1mo ago

Why does it seem like, especially in the 90s-00s media, it was SO EASY to pretend that you were progressive?

By: u/Crafter235

This has been something I have wondered about for a while, and while bigots and accepting people can exist in any generation, I just cannot help but notice how this is so prominent amongst a lot of Gen X.

From J.K. Rowling to Ricky Gervais to Dave Chappelle, I notice how people seem shocked that entertainers and creators that promote themselves as progressive turned out to be bigoted assholes, but when looking back in retrospect, it seems that there were a lot of red flags, or at least signs that they were fakers.

And yet, they got away with so much of just being "a product of their time", but when looking at the bigger picture, it's hard not to realize that it seems like it was so easy to pretend to be a progressive ally, and way too easy to be accepted and worshipped.

I mean, look at all those "brave" stories of writers going through so much just to have a vague 5-second moment of a gay kiss and being seen as some sort of revolutionary.

Of course for something so simple, they could easily hide their bigotry if standards are so low.

Why was this, and why such gullibility?

2 comments

- I agree that communication is incredibly helpful better than 99% of the time. But I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment.
  I was raised in a casually racist town. Not maliciously, at least not that I saw. It was more "that's just the way they are" and less "they're lesser and evil and should be subjugated or eliminated" (that was a few towns over). I'm making the distinction because, while the end result comes down to the same thing the place where it comes from is entirely different. So I carried some of those attitudes and said some heinous shit out of ignorance. This would have been in the 90s and early 00s. But as I got out into the wide world, went into the military, and met people from all walks of life I realized I wasn't just meeting a few "good ones". People of color were just like me. Humans with strengths and flaws, open minds and biases, triumphs and defeats. So I changed the way I thought and acted.
  I wouldn't want that following me around for my entire life because some folks (especially online) really act like people aren't allowed to grow and change. But I still believe more information is better than less.
  I don't know that there's a real point to be found in that mess I just spewed. But I felt compelled so you all have to suffer the things that go through my head with me.
Out of the three examples you gave, Rowling was the only one that had anyone fooled, and that was largely because she didn't show overt bigotry, and didn't have the influence to rattle on in public. Plus, her direct form of bigotry wasn't something that was as hot button back then, so I kinda doubt she had gone full psycho even in her private life
Gervais, as well as Chappell, were both largely punching up back in their popular days. But they both were fairly well known to be assholes. In the Chappell show, he did this whole bit where a white girl was singing his opinions and half of it was saying gays were weird to him.
Gervais was notorious for being a smug prick, but he pandered to other smug pricks so his fan base was essentially never going to complain. But other people did. Back in my days when I was working and running around, a lot of people that were left leaning to outright socialist were saying that he was as bad or worse than your usual redneck asshole and that the only reason he got away with it was that he targeted the right wing idiots more than anything else. I agree with that sentiment. Then again, I've always hated his ass, so I'm biased.
Now, Chappell, he got a pass because he abused everyone and did so roughly equally. Also, he was actually funny when he wasn't just being a dick. He made as much fun of black people as he did whites, gays, latinos, asians, etc. So assuming you didn't mind the basis of the comedy being "B people be like X, Z people be like Y", it really wasn't bigoted since he did skewer everyone. Looking back, it's easy to see the differences in how he skewered gay people then, but it really wasn't obvious at the time (and I watched the show with gay people, none of whom did anything but laugh). The whole singing white girl sketch was the only one that stood out at the time.
But you're making an error in your assumptions. Several, actually. First that people aren't just as gullible now. They are.
Second, that it took all those steps of on screen kisses being fought for to push the cis-hetero normative standards being enforced from the top down to get to the point where bigger changes like Obergefel could happen. That shit was revolutionary. Billy Crystal playing a fairly stereotyped gay man on a popular TV show was a huge win, even though the character itself was not at all where representation needed to be. He was still an ally at the time, and remained so, despite the role being flawed
Gervais, for as smarmy and smug an asshole as he was did at least pander the talking points that helped mock homophobia. That can't just be dismissed no matter how shitty he is otherwise.
The populace has changed. Maybe it depends on location, but back as recently as ten years ago there were highly vocal opponents to trans people and issues being part of the general fight for gay specific issues. Going back to the eighties, trans people were not well received in all lgb spaces. The nineties were when that started changing, despite the overwhelming intersection of those rights issues being pretty damn obvious as far back as the sixties and seventies.
The shifting of the general populace is always a slog. It was for the first pioneers of women's rights struggling just to vote. It was (and is) for the rights and acceptance of black people, and the pioneers of that movement were working long before the marches and bus boycotts.
When things start shifting, you're going to see early adopters like gervais that don't really care, but want to both feel progressive and profit from performative behaviors.
All of which comes back to there not being gullibility at all. What it was was relief to see pop culture finally catching up. When you get the Gervaises of the world seeing an ability to have success pandering to an audience, that means there is an audience. There are now people that are either pretending to be allies well enough to amount to it in where they spend their money, or are genuine allies now supporting ideas with wallets.
But nobody was fooled. Not that had been fighting already. They knew damn good and well that the kind of performative displays that started happening would disappear as quickly as corporate sponsorship of pride parades as soon as the tide shifted. But you still don't tear down poseurs when they serve a purpose, and people like gervais did serve a purpose.
The general populace doesn't give a fuck. They think they believe whatever it is that allows them to fit into the crowd. Some of them may develop a genuine belief, but it won't be the majority. So the folks trying to sustain change are going to shrug and let the fakes serve their purpose. That isn't gullibility, it's pragmatism.