I’m confused. Whether you think this is a bad analogy or not, it’s not hard to understand. Facebook is Galadriel, and the ring is the power to decide which ads are ok and which should be banned. They’re saying that they can idealize that they’re police the ads in a beneficial way, but they can see how it’s going to be…

I said this in the other thread, but...

So... in sum, you admit that the Chop is racist and offensive. After all, if you truly believed that it wasn’t offensively racist, you wouldn’t let one random reliever on another team dictate how you hype up your crowd, right? The next step is admitting that Mr. Helsley- and the rest of us- will be no less offended by…

Yeah it seems like clickbait, which is surprising because Lauren doesn’t traffic in that kind of bullshit. The headline, to me, implies that white men are happy to censor the views of others, and so what’s happened is ironic. Sure, I’d bet the vast majority of Athletic commenters are men, and a majority of those are…

Yeah I don’t really get it!

Only white men read The Athletic, apparently?

The only thing journalists (of all types, not just at Deadspin) hate more than threats to freedom of press and expression is internet commenters.  I’m not sure where Lauren’s assumption that the commenters are “white men” comes from, though.

As a white man I do not feel outraged, just confused.

The fuck is up with that headline?

Luke-warm take: It’s ok to be annoyed if a guy refuses to shake your hand before the game.

I like Richard Sherman - I don’t think he’s asking too much to have a respectful handshake before the game. Why not?

I honest to God have no idea who you’re arguing with right now.

I am a very happy subscriber, The Athletic content is outstanding. I hope they do manage to breakthrough.

maybe don’t book him anymore?

I don’t think this is a fair take. I’ve followed Kawakami for years. He’s not perfect, but he’s long been one of the better Bay Area columnists around. If he wrote that Warriors players were confused and frustrated with KD’s recovery timeline and all the confusion surrounding it, well, I believe it’s true. There’s a…

It’s good he is taking the heat and accepting it, but he was extremely brutal in his takedown:

I’m not nearly as confident as you that it was “satire,” in that I don’t see a particular viewpoint being satirized, and the tone matches his voice, where he says something he really believes, but with juuuust enough hyperbole that you can question the authenticity behind the statement. 

The thing is that the article clearly believes Kattan and it’s shifting the blame to Michaels. If you don’t believe him, then don’t believe him but the article does and then goes on to rag on Michaels but say nothing about Heckerling.

“Why would a boss sexually harass her? I mean look at her. He’s successful and she’s fat and ugly. No way do I believe her. He could do way better.

Am I wrong in being extremely weird out about how the article brushes off Amy Heckerling actions? I mean all this criticism of Lorne Michaels is more than valid and he should be call out about it but the article kinds of skips over that all that Kattan alleges happened, did so because Heckerling propositioned him and…