planehugger1
planehugger1
planehugger1

This robot Markle is supposed to have a bunch of settings, but this one’s gotten stuck on People Are Saying Mean Things About Me Online mode.

Someday, Megan Markle will think of a second thing to talk about.  But it won’t be today.

Yeah, if there’s anything Communist countries are known for, it’s producing amazing TV.

It’s not a question of whether they’re good at it or not. Max doesn’t have market dominance, period. It just doesn’t. You’re just wrong about how the economics here work.

But no one (Max especially) has “market dominance.” You have lots of streaming options other than Max. So your description of the “techbro startup business model” doesn’t make sense.

I’m not sure even John Mulaney’s male fans would generally be described as “big swinging dick dudes.” And even if they were, so what? “Dudes” are as entitled to hold opinions as anyone else, and the fact that men tend to hold an opinion does not make that opinion wrong.

A company is not “milking their users” by expecting them to pay for a service. If you’re mad at Warner Bros and don’t want to pay for Max, great. If you think Max has gotten worse, that’s a good reason not to pay for it. But you don’t get to say, “Max has gotten so terrible, there’s nothing on it anymore,” while

Sