Posts by Ashley Young4

Exactly my point; she just isn't cut out for the moderator grind, so she threw a bit of a tantrum instead.
Can you even imagine trying to manage entries on a massive site like Reddit, where individual threads can stretch on for a million pages? Yet, apparently, some people can't even be bothered to moderate a single page or clean up the clutter.

It really is quite refreshing to read such thoughtful posts, especially when the author is as sharp and good-looking as the guy in that profile picture—assuming that actually is you. 🙂

Olivia Moore51 said:Benjamin Palmer40, am I perhaps just out of touch with reality here?

Because honestly, looking for a partner isn't exactly the same experience when you're living with a disability compared to someone who isn't.
And then, you try to start a thoughtful discussion about the unique nuances of that struggle, only to have a few trolls jump in with insults until the whole thread gets shut down by the mods. Isn't that just wonderful?

Olivia Moore51 said:😕

how on earth could you possibly know what I am🤷

I can't imagine which gay person would actually write something like that:

in this country, being gay is becoming less and less of an issue, yet they go out of their way to make it such a big deal...

Since you refer to those individuals as "they," wouldn't it follow through simple logic that you aren't one of them?

Furthermore, the first part of that sentence really highlights a certain lack of insight from someone speaking from a place of total ignorance. If you weren't able to hold hands with a girl without receiving dirty looks or even facing actual hostility, perhaps you wouldn't feel the need to spout such nonsense.

I find myself wondering if we might strive for a touch more grace and decorum in our interactions here? Is it not possible to engage with one another without resorting to such unkind and disparaging language? Asks:
If we are looking at a sample size of forty posts and I find myself noting that the subpar entries significantly outnumber the quality ones, doesn't that inevitably suggest that the truly good contributions have become a distinct minority?

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion surrounding this topic. First, you claim that the primary issue was simply a lack of "high-quality" posts.
So now you're suggesting they actually existed after all, even if they only represent a small minority? It makes one wonder, though—what exactly is going to happen next?

So, I just found myself scrolling back through this entire thread again...
A few posts over there are making the same point: you can take all the classes you want, join every activity available, and spend endless hours online... but isn't that exactly what straight people do too?
A few posts simply say: I don't really have anything profound to add, but welcome to the forum. 😕
A few posts have popped up claiming that this isn't the place for someone like me, even going so far as to say I’ve completely ruined their dinner. Is it really possible for a few online comments to spoil a meal?
Then we have a handful of spammers floating around, suggesting things like buying a puppy or heading out to fashion shows and whatnot.

Well, why not? It’s certainly sound advice. While it might not be the only way to approach things, I find it to be quite a valid perspective, don't you?
A warm welcome to you! It really is lovely to have you here.
Card.
A slightly more lenient Card.

What exactly is the value to be found here?

Oh, please, don't make me laugh; if we actually used usefulness as our primary metric, that entire sub-forum would have been shuttered ages ago. We see the same topics being chewed over a thousand times, spinning in circles and going absolutely nowhere, only to have everything suddenly vanish into thin air with a puff—closed!

And then there is the author of the thread itself, who seems entirely unwilling to actually open up about what’s weighing on him or the kind of partner he is looking for; instead, when asked a simple question, he just snaps back with something like, "Well, I shouldn't have to explain the difference between a sane person and an idiot, should I?"

If you had taken a moment to read a bit more closely, wouldn't you have noticed this? ladybug24 was being completely sincere when she mentioned how there are just so many niche websites out there, yet they seem to be absolutely teeming with idiots and fools. Is it just me, or does it seem like we’re living in an era dominated by people who can only focus on superficial things? It feels as though everyone is obsessed with nothing more than physical measurements, bulging muscles, and those perfectly sculpted, model-like faces staring back at us from every magazine cover. Why is it that we have become so fixated on these shallow standards of beauty?"

I believe he made his grievances quite clear, didn't he?

Honestly, this entire thread is just complete nonsense. Wouldn't it be much better if we simply closed it down once and for all?

Do you ever find yourself reflecting on the different ways people navigate life? It seems to me that there are two distinct types of individuals out there: those who possess the wisdom to learn from their missteps, and those who, quite predictably, seem destined to repeat them indefinitely.

Olivia Moore51 said:If you go around asking for "special treatment," you're just going to make things harder for yourself, aren't you? It isn't really smart, and honestly, it just creates prejudices right from the jump.

