Well, considering none of that was in the article whatsoever, we're going to go ahead and revoke your summarizing privileges.
I read the article. I re-read the consent parts twice, because I was laughing out loud at it and enjoying a Cognac.
Glad you finally decided to show up in here 2 days into a discussion so you could stir the pot a little more with your usual ridiculous posting style.
What is the hourly workload I must agree to be here to satisfy my posting requirements? I've been very busy the past week or two and haven't checked in here for several days. I also have a lot of social/travel engagements planned through mid June. Do I need to run that schedule by you for approval before I post again?
I mean, it is truly incredible that you managed to put a link to an article that you've clearly not read right in your post.
Once again, I read the article before I commented on it. I also linked to it in my post in case anyone wanted to also read it, just cause I'm friendly like that. And more importantly, the article speaks for itself and is hilariously pompous and bizarre. Like this little sentence from the author...
"Haven't we already agreed that consent in early Disney movies is a major issue? That teaching kids that kissing, when it hasn't been established if both parties are willing to engage, is not OK?"
Huh? What planet is she living on? And who the heck is "we" that have allegedly all decided en masse that
"consent in early Disney movies is a major issue". I don't remember voting on that ever, and I've been online for decades.
I assume the "we" she refers to are her stylish readers who know they are very, very good people and much better at being humans than the people who shop at WalMart or vote differently than her. But still, that's a pretty broad swipe at defining a "we" in her article.
The SFGate author is a caricature of a crazy San Francisco liberal railing at pretty girls who get kissed by hot guys.
"Prince Charming, I want you to promise me, if I'm ever on life support some day, please kiss me, alright?"
Good one! Isn't it amazing how people now think old literature and art should be edited for their modern viewing pleasure?
It's fascinating to watch those on the far left become so enamored of censorship, banning books, sanitizing history, tearing down murals and art, re-writing literature and reframing thoughts, etc. They used to be against all that stuff in the 1960's, but times sure have changed. A refurbished C Ticket at Disneyland isn't even safe.
One of my favorite 1960's movies is
Fahrenheit 451. I remember owning it on VHS in the 1980's and thinking
"How silly, that could never happen in America!". Suddenly, 40 years later.... well, here we are. Railing against a princess getting kissed in a fairytale.