Yeah, that was it. If we could edit comments, I would.

I think I may have seen something exactly like that on Reddit, but I don’t think I can find the link right now.

Hey, remember when Gawker did pretty much the same damn thing and it was “ok” by everyone at Gizmodo? How’s this any different?

My money is on Andy Brandy Casagrande IV. Long line of winners

Studies have shown that young people tend to move away from socialism once they enter the workforce.

Let’s make a deal. Get rid of every unnecessary government agency, expenditure, subsidy, tax break and handout. Basically cut everything that is not essential to the operation of the federal government. Then, get rid of/stop enforcing laws that don’t need to exist. Use the budget surplus to pay off some of the…

Per Gawker policy, the only way to be financially successful is to be an awful human being who will be up against the wall come the revolution. Nobody ever comes by money through honesty, talent, or hard work.

Hamilton envies people who can afford $2m worth of jewelry, and he ascribes independent moral significance to his emotions.

I’m waiting to hear what the issue is with having $2m worth of jewelry.

You mean like the talks when Israel offered “the Palestinians”all of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank and were rebuffed? Or when they made the same offer in 2008 and included much of Jerusalem and the terrorist thugs rejected it again?

Citing the old testament as historical evidence of genocide? That’s a bold strategy, Cotton; let’s see if it pays off for them.

I don’t believe all conservatives are slacked jawed racists in the same way I hope you don’t believe all liberals are over antagonistic Bernie Bros.

White male conservative here. While I won’t be watching this show (though I highly doubt it really promotes white genocide) it doesn’t harm me in any way. I will continue with my Netflix addiction. I’d be willing that 99.9% of conservatives agree with me.

Wouldn’t the evidence of protest “working” be the actual policy change (which neither happened nor does it appear to have it increased in likelihood of happening)?

I feel like you need to move along. This is a rational and well informed take and has no business here.

Stolen from this exact website, THIS IS WHY ITS NOT LISTED

It wasn't for the whole of the credits, only the start but I liked what they did at the end of Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. For such a high action game to have an ending sequence like that was a nice tonal shift.

It's all a matter of opinion, I suppose. In the end if you enjoy what you do and you feel good about the work you've done then you just shrug off the critics and whatever negative labels they might be tossing in your general direction.

Why? The one reason I can see for it in the article boils down to it being a derisive and snarky way to make the same criticism, and you as an employee of Gawker have absolutely zero grounds for trying to tell people not to act in that fashion.

I get why clickbait isn't acceptable to use for some sorts of criticisms, but how do you figure it's not acceptable to use in the case of a misleading headline designed to make people think that a fairly mundane article is not mundane? I take it to mean the same thing. You may not like that it carries with it a much…