“ It’s not a harmless difference of difference of opinion.”

“The corporation already has the power to censor the thing I love, and asking them to censor the thing I hate won’t change how much power they have.”

No one’s human rights were violated as a result of this special.

“Well, no I couldn’t. If I’m saying someone is using hate speech people are going to want to know what specifically.”

Because the corporation that has the power to censor the thing you hate, has the power to censor the thing you love.

Here’s something to learn;

“When they do it it’s bad but when we do it it’s good” doesn’t mean it’s not censorship. Netflix doesn’t have a legal obligation. But it has a moral one. Philosophically, we didn’t create these limitations on government power because “well it’s bad when the government uses its powers like this, but it’s good when any…

You may have to sit down for this, but a lot of people’s opinions are that men are men and women are women. Up until very very recently, this was pretty much the only opinion.

That’s the point of the criticism. She’s a famous bigot, not because of any actual bigotry, but because her opinion on gender is different than yours.

And you could describe anyone having a different opinion as “being hate speech”, this tactic isn’t fooling anyone.

“Netflix isn’t 4chan, they choose what to put on their service.”

You can criticize. You can’t move to censor.

Making the same argument Saudi Arabia and Singapore made isn’t achieving the distance from Saudia Arabia and Singapore that you think it is.

Of course I used two countries with abysmal records on lgbtqqip2saa+ rights. Countries on the forefront of lgbtqqip2saa+ rights aren’t in the habit of censoring Netflix. That just goes to show you the kind of company that you’re in. Someone notify Websters, we’ve got a perfect example of Horseshoe Theory.

“Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy where homosexuality is illegal, women have only just recently been allowed to drive, and a journalist was brutally murdered for criticizing the government”

They opted to be complicit with censorship so they would make more money. Not being complicit does accomplish something. It’s the first step in achieving quite a lot.

Congratulations, you just made the same argument as Saudi Arabia and Singapore. 

No, the choice wasn’t made for them. They opted for complicity over free speech.

Yes, they are comparable situations. In one situation where it was easy, Netflix defended free speech. In other situations where it was difficult, they abandoned free speech without a care in the world.

Having a different opinion on the gender debate isn’t denying the existence of anyone, no matter how much you want it to be.