lkjm
.
lkjm

Oh don't get me wrong, I still think it's completely valid to critique and have a discussion around. I just think to qualify art with standards usually applicable to advertising ("who is this being marketed to" and so forth) is a bit misguided. But having a strong reaction to it, even if it's to despise it, is the

Sure, good points. But it's not a marketing campaign. It's an art project. I doubt Saint Hoax had a meeting in a board room to discuss all that. It's just her vision and her creative expression, responding to a traumatic story from a friend of hers. She's not a powerful marketing agency. These are the only tools she

Chief Joseph seconds this comment.

No, sorry, your inane reply is what's pedantic, and it's not even apropos pedantry at that! Anytime you start listing definitions for no reason other than to "disprove" points, you're an asshole. Fact.

That is some fascinating shit.

If I recall her breakout role was on House, where not only was she a sexual interest she was also *gasp* a doctor. Seems pretty well-balanced to me.

like the time she played…. a doctor?

That's right, because people starting out in Hollywood have all the control in getting roles and shaping their career. She should have starved instead of taking roles. Oh, and maybe in one of the so-called sexual interest roles, she met someone who gave her a shot at another type of role, a smarter role.

Now playing

That Taylor Dayne tweet just reminded me of that amazing story Tig Notaro told on This American Life. One of the best laughs I've ever had. If you're not familiar:

Is Piers Morgan just a cartoon villain at this point?

I CAN'T GET OVER YOUR USERNAME

How was this picture not used?! I'm genuinely angry.

Oh good, I was briefly worried that R. Kelly would do something that WASN'T horrible so I'd have to start saying "he's a pedophile and a rapist but he does at least stand by his kids." Nope! Just a terrible human being wall-to-wall. It's almost refreshing in its simplicity.