Would Dorothy and Ozma be Made Canon Today?

[KitWargSpectacle]

And today, the states HAVE gotten better when it comes to LGBT Representation to the point that many shows openly and PROUDLY feature LGBT characters in leading roles with many of the shows being huge hits with critics and audience.

So, with all that in mind, if there was a Oz TV Series (animated or otherwise) would Dorothy and Ozma be made into an official couple?

This treatment of lesbianism / depiction of such as some kind of cultural underdog comparable to mail homosex, is a source of ongoing perplexion to me.

And even that was quite "in" way back in 2000 or earlier, so wouldn't be some kinda cutting edge thing in the "late '10s"; so yeah, the talk about "the new daring *proud* L representation in 2022!!" just sounds highly bizarre and surreal to me idk

I mean yeah, conservatives and rightwingers may scoff at it, but what do those types NOT scoff at? Like they'll frown at secularism and atheism, but outside their circles those views are kind of a default and treating it as sth special or rebellious comes off as rather misguided.

It's always weird when talking about lesbian representation, just because for so long it pretty much only existed in media to titillate straight men but there WAS a lot more of it than other LGBT+ representation (that and the "all women are bi" thing). Being treated actually seriously or having lesbian characters written by lesbian creators in the mainstream is still rare enough to be notable.

With or without "titillation of straight men", it's generally viewed as a positive/appealing thing that doesn't commonly cause negative visceral reactions like gay or trans often do (or when those don't evoke a direct "turn-off" effect, they'll often be seen humorously or as "part of a camp aesthetic" or weird/eccentric etc.; aversions exist but are relatively rare esp. in any "explicit" territory, as far as I'm aware).

"Being treated seriously" isn't precluded by it being "titillating", just as (straight) romance can be serious/dramatic in addition to also being hot, and lesbianism is often seen as an even more ideal(ized) form of romance - justified irl given its reduced STD risks, no preggers risk, and at least being typically seen as less prone to involving abuse - or certainly not "below" in any way.

Something "made by lesbian creators" would blend right in and wouldn't really stand out all that much (unless a media hype were created around it).

The vast majority of any potential negative reactions outside of the reichwing zone, would be coming from "anti-SJWs" complaining about real or perceived "condescending preachiness" or "forced diversity" etc.;

keep in mind that just like the progressives can go tone-deaf on their "LGBT representation pride", the circlejerkier card-carrying "anti-progressives" can also jump on that wagon and start treating the L as just one of those "types of diversity" that gets "pushed" by that outgroup and they're supposed to "fend off" - forgetting, in their rebellious culture war debate fervor, that this is actually a type of "diversity" that they like lol.

Seen some funny cases where some people went from complaining about Cpt Marvel to "wait why am I conplaining" lol.

And my initial "this is bizarre" statement was directed against those anti-SJWs as much as against their sworn enemies btw, just to make it clear - just like I consider neither Christians nor Theistic Satanists to have the most reality-based views lol.

[hammerofglass]

"Anti-progressives", "anti-SJW" and "reichwing" are all the same people.

[KitWargSpectacle]

"Anti-progressives", "anti-SJW" and "reichwing" are all the same people.

The 1st 2 are synonyms, yes; the 3rd one is different however - can be seen as a subset, or an overlapping group (that often tries to disguise itself as a subset of, or identical to the 1st one).

[hammerofglass]

"Anti-progressives", "anti-SJW" and "reichwing" are all the same people.

The 1st 2 are synonyms, yes; the 3rd one is different however - can be seen as a subset, or an overlapping group (that often tries to disguise itself as a subset of, or identical to the 1st one).

The difference between "doesn't want people like me to exist" and "openly wants everyone like me dead" is fairly academic in practice.

[KitWargSpectacle]

"Anti-progressives", "anti-SJW" and "reichwing" are all the same people.

The 1st 2 are synonyms, yes; the 3rd one is different however - can be seen as a subset, or an overlapping group (that often tries to disguise itself as a subset of, or identical to the 1st one).

The difference between "doesn't want people like me to exist" and "openly wants everyone like me dead" is fairly academic in practice.

The words "progressive" and "SJW" come in different degrees/meanings, so it depends how you interpret them in this case, I suppose:

nazis, tradcels and all those types, will often use them to mean "anyone trying to move things away from our sacred proud traditions", i.e. anyone who's not rightwing (enough)

however "generic" people not attached to any such ideologies, who don't care about any rules of propriety, puritan obsessions, collectivist pride etc., and often enough despise them and don't want to be under their control - they use "SJW" against those who want to push other (opposite) stuff on them, like make them go out of their way to observe bunch of rules the "minorities" want them to follow, generally telling people what to do, and often making false or exaggerated accusations of bigotry against various groups or people.


So the rightwing group is one that's obsessed with entire sets of rules that they want everyone else to respect and observe, while the "generic anti-progs" just wanna be left alone and oppose "both rightwingers and leftwingers" who "want to push things on them".
How can the 2 be called the same?

And this group won't go around saying how this is sinful, that is immoral etc., they'll just revolt if the activists start trying to pressure them into something.

