Been a hot minute since I've read the book, but the death was important. It happened in the prologue. The introduction to the book. It was a fresh taste on how Pennywise hunted AND it showed how fucked up Derry was. It also set the tone of the book pretty fucking quick
There is a sensitivity in the LGBTQ+ community towards violence towards them. In media and in real life they tend to be at a higher statistical likelihood of facing violence and assault. Historically violence against LGBTQ+ was very common- in many parts of the world it still is openly common or accepted.
Saying “what the heck? Violence is violence no matter who it’s against...” is ignorant. That is like saying that it is the same thing to call a white person a n$g6@r or call yourself their master as it is to say it to a black person in America. There is a history and context that defines it the same as targeted violence against Jews isn’t the same as targeted violence against Toyota owners because... history genius.
Acceptance and such isn’t about not seeing the differences in people. We are different. We have different histories and face different challenges. What is often being asked by various groups isn’t “special treatment” exactly- it’s consideration. It’s being aware and mindful we are all different. In a largely homogenous culture those in the majority don’t have to really pay any attention to each other’s circumstances because they are intuitive- like and like and all. Those in the minority must be acutely aware of the majorities circumstances to function in a majority lead society. They just want reciprocation. Respect. Mutual respect. Respect isn’t treating people how you want to be treated- it’s treating them how they want to be treated.
Wow I almost thought funsub would escape this nonsense, but here we go again. I was going to put this as a reply, but given the sheer volume of people screaming how terrible this is...
.
.... Iirc the scene was actually inspired by a real incident of a gay man being brutally beaten in Stephen King's town when he was a kid. The scene was based on that incident, and drew attention to it.
.
The truly observant among you may notice that the gay people were depicted by him as.... gay people. The assailants, meanwhile, were depicted as an inhuman monster.
16
deleted
· 5 years ago
Who says the scene should not be in the book (obviously not) or on the movie (which is debatable, how necessary is it to display it that way?), people just inform their fellow peers that there might be a trigger for those who are concerned. You don't feel triggered? This doesn't concern you? Fine, so why don't you just shut up about it?
Why would anyone downvote this? It’s not too complicated. A peanut allergy warning on a cookie doesn’t mean don’t buy the cookie. It doesn’t mean anyone is saying you should remove peanuts from the cookie. It is for people whom peanuts will cause a negative reaction in so that they don’t have to “find out the hard way.” This is how triggering warnings work as well.
Speaking of triggered... hello halfdead.
.
@guest_ perhaps it was the way he said it? Just a theory.
.
Eiher way the entire first movie was about children being maimed, terrorized, tortured, dragged into sewers, murdered, and their corpses kept as floating trophies (not their actual purpose but oh well) for all time. The original book also included an underage reverse harem gang-bang. So the R rating is the literal trigger warning. As is the prequel.
.
I understand mass child murders have nothing on people of a certain sexuality being attacked not for that reason, but even so.
.
If he wants to warn people every single time a gay person is killed he could make a career out of reporting on Law & Order and CSI.
.
The issue with this is people are depicting it like IT 2 committed an actual hate crime by not making gay people immortal. They're uninterested in the reasons why it happened, and the fact it has to be explained at all- especially after the content of the first movie - is borderline ridiculous.
We can’t say an “R” rating is a trigger warning. That sorta... misses the point by a mile. “R” means SOMETHING in the film was deemed inappropriate for people under age. That’s it. Now- that gulf war vet sees an R rating. They watch the war movie. Mild gore. Hours of cursing. They can handle that. The sequel comes. R rating. No swearing. Pretty tame. A SINGLE intense, graphic, and realistic scene of a man dying in combat which the director cut other stuff and lobbied the board to keep. THAT- “triggers” him.
That is how triggers work. A woman who was raped sees both films. No problem. Then she goes to a PG-13 film with a non graphic implied rape scene. She gets triggered. The ratings on a film- even the little blurbs “nudity, sexual content, drugs and alcohol...” they are a guide but they aren’t a huge help. Most movies have one or most of those things and what they apply “graphic violence” or “intense violence” etc to is somewhat arbitrary. Google criticisms of the film ratings system or stories from directors about what got got and didn’t get cut from their film submissions. Even they are baffled. Baseketball was slammed hard by sensors but South Park... they made it as filthy as they could to try and be able to sneak things in... and only like one joke got flagged and they made it DIRTIER and it got a stamp. The ratings system is somewhat arbitrary and subjective.
