The government folk want it gone from theirs, but they want the rest of us to have it. Thus the claim "Our users want it" is true, in a tongue in cheek way.
Can't read the article, cause NYTimes paywall.(And I don't use methods to get around it, cause that's technically stealing; and I refuse to pay for NYTimes.)
But here's a comment based upon the pretense of the title at least.
Cinema, is in the eye of the beholder.
For someone who knows the usual trope of superhero comics and such, yes, there is nothing at risk. We (the comic book readers, etc) know very well that 99.999% of the time, the 'good' wins, and the 'bad' loses. Maybe not always right away. Maybe not even after some time has passed. But they always end up winning somehow. Always.
That 00.001% though that we know is likely to not happen, is still more than enough plausible capability for the 'bad' to win. Especially in the eyes of those who don't know any better, because they don't have the experience with the dried up and old tropes of superhero media.
In my opinion, it's this very thing that makes the anti-hero in other media so popular with so many people who are tired of the same old tropes being reused again and again.
Meanwhile, the average person will lap up anything Marvel tosses at them.
But note how I don't mention DC here? Why is that?
Because DC actually tries to add some level of complexity to their stories beyond "bad guy did thing, so now good people assemble, and take away bad guys toys."
And it's pretty often that it's a 'guy' who is bad in these no less. It's only with stuff like Wanda Vision that we see for once a female actually being given the cast of being the 'bad person' in Marvel stuff; and even then it can be argued she's going through some serious shit involving grief, depression and mania.
Did I describe that properly? I didn't even watch it.
Anyways. Marvel can be cinema. It just isn't for those who know better that it's mostly just a mental wankjob for the more or less morally simple people out there.
Meanwhile we have other things being made by (IMHO) much better companies that often gets people confused and so they don't like it. All because they try to not be simple enough a toddler can understand it.
So I agree with the premise, but only because of the human condition.
(P.S. This isn't to say all Marvel = bad. Just that they kind of have reached the bottom of their current barrel, and need to find a new one in some respects. They do release some pretty decent movies to sit back and relax with; but they aren't exactly "big think" kind of movies.)
Edit: Because the internet has a way of providing when you least expect it; here's a great example of how DC manages to make things 'more complex' in a way that is actually enjoyable.
1. I never said it would happen quickly. Thing is, humans are rather impatient generally speaking. Especially when they think they are correct about something and must spread the enlightenment of their ego unto others.
Time, doesn't wait on us. We wait on it.
Here's an example: I play some MMO's now and then, and with the kind where people are fighting over territory in the game, all sorts of real world type politics ensue. Sure, it's just a game, but those are real people playing, meaning real brains doing things that they do; even in the real world. People who are actually morally upstanding act one way, and people who are actually terrible under their societal masks are... well... the other.
Sometimes you get to deal with drama that is absolute bullshit, where the people who are less than morally upstanding cast out a bunch of lies, mistruths, and royal stinkers.
What's the best way to deal with this? You just keep on doing what you do, provided it's not actually wrong, and leave them alone. What happens?
Well, in my experience, the rest of the actually morally decent and upstanding people take notice of this, and then go on to cast out the liar.
Now, you may want to say "But that's just a video game" or "That's just the internet".
But I disagree entirely to the ends of the earth. Humans are humans, no matter how or where they communicate. The only difference is that some have less inhibitions to do certain things, much like how alcohol affects them.
So the end result for me in these kinds of situations both IRL and online, is eventually people wise up. They eventually figure out that Manu40 isn't really the problem, and the real problem is the other asshole. (I say it that way, because I absolutely can be an asshole if I want to be.)
I've seen this sort of things play out with myself, and others, so many times; that I cannot agree with you. I can see where you come from though. Which brings me to #2.
2. Generally speaking, most of those problems you speak about in regards to rights, religion, race, gender, sex, orientations, etc, etc... most of these problems stem from people not leaving each other the F alone. These all stem from people being overly concerned, or angered by, or jealous of, or etc other feelings about other people.
I.E. If they just left each other alone, most things would be fine.
But humans don't like doing that, because again; ego. (And possibly a tinge of societal narcissism.)
You have zero faith in humans ability to cope; but might I ask you without seeming to be attacking you, if perhaps that might be part of the problem here.
You are not alone in your feelings, and so others act in a way to try to rectify each other in the guise of their opinions being holier than thou.
Do you see now why I say Time and leaving each other alone would help solve this problem?
