“I forgave Quintin after he literally fell to his knees in tears and kissed my feet begging for forgiveness. It was a touching display.”

I don’t understand why the fact that it was Tarantino doing the choking and spitting on Kill Bill is relevant at all. What does it matter that it was him and not some other nameless dude?

No doubt, this is more a reflection of Maureen Dowd’s poor writing, but I found the piece very confusing, with details that were jarring and unnecessary (her father thinks she’s a reincarnated buddhist goddess?), and lack of other details that would have been helpful. Like, Weinstein is a fucking monster, we know…

Gah, the whole Moore/Trump thing. Our ethical guidelines can’t be summed up with “but mom, everyone else is doing it”

Someone, probably a white man, thought that image would resonate with black people and motivate them into getting out the vote. It’s as if black people were considering voting for the child molester until some brilliant strategist posited: “What if he was black, though?”

For fuck’s sake, Ethan, really? This is dumb. Sorry, this is just dumb. How little self confidence must you have that a picture of a man in a baby bonnet somehow bullies you? It’s a picture in a video game. No one is watching you. It isn’t a form of peer pressure, it’s your own weird insecurities. Sack up, man.

In other words, you felt peer pressure from a game and now want all of us to peer pressure gaming companies into making game that doesn’t peer pressure you back?

You’re an idiot if you have to ask why.

how about a movie where all the animorphs are old and retired and dirty

do you believe their glee was borne of their love for the word or their love of a popular song, hazel?

I think some people have changed their minds after learning evidence was left out because of that circular reasoning: if it was left out, it must have been damaging, and we know it was damaging, because it was left out. Others may have seen it all and been convinced that the missing evidence matters. I’ve seen it. I…

And what I’m saying is that making a value judgment on the “missing” evidence, while you’ve acknowledged that you’ve never actually seen the “included” evidence (because you said you’ve never seen the documentary), is worth skepticism. I saw the documentary, and I read the prosecutor’s argument that the missing…

“Huge” is a value judgment. If the “missing” evidence is used in the same way as the included evidence, and suffers the same flaws as the included evidence, is it huge evidence? Or is it cumulative evidence? Is it wrong to leave out cumulative evidence, or should we ask viewers to bring along their exhibit binders and…

I buy it. It was 10 hour documentary, and there was something like 140 hours of just trial video they had to distill. Every second of that is evidence. They had to leave some out. We’re basically just going on the prosecution’s belief that “if you only saw this evidence, you’d see it all makes sense.” Considering the…

The point of the documentary was not necessarily to exonerate him. It was to show that the process used to convict him was deeply flawed and possibly corrupt.

Super edgy. Nice work.

Automatically comparing every other case to Weinstein is not helpful.

It’s because Louis C.K. was able to just toss out his “apology” and disappear without getting put trough the ringer like he deserved, so it’s almost like Stewart has become his proxy for the Internet firing squad.

Yes, and I would also like to see A.V. Club issue a formal apology for all its positive Louie reviews over the years. You guys knew about the rumours, you did nothing about it.