freehugs

This may be true, but I think the main reason for less "obvious" baddies in modern movies is simply that they kind of went out of fashion from a culture standpoint. The ways how stories are told and how world is portrayed/perceived in art and media is heavily dependent on the people who live in it. Post-modernism is en vogue because we've shifted our world view from simple good vs. bad towards recognizing that the world we live in is much more nuanced/complex. "Sometimes the villain is in your head" or "nothing really matters, everything sucks one way or another" are world views that reflect our modern western culture a lot more since we are so much more connected to the world through the internet.

That said, post/meta-modernism is just one side of this. I'm sure there are plenty of commercial reasons to make toothless, non-offending movies as well. Also, movies like Top Gun: Maverick prove that the classic approach to storytelling (good guys vs bad guys) can still work and make a shitton of cash (although they didn't go all in on who the enemy actually is).

Huh. It seemed to work fine till the end for me, except sometimes I had to tap twice for the video to play.

I'm totally fine not having the feature if it proofs unfeasable. Definitely would be amazing though as I now often find myself avoiding youtube posts entirely. But maybe that's just me and I'm okay with it either way.

Facts. I just disagree with the admins' approach to this particular issue.

I know, I never said otherwise. I just expressed my opinion on the matter. Telling me to go start my own instance if I disagree is kinda proving my point.

Poor arguments does not equal talking shit. And I would prefer to decide for myself who I do/don't listen to. It's the admins' right to ban instances as they see fit, but I don't see a good reason to do so preemptively. I'd rather include opinions/ideologies I don't agree with than shut them out (as long as they follow the rules, to which Hexbear didn't even get the chance).

That doesn't necessarily mean the arguments are made in bad faith.

These are very good points, imo. Preemtively banning a sizable community without even a dialogue beforehand will only stir more extreme opinions and division between instances.

Seconded

I read the whole article and that particular test was the least alarming to me. They say the cells died 3x faster than when exposed to a more diluted solution, but the article doesn't mention references for what concentration levels were tested or if the levels were anywhere close to what a real human could be exposed to. They just say the particles might accumulate over time, but that doesn't really mean anything without hard numbers.

So is the abuser's ability to go through with it 🤔