So... anyhow. No. A rating doesn’t tell you that you’re going to see something traumatic. It doesn’t tell you much except that some anonymous people think that a kissing scene that had too much tongue in an otherwise PG or even G movie makes it an R, but watching 400 guys get murdered is ok for kids if there isn’t too much blood.
So @xvarnah- I don’t see what is wrong with the phrasing. A subgroup of people are warning a similar group that there is an aspect of the film which could make them uncomfortable. They aren’t calling for the boycott or editing of the film. They aren’t condemning the creator. And you keep talking about context- THEY DONT CARE. if watching a lactating woman breast feed a grown man but maggots come out of her breasts and eat him instead of milk disturbs you- you don’t care what the context is- if you don’t want to see it even if it’s “integral to the artistic vision or story” or whatever... you aren’t going to watch it.
And again... mass child deaths and dismemberment.
.
"R: Restricted, Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian. This rating means the film contains adult material such as adult activity, harsh language, INTENSE GRAPHIC VIOLENCE, drug abuse and nudity."
.
R is literally a blanket trigger warning provided to warn people who might be triggered that they or their children shouldn't watch this, and it's offered in a way intended not to spoil the movie. If a soldier knows he might be triggered by scenes of intense violence involving fellow veterans... he probably shouldn't be seeing a WAR movie in the first place.
.
I'm not a fan of graphic violence and torture. I accommodate this by not going to see the SAW franchise.
.
I don't go out and claim that the SAW franchise is deliberately being hateful towards me for daring to display torture. Which, again, is the bulk of the issue on this topic
As I said: this guy wants to spend his time telling everyone every single time a person who happens to be gay isn't immortal in a movie or show, he's got an entire career ahead of him. I find it interesting he chose to start with this movie where, as far as I know, the characters weren't killed BECAUSE they were gay. But either way, he's allowed. And people are allowed to point out if they find that odd or ridiculous or hypocritical.
Yes. There is a warning. Mass child deaths. Do you see the warning in there that says: “violence against LGBTQ+”? I do not. This person found that disturbing. They are warning others in their community who they know share their sensibilities.
@xvarnah.... did you... actually read the post the guy put... or are you guessing what he said? He doesn’t say anything about the movie or King hating gays. He says that there is a scene in which gays are brutalized. Is ANYTHING in that statement fictitious?
If a rape victim watches a film where a person is raped or brutalized- there is a chance they will find that more disturbing because of their specific trauma. If a Jewish person watches a film where a group of Jewish people are taken from their families and tortured and killed they might find that more disturbing than the general population because of their individual, family, or cultural history. They might go tell other people they know might feel like them to be aware so that they can prepare for that, close their eyes, or not see the film instead of being emotionally disturbed.
You’re acting like this guy went on a rant about homophobia and is calling for a boycott, new legislation and for Hollywood to never harm a gay person in film again. They literally just said: to all my peeps who likewise might be sensitive- there’s this scene in here, you might get deeply disturbed by it. Be aware.
@guest_ ...And if a person who is allergic to peanuts chooses to eat a product that "may contain nuts, they can't say they weren't warned if they go into anaphylactic shock.
As an aside, either you're deliberately ignoring what I said or you're misunderstanding me. I don't think it's the former, but:
.
If you actually READ what I said, the very first post I posted.. The one both you and halfdead felt obligated to respond to, I start by saying "the sheer volume of people screaming about how terrible this is."
.
Volume meaning more than 1. Screaming meaning violent REEEEEING about how much of a monster Stephen King is for daring to have seen gay people brutalized.
.
And I since repeated that I don't care if this guy wants to warn his friends they might be triggered. I think the other guy's stance is just as valid: it's a horror movie known for it's violence, Gore, and death. Brace yourself: this violence, Gore, and death may not be acceptably restricted to heterosexuals and children. And, yes, iirc people were actually wanting a boycott of the film at one point over this.
·
Edited 5 years ago
deleted
· 5 years ago
It must be super hard to repeatedly miss such an obvious point, but if anyone can do it, it's you, apparently. I guess your secret is being able to completely switch off empathy and the ability to reflect at the exact same time. Must be something like training to loose your gag reflex, just mentally.
lol. Well- it seems I don’t have much to add. We are perhaps beating a dead horse here. @xvarnah- I suppose it is your right to be upset that other people have feelings, wether that makes sense or not.
