Netflix is pushing pedo bait and people are still angry

[Stratothrax]

I am surprised people are still defending this movie, the defenders arent going to come out of this smelling of roses that's for sure.

 

[BenJepheneT]

Oh my god, I saw some bits on YouTube today and it's much worse than I thought it might be

Before the release I genuinely shared Alice's sentiment of "judging after watching". I regret giving this film the benefit of the doubt.

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

I'm more surprised people are still talking about it rather than whether or not they are defending it. This isn't even a new thing. Its discomforting, but talking about it incessantly is only sending the message that it needs to be checked out. The more you speak badly of something, the more likely you will convince others to check it out for themselves, which in turn has more people check it out. A cycle. And the more people who check it out, the more likely there will be people who will defend it and make sure it's continued in circulation.

Everyone's acting like THIS is the one terrible thing that MUST be spoken about over and over when really it's kind of tame in comparison to other problems and things surfacing the net currently. I know it's an awful film, but really? Either I'm desensitized or everyone here is absurdly emotional.

 

[Stratothrax]

Everyone's acting like THIS is the one terrible thing that MUST be spoken about over and over when really it's kind of tame in comparison to other problems and things surfacing the net currently. I know it's an awful film, but really? Either I'm desensitized or everyone here is absurdly emotional.

I think people are pissed that their Netflix subscription in part paid for it to be made and advertised and want netflix to remove it from their service, which is fair. This isn't the 'one thing' its just one of many things being talked about right now.

The more you speak badly of something, the more likely you will convince others to check it out for themselves, which in turn has more people check it out

If your goal is to punish netflix then destroying netflix's reputation is one way of doing that.

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

I think people are pissed that their Netflix subscription in part paid for it to be made and advertised and want netflix to remove it from their service, which is fair. This isn't the 'one thing' its just one of many things being talked about right now.



If your goal is to punish netflix then destroying netflix's reputation is one way of doing that.

No one will care about Netflix's reputation as long as the money keeps rolling in for them and those who pay subscriptions, get what they pay for. All this Social Justice bullshit is just that, bullshit. As long as someone is benefiting monetarily or in whatever other way for the system and companies to remain as they are, they will remain as they are. No one but the random few people pretending to be outraged and then doing nothing about it afterwards, truly care. And even then, I genuinely doubt the vast majority of you really give a shit beyond the few minutes of emotional response you feel here and now.

Though I'm sure you'll say otherwise to keep up appearances and then do nothing beyond continue to "discuss it".

 

[Stratothrax]

Though I'm sure you'll say otherwise to keep up appearances and then do nothing beyond continue to "discuss it".

What a reactionary take. If people did not spread awareness about a companies bad practices then no company ever would give a shit about any of the content they produce. Considering the manic tapdance companies do to avoid controversy that clearly is not the case.

We're talking about a company that deleted an episode of community from their service because one of the characters was wearing drow facepaint for DnD which could, potentially, be misconstrued as blackface. Madness, but they still did it. They quite blatantly have a fear of public outcry causing them financial issues. If you care then spreading awareness is a perfectly valid avenue of attack on their bottom line despite reactionaries screaming about any and all social movement being pointless. We have plenty of examples in recent times of public outcry harming companies and forcing them to change direction, there's no shortage of that, that's for sure. Who knows if it will work with Netflix this time, but I would like to see the attempt made, particularly because everyone and their dog agrees on this.

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

What a reactionary take. If people did not spread awareness about a companies bad practices then no company ever would give a shit about any of the content they produce. Considering the manic tapdance companies do to avoid controversy that clearly is not the case.

We're talking about a company that deleted an episode of community from their service because one of the characters was wearing drow facepaint for DnD which could, potentially, be misconstrued as blackface. Madness, but they still did it. They quite blatantly have a fear of public outcry causing them financial issues. If you care then spreading awareness is a perfectly valid avenue of attack on their bottom line despite reactionaries screaming about any and all social movement being pointless. We have plenty of examples in recent times of public outcry harming companies and forcing them to change direction, there's no shortage of that, that's for sure. Who knows if it will work with Netflix this time, but I would like to see the attempt made, particularly one that everyone and their dog agrees on.

No, they are only afraid of public outcry when it involves black people lately because of all this BLM nonsense and the media egging it on. Anything else....really won't concern them. Not right now at least since it's not politically useful to anyone at the moment. This might be untrue elsewhere in the world, though I'm pretty sure Western Europe doesn't care and neither does America. A few hundred people complaining on twitter means nothing. Even several thousand is laughable. You're best bet is to have East European, Asian, or African support for this, both of which I have no knowledge of what their cultural and political sensitivities are at this point in time, so you might have luck with them.

