The good, the bad, the funny?

Bad

@Blackstone said:
Dear @Bad

Boys and girls will hit on each other, often in dumb ways, as they learn to navigate social interactions. It's nothing to make a big deal about.

Feminists aren't really concerned with such things. (Unless it's done in a way that is disrespectful)

Please don't conflate the extreme individuals claiming feminism with all feminists. It's not fair to anyone, and displays your ignorance on the matter. I don't mean that to sound disrespectful, though I understand if you find it to be.

Please research feminism and don't allow a small group to confirm your bias because you're not willing to educate yourself.

As for Kingpin: being gay (closeted) would actually make a lot of sense for his character. Claiming he can't be because he had a wife is, again, ignorant. And it ignores the multiversal element that was presented.

No one is trying to fit you into a stereotype. You just think that because it's the excuse your brain creates so you can dismiss ideas you disagree with and justify your own notions.

Get mad at what I'm telling you, scream into a bag that people just don't understand how smart and deep your mind is, then calm the tiny kitty down and take a few moments to consider that you could be wrong. Contemplate that then come back and try to put a little dignity and respect on your comments.

If you're not respecting other ideas, people won't respect yours.

Lastly... I'm sure you think you made a point about DP3 being delayed... But you didn't. It's a fairly common thing right now. And Deadpool bring gay/bi/undefined isn't unexpected (at least it shouldn't be).

Thank you.

Probably you haven't seen the movie and you don't know what I'm talking about with that way to hit (in this case the ignorant is you).
I'm talking about what I know, about the feminist in my country (to the point I know you are an ignorant in my country too).
If you are going to change the dead wife for a guy, then you aren't better than Disney changing things to fill their quota(again I think you haven't seen the movie to talk about it).
About DP3, Disney doesn't like it at all and can't change it at all but it can boycott it as is doing it now. If in summer it doesn't come to threaters or it's directly released in streaming through the back door, you'll know who was right...
And I have to add hit-monkey. It's in Disney + but it was released without the minimal promo. Disney didn't like it at all but it came with the pack just as DP. It's not fair to a good show and good mature content. But of course it doesn't have any SILLY politic. So Disney boycotted negating it more audience.

Don't think your comment will make me mad or cry or scream lol. I'm not into your stereotype

Blackstone

Dear @Bad

You missed every point I made. But that's ok.

That is all. Have a great day.

Bad

In order to help many ignorants to not take wrong decisions, I invite you to search in Google these words: "Irene Montero's Yes is Yes botched law frees 2000 heavy sexual abusers from jail".
This is what happens when stupid people vote for clueless feminists (and deeply communist Podemos group) and they do their thing.
And be careful, their homologous group exists in any country lol.

Scofie

I should say in advance, that I'm not pigeon-holing anyone into a stereotype @Bad, simply responding to the post.

The point I'm making here is: why would it matter if Kingpin were gay and he had a dead husband instead of a dead wife? You would assume it's being changed for an agenda and that is bad, when it doesn't affect the story one bit. Have a think about why that is. I mean, really think, rather than a glib "it's not the character". I'm genuinely interested in the answer. I might have been the same 30 years ago, but I had hoped that society had moved on and that attitudes were changing and people were at least understanding why these are important conversations to have.

Blackstone

@Bad said:
In order to help many ignorants to not take wrong decisions, I invite you to search in Google these words: "Irene Montero's Yes is Yes botched law frees 2000 heavy sexual abusers from jail".
This is what happens when stupid people vote for clueless feminists (and deeply communist Podemos group) and they do their thing.
And be careful, their homologous group exists in any country lol.

None of that has anything to do with previous points. You’re using an extreme example and applying that result to everything you can.

As an example: kingpin could have married a woman and still be gay…he just wasn’t out due to societal/parental trauma. And bam, no change to the history of character but a huge development on his motivation to make changes…even if he goes about it the wrong way because he’s just that angry.

I can only assume you’re doing so because it’s a common tactic to add veracity to a weak argument while ignoring the actual details. Notice how you repeatedly refer to examples outside of the actual discussion. Yes, there are bad actors/groups within every political ideology that do harmful things. That doesn’t mean you get to define everyone who disagrees with you as part of that.

Are there liberal groups who go too far and cause harm? Yes. You don’t get to villainize everything that is liberal because of that.

Same with conservatives. And any other political group.

And voting isn’t the point of this conversation. It’s part of it, but you’re assuming things because some people aren’t disagreeing with you.

Personally, I don’t vote liberal or conservative because I think the two party system in America is a huge part of the problem.

