Sure they do, but immediate recourse to 'white heterosexual male' as a critique of very specific assholery is just lazy. Jimmy is an utter, bland fool, a fascist-stroking entertainment dipshit - so why does teh first thing we have to say about him be 'he's white! he's heterosexual!' as if that's enough of…

ah, come on. I think the joke ain't half bad. It refers to the ridiculous over-sexualized, mega-celebrity appeal of DiCaprio and Pitt, after all. Compared to them, professional What-Hollywood-imagines-normal-people-to-be Jonah is fair game without making it body shaming.

As much as I despise Trump, your comment is a perfect encapsulation of the strange contortions of modern American liberalism. When have you begun to replace any political antagonism with an enumeration of gender and race? It's well-intentioned, but frankly also quite stupid.

Or Shane. Shane McMahon at Wrestlemania 23, Retirement match, elbow off the Steel Cage, problem solved.

That piece and the excerpt solidify my utter bafflement that anyone could take this pompous, trite, lowest-denominator fiction seriously.

This needs the "where is Jessica Hyde" guy from Wheatley's first movie!

People here seem quite enamored with the book ending. Even as a child I thought it was terrible. Evil beings of pure evil are turned into mice and exterminated. I don't like moralizing children's fiction, but that gleeful slaughter really gave me the creeps. My sister had told me that Dahl was antisemitically…

you are joking, but historical accounts from anarchist communes (not syndicalist, though) make them appear as a joyous, participatory, wonderful way of organizing one's world, community, material relations. It's a pity that anarchism has become a punchline and these days is perceived as entirely ridiculous (and that…

Not the worst idea, maybe. Like jury duty. I'm not sure what constitutes 'competence' (and Hillary's alleged 'competence') in the first place. Make it a lottery!

I think jerks learning the error of their ways is a really good way to go for teen heroes. The nerdy kid learning to fight back has lost its lustre in the wake of ghostbusters-slamming, racist, MRA-types. We live in a world of nerds now, and it ain't pretty.

We would have to squabble over definitions then. Modern imperialism certainly no longer works like its counterparts from e.g. the 19th century, but taking a slightly broader framework (like Said's: "the practice, the theor and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory") wouldn't,…

Good points. It would also depend on the phase of the Roman empire; but you are surely right in advising against projecting modern ideas upon ancient (or in your example: 'modernizing', in some ways) political structures.

In Germany they show these movies in 10-minute-chunks interrupted by a team of failed comedians sweatingly explaining the jokes and re-enacting scenes. For me, that finally spelled the end of 'so bad it's good.' So bad it's soul-crushing.

okay, you have entirely lost me… in what way is that an argument against my criticism of Clinton? Did you even read before churning out your boilerplate talking points?

What is your emoticon's deal?

Yes, probably and admittedly.

Yeah, depends on the definition of imperialism, I suppose. If Realpolitik is something along the lines of an advancement of national interests unrestrained by ethical or ideoological concerns, I am not so sure where the difference lies. Realpolitik by the overwhelmingly dominant power = something akin to imperialism,…

Interesting, though surely not as undisputed as you present it? An account from Carthago would probably beg to differ, Carthago delenda and all that.

Okay, first of all the US supported Gaddafi for many years, a cordial relationship that got even more intimate during Obama's first years. Even if you don't believe in an overarching imperialist project, you'd have to conclude that the shifts in designation from 'ally' to 'enemy' are politically motivated and entirely…

Just out of curiosity, are you making a historical point or taking on the entire analogy, so that, by extension, the influence of the US would also be one of "better living conditions etc.?