First off, that's one of the biggest "guilt-by-association" fallacies you can come across. You're literally suggesting that it's correct and normal to assume that anyone who disagrees is a monster. Don't you see the issue here? How am I supposed to trust that you aren't one of those people?

Hah. When the arguments presented in the first place are full of confirmation bias, exclusion of non-supporting evidence, reliance on grand cultural conspiracy theories and 'chock full of fallacious arguments, you're lucky to even get a word in.

Being cool keeps you cool?

Eh, some people don't love shorts. I tend to wear long pants year-round and just suffer when suffering is in order. However, shorts have never really made me feel any less heat when wearing them. Honestly, the answer to all of this is either Air Conditioning or Rube Goldberg-Intricate-System-of-Fans.

He's aged very well, certainly. He was the one who is on-record with the five year timeline.

It's a shame that neither Spike nor Angel could play a part unless they did that whole un-ageing CGI trick the whole time. They're both on record (or maybe just Marsters) as saying there was a five-year expiration where the idea of playing an "ageless" character would become unbelievable.

So maybe I'm just having a reading comprehension issue this morning, but isn't the idea that certain people absolutely have "..the deep conviction that one is the absolute authority on one’s own mental states and thus the dictator of one’s own meanings — no one can tell you what they are, what you think, who you are,…

This is class privilege rearing its head.

Due to the look on her face, upwind via fan is the best place to fart.

Can we, maybe, not further fetishize those with understandably abnormal sexual expressions?

I can see a lot of productive conversation. In fact, the intersection of all of these really tragic discourses can only help and expand understanding.

Ehrm. I don't want your cash. We deal with that on our own, thankyouvermuch.

See, I'd rather not risk my childrens' safety and opportunity for moral grounds. You're a better person than I am, but I'd (theoretically) gain more for me and mine than you will in similar situations.

See, students and faculty can't just "leave". That's such a misconception. Do you want to tell inner-city ghetto residents they can "just leave"? It's the uncomfortable truth of power: that no matter what mask and no matter how "polite" their society is, it's still based in hatred, mitigation and resentment.

Absolutely not. This is about systemic, institutional issues. The problems come in when we seek to punish the wards of institutions for the failures of the wardens.

I don't think that, at Jezebel, I necessarily need to proclaim my support for the actual victims. That is inherent and I'm sorry if it comes off as callous.

If you wanted to punish those involved? Court order the ceasement of sports. But even that punishes those who weren't involved.

And every Women's Studies professor. Every Professor of the History of Religions and Continental Philosophy and Poetry and fucking Genetics is going to suffer.

That is far from unusual and abnormal. Any power structure at all will defend those who don't deserve it because they're given power and prestige. So "Protect ________ at all costs" is pretty much every institution's bottom line until they toss the accused to the wolves.

Before anything, these men should be charged. No question.