Subjecting people to ideological purity tests (like this article does) is what’s suspect. You act as if the only possible way someone could not agree with Kaepernick’s protest is if they are a full-fledged bigot.

Her friendship with Scalia reflects a trait that’s now viewed as a weakness, but is actually more or less…

She’s not wrong on this point. It is similar to flag burning: a legitimate, legal act of protest that some people may take objection to (like most acts of protest).

I feel you there. Don’t get me wrong; most of the time, I hate these reactionary fucks. But trust me, nothing good will come from these skyrocketing tensions.

I like a lot of what you write. This - the idea that everyone who holds differing political views than your own should be shunned/punished, coupled with the assertion that one of the nation’s most accomplished, and beloved, jurists is “dumb” for not agreeing with you - this is not your finest hour.

Now YOU are saying some dumb shit. Guess you and old Ruth ain’t so different after all!

Trying to decide whether I should tell Petchesky to stick to sports on a sports blog or Ginsburg to stick to politics on a political talk show.

Nearly my reaction verbatim.

Why? Or are you one of these people who can only be friends with people who hold the same political beliefs? How boring. And how insecure you must be in your beliefs that you can only tolerate the company of the like-minded.

I hear stuff like this and I wonder: really? Has he really “reignited” or advanced the discussion? Is there quantifiable proof? The advancement I’m seeing here is the race to see who can have the most original or creative National Anthem “protest.”

“good on race and justice”

“I disagree with them but it’s their right to do it.”

You either agree with EVERYTHING Colin Kaepernick says and does or you’re a Nazi.

This is the least bad “bad opinion” I’ve heard on this.

Talking to yourself is an early sign of dementia

Oh thank god, Barry Petchesky, sports blogger, is here to remind us all that his views are right and a supreme court justice is saying dumb shit. I’m honestly at a loss at how stupid and clueless that is.

What bothers me is not that the rapes in this movie were historically inaccurate, it is that they represent the “good”, “real” rape. It’s the sort of thinking that suggests that drunk, sluts have it coming (eg Parker’s real-life victim), but real rape is this awful thing that happens to the good, married women in…

I’m not the target audience for the trailers, but the newer ones with current events pictures interspersed just seemed to be badly pandering and quasi-desperate. Not that the first trailer was that much better, it was like a Chappelle’s Show parody of Oscar bait.

Please don’t call Nate Parker a hurricane. He’s a drizzle, at best.

Did anyone else feel like the ad campaigns for this movie using Black Lives Matter footage were super tacky? I get where they’re going with it, the historical context is relevant to what’s happening now, but ultimately they’re using a social movement (and indirectly, the deaths of black men) to sell tickets.