Search Results: public opinion

From movies and tv shows all saying that men are trash, that only care about sex, buffoons that need a woman's intuition to guide them to outright sexist laws that punish men. A good example of misandry in society is Amber Heard and Johnny Depp scenario. Amber heard just had to say Depp abused her and inflict a minor bruise to her face in order for people to believe her. Society then turned on Depp and he got cancelled just from word of mouth. It took video/audio evidence + women coming forward to defend him to sway public opinion.

In other instances of harm against women (e. g. rape) even if the guy is proven innocent later, people don't care and will continue to view said male as a rapist. Example, Columbian student, Emma Sulkowicz, accused her friends with benefits of raping her. He was quickly deemed a rapist by his university and kicked out, just base on her word alone. After being found innocent, he received no compensation and was just told to move on with his life; while still being viewed as a rapist by those unaware of the final outcome of the case. Ugly to average men also have their rights infringe upon by just EXISTING. Benjamin Reeves, former CEO of peak industry was accused by a model, Simone Holtznagel of stalking her. He was dragged to court and they needed video evidence to show that everything Simone said was a blatant lie and did not happen.

We also often feminist show blatant misandry both online and in person. Feminist will rejoice and gain pleasure in seeing men suffer, discriminated against or even rejoice at hearing about men dying. There was even a peak point in society, where feminist were actively posting themselves with mugs, that read "male tears" when it comes to male suicides. And no one called them out on it, and it was allowed to trend.

Do you think public schools should or should not be required to include LGBTQ+ issues in their curriculum?

Please don't judge anyone. Everyone has their own opinion.

Comment down below what you think.

I pose the question for good reason, in that some performers, more often men, take roles that cast them as a very bad/evil person, who does some unspeakable crimes, that, to me, gives them a bad 'screen image' '

Clint Eastwood cast an actor, (can't recall his name) in one of his Dirty Harry films, in which the character, was terrorizing San Francisco, when he killed a priest in a church, shot and killed a young black kid at the beach, and eventually hijacked a bus full of kids in an attempt to extort money from the city.

The end result when the film was released was, that Eastwood would NOT CAST that actor an another film because he WAS TOO GOOD IN THAT ROLE, and the role he played was so effectively played as the evil criminal, it gave him a very bad 'screen image', and Eastwood would not cast him again. I thought that was appalling!!

Point being: Can you be so good with a role that you ruin your 'screen image" and nobody will touch you again for another part, or at the very least, the public has a bad image of you as a performer?

Russell Crowe played an absolutely sterling role, in my opinion in GLADIATOR, and I often hoped the real life Russell Crowe, was just that kind of man. Later he played some really dirt bag roles, which made me wonder about his true character and what he wanted his public image to be.

I, for one, could never play a role that had me as the murderer/rapist'sadist etc. I got to play a small training video in the Sheriffs Academy, where I was the bad guy that stole from his company and got fired and refused to leave the premises until he got paid. Playing the bad guy is easy to play for most of us.

How do you feel?

https://news.yahoo.com/music-trumps-ears-whitewashing-jan-095618486.html
Music to Trump's ears: Whitewashing Jan. 6 riot with song

The song is simple and tinny, but that hasn’t stopped it from being embraced by former President Donald Trump and his allies in their campaign to rewrite the history of the deadly Capitol riot.

The tune, “Justice for All,” is the Star-Spangled Banner, and it was sung by a group of defendants jailed over their alleged roles in the January 2021 insurrection. Recorded over a prison phone line, the national anthem sounds more like a dirge than celebration and is overlaid with Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Despite its low fidelity, “Justice for All” has garnered a lot of fans. Trump, a Republican, played it at a recent rally in Waco, Texas, as images of Capitol rioters flashed behind him on a big screen, and the $1.29 song last month briefly vaulted to No. 1 on iTunes, supplanting such recording artists as Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift.

Experts on extremism and propaganda say the song is another example of how Trump and his most ardent allies are trying to gloss over an avalanche of evidence proving the Capitol riot was anything but an act of patriotic resistance.

And it shows how such revisionists have dug deep into authoritarian playbooks that rely heavily on the use of national identity to sway public opinion. In this case, Trump and his allies are ironically relying on America's most patriotic song in their efforts to whitewash an insurrection that contributed to five deaths and left more than 120 police offices injured, experts said.

“We should not be surprised that this propaganda is effective, but it is shocking to see this in this country," said Federico Finchelstein, chair of the history department at the New School for Social Research in New York, an expert in authoritarian disinformation. "What they are demanding is that reality be put aside for the loyalty of the leader. And that leader in this case is Donald Trump.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fox-news-howard-kurtz-dominion-lawsuit_n_640efbe2e4b00c3e606f1004
Fox News Anchor Finally Allowed To Discuss Dominion Lawsuit On Air

Fox News anchor Howard Kurtz on Sunday finally weighed in on the $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems against his employer.

Kurtz had previously said he “strongly” disagreed with the conservative network’s decision not to allow him to report or write about the case given that he is part of the organization being sued.

But that changed this weekend.

“Now that all the legal filings are in and a judge in Delaware will give consideration this month to whether the case goes to trial, it’s time for me to weigh in,” Kurtz said.

During a four-minute segment on his “MediaBuzz” show, Kurtz said he wasn’t “sugarcoating” Dominion’s allegations “or the fact that Fox has taken a hit in the court of public opinion.”
But he said the lawsuit represented a “major test of the First Amendment.”