If you look at the numbers of comments, the political articles usually get low numbers. But—what the hell?—of course it's the AV Club's fault these articles appear. It's their editorial position. They aren't controlled by what's most popular with web surfers. If they were, they'd feature free porn.

It's not just you, but it's only not just you because Trump. Had Hillary won the electoral, not the popular, no one here would say she wasn't really president. Much as they reacted when people who favored Bernie were banned from voting in the primaries, we'd hear a lot about "rules are rules, we're a society of rules…

The press conference was thrust in our face?

Please!

That the AV Club still puts entertainment news first is the largest fiction

It isn't valid. It's a silly, armchair leftist "gotcha" word. But this is not relevant to the discussion we're having.

How do you not get that if our society endorses violence against speech "as long as" the speech is considered dangerous, the people who will suffer most for it won't be racist white guys? It will be racial, religious and sexual minorities. You think you can control the impulse to violence with reason, once you open…

Spuds was a girl. At least, the dog who played him was.

You can't speak for them, but it somewhat behooves you to be aware of the comments to which I was responding, to which you responded in turn. It's the only way the conversation makes any sense.

Most people in most countries believe their nation and their laws are superior. If someone says "Well, in Canada, we…" are they indulging in Canadian Exceptionalism? It's silly. The content of my posts is that we have a given set of laws, and our laws are endangered when we enforce them selectively. It's as simple as…

Maybe you, since you responded?

There is no real threat in words, Cookie. And when has this specific person issued a threat of physical violence? So in fact, you are the one with the false equivalence.

Nothing says "entertainment" like a press conference! What would an entertainment site be if it didn't cover one?

Am I the only person who read "I have autism" and thought, well that explains why you're a 22 year-old-lesbian living in Utah?

Saying America in inherently different from other countries is not, in and of itself, American Exceptionalism. I hate the term anyway, as I think it's a p.c. nonsense term that has escaped the university and now roams unleashed across the hinterlands causing damage to innocent bystanders, but for me to be indulging in…

It's Cookie Monster's initial post, under which this entire discussion is happening. And yes, people like Mrs. Langdon Alger are saying exactly that.

But I never said they were less fair or less democratic. I said our country provides a specific template of rights and freedoms, and that hitting people we disagree with violates that template.
In terms of hate speech, I do think there may be room there for legal charges against Yinnapoulos, if we can find the right…

This isn't American Exceptionalism. You're misconstruing the term. This is a conversation about how Americans should act in our society with our laws. It's a conversation members of every society have at some point about the direction their society is going in.

No thank you.

But I'm not talking about values, I'm talking about laws. It's not a value that we have freedom of speech, though it might be that, too. It is the cornerstone of our laws, and it was put there because it was the thing most threatened by the British rule we rejected.