Post
by BjornP » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:27 am
To me, the Hollywood notion of "diversity" mostly brings to mind the "human zoos" of the late 19th/early 20th century. Sure, they depict and may sincerely consider themselves guardians of diversity, but the sort of diversity they present to the world is exclusive and superficial. They don't, or can't consider said minorities part of their own society. They consider themselves allies, or guardians of them. This just reinforces the splintering of society. They worry about diversity in the same way that an overzealous homeowner's association would worry about the color palette diversity of a neighbour's flower bed.
Personally, I find Milo to be a ridiculous circus clown. In Denmark no one would give a shit that he's gay because being gay isn't as politicized as it seems to be in the States, but in progressive US circles it seems natural that gay people and progressivism goes hand in hand. How much mention has there been of Milo's sexuality in US liberal or progressive media when discussing his views, though? If the narrative of LGBT persons in the media is of them only as victims and their only allies being progressives, it becomes taboo to present gay people as gun-toting, far-right, anti-immigration spokespeople. Same applies to other minorities.
But that is generally a cultural and media problem. The idea that if one is A, one must naturally support X, and if one is B one must naturally support Y. Somehow, though.... some people cannot even imagine that being black, gay, or member of a religious minority means having the excat same degree of individualism as the majority race, ethnicity and sexuality.
Fame is not flattery. Respect is not agreement.
