Does North Korea "hacking" Sony count as a terrorist attack? NO. Ditto for their little tough guy threats.

Going after these hackers with the force we did in Iraq would be a little more justified than, say, invading Iraq. At least there's that.

Technically, terrorists have won. These hackers threaten violence and Sony, being terrorized, caves to their will. Terrorists don't need to actually be violent to win, they only need to scare their victims.

Does it hurt you when a movie you don't want to see is released in theaters?

Not even foreign governments. It's possible they are, but they have as yet not taken credit for it yet. All we know right now is that hackers did it and the hackers don't want the movie released. It follows logically that they could be related to North Korea because of that, but it's just as easily a frame-up.

Just think of it is as a separate post-script season. The last season finale was the series finale, this is just the encore.

Uh, you're pre-blaming the victim for something that hasn't even happened. If a terrorist attacks, THEY are the ones to blame for causing it, not Sony or any film they may or may not release.

When I saw this, I wanted to make this post.

The criminals are dramatically outnumbered by non-criminals. When you assume all men are criminals because a small minority are, you're painting an entire demographic based on the failings of a small selection of them.

My take was that the cunning part was the mop apparatus. I still can't wrap my head around how that would work.

I don't know about everyone else, but I don't think I could ever trust anyone who sung a song like "Bills, Bills, Bills". I don't care if she's done good, positive work since then.

It's not just transgender people and racial minorities that are generally overlooked within the feminism movement. It's EVERYONE who isn't a woman in the Western world. So yes, this Game of Thrones star is right about problems in other regions being ignored despite them often suffering far worse fates. Furthermore,…

"If ours is not such a big problem then there's no reason we shouldn't be able to address it in tandem with the other bigger problems."

Uh, that method of using hesitant, passive questions rather than clear, direct statements is called being passive aggression.

This article missed an opportunity to offer intelligent commentary on the nature of this problem and possible solutions. Instead, we get a sexist joke about how we are all already aware that men sometimes take stupid risks. Yeah, we get it, men r dum.

I think most people would say that 3 years isn't long enough punishment for so severe of a crime.

My point wasn't about pronouns. It was about clearness of nomenclature. Briefly saying "genderqueer" in the intro once and not specifically explaining any more than that confuses rather than clarifies. Your explanation mentions being assigned female at birth, but that does not do anything to make clear what the current…

Yeah, sorry, but Bill Murray is still a man and ultimately still represents most of the heteronormative ideals for men that our culture beats into the heads of young children. You claim he's in the middle, but he's not; he's very clearly on the side of our cultural vision of what it is to be a "man" and that is why…

I was just pointing out that the nomenclature WASN'T clear and that saying "genderqueer" automatically makes it more complicated rather than less so. For example, you happen to know this person and know that they'll take any pronoun, but a lot of people commented saying things about not being sure what pronoun to use.…

That's a seriously limited conception of the idea of role models. Why should a young boy have to look at someone like Bill Murray as a role model? Why not someone like Lady Gaga?