It doesn’t matter if it is a white “artist” or not. The whole idea that this is “art” is laughable.

Bingo. Not only do people still talk like this, but they laugh about it... and many of those are the same people that then get out their social media pitchforks when they hear it in public.

I read the article, and gave a counter point that your average joe still talks like this. It’s you who seems to have a hard time with comprehension.

you can say any word. It’s a word. Context is what matters. For example, if someone is at work they shouldn’t say it. Or if they are saying it in a derogatory manner. Otherwise its a fucking word.

WOMEN—such strange, exotic creatures! Objects of nature! Magical beings of innate nurturing ability! Ugh.

Yeah, I’m not really thrilled with the reinforcement of the idea of women’s bodies as an “embodiment of nature” more than men’s bodies. The woman-as-nurturing-earth-mother-figure is not necessarily feminist. When it’s used to suggest that women are fundamentally different from men—more nurturing, more connected to…

“LOOK AT THOSE SLUTS! NAKED IN PUBLIC BUT THEY WANT US TO RESPECT THEM? FEMINISM IS A LIE!”

The philosophy of the artwork relates to the idea of the sacred feminine.

Oh cool, white dude asking 100 women to pose nude for difficult-to-decipher performance peice about “the sacred feminine” for a bunch of people who are already too dense to give a shit about women. Thank you, smart arty man, for figuring out how to communicate for us! We should’ve just been holding up mirrors and…

Yeah I'm sold now that I've seen the cast. Hudgens should do alright but I love Tudyk and Pudi

You are my moral superior. I bow to you! I’m always bowing anyway as dudes rail on me from both ends, so no big deal.

I can’t understand how these guys are still successful. To me it’s not that they made mistakes but comited horrible crimes. What if it was someone in your family or a non famous stranger, it shouldnt matter how famous they are I wouldn’t touch them with a very long stick.

I guess it's too much of a spoiler for anyone here to be explicit but in the books there is another character, whose parentage is not in doubt. That character has not made an appearance in the TV show yet and there are no hints that it is likely to.

Lmao if u think the books are ever going in any direction, ever again.

Is subtle really the right word? The limited amount they are featured show them to be every bit as horrible as the show.

By subtle you mean ‘practically not in them’, right?

One question: did you find it tropy when harry potter ended with a wizarding kamehameha battle with voldemort?

Yeah. The Others/White Walkers are a lot more subtle in the books than they are in the show. I can see the books taking them in a totally different direction.

It’s not simply a matter of getting ‘news’. Facebook is attempting to influence opinions as to what are acceptable views. Many people can be pressured by constantly being hit with only the “proper” (in Facebook’s opinion) information.

Kudos to Gizmodo for giving this issue a serious examination. I admit that I would have predicted a Gawker site to participate in the very same hide-newsworthy-conservative-subjects editorializing that apparently Facebook did. Thanks for proving me wrong.