Some people blame Spielberg and Lucas for killing the Golden Age of Movies, but I think even if it weren’t for Star Wars people would’ve eventually got tired of all the downer movies.

I think we just had different assumptions about what Redmayne meant and that’s that.

My own experience is that there’s a lot of nasty stuff on the internet, so i think I’m perfectly justified in filling in his gaps with that.

Just because you or I haven’t seen someone one the internet saying those things doesn’t mean no one has. The internet has a lot of dark corners I’d rather not look into.

I think the reason criticism of the anti-Rowling vitriol is less specific is because it isn’t directed at one famous person like her, but at a multitude of people on the internet who aren’t individually famous enough to warrant attention but together form a pattern that’s worth countering. I assume there are also…

So the fact the Rowling’s said transphobic things means we can’t object to even the most vitriolic criticism of her? Even if one side is better than the other it doesn’t mean we need to act like that side is justified in everything they do in order to avoid “false equivalence.”

I’m tired of that word being used to push one-sidedness as a virtue.

I’ve always been kind of a goody-two shoes, even as a teenager, but I try not to judge people by “I never did that!” standards.

I was only talking about that 1% exception.

Oh yeah? Well, I had sex with your wife!

A few months ago Eddie Redmayne, while making it clear he disagreed with Rowling’s transphobia and is appalled by all the hatred for trans people worldwide, said he also thinks some of the vitriol towards her went too far, and Sam Barsanti was all “Bothsidesism!” and stuff.

If you think fixating on his name is incredibly anal, well, I can be an incredible anal person, so that’s that.

My issues is with names, not sexuality. I have no problem with saying that Elliot was always male even if he was previously identified as a women. That doesn’t mean his name was always Elliot.

You make it sound like I’m demanding random people on the street talk to me instead of making internet comments that people are free to reply to or not at their leisure. Also, I’m not arguing that the name thing will cause an apocalypse.

I was under the impression that JAQing off questions tend to be pretty specific, not vague, as in: “What if the wildfires really were caused by Jewish space lasers?”

Is it not possible that what someone thinks is a final, clear-cut answer might not be? I’m tired of internet commenters going “I already explaaaaained that” when someone doesn’t accept their answer as definitive.

I’d like to know what you think JAQing off is. I was under the impression that it referred to saying things like “What if COVID really is a plot to implant everyone with microchips?”

I wasn’t asking whether removing the Redskins name would have a ripple effect; I was asking whether you’d support retroactively changing the name in the past as a way to test the idea that retroactively changing Elliot Page’s name would’ve have a ripple effect on other name changes.

That’s why I asked the Redskins question, to test the hypothetical ripple effect.

I appreciate your answer on the Redskins question. I wonder, thought, what in your mind the difference is that makes it so it would be bad to pretend the Redskins was never their name but justified to act like Elliot Page was always his name.