I’m saying that anyone telling an American writer, working for an American website, dedicated to pop-culture in America, pitched to an American audience (who else might be reading is also irrelevant, dingus), offering a thowaway line of subjective praise for a widely-respected comic should “get out more” should…

I didn’t call you a dingus to your “face”, because I wasn’t talking to you, nor was I interested in starting a conversation with you. I was contextualizing my opinion for the person I was talking to. It’s a fairly normal thing to do, when people are communicating with one another. I never would have guessed that…

Well, policing spelling on a comment board is one way you’re a dingus. Nitpicking a subjective statement from an American writer on an American website about (largely) American pop-culture with an entirely subjective list of non-American comics is another (think of all the non-English language ones you left out!)…

Internet randos can make tongue-in-cheek references to world leader’s attractiveness AND care about the anti-war movement. If they don’t care about the anti-war movement, it’s not *because* they’re making tongue-in-cheek references to a world leader’s attractiveness. That cloud will move on of it’s own accord, no need…

Guy you’re talking too is otherwise a dingus, but James Ancaster’s comedy specials are worth checking out.

In 2008 there were still fresh and interesting ways to dunk of Friedman, and Jezebel was an interesting website.

This column has been a highlight of the recent iteration of the AV Club, and one of my favorite kind of writing: thoughtful and knowledgeable without being self-serious.

They corrected to a war “with” Boko Haram. At least the awkward syntax of the resulting sentence advertises the inaptness of the example. But why drop it and make the sentence better when doubling down to make it distracting is an option?

Not a great look to imply that people care about this war more because it involves white people, while referring to a war “in” Boko Haram.

It’s a technique used by partisans of all stripes. Jezebel’s been doing it for years, so some writers are worse offenders than others. This one is really bad for it.

One of us is emotionally invested in the Kardashians, and one of us is pointing out a victim-blaming mentality on a public comment section. Hint: The emotionally invested one is the person who can rattle off all of the people with whom the Kardashians have had drama over the years, and felt the need to write an…

No need to go on, you’ve made yourself crystal clear: Kim has what’s coming for her because of things her family did.

“The abusive and intrusive stalking behavior was encouraged in the public, by the Kardashians themselves”

Imagine being so desperate to appear superior that you’d jump on on three words from a sub-head with no bearing on the piece that follows.

You absolutely can be considered not legally/morally culpable as a juvenile but still be allowed the privileges of adulthood. Large swathes of the legal codes of the Western world are predicated on that concept. We absolutely can and do have it both ways on this issue all the time, and I for one am perfectly…

It’s not particularly meaningful that a known purveyor of partisan bullshit (https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/politics/fact-check-canadian-convoy-protest-ottawa/index.html) tried to paint the protesters in a sympathetic light.

“...calls to boycott the Olympics over the mysterious circumstances surrounding Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai.”

“this is miniscule compared to LOSING OUR VOTING RIGHTS.”

Well, also that stopping the release of millions of cells produced and released a non-cyclical fashion is a very different issue than stopping a single cell monthly whose release has a clear cyclical hormonal trigger. It’s a much harder scientific problem.

Bowie isn’t attaching himself to anything - he’s been dead for years.