Oh, come on now, what kind of special treatment are we even talking about? If you take a moment to reread my previous explanation above, you'll see that this isn't about seeking favors, but rather a perfectly logical way to specialize our discussion topics.

In this country, being gay is becoming less of an issue, yet people seem determined to maintain the stigma surrounding it...

It’s quite easy for someone who isn't gay to claim that everything is easier for them, isn't it?

wiredharbor22 said:I wonder, how many other posts by those banned users were actually on that thread? 🙂

Wait, what?
Three warnings. So, from your perspective, none of the others were actually breaking the forum rules, right?

The real issue was simply that there weren't enough "good" posts. Even the ones that counted could just as easily have been directed at straight people.

Ah... so now we've shifted from talking about an excess of bad posts to discussing a lack of good ones?
I have to ask, is your impression regarding the shortage of "good" posts—and you did put that word in quotes yourself—really sufficient grounds to shut down a whole thread? It certainly is an interesting rationale for closing a discussion, isn't it?
What exactly made them "not good"? Was it trolling, going off-topic, or something else entirely? Surely, those are the things that warrant a warning.

Well, look, my opinion on the matter doesn't seem to be what you're looking for. You might as well just wait for the moderators to weigh in.

That’s true. Though, of course, I’m not expecting any specific resolution. I’m honestly not sure if the percentage of complaints on this subforum that get resolved positively is even statistically significant, if such a thing exists at all. But I suppose it’s worth speaking up; at least the gay community will know where they stand. 🙂

Olivia Moore51 said:I'm on board with this one. 🤷

But what exactly is it that you agree with? Is it just because of the upvotes? Honestly, trying to find one specific topic among countless others—ranging from discussions about a hangnail to a monkey wearing a pineapple on its head—isn't really asking for special treatment, is it?

No, being gay isn't the same thing as being straight. Looking for a gay partner carries a completely different set of dynamics than looking for a straight one. Especially here in the US, don't you think? That’s why the subject deserves its own space. Anyone who tries to lump everything into one big category clearly doesn't quite grasp the nuance of the conversation.

wiredharbor22 said:They are interpreting them correctly. Your whole theory about there being "bad" posts in that thread is, let's just say, completely off base.

"Correct" according to your own personal vision?

My assessment of the bad posts is wrong? Or is it yours? 😁 Because from where I’m sitting, I only see three warnings in that entire thread, though perhaps my eyes are failing me.
Or are you actually trying to suggest that there were more bad posts, but you simply didn't carry out your moderator duties and only issued three warnings? 😉

wiredharbor22 said:When someone starts a thread titled "hmmmmmmmmm," what else can they really expect if it doesn't get closed immediately?

The very first thread that got shut down wasn't actually titled "hmmmmmmmmm," you know.

If some straight guy had opened a thread asking for advice on that topic, I probably would have just told him the discussion already exists.

But besides that one, there are a million other threads out there. Why shouldn't one be dedicated specifically to gay topics? You see, there is actually such a thing as specialization, which is quite helpful because it ensures the core message doesn't get lost in the shuffle.
That is precisely why we have so many different subforums and specific topics.

That’s what I mean when I talk about separation. I suggested he head over to Reddit because it feels a bit more open, and there are enough moderators there to keep an eye on those kinds of discussions.

We can't just dump everything onto Reddit, because not every conversation fits that vibe.

And I am done arguing with you when you just interpret things however you want them to be.

How else should I interpret them? Should I just bend things to suit your preferences? If that were the case, I wouldn't have even bothered starting this thread in the first place.
And please, let's not go there; this thread wasn't really meant for you anyway, since you've already made your stance quite clear. This space is for someone who might actually correct your misunderstanding.

It was truly wonderful that you shared your perspective on this matter. After all, isn't it common to see people offering their justifications during a trial in the US? Just because someone provides an explanation for why they committed a crime doesn't mean they won't ultimately find themselves behind bars, does it? 🙂 If you catch my metaphor, then you understand where I'm coming from. My position is that providing an explanation like yours only to immediately shut down the conversation is counterproductive—after all, isn't that the entire reason this forum exists?

And then what? Of course things are going to be messy, given the kind of country we live in compared to somewhere like Sweden or California. In America, unfortunately, we deal with a lot of people who seem to lack any sense of emotional maturity. But what does that actually imply? Does it mean that discussions regarding gay topics don't belong on this forum, perhaps finding their place only on a site like Reddit instead?
I could certainly send him a private message, but isn't that exactly what this forum was designed for? Isn't the whole point to share our perspectives openly and perhaps even offer a bit of helpful guidance to someone else in the process? Could we perhaps dive a little deeper into this subject? Hey everyone.

