His horribleness was pretty predictable and on-display though. She didn't "deserve" to get beat up, but she made terrible decisions and got the entirely predictable results of them.

Los Angeles, I believe. Downtown, with echo park off to the right of the picture.

Psssssst, notice how you see these forms of arguments primarily on Jezebel and other sites for women? It's because they appeal to the feminine mind.

Well, gay people can stop reading his books then if they don't find them politically optimal. That's like 3% of potential American readers he'd be missing out on, I'm sure he's very worried about that.

I remember enjoying Monster by Christopher Pike. Would probably work today, it's like a non-ensemble version of Disturbing Behavior but with a female lead and more monstery-ness.

This is the least dystopian book ever written. It's also the least rebellious. This book advises the following things: listening to your wise elders, going to school, majoring in something practical, and conscientiously working to be part of society.

With a dash of grrrrrl power mixed in to taste.

Not commenting on them or reacting would be the simplest thing to do. I'm sure the Jez staff letter just incentivized whoever is doing it to double down.

White people don't riot in America unless football is involved. Everyone knows that.

Frankly, I think if you scrap with a cop (as is implied in this case, though it hasn't been established) and run, you're probably going to get shot, irrespective of race. Cops do not, in general, take kindly to people that try to scrap with them.

84 percent of white people killed every year are killed by other whites and no one ever attempts to undermine any of the senseless violence they suffer.

Despite the glowing review, this sounds exactly like that kind of hackneyed one note novel. Historical character? Check. Reference to pre-existing horror intellectual property? Check. Shoehorned-in tactic of making characters anti-stereotypes (badass lesbian monster killer! Victorian era female master biologist!)? …

Sometimes that shit goes sideways.

It's almost like women have some kind intrinsic biological attraction towards violent and dominant men that is only, barely, kept in check by the social structures of society... huh.

You realize that he is only marrying her because he is about to try and transition to being a politician and, as a liberal Democrat, marrying an accomplished lawyer who happens to be a secular Muslim is perfect political cover? It's a mutual-arrangement /sham marriage to cover up for him either A) continuing to bang…

Monkeys in pants make the baby Jesus cry.

The relevance of the monkey is that it is because of the monkey's action that the camera-owner cannot have a copyright in the image. Under no circumstances (under US law) could the monkey itself have rights to the image.

That's not a reply. And the longer version is not coherent. Here's the deal, you might have physical possession of the picture (in a hypothetical world), but that doesn't give you a copyright. Here, the picture is out in the world - it's posted on this very article! And under copyright law, we have decided that…

That's work for hire. It's a separate doctrine under copyright law. Same way that if a comic book artist draws a character, the character becomes the intellectual property of his employer. It's governed by contract. Monkeys don't sign contracts.

Just because the original copy of the photograph is yours, that does not mean you have an exclusive right to reproduce or use it commercially for the span of your life plus seventy years, which is what a "copyright" is under US law.