I can't help but think of the bit in "The Kite Runner" where the main character is at the video store and someone asks him if the original is any good and he immediately tells him it's great and Charles Bronson dies, because knowing whether or not a story has a happy ending is way more important than not being spoiled…

And pioneering digital technology would allow Scarlett Johansson to play all seven of them.

I'm pretty sure the argument being made is that if you see trans people as deviates and child predators, why would you feel safer forcing them to use the "right" bathroom?

I know you can find an Internet comment expressing any view, no matter how improbably hateful but yes, lots of people were mad specifically because it had an all-female cast. The cast visited a children's hospital and these people got mad about that and literally zoomed in on individual children's faces to try to…

Also Denzel's look in this reminds me how I still want the Bass Reeves movie Art from Justified was pitching in that one episode.

I don't see why this needs to exist but the diversity of the cast will make awful people mad just as they were calming down about Ghostbusters, so yay.

I'll say that this is a sincere question, and you can take that or leave it: do you think perhaps this view of things, where tone or perceived tone determines whether or not a point is valid, or whether someone is trying to "win," might contribute to that cheapening of the discourse you mentioned? And, indeed, might…

Can you see a problem with, for whatever reason, attributing active malevolence to me sincerely needing a clarification as to what you were saying, because otherwise I didn't see what your personal views on BDS had to do with anything? My God, so many people who claim to be against the us-and-them Manicheanism you see…

You seem really mad, for whatever reason, but do you agree or disagree that in an argument where your side was ostensibly the pro-free speech side, you started hedging on the issue when presented with the suppression of a position you personally disagree with?

So speech that's "less palatable" for you SHOULD be suppressed. Got it.

Sure if we can also agree that people have been complaining about baffling, insufferable student-led protests for literal centuries and it's pretty shortsighted to treat them as indicative of some recent downward spiral. To treat them as even in the top 10 threats to The Discourse when meanwhile, there are state and…

Wait are you that "Damn, Daniel" kid? Because if so I think you're actually way more famous than Billy Corgan.

Also unless you're about 7, I'm gonna have to argue that American society was SLIGHTLY more self-righteously offended when people were calling for the death of a country singer for criticizing the president, and said president implicitly endorsed it. But hey, I guess straw college students are easier targets.

If you only define censorship as something the government does, you correctly define the word.

Do people overreact online to honest mistakes/misstatements by well-intentioned people? Yes.
Has anything offensive Billy Corgan or Alex Jones have said been out of well-intentioned ignorance? No.

Do cryptocurrencies count as wealth?

These are definitely cool people for the commentariat to be furiously defending.

LMAO "in the public eye."

That's definitely something a real person said.

I miss back when men were men and food was sold in unlabeled opaque sacks and whatever you got, you got.