>if anything, this complaint lies
>more on Lincoln than Django.

"For all the people saying that you didn't need
to show the evils of slavery to make the film:

Trust me, I was ready to pounce on black bohosexuals
for crying about Frederick Douglass, and after I saw it
I'm sad to admit that they had a point

Not about Douglass specifically, but the greater point:

The movie is impotent if we don't give a fuck about why
slavery is bad, and no, contrary to the assumptions of the
filmmaker(s), that isn't the type of thing that is just
assumed."

Is it different here because it's a less "serious" movie? Or it's seen as being self-indulgent or gratuitous on Tarantino's part?