The second thread was essentially just an attempt by the author to breathe some life back into that topic you previously closed out.

Starting a separate discussion thread isn't really an act of separation, is it? To me, true separation would only occur if we had a dedicated LGBTQ+ subforum where all other topics were strictly prohibited. Since such a specialized section doesn't exist here, people simply start new threads whenever there is a genuine interest or a specific need from the author—which is exactly how it works for every other topic on this board. Wouldn't anyone agree that this is just the natural way for a community to evolve? Is there anything more frustrating than when things simply refuse to go your way? It feels as though you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole, doesn't it? Sometimes, no matter how much effort we pour into a situation, it just seems like we're pushing against an immovable object. Is it worth the struggle, or should we just let go and see where the wind takes us? It seems like he managed to distance himself from absolutely everyone, didn't he?

I honestly can't say what "we" want, because, let's be real, we aren't some single organism sharing one collective brain, are we? But if you're asking me personally, I have no desire to see the specific issues facing the gay community get swallowed up by a massive sea of posts where women are just lamenting that they can't find a boyfriend.

Did you even check the thread count? There were actually 37 replies before the moderator locked it down, not just 10. That brings us to a total of 39 posts, which means more than half of the responses were perfectly relevant.
Assuming that the moderator did her job correctly regarding the moderation—since only three people actually deserved a warning—we're looking at just 3 out of 39 entries. Does it really make sense to shut down an entire discussion because a mere 7.69% of the posts were off-topic?

That second point of yours doesn't hold much water either. I’m certain there are plenty of gay users in America, just like in any other subforum. Of course, those users aren't hanging around this specific section every single day, so they can't exactly snap up a thread that directly concerns them with lightning speed. The real frustration is that now I can't contribute at all because the thread was closed so pointlessly.
Besides, you don't necessarily have to be gay to offer some helpful advice on a topic like this. One could easily draw from the experiences of their gay friends and how they managed to find their soulmates, couldn't they?

Regarding your third point, I think you've got it backwards. On the contrary, he actually reopened the exact same thread that wiredharbor22 promptly locked.

*I should probably clarify that the US isn't its own isolated bubble within this forum. Therefore, gay users like myself, who might not have a specific interest in that particular subforum, might still jump in to answer if we see an interesting discussion like this one being locked away.

This is the thread:

A user named "mucalo" started a discussion titled "Is it actually possible to find a decent guy?". The thread focuses on the struggles a gay man faces while searching for a serious relationship, with the original poster asking for advice on where and how to meet someone compatible. This was posted in the US subforum.

Since there were a few instances of blatant homophobic outbursts, the thread was closed for that reason.
That brings us to our first issue.

This forum claims to prohibit hate speech and insults based on sexual orientation, and it does indeed enforce those rules. However, at the same time, threads are being shut down simply because they might trigger homophobic reactions—which effectively punishes the very people who want to discuss gay topics, or rather, the topics that bother aggressive homophobes in the first place. Isn't that a massive paradox and quite frankly, a bit foolish?

It seems the administration is taking the path of least resistance, acting like a protective nanny for homophobes by closing any topic that could potentially provoke them. Wouldn't it be more in the forum's best interest to actually maintain such discussions and instead focus on punishing or removing the intolerant participants? That way, they wouldn't have the opportunity to pollute other discussions either.

If the official policy is truly to close perfectly valid threads just because they might elicit an intolerant response from obnoxious members, then shouldn't the entire US subforum and half the threads in other sections be closed as well? Consistency is vital, isn't it?

The second issue is that this was the only thread of its kind in the US section. What kind of message does that send? Why is it acceptable to have discussions like "I got cheated on—he completely wrecked me," "Oh boy, what is he doing to me?!" or "How do I approach a girl on the bus?" etc., yet a specific, meaningful thread about gay life is deemed unacceptable?
I truly wanted to share my thoughts with that gentleman and others, perhaps offer some helpful advice, but apparently, that isn't allowed.

My hope is that the thread will be reopened and that the moderators of that subforum—specifically wiredharbor22—will be taught why it isn't right to shut down topics just because they might displease proponents of hate. Thank you.

