Because the average moviegoer would watch the movie and say "I thought it was mostly good, but those handful of non-whites that I saw was just too unrealistic for me given the WWI setting and my knowledge of European diversity rates at the time, therefore I recommend everyone go see Grown Ups 3 instead"

And now you want to blame others for the comparison that you, of your own free will, chose to make. Yeah, doesn’t work that way. You came up with it, you own it. You chose “pink elephants falling from the sky” precisely because of how absurd the idea is, and you tried to use it to justify the idea that POC being in…

Because the presence of POC is as absurd as pink elephants falling from the sky?

Great, is anyone saying that shouldn’t be included in the story, either? You’re the only one here saying any facts of the story should be kept hidden from readers.

Is somebody saying that shouldn’t be included in the story as well?

Yeah, no. Victim blaming would be saying he did nothing wrong. Everyone agrees he did something wrong. We’re talking about including the motive in the story. Journalists and reporters quite frequently include the motives of perpetrators in their stories when the motive does nothing to justify the criminal action (ex:…

It’s part of the “why” of the story. It doesn't need to be "justification" to be included in the discussion.

Ah, the right ear...word.

Were you fucked in your left ear as a baby? REPORTING ON THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND OFFERING AN OPINION ON THEM IS NOT SLANDER, DIPSHIT. Durr.

And what’s the count of negative articles on Trump vs negative articles on Hillary?

Bernie was the unquestionably more liberal candidate at that point. And now Gawker coverage is heavily favored to most liberal candidate remaining. Imagine that!

How many articles does Gawker or Jezebel write about anyone that are complimentary? What I could do if you really need me to is point you to double-digit numbers of articles just in the past 24 hours that contain some sort of mocking of Trump, compared to the oh-so-unfair one article that’s about Hillary.

Yes, Gawker is totally trying to get Trump elected. Sure. Not a damn peep from them or anyone else in the media about Trump’s antics.

I know, right? When will Gawker Media ever get around to mocking Trump?

JFC...John Kerry was roundly ridiculed when he said his favorite ballplayer was “Manny Ortiz”....and Howard Dean’s campaign imploded over a freaking yell of “yeaahhhhh!!!”....even Mike Dukakis was made fun of for trying too hard to look tough with the clip of him riding in a tank.

Plenty of tone deafness to go around from first worlders here complaining that someone isn’t doing charity work “the right way” like some curmudgeonly sportswriter complaining about bat flips and touchdown dances.

“The infamous Donald Trump” = "The very famous Donald Trump"

Still seems a better investment than $140 million for a sex tape.

Best pairing for hot pizza = cold beer

Sure, unless you clarify that by ‘dismiss’ you meant ‘ignore’ which no, I still believe that is the surest way to drive your opponents to support people like Trump and Farage. And in instances like this, where we are not debating hard facts about physics or nature, but preferences for what kind of society large groups…