‘Don’t watch if you don’t like it’, lgbt characters in Disney plus, Netflix and HBO series | Sézer Ozseven

The issue of freedom in entertainment realms such as Netflix, Disney and HBO has begun to be discussed again with the Disney+ channel’s decision to feature gay child characters in broadcast cartoons.

We often come across these discussions. There is a section in Turkey that tries to legitimize all kinds of corruption and perversion in a space of “freedom” which they call “don’t watch if you don’t like it bro”.

You are watching a TV series. A man is cheating on his wife with his wife’s sister. His wife is also cheating on her husband with her husband’s best friend. All this is presented as something valid.

You leave the TV. You are on Netflix. You see high school kids comfortably smoking drugs at school and getting into bed with their teachers.

You switch from Netflix to the Disney channel, so that I can watch cartoons with my child like a master. In the cartoon you opened, you see small children being kissed and forced into homosexual intercourse.

You put your headphones in your ear. You say: “Let me at least listen to good music”. You open Spotify’s most featured songs list. You hear a so-called rapper named Ezhel whisper in your ear: “The light is brighter with the effect of cannabis…”.

He couldn’t take it all and said, “What is this? How are they allowed?” When you explode, they immediately hold a shield in front of you: “What’s wrong with that, brother? You become a member here by paying money. If you don’t like it, don’t watch.”


The digital environment has become such a place that we have to run faster than bullets so as not to come across LGBT propaganda, drugs and pedophilia while walking around here.

Let’s open the products presented by platforms such as Netflix, HBO, Spotify, which have become a monopoly in the digital environment. What do they have apart from LGBT, drugs, incest, violence, twisted relationships? What virtues can a virtuous person derive from these products?

Hundreds of millions of people use these entertainment tools daily. Are hundreds of millions of people using these tools to watch men fall in love with their wife’s brother? No. They watch because the system has monopolized them by not allowing alternatives, by not opening up space.

By getting rid of these bullets, it has become almost impossible to consume anything in the digital environment. This is why these platforms appear as an imposition, not as a choice.


Suppose we are a very conscious citizen. Let’s say we have the freedom to “not watch what we don’t like” as some people say. So, does this situation remove the hegemony established over society? Does society have the freedom not to choose hegemony?

Children aged 12-13 are influenced by the lyrics of the singers they take as an example. It is influenced by their way of life. They are influenced by the characters presented as ideal types in the films they watch.

Is it part of the freedom of a 12-13 year old boy to start doing drugs by imitating the singer he likes to be “cool” because he drinks drugs and “don’t listen to s ‘he doesn’t like it’?

Doesn’t it affect the awareness of the young person watching this television series that the boy presented as the ideal type is “cool” in the television series watched by a high school teenager because he slept with his teacher and that he could comfortably drink drugs at school? How can you justify that by saying “don’t watch if he doesn’t like it”?

Isn’t it as clear as day that the tendency to imitate homosexuality among young people has recently increased in Turkey? Well, has that got nothing to do with its promotion on platforms like Netflix and HBO? Where are we going to put our young people who try to act “like homosexuals” simply because they are imitating TV series characters, when they have no hormonal deviations?


So where is the limit of this “don’t watch if you don’t like it” mentality? Or is there a limit? In other words, can a person watch or do whatever they want?

If the one who doesn’t like it doesn’t look at it, then let’s go further. Let pedophilia take its place here openly.

Encourage violence against women. You can enter by paying anyway. Some may prefer it.

Let the rape be shown openly. If you don’t like it, cancel your subscription.

Let the children receive weapons. Let them play mafia. Let them kill each other in soap operas. Your belly did not rise? Trace.

These examples can still be multiplied. Because there is no limit to this “freedom”.

The state does not allow her to be encouraged, just as she does not sell drugs.

Just as the state prevents violence against women and prevents pedophilia, it does not allow them to be encouraged.

The state fights not only terrorist organizations or economic contraction, but also social degradation and cultural corruption. The freedom of individuals can only be achieved by breaking the dictatorship of corruption that these monopolies have established over society and by enslaving society.

To give money or not, to love or not, no one has the freedom to choose “slavery”.


The system has not created space for alternatives by monopolizing platforms that encourage corruption. But now the system that provides this is being dissolved. Imperialism is dying, taking its last breath.

There is no homosexual society on the horizon of humanity. There is no society of drug addicts. There is a society on the horizon of humanity which accepts the aspirations of equality-freedom-fraternity as virtues.

The new society will also give birth to a cultural revolution that will fight the corruption of this system. Humanity is pregnant with this new culture and is experiencing the pangs of childbirth.

The duty of national states is to fight against the corruption of this rotten system in order to reduce these pains and facilitate birth.

Leave a Comment