· 178 comments · Save ·
For Sale Apr 23, 2026 at 4:41 PM

FCC targets LGBTQ+ television content. GLAAD sounds alarm

Posted by Fickle-Ad5449


Trump’s FCC targets LGBTQ+ television content. GLAAD sounds alarm
Advocate.com
Trump’s FCC targets LGBTQ+ television content. GLAAD sounds alarm
The agency, led by Brendan Carr, is reconsidering TV ratings for “gender identity themes,” prompting warnings about free speech and cultural control.

🚩 Report this post

178 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
apple_kicks 2 days ago +293
Even if they don’t succeed or if bans would be challenged. If FCC is adding more pressure you can bet studios won't green light lgbt characters and stories in case anything succeeds in future. Ti avoid losing money. Read in one article this is already happening for shows by Black showrunners is being toned down or pulled if it mentions racism. Disney already pulled some trans characters in its shows due to pressure groups. Its not as if lgbt content is that strong now. some big movies sometimes present lgbt stories in a way where it can cut for countries with strict laws. Birds of prey was one where it was a easily cut voice over during an animated sequence. So its never big plot point but kinda thrown way or has no depth
293
SeatKindly 2 days ago +133
You should read Rebecca Sugar’s comments from when she did the “gay” wedding in Steven Universe and how absolutely pissed CN’s executive team were about that.
133
thundercat2000ca 2 days ago +62
It wasn't the executives that were mad. It was the affiliate stations in places like Russia that threatened to pull Cartoon Network entirely.
62
SeatKindly 2 days ago +5
Yes, why do you think they explicitly and repeatedly told her to tone down the affection between Ruby and Sapphire? They explicitly told her no to the wedding when they saw the storyboards for that reason. She pushed it anyhow much to their ire. The only reason the show wasn’t effectively canceled then and there was because that episode was one of their single most viewed premieres to date. Rebecca still got grilled over it.
5
pk2317 1 day ago +15
No, they let her make the choice. > Sugar spent a long time pushing for the wedding episode and other instances of queer representation on the show. She was in her late 20s when Cartoon Network gave her the green light — but not before explaining the stakes to her. > “They brought me in for a meeting, and they essentially said, ‘We know that you’re doing this, and we know that if we were to tell you to stop, that would be based in bigotry.’” Sugar was then cautioned that the show could be censored internationally if she continued down the path she was on. “Ultimately they told me in this meeting that it would be my decision if I were going to tell the truth about what I was doing, which in hindsight was a really bold move for Cartoon Network to make, to actually give the decision to speak about this to the queer content creator generating this material.” > “Steven Universe” ended up being pulled in multiple territories, but the show survived. Sorcher credits it with helping evolve Cartoon Network, where 52% of studio production staff is now female. “That’s the wake of ‘Steven Universe,’” says Sorcher, who notes also that the company’s artist population is now far younger than ever. [Source](https://variety.com/2020/tv/features/rebecca-sugar-cartoon-network-steven-universe-1203537231/) > Every time we would cover this ground, it would be a conversation. I think part of the challenge is that this show was an international show. We would be getting notes not just from the US but also from Europe, from around the world about what we could and couldn't show, and they would be different notes from different countries. And I felt really determined to make this as acceptable as possible because I didn't want this show to be censored in countries where I felt children would really need to see this—and it has been now [censored] in several countries. But I feel that, hopefully, they'll still be able to find it. > There was a point at which it was brought to my attention that the studio… I was brought up to a meeting where they [the studio] said, "We know that you're doing this, and we support that you're doing this… We don't want to be giving notes on this, but we have to give notes on this" and it was all very difficult to navigate. [Source](https://ew.com/tv/2018/08/13/steven-universe-rebecca-sugar-lgbtq-cartoons/) > **Why do you think that you've been able to make so much progress in furthering the visibility, while other creators are hitting similar roadblocks?** > I think that the stars have really aligned. I think that it's my team, it's the fact that we were all so dedicated to telling honest stories and to just fighting and fighting to get this material through and make it so entertaining that you could never deny how sweet and thoughtful and entertaining it is that there's just no way to say no. But then I think also at various levels we have had allies fighting for this to be made. > I was just learning about how The Answer book, which was also very difficult to make and I only just now found out that a big part of why it was made was that one of the big champions of the book was an ally for her sister. We've had allies at all these different stages, people for whom this is very personal and they understand the personal toll that can be taken. I think there are people at Turner [the company that owns Cartoon Network] who are LGBT who would see these notes come through and just realize how shocking they are and I think that it made all the difference. You have to try and do it so that when these feelings become visible. You know where they are so you can break them down. > I'm just extremely lucky to think I have had support. Instead of being told don't talk about this, I was given the option of being upfront about this even if it might become a problem. Cartoon Network allows for a lot of creative freedom, especially from these creative-driven shows so the responsibility really fell on us to tell the story that we wanted to tell. And I'm grateful to have been here, to have the opportunity to fight for this. [Source](https://ew.com/tv/2018/08/13/steven-universe-rebecca-sugar-lgbtq-cartoons/)
15
nzfriend33 2 days ago +7
And about introducing Ruby and Sapphire, iirc.
