I mean, we’re on the same side it seems, but, no, Freakonomistician, it isn’t. It’s a human rights issue, which you can claim is emotions laid on top of game theory all you want but won’t change the fact that the GOP went well ahead of its mandate in trying to shore up patriarchy.

Oh but don’t you see? She’s taking a page from Trump’s playbook and jockeying for a Presidential run, so she can’t alienate that huge chunk of the electorate.

Um, no.

Man I continue to love how shitty and Andrea Dworkin-esque nu Jezebel has become.

“While it’s rare for a studio not named Disney to become a recognizable brand among movie fans”—

I mean, do you use the phrase “heebie-jeebies,” which is antisemitic? 

“we are still, somehow, talking about Jelena”

“OK, let’s go back to the basic question there: Is that a human being? Is that a little boy or girl?”

“He was caught using DNA from an ancestry test. He never gave police the right to use that info.”

Except on Sundays.

You know what, man, it’s not even that hard to make their chicken yourself. You put pickle brine in the breading and use sugar, doop doop doop no need to fuck with these racist/homophobic/misogynistic tools.

This is the most boring nothingburger dead horse of a story ever and, seriously, stop beating it.

But why though? All parties involved are full consenting adults. Honestly, if you think a woman in her mid 20s dating a man in her 40s is “gross,” you’re implicitly stating that women are inherently victims until proven otherwise (which they have done--that’s what dating a powerful man is). It just comes across as…

This is a singularly stupid take even for this site. Who cares if Leo likes younger women if they’re all consenting adults? “Class of”? “Junior college”? Fuck off, you manipulative assholes.

And, to engage in a little bit of esoteric gatekeeping of my own, the author also means “i. e.” (id est, “that is,” in Latin), and not “e. g.” (exempli gratia, “to provide an example”). It’d be cool if these sites could either get editors again or writers who genuinely know how to use the language.

Again, this is pure ignorance, but: how can they claim taxes on that? (We’re on the same side, it’s ridonkulous, but I genuinely don’t understand why tax cuts—specifically, on what?—are worth gutting your product in the short term unless you’re actively trying to destroy your output to—I dunno, trade against it, which…

Say more about that. Does that mean, like, actors’ equity for ongoing voicing royalties?

This is genuine ignorance on my part, but what is the motivation for cutting out something that’s already been produced and has been streaming? Is there a cost aside from server space and such? It’s not like there are advertisements in those programs (on HBO Max, anyway). I mean, I get if it’s licensed IP and the…

It really is great, very weird and very clever.

If it’s a private mailbox, it’s never been a federal crime, just destruction of private property. (Destruction of the blue, public mailboxes is a federal crime because they’re government property.)