When fans moaned about the 'supposed' gay/lgbt/social justice agendas in early new who, they'd get colossally chewed-out for being prejudicial, delusional and conspiratorial by the same people who are now exalting the fact that the show is one big pomo, identitarian circle-jerk.
It appears to me that those genuinely concerned by the injection of identity politics into the show were on to something. Not necessarily because of any underlying prejudices, but because reorganising the entire concept of the show to patronisingly proselytise to an unwilling general public is a recipe for ratings disaster.
Don't get me wrong, it's probably superb if you have purple hair, a fragmented gender/sexual identity and are transracial (I include all the people pretending to be mixed race in that category too). However, these poor, confused people are but a toenail-scraping when it comes to the body populous, and yet seem to wield huge, disproportionate power not only on social media, but within the writing community itself.
Listen, I hate to say it, but I think Who is lost. We're not getting it back unless it goes to sleep for a long time, and comes back at least 2 generations later.
So...
Is it enough to simply allow these attempts to manipulate social norms and public perception to fail?
Can the extreme social left be curtailed in terms of their influence on the arts, or are the two inextricable now?
What part does social media necessarily play in amplifying these ideologies?
Was the pomo wankshuffle of Who inevitable given a: the seemingly playdoh liberal politics of the founders, and b: the hard-line demands of an increasingly vociferous and amplified minority who formed fan bubbles on GB and in all other online spaces?
Indeed, was any public consultation done, or did our taxpayer-funded, trepidatious plasticine scribes and producers simply bow to the pressure of the social justice bubble without even considering the views of the vast majority of people on the normative end of the social politics spectrum?
It appears to me that those genuinely concerned by the injection of identity politics into the show were on to something. Not necessarily because of any underlying prejudices, but because reorganising the entire concept of the show to patronisingly proselytise to an unwilling general public is a recipe for ratings disaster.
Don't get me wrong, it's probably superb if you have purple hair, a fragmented gender/sexual identity and are transracial (I include all the people pretending to be mixed race in that category too). However, these poor, confused people are but a toenail-scraping when it comes to the body populous, and yet seem to wield huge, disproportionate power not only on social media, but within the writing community itself.
Listen, I hate to say it, but I think Who is lost. We're not getting it back unless it goes to sleep for a long time, and comes back at least 2 generations later.
So...
Is it enough to simply allow these attempts to manipulate social norms and public perception to fail?
Can the extreme social left be curtailed in terms of their influence on the arts, or are the two inextricable now?
What part does social media necessarily play in amplifying these ideologies?
Was the pomo wankshuffle of Who inevitable given a: the seemingly playdoh liberal politics of the founders, and b: the hard-line demands of an increasingly vociferous and amplified minority who formed fan bubbles on GB and in all other online spaces?
Indeed, was any public consultation done, or did our taxpayer-funded, trepidatious plasticine scribes and producers simply bow to the pressure of the social justice bubble without even considering the views of the vast majority of people on the normative end of the social politics spectrum?