What gets me is looking at the comments and you'll see SJWs go "Oh wow I never looked at it that way. Great video!" And I just wonder why lovers of entertainment seek the need to take their own joy out of it.
There's the flipside of this and it's the /pol/tards who obsess over the political messaging the movies and shows have. They ramble on about how the Jewish feminists put in subversive messaging into the content. They love to pull that JJ Abrams quote about how white the Star Wars cast is and how that's clear evidence of Star Wars getting Jew brainwashing... even though JJ's conclusion merely led to Star Wars having a Black supporting character and one lighter skinned hispanic.
And for the record I'm a grumpy boomer who will whine about Star Wars all day, but when I watch a movie I'm watching it to enjoy a film. These fuckers do it because they're looking for content for their tapestry of propaganda to further their inane political message.
Yeah I guess, although in my opinion it's inarguable entertainment can be agenda driven. A lot of movies and shows are designed to be propaganda for a certain worldview or idea. So you can watch it and enjoy it in the same way you can watch and enjoy wartime propaganda, but just be aware of what is going on. It's not just some big conspiracy theory on the part of the viewer.
Mcinjosh is not incorrect when he talks about the importance and value of media in shaping political and cultural discourse. He is just wrong about the causes, effects, motivations, and history of everything he talks about. He is creating propaganda, except his is way more direct and he is way more transparent about what his goals are. In that sense you cannot say he is subversive, he is just making insane points that make no sense.
McInjosh's problem is he can't tell the difference between a muscled observation and an analysis that can be worked with. For example he says the normalization of male rape is bad because he puts man in the position of the submissive, which is the woman's role. He completely sidesteps the issue of consent to make a way stupider point about men not wanting to "receive" sex, which makes absolutely no sense because in heterosexual sex women can be in the dominant position. But then you realize, what is he really trying to attack here? The idea that women are submissive during sex? Is that the "problem?" He can't keep anything straight in his own mind so he just barfs it out there and hope people believe it to be poignant.
This is the same problem that effected Tropes Vs. Women. In their opinion, it is bad when women are not only damsels in distress, but also tough protagonists, and also healers, and also virgins and also whores, and also non-sexualized beings. It's weaponized noticing with a scowling face. Every so often they wander far enough to realize that what they REALLY wanna do is completely re-engineer human psychology, behavior, and societies. That's the only conclusion anyone watching their content can make. But because they are dopes it's just "having a conversation."