’s great to see people argue about it what that relationship means to them. We will never define it as filmmakers, explicitly, but however people want to interpret it they can interpret it.”
Even Evans and Stan seemed happy to throw fuel on the Bucky/Steve theories during the publicity tour.
This tweet has been removed.
But despite what Joe Russo said, doesn’t Captain America: Civil War go out of its way to “define” Bucky and Steve’s relationship when Cap smooches Sharon Carter (Emily VanCamp ) while Bucky looks on approvingly? Where’s the room for interpretation in that moment? And, leaving aside the vague creepiness of Steve making a move on Peggy’s (very willing) niece, the moment itself wasn’t necessary to the flow of the movie at all.
As was the case in Captain America: Winter Soldier , VanCamp is a hugely appealing (if slightly underused) member of the cast. The film even gave her one of Captain’s most iconic comic book speeches when Sharon and Steve are mulling over how to move forward in the shadow of Peggy’s death. It’s a great moment for her and for the story. And while I think Agent Peggy Carter would have encouraged Agent
Sharon Carter to join in the big fight on the tarmac, in general Sharon’s insider access to the government served the story very well.
But did they have to throw in that kiss? Romance has never been hugely successful in the world of
The Avengers. With the exception of the bittersweet distance between Cap and Peggy and the very useful friction between Tony and Pepper in Iron Man 3 and Civil War , the Avengers love stories have fallen rather flat. Jane and Thor were so spark-less that Natalie Portman’s absence in Thor 3 is neither surprising nor all that damaging to the franchise. The brewing love story between Vision and Scarlet Witch (yeah, it’s in the comics ) is frankly rather creepy given the relative ages of Paul Bettany and
Elizabeth Olson . And Black Widow’s half-hearted love affair with the Hulk was one of the many things that didn’t work in Avengers: Age of Ultron.
In fact, Scarlett Johansson’s hugely popular character is the most fun when she nowhere near romance but, rather, palling around with Hawkeye and Steve. Perhaps it’s Joss Whedon’s influence on Phase 2 of Marvel’s superhero universe, but these characters seem destined to not be happy in a relationship unless, like Hawkeye, they take their love stories completely off the grid.
But Marvel seems to think it
has to have its heroes in heterosexual love affairs in order to maximize audience appeal. But with the franchise slowly making room for women to be more than girlfriends and sidekicks (seriously, Sharon should have been on that tarmac), a love story just for the sake of some kisses and yearning seems out of place in these spirited adventures. Sure, the Sharon and Steve connection served a narrative purpose. It showed that Cap was finally willing to close the door on Peggy. Something he could never do while his Agent Carter was alive. But, honestly, there was more juice in Bucky ogling Steve’s bulging bicep as Cap struggled to ground a helicopter using only gumption and sinew.
So while Marvel was likely never going to make the homoerotic subtext of Cap and Bucky into text, would it really have hurt to keep their relationship more ambiguous? As if to put the nail in the coffin of speculation, Bucky and Cap paused for a moment in the middle of snowy Siberia to reminisce about their days chasing skirts in pre-War Brooklyn. It’s a sweet, human bonding moment but one that also bristles with heterosexual virility. If Disney isn’t inclined to give audiences a gay superhero, couldn’t they have at least left us the dream of Bucky and Cap?

MissWrite:


Are they really? Are they threatened with boycotts and ruin? This is brand new information to me. Tell me, what story was rejected and asked to be re-written because it did not have LGBTQ material? I must report this issue to management at once! ......I was under the impression that people voluntarily added this content to reach a wider audience and to tell a more complete story of human diversity. Which Is why there's usually only one gay character for every lot of heterosexuals. Unless it's a specifically LGBTQ story. I had no idea they were under some compulsion. Travesty! Submit the names to me; I know what to do with them.

and here they now want James Bond to be gay:

https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/06/25/ian-mckellen-is-all-for-a-gay-james-bond_a_22980653/

MISEDUCATIONS:

and here they now want James Bond to be gay:

https://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/06/25/ian-mckellen-is-all-for-a-gay-james-bond_a_22980653/

All of the posts you put up have not in the least way shown how anyone is being threatened with boycott and ruin for not reflecting homosexual content.

Homosexuals are fighting for visibility in the media, as they should be. As I stated earlier, the story telling has been skewed in the past and the content ought to be more inclusive. But the decision lies with the producers of the shows to make tweaks wherever they deem fitting. James Bond is a bona fide womanizer; it is fundamental to the character and a gay bond wont play well. There could be a new similar franchise with a gay lead though.

MISEDUCATIONS:
pertitions are a form of force and only a naive person would call a pertition "the gay community asked".

the Sesame Street controversy must show you how c artoons are used to push an agenda.
you should see why it matters that Disney has a gay storyline coming out now.
these stories influence kids. now go google this phrase:
"9 year old boy commits suicide over his sexual orientation."

then tell me: at 9 yourself were you even thinking of sex? let alone your sexual orientation.
cases like this will only increase. and any parent who thinks otherwise to the sexualization of kids will be called bigoted.its a form of force

Smh.......All I see here is insensitivity and wilful ignorance.

MissWrite:




All of the posts you put up have not in the least way shown how anyone is being threatened with boycott and ruin for not reflecting homosexual content.

Homosexuals are fighting for visibility in the media, as they should be. As I stated earlier, the story telling has been skewed in the past and the content ought to be more inclusive. But the decision lies with the producers of the shows to make tweaks wherever they deem fitting. James Bond is a bona fide womanizer; it is fundamental to the character and a gay bond wont play well. There could be a new similar franchise with a gay lead though.

but gays still want a gay bond regardless of profitability. they are pushing an agenda not a story that will play well. you need to educate yourself on agendas.

Gays want to force their lifestyle through movies while you naively shout "Hollywood is trying to be inclusive". you are an atheist and you see nothing wrong with homosexuality but the rest of us do.

that Sesame Street pertition you glossed over is an example of movies given negative attention because of gay issues. if you cant acknowledge that simple one how will you acknowledge others i will give you.

MissWrite:



Smh.......All I see here is insensitivity and wilful ignorance.

now i must be sensitive to a 9 yr old kid who thinks he is gay? the world is going to shìt while atheists like you type long essays that say nothing.

ignorance of what?
do you even know how pertitions work? or what a pertition is?