avclub-b114089395ade538800f4d5ec1366fde--disqus
ethelred
avclub-b114089395ade538800f4d5ec1366fde--disqus

It's being put on here over and over because the site runs a newswire about entertainment and cultural people and events, and there continue to be new developments about the Bill Cosby story that are worth being reported on.

What exactly is clickbait about this story? It doesn't have a headline like, "You'll NEVER BELIEVE what Phylicia Rashad just said about Bill Cosby!" Is it clickbait because of the fact that the site is even continuing to cover new developments in a story you'd rather they not cover? Because that's not what that word

"You seem not to enjoy the Newswire desk."

Mrs. Sandusky, is that you?

Sean Connery.

What's Michael Gross's status?

I imagine it would have won if it hadn't been (inexplicably) left off the list. That decision still baffles me. It was well reviewed and had a lot of fans — why WOULDN'T it be on the list as an option?

You recall incorrectly. The album was great. They also released a deluxe version of it just recently, with some live songs (including a great cover of Lennon's I Don't Want to be a Soldier) and with a couple of new songs sung by Lanegan.

I mean, his characters will have their own unique personality quirks that get deployed in different scenarios. But there comes a time in each Sorkin character's career when the character is called upon to deliver the Moralistic Message of the Day, and those character quirks are instantly dropped at that time so that

Considering every time a character gives a moralizing speech in a Sorkin show, they do it with the exact same tone — which happens to be Sorkin's own tone, coincidentally! — it's pretty easy to see what his own views are. His characters are not, in other words, fully fleshed out and developed 3-dimensional characters

Fillory Clinton?

That hallway fight, with its constant gravity shifts, is probably one of the best pieces of action filmmaking I've ever seen.

Really? Had to write-in Dragon Age: Inquisition? That really should have been included.

Many neo-conservatives were Jewish, so no, it wasn't about Christianism or holiness. It was more about democracy and freedom. These people were inspired more by Francis Fukuyama's The End of History than they were the Bible.

Not to get too wrapped up in the semantics, but victim blaming, as bad as it is, is a much lesser crime than what Akin articulated. Victim blaming posits that a woman who was raped somehow deserved it because of her choices, dress, attitude, etc. Akin's stance was not only that they deserved it but that there was no

It's not really about victim blaming, though. Victim blaming is
definitely bad and something that should be fought, but we need to keep in mind what Akin was actually doing and how that was a distinct harm in and of itself. The whole thing came up in discussing the House Republican push to redefine rape as strictly an

Neo-Conservatism was primarily a foreign policy oriented ideology. The people who best exemplified it were not the people primarily concerned with recreating any sort of 1950s society. Those were the paleoconservatives and religious conservatives (your standard issue Pat Buchanans, your Todd Akins).

Points subtracted for incorrect usage of "Neo-Conservatives," though.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure people get away with keeping their careers and questioning the rapes of women ALL THE GOD DAMN TIME.

Bundy's still less murderous than H. H. Holmes, though.