This is the exact kind of bullshit they're calling out. Netflix stuffs pop politics into every show they can and is relentless with it. They want to make sure their viewers are getting the "correct" politics, and not the "ugly sentiments".
Maybe, just maybe, some of us want to just watch some TV and not have whatever today's stupid social battle is shoved down our throats.
There are people such as yourself who seem eager to label "ugly minded" any questions about the quality of content that promotes A Message even if the Message is simplistic. If a mob like that arises, now we have a ratcheting-up of bad content and simplistic politics.
I hope that's not the case here.
I got into an argument once with a few people a while back about gay rights and they dismissed my points as pop politics but it's hard to argue that you're being sincere when they don't believe you. And there isn't much nuance that you can give to the topic.
I don't know what happened in your conversation to make your interlocutors doubt your sincerity, but perhaps it had something to do with being unable to inhabit the point of view of someone with whom you disagree? Did you listen to them, or sputter and get angry?
For me, it's hard to overstate how much I support the right of people to be gay and have homosexual relationships (which are not the same thing, but I support them both). My perspective is that full social acceptance about homosexuality is a no-brainer. An ideal world would place no special emphasis on it, any more than a straight relationship. To my mind, having any negative opinion about it at all is reactionary and ignorant. And yet, there's nuance.
The State should have no opinion on nor legal category of marriage at all, either, IMO. "Gay marriage" should not be something that's legal or illegal, because neither should "straight marriage" be. Strictly, I don't support "gay marriage", not because of the "gay" but because of the "marriage". Imagine someone who agrees with my stance on "gay rights" but without nuance screaming at me because I don't support "gay marriage".
My support of homosexuality is part of a broader support for consent in general: just as no one ideally should have a say about whether 2 men have a homosexual relationship, no one ideally should have a say on whether sexual or romantic consent involves exchange of money. Every argument for homosexuality (or marriage) can also apply to prostitution, and it's unprincipled not to recognize that. Imagine someone without nuance screaming at me because I'm comparing homosexuality to prostitution.
Let's see how far down the rabbit hole goes.
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a small sect that gets a lot of publicity in the United States for holding protests against homosexuality, involving holding up signs that say "God hates <homosexual slur>". It's hard to overstate how much I disagree with them about homosexuality, or anything, really, as an atheist. But what is the deal, there? Are they just homophobes? Is there rampant, latent desires amongst the congregation? There are lots and lots of articles talking about what they believe, and their Wikipedia page labels them as a hate group. But what do they say themselves about what they believe? Let us use them as an object lesson, to see how one might come, not to agreement, but at least to understanding, one's political opposition.
They are a modern church, living in the 21st century, and they have a website. I won't link to it, because the URL has a slur, but I spent quite a lot of time on their website, inhabiting their beliefs, laying aside judgment, just to really understand what's going on. It's hard to summarize it all, but a single quote from their FAQ is instructive:
Q: I was taught that the Bible says that God loves everyone. Why do you say that God hates people?
A: The Bible teaches that God hates people. The notion that "God hates the sin but loves the sinner" is unbiblical. For example: “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity.” (Psalm 5:5). Here is a list of additional Bible examples of the hatred of God towards people....
That you and I do not share these beliefs is not the point. That we might find them abhorrent misses the point. This is the world that these people inhabit: God is a real and terrifying force that will torment you for all eternity for even slight transgressions of a cryptic, contradictory set of rules. To their mind, these protests are a kindly, generous act, to literally save people from eternal torment.
These congregants live their lives under the thumb of a cruel, capricious, supernatural tyrant. I, personally, cannot bring myself to feel anger towards them. Only genuine horror and pity, that they inhabit such a world view.
Now, circling back to the beginning, a rhetorical question: Can you, yourself, describe why you support "gay rights"? If you cannot get beyond "there is no nuance, it's just right", it could be that you come off as insincere because you accept no challenges to your perspective. Are you afraid that you might hear something that would change your mind? If not, be generous to your opposition, hear them out. Inhabit their perspective. Mull it over. There's really nothing to be afraid of.
HN has been surprisingly me lately in the viewpoints people are willing to say out loud on a public forum. or at least minimally a few vocal commenters.
IDK if it's just feeling empowered not to hide anymore or perhaps progress we've made is creating stronger 'protective' reactions. It's scary though.
The comment you responded to had a view that was diverse enough for you to comment on it.
I'm not interested in having one-way discussions, especially if it's run by "the most scared wins". Clearly there's bounds to that, but the view expressed above was not something I'm interested in, and I don't think I'm alone.
They absolutely did not mention of black or gay people. You are straight-up wrong about that.
It's nearly impossible to take the content of your message seriously, given the way you mischaracterize their actual statement.
What we have instead are people astoundingly willing to see ugliness everywhere, even in the most innocuous comment or gesture.
Admit it, you care less about "representation" than you like to indulge in sadistic performative outrage. We see you.
Is this a bit of DARVO?
Me too, except I conclude that HN has finally managed to somewhat pull their heads out of their asses.