However bringing this back around to the most recent topic on this thread, many "generic average people", including some progressives, tend to have aversive "uncanny valley" type reactions to the G or T, that they ought not to experience regarding the L - the progressives will do the hardest to suppress them, average ok people just won't care that much and don't act on them, and the assholes will express their hostility to varying degrees (however without any "moral traditional values" embedding those hostile sentiments);

some of the "anti-SJWs" are such assholes (i.e. Venn diagram overlap), others aren't but start acting irritated if those things "get pushed on them" - and if their zealous and irrational, they'll *falsely* perceive things being pressured when they in fact aren't.


Their main motivation is to rebel against this perceived pressure (on them and others "just minding their own business"), and other such similar things - I guess the literal "reactionaries" lol;

while the actual rightwingers, the ones who were clumsily coined as "reactionaries" at some point, are mainly motivated by their traditions, rules, conventions and scriptures.

THEY're the original stuff-imposing down-the-throat-shoving moralists - progressives rebel against them and sometimes go too zealous and crazy in the process (as all rebel movements do), thus becoming the new "oppressors";
and "anti-SJWs" are the ones who get caught in that crossfire, or maybe are even hit more by the crazy rebels than the original tyrants, or see the later group without context, as the main aggressors, so they just start opposing them in turn.

The former type can become "centrists" who "oppose both sides", while the latter is often susceptible to being recruited and indoctrinated by the tyrants i.e. the rightwing (however that recruitment process is a demonstration of them not being rightoids originally but a distinct group);
the confused intersection between those 2 is where the often-mocked "Enlightened Centrism" comes in, types who claim to be centrists but somehow end up opposing the left more, or show rightwing tendencies themselves.


So that was a bit of an overview of this particular landscape, and those various different mindsets.

[hammerofglass]

When you just are trans/black/gay/a woman/whatever in a space they arbitrarily decided should be cishet white men only (whether it be a specific fandom or the planet) and your mere existence is "shoving it down their throats", there's no difference. They all use the same basic talking points (including the three Approved Conservative Jokes), have the same end goals, and act the same in meatspace. If their justifications among themselves are slightly divergent... so what?

[KitWargSpectacle]

When you just are trans/black/gay/a woman/whatever in a space they arbitrarily decided should be cishet white men only (whether it be a specific fandom or the planet) and your mere existence is "shoving it down their throats", there's no difference. They all use the same basic talking points (including the three Approved Conservative Jokes), have the same end goals, and act the same in meatspace. If their justifications among themselves are slightly divergent... so what?

The more monolithic you describe a group as, the narrower the group becomes whom the description actually applies to.

At this point it probably makes little sense to continue talking about all these group definitions without concrete examples;
plus this was kind of a tangent anyway - and as to the previous point, there wasn't much disagreement about that in the first place, I think.

[clearspira]

When you just are trans/black/gay/a woman/whatever in a space they arbitrarily decided should be cishet white men only (whether it be a specific fandom or the planet) and your mere existence is "shoving it down their throats", there's no difference. They all use the same basic talking points (including the three Approved Conservative Jokes), have the same end goals, and act the same in meatspace. If their justifications among themselves are slightly divergent... so what?

That works both ways. When a space has been branded as LGBT and straight people dare to voice an opinion within it then they'll get cancelled by a mob.
Both sides are full of intolerant assholes.

[hammerofglass]

When you just are trans/black/gay/a woman/whatever in a space they arbitrarily decided should be cishet white men only (whether it be a specific fandom or the planet) and your mere existence is "shoving it down their throats", there's no difference. They all use the same basic talking points (including the three Approved Conservative Jokes), have the same end goals, and act the same in meatspace. If their justifications among themselves are slightly divergent... so what?

That works both ways. When a space has been branded as LGBT and straight people dare to voice an opinion within it then they'll get cancelled by a mob.
Both sides are full of intolerant assholes.

So you went into somebody else's space, told them they don't deserve full rights and respect as people, and you think they're the intolerant ones if they get mad?

I mean I assume that's what you said, I can't imagine what else it could have been that the fact a straight person was giving the opinion was relevant.

[KitWargSpectacle]

A funny recent instance was when Tilda Swinton commented on her MCU role and how she was opposing the "noxious stereotype" of the Azn sage in the mountains - then she was criticized by Asian-American activists for "taking away Asian roles".

When sb goes full zealot with "every role that matches some stereotype is racist" or "every case of a white playing a non-white role is racist", reasonable people will obviously oppose such lunacy and refuse to cooperate;
and then of course if both occur simultaneously and clash, it results in a farcical self-conteadiction and a self-pwn.


This kind of irrationality is what the narrowest definition of "SJW" refers to (look up on RationalWiki), with "progressive" sometimes used as a synonym (which is stupid of course) - and obviously it's impossible to call anyone who opposes such nonsense a "rightwinger" who "doesn't want Asians to exist" or sth.


So maybe this is a good reference point if this whole tangent discussion is to continue (though w/o my further participation, most likely).