Changes

But the atmosphere was not "You should see this movie. No? Are you sure? Awww, it's really good". That's normal prodding from people to recommend a movie they enjoy to reluctant people. The attitude with Brokeback was "You should see this movie. No? Are you homophobic? You must be homophobic/hateful/closed-minded/etc" There was more than a "missing out" factor here and that's what the text about admonishing is getting at. It's something rather specific, because if I said I wasn't interested in the newest Tyler Perry movie, people wouldn't start accusing me of being a racist. Yet somehow with Brokeback the general atmosphere was that if you didn't see it, you were a horrible person. We don't have Bill O'Reilly talking about being a "barbarian" for not seeing Malcolm X, do we? In that interview he was talking about his friends trying to compel him to see the movie, and him standing firm and what the apparent reaction was. People were not feeling left out, but rather were feeling harangued by others for the simple fact that they were CHOOSING not to see the movie (yes, it's a choice. They weren't dodging the draft, but the attitude towards them for not watching it was far closer to that of avoiding a mandatory requirement). Now I feel like this is beginning to belabor the point, since the attitude is well-documented in the posts I had above and I don't want to waste my time scanning through movie chat forums (they're REALLY boring). Do a Google search for "won't see" "Brokeback" or something similar and you'll get plenty of hits that all express the general attitude. Even on the blog I linked to above, the person who made the anti-BM comment gets called out and others feel compelled to say things like "The BBM ites are out for blood. I don't want to end up with my dog dead or anything. I get the message!" -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:15, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

But the atmosphere was not "You should see this movie. No? Are you sure? Awww, it's really good". That's normal prodding from people to recommend a movie they enjoy to reluctant people. The attitude with Brokeback was "You should see this movie. No? Are you homophobic? You must be homophobic/hateful/closed-minded/etc" There was more than a "missing out" factor here and that's what the text about admonishing is getting at. It's something rather specific, because if I said I wasn't interested in the newest Tyler Perry movie, people wouldn't start accusing me of being a racist. Yet somehow with Brokeback the general atmosphere was that if you didn't see it, you were a horrible person. We don't have Bill O'Reilly talking about being a "barbarian" for not seeing Malcolm X, do we? In that interview he was talking about his friends trying to compel him to see the movie, and him standing firm and what the apparent reaction was. People were not feeling left out, but rather were feeling harangued by others for the simple fact that they were CHOOSING not to see the movie (yes, it's a choice. They weren't dodging the draft, but the attitude towards them for not watching it was far closer to that of avoiding a mandatory requirement). Now I feel like this is beginning to belabor the point, since the attitude is well-documented in the posts I had above and I don't want to waste my time scanning through movie chat forums (they're REALLY boring). Do a Google search for "won't see" "Brokeback" or something similar and you'll get plenty of hits that all express the general attitude. Even on the blog I linked to above, the person who made the anti-BM comment gets called out and others feel compelled to say things like "The BBM ites are out for blood. I don't want to end up with my dog dead or anything. I get the message!" -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 19:15, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== Fact citations ==

== Fact citations ==