Okay, they don’t. But someone else does. Just because one person is okay with being treated a certain way doesn’t give them the right to treat everyone else that way if they don’t want to be treated in that fashion. I mean that isn’t the explicit terms of the golden rule, but I really don’t think anyone would say that…

Yeah, there are always the “you can make fun of me for being white, I don’t care!!” people.  Because they don’t seem to realize that a few jokes here and there is a lot different from the dozens of racist jokes black people would hear on a daily basis if it was all socially acceptable.

More and more I feel like there’s been a growing number of people who’ve come to interpret ‘do unto others as you’d have done to you’ to mean ‘Anything you do will be repaid in kind, so when you knock that motherfucker down, you make sure he stays down before he can return the favor’.

Yeah, but how often does that claim really hold up to scrutiny? I get the very strong impression that those complaints, if we were to view the jokes people were actually complaining about, boil down to “this college got all pissy about my misogynist/racist/homophobic joke, and that usually KILLS in the clubs I play. …

Your examples are all totally different things? Intra-feminist critiques of feminist writers/thinkers, people who defend a controversial activist, and a college where students protested and called on a professor to be fired.

I think it’s inevitable in movements that the previous generation and the next generation will disagree about where the issues and lines are, because the frame of reference has shifted so much over the years. I don’t completely agree with Atwood and Greer but I understand where they’re coming from, I guess

Its funny how often “PC culture” is often just “don’t be an asshole”.

Makes a lot of sense to me. It’s a remake of A New Hope, and I don’t think the identity of Luke’s father or the emperor were all that important to the story.

But Johnson didn’t *contradict* anything in the Abrams movie. So I don’t think there’s any indication the series is fine with just retconning at will. And I’m honestly a lot more excited about talented filmmakers playing a game of Exquisite Corpse than some blueprinted glorified TV series of a trilogy.

But Abrams clearly cared about Rey’s birth

It is odd that people seem to think Abrams had a masterplan, when literally nothing in his career suggests he thinks that far ahead. He’s always been the guy who just throws shit at the screen to get the ball rolling, with little regard of how or why or what anything means in terms of story or character, if its shiny…

Yeah, my feelings about Snoke after TFA echoed my feelings about the Emperor after TESB: “Why should I care about this old evil dude who just barely appeared in the movie?” They may still turn Snoke into a compelling villain if they revisit the character for prequels, but he served his purpose in the current trilogy…

I might as well assume that nothing that was revealed in this one is necessarily going to stay true.

I’m not 10 so it has to be the latter.

If it turns out that that’s NOT who Rey’s parent’s were, I’ll eat MY hat.

I will die with you on that hill, especially with regard to Snoke. With Rey, there is at least a question implied by TFA, but it was a question that was of far greater significance to the character than to the plot. With Snoke, the writing didn’t even bother to make it a question.

The dumb internet hill I choose to die on is arguing that Abrams and Kasdan didn’t even set up Snoke or Rey’s family as big mysteries — they were there to explore if the next guy wanted to, and he obviously had mixed feelings about what was and wasn’t worth pursuing.

The highest rated episode of The Thick of It had 1.5 million in the UK, the lowest rated episode of Broadchurch had 8.8 million viewers in the UK.

From memory Tennant got a substantial pay increase for the specials year- and Smith made less than that.

Tom Baker was paid in scarves and kidney pies, as was the custom at the time.