What is it satirizing? You can’t just say everyone imitating someone is automatically satire. If your goal is to make a copy that is as close as possible to a real person / performance, you’re violating copyright, not creating a satire.

If electronics end up in landfills, that’s on ignorant users. Every retailer that sells electronics in the US is required by law to offer free recycling drop-off.

Unless you have evidence that they scaled back on artistic staff for the production, what would be the point of doing it and then lying about it? They knew that people would see it, and if this is the only AI graphic on the show, it’s not credible that they were trying to save money.

It’s a total delight! Plenty of closure at the end of the second season.

It’s bad, lazy comedy. It’s great for blog posts. The medium matters.

Tell me you didn’t read the post without telling me you didn’t read the post. Didn’t the AVClub commentariat once possess media literacy skills?

Truly a travesty. Mutant Mayhem is a stunning triumph in the same vein as the first Spider-Verse. I haven’t been that surprised by a movie in a while.

Well there isn’t a more blatantly CGI scene in the whole movie. If you didn’t mean that, what DID you mean?

The sandstorm was one of the “least convincing” parts of Fury Road? I’ve read a lot of nonsense in these comment sections, but that quarter-baked thought has to be one of the silliest.

My question remains unanswered: why? I truly don’t understand. I only click on things that interest me in some way. What’s the motivation to show up and tell people you don’t care? There’s honestly nothing more boring.

The act of commenting innately demonstrates interest. People who truly have zero interest just don’t even click on the post in the first place.

But if it holds “no interest”... why did you click on it? Why did you comment? The drama obviously interests you even if you have zero investment in the outcome.

You’re truly an indictment of the American education system. What you’re saying over and over is that if the people who voted for Jill Stein just left that box entirely blank, you’d give them a free pass. That. Doesn’t. Make. Sense. It’s a completely emotionally driven argument. You can see the affirmative votes for…

No, because you still obviously didn’t think about it at all. But I tried. You decided someone is your enemy and you’re going to stick to it, no matter how pitiful or illogical that position is. Tribalism will kill us all.

Truly a herb of the first order.

Deleted your comment for not in any way addressing the point I raised. Care to try again with an actual thought?

Yes, and more than 1.8 MILLION active registered voters didn’t vote for president at all in Michigan in 2016. That’s over 35 times the number of people who voted for Jill Stein, so why are you (and everyone else) blaming her voters and not the massively more numerous non-voters?

Yaaawn.

I don’t get the argument that specifically people who vote for third parties are to blame, when there are fucktons more people who didn’t vote AT ALL. Until we have compulsory voting in this country (read: never), there’s truly zero logic to blaming third party voters.

Offering a product for sale is not “exploiting” people. If she’s not providing what she’s selling, then that’s a problem. But as far as I can tell, she’s discovered a market and is providing products to meet that demand. That’s exactly as ethical as all other businesses in a capitalist system.