Wouldn’t be an AV Club article without several easily correctable errors by an author that doesn't give 1/1000th of a fuck.

Anyone who seriously thinks their rights are being violated doesn’t know what actually being forced to do something means.

Also, was this article written on a phone? It looks like autocorrect forced some errors. Literally couldn’t properly copy and paste a quote from ANOTHER article without ending up with “headlines” when it was “headlights” in the original Variety article. 

I don’t get the tone of this article. What’s with the “forcibly vaccinated” remark? No one involved was suggesting that, as far as I know. Mandatory is not forced.

Why do all these types of articles equate low income as low intelligence. People are smart enough to know they’re getting smaller sizes and maying more per ounce, pound, inch, etc.

Dollar General is like kudzu. They’re all over the place. In Sumter County, Alabama there are 4 stores about 10 miles apart on the same highway. In Meridian, Mississippi, there are 6 stores circling the city, with two in the heart of downtown. And there are stores popping up in nearly every unincorporated community.…

So the scam is that they’re generating a positive gross margin? And I think everybody, even less educated folks, knows that you generally get a better deal if you buy a bigger-volume product. If lower-income people are unable to afford larger-volume products, that’s not really these stores’ faults, more the nature of c…

Yes, but how many movies use “pretending to talk on phone when it’s been unplugged” AND “running fingertips softly across waving stalks of wheat”? That’s innovation!

I think that “pretending to make a phone call while the other person is holding the unplugged phone cord or can hear a fast busy signal/operator message” trope has been used on almost every sitcom since the beginning of television.

TV painter Bob Ross said accidents are happy. But what if they’re not...

Fake outrage is what the AVClub lives on these days

I’m not sure that it’s really mad at anyone, it’s kind of just talking about how a thing was said on Twitter one time.

I immediately read the byline and figured this was going to be a. A nothing story b. Far too many words c. That didn't say anything d. Shut the fuck up barsanti

“if social media accounts of fictional characters run by large corporations are enough to get people in this society all bent out of shape, society must be doing pretty damn well.”

Had the change not been made: “there is something to be said for the fact that Marvel refused to replace a man with a woman in its promotional materials, especially in light of Scarlett Johansson’s lawsuit and Disney’s tone-deaf media response.”

Yep.

I was worried the world had passed me by, but then I read literally every comment on this terrible thing that I’m sorry to admit I wasted time reading, and it appears that everyone has had the same basic reaction, which seems to be some form of “I can’t believe I wasted a part of my life reading and thinking about…

That’s only part of the problem. The other part is that it’s been at least nine hours since we were able to stroke our outrage boners and we need release.

So if I’m reading this correctly, the problem is that Marvel temporarily replaced the promotional Twitter account avatar of a character whose show dropped several months ago with a different character whose show dropped last night?