Trump Supporters Are Getting Triggered by an Adaptation of a Novel Over 30 Years Old

[GMDino]

http://observer.com/2017/03/trump-handmaids-tale-elizabeth-moss/

Quote:Hulu just released a new trailer for The Handmaid’s Tale, their upcoming series starring Elizabeth Moss set to premiere on April 26, and it looks chilling.


The show is based on the novel by Margaret Atwood, written in 1985 and never out of print since, which depicts a dystopian future in which the United States of America has been dismantled and replaced with a theocracy, Gilead, which forces women to act as “handmaids” to powerful men and bear them children if their wives are sterile.



The trailer shows us our fullest glimpse yet at the world before Gilead. “I was asleep before, that’s how we let it happen,” Moss’s Offred says in voiceover. “When they slaughtered Congress, we didn’t wake up. When they blamed terrorists and suspended the constitution, we didn’t wake up then either. Now I’m awake.” We see Offred (a name which designates her as “of Fred”) as she was before she donned the chilling red coat and white hairpiece—protesting the new totalitarian regime, getting fired from her job, attempting to flee with her husband and daughter to Canada. We also get quick glimpses of Serena Joy, The Commander, and his driver, Nick.



But perhaps the most interesting revelations from the new trailer are down in its comments section where hordes of ornery Trump supporters who can’t find anything in the world to get angry about have decided to project their ire onto a decades-old work of fiction.




From /r/the_Donald, a subreddit devoted to Donald Trump Reddit
For a little context: Hulu picked up The Handmaid’s Tale with a straight-to-series order in April 2016. I know it feels like Donald Trump has been our president for a thousand years, but he didn’t even become the Republican nominee until July—three months later.


Yes, of course, The Handmaid’s Tale seems chillingly familiar to the modern day Republican party and its Twitter-addicted leader, but that’s what made Atwood’s original work so stirring in the first place. Atwood tapped into a genuine and timeless threat: those men who will trade away the liberty of their neighbors for power. A fixation on controlling women’s bodies, and their wombs; performative evangelicalism; anti-intellectualism; pollution and sexually transmitted diseases gone unchecked—“’Better’ never means better for everyone,” the Commander remarks. What about “Great Again,” Commander?


And so, to those Trump supporters who have seen the trailer and derided it as liberal propaganda, I ask: what is it about a dystopian horror world in which terrorist attacks are used as an excuse for unchecked power, and in which women are suppressed until they are worth little more than their ability to reproduce seems like it’s referring to your political party? Because if you recognize The Handmaid’s Tale, written over thirty years ago, as a big subtweet at your political movement, what does that say about your political movement?

[*michaelsean*]

God I remember having to read that. Ugh.

[Dill]

(03-24-2017, 09:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://observer.com/2017/03/trump-handmaids-tale-elizabeth-moss/

 so, to those Trump supporters who have seen the trailer and derided it as liberal propaganda, I ask: what is it about a dystopian horror world in which terrorist attacks are used as an excuse for unchecked power, and in which women are suppressed until they are worth little more than their ability to reproduce seems like it’s referring to your political party? Because if you recognize The Handmaid’s Tale, written over thirty years ago, as a big subtweet at your political movement, what does that say about your political movement?

Everyone knows that if the US embraced conservative principles, most women (those who can get a man) would find true freedom in marriage to a husband whose needs they anticipate and whose life goals they fully support as they merge with his identity.

Sounds like The Handmaid's Tale makes that look all bad and gets women to questioning patriarchy. That way lies political correctness, which includes respect for racial minorities, which if it spreads can make people less likely to deport immigrants.

I don't think Trump supporters have a big problem with using terrorist attacks as an excuse for unchecked power, if that will build the wall, ban Muslims, give arrogant liberals a slap in the face, bring god back into government, and make America great again. Maybe some would be ok with the story if it were told from Commander Fred's point of view instead of a whiny woman. If sure Gilead would not seem all that bad if you were a guy and in charge.

[xxlt]

Were they given their trigger warning? No! So leave 'em alone!

You know they only make fun of things that are near and dear to their core being: sexual deviance, the threat of Sharia Law, idolatry, trigger warnings, a President who is a dictator...

[*bfine32*]

Is there anything to validate that Trump supporters have the monopoly on negative views on the series or is this just something else to try to shine a negative light on Trump and his supporters? Because I know a lot of conservatives that did not vote for Trump including myself.