 

[Stratothrax]

As long as someone is benefiting monetarily or in whatever other way for the system and companies to remain as they are, they will remain as they are

Your own words. No social movement could ever affect any bottom line huh? Seems like you're contradicting yourself.
Fear of blm social backlash is far from the only example, fox news has been stripped of its advertisers in the past due to public outcry and suspensions handed out, Disney has fired people for misconstrued tweets, a Brazilian celebrity lost contracts for publicly mocking a disabled child with cancer at Disney land and recording it and posting it online. Whether you agree with the principle of each case or not doesn't change the fact that they have had an impact.

Social movements can force companies to change, because companies care about their bottom line. I'd like to see the attempt made to persuade netflix. Sue me. ?‍

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

Your own words. No social movement could ever affect any bottom line huh? Seems like you're contradicting yourself.
Fear of blm social backlash is far from the only example, fox news has been stripped of its advertisers in the past due to public outcry and suspensions handed out, Disney has fired people for misconstrued tweets, a Brazilian celebrity lost contracts for publicly mocking a disabled child with cancer at Disney land and recording it and posting it online. Whether you agree with the principle of each case or not doesn't change the fact that they have had an impact.

Social movements can force companies to change, because companies care about their bottom line. I'd like to see the attempt made to persuade netflix. Sue me.

It isn't a contradiction. BLM has raked in millions in donations and support from various politicians and even celebrities. A lot of money is still flowing, so my point still stands. That money followed by influential and political support is what is affecting this so-called bottom line you speak of. Still proves my point. Money, or political influence. Either is a usable currency. Not feelings. Which is what I said would be the only reason anything changed. Not because something is morally wrong. Morals only matter when you have OVERWHELMING support, which is rare because most people, in which case I mean literally almost everyone that has ever lived and breathed, is willing to let a little evil pass if it doesn't interrupt their daily lives or effect them negatively. A lot of evil, that's debatable, but a little? Or something far away and unrelated to their existence in ANY tangible way. There are no living Saints and I imagine it'll remain that way. Certainly hasn't changed yet.

And on the topics of social movements, these still are only ever effective when large sums of money are donated to the cause. They aren't effective because people "feel so strongly about it!!!!". Money still goes into the effort. Large sums at that. Which still goes along with what I said. Good-boy feelings don't change anything. The money, politics, and in extreme cases, threats of violence, are what changes anything. You can feel however you want, but good intentions for good intentions sake will get you nowhere. Thats why countless protests at Wall Street have failed, and will continue to do so. Too much money within the opposition.

 

[Stratothrax]

It 100% is a contradiction. A. BLM is a social movement by definition. B. netflix removed it due to fear of public outcry, not because politicians and celebrities made them. Celebrities and politicians aren't the ones who pay for their service amigo.

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

It 100% is a contradiction. A. BLM is a social movement by definition. B. netflix removed it due to fear of public outcry, not because politicians and celebrities made them. Celebrities and politicians aren't the ones who pay for their service amigo.

Did I argue about BLM not being a social movement? No I didn't. So, I'm not sure what you mean there. Money is what keeps it alive. How do you think they pay for all the medical supplies, melee weaponry, club shirts, online advertising, and various other media presences? Money. So I'm failing to see where you are disputing this?

And as for Netflix, they removed it because it was politically insensitive during this time of rising aggression in liberal-related politics. So yes, it still involves politics. America, Spain, and to a lesser extent, Portugal, France and the UK are suffering from this. Had this come out in 2012, when the political climate had been loess volatile, not a word would have been said. Or if so, much less so.

Despite uneducated opinions blabbering otherwise, politics can and does control nearly every aspect of people's lives directly and indirectly. Politics can and will change even your home life if it is allowed to progress far enough.

And as for who pays for their service, celebrities and politicians are the only ones that matter when it comes to affecting change amigo. The only time this DOESN'T prove true is when violence is used. Then it's just about who can bat the hardest.

So no, not a contradiction.

 

[yansusustories]

Before the release I genuinely shared Alice's sentiment of "judging after watching". I regret giving this film the benefit of the doubt.

Me too. Honestly, I still stand by the point that having a debate on the subject itself would be good though and I hope this does lead to some change. Doesn't look like it right now though but maybe I'll be positively surprised at least on that front.

I'm more surprised people are still talking about it rather than whether or not they are defending it.

I'm not surprised at all. The movie just came out a few days ago and people have only now seen the whole thing (or at least seen some clips). I'd give it at least 2 weeks before the discussion dies down. I'm kind of disappointed though that people are - to a large degree - only talking about the movie and not the issues behind it but I guess that just goes to show how bad the movie really is. If it was about raising awareness on the actual problem of child exploitation, then it didn't manage to do that at all because nobody is actually talking about that any further than "this movie exploited kids".

You're best bet is to have East European, Asian, or African support for this, both of which I have no knowledge of what their cultural and political sensitivities are at this point in time, so you might have luck with them.

I can't speak for most countries there either but take a look at the age of consent in China and the debate from earlier this year about that lawyer and his adopted daughter or whatever she was and my hopes are pretty slim that there'll be any help from over there.