I bet any money that it counts as a new click when the URL turns over.

I’m not intentionally missing anything. I’m quite intentionally disputing the definitions you are using.

I see what you did there, and I award you all the stars I have to give in recognition of your efforts.

Assuming the original material (ie negatives, soundtracks, etc) are even available, it’s not just a matter of “re-cutting” a film. Everything that goes into making a film is of its age. The lenses, the camera moves, the acting, the technology available for special effects. By the time you were done “re-cutting” a film…

Came here to say the same thing.

Fair. I just wasn’t about to go looking up 45 years worth of Aquaman stories, so I was in the rare position of actually wanting the spoiler.

“Stop getting offended so easily” is the prescription for just about all the complaints people have about current politics/culture/etc. I agree it’s a pipe dream, because there’s way too much money to be made in keeping people pissed all the time, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth saying from time to time.

Killa K literally said: “people being mad at you online doesn’t deprive you of liberty or employment”, so that’s “who’s saying it” for one. I attempted to demonstrate that people do quite literally get deprived of employment on account of people being mad at them on line.

I find it remarkable that people consider it more reasonable to say that since someone is back their cancellation doesn’t count. As if the stress of being fired (to say nothing of the years of unemployment between jobs) doesn’t count for anything either.

The statement was that being cancelled doesn’t deprive you of employment. It didn’t have a time limit on it.

Do you think it should only be called being “cancelled” if it’s a life sentence... in which case, you think that’s the more reasonable position?

How long is the proper amount of time to deprive someone of their…

And noise is at least a symptom of the problem, because it distracts and dilutes from the impact of trying to cancel actual bad actors, because people just get fatigued about the whole thing. (Which admittedly, was probably the end goal of the troll who started the whole thing, but that doesn’t mean the concept…

The uproar over James Gunn comes to mind.

Tell that to Justine Sacco (https://www.the-sun.com/news/3790849/who-justine-sacco-what-say-tweet). Yes, she’s back to work now, but a couple years penance seems rough for a dumb tweet.

Jon Runson’s got a great book on it, So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed.

Well that’s the thing, right? Conservatives have been doing this forever (though their boycotts tend to fail because they usually do something stupid like buy the product so they can shoot it or blow it up).

I have quite literally seen people (generally a decade or two younger than my 40yo self) say that they don’t want or understand why sex scenes are in films. 

The key for me was those last two sentences. I think she’s actually asking for nuance and a little more thought before cancelling people- thus the complaint that everything is all-or-nothing.

Generally when people put in a spoiler warning, there’s an actual spoiler.  

First one Wonka meets.

Well, here’s hoping you’re right about the lawsuits.

I didn’t realize Disney World was supposed to be a place of quiet academic learning.