Why, in fact, do I need to prove it at all? I said I hoped that Disney did not change its direction to satisfy such people. If, in fact, you don't believe they exist to any significant extent, you should expect my hopes are trivially fulfilled, and you can ignore my comment.
But, you want to talk about proof? Well, before we go down that road, what you do you mean by "prove"? In a world where
Rottentomatos had to significantly change how they work with crowdsourced reviews because of misogynist sandbagging, how much proof do you need to be satisfied that I am at least justified in thinking this might be an issue?
Movies, and choices in production, happen in a context of the society around them. It is so terribly odd that I have hopes regarding the movie's production relevant to that context?
Not in the slightest. This has nothing to do with non-falsifiability. It has to do with whether I am going to give your misgivings credence when they don't come from a place of understanding. You don't like the implication? You don't agree with the implication? But, you started by admitting you don't really know what's going on. How valid is your admittedly poorly informed opinion on the matter?
You are slipping past how my point was not based on the content of this discussion. I am pretty sure that Disney does not have time travel. There is no reasonable way this discussion on a tiny website would influence their plot choices on a film that's already finished principle photography. So, evidence within the discussion is irrelevant to my point. I was speaking to the fact, as noted above, that the movie was created in a larger context that could have had influence. I stated a hope that, in essence, the company was strong willed enough to not give in to such.
I ask you, how is this hope problematic? Why do you feel a need to argue against such a hope?
Those last questions are intended as rhetorical - it is perhaps important for you to consider why you really need to stand against that stated hope, before continuing.