7
dragonmp93 2 days ago +7
Dan DiDio had to come out to say that there was what I like to call the "*Edgelord Mandate*" for the New 52's DC comics line when people started to accuse him of homophobia.
7
LurkerYam67 2 days ago +57
f****** hell, they'll reduce gay characters present in 1% of movies to 0%
57
magus678 2 days ago -54
[Of the 250 films released theatrically and direct to streaming in 2024 by the 10 distributors tracked in this study, 59 films featured LGBTQ characters (23.6%).](https://glaad.org/sri/2025/overview/) Presumably, if you included "non-featured" that number would be somewhat higher.
-54
LurkerYam67 2 days ago +55
Only 250 movies being released in a year sounded very low to me, so I went and check. ["In 2024, a total of 569 movies were released in the United States and Canada, up from 506 in the previous year."](https://www.statista.com/statistics/187122/movie-releases-in-north-america-since-2001/?srsltid=AfmBOoo7HgR-w1IkQ83R19wN2wlPY3IVqQEb2VDn7sZUWPW0QfVjN9XA) And if were to trust the 59 figure, that percentage would fall to 10%. Although I'd love a list of those 59 movies, since I watch so many movies and I don't feel like I see gay characters in 1 out of 10 movies I go to watch. Are they counting background characters or? And >by the [10 distributors tracked](https://glaad.org/sri/2025/overview/) Which 10 distributors and why only them or them specifically were picked? If someone conducted the same study for TV and included GMMTV from Thailand we could get any stat inflated out of context.
55
magus678 2 days ago +9
Those are the numbers from GLAAD. Presumably, they would be interested in reporting on their own advocacy category accurately, but maybe not.
9
LurkerYam67 2 days ago +1
Yeah it could be just bad methodology. I'm definitely not attributing secondary motive to them or you. Studies and samples can be tricky.
1
[deleted] 21 hr ago +1
[deleted]
1
mrkstr 22 hr ago +2
Wait, if you're doubting the total released number, why do you trust the number of LGBT characters number?  Did you source an updated number or just carry over his lower number?
2
keltorix 2 days ago +6
They included a methodology section on the website thatwas linked: https://glaad.org/sri/2025/methodology/ I was curious as well, but they lay it all out here that they picked the top 10 movie distributors of movies in the U.S. I also have no idea how the number changes as you increase the total to 569 movies, but why would you keep the same number from the 250 movies and use that for your percentage? That's terrible stats work. I think they just didn’t want to research h more than 250 movies so chose the top 250 as a reasonable stand in, which is fine to do. As for what counted, they say the movies were researched and featured was based on how much the character was in story elements. It's vague, but the OP didn’t do the study, GLAAD did.
6
magus678 2 days ago +4
>It's vague, but the OP didn’t do the study, GLAAD did. "If those kids could read, they would be very upset!"
4
Massive_Weiner 2 days ago -11
Wow, that shut them up pretty quickly.
-11
magus678 2 days ago +5
? Just repeating GLAAD's own numbers. I have no dog in the fight either way.
5
Massive_Weiner 2 days ago -9
Notice how they responded to me, and not the user who pointed out how faulty their stats were. “Just repeating the numbers,” except you don’t understand the numbers you’re looking at, and someone else had to break it down. But sure, you were definitely impartial when you showed up to drop some stats. Just be honest, lol.
-9
magus678 2 days ago +9
Again, ? I responded to that user [here](https://www.listnook.com/r/television/s/gEA4kFOnP6). It might be worth considering that these kinds of conversations are just not for you. Edit: User blocked me, which frankly seems to be better for their mental health anyway.
9
mrkstr 22 hr ago +2
Omg, you quoted a factual statistic!  Listnook hates that.  Please have a consolation upvote.
