QueerDefenseFront

Consider in the 90s and early 00s. Soicity still considered saying "thats gay" to basically everything as a standard normal and entirely fine thing. Regardless of context or intention. So the plight of gay communities was basically invisible to the avg person. Most people didn't know what a transperson was, or even really cared or knew that gender identity was a thing. If they did it was so far from what anyone talked about that it basically didn't matter.

Everything was focused towards things like 9/11 and other major events that happened at the turn of the century that affected not only the US, but in turn caused drastic effects the world over by what the US then proceeded to do. Not to mention other regions and their notable events during the era.

The rise of the internet didn't really happen for the avg person till 2010 and beyond, for the most part till DSL became standard the idea of social media was only for the small handful of people on IRC, fourms of the 00s. Which was mostly high schoolers and college kids, outside of the older folk that where entrenched in nerdy industries or hobbies which was few and far between.

So unless you personally knew people, all you really got was typically third or fourth hand information or what you picked up from reading maganizes in the check out at the store. For the most part the way infomation traveled didnt change in any meaningful way from around 1920 with the rise of the telephone till 2008-2010 when facebook finally reached its peak and was more then just the exodus of myspace kids, and the elders and parents started using it.

The idea of a inter connected world where you really know all this infomation about celeberities or really ANYTHING about people over seas beyond headlines. Has only been around for honestly? About 10-15 years.

From like the middle ages till 1840, anything beyond the next town over was the limit of infomation. From 1840 to 1920 you could have important infomation reach a small country. From 1920 to 2010 you could reach a nation of people one at a time. But from 2010 onward every person in the world can see anything about anyone at any time.

Basically every question along the lines of what you asked boils down to one simple thing. Communication between people for all of history was EXTREMELY limited. Connecting people makes it hard to hide. No longer can you wear a mask for a single interview, or lie to a reporter, move to the next town over. Suddenly become a new person.

Now your entire life follows you for all of your life. In all of human history that is NOT normal for 99.999% of people. All the other whys and hows and excuses all boil down to just taking advantage of this lack in communication. Oh someones racist but its too your advantage to let them? Then let them, cause whos going to find out. No one that would personally effect you! But today? That doesn't happen with out PR problems. Minorities of all types now have voices, and their allies can see and send help.

Communication, is the single biggest if only core factor. The lack of it breeds problems, the over abundance provides relief.

Out of the three examples you gave, Rowling was the only one that had anyone fooled, and that was largely because she didn't show overt bigotry, and didn't have the influence to rattle on in public. Plus, her direct form of bigotry wasn't something that was as hot button back then, so I kinda doubt she had gone full psycho even in her private life

Gervais, as well as Chappell, were both largely punching up back in their popular days. But they both were fairly well known to be assholes. In the Chappell show, he did this whole bit where a white girl was singing his opinions and half of it was saying gays were weird to him.

Gervais was notorious for being a smug prick, but he pandered to other smug pricks so his fan base was essentially never going to complain. But other people did. Back in my days when I was working and running around, a lot of people that were left leaning to outright socialist were saying that he was as bad or worse than your usual redneck asshole and that the only reason he got away with it was that he targeted the right wing idiots more than anything else. I agree with that sentiment. Then again, I've always hated his ass, so I'm biased.

Now, Chappell, he got a pass because he abused everyone and did so roughly equally. Also, he was actually funny when he wasn't just being a dick. He made as much fun of black people as he did whites, gays, latinos, asians, etc. So assuming you didn't mind the basis of the comedy being "B people be like X, Z people be like Y", it really wasn't bigoted since he did skewer everyone. Looking back, it's easy to see the differences in how he skewered gay people then, but it really wasn't obvious at the time (and I watched the show with gay people, none of whom did anything but laugh). The whole singing white girl sketch was the only one that stood out at the time.

But you're making an error in your assumptions. Several, actually. First that people aren't just as gullible now. They are.

Second, that it took all those steps of on screen kisses being fought for to push the cis-hetero normative standards being enforced from the top down to get to the point where bigger changes like Obergefel could happen. That shit was revolutionary. Billy Crystal playing a fairly stereotyped gay man on a popular TV show was a huge win, even though the character itself was not at all where representation needed to be. He was still an ally at the time, and remained so, despite the role being flawed

Gervais, for as smarmy and smug an asshole as he was did at least pander the talking points that helped mock homophobia. That can't just be dismissed no matter how shitty he is otherwise.

The populace has changed. Maybe it depends on location, but back as recently as ten years ago there were highly vocal opponents to trans people and issues being part of the general fight for gay specific issues. Going back to the eighties, trans people were not well received in all lgb spaces. The nineties were when that started changing, despite the overwhelming intersection of those rights issues being pretty damn obvious as far back as the sixties and seventies.

The shifting of the general populace is always a slog. It was for the first pioneers of women's rights struggling just to vote. It was (and is) for the rights and acceptance of black people, and the pioneers of that movement were working long before the marches and bus boycotts.

When things start shifting, you're going to see early adopters like gervais that don't really care, but want to both feel progressive and profit from performative behaviors.

All of which comes back to there not being gullibility at all. What it was was relief to see pop culture finally catching up. When you get the Gervaises of the world seeing an ability to have success pandering to an audience, that means there is an audience. There are now people that are either pretending to be allies well enough to amount to it in where they spend their money, or are genuine allies now supporting ideas with wallets.

But nobody was fooled. Not that had been fighting already. They knew damn good and well that the kind of performative displays that started happening would disappear as quickly as corporate sponsorship of pride parades as soon as the tide shifted. But you still don't tear down poseurs when they serve a purpose, and people like gervais did serve a purpose.

The general populace doesn't give a fuck. They think they believe whatever it is that allows them to fit into the crowd. Some of them may develop a genuine belief, but it won't be the majority. So the folks trying to sustain change are going to shrug and let the fakes serve their purpose. That isn't gullibility, it's pragmatism.