Sandra Campbell2 is such a wonderful guy. 🙂

Emily Thomas3 said:@ Ashley Young4: activism is activism, but making a movie about it? That’s just propaganda. If a film's whole goal is to flip some bigoted person into a tolerant one, it’s propaganda through and through—even if you think the outcome is a good thing (though "good" really depends on which side of the fence you're on). Jerry Martin19 makes a fair point, though: propaganda movies, regardless of the message, rarely hit the same artistic heights as films without an agenda. We can debate that all day, but I get why he's feeling let down.

Well then, how exactly would a film about Milka need to be structured to avoid being labeled "propaganda"? I mean, how could one possibly film a story about Milka while maintaining the "artistic value" found in non-propagandistic works?

(Propaganda is defined as a systematic attempt to shape perception and cognition, manipulating individual behavior to elicit a specific response desired by the propagandists.)

And surely, a film cannot simply "convert" a bigoted person. Isn't there a bit of a paradox in claiming a film is propaganda when the target audience is completely immune to its message? If they won't listen, what is the actual purpose of the film? 😉

Jerry Martin19 said:yeah, they really leaned into that life theme. felt like they just threw in those personal relationships to say "hey, we're all human too." correct me if i'm wrong 🙂

He's not portrayed as fighting for everyone's rights everywhere. He's a gay activist, and that's clear through the film. Translation: he fights for gay rights. Maybe you got tripped up because he said at a few public forums that everyone should be equal (what's the big deal there?)—but that's just standard political talk. It's not like he's gonna say: "I only care about gay rights, everyone else can go screw themselves."

if i recall, in one or two interviews he did mention he fights for everyone's rights.

No, I haven't seen the Oscar, but I read part of what the screenwriter said. Wow, what a tragedy—the writer is gay and emotionally connected to the subject. Let's just scrap the movie and reshoot it with a straight writer immediately. 🙄

okay, now you're just poking the bear. i don't care if the writer is gay. let them be whoever they want. I sent you the link earlier; if it's not clear enough for you, that's on you. tell me this: should a biopic about Charlton Heston be considered gun propaganda?

Looks like you’ve already lost your cool and started throwing insults. Just so we're clear, I'm neither stupid nor homophobic. Honestly, if anything, I'm more on the gay side than the homophobic side...

So you think I can't argue? Honestly, it seems more like you just can't wrap your head around a point or actually accept one... 🙂

I didn't get that impression at all. And look, I don't feel the need to prove anything to you; that’s simply your own subjective take on it.

If I recall correctly, he mentioned in one or two interviews that he fights for everyone's rights.

Well, and? Is it really such a shock that he might actually care about people having equal rights?

Okay, now you're starting to provoke me a little. It doesn't bother me one bit that the screenwriter is gay; people should be free to be whoever they want. I provided the link earlier showing what he said, and if that isn't clear enough for you, that’s not my issue. Let me ask you this: should a biopic about Charlton Heston be nothing more than a campaign for gun rights?

Actually, I went ahead and watched that clip. What can I say... the man seems deeply invested in this project on a very personal level. I don't think that's a bad thing; perhaps it allowed him to channel certain emotions more effectively rather than just treating them with a sterile, clinical detachment.

As for what the film *should* be about—isn't that more for the screenwriter to decide? While I'm not particularly interested in the man himself, if his legacy is tied so closely to gun advocacy, wouldn't it be perfectly natural for the film to address that aspect of his life?
But if you are attempting—and I do sense an attempt here—to draw a parallel between gay activism and gun advocacy... then I'm afraid you're quite confused, Jerry Martin19.

You've clearly lost your patience and have started resorting to insults. Just let me clarify that I am neither stupid nor homophobic. In fact, I'm more gay than I am homophobic. 🙂

The point isn't whether you are an auto-homophobic gay man or a homophobe. The point is that you are labeling the depiction of the struggle for gay rights as "propaganda."

P.S. That comment regarding the "stupid homophobe" who goes to see the film and potentially changes their mind wasn't directed at you. I'm not sure why you felt targeted by it.

Since you can't actually point out what specific parts of that movie constitute propaganda, it really feels like your posts are just baseless, homophobic rhetoric.

Isn't it wonderful if a bigot watches a film and is forced to pause and wonder why they feel so much irrational hatred toward gay people? If that kind of self-reflection is what you're labeling as "propaganda," then I say let the propaganda win! Though, honestly, I highly doubt those types of people ever stop to ask themselves those kinds of questions...

