>>8736808There's a clear, tangible difference between sexual and political pandering, IMO. One is nearly ubiquitous to the human experience, the other is inherently divisive by nature. If there's too much pandering geared towards one sexuality, it can be easily corrected, either by reducing that pandering or introducing more for the other end. There's potential for everyone to be happy.
Political pandering, though? I mean, a great writer would be able to explore it from all ends. But most don't. Most write political allegory with all the depth of a Disney movie where "MY POLOTIC GOOD OTHER POLITIC BAD." I guess what I'm saying is political pandering isn't really conducive to making anything thought provoking. Pandering is just that, pandering, and on a political level it means spewing views the writer finds agreeable and expecting the audience to clap. The worst part of it, however, is that political pandering immediately dates a work, which comes at an extremely high risk of aging like shit down the line when the politics related to it continue to evolve and develop. At best it's be seen as a hilariously bad piece of dubiously helpful propaganda and at worst will be viewed as a pathetic, hamfisted attempt to fight against the tides of history. And either of those is all around shitty for those of us who just want to experience good fiction.
