To be clear, that's a problem with a specific type of criticism. Namely, criticism that attempts to ask the question of "why did the author make this choice?" That's poor, superficial criticism, and many, many critics over the past 100 or so years would have deep problems with it.

I shudder to think what the Reese's Pieces represent in that reading.

"Quoting a Tommy Wiseau interview" is actually a really good excuse for sounding incoherent and vaguely offensive.

But there is also the fact that the Jones movies were based on the spirit of pulp comics and adventure serials. Nazis have been stock villains for a really, really long time in American pop culture - basically every superhero that existed in the 1940s punched Hitler in the face at least once. It's less bowing to the…

Lobo… Lobo… Bring back Sheriff Lobo!

It's a lot easier to remember that quote if you're a Mitski fan.

Golden Globes, huh? Cool, cool. Thanks, for the invite. No, I have… Uh… A thing that night. Thanks, though!

YES! Now that is a pizza robot.

I don't know if this is hilarious or stupid, but I can't stop watching it.

So it's just a pre-made frozen pizza that the machine warms up for you? It's not even custom-assembled by a little pizza robot? What kind of bullshit future is this.

I like to add a little pork fat to my pizza dough, just because.

My last dentist appointment was at 2:30 and I was so goddamn excited.

You really should read it, though.

Counterpoint: I am not gonna feel bad for Kristen Stewart ever. She gets to date Annie Clark, for fuck's sake - her life is going pretty damn well.

Really, what I'm suggesting is that facilitating bigotry should have its own natural consequences. That we should fight to make sure spreading bigotry isn't profitable enough for a company to pursue, and we need to do that not by keeping this book from being published but by engaging with it.

So how can you say you haven't abandoned the marketplace of ideas? Either you believe that the right idea will prevail in the end, or you believe that censorship is needed to guide people in the right direction. I don't think you can have it both ways.

I do believe we are right and they are wrong, and that's all there is to it. That's why I'm not afraid of this book being published.

I've worked in publishing, and read my share of unsolicited manuscripts. I've had to pass on a lot of great stuff, and I've seen a lot of shit go to print. I get that.

"an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

I'm worried about how we now expect corporations to be moral arbiters. Should Simon & Schuster make their publishing decisions based on what they think is "appropriate" for us to read?