@halfdeadhammerhead Believe me, your comments in general have put my gag-reflex through more of a work-out than other activities ever could ;) I'd appreciate it if you stop expressing interest in it, though.
.
@guest_ I find it becomes even more difficult when you come to me about dead horses when the entire time i've been talking about zebras. Similar, and yet anyone paying attention could see there is a difference. And thank you so much! I appreciate your need to validate my right to have feelings about feelings that you feel I should not have. Whether I see extreme irony in that or not o.O
“We” is somewhat collective here. As in- all involved- and doesn’t single anyone out. If you looks carefully you might see a pattern of pre reactionism forming. As for zebras and horses... we are discussing the same thing. It’s irrelevant if it is one or 100 people “screaming about how terrible it is” as the point is that there is a sensitivity to the issue- and regardless of justifications etc. we can choose to acknowledge that and respect it, be dismissive, or disrespect it.
Ahhh you finally broke away from this being about one individual's tweets. And here I thought you were done beating dead equines for the day.
.
The sensitivity issue in question here is whether or not it's acceptable to portray people dying if they're homosexual. If the answer is "no" then we now have gone into an inequality issue where people are allowed to demand censorship of content that was labelled as potentially having that content... because it might upset them.
.
If we're going back to the nut analogy: you buy a candy bar. It says "may contain nuts." Blanket warning. Now you discover that it's not just any nuts, there was, in fact a KEKUI NUT in your food. No one explicitly labelled that there might be THAT type of nut. You are now triggered. You now have no recourse but to send angry messages to any who will listen about what a hateful company it is that makes these bars
About how this is a DELIBERATE attack on you and any and all people who dislike Kekui Nuts. You demand the company retract all candybars containing THAT not, and a formal apology. But that's still not good enough. You have no choice but to go after the person who first put Kekui Nuts in a chocolate bar to begin with. Possibly their family, too, if you can find them.
.
THAT is the kind of behaviour I'm talking about.
.
You can try and make this about how people who are triggered have the right to their feelings and how I'm some sort of animal for not denying their right to their feelings all you like... it will never be the point of what I was discussing.
All I can say about that is, once again:
Guy 1 is allowed to tell people "I was warned in general that this might occur but I still wasn't ready for it and this upsets me!"
Guy 2 is allowed to say "but... there WAS a warning."
.
But I will never agree with anyone saying that this was not okay to show simply because the person in question likes having sex with men. So do most straight women. They die all the time in movies. Dislike it if you want, but I will never be part of the "immortality for gay people" movement. THIS, at least, was based on something real that the author went through. Not just "kill the gay person" mentality. It wasn't hateful. It was simply part of his story and became part of the stories he tells.
As for wether or not I feel you should have your feelings- I never invalidated your feelings. We have an emotional reaction and the ability to process emotions through logic. Now- to a degree a logical conclusion when dealing with humans requires a reconciliation with emotional states. Your feelings are perfectly valid, it is the logical conclusion and expression of those emotions in thought that I might not agree with.
@xvarnah- when a very old person uses a term like “Negro” “Darkie” etc. They aren’t necessarily doing it out of hate. In fact- for their day that could be a more civil word for a person of color. They mean no offense. There is no malice to the deed. So then... case closed? No person of color has a right to get upset about it? Now I agree- I doubt King or the film makers of the new IT did this as a conscious act of hatred- and one needs more evidence to suggest it than characters who happen to be gay being savagely killed.
BUT- we also have to recognize that the attitudes of the times have changed. A “Charlie Chan” type or king fu master stereotype might have been the best effort and perfectly fine with no insult meant to Asians once upon a time. But since then- it has become known and recognized that there are patterns in media which tend to portray Asians to certain often unflattering stereotypes. Many film makers are mindful of this. That doesn’t mean you can never have an “Asian nerd” in any film ever- but it does mean you must be very careful about it and at least try to bring some sort of balance to the overall work.
IT was written around the time that the stereotype and sensitivity of violence against gays was forming and being recognized. Did it intentionally join a list of media fiction that on the whole paint a picture of a trend to violence against gays in cinema? I doubt it. However- the film makes remaking the film in 2019 had license to avoid or subvert that stereotype. For one reason or another they chose not to. And they’d have to be completely blind or thoughtless to the issues of LGBTQ+ in media to have no idea that would upset some people.
