We have no evidence either way, but the source article makes no mention of any joking or sarcasm on the girl's part. Funny how jezebel (and other commenters here*) simply insert that into the narrative with no supporting evidence.

My only "agenda" here is to stick to the actual facts as stated in the source article. Yours, on the other hand, are clearly to flat-out ignore those facts and make up your own.

The woman's daughter agreed, and challenged the boy to get 500,000 re-tweets (and is the one who originally posted the bikini photo online). So, according to your reasoning; "Girlz R Dum" as well.

It was the woman's daughter who originally posted the bikini photo of her - not to mentioned challenged the guy to get 500,000 re-tweets.

We have existed in a world in which anyone can get national (or worldwide) media coverage for just about anything for quite some time now. Not to mention, thanks to jezebel:

Nor the mind of the woman's daughter, considering she agreed and challenged him to get 500,000 re-tweets.

According to the source article, that is exactly what happened. For real.

I never mad one single excuse for him, so don't accuse me of things I never did or said.

The bikini photo at least was already on the internet - the woman's daughter had posted it herself.

"If he thought the teenage daughter could give consent for her mother going to prom with him ... than he is a fucking moron in addition to be entitled." - Then so is the girl, considering she also thought she could give consent for her mother going to prom with him.

The girl clearly thought she could speak for that woman, not to mention apparently pimp her out willingly as well, considering she agreed and challenged him to get 500,000 re-tweets.

He was called out on it.

So why is the woman's daughter not also being criticized for agreeing, literally challenging him to get 500,000 re-tweets?

A wide-angle lens would make the nose bigger and face narrower (relative to the each other), not wider (with wide-angle lenses, closer objects appear larger relative to farther objects).

But a person still has to be found guilty to be sentenced for their crime. That is the point that BloodButterPopcorn is making - they are not claiming Cosby is innocent because he hasn't yet been found guilty.

Believe it or not, societal norms can vary from region to region.

But it's not the stance that Walmart took. As the story states, it was a misinformed employee, not Walmart policy.

It is a black and white photo. There is no color. Plus, the "undies" are white - again, no color. And with your "explanation", your question makes even less sense - especially considering the other option you consider is a stain (which would essentially be a "a shade of color that is not the same color of his undies",…

A shadow, not "a shade".

1. Why would they buy a product that they know people often commit suicide to escape from working at the factories that make this stuff.