From all indications, everything that Johnson said is 100% accurate. The program is bleeding money, ticket holders, boosters, etc. Very poor athletic administration since the guy who hired both Ryan and Pearl left.

Yes, it is indeed a sad parody of it’s former glory.

Something weird’s happened to this site. We used to get balanced perspectives from writers like Charlie Jane Anders and Annalee Newitz. Now, between this article and Rob Bricken’s unbearable treatise of why Marvel *totally missed out* when it didn’t cast an Asian for the role of Iron Fist — a white character, mind — I…

Yeah, I expect this crap from Gawker proper or Jezebel, but not io9. It’s been showing up on io9 more and more lately though, which is pushing me more towards straight news sites like Dark Horizons and Variety.

The trolls have become the authors, simple as that. It is sad to see how gawker and co have gone downhill, outside of jalop in it looks pretty bad nowadays

I didn’t coin this phrase, but a quick Google search uncovers this explanation of the phenomenon:

YOU’LL NEVER GUESS WHAT ONE FAMOUS AUTHOR SAYS WE SHOULD DO WITH CHILDREN! CLICK TO FIND OUT!!!

Seriously, these kinds of articles just make me laugh to be honest. How does one get this job? She’s obvisouly just trying to be like “look at how much better and PC I am than you.” When in reality she just looks like a fool with a poorly written argument and obvious lack of knowledge and research.

Yup, this article is as reductionist as fuck.

100% this, and virtue signaling is a great way to put it.

God, io9 has gone downhill. This whole dumb article, like almost everything on Gawker these days, is just narcissistic virtue signaling. You know these idiot writers get giddy every time an opportunity arises to indicate to their mass audience how not-racist, not-sexist, not-homophobic, anti-imperialist and…

I think if you’re going to lead with something as vulgar as “Rudyard Kipling was a racist fuck and Jungle Book is imperialist garbage” you have to balance it out with a more intellectually robust analysis. You might have a sound point but without a substantial argument, it just comes across like empty trolling.

Yeah, that’s basically her “get out of jail free card” if she gets backed into a corner with her argument. “Despite everything I said, the book needs to be put into context.” It’s a lazy trick used in debating. It’s her responsibility to provide that context and make the case why her argument still stands, not that of…

The context she wants is “we should never make films out of this”. That’s nonsense.

I’m not saying that Kipling should be censored...