People choose a side and villainize the other side without really working on the issues and real solutions get overlooked for the sake of beating the other team.

I’m not telling you nothing you say is without merit. I’m telling you that without digging deeper, really evaluating our own biases and communicating with people that disagree with us, nothing can move forward.

Unlike you, apparently, I don't assume everyone who disagrees with me is "stupid"...I assume either they are misinformed (convinced of something that is wrong due to a lack of information/understanding) or I missed something myself.

I will admit though, it's difficult to communicate with you because the things you respond with are aren't logical in an argument/reply/rebuttal conversation that makes sense.

It's like arguing with a flat earther. The moment anyone makes a point you you escalate to something unrelated or extreme while pretending it's an actual response.

I'm certain you believe you don't do that... You're ranting about the things that upset you. Which is ok sometimes, but your emotions are causing you to completely miss valid points in the conversations. But that's fairly typical in society these days.

I'd suggest trying something I started over a decade ago...

If I really believe something, I try very hard to disprove it. Understand...I take time to stop trying to validate what I believe and truly try to invalidate it. If it's real and with believing, it'll stand up to the scrutiny.

Bad

@Scofie said:
I should say in advance, that I'm not pigeon-holing anyone into a stereotype @Bad, simply responding to the post.

The point I'm making here is: why would it matter if Kingpin were gay and he had a dead husband instead of a dead wife? You would assume it's being changed for an agenda and that is bad, when it doesn't affect the story one bit. Have a think about why that is. I mean, really think, rather than a glib "it's not the character". I'm genuinely interested in the answer. I might have been the same 30 years ago, but I had hoped that society had moved on and that attitudes were changing and people were at least understanding why these are important conversations to have.

My answer is: I wouldn't care much.
And my more elaborate answer is: I wouldn't believe the character at all. Imo to be a Crime Boss is needed huge tons of testosterone(and no, don't jump at me denying this because it's scientifically tested).
And pretty much this happens with all movies, there could be some things that you could change to keep your policies. But if you changed something that it should'nt, the product crackes.
And usually the great new charges hired only know about their sectarianism, but nothing much about the business.

Am I scalating? Well, imo my country's example is perfect and illustrates how helpful are policies such as inclusivity, diversity and LGTBI rights to the people from the Puebla's Group, new face of the already succesful "Foro de Sao Paolo" (feel free to search it).

Scofie

My answer is: I wouldn't care much.
And my more elaborate answer is: I wouldn't believe the character at all. Imo to be a Crime Boss is needed huge tons of testosterone(and no, don't jump at me denying this because it's scientifically tested).

I did a quick search for the difference in testosterone levels between heterosexual and homosexual men but I couldn't find anything current or conclusive, so if you can point me to the scientific evidence, that would be interesting. I'm also not sure how many crime bosses were tested in the study or any other comparative study on testosterone levels to verify your statement.

I assume by that rationale that you don't believe women can be crime bosses either, since they traditionally have lower testosterone levels than men, and any such characters would be considered hugely unbelievable?

I'll look into the other points you make though as I know nothing about those.

Blackstone

@Scofie said:

My answer is: I wouldn't care much.
And my more elaborate answer is: I wouldn't believe the character at all. Imo to be a Crime Boss is needed huge tons of testosterone(and no, don't jump at me denying this because it's scientifically tested).

I did a quick search for the difference in testosterone levels between heterosexual and homosexual men but I couldn't find anything current or conclusive, so if you can point me to the scientific evidence, that would be interesting. I'm also not sure how many crime bosses were tested in the study or any other comparative study on testosterone levels to verify your statement.

I assume by that rationale that you don't believe women can be crime bosses either, since they traditionally have lower testosterone levels than men, and any such characters would be considered hugely unbelievable?

I'll look into the other points you make though as I know nothing about those.

I'd say it's ****. I've known soldiers who were gay that were extremely "manly", great leaders, and guys you want by your side in a fight. I've also encountered terrorist cells whose leaders had gay lovers. So, just from personal experience, crime bosses can be gay.

On another topic: IRL a guy just told me my family is evil and I should disown my children because he "don't believe in mixing races like that. It's just not right."

Crazy.

Scofie

@Blackstone said:

On another topic: IRL a guy just told me my family is evil and I should disown my children because he "don't believe in mixing races like that. It's just not right."

Crazy.

I'm assuming that's because both his parents were singular-celled organisms and he was uncomfortable with cells performing a brain-like function. Unbelievable.