The aversion to the Kikukinuki nut or the spider nit squash or whatever particular obscure produce- is... very obscure. Whatever you do surely SOMEONE somewhere will be offended- and sometimes art SEEKS to offend with purpose. However- the PEANUT is a well known aversion. Gay rights are a peanut in America. Especially in Hollywood. They aren’t some obscure thing that people are clueless too- especially the media.
Had they offended the people of the island nation of Nauru by touching some deep nerve with them on some issue of their portrayal I wouldn’t support that or say it isn’t a bad thing or should be dismissed- but I could see how perhaps one might not be fully aware of the psyche of Naru given that it isn’t highly prominent in media or society. Sexuality is a well known high profile issue that’s even discussed in most institutions of learning. It’s like saying you don’t know why lynching a black guy would be seen in a different light than lynching a Swede.
Let's be clear: I don't actually care whether you validate or invalidate my feelings. I never made this explicitly about my feelings - you and hammerhead brought them into this. Hammerhead I expect that from because I've yet to see him participate in a debate where he doesn't fall back on righteous anger and asinine insults instead of fact. You, it was a little more unexpected. I usually think you make an effort to handle things somewhat more maturely. But either way, you brought it up, I addressed it. Because, at the end of the day, that is little more than a distraction from actually discussing the issue.
.And, again, you're ignoring what I said in favour of what you want me to be saying.
.
I have said, repeatedly, people can be upset if they want. What they CANNOT do is inflict their upset on others to the point of violating their rights. I don't care how much of a minority you are, that is never acceptable. There was no malice in this. There was nothing even resembling anything out of place in a horror movie. You can say you were unhappy about it, but demanding that the entire rating system be changed, the movie be censored, or whatever else because YOU can't cope with a garden variety monster murder that YOU were warned unspecifically might occur... is ridiculous to the point of being hateful. And if you took even half a moment to look into any of the things I said, such as the boycot, perhaps you would see that. Then again, maybe not. I don't know
As for the nuts - the ratio of gay people being murdered/tortured/etc in movies, books, and television in relation to gay people is, in fact, EXTREMELY high. Way higher than peanut. But either way, the obscurity of the nut is not even the issue and I don't know why that's the part you chose to fixate on. Feel free to replace it with peanut if that makes you more comfortable. And makes it even more ridiculous. Because the warning is still "may contain nuts." And the first thing people think of when you see that is "may contain peanuts specifically, but possibly others as well." Meaning they should be even more prepared to encounter a peanut than any other type of nut.
@famousone- thank you. It’s a complex issue. I don’t think there’s “black and white” but I do think that any option which would stifle discussion or invalidate the views of others.
.
At this point you've left zebras and have now brought donkeys into it. When there's an actual hateful incident in Hollywood it should be addressed. But lumping every single depiction of gay people being killed into one category is not only categorically incorrect, it's insane. It invalidates real instances of hate, and, on top of that, creates an ultimatum: you MUST include gay people, they MUST not be killed, or you are now a bigot. .I'm not gay, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be forced into someone's work NOT because they want me there, but because the creator in question had no choice.
The end result is that this is taking away any chance people have as being portrayed as PEOPLE. And instead it's turning them into obligations. With specific guidelines above and beyond the norm. Their personalities, circumstances, and all else altered because any other narrative has since been banned. And this isn't even specific to gay people, mind you.
.
They're not just pointing out a troubling trend at a relevant situation. They're labelling people bigots for a crime that was never committed.
As I said, I have no interest in gay immortality in horror movies to make sure no one ever gets triggered ever.
.
I am, and always will be, in favour of equal-opportunity murder. Which is EXACTLY what this was. A movie monster that murders. Previously it had murdered dozens upon dozens of children. It had maimed, terrorized, tortured, and devoured. In the sequel this behaviour continues exactly as it was. It hunts and kills it's victims.
.
But this time... out of it's dozens of past victims... one of them happened to be gay.
.
Now comes the controversy.
@famousone I'm glad you're getting something out of this at least. I'm finding it more frustrating that worthwhile at this point, but if someone else can find some meaning to our madness then that's always a good thing :) I may opt out soon, however, since it's getting tedious at this point, and I'm sure guest_ feels the same
Dude. You accuse me of not reading? You went on a guest_ worthy rant on a point that I explicitly stated I agree on. I agree that it’s a huge leap to say this is some type of intentional hate move; that it’s not something the movie needs to be or should be censored over, or that it’s something worthy of vitriol over. I can understand some people being upset, but there are constructive ways to understand and articulate their feelings. As for ratings... well... I dunnoh. I’m not a huge fan of ratings to begin with- and I don’t pay them any attention save for when I see a low rating on a film and sigh because I know that particular film would benefit from the freedom of a higher rating.
