All right, I think I'm done with this. You continue to be all over the place - but for the record, you were explicitly blaming women here: "I'm saying that by going to a shitty and male centric movie not because you want to, but because your male date wanted to, is by default supporting those types of movie. If…

You keep talking about women virtually boycotting movies until they get what they want out of them, but the movie industry already undervalues the female audience. Those in the industry know that women will see movies with male or female leads, but men won't; therefore, they keep making films with "neutrals" (aka,…

Yes, but when the movie about white dudes shooting everyone last year tanks, the movie studios do not say "well that didn't work, let's try something else." They say, "well we had the wrong story/lead/release date/etc, lets try it again 8 more times this year because I am sure the NEXT time will be a hit." So…

Your argument is flawed, here - when we talk about "support" for movies, purchasing a ticket is the support. It doesn't matter why people are going. So taking that into consideration, your question becomes, why do women support movies aimed towards men, but men don't do the same? Well, as many others have told you,…

What are you talking about? 52% of movie goers are women. We buy 50% of the tickets. Fully HALF of the audience is women. HALF.

Ah, now we get to the beating heart of today's Confederacy: revisionist history. Anyone who claims Lincoln didn't really give a shit about slavery, citing as evidence the fact that he couldn't do anything he felt like all the time is ignorant of the historical context that he worked in, and the political limitations…

This has nothing to do with a "worldview," or what I think about anything. It is a simple fact: the Confederacy was formed for the purpose of defending the institution of slavery from outside pressure. The Confederacy was about slavery. It takes a special kind of blinders to say that the primary symbol of the…

Two points:

States rights is a whitewash bullshit that's been spouted after the fact. The confederate states openly stated it was about the preserving their rights to own slaves and the superiority of the white race.

They fought for state rights because they didn't want to give up slavery it's not like there was a laundry list of complaints and slavery was merely one bullet point to that list, no more important than any of there other complaints. To say that the civil war was fought primarily over anything but slavery is…

We weren't citizens of England. In fact, many intentionally fled England. Many others had no connections to England, at all, as they were from other places. We were property they could bend to their will. They owned the colonies. They could set our taxes, our laws, our governors without consulting us. You aren't a…

You seem to be confusing the state endorsement of this symbol from the individual expression of this symbol. People should have every right to wear it or fly it or whatever. Once the state endorses it, it's a different matter. If you cannot see the difference between these two things then the argument is over.

So, because racism is a fact of life, state governments should endorse it? I think we're capable of moving past it, as a species.

Are you stupid? No state should have the right to enslave others. They were not fighting for States' Rights. Every time that argument comes up, it has to do with white people perceiving they lost power because minorities gained a recognized civil right.. Don't like the ban on Jim Crow laws? Fight for States' Rights.…

" yet growing up in the south it was just kind of a casual thing."