Llamalitmus

I don't experience it myself, so I couldn't say why it is the case, but I've known people who felt more freaked out or unsettled by things like death via necks snapping. If I were to try and guess, maybe it is easier to process direct impact causing lethal trauma than something that seems less... sonething? Idk. Maybe someone who has experienced this can explain.

I was thinking of the comic, but I guess it makes sense tocdo it that way in a movie meant for kids. A neck snapping might be a bit grim

I was referring to the original version in the comic. I haven't followed all the revisions and alternate universes to know the variations.

He used his web to grab her from above. I think her neck snaps from the whiplash?

What if... she made those comments knowing her son was going to be arrested, so she could say to her base that it was a set up/retaliation for what she had said? (Too conspiratorial? )

Unfortunately, in a capitalist society, consuming media and products supports the creators and the media apparatus around them. So by contributing views/clicks/whatever, you benefit those people. If those people use their money/influence in a negative way (against marginalized communities or antivax or anti worker etc) then you are directly helping those causes. I still listen to CDs of some artists that have been found to be awful, but I won't stream, or purchase merch, or event tickets. Everyone is going to draw their lines in different places, and we can't avoid all harm. But own it. Trying to say that what you're doing has no effect is intellectually dishonest

Edit: missed the 't in a can't

I think that way of thinking is why it is so difficult to deal with colonialism. We can commit atrocities, and as long at the people who committed them have died of old age, their descendants are free and clear. I don't really know where ixstand on this. But I can't not acknowledge that I have benefited from the misery of others. Whether it is slave wage labor, the crimes against indigenous peoples, patriarchy, or these proxy wars around the world. I think that pushing back against these injustices when seeing the harm it is causes makes obvious sense. But I think it also makes sense to do it selfishly. These people are making us culpable. Doesn't matter if it was someone we voted for who made these decisions, or even if it's someone we didn't vote for. These decisions are being made in our names and with our money. Idk man. Shit's complicated

And let's not fool ourselves. I'm sure that at least some, if not most, of these signatories aren't doing this out of some altruistic streak. Doesn't take morals to see that we're headed for class war. That or economic collapse. They are giving up some money/power/control so they don't risk losing it all.

Look at the US. They thought there were all these rules restricting a variety of things relating to governmental powers. Trump ignored a bunch of them, and it turns out there weren't laws in place to prevent or enforce repercussions. Just conventions that most politicians abided by. Now they've got that cluster fuck. Or more directly related, there were laws regulating the stock market. Those regulations have been eroded over time by those who would benefit. We let them, and now inequality is off the charts. Systems this big and intertwined need structure. You can argue about whether you want it centralized or decentralized, but it needs structure. Letting people decide what is right for themselves leads to what we have now. Those with money have the power, and they are free to keep taking from those at the bottom.

Because capitalism.
The less glib answer, though a bit of an over simplification, is that the current trend of neoliberalism discourages self limitation and collective collaboration. If regulation is not put in place and enforced by forces (government, social contract, etc) then people are incentivize to push and make use of any advantage available. Not doing it risks being displaced by those who do. Competition becomes toxic and self perpetuating

Defining it as a feature would dispel the myth of there being an ethical way to incarcerate/indefinitely detain people. The "bad apples" argument tries to put forward an idea that something bad is actually fine. It's only bad in 'this instance' because these people are bad/immoral/incompetent.

Sounds like she could do with more bran in her diet >_>