2
magus678 21 hr ago +1
Edit: just as a fun bit, because apparently the great lot of you are morons, here is the version of this dynamic in its [Always Sunny](https://youtu.be/KgGSUrt8oj8?si=FaQyyGwf3NxA3fgC)
1
Wuskers 2 days ago +18
wasn't one of the biggest shows last year literally about gay hockey players? even the NHL has begrudgingly cozied up to Heated Rivalry to take advantage of the new exposure. It was added to HBO Max last minute and from what I remember was right up there around the pitt in terms of how many people were streaming it. It's definitely notable that it probably only exists as it does and in turn was able to be as successful as it has been because it was a more low budget candian production by a studio that offered the creators a lot more creative freedom but now that it's happened I feel like it acts as a proof of concept that a show that's literally entirely about queer men falling in love can be surprisingly popular and studios love to try to emulate successes. Even with hostility from the FCC I find it hard to believe that no one else will try to have their own heated rivalry moment.
18
dragonmp93 2 days ago +37
Well, Heated Rivalry is a Canadian show because no one in the US thought it was the moment to be making a show like that.
37
Rebstrike 2 days ago +5
If they had any integrity, they would fight against it. But greed is their only motivation
5
fluffy_warthog10 2 days ago +742
Next up, disclaimers for media containing non-whites, non-Christians, modern medicine, science, tolerance, etc....
742
Response98 2 days ago +234
They’re going to put one up for “anti-American propaganda” anytime it’s not conservative media or something… worst timeline
234
tigerbait92 2 days ago +63
Welcome back, Red Scare (I'm kidding, it never f****** left)
63
dragonmp93 2 days ago +24
Ironically, Russia is one of the MAGA's favorite countries these days.
24
Artur_Mills 1 day ago +8
Russia isn’t communist these days
8
Suralin0 1 day ago +4
No, but they are still run by authoritarian nutcases. Just different ones this time.
4
Xalimata 1 day ago
Technically this is a lavender scare
0
IniNew 2 days ago +45
MAGA calls those groups "[domestic terrorists](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/)" > Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.
45
Mr_master89 2 days ago +27
Didn't they have some big rally or something with a sign calling themselves domestic terrorists and saying they're proud to be called that?
27
bros402 2 days ago +12
It was at CPAC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PeV1l7ijvM
12
AliMcGraw 2 days ago +8
These people would fall down dead if they went to my big gay Methodist church
8
DelcoPAMan 2 days ago +11
They hate Episcopalians too. And the Catholics.
11
Kassssler 1 day ago +7
> They hate ~~Episcopalians too. And the Catholics.~~
7
charliefoxtrot9 1 day ago
There's no hate like Christian Love
0
Shejidan 2 days ago +69
You mean Trigger Warnings for the MAGA set.
69
Dobako 2 days ago +17
Snowflake alert
17
thrilling_me_softly 2 days ago +30
Anti America is going to become anti white Christian. It’s only going to get worse if it even ever gets better.
30
SlenderByrd 2 days ago +33
As of September of last year, that’s in essence already what’s to become government policy. It’s one of the most grievous blights on our media apparatus here that this wasn’t reported on at all, and even seemingly went unnoticed by much of independent media. A couple of weeks after the Charlie Kirk assassination, Trump unveiled a memorandum declaring, in part, that any individuals or organized groups found to express “radical ideology” such as “anti-Americanism, anti-Christianity, and anti-Capitalism” should be officially recognized as potential threats to national security as part of the administrations purported “prosecution of the surge of far-left domestic terrorism”. Neither media organizations nor Democratic politicians reported on or warned the public of this. It went completely neglected and without any adversity, or even passive acknowledgment. That’s as though these aren’t not only unconstitutional to persecute, but ambiguous enough to be so malleable as to encompass such a broad veil of the population for them to pervert however they wish to legitimize suffocating any public sentiment that’s in conflict with the administration’s agenda. Anti-Israel (i.e anti-American interests) protestors have been characterized and defamed as domestic terrorists. The mayor of New York City has been likened to sleeper cells and accused of seeking to harbor Islamic extremists by mere virtue of his being Muslim. Socialists like Mamdani in NYC, or Wilson in Seattle, are accused by Republican politicians and even major media organizations of seeking to not only erode the country’s infrastructure and global standing, but to impoverish their constituents and centralize power and wealth to themselves to maintain perpetual rule (ironic), even warning constituents to ‘flee’ such places where these politicians are elected. People from all over the world who come here or are citizens here have been detained due to social media activity that reflects any modicum of dissent from the administration, whether anti-ICE, anti-Israel, anti-Trumpism, or anything of the like, some held for weeks before being deported and forbade from returning, or threatened with prosecution. The DOJ and adjacent intelligence agencies have sought to seize states’ voter registry records without warrants, to prosecute “voter fraud”, but are conveniently doing so in comfortably Democratic states, or ones which at any point voted against Trump (such as Georgia), only turning to states like Texas when non-MAGA-aligned states wouldn’t cooperate. We’re already here; it’s just that very few seem to care.