Jerry Martin19 said:hm, I figured a movie titled Milk starring Harvey Milk would actually be a biopic first, and then maybe some secondary propaganda for his cause. But the movie doesn't really show that. It feels more like they used his name as a vehicle to push an agenda rather than actually projecting his life...

One-sided? Sure—but that’s the concept and the spirit of the film.
I have no clue what kind of "objective" viewpoint you were looking for. Did you expect *your* subjective view to be the one presented? Or were you expecting the opposing, homophobic side to be portrayed as correct or positive?

The discrimination the gay community faced there (and everywhere else) was pretty damn real and objective.
Again, I don't know what you wanted. If you wanted a deep dive into the other side—you know, the homophobes fighting against gay rights, like that crazy bitch whose name I can't remember—then that's a different movie entirely. This movie is about Milk and the people around him. So yeah, maybe it feels "subjective" to you, but that's how movies work...🙂

What objective viewpoint was I expecting? I already said this, but fine, I'll repeat it. They spend the whole time implying Harvey Milk was a fighter for everyone's equal rights. If they wanted to show him as a broad-minded liberal, fine, but they didn't quite pull it off—or rather, it wasn't in their interest to. They just wanted the audience to see him as this activist who understands everyone, using that persona as a mask to "sell" whatever fits their narrative best. Doesn't feel objective to me. I wouldn't have minded if they didn't constantly harp on how broad-minded they are, but they did, and without justification. If you aren't following me, sorry, I tried to be clear. Besides, did you even hear what the screenwriter said at the Oscar ceremony?

Isn't that exactly what defines a biopic? It’s all about narrowing the lens to focus specifically on those pivotal life moments. Of course.When you look at why Harvey Milk matters so much and how he truly cemented his place in history—specifically through his incredible activism—it really makes you think, doesn't it? Personally, I’m not quite sure I would have found it quite as engaging if the movie had spent half its runtime focusing on his childhood or his relationship with his mom, grandmother, father, or even just his interactions with peers and local shopkeepers. After all, a film can't go on forever, can it?

You have his meeting with the love of his life, his move to San Francisco, the deep development of their relationship, even that second romance... and so much more. So, really, isn't it clear that the film isn't solely focused on activism—which you so maliciously dismiss as mere "propaganda"?
Ultimately, Milk secured his place in history because of the very causes he championed—that "propaganda" everyone loves to debate—and the monumental strides he made in the fight for gay rights, rather than just the personal dynamics involving his family or employers. Isn't it interesting how, by some stroke of cinematic luck, the film chose to focus precisely on the legacy that defines him?

After all, can we really expect propaganda to work when they try to portray their "hero" as someone who is occasionally harsh or even a little bit shady? It just doesn't seem to go hand in hand, does it?

What kind of objective perspective was I actually expecting here? Even if I feel like I’ve already made my point, I suppose it bears repeating. Throughout the story, they constantly imply that Harvey Milk was this universal champion for everyone's rights. Now, if their intention was to portray him as a broad-minded liberal, that would be one thing, but they simply didn't succeed—or perhaps, more accurately, it wasn't in their best interest to do so. It feels as though they just wanted the audience to perceive him through that specific lens, seeing him as an activist with empathy for all, only to use that carefully crafted mask to sell whatever narrative serves them best. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat subjective? I wouldn't have minded at all if they hadn't spent so much time constantly insisting, "this is who we are." Is there anything more refreshing than encountering someone who truly possesses a broad-minded perspective on life? It feels as though we live in such polarized times, doesn't it, where everyone seems so quick to judge and even quicker to retreat into their own little bubbles? I find myself constantly wondering how much more peaceful our daily interactions might be if we all simply took a moment to consider the nuances instead of rushing to a conclusion. Wouldn't a bit more intellectual curiosity go a long way in bridging the gaps between us?But did they actually live up to the hype? If I didn't quite make my point clear the first time, please accept my apologies, as I truly did try to be more precise. Besides, have you happened to hear what the screenwriter had to say during the Oscar ceremony?

He doesn't exactly present himself as a champion for everyone's rights, does he? It’s quite evident from the film that he is primarily a gay activist, specifically fighting for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. Perhaps you were a bit thrown when he mentioned at those public forums that everyone deserves equality—but honestly, isn't that just standard political rhetoric? Surely he wouldn't go out and say, "I only care about gay rights, and frankly, I couldn't care less about anyone else," would he?

