Yeah, it’s a literal remake. Mel Brooks was involved in the screenplay, though I’m not sure to what degree.
Regardless, @Paul_was_in_Saudi is on to something, I think. There’s no way that a white director working in the last decade could make a film around themes of racism which uses the N word an excessive number of times. Modern woke audiences are just too sensitive for such a movie to do well.
Do you really think this series of posts belong in this thread?
Blazing Saddles is not the subject of the thread in the least.
In the long run, it’s the only solution. There’s a vicious cycle. Too few moderators means each moderator has a large burden. A large burden makes the role unattractive to volunteers. Lack of volunteers keeps the number of moderators too few.
Like I used to say when people complained about us not having enough employees when I worked fast food, “Applications are right over there.”
She had been discussing the possibility of being a moderator with me – having been a chat host back on AoL – a couple of times but I decided that I didn’t need the headache. 
Let’s not forget the role of certain other threads here that call out mods (who may have made good / bad / borderline choices) with language that is just shy of a pit-like rant. The mods are of course, NOT always right, but some of these threads read as barely unhinged. Not to say there aren’t plenty that politely ask for more clarity, or some that want to try to find a brighter line to use in going forward (which the mods try to avoid), but some… sheesh.
I wonder if the mods would want to consider a pool of literal Junior Mods - long time posters who can normally keep a cool head, whose authority was limited to only leaving Jr. Mod notes and forwarding up higher to try to steer off hijacks and intemperate language, which are normally easier to identify. Or something similar. Anyway, just a thought as a low grade fix that wouldn’t be super burdensome from a person with zero understanding of how easy or hard it would be to implement it in Discourse.
Because certain posts are harmful to other posters, or to the thread. And telling posters to avoid this topic until further notice has a very mixed success rate, especially if there isn’t a mod available RIGHT THEN to ride herd of the thread. So it often leads to both inappropriate posts and warnings. Both of which can be avoided with a temporary closure until we can formulate clear and appropriate and enforceable guidelines.
The posters who already have vendettas against the mods and general moderation would lose their collective shit over this.
Not saying that’s a negative, mind you.
Re shutting down hijacks…
I have seen several cases recently where a hijack was interfering with a thread, at least from the perspective of the OP. And in some of those cases, the hijack was interesting, often moreso than the topic, in my opinion.
I’ve been wondering if it might make more sense to just pull those posts out and start a new thread, rather than ask the posters in the thread to stop replying to them. It varies, but often that wouldn’t be terribly hard for the mods.
What do posters think of that idea?
I wouldn’t mind that.
I suggested something like this a long time ago when TubaDiva was recruiting. Having “low-stakes” moderators who could make official mod-notes, but no other moderating would be very useful, I think.
Edit: on preview, maybe mod-notes and splitting threads.
As a poster, sounds good.
As a moderator in P&E, no, thanks. Splitting hijacks in MPSIMS may not be onerous. Splitting them constantly in P&E… different story. Those threads often move quick and hijacks can be rampant.
Agreed. Café hijacks are often fairly simple to split out. P&E and GD more often than not are not.
I think the people that are already complaining about over-moderation would continue to complain about it, and the people that are already okay with moderation would be fine with it. +/- zero in terms of work for the mods.
IMHO, I would probably say that overall it’s a good fix for the SECOND time a mod has to go into the thread telling people to stay on topic. So the first time, there’s the polite note saying ‘stay on topic or create a new one’ and on the second offense to split it proactively. That way it’s harder to say it was unjustified. And in longer threads, I’ve seen such notes come up 3 or more times, so may save a tiny smidge of work.
Sounds like a headache that wouldn’t satisfy people who are already grinding axes. It’s not like they can’t already start new threads and @ relevant posters.
I would not recommend making it standard practice, but maybe a PM and an offer similar to to threads moving to pit. When you feel like it.
It’s a great idea and I am certain that WE has done that in the past. It think that it’s fine for certain threads to meander, particularly if the OP is a question that has been answered. There have been plenty of interesting side discussions that have sprung up. Hijacks only really have to be shut down where they are disrupting breaking news threads (like the Midterm Election thread and the Ukraine thread) or the ever present off topic political jabs (or the current Blazing Saddles hijack. I suggest that we continue that in Paul’s current Pit thread where is is also being discussed).
Unless the Mods disagree of course.
It works a lot of the time but not all the time.
So a one size fit all rule would be bad. But in some threads it is quite useful and occasionally in GD/P&E it works.
Hey y’all - quit hijacking my thread with all this talk about Mel Brooks and Blazing Saddles! 
I think “hijack” a bit of a problematic term. Instead, I think “tangent” would more often be more accurate - and would reflect the flow of many conversations. Tangents can be raised and addressed briefly without detracting from the conversation. But “hijack” is the term commonly used around here.
I’m not sure what is so horrible about that pigtail thread. I would’ve expected there to have been worse examples. I mean, the whole idea of “do you think xyz sexy” is stupid, but certainly not unique. Then the 2 or so morons who made it explicitly sexual could’ve been warned or banned.
I guess I’m bearing baggage from encountering the Dope in the Reader some 40+ years ago. The Reader itself was somewhat subversive, and also contained some “out there” comics, News of the Weird, and later Dan Savage. I didn’t get the impression the publication as a whole - or the Dope - was overly concerned with ruffling the feathers of sensitive folk.
Sounds like there has been an intentional decision to moderate more actively, and that more folk (at least in this thread) support that then disagree. That’s fine. I personally feel the pendulum has swung a tad too far. My personal preference is that it not continue in that direction. But no one asked me! 
Re: splitting hijacks - I doubt the mods need the extra work. Are we to assume that in most/a majority of instances where hijacks were shut down, it is because the OP objected? I often think it interesting - the extent to which an OP should retain “control” of their thread.