“I will pay lip-service to the concept that everyone has the right to an attorney, but give the side-eye to any attorney that adheres to that  principal in a way that is actually meaningful.”

I’m putting a marker down for “Masked Singer” and “within the year.”

Per the last paragraph: “Relevant” and “infamous” aren’t the same thing. “Relevance” implies that he has some sort of influence over events or that people look to him for knowledge or insight. None of that is true. He’s a punchline to a joke people have all already heard.

No, it’s the most depressing thing I’ve read *here* (like it says). Definitely intended to be interpreted strictly literally though, you nailed that.

“Look, journalists know a little something about SEO...”

He wasn’t offered a state, and he didn’t launch a war. He was offered PLA governance (under Israel’s suzerainty) in a geographically discontinuous area that could never have, even in the future, become a functioning state. Statehood was not on the table. Hamas then launched their attacks.

I went and watched the video he linked to. According to it, Musk never had a net positive favorability amongst Democrats (which is, presumably what he meant by “the left” and “your boy.”) The lies these guys tell are for their own comfort, they’re never smart enough to fool anyone else.

Would you reconsider this comment if, hypothetically, the joke was that Yang was dressed as a panda when he said that line. For background, a panda is an animal native to China (thus Chinese) that is typically black and white in coloring.

Annie Lennox and the Doors? I swear to god, I swear showrunners invent “cool, hip” characters to put on screen and pretend they would like their grandparents’ music just to validate their own tastes.

Could you elaborate on why that is important to note in this context? In context it kind of reads like you’re trying to rebut the notion that we shouldn’t gloss over abuse in non-heterosexual relationships, or possibly that abuse that stops short of death isn’t worth talking about?

No, it isn’t. It’s their job to get maximum clicks for minimal cost and effort. Thus, rehashing other people’s reporting and a stock photo they’ve already paid for. Job done.

It’s not their job to make her look good.

So, Harry saying he *didn’t* get an invitation in response to a news article is the just like Dakota Johnson telling Ellen she *did* get an invitation directly to Ellen because... both involved invitations? That’s it? And that the Johnson thing led to the end of Ellen’s show *three years later*, a claim which is…

You need to up the humidity on this one by about 50%. Nobody here can handle a joke this dry.

It raises a lot of questions about judgement. I’m not a big fan of treating personal or family relationships as opportunities for revenue generation either, whatever the nature of the content.

Don’t jump the gun. It is possible that they are anxious to construct a framework where’s it ok for them to make fun of Jewish people’s noses for completely innocent, non-anti-Semitic reasons.

All, no. Sometimes, in specific contexts, yes.

Imagine typing that out and thinking it’s not a massive self-own that you’re a professional writer pretending to believe that “I’ve always done” is the same as “I’ve only done”.

They can’t even get the city right for this story when linking to an article that says it in the second paragraph. Why would you *want* them to try to write about anything you actually cared about?

Double standards are the only standards the AV Club has nowadays.