I'm not saying it is going to resolve itself immediately or overnight in any way. It could take a long, long time. Weeks, months, even possibly years.
What I AM saying, is that so long as people are constantly getting up in each others face and shoving their opinions down each others ears and throats; none of this will get any better, until it gets bloody. And then, it could still be argued that it never got better; it's just the killers are all that's left over.
Not victors, killers. Because there is no victory in killing each other over opinions, and that's what this will turn into if people don't get over themselves, and leave each other the F alone.
I mean shit, I'm guilty of it right now too by even replying to you to potentially help have you see things from my point of view; and so are you in reverse.
Ideally, we'd all just stop typing and talking, and just mind our own damn business.
But that's hard, because like it or not; some of us are actually right, and yes you and I could be wrong right now. The solution could be something that neither of us have even thought of yet.
It's that, and more. It's also that they want to be able to rely on being able to call you in at any moments notice without any potential for excuses like "Well, it's going to take an hour to get there, because of the bus." or "I can't come in right now due to the weather on such short notice."
Quite frankly, I think the entire restaurant industry (in Canada) needs to be audited for multiple reasons. Tax evasion, disobeying the law in regards to discrimination, etc. (Canadian laws) There may be some innocent owners caught in the crossfire, but if they truly are innocent in this case; they should be fine and worry free. It's not a line of logic I like to use in many things, but in this case it really is true.
Fair enough I suppose. That said, I personally would rather delete a comment that potentially has a brigade incoming towards it while I still can, than wait too long and suffer the consequences of malicious people.
I mean, I still have the original comment saved on a wordpad if I decide to put it up again; but at a slightly later time when those people have moved on to whatever it is that annoys them next.
I'm also new here, so I am doing my best to curtail the effects of the malicious against me as best as possible.
I think we overall agree then, it's just that society has become the 'walking on eggshells' part of your comment, in an attempt to not be sociopathic, which is part of the problem I am describing; just in different words.
In my opinion as someone who was constantly bullied in school and have had to deal with people through my life who (in a just world) would have been committed to a psych ward to figure out their issues in why they insist on psychologically harming others... I think we as a society are going too far now with being worried about hurting some random persons feelings over things they technically have no right to be offended over. Which is a tricky thing to discuss, because 'right to be offended' is a hard thing for some people to wrap their heads around when all they ever are is offended at everything.
Which is why I bring up the boy who cried wolf story. I think it suits the situation, since these people are essentially crying wolf at what the rest of society sees as 'nothing'.
Anyways, don't worry about whether or not something is a helpful expansion when discussing these things with me. Sometimes what ends up being the case is we actually agree on many points; but our lexicon differs. That's helpful because others will too, which means now both parties are giving a description that different people will now understand (hopefully) more accurately.
1. Crime rates reduced: I mean, of course they did. It was not longer a crime to be using those drugs, so there was no reason to be arresting people for possessing them. I don't know about you, but that seems pretty simple to me.
2. HIV rates reduced: I remember reading something once upon a time ago that made mention about how HIV rates plummeted all around the world (except in Africa) during that same time frame. Yet the rest of the world definitely hasn't decrimed/legalized all drugs. Might be worth looking into that more and see if maybe Portugal just had a happy coincidence.
3. Overdose deaths: Strangely enough with humans, once something is no longer illicit, they want it less. They are also less likely to overdose on said drugs because they aren't having to risk a bad batch from a bad dealer as much, that sort of thing. So this is a win for legalization, I must admit; but it's a pretty loose one, since the whole "can't have it, thus want it" effect is pretty strong with humanity. Not having it anymore cause they can have it could be part of this reduction. Needs more looking into. (I would hope that before downvoting, people would look into things like the reduction of marijuana use among some people because it was no longer against the law, thus 'cool' to be a user of marijuana here in Canada and I think some American states as well. This applies to basically any drug due to how human psychology operates.)
4. I think most of those reductions are going to have more to do with happy coincidences, and the conjunction of rehab use, since the use of said drugs isn't as socially stigmatized anymore, thus neither is rehab.
(Edit: Look, folks. I get it, some of you really don't like what I have to say here. That's fine. But please, give me a break. I'm a new person here, and I'm just trying to add context to the conversation. Thanks for understanding, hopefully.)
The government folk want it gone from theirs, but they want the rest of us to have it. Thus the claim "Our users want it" is true, in a tongue in cheek way.