[GMDino]

(04-03-2017, 01:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is there anything to validate that Trump supporters have the monopoly on negative views on the series or is this just something else to try to shine a negative light on Trump and his supporters? Because I know a lot of conservatives that did not vote for Trump including myself.

This literally has nothing to do with the story posted.

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2017, 03:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: This literally has nothing to do with the story posted.

Asking to validate that it is Trump supporters on a story about Trump supporter's reaction has literally nothing to do with the story?


I think we've reached a new level of WTF.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2017, 03:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Asking to validate that it is Trump supporters on a story about Trump supporter's reaction has literally nothing to do with the story?


I think we've reached a new level of WTF.

You're moving the goalposts a bit, here. You initial question was asking if Trump supporters had a "monopoly on negative views on the series." Now in this post you seem to be asking for validation that they are Trump supporters at all that are referenced in the story. Those are two very different questions.

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2017, 04:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're moving the goalposts a bit, here. You initial question was asking if Trump supporters had a "monopoly on negative views on the series." Now in this post you seem to be asking for validation that they are Trump supporters at all that are referenced in the story. Those are two very different questions.

I have no idea how this is a moving goal post. Because I left out the word Monopoly in the follow up? Perhaps Dino has been quickly unseated in obtaining a new level of WTF.

The article states Trump supporters "triggered" and I asked for anything to validate Trump Supporters are the only ones triggered or even if the tweets referenced are from Trump Supporters as Conservative does not always equal Trump Supporter.

So do you agree that the question I post had "literally nothing" to do with the OP or were you just saying?

Either of you can feel free to answer either question if you think the point of mu questioning changed.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2017, 04:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no idea how this is a moving goal post. Because I left out the word Monopoly in the follow up? Perhaps Dino has been quickly unseated in obtaining a new level of WTF.

The article states Trump supporters "triggered" and I asked for anything to validate Trump Supporters are the only ones triggered or even if the tweets referenced are from Trump Supporters as Conservative does not always equal Trump Supporter.

So do you agree that the question I post had "literally nothing" to do with the OP or were you just saying?

Either of you can feel free to answer either question if you think the point of mu questioning changed.

Say what you will, but your wording on the second post does change the question being asked. If you are sticking with your first question, then no, it doesn't have relevance to the article as the article did not claim Trump supporters were the only ones that took umbrage with the series.

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2017, 04:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Say what you will, but your wording on the second post does change the question being asked. If you are sticking with your first question, then no, it doesn't have relevance to the article as the article did not claim Trump supporters were the only ones that took umbrage with the series.

Then why do you think the article was titled Trump supporters? Do you think they chose it because they want to suggest that a couple Trump supporters are against the series?

Just so I'm understanding what you are saying: You think someone asking to validate that Trump supporters have a monopoly on an article titles Trump Supporters is not relevant? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm pretty sure that is what I just read you type.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2017, 04:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Then why do you think the article was titled Trump supporters? Do you think they chose it because they want to suggest that a couple Trump supporters are against the series?

Just so I'm understanding what you are saying: You think someone asking to validate that Trump supporters have a monopoly on an article titles Trump Supporters is not relevant? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm pretty sure that is what I just read you type.

I am saying that my inference of the article is not that they are stating only Trump supporters take umbrage with the series. I am inferring that they find it humorous or sad (or a combination thereof) that there are Trump supporters that do. My inference from your question/statements is that you think the article is trying to state that only Trump supporters take umbrage with it.

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2017, 05:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am saying that my inference of the article is not that they are stating only Trump supporters take umbrage with the series. I am inferring that they find it humorous or sad (or a combination thereof) that there are Trump supporters that do. My inference from your question/statements is that you think the article is trying to state that only Trump supporters take umbrage with it.

Quote:But perhaps the most interesting revelations from the new trailer are down in its comments section where hordes of ornery Trump supporters who can’t find anything in the world to get angry about have decided to project their ire onto a decades-old work of fiction.

You can infer what you want about the point the article was trying to make. We'll just disagree on that as much as we do if the question(s) posed were germane to the topic.

[GMDino]

(04-03-2017, 05:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am saying that my inference of the article is not that they are stating only Trump supporters take umbrage with the series. I am inferring that they find it humorous or sad (or a combination thereof) that there are Trump supporters that do. My inference from your question/statements is that you think the article is trying to state that only Trump supporters take umbrage with it.

That's why I said it was literally nothing to do with the story.  Perhaps finding a story where the show is panned by an audience for other reasons would have helped rather than feel Trump supporters are being unfairly singled out in a story about Trump supporters.