No, of course you can call out obvious racism in something without being racist. In this particular case though: 1) There is no obvious racism and 2) The only non-obvious racism exists if you make the racist assumption that gang culture = African American or Hispanic culture.

I don't think that's true. It's hard to tell with the blurring, but several girls on the team look Hispanic, and the population of Redlands as a whole is 30% Hispanic or Latino. Since the School Superintendent is looking into it, I'm guessing it's a public school, so the school is probably fairly representative of the…

I agree. It's tasteless, but not racist. If they took a picture making fun of ridiculous hipster trends, no one would accuse them of racism. Frankly, what seems the most racist here is that Mark is implying that gang culture is somehow part of African American or Hispanic cultures.

Obviously it isn't the same thing, since the point of an analogy is to draw a parallel between different, but related things. In this case the relation is that both are victims, but in one case, you realize that you shouldn't blame the victim for something done to her, but in the other case, you don't.

So, just out of curiosity, which crimes are we allowed to blame the victims for, and which crimes are we not allowed to blame the victim for? Is it a universal list, or do you personally maintain it?

If you don't even bother to wear a skirt down to your knees if you have great looking legs, you deserve it a *little* bit. Maybe just like a thigh grope.

When you wear a miniskirt to show off your legs, what do you expect? I'm not saying she deserved to get raped, but it's not surprising at all.

To be fair, Andi knew that she wasn't going to pick Nick for several weeks before they had sex, and she also knew that he was in love with her. I know it doesn't seem like the biggest deal in the world, and the whole event only came about because of the constraints of the show, so I don't blame her *too* much, but…

Another thing I don't think enough people think about is the financial strain that living together while dating puts on you. Especially if one person makes a lot more than the other, it becomes impossible to be equitable at all, so there can be a lot of pressure on the lesser earning party or a bad incentive to stay…

Haha, that's what I always say! I sometimes feel like I'm the only person in the world who doesn't want to live together before marriage but also isn't religious at all. I've also never been a fan of casual sex (tried it, but couldn't enjoy it), so I'm always in the awkward middle ground of being too prudish to fit in…

Exactly! I wouldn't have expected it to win against things like Orange is the New Black and Louie, but I definitely think it should have been nominated over Big Bang Theory and Modern Family. I also never really got into Silicon Valley, though I probably should have watched more than one episode.

I was really surprised not to see Brooklyn Nine-Nine on this list, especially after it won the Golden Globe. Also no nom for Andy Samberg. :-(

I don't know; I think it can really hurt men, too. I was totally blown away when Neil Patrick Harris talked about his body issues in an interview with Playbill. He said performing with Broadway actors made him feel fat, so he changed his diet and started exercising more. Neil Patrick Harris has never been anything…

Pretty sure it's Friends With Benefits, starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis. I haven't seen it in ages though, so I could be wrong about that.

Alright, I had to go pull out my old laptop to find my burner account information, but I'm the world's biggest fan of Gilmore Girls creator Amy Sherman-Palladino, so I felt obligated to respond.

Well, Harvard already does most of these things. They offered to move her across campus, and they provide free medical appointments and counseling on an ongoing basis (for anyone, not just for sexual assault victims). Plus they'll work with you in changing academic arrangements if necessary (I'm sure they won't refund…

If you actually read the law, they define any ambiguous terms they might use. In this case, they've defined partially nude as: "the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola." You can read the entire law here: https://malegislature.gov/La…

Oh and I meant to link the text:

If you read the law, for it to be illegal, the person has to be nude/partially nude AND "in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed." So in this case, the judge's ruling is correct, because the T Train is not a place or circumstance in which one would…

Uh, no they don't. Have you studied the legal system at all? Judges have the authority to interpret existing laws, and even the authority to declare laws unconstitutional (it's called judicial review — check out Marbury v Madison if you're interested), but they have absolutely no authority to create new laws.