33
sovngarde 2 days ago +4
something something lobotomized frog something something boiling water
4
dragonmp93 2 days ago +5
I mean, both Project 2025 and Palantir's manifesto are very clear about that.
5
Yukie_Cool 2 days ago +4
May I ask how you think that happens? It’s one thing to be a doomer and spread apathy online, but it’s another thing to actually back it up. Republicans really don’t hold as many cards as you think, and any policy they’d want to pass is DOA in the Senate due to the filibuster. And that’s before they get what looks to be completely shellacked in November this year.
4
dragonmp93 2 days ago +8
David Elison is the CEO of Paramount-Skydance-Warner-Discovery, and that's a lot of IPs and networks under a single MAGA guy.
8
ButterscotchLow8950 2 days ago +4
OMG, I can see it now. TRIGGER WARNING: This program depicts random acts of Tolerance. And they call the left Snowflakes ❄️ 🤣
4
BlahBlahBlackCheap 1 day ago +1
I want a disclaimer on shows featuring religion.
1
NoBSforGma 2 days ago +161
It was only a matter of time with the current regime in power. After that, the FCC wll look around and also target content that is not straight, white, All-American.
161
BuddhistSagan 2 days ago +48
Free of anti Christian bias 🙄
48
NoBSforGma 2 days ago +3
That, too! Thanks for reminding me!
3
gosukhaos 2 days ago +9
Daily wire programming but for every network on television. Bonus tax breaks if the content is anti liberal
9
NoBSforGma 2 days ago +3
Oh, I'm just getting more and more depressed with every addition! Soon, we will be back in the days of "I Love Lucy" when married couples on tv could use only twin beds. And not a person of color in sight, unless they had a menial job.
3
longing-control 1 day ago -2
Death to pink imperialism is kinda based actually. At least here in the south that translates to one less front against the gringo for our sovereignity 
-2
jadedfan55 2 days ago +66
Once more, Carr is off-base.
66
Chataboutgames 2 days ago +38
That's a really mild way to describe his crusade for content censorship and bigotry
38
jadedfan55 2 days ago +8
It's also a little generous.
8
LuinAelin 2 days ago +36
This song still remains relevant https://youtu.be/7wY2OmuUdlI?si=3MG1MbC70skszBZd
36
theanthonyya 2 days ago +14
God I love that episode and yeah it's even more relevant now. I remember Seth MacFarlane saying that they were genuinely frustrated and spiteful when they wrote it and I think thats why the parts with the FCC agents are so good
14
bootymix96 19 hr ago +1
[“How about that side b***? That turn you on? Well, it shouldn’t, because that’s *MY* side b***.”](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T7Slo19-WTE)
1
IMA_5-STAR_MAN 2 days ago +14
Better ban kid rock from appearing because you know RFK and him banged in that sauna.
14
natguy2016 2 days ago +31
Duh. Trans folks are first. Then the rest of LGBT. Then Latinos.Then African Americans. Then.... You get the point.
31
senshi_of_love 2 days ago +38
Everyone who didn’t stand up for trans people should be ashamed of themselves. Trans people were the first battle and conceding that meant you were preemptively surrendering. The crazy thing were all the liberals who were ready to sacrifice trans people themselves and speed up their own demise.
38
natguy2016 2 days ago +10
Many adults have no shame and the emotional maturity of 12 year olds.
10
Tymareta 1 day ago +3
> The crazy thing were all the liberals who were ready to sacrifice trans people themselves and speed up their own demise. They still are, just look at how frequently Newsom gets rocketed to the front page any time one of his PR team posts a "zinger".
3
themudorca 12 hr ago +1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
utilizador2021 2 days ago +5
Yep, sooner or later it will come to the low classes, and it doesn't matter if you are a "straight white male". Usually, fascista starts with minorias because it's more easy and the majority don't care, but then it's too late.
5
longing-control 1 day ago -4
Chicanos* we dont consider them latinos in actual LATAM. Especially if they live proudly under the star sprangled empire if a dem is in charge. 
-4
nan666nan 1 day ago +1
yep, quite a bit of people in mexico make fun of "no sabo kids"
1
Elanapoeia 2 days ago +20
This is possible because all you fuckers agreed with the conservatives "reasonable concerns" about trans people btw
20
-Clayburn 2 days ago +15
I saw an "opinion" article today going around that basically said Ms. Rachel is "not normal" because she promotes LGBTQ acceptance and is pro-Palestine. I can't believe how far we've fallen that we're trying to roll back gay rights and representation, and that it's acceptable to equate bigotry with normalcy.
