I'm pretty sure if we start judging comedic talent by the half-dozen lamest jokes on a person's twitter feed, the only performers who are going to come out well are the ones who died before Twitter was a thing.

You don't have to read the whole history, just screen against an array of carefully-chosen keywords. "Jew", "fat", "fat jew", things of this nature.

"we’re not going to tell you what to think about Trevor Noah as a person or as a Daily Show host"

I was thinking maybe Oberyn for country Mac? An effortlessly cool interloper from a distant land who dies abruptly from a preventable head injury. I'm not sure who the city counterpart would be, though.

Man this is crazy. You are dancing with the entire Frey family. These people are freak shows, man. Freaks. But you're keeping your cool. You're keeping your cool. You know why? Because you are the King in the North.

Camp out in the woods
Reproduce freely
Aid Night's Watch
Sacrifice infants
Taunt Night's Watch
Experience stab wound
RIP

I dunno, I've always thought of the Greyjoys as the McPoyle clan of Westeros.

You're thinking of pederasty.

Good call, this is definitely better than your Jon Stewart joke.

Taylor Swift? She doesn't look anything like the beans.

How many twitter followers would that take?

Yeah, I'm not saying I find it convincing. As a general rule of thumb, if a single isolated psych study is sufficient to alter your worldview… either you don't read many psych studies or you have a lot of strange beliefs.

To be fair to dirtside, is there any historical evidence that half the audience didn't walk out at that point in the play?

It was actually ~800 college sophomores. Only a handful of stories, though. (I'm assuming the link below is the research cigarette is referring to.)

I hear the jury's still out on science.

The idea that communication exists to facilitate the exchange of ideas is badly outdated; all of the good points were made ages ago. No, today, there are only three coherent reasons to communicate: procrastination, hearing the sound of one's own voice, and acquiring upvotes on internet comment boards.

Attempted genocide. Now, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?

The central problem with this piece is that the author assumes the Emmy's reward crappy shows (and fail to reward good shows) because of structural problems in the Emmy process, rather than because Emmy voters have bad taste.

At least Mad Men comes back the same week Better Call Saul ends. Game of Thrones too, a week later.

It's been done: https://youtu.be/St5PLcxZy44