disqusnmnhhp5mzp--disqus
Jeremy
disqusnmnhhp5mzp--disqus

It was still implied though that the sex itself was the moment of happiness though. Remember on Angel all the times Cordelia jokingly taunts Angel about his inability to ever have sex again? It was kind of a major thing, and when he has sex with Darla it's heavily implied that even he knows he might "change" again as

The "plot justification" was to show that slayer power had existed since the beginning of humanity, which was (at least debateably) in….Africa. Look, I'm not saying Buffy was a perfect show in terms of racial depiction (I mean, that Jamaican slayer character, yikes), but even if depicting the first slayer as a

Maher and Garfield are not the same thing, though. Maher isn't just a comedian who made a dumb racist joke, he's a comedian who also happens to be a "serious" political commentator and whose entire brand is based around how supposedly smart and woke and right about everything he is. As such, it matters a little more

To be fair Dan Savage kind of ruined it for himself by endlessly shilling for the Iraq war and blaming Prop 8 on black people…

In fairness to the author, the "it's not actually the orgasm, it's that it was with Buffy" thing was definitely a retcon - it was a plot point and reinforced on both Buffy and Angel on a while that he basically couldn't have sex with anyone ever again. At some point on Angel (I think around season 3, when Connor is

I just think if nothing else, the former can be reasoned with (as we witnessed here with PewDiePie, who finally stopped these jokes as a result of seeing what they were, yes, arguably empowering). They don't really mean harm and can be convinced to stop if they see what they're doing. The latter deserves and warrants

For sure, I'm just drawing a distinction between someone who is doing it just because they're trying to be "edgy" or funny and someone who is actually trying to spread a propaganda message. I think both can be condemned and avoided while still putting the former in its proper perspective with the latter. To be clear,

Arguably, but I still differentiate between someone who is trying to be "edgy" because they think it's funny and someone who is earnestly trying to spread a racist message. I'm not saying the former isn't stupid as hell, at least without some sort of real satiric purpose, but it's still very much different from the

To be honest I wouldn't surprised if they find some hilariously convoluted way of having Garrison come back anyway and have the "real" Trump be president for whenever they actually need to reference him. (Hey, House of Cards has done stupider shit.) Garrison's too great/important a character to be stuck outside the

I liked it more than a lot of people, but it's fair to say trying to keep up with the news week to week like that is….not their strong suit. On that track and in some other interviews recently (they did a good one for the Ringer podcast, I think) they seem genuinely bummed about it.

On the commentary track for season 20 (it's on YouTube somewhere) they say they were just joking when they said in the press that they wouldn't touch him anymore. I think it's more like they just don't want to spend week to week only doing updates on the latest thing Trump did anymore, which is what last season

I don't like him and find him profoundly annoying, but he was definitely always just more of an edgelord than an actual racist. Speaking as a Jewish person I never felt there was any actual animus in that stuff on his part. It was more just immature and stupid and not knowing how to be properly ironic or satirical.

Trey Parker's stepson really likes PewDiePie which is apparently why they did that episode, and I think Trey wrote a "100 most influential" essay for Time about him.

They DID spend an entire season on Trump, though. And had him "fucked to death" by Garrison the season before that. In any case, they've said they've just been joking as far as actually going cold turkey on him.

"Vacation Trump" sounds like the worst action figure ever

Oddly enough, I finally played all the God of War games just a couple years ago, and though God of War 1 and 2 were great. So, hey, maybe pick it up again!

I don't have nearly the collection this dude does, but it's kind of funny/sad that I've actually thought before about how if I ever had kids I'd be putting all my old consoles at serious risk of destruction-by-child. Thankfully, my partner and I don't want any kids.

Hell, I play my old games on a newer widescreen and I still make sure to set the ratio correctly to preserve the 4:3 framing. This guy's a noob.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the AV Club article or the Outline one. If it's the latter, I happen to follow Alex Nichols a little bit on social media and have read a lot of his other pop art critiques, and while I don't always agree with him I think it's fair to say your perception of him is probably the

IIRC, Iron Giant is briefly mentioned as one of the possible "giant robots" that a player could select and keep if they passed a particular challenge, but it never makes any other appearance.