15
abgry_krakow87 1 day ago +9
Religious conservatives love promoting bigotry, hatred, prejudice, and censorship.
9
throwaway47138 2 days ago +12
If the FCC does this, the proper response is to label every single thing on television as the highest possible rating (including news and little kids programming) since there's always the possibility that *someone* might find it offensive. Force the viewers to watch shows and think critically about whether or not they are appropriate for whoever they're clutching their pearls for...
12
allaboutthatbass85 2 days ago +8
No shit. We knew this was going to happen and why Trump wanted these people in. And now that Trump appointees own Paramount , WB, HBO prepare for this and more.
8
DumbWhore4 2 days ago +6
They should just abolish the ratings completely. I always thought they were dumb.
6
matadorobex 2 days ago +7
1. The government has no business regulating communication or media. 2. A robust tagging system is a good thing for businesses to adopt, letting viewers find the content they are looking for more easily, and exclude what they don't like.
7
Fire_Z1 1 day ago +7
Christians continue to show how hateful they are.
7
[deleted] 1 day ago +2
[removed]
2
NativePlantEnjoyer 1 day ago +3
Literally the most bigoted people I've ever known IRL
3
bluegreen8907 1 day ago +2
LGBTQIA2S+++ television content? So every show?
2
ro536ud 2 days ago +3
Cool in the next admin let’s target Christian based programs .
3
chesterwiley 2 days ago +3
You want to put a warning on Veggie Tales?
3
brickiex2 2 days ago -1
Watch Big Mistakes while you can... Hilarious drama of a quirky criminal blackmail kinda show...8 episodes, hope they make a season 2 Very pro LGBTQ
-1
Wonderful-Citron-678 2 days ago +15
I think you mean Big Mistakes, on Netflix
15
TheDarkAbove 2 days ago +12
He made a small mistake on the title.
12
brickiex2 2 days ago +3
I did... How ironic... Fixed Thanks
3
brickiex2 2 days ago +2
I stand corrected... Thanks
2
darkokills 1 day ago +1
I only watch what I like.
1
EnvironmentalRock827 1 day ago +1
Ffs
1
chuang-tzu 1 day ago +1
The party of freedom and limited government, everyone!! Are we f\*cking great yet?
1
kinisonkhan 1 day ago +1
What would be the point? Nobody used the V-Chip. Politicians demanded the industry invent and adopt it, but very few actually use it.
1
SpudzOToole 22 hr ago +1
Look at all the liberals running to defend the pedophiles 🙄🙄🙄🙄
1
Skavau 22 hr ago +1
How is anyone defending pedophilia here?
1
SpudzOToole 21 hr ago +1
Did you not read the comments?
1
Skavau 21 hr ago +1
Yes. I see no-one defending pedophilia at all. Why are you just throwing out baseless accusations of pedophilia to others? It's all over your comment history. You will unironically get banned by listnook if you keep doing that.
1
SpudzOToole 21 hr ago +1
Do you think threatening me is gonna save your soul?
1
Skavau 21 hr ago +1
I didn't "threaten" you. I simply informed you that your behaviour towards others is harassment. And save me from what?
1
Fun-Leadership-3887 12 hr ago +1
Big brother
1
orangesuave 1 day ago +1
Oh you want to teach kids how to be inclusive? Not on my watch. NC-26 rating. Wait until their brain develops (i.e. has been washed by bigots) if ever. - Trump's FCC
1
Bunktavious 2 days ago +2
I can't even imagine how outraged these Conservative old White Men would be if any of them ever watched a typical Anime Romance series.
2
turkshead 2 days ago +1
The right answer to this sort of thing is to put all the warnings on all the content.
1
Kalse1229 2 days ago
Wonder how long this'll take to TACO. Their little spat with Jimmy Kimmel only made him stronger. They do this, the Constitutional rights lawyers probably already have the paperwork filled out to challenge.
0
flearhcp97 2 days ago
I'm really getting tired of being right about everything
0
astralseat 1 day ago
FCC Or Freedom Compromising Cunts
0
HTPRockets 1 day ago -2
Glaad is a bunch of child abusers
-2
NativePlantEnjoyer 1 day ago +2
source?
2
VirtualPen204 2 days ago
ew, ppl different than me are on tv?! not on my television set!
0
NativePlantEnjoyer 1 day ago +1
Why not just change the channel?
1
VirtualPen204 1 day ago +2
These people aren't the sensible kind.
