I’m still in the “I don’t know why you can’t be trans-racial” camp, and that video wasn’t very convincing. I should state at the beginning that the reason I don’t have a problem with someone saying that they’re of a different race is that I think that as a base standard of behavior, you should respect how other…

I don’t mean to be a troll here, but this really isn’t a very useful article. Anyone (like me) who is coming to deadspin to read an article on bikes is going to need remedial-level information. But a lot of this article assumes knowledge that the reader might not have, and goes way deep on stuff that bewilders a…

“One of these is the way WWE lets its utter contempt for its audience.”

[Birthday example]

“Why should the theatre pay for her choice?”

Well, ok, but then this brings back the other question. If she’s not harmed by revoking the tickets... why do it?

Ultimately, I guess, it’s a question of priorities. I’d rather not punish a critic, however lightly, for something put into her criticism. It seems (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you’d weigh the ability to punish bigoted speech heavier than I do. I don’t know that I’d find it sad, exactly, but to each their own.

If I’m a troll, why are you the one telling me to commit suicide?

This may come as a surprise to you, but in fact people can disagree in good faith.

You’re sort of making my point for me, here.

And I feel like you’re using history as an excuse to avoid confronting your emotional problems. Feelings are fun!

Why? For bonus points, see if you’re able to explain why it’s ridiculous without using misogynistic slurs.

No, I don’t want censor, as that implies government action. But you’re right, censure isn’t right either. I want to convey an individual doing light harm, but the word harm is too strong. Maybe “disadvantage”? But that’s too weak. I dunno, I’ll think about it more and update.

It’s not like this woman is the only one getting free tickets. If she were, that would be fine. You’re right, it’s not like they have to send out tickets to the local KKK. But instead, it’s standard that critics get free tickets. Singling her out and saying she’s not entitled to them, because of the content of her…

I mean... it is different? A review is just a review, it’s an opinion piece that the reader is free to accept or reject. Making it harder for someone to do their job substantively hurts them, in a way that a critique does not.

I’d say that I prefer that no one says what is and isn’t art.

Who said anything about free speech? This isn’t a 1st Amendment issue, it’s ethics. It’s unethical (and self-damaging) to attempt to harm someone because they express an opinion you disagree with.

Even if it does make her job harder, why are you punishing someone for expressing views you disagree with?

So your statement that “if that is sarcasm you are bad at it” was a good faith effort at dialogue?

There’s always the outside possibility that there’s someone out there who doesn’t think it’s a good idea to censure people because of their political views.