On a personal level, I'm sorry you (and many others) experience stuff like this.

Bad

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-41958-w#:~:text=We found that the interaction,their cortisol levels were low.

Al capone(aka vitto corleone), pablo escobar, and chavo guzmán, aren't gay to the point I know.
Also, a narco admitting homosexuality won't be respected (this is actually the most crucial point).
So as I said, I wouldn't believe a kingping gay.

Blackstone

@Bad said:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-41958-w#:~:text=We found that the interaction,their cortisol levels were low.

Al capone(aka vitto corleone), pablo escobar, and chavo guzmán, aren't gay to the point I know.
Also, a narco admitting homosexuality won't be respected (this is actually the most crucial point).
So as I said, I wouldn't believe a kingping gay.

Just because you don't believe something, due to your own biases, doesn't mean it qualifies as unbelievable. You just don't believe it, so you're searching for any vague excuse to justify your beliefs and silence anyone that disagrees.

Naming a few crime bosses with links to homosexuality doesn't help your case either, even if it's not "to the point" you know.

"Admitting" homosexuality isn't the point. It's also irrelevant as you can easily find news articles concerning gay members of the Mafia and Mafia leaders openly accepting gay members. And it dismisses the possibility of those that just haven't come out as gay.

As for the study you provided:
1) it's a study done on animals.
2) it's based on testosterone AND cortisol levels.
3) it openly states NOT to conclude that high testosterone is the cause of leadership and explains why.
4) according to the study the leadership position itself could contribute to the high levels of testosterone.
5) females with low testosterone also take leadership positions.
6) they use the word "generally" a lot to show that none of the findings are absolute. Which means their were likely males with low testosterone and high cortisol levels in leadership positions, they just weren't the norm.

It has no bearing on human activity, and doesn't even support your claim if it did.

Aside from all of that... There are homosexuals and women in leadership positions among criminals. That is fact, and that fact alone debunks your testosterone claim.

By the way, your whole testosterone claim is completely erroneous. You just decided aggressive, risk taking, leaders must have high testosterone. Gay or otherwise, that just isn't reality. Hormones can influence us, but they don't completely rule our lives. People with low testosterone are fully capable of imposing their will on others.

This all leads to the conclusion that you, personally, just can't accept a gay man in a high risk leadership position. You can try to find another bogus article to support your weak position, or you can admit (at least to yourself) that you have a bias and work toward correcting yourself. Or maybe you're simply mistaken due to the prevalence "macho" types filling those roles in media and you have nothing else on which to base your opinion. (I'm trying to find a logical reason for your claims without assuming bigotry on your part, but you're making it difficult.)

Final note: nothing I've written here is meant to be an attack. I have however attempted to clearly show you the holes in your argument. Nothing you've presented supports your claim. At some point you need to learn when it's time to reevaluate what you "believe".

A logical person in your position would take the time to question themselves and do real research.

A person who isn't concerned with logic, but just wants to "win" in their own mind would double down with around round ignorant, unsupported claims.

Please be the former. (That means I'm asking you to take the logical option)

Bad

And aren't we animals? Or you also disagree in that?
This studio is on humans, and it proves what I said to certain point. Didn't you want to read articles?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453016301780
This studio is made on normal corporations. Multiply it by a thousand in a mafia crime organization where you have to assassin, command others to kill, sell drugs men women and children, and destroy lives for your own sake!

My own bias? That's extremely ridiculous. To the point I know gays narcos admitting it are counted with one hand fingers, mostly it's because police caught them in gay places.
Try to tell that to the narco's world! You'll need to make them watch a lot of inclusive superhero movies!
I don't mind all your old war stories. One thing is what gays could do in a remote war place where nobody cares, and another one is trying to make it work a business or building an empire, where respect is everything.
As I say, a gay kingping? I'd lol at the idea all the day, cursing the idiotic inclusivity chiefs in charge.

Scofie

The more that people need educating on a subject should be directly proportionate to the exposure it is given. Consider it education.

It's honestly like saying there are too many spelling segments on Sesame Street if half the country were illiterate. "Stop ramming words down out throats Bert and Ernie, I cn mayk up my own speling".

Bad

The education should be given when or where it should be.
And not in superhero movies.
It devalues the product to a point where obviously I'm not going to accept consuming it.
I could not be the only one. Ask it to The marvels big loses.

Blackstone

@Bad said:
And aren't we animals? Or you also disagree in that?
This studio is on humans, and it proves what I said to certain point. Didn't you want to read articles?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453016301780
This studio is made on normal corporations. Multiply it by a thousand in a mafia crime organization where you have to assassin, command others to kill, sell drugs men women and children, and destroy lives for your own sake!