2
BlahBlahBlackCheap 1 day ago
Within a decade, anyone who wants to, will be creating custom full length movies via AI with a few mouse clicks. Just like I can Prompt an AI music generator to create a full length piece in any style, right now. Will they be as good as a big budget Disney film? Probably not, but it will give us a lot more variety than we have now.
0
classyfemme 1 day ago
The title is very misleading. Specifically, this is about gender identity/transgender themes in media. Nowhere in the FTC notice does the word “gay” “lesbian” or acronym “LGBT” show up. The FTC isn’t touching topics related to sexuality.
0
lolcatzuru 1 day ago -5
great! finally someone does something.
-5
Skavau 1 day ago +3
Why is this something that "needs to be done"?
3
lolcatzuru 1 day ago -6
well, although i am a fan of fiction, allowing content like this on TV may trick people into living in a delusion, which everyone should agree is bad.
-6
Skavau 1 day ago +3
The FCC isn't proposing to ban it, it's proposing to implement parental advisory warnings. And are you then of the opinion though that LGBT people should be shut out of public life?
3
lolcatzuru 1 day ago
no not at all, that would be ridiculous, the letters people can live in public society. but the difference is, with gay people, generally, they keep to themselves dont bother anyone, and do their own thing, the letters mafia demand everything be catered to them and consequences when something is not, all of that to serve a lie, it would be the same if we went back to the salem witch trials, but this time the witchs do are the ones in charge.
0
citizen234567890 1 day ago +2
You’re delusional. There’s no “letters mafia”. Turn off the Fox News and go outside. Queer people are just trying to live their lives and have the same rights as you.
2
lolcatzuru 1 day ago +1
do you have a source on me watching fox? and what are those?
1
Skavau 1 day ago +3
>no not at all, that would be ridiculous, the letters people can live in public society. Can they appear as themselves in TV shows and films? Can they be presenters? >but the difference is, with gay people, generally, they keep to themselves dont bother anyone, and do their own thing Gay people are frequently depicted in fictional shows and movies. >the letters mafia demand everything be catered to them and consequences when something is not What does grievance of yours this have to do with the legality of them being depicted in a TV show or film? >all of that to serve a lie, it would be the same if we went back to the salem witch trials. I have no idea how you connected the witch trials to transpeople being depicted as characters in TV shows and films.
3
lolcatzuru 1 day ago +4
i dont know how you did that so i can't frame my response that way, but thats neat. Sure they can do all of those things, i dont care, id prefer not to be told someone is trans, theres no value in me knowing that information, but if they want to be as talent fine sure. Gay people are depicted in shows and movies, but its pretty rare you get a 10 minute monologue about why everyone needs to get on bored with people being gay. In its current form, its the promotion of the idea, which should not be allowed.
4
Skavau 1 day ago +5
> i dont know how you did that so i can't frame my response that way, but thats neat. Sure they can do all of those things, i dont care, id prefer not to be told someone is trans A character being trans in a show doesn't necessarily mean you've been "told" they are trans. For example, Ainsley Lowbeer is portrayed by a trans actor in "The Peripheral" - but it never comes out and says it. >Gay people are depicted in shows and movies, but its pretty rare you get a 10 minute monologue about why everyone needs to get on bored with people being gay. It's also rare you get a monologue about being trans either, if that's your point of comparison. >In its current form, its the promotion of the idea, which should not be allowed. It should not be allowed to "promote" being gay or trans? Is that your contention? Define "promotion" in this context.
5
lolcatzuru 1 day ago +2
then what would even be the point of a trans actor then? lets assume for a second we have a show where an actor or actress is acting while acting on a set, what defenses would that inherently make? If someone acts in media and im not told their trans then fine, but when there has to be a remark or quip or a situation where its clear thats what their going for, then thats the problem. I dont know about that, i think its actually frequently that word salad that includes words like "cis" or "straight" are often thrown out there. anything that would bring attention to the life style, in the same way you wouldnt bring attention to say cannibalism.
2
Skavau 1 day ago +6
>then what would even be the point of a trans actor then? Sorry, what? They're an actor who is also trans. That is who they are. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5EDqWInICw) is a snippet. >lets assume for a second we have a show where an actor or actress is acting while acting on a set, what defenses would that inherently make? If someone acts in media and im not told their trans then fine, but when there has to be a remark or quip or a situation where its clear thats what their going for, then thats the problem. I don't see why at all it's a problem if the show identifies them as trans. >I dont know about that, i think its actually frequently that word salad that includes words like "cis" or "straight" are often thrown out there. What shows are you even referring to here that do this? >anything that would bring attention to the life style, in the same way you wouldnt bring attention to say cannibalism. Cannibalism depictions are not illegal in TV. So you think Heated Rivalry should be banned? Or Heartstopper?
