u/00PT

The very first movie establishes that murder is something that can happen to a toy, because Potato Head calls Woody a murderer. This indicates that they can be harmed and aren’t simply immortal, but I’m not sure if they feel the pain when they’re dying.

Why does everyone who likes the idea of a self driving car hate FSD? It has fewer accidents than human rates, and it’s the most fully featured non-location-locked self driving system available on consumer vehicles right now.

I would agree with you completely if you didn’t link it to literacy. It has nothing to do with people’s ability to read and understand what others are saying, it’s just an easy way to invalidate their opinion without needing to engage with it. Undying defenders of almost any media tend to use the same tactics, because nothing is perfect, so they need to be manipulative to avoid admitting when flaws are pointed out.

This is going to be very controversial, but:

LilyPad is by far the most sympathetic villain in the franchise. Her redemption wasn’t unearned, it was unneeded. She did not do a single thing with malicious intentions and her one mistake is completely understandable.

Just try to look at what happens in the movie from an unbiased lens. The toys develop an anti-tech prejudice before Lily even shows up, and therefore immediately start with antagonism when she does, even though she was fully on board with helping Bonnie exactly like they were.

Despite this, as soon as hearing what the problem is (Bonnie not making friends), she wastes no time at all executing a solution. What she thought was the best solution. Is this taken as evidence of her good intent or at least appreciated as a gesture? No, the toys immediately reject the action and act like she’s the devil for it.

Now she goes on the sleepover and Jessie breaks protocol to go along because she’s still under the delusion that Lily is going to hurt Bonnie. She gets lost, and, when Lily gets back, she is immediately pinned with the blame for that.

Of course, she had absolutely nothing to do with it, so she isn’t able to give the information they need. And she’s panicked because things went wrong. As she’s trying to think up a solution, she’s met with nothing but absurd antagonism. The toys are not helping, they’re just in the way. So she gets them out of the way.

The response? Effectively torture. Purposefully draining energy, then physical assault and literal mind control. But she keeps moving on.

After understanding the full extent of the harm that she blames herself for, but isn’t actually at fault for (she didn’t cause the bullying), she literally halts all efforts and removes herself, only to be saved later on and then be the most cooperative member of the main cast.

Music is a very big part of the show’s identity. I think there are almost as many original songs as there are episodes.

But I do understand that the show is repetitive, because that’s the point. The idea is to create as many variations on the same tropes as possible.

I think that all opinions matter, but I don’t think everyone should be trusted to do everything, they should just have input if they so please.

I believe that everyone’s opinion matters on everything, and reducing certain opinions to zero only accomplishes a decrease of diversity in the conversation and more chance of being wrong.

I understand that’s a relatively radical viewpoint in itself, but it is my honest viewpoint. People are capable of being presented something and yet still having divergent thoughts from the narrative it is framed within.

I honestly take issue with the premise that any opinion that has had any influence from any other source at all automatically becomes wholly unoriginal.

This can definitely be done in a way that is rude. I don’t know why you’re denying that there are different approaches.

Vigilantes inherently act outside the law, enforcing consequences without due process. If the consequence of death is too much for a vigilante to be deciding, why are they deciding who gets beat up and imprisoned? Both consequences deserve due process, yet only one of the cases are people upset about.

The ability to pay to subvert the justice system is a separate problem with a separate solution than allowing unproven allegations to result in convictions.

The problem here is that “if you must” is never reached, because treating other people horribly is never a requirement, just like intentionally damaging a building isn’t ever something that you have to do.

Generally I don’t like making moral judgements on people when I don’t have a clear picture of what they actually did. Making a joke is not the same thing as genuinely believing the implications of the joke.

But it does make certain criticism no longer make sense. Like claiming what is said is certainly genuine when jokes are known for very often not being genuine.

The every day thing is a normal person going to a gym, not the women themselves. The joke makes a comparison, not a direct accusation. And it is transparently a hyperbolic comparison. The genuine belief is likely much more mild, if it even resembles what was said at all.

The satire revolves around sexualization of everyday things.

Also, this isn’t even a dark humor joke, really. The use of the key offending term here is obviously just hyperbolic.

It doesn’t counter my point that the response here doesn’t make sense for a comedian making a joke.

I really don’t think that matters here.

I am following quite a few of these dark humor people. The punchline is to demonstrate how the logic of bigots is flawed, through a satire-like framing. Their audiences obviously don’t genuinely believe it.

The fact that it’s a joke. Definitionally not serious, as I already explained.

Sure. But the public reception takes the same shape as when people try to cancel popular figures.

I would probably consider that a bad joke, but I wouldn’t take that to mean they genuinely believe what they said.