Oh, yeah. You aren't arguing strenuously or anything. LOL.

That made me laugh.

And there it is. Name calling. I'm not dumb or an asshole. I happen to disagree with you on this matter we are discussing. Sorry it bothers you so much. I won't stoop to the level of name calling, though.

Why not? You are arguing elsewhere that since the Academy frequently doesn't award the best performances, we shouldn't even pretend it about awarding the best performance. Doing your best in a bad movie seems like as good a basis as any if we aren't trying to recognize the best performance.

Uh, okay. Let's give it to the actor who does the most charitable from now on. How's that?

Manning also had a sexual harassment claim from when he was at Tennessee, which the University paid off.

That's the whole thing, though, . . it doesn't have to be a conundrum. Let's just admit that sometimes miserable pieces of shit are the best at something. You award them for being the best at that thing, but continue to recognize that they are miserable pieces of shit. I don't think it is that hard. Why would we…

Agree. Get rid of them.

Reality? That's funny. You are literally saying that the person who gives the best performance shouldn't win the award for best performance.

Well, if it is going against the narrative . . . .

Well, Hollywood could have not voted for Affleck. They did vote for him. What they didn't do is disqualify him. So your take here is that people who voted for him were wrong to do so? Because you think they should have voted not based on performance but based on social messaging? Okay. That's fine. You can…

Gus Van Sant is already working on a frame-by-frame remake, starring Vince Vaughn in the Affleck role. Should be interesting.

It isn't quantifiable. But the point of the award is, allegedly, to award the best performance. There is a difference between differing opinions about whether Affleck's performance was the best (subjectivity) and giving the award to someone else despite his performance being the best. And that is what people are…

Well, I'm confused.

Speaking of which . . . why are there separate categories for actor and actress? Aren't we at a point culturally when that gender distinction should just go away?

And that is bothersome. The idea that these awards, which people so very seriously, are at their heart a popularity contest undercuts their credibility. So, okay . . . let's just be honest about it from now on. These awards aren't about trying to recognize the best achievements. They are popularity contests. …

Norm MacDonald could have. I think.

He's not being rewarded for his behavior. He's being awarded for his performance. He can be punished for his behavior too. Maybe he will be. Regarding your great at your job scenario . . . if you are the best at your job, you are still best at your job even if you are a miserable piece of shit otherwise. I don't…

What did he do?

Should Lonergan get some blame for casting Affleck then?