The one fuckup was posting the video (well, the other big fuckup was generating a decade of ill will with the public) but that seemed survivable to me—had they removed it, then fought for their right to post it in court, wouldn't they still be around, even if they lost? Anyway, I doubt any other media organizations,…

Only one of the lawsuits worked, and even then didn't it work only because they ignored a court order? They could be laughing at Thiel. They fucked up.

I binge watched it the other day since my girlfriend had it on and I was too lazy to change it and it was fine, but incredibly lightweight. I don't remember laughing but I also don't remember thinking "this sucks" so it's better than most stuff on TV.

While the specific example you gave is indeed bullshit, the concepts of freedom of speech and censorship can exist in a context other than legal/constitutional.

An organization can have some sort of "due process" even if it's not legally mandated. I think it's a nice thing to have. If someone at work accused me of stealing a laptop without any evidence whatsoever, I'd be rightfully pissed if they fired me with no evidence, even if it was within their legal right.

Hey it's not like we haven't seen this exact same comment posted 800 fucking times on every article that's even vaguely controversial.

Did Obama put John McCain or Mitt Romney in his administration? This makes no sense at all. She is not going to put Trump in her administration.

This is true on the avclub as well—in that GJI post about the reductress rape article yesterday, and on most articles with a controversial subject, there are a dozen comments going "Wow, not gonna touch this comments section with a 10 foot pole!" when meanwhile the discussions are all fairly reasonable.

I see mostly reasonable discussions about a complicated issue here.

I agree that this particular guy is being a needlessly antagonistic asshole about it, but I've seen similar reactions to roughly the same thing said in a more civil way.

Oh no! Not nuance!

I'd say that sounds fair to me as well, but at the same time, labeling even a hint of dissent, or acknowledgment that it's not black and white, as "RAPE APOLOGIST!!" is kind of bullshit.

How long does it take to heal from murder?

Also: "The burden of proof is put upon the victim and there’s often a bias toward innocence, which can make the entire process feel futile and even cruel."

Isn't DOA Volleyball already an olympic event?

It pretty much IS something people just made up. I read the essay that first came up with the concept by Laura Mulvey the other day, and 50% of it is based on unfounded Freudian assumptions, the other 50% on assumptions the author herself made up. Nothing in it is supported by anything in particular. That people have…

I've never seen her mentioned outside of the avclub, where she is ubiquitous, so I think it's become a sort of Dawes situation where people are kind of put off by how much she's being pushed here.

Wasn't this considered their biggest "scoop" ever? It basically kind of faded away without a resolution and had no effect on anything other than getting people to go, "Huh. Weird!"

I had a Game Gear that eventually got stolen in a house robbery. I liked it in the same way I liked most video games as an 8 year old, though I was always disappointed that the Sonic 2 wasn't a port of the Genesis version, and that it was hard as balls. I think the only other game I can remember owning was some Winter…

You guys just don't GET Die Antwoord. They're actually making FUN of that culture!*