Sort of reminds you of this http://wellbehavedmormonwoman.blogspot.com/2014/02/movie-frozen-gay-homosexual-agenda.html#.VFxU9zSH-NA doesn't it?
I could say "people see what they want to see".
It seems in this forum people like to overanalyze and just contemplate alternative interpretations of things. Which is fine, it's their right. Same as its this woman's right to express what she believes to be true. But while here its done in good fun, I don't think she realizes how closed minded her perception of the world and that movie is, and how hurtful it can be.
"Reality, is that which , when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Philip K. Dick
People have different ways of approaching art, and differing opinions based on what they see based on that approach. Some people are passive -- "Nice thing you've got there. I think I'll enjoy it for a bit before moving on to the next thing." -- and "consume" art; I get the feeling, based on your reactions to people taking a more analytical approach, that you tend to fall more into this camp. Others see something and say, "Okay, what's this thing trying to say? And might it, in fact, be saying something else that might not be as readily apparent?" I think there are several of us who fall into this camp (I include myself, and based on what I've seen written here, I would probably also include Ben, April, and Mooski among others -- I'm sure they'll correct me if I've misinterpreted where they're coming from).
The thing is, if you're going to approach a text that way -- interpretation and exegesis versus plain 'ol consumption -- each person's going to bring different things to the table. There are different critical methodologies that come into play even when you're not entirely conscious you're using them; there's the body of work you've engaged prior to that, whether it's web comics, music, SF, fairy tales or political theory; and there's the personal experience that changes not only your perception of the world, but also on things that either portray or comment on that world. That's not a matter of belief (or not) in reality... instead, it speaks to the ways in which each of us perceive and experience it. That's neither closed-minded nor hurtful; on the contrary, it involves being open-minded enough to consider that there are other ways of looking at something, and to consider what those things mean in the bigger picture.
While I respect her right to belief things and have a different opinion, I still find it appalling that such way of thinking is still a thing and they won't face reality.
Except you don't seem to respect it; "find[ing] it appaling that such a way of thinking is still a thing" -- dismissing critical thinking as an aberration -- isn't an expression of respect by any rational measure.
But that's neither here nor there. I pointed out "The Little Mermaid"'s trans subtext to illuminate an interesting visual parallel to people who might not have picked up on it otherwise, not to shame trans people for existing or Disney for telling our stories. The comparison really hurts my feelings.
The times I have seen you analyze something you always seem to just state facts and observations and use them to formulate and share ideas and possible interpretations of something, but not as opinions and merely as "hey guys this could also be seen as this" or "have you ever considered this interpretation?", you don't force people to see things your way or claim everybody else is wrong if they don't see it your way or decry other points of view.
That article is a whole lot more biased opinions than actual observations and that is what I had a problem with. It's aim is not to spark a healthy discussion but to put down a whole community because of opposing beliefs. Yes, the movie could be interpreted and seen to have undertones of different things, but end of the day, unless it's a conscious effort of the writer (and in the case of movies maybe writers in plural, hence more difficult to coordinate that kind of thing) its more likely that somebody wrote a story without even realizing or thinking about possible interpretations and just wanted to share a story. People will see what they want to see.
I too find the comparison of what you do to that particular article rather...out of place and unnecessary. Like I said, the approach and tone are completely different. Just keep doing what you do, the rest of us here enjoy it immensely. 
I'm not sure of April's precise background, but speaking as someone who majored in Lit and got in the habit very early on of citing sources that backed my opinions, I don't see these as statements of fact necessarily as the habit of someone who's used to sourcing her work to back her opinions. That's not "forc[ing] people to see things [her] way," that's just what you do when you're trying to make a point. It ought not to be necessary to place a disclaimer or special "opinion" tag on things just to avoid hurting the feelings of those who prefer not to hear someone else's opinions.
In terms of not knowing the writer's motives... well, that's exactly the point of interpretation. We don't always know. Some writers tell their stories in one dimension -- everything they intended to say is right there on the page. That kind of writer, and that kind of writing, is exceedingly rare (and exceedingly boring). From our classical literature all the way up to "Rambo" (yes, even "Rambo"), the story on the page or the screen is only part of the story; there's nuance, subtext, and sometimes entire other plots, some hidden in plain sight and others revealing themselves only after time and careful thought. Some of us enjoying the rest of the story certainly doesn't preclude you from ignoring it, thereby "seeing what you want to see." See how that works?
You don't force people to see things your way or claim everybody else is wrong if they don't see it your way or decry other points of view.
But at least we can agree on this much. She didn't.
Poll
39 (37.9%)
Author
Topic: WCDT: 2826-2830 (03 - 07 November 2014) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread (Read 60459 times)