>There is a statute of limitation in regard to spoilers. You may disagree, but it does not change that fact. ​ That's not a fact. That's a philosophical position which you failed to support. ​ >That should fall under if you don't know it already you never had any interest in the subject in the first place so clearly it is no loss. ​ The OP just told you what's wrong with that argument. Your only response to his debunking of your talking point has been to double down on your talking point. I would argue that what you posted qualifies as a bad faith response. You're acting as if somebody did not reply to an argument, when in fact he did exactly that above.

You seem to be having real difficulty understanding the concept of "consent." ​ >It not only needs to be spoiled it would be mean to not spoil it otherwise you're practicing exclusionary behavior rather than inclusive behavior. ​ Uh, huh. You're going to use one of those magical "sensitive" buzzwords in order to make an imposition look like something other than what it is. ​ >If someone says red pill or blue pill, an entire culture knows this mnemonic. Of course every year there's going to be more people that don't know what it means because that's the nature of birth and mortality. To include people, you need to tell them what it means and even where the mnemonic came from. ​ Those who want to know such things are free to ask. Your solution to this non-problem robs people of the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they want that explanation. When you take freedom away from others, without their consent, and do so for a stated reason that doesn't bear examination, you're not being sensitive, you're being arrogant.