6
classyfemme 1 day ago
The FTC notice doesn’t include gay/lesbian themes by the way. Just gender identity/transgender topics. The title is misleading.
0
Skavau 1 day ago +1
Even under that parameter, it's still unjustifiable.
1
classyfemme 1 day ago
As a gay person, thank you. I just wanna live a normal private life. I’m happy to be married and just chill at home. I don’t even go to pride events anymore because of how much alphabet has taken over things.
0
lolcatzuru 1 day ago
you are welcome, im sad they took something from you that you use to be able to enjoy and made it about themselves and then tried to tell you what to think.
0
SkavauII 1 day ago +1
Except you don't want them to be able to enjoy any of that in the first place. They're gay and you would ban all depictions of gay people in the media. You hate freedom. You hate the first amendment. You are anti-american and have more ideologically in common with Saudi Arabia or Iran.
1
knockingatthegate 1 day ago +3
By that reasoning, you’re really not going to like the Bible.
3
lolcatzuru 1 day ago +1
why wouldnt i like it?
1
knockingatthegate 1 day ago +1
I can’t think of a media artifact which has done more to encourage delusion amongst its audience.
1
citizen234567890 1 day ago +1
By this logic, my gay ass would’ve been turned straight by all the straight TV I’ve watched over the years. What the f*** are you talking about.
1
lolcatzuru 1 day ago
well, have to tried it recently?
0
dantevonlocke 1 day ago -1
Get a life bigot.
-1
lolcatzuru 1 day ago
i have a life, im living now.
0
HoneyShaft 1 day ago
I can only imagine the situation Drag Race must be in? It's everything this new Paramount and FCC hate.
0
Skavau 1 day ago
/u/classyfemme "As a gay person, thank you. I just wanna live a normal private life. I’m happy to be married and just chill at home. I don’t even go to pride events anymore because of how much alphabet has taken over things." You do know the user you responded to there also wants a total ban on all gay-related themes in TV and fiction, right?
0
ICXPDQ 2 days ago -9
With cancellation of Star Trek:Academy, which was alphabet soup, perhaps the letter people should think about how to tackle their image in the media differently. Just a thought.
-9
Skavau 2 days ago +5
Which has what to do with the government? "Star Trek: Academy was bad so FCC please intervene"
5
ICXPDQ 1 day ago +1
I did not mention anything having to do with the FCC. It was merely a suggestion on an image change and honest look at perception. That's all. No hidden agenda's. No snarkiness. Just an honest look. I fear, however, that there will never be a truce between the alphabet gang, i.e., homosexuals and the various degree's and levels therein, transvestites, transgenders, swingers, ac/dc types, etc... The arguments within the ranks are extremely complex and I doubt the message will ever get out.
1
Skavau 1 day ago +2
>I did not mention anything having to do with the FCC. It was merely a suggestion on an image change and honest look at perception. That's all. No hidden agenda's. No snarkiness. Just an honest look. And this is about the FCC trying to launch a new campaign of censorship here. >I fear, however, that there will never be a truce between the alphabet gang, i.e., homosexuals and the various degree's and levels therein, transvestites, transgenders, swingers, ac/dc types, etc... The arguments within the ranks are extremely complex and I doubt the message will ever get out. What are you on about?
2
Firesky54 2 days ago -18
You could make a good argument about this wouldn’t have happened if progressives didn’t push this kind of stuff in people’s throats. I don’t get why people are surprised or shocked over this happening to be honest.
-18
5510 1 day ago +8
I mean, what does that even mean in a world where the Lightyear little "honey I'm home" brief little peck between two women was a huge f****** deal, and used as a big example of "this stuff being pushed down people's throats"? (Behold... the shocking decline of western civilization /s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLLisXKUw1w ) Far too often, what they really want when they talk about it being "pushed down people's throats" is that they basically want *Don't Ask, Don't Tell* for society writ large. Their idea of a compromise is that as long as they get to pretend that gay people don't exist in public, that they won't try and drag people out of their houses for "sodomy" or whatever. I'm not saying these things don't occasionally have nuance. I'm fairly socially left leaning, much more so than the average person... but even I don't agree with every single progressive thing. I think trans inclusion in sports is a complicated and nuanced subject, and I genuinely don't comprehend why LGB and T are always combined together, when they are totally different categories of thing (in fact, if anything, that sounds to me like something a regressive old guy would do, like he would just say "I threw all the people I think are weird together in one box"). And I gather there are some things like supposedly Starfleet Academy (though I haven't seen it myself), where even a lot of liberal or left leaning people on listnook seemed to think it was just over the top ridiculous forced inclusion, and poorly done inclusion at that. But the reality is that right now, conservatives frequently just treat things like "gay people existing publicly" as "shoving it down our throats."