The fact that he was an openly gay man who organized pride marches and constantly championed LGBTQ+ rights clearly places him in that specific category of politicians fighting for queer equality. It seems to me they were simply portraying him exactly as he lived his life. I didn't catch any scenes in the film where he was organizing civil rights marches for Black Americans or labor strikes for workers, but does that mean he wasn't interested in those causes? Of course not. Did he attempt to build coalitions and win over other minority groups and marginalized communities? He absolutely did.

I haven't actually sat down to watch the Oscars myself, though I did catch some of the commentary regarding what the screenwriter had to say. Honestly, what an absolute disaster; it seems the writer is gay and carries a deep emotional connection to the subject matter. Should we just go ahead and wipe the film from existence and re-shoot the whole thing with a straight screenwriter instead? 🙄

Jerry Martin19 said:Watched it last night and honestly, I think the movie is totally overrated. Where do I even start? Look... I can't stand it when films tackling discrimination don't offer an objective viewpoint, but instead try to "force" you to feel sympathy for the victims and give them a "shoulder to cry on." I just don't vibe with that kind of "morally pathetic" approach toward the audience. Second, which ties back to my first point, I hate it when a story is too one-sided—when the viewer is funneled into seeing things through exactly one lens, the one the writer dictates. I didn't feel any sense of freedom here; if anything, it felt like being coerced into looking at things from the specific angle "they" wanted me to see. And no, I'm not some homophobe, I just don't want this kind of author-to-viewer relationship. Given that the subject matter is literally about discrimination, having a biased narrative is the last thing this should be doing...

To be fair, it’s not all bad. There are some good parts. Mainly, the acting by Brilliant Sean Penn is nothing short of incredible. I was actually surprised by how well he controlled the character, keeping him grounded in reality even when it seemed like he might slip, though he's always been a great actor. Josh Brolin is also really solid, and as far as the rest of the cast goes, I think everyone hit their mark.

Bottom line: the movie is okay, but it could have been much better, much more open, and less one-sided... I think it would have worked way better if the film wasn't basically just targeted gay propaganda.

I have to say, I don't think what you've written makes much sense.
The central theme of the film is Harvey Milk's fight for gay rights. That is why the movie is titled "Milk," and why the poster features the actor playing Harvey Milk. Is it one-sided? Perhaps—but that is the entire concept and spirit of the film.
I'm curious, what kind of "objective" standpoint were you actually expecting? Did you expect that *your* subjective viewpoint would be represented? Or were you hoping that the opposing, homophobic views would be presented as equally valid or positive?

The discrimination that the gay community faced there (and everywhere else) was quite real and objective.
Again, I'm at a loss as to what you were looking for. If you wanted a thorough exploration of the other side—for instance, the bigots who fought against gay rights, like that crazy woman whose name escapes me—then that would be a topic for a completely different movie. The subject of this film is Harvey Milk and the people surrounding him; so, it might seem "subjective" to you, which, of course, it is, just like every other film ever made. 🙂

I wouldn't call that hypocrisy. 🙂
His objective was perfectly transparent, and he was determined to reach it by any means necessary.

It would actually be hypocritical if, for instance, he were publicly acting as an advocate for gay rights while secretly working to undermine everything behind the scenes. Honestly, that would have been pretty foolish, wouldn't it? :/

Raymond Sanchez7 said:I am well aware of your orientation, so I won't be bothering myself with any further debates on this subject with you; from what I have gathered, you hold rather orthodox views on being gay—no offense intended, but I have noticed your somewhat aggressive stance regarding this topic across a few different threads... However, as I just stated, if you didn't catch that, I actually find it refreshing that the film depicts gay characters, including that entire community and their activism, as shades of gray, perhaps even leaning toward black at times, since there are moments where Harvey Milk acts like a total hypocrite, if you'll pardon my language, and I actually found that quite compelling... They aren't portrayed as mere caricatures like in the thousand other films that came before it, but rather with a certain level of objectivity and realism.😉

Regardless of your preconceptions about me or your decision to "not engage in further debate"—given that you're still actively debating here—I find myself wondering: could you clarify exactly where you felt Harvey Milk was being a "hypocrite"?
And would you mind listing at least three films from your supposed collection of a thousand and one that portray gay characters as mere buffoons? (Though, personally, I don't see anything wrong with such depictions given much of the world and history.)

Emily Thomas3, I wasn't particularly fond of the Tosca detail either, though I don't believe that alone makes the entire ending pathetic. But then again, that's just my take. 🙂