A basically harmless comment that somehow threatens the majority?

The point is well taken, but with all due respect, whining about the #sportsball whiners (and you're not the first to do so) is the pop cultural equivalent of Christians feeling "oppressed" in the U.S. I mean, hell, look how few "likes" your example tweets got, and how easily you buried them with a litany of high…

Not for nothing, Littlefinger straight up sold out Ned Stark. Not sure if that's common knowledge or not in the North, but it's worth considering as a factor that "Oh, this conniving son of a bitch known to betray his allies, break his word and stab you in the back? Remember him? Same guy who talked me into marrying…

Yeah, I was all fired up to come on here and defend it and maybe cringe a little if some good points were raised against it. But there weren't any arguments to knock down really.

I don't know, I'm skeptical of the "manufactured consent" argument. Particularly with all the numerous means of open social communication these days.

Fair enough. I think "second" is really the key word here, though, followed by "consistently."

How about:

That's weird. Disqus posted an old message of yours.

I reeeeeally need to hear Elizabeth Warren call Trump a "racist Cheeto."

I opened this link only to confirm my suspicion that this article was about UP! Pleasantly surprised that it wasn't, since that opening scene is so brilliant … it renders articles about its brilliance redundant.

"utterly fraudulent"?

I liked imagining that the state had become sentient and it logged onto the internet like V'ger coming to Earth.

That is awesome. It seems to give away so much but is still a genuine "teaser." It also reminds me of the old covers for VHS and video games, with super-stylized artistic renderings that often deviated widely from the look of the actual movie or game but captured a *feeling* better than modern advertising materials.

I'd love it if they brought back the still photo style of trailers. There's something so aggressively un-cinematic about it, it's practically outsider art.

I can't argue otherwise. I will say I think it's still demeaning, if not strictly equivalent, to reduce an actor's performance to whether he shows off his body.

Well no, I made the point that the studios are adapting source material that is problematic. You said that it wasn't so problematic relative to what came out around the same time. I said that, be that as it may, it's still problematic since it's being adapted today (and the modern day adaptations are what started this…

Okay, but huh? What's entirely different about saying "the movies are adapting materials that have a racist/sexist history, and even if we say for argument's sake that comics were comparatively more progressive than other materials, a quote-unquote 'faithful' adaptation will bring that racism/sexism with it"?

Let's take that at face value, you still have a large fan base that wants "ahead of the curve for the 60s" recreated with fidelity in the 2010s.

There's a lot to unpack in that "generally more." If you haven't read Sean Howe's history of Marvel Comics, it lays out a lot of the industry's difficult relationship with diversity. My take from that author's take is that the artists would often have good intentions (characters like Man-Ape notwithstanding) but the…

That will be a shame if the consensus pans out. I could eat these words but I just haven't seen before that makeup can "prevent" acting.