8
Firesky54 1 day ago -3
I just don’t think LGBTQ stuff should be in kids shows. Apparently I am not alone feeling that.
-3
5510 1 day ago +9
How would you define "LGBTQ stuff"? That's a pretty broad category.
9
Firesky54 1 day ago
Nope it isn’t 
0
5510 1 day ago +4
So you can't define what you mean by "LGBTQ stuff"?
4
[deleted] 1 day ago +1
[deleted]
1
5510 1 day ago +2
What I mean is more of examples. Are we talking about an in depth segment on a TV show actively encouraging children to question their gender? Or is this just "children shouldn't even be exposed to the fact that gay people even exist" Like do you object to the Lightyear scene ? (keeping in mind that that brief little "honey I'm home" peck is something that even a children's show would portray a straight couple doing... it wasn't like they were making out or something where even a straight couple doing that might be inappropriate for a kids show)
2
CaptainTeemo01 1 day ago +3
Why not? They're just people existing, just like non-white people, people of other religions, women who hold jobs, people of other nationalities and languages. All of these things were and are opposed by trash like you. Your opinion is meaningless, your bigotry won't win.
3
[deleted] 1 day ago
[removed]
0
[deleted] 1 day ago +4
[removed]
4
[deleted] 1 day ago
[removed]
0
[deleted] 1 day ago +5
[removed]
5
[deleted] 1 day ago +1
[deleted]
1
[deleted] 1 day ago +3
[removed]
3
[deleted] 1 day ago +2
[removed]
2
knockingatthegate 1 day ago +3
What’s your name and in what community do you live? We can’t take your opinion seriously unless we know what stake you have in this discussion.
3
Firesky54 1 day ago
Oh no angry progressive peeps incoming.
0
NativePlantEnjoyer 1 day ago +3
You deliberately try to piss people off so you can get a reaction, then claim they're angry people. That's what abusive people do.
3
5510 1 day ago +2
I don't at all like what this person is posting, but to be fair, the other person basically asking them to dox themselves was a crazy and inappropriate post as well.
2
Firesky54 1 day ago +1
Oh really because I got some angry progressive after me because I had different opinion. And no pissing people wasn’t the intention but because progressives are some of the most intolerant people around I somehow managed to do that.
1
knockingatthegate 1 day ago +2
Who’s angry? Just inviting you to give readers a reason to take your opinion seriously.
2
dantevonlocke 1 day ago +8
There it is. The mask off, "shoving down our throats" rhetoric of closed minded bigot.
8
Firesky54 1 day ago -2
1. I support LGBTQ rights but that doesn’t mean I think everything is a good idea. 2. I would say you are the bigot here since you can’t handle different opinions.
-2
dantevonlocke 1 day ago +5
You don't support them if presence in media is suddenly a line to far. If your support for them is "they can exist but I don't want to see any representation of them" that's not support.
5
Firesky54 1 day ago
When you push them in kids show then I’m going to draw the line here. 
0
dantevonlocke 1 day ago +3
Thanks for doubling down. Such a supporter you are. Maybe you'll grow up and move beyond your hatred.
3
CatProgrammer 1 day ago +16
Ah yes, it's the fault of the people trying to encourage greater representation of gay people and not the fault of the people who hate gay people and want them to go away.
16
Skavau 1 day ago +10
>You could make a good argument about this wouldn’t have happened if progressives didn’t push this kind of stuff in people’s throats. Is a TV show depicting an LGBT person inherently "pushing this kind of stuff in people's throats"?
10
Firesky54 1 day ago -1
It has happened that some people has jumped overboard with LGBT stuff. Look. I do support LGBT rights and even I have noticed that some people has pushed this kind of stuff in places where they don’t belong.
-1
Skavau 1 day ago +8
>It has happened that some people has jumped overboard with LGBT stuff. In what sense? But that's not quite answering my question.
8
boomosaur 2 days ago -97
Saw this coming a mile away, the wokes really ruined progress with their poorly thought out ways of implementing progressive concepts. Now the pendulum is swinging back hard in the other direction.
-97
Hazel-Cakes 2 days ago +26
tf are you on about a bunch of chud buzzwords
26
poopscoop_4 2 days ago +10
bro look around you, the pendulum is about to hit YOU like a damn wrecking ball
10
12PoundCankles 2 days ago +3
Oh sweetheart you have no idea how hard that pendulum is about to swing in the other direction lol
3
[deleted] 1 day ago -1
[removed]
-1
← Back to Board