I am saying that emitting carbon and being racist are not the same things and cannot be analogized that easily. There’s not such thing as “safe” carbon emitting (or at least it hasn’t been invented) but companies with non-racist disciplinary practices do in fact exist, and you have done nothing to prove or establish…

You are free to make any argument you want that censoring Chappelle is necessary and proper and you may well be right, but such action would in fact still fit the definition of “censorship.”

Climate scientists can in fact link climate change to specific plants given that carbon emission are harmful to the environment no matter who is releasing them. So long as you can prove they’re emitting carbon you can conclusively reason they are “part of the problem.” You cannot just as easily assume that any and…

Censorship (Noun): the act or practice of censoring
Censor (Noun): an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

The fact that they made the mistake of bowing to censorship a few times (once only in one country, the other when it was not their own talent being targeted) does not mean they are now duty bound to make that same mistake over and over again just to prove they aren't "hypocrites."  And if they make the same mistake…

The first amendment is not the beginning and end of what is and isn't censorship.  The first amendment actually does allow for quite a bit of censorship (classification of state secrets, for example), but it still qualifies as "censorship."

Notice how not a single one of those links has a single thing to do with the internal operations of Netflix, the actual subject at hand. You seem to have anticipated this hole in your argument and tried to dismiss it with that last paragraph but that does not change the fact that it’s a hole.

The “hypothetical white person would have hypothetically been treated differently, I'd ust know it” is one of the sillier rhetorical arguments that gets thrown around.  Do you have any actual evidence of Netflix not punishing a white cis guy when they intentionally leaked proprietary information with the clear…

If someone at Bank of America decided to post his customers’ social security numbers on the internet would that be “free speech.”

Those numbers are a bit misleading. Chappelle signed a deal way back in 2016 to release six specials and be paid $20 million each for them plus production expenses. So the budget for this was basically set in stone five years ago. That payout was always going to be “more than Chappelle was worth” in straight profit…

I haven’t seen the special, so I can’t speak for how offensive it is personally to me or not. But I have heard from trans people who did watch it and expressed hurt, betrayal, disappointment. That’s all I need to know. Cis people don’t get to decide what’s transphobic anymore than white people get to decide what’s…

My understanding is that was more initiated by Sony than Netflix and they generally probably feel less need to stand behind art they merely license than art they produce, but the same argument would apply as that is also being thrown in their face now.

Well, they buckled to pressure from the Saudi government to take an episode of a show down in that market... and here we are years later and people are still throwing that obscure choice in their face as a gotcha.  Imagine how often that would happen with them they also buckled to pressure to remove something this…

I agree with you that direct commentary is different kettle of fish to some extent than violent depictions, but I also think there’s a bit more nuance to Chappelle’s special than people are making it out to be. He’s not making any kind of direct call to violence or really even directing his audience to directly harm…

I mean, a lot of Chappelle’s critics seem to want this special to “be thrown into a pit of eternal fire, never to return” and if the connection to real world violence is about as nebulous with his special as it is to video games... where does that leave us?

Unless I’m mistaken Thor is the only character that has been given more than three official solo movies, so this isn’t too shocking.

I feel like the difference is that, in America at least, there’s a pretty clear understanding that most Catholics are “cafeteria Catholics” who only theoretically believe the “company line” while ignoring the bad stuff whereas protestants have a lot more control over what specific church they choose to attend and…

I don’t know how substantiated they are but I have heard some things about domestic violence allegations against Renner.

My money’s on Bill Maher.

Yeah, I know Black Panther is in vogue right now but were the early Black Panther comics (mostly written by white people I suspect) anything like what modern fans like about the character?  And is this the 60s Stan Lee relaunch Captain America or the Golden Age Hitler punching Captain America?  Both?