“So racist jokes are bad but pedo jokes clear the bar?” – That statement implies that making jokes about one thing would be analogous to making jokes about the other. The only reason to even compare those two things as a question in this situation would be the extension of the underlying situations about Roseanne &…

You’re welcome! You can say context doesn’t matter, but that doesn’t make it true. Context is always important, which is why those two situations aren’t analogous to one another, and why everyone working with and around him are coming to his support, rather than everyone around Roseanne trying to find a way for…

In case you’d actually like to know the difference between this situation and the one with Roseanne, there’s a fantastic article diving into detail on it for you: http://www.vulture.com/amp/2018/07/james-gunn-is-not-roseanne-and-disney-should-know-it.html

There is a MUCH bigger difference than just James Gunn being on “our side” here, and this article really digs into it far better and in vastly more detail than I could hope to: http://www.vulture.com/amp/2018/07/james-gunn-is-not-roseanne-and-disney-should-know-it.html

This article does a REALLY fantastic job of showing why those two situations are absolutely nothing alike, despite seeming so at the surface, and people parroting them about ad nauseam: http://www.vulture.com/amp/2018/07/james-gunn-is-not-roseanne-and-disney-should-know-it.html

I think that analogy more closely gets to the fact that the dance as performed by the original artist was only used as a reference, and the work that was done to create the emote (or someone else dancing in a video they made) is using their own talent to animate or otherwise replicate said dance moves.

Wouldn’t a better analogy be to say that if you performed any of those dance moves yourself on YouTube without any music, and that was a monetized YouTube video, that the person who first did that dance should also be getting paid for it?

My analogy with priests abusing kids as a subject wasn’t meant to be critiquing something he said, but rather just a general example of offensive content presented as a “joke” vs. offensive content presented as someone’s genuinely held view. That’s why I prefaced that particular sentence with the words, “think about…

The point is that he openly acknowledges that this type of “dark humour” is unacceptable, and hasn’t made those types of so-called-jokes in... basically a decade. Essentially he’s being punished NOW for having been a way once – even though who he currently IS and has been for a significant period of time isn’t that…

There’s a BIG difference between making a joke about something terrible and actually being serious about something terrible.

It’s this sort of double-standard, combined with the fact that none of those comments are serious (they’re all clearly meant as dark/sarcastic humour), and is something that he’s actively stopped doing long ago that bugs me so much about this.

Given that a Leafy Sea Dragon is a type of Seahorse, I don’t see this is being too significant of a change to transform a Seahorse into something draconic.

I think that my favourite thing about her work is that it is both AMAZINGLY strong representation and it always feels natural and never tacked on. Steven Universe’s fantastically designed fiction is, at its core, totally believable, and it’s just wonderful. It makes it clear that what it’s doing isn’t a “fulfilling a q…

Proving once and for all that he is 100% a Bard.

What I *am* saying is that we should not be defined by our troubles. That the romanticization and fetishization of our struggle and, frankly, our death, has grown predictable and cliche. Something which is also anathema to good story telling.

They fell to earth in/like little meteorites. You can see a lot of mentions of it in newspaper clippings in the background. It’s also the explanation for why their exoskeletons are so tough.

I mean, if they’re from kids, they’re also more susceptible to something exploiting basic psychology rather than high critique of design.

The weird thing is that those terrible thumbnails get TONS of clicks, so they’re doing SOMEthing right.

CGI is still fine, just let Dave Rapoza or Paolo Rivera do the designs for the TMNT, since they really know how to portray the TMNT in a realistic way that isn’t utterly repulsive.

True, but I would argue that those limited uses are different for two key reasons:
1) They existed BEFORE it became transformed into a racist symbol.
2) They still don’t use it among a global audience.