My own bias? That's extremely ridiculous. To the point I know gays narcos admitting it are counted with one hand fingers, mostly it's because police caught them in gay places.
Try to tell that to the narco's world! You'll need to make them watch a lot of inclusive superhero movies!
I don't mind all your old war stories. One thing is what gays could do in a remote war place where nobody cares, and another one is trying to make it work a business or building an empire, where respect is everything.
As I say, a gay kingping? I'd lol at the idea all the day, cursing the idiotic inclusivity chiefs in charge.

Yes, people are animals. That doesn't mean every study on every animal correlates with every other animal. And the study didn't agree with you anyway.

Do you actually read the articles you present, or do you just find one thing you think will back your claim and run with it? I ask because the findings of the article you presented here also disagree with you. From the article:

"Taken together, our findings show that basal testosterone is not associated with having a leadership position in the corporate world or related to leadership styles in leaders."

"Finally, participants’ leadership style (authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire) was not different between managers and non-managers"

"The meta-analysis on studies assessing leadership showed that basal testosterone levels and leadership were unrelated"

"Additionally, it appeared that the relationship between leadership and basal testosterone was not different for men and women"

All of those quotes are copied/pasted directly from the article you presented and it disagrees with you completely.

It doesn't prove anything said, in fact, it disproves everything you're saying.

There is a small portion that says there are indicators that people of low status with high testosterone will generally have a domineering personality but there's no evidence this leads to leadership positions. Again, even that disagrees with you.

You've just proven you don't even read/understand the things you're presenting to back your claim.

You also doubled down on your ignorance by ignoring everything presented to you.

Yes, your own bias. The only explanation for your ability to ignore information while claiming things that your evidence doesn't support, is either bias or lack of intelligence. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on intelligence.

Should the inclusion quality of the character (race, gender, orientation) be the primary focus? No. That's where they lose the audience. But it can be a part of the character.

Grow up... And try to read the whole article next time you post "evidence".

Bad

"Taken together, our study showed a relationship between basal testosterone levels and authoritarian leadership style, but only among workers currently not in a formal hierarchical position. Among managers, there was no significant relationship between testosterone and leadership styles. This suggests that the relationship between testosterone and leadership styles depends upon the context; those men not in a leadership position may be trying achieve a formal leadership position through displaying dominant behavior. Our results may point to an important conceptual and empirical distinction between dominance and leadership. "

Hey, I'd say that this is kind of supporting what I said. But not, you should be right, you know everything.
Even that capo mafia bosses are all gay.
And probably they advocate for green energy, or maybe they say no to weapons.
And they donate for the children too!

Blackstone

@Bad said:
The education should be given when or where it should be.
And not in superhero movies.
It devalues the product to a point where obviously I'm not going to accept consuming it.

Then don't consume it.

While I agree that many recent scripts lean too heavily on "preaching" to the audience, to the point of hurting the script and the story bring told, you are proof that representation education is needed.

Within this thread you have commented on several things liberals/LGBTQ community have caused that you don't like. You've blamed them for several things (releasing prisoners, negatively affecting politics, ruining your entertainment).

Kingpin has done all of that in the comics.

You then say they can't do things because they don't have testosterone and present studies that completely disagree with your claim.

No one needs to look for evidence because every piece of "proof" you provide disagrees with you. And when that's pointed out to you, you don't actually reevaluate the information, you just ignore and move on to something else that also doesn't prove your claim.

And the things you accuse liberals of doing (and your opinion of those things while you associate every person in the group with the perceived worst actors in that group) prove you can accept a gay man doing bad things in the real world (you seem to expect it from them) you just don't want to see it on TV

Take a close look at yourself. And be honest. Change can't happen otherwise.

No one is advocating for a change to Kingpin. But, hypothetically, if he were gay not much else would need to be changed about the character. That's the point your missing. Everyone can be good or bad, or positive or negative, or support society or try to destroy it, regardless of gender, race, orientation, or anything else we can't control.

Stop stereotyping.

All you've done here is prove that you, personally, need to see more inclusive characters in more diverse roles so you can learn to accept people in the merit of their actions, instead of judging them bad on your own negative biases.

If you can't see the problem with the things you're saying here... That's a huge part of the problem.

Bad

@Blackstone said:

Then don't consume it.

While I agree that many recent scripts lean too heavily on "preaching" to the audience, to the point of hurting the script and the story bring told, you are proof that representation education is needed.