I think if I was gonna let kids watch something that I’d watch it first- or with them to ensure that the content met my approval- until they were an age where they could contextualize and analyze content on their own. That age being... whatever age that particular child seemed ready to me.
So I don’t care about or for ratings to start- and they are largely arbitrary. But I know some people rely on them. So maybe they should add some common trigger warnings to ratings. I mean- that’s the point of ratings right? To give you an Dora if a film has content you won’t want to see? And regardless anything that gets reform to the rating system is probably good since it’s a mess and could use refinement.
What? When I said ratings I mean things like "rated R" or "pg-13" not whether rotten tomatoes liked it. Most of the rating places don't even align with what the actual populations think of the film's these days, and either way it's entirely moot.
.
And yes, I am reading your comments. And, actually, I believe you were the one who accused me of not reading in the first place, dude. But you continually are bringing up instances unrelated to the points I'm talking about and I have no interest in going off on the tangents of whether racism and bigotry exist in general and every possible example of how they may materialize in our world, or offend anyone who ever lived, past and present. My commentary was based around THIS instance.
And to answer your long ago comment about the "phrasing" since I forgot to earlier - I was referring more to halfdead telling people to shut up if they disagree with him as to why he may have been downvoted.
1
deleted
· 5 years ago
You. Must. Learn. To. Read. I did never say to shut up because you don't agree with me, This is what I said: " You don't feel triggered? This doesn't concern you? Fine, so why don't you just shut up about it?"
It's not that LGBTQ+ plus people don't want exclusive straight or cis individuals to be harmed in film. It's that two explicitly homosexual people were harmed, and violence or threat of violence faced by queer communities can cause some people to be quite uncomfortable at best and cause PTSD in the worst situations. It's in the same way a Jewish person might be cautious about watching a WW2 film.
5
deleted
· 5 years ago
People don't get this because they don't want to get it, cause all they need to know is out there. It's the classic "but everything's fine these days, compared to [insert date here]" routine which some members of every majority like to put up in order to ban any type of discomfort from their life. So many people can't stand the idea they are privileged because they feel threatened by just mentioning it. How many heterosexuals can imagine that still today so, so many non-cis persons are afraid for their physical safety just by going outside and being who they are? Heterosexuals don't have to fear to get beaten up or killed for being heterosexual, something that still happens to non-cis people even in western countries.
That fucker Matt Walsh isn't even oblivious or ignorant, he actively and even gladly hates on non-binary persons and takes every opportunity to belittle and mock their sentiments and demands. He is the perfect representation of why Twitter is cancer to our society.
I don't like when people treat the alphabet people as a cohesive block, so I'll say Matt's being more sensible.
Other than that there isn't really anything of note here.
.
.... Iirc the scene was actually inspired by a real incident of a gay man being brutally beaten in Stephen King's town when he was a kid. The scene was based on that incident, and drew attention to it.
.
The truly observant among you may notice that the gay people were depicted by him as.... gay people. The assailants, meanwhile, were depicted as an inhuman monster.
.
@guest_ perhaps it was the way he said it? Just a theory.
.
Eiher way the entire first movie was about children being maimed, terrorized, tortured, dragged into sewers, murdered, and their corpses kept as floating trophies (not their actual purpose but oh well) for all time. The original book also included an underage reverse harem gang-bang. So the R rating is the literal trigger warning. As is the prequel.
.
I understand mass child murders have nothing on people of a certain sexuality being attacked not for that reason, but even so.
.
If he wants to warn people every single time a gay person is killed he could make a career out of reporting on Law & Order and CSI.
.
.
"R: Restricted, Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian. This rating means the film contains adult material such as adult activity, harsh language, INTENSE GRAPHIC VIOLENCE, drug abuse and nudity."
.
R is literally a blanket trigger warning provided to warn people who might be triggered that they or their children shouldn't watch this, and it's offered in a way intended not to spoil the movie. If a soldier knows he might be triggered by scenes of intense violence involving fellow veterans... he probably shouldn't be seeing a WAR movie in the first place.
.
I'm not a fan of graphic violence and torture. I accommodate this by not going to see the SAW franchise.
.
I don't go out and claim that the SAW franchise is deliberately being hateful towards me for daring to display torture. Which, again, is the bulk of the issue on this topic
.
If you actually READ what I said, the very first post I posted.. The one both you and halfdead felt obligated to respond to, I start by saying "the sheer volume of people screaming about how terrible this is."
.
Volume meaning more than 1. Screaming meaning violent REEEEEING about how much of a monster Stephen King is for daring to have seen gay people brutalized.
.
And I since repeated that I don't care if this guy wants to warn his friends they might be triggered. I think the other guy's stance is just as valid: it's a horror movie known for it's violence, Gore, and death. Brace yourself: this violence, Gore, and death may not be acceptably restricted to heterosexuals and children. And, yes, iirc people were actually wanting a boycott of the film at one point over this.
.
@guest_ I find it becomes even more difficult when you come to me about dead horses when the entire time i've been talking about zebras. Similar, and yet anyone paying attention could see there is a difference. And thank you so much! I appreciate your need to validate my right to have feelings about feelings that you feel I should not have. Whether I see extreme irony in that or not o.O
.
The sensitivity issue in question here is whether or not it's acceptable to portray people dying if they're homosexual. If the answer is "no" then we now have gone into an inequality issue where people are allowed to demand censorship of content that was labelled as potentially having that content... because it might upset them.
.
If we're going back to the nut analogy: you buy a candy bar. It says "may contain nuts." Blanket warning. Now you discover that it's not just any nuts, there was, in fact a KEKUI NUT in your food. No one explicitly labelled that there might be THAT type of nut. You are now triggered. You now have no recourse but to send angry messages to any who will listen about what a hateful company it is that makes these bars
.
THAT is the kind of behaviour I'm talking about.
.
You can try and make this about how people who are triggered have the right to their feelings and how I'm some sort of animal for not denying their right to their feelings all you like... it will never be the point of what I was discussing.
Guy 1 is allowed to tell people "I was warned in general that this might occur but I still wasn't ready for it and this upsets me!"
Guy 2 is allowed to say "but... there WAS a warning."
.
But I will never agree with anyone saying that this was not okay to show simply because the person in question likes having sex with men. So do most straight women. They die all the time in movies. Dislike it if you want, but I will never be part of the "immortality for gay people" movement. THIS, at least, was based on something real that the author went through. Not just "kill the gay person" mentality. It wasn't hateful. It was simply part of his story and became part of the stories he tells.
.
I have said, repeatedly, people can be upset if they want. What they CANNOT do is inflict their upset on others to the point of violating their rights. I don't care how much of a minority you are, that is never acceptable. There was no malice in this. There was nothing even resembling anything out of place in a horror movie. You can say you were unhappy about it, but demanding that the entire rating system be changed, the movie be censored, or whatever else because YOU can't cope with a garden variety monster murder that YOU were warned unspecifically might occur... is ridiculous to the point of being hateful. And if you took even half a moment to look into any of the things I said, such as the boycot, perhaps you would see that. Then again, maybe not. I don't know
At this point you've left zebras and have now brought donkeys into it. When there's an actual hateful incident in Hollywood it should be addressed. But lumping every single depiction of gay people being killed into one category is not only categorically incorrect, it's insane. It invalidates real instances of hate, and, on top of that, creates an ultimatum: you MUST include gay people, they MUST not be killed, or you are now a bigot. .I'm not gay, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be forced into someone's work NOT because they want me there, but because the creator in question had no choice.
.
They're not just pointing out a troubling trend at a relevant situation. They're labelling people bigots for a crime that was never committed.
.
I am, and always will be, in favour of equal-opportunity murder. Which is EXACTLY what this was. A movie monster that murders. Previously it had murdered dozens upon dozens of children. It had maimed, terrorized, tortured, and devoured. In the sequel this behaviour continues exactly as it was. It hunts and kills it's victims.
.
But this time... out of it's dozens of past victims... one of them happened to be gay.
.
Now comes the controversy.
.
And yes, I am reading your comments. And, actually, I believe you were the one who accused me of not reading in the first place, dude. But you continually are bringing up instances unrelated to the points I'm talking about and I have no interest in going off on the tangents of whether racism and bigotry exist in general and every possible example of how they may materialize in our world, or offend anyone who ever lived, past and present. My commentary was based around THIS instance.
That fucker Matt Walsh isn't even oblivious or ignorant, he actively and even gladly hates on non-binary persons and takes every opportunity to belittle and mock their sentiments and demands. He is the perfect representation of why Twitter is cancer to our society.
Other than that there isn't really anything of note here.