It’s precious that you think you made an idiot out of me. I can handle that well myself, thankyouverymuch.

Obviously Gunn directing GOTG Vol III is one of them, is the second Guardians project Love & Thunder?

Yeah, I think it’s only exacerbated by hedge fund fuckwits that don’t know how to do anything besides gut things of their talent and utility. They’ve already shuttered Splinter, chased off most of the good talent at Kotaku, all of the talent at Deadspin, killed the community & comment features at Deadspin, got rid of…

I personally subscribe to the “teach a man to fish” idiom:

Like I said, why qualify the sentence’s condition? You could certainly say I ‘poorly’ constructed a sentence, but I don’t think a sentence has morals they operate upon.

Not to mention he’s talented in both the business sense and the artistic sense. He’s set himself up as a new counterculture figure, and his messaging is pretty strong. I’m not a huge fan of his music but I enjoy watching his work just for his self-expression, and how much it pisses off shitty people.

Lol, I only engage at the level I’m approached at, dude. You’d be lying to yourself if you actually told yourself you were looking to provide a clarification, because the only thing you’re looking for right now is to be a twat about something that doesn’t involve you.

Y’know one thing Gizmodo shares with 5 Star Porn HD? A totally borked submission form!

I think it’s apropos for Wahlberg to star in a film all about a guy feeling guilty about making something all about himself, and finding redemption by still making it all about himself.

I think it’s worth it to call out that factor, it’s the first place my mind went to when I saw the subject matter & Wahlberg starring. I think the expectation that a professional in an industry can provide a perspective deeper than an initial thought’s worth is not too much of an ask though.

Lol, I don’t think a person who can’t differentiate between something as basic as “badly” or “poorly” has the capacity to judge the legibility of anyone else’s comment.

Are you asking me to prove a negative?

I doubt that you say that with any worthwhile information to back it up (though I’d have the same feeling if you had the opposite sentiment too).

I can only imagine he still has delusions of running for presidential candidate. The guy is white noise come to life- how there’s been enough people to remember to vote for him in Kentucky is baffling.

Paul’s in over his head, and he’s striking out with what little power he has.

I’m all forgiveness but I’m not about completely forgetting that type of violence

Dowd’s framing of Wahlberg is definitely devoid of any well-thought-out perspective of a rehabilitation of a hateful person, so I guess Dowd is the type that very much would answer you no: a person who committed a hate crime is two-dimensional and cannot develop empathy, regardless of time.

I may be full of myself, but I never thought I’m going to be able to police anyone’s wont. I’m just curious if confirming He Who Remains as Kang has any value, because A) Loki pretty well established that variants have enough autonomy to be distinct persons from one another, and 2) our knowledge of what Kang is going…

I don’t really get what distinction we’re drawing by calling him “Kang”- the “He Who Remains” character felt like he drew a distinction for himself as much as Sylvie drew one for herself. I’d assume we aren’t getting anything more of that character, so he’s pretty much “He Who Remains” for all it’s worth. Jonathan…

If we’re taking the mid-tier works of an author and quizzing non-fans of said author, alternatively I don’t think many Neil Gaiman fans could remember many details of Johnny and the Bomb.