You think the fact that he's a professor means he wouldn't make shit up? Do I have to remind you of Ward Churchill, Madonna Constantine or any of the other professors who've been caught pulling some hoax?

Definitively his death. You're isolating that shot from the ones that preceded, which established the sequence of (1) bell rings and (2) Tony POV. You're also ignoring (a) Bobby's statement about it all cutting to black and (b) the scene where the guy is killed in front of Silvio and his hearing cuts out, all of…

You're changing the subject, which is the value of ambiguity vs. certainty. But in any case, cutting to black WAS intended to be definitive. The fact that some people didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't definitive. It just means that definitiveness was not unambiguously conveyed. That's not surprising, given…

When Chase himself actually comes out and says Tony's dead (or much less likely, that Tony's alive), then you will have a point. Until then, this is just sloppy journalism and shouldn't sway anyone who spends more than a second thinking about it.

No, some asshole we've never heard of CLAIMS Chase told him that. And even in this asshole's version of it the circumstances meant Chase's answer was highly dubious.

Definitive conclusions have narrative value to many, yes.

So silly. Some asshole misrepresents or misremembers Chase's statement, or just plain makes shit up for the clicks, and you act like it gives you permission to ignore all the contextual clues that tell you, unambiguously, Tony died.

Because some asshole claims Chase gave him a terse response in a diner to shut him up? That doesn't resolve shit.

Wow, you are so wrong. It doesn't go on and on because the song itself terminated in the middle.

No, you're misstating what he said. He said ACTUAL. That's the opposite of hypothetical. I can tell you're not that interested.

Uhh …. No. He said *actual* chilling effect as opposed to hypothetical. What you're describing IS hypothetical.

I don't think chilling effects are easy to prove. That's the nature of the chilling effect.

I didn't say it was more effective. I said his intentions were likely good.

It's so obvious that he was trying to suggest that the way to deal with suicidal notions is to not let it overcome you. To take control. He was writing to discourage people from committing suicide. Was he doing it with sensitivity? Would his approach actually be effective for seriously depressed people? No on…

I think you don't. Free speech really doesn't mean much if your understanding of the concept is so technical and limited that you think only the government can restrict it.

There's really not any room for nuance or subtlety anymore. The guy expressed an opinion that's not palatable anymore, so he's gotta be vilified. That's just the binary kind of culture we live in now.

Exactly. Blank religious sureness.

Do you think that's different than the point I was making?

>>>the blank religious sureness that is the opposite of faith

It's okay to wish pain on drug addicts, because they transgressed by trying to alleviate boredom and pain.