Within this thread you have commented on several things liberals/LGBTQ community have caused that you don't like. You've blamed them for several things (releasing prisoners, negatively affecting politics, ruining your entertainment).

Kingpin has done all of that in the comics.

You then say they can't do things because they don't have testosterone and present studies that completely disagree with your claim.

Your only argument is trying to tag me as homophobic. I say that I don't want those policies and I pretty much proved that testosterone has a big role in dominance and leadership (the one that doesn't know to read is you).
I'm just being realistic. If you don't want realistic products, then consume this trash.

I have the education I already need thanks, save your preaching for your sons, if you have any.
The one who doesn't have a clue of what is talking is you, if you think that in the mafia spheres they can admit they are gay, even if they are.
I won't talk nothing more on this absurd thread of people dreaming the wonderful pink world.
Have a nice day

Blackstone

@Bad said:
"Taken together, our study showed a relationship between basal testosterone levels and authoritarian leadership style, but only among workers currently not in a formal hierarchical position. Among managers, there was no significant relationship between testosterone and leadership styles. This suggests that the relationship between testosterone and leadership styles depends upon the context; those men not in a leadership position may be trying achieve a formal leadership position through displaying dominant behavior. Our results may point to an important conceptual and empirical distinction between dominance and leadership. "

Hey, I'd say that this is kind of supporting what I said. But not, you should be right, you know everything.
Even that capo mafia bosses are all gay.
And probably they advocate for green energy, or maybe they say no to weapons.
And they donate for the children too!

This doesn't actually support your claim. Thinking it does, demonstrates your inability to process information logically and in context.

Let's review:

"but only among workers currently not in a formal hierarchical position. Among managers, there was no significant relationship between testosterone and leadership styles."

This tells you they're not talking about anyone even resembling a crime lord. They're talking about the annoying "alpha male" in shipping who runs his mouth because he thinks he should be in charge.

"those men not in a leadership position may be trying achieve a formal leadership position through displaying dominant behavior."

This confirms they're talking about try hards, not anyone who had accomplished anything.

"-sustained levels of basal testosterone- does not distinguish leaders from non-leaders in the workplace."

They straight out tell you in the part you quoted that you're wrong. You literally read, copied, and pasted a portion of the article that directly contradicts your claim.

"It remains to be seen whether these findings can be generalized across other domains such as sports, the army, and politics, or other cultures and countries_."

They then tell you not to draw conclusions about other parts of society based on the narrow study.

So, no, this doesn't support your claims at all.

It objectively counters your claim.

I'm not claiming to know everything. You're just wrong and not good at debating.

The last few lines of you're comment are ridiculous nonsense. Do better.

Blackstone

@Bad said:

@Blackstone said:

Then don't consume it.

While I agree that many recent scripts lean too heavily on "preaching" to the audience, to the point of hurting the script and the story bring told, you are proof that representation education is needed.

Within this thread you have commented on several things liberals/LGBTQ community have caused that you don't like. You've blamed them for several things (releasing prisoners, negatively affecting politics, ruining your entertainment).

Kingpin has done all of that in the comics.

You then say they can't do things because they don't have testosterone and present studies that completely disagree with your claim.

Your only argument is trying to tag me as homophobic. I say that I don't want those policies and I pretty much proved that testosterone has a big role in dominance and leadership (the one that doesn't know to read is you).
I'm just being realistic. If you don't want realistic products, then consume this trash.

I have the education I already need thanks, save your preaching for your sons, if you have any.
The one who doesn't have a clue of what is talking is you, if you think that in the mafia spheres they can admit they are gay, even if they are.
I won't talk nothing more on this absurd thread of people dreaming the wonderful pink world.
Have a nice day

I'm not trying to tag you as homophobic. You have displayed some obvious bias though.

You haven't proven anything, and I've thoroughly explained why.

I don't want to consume trash. I agree recent MCU scripts have been trash. And it's a shame marginalized communities get the blame for that.

You're missing the point, exaggerating things so you can ignore things I've actually said.

Of course, I've effectively and logically countered everything you've presented. You're now responding by reducing my arguments to things that have nothing to do anything I've said.

You're "wonderful pink world" comment is just silly, unnecessary, and does actually sound homophobic. It also has nothing to do with the conversation. It's your attempt to belittle the ideas you don't like because your actual arguments have proven weak.

You're doing exactly what people who subconsciously know they've lost something but don't want to admit it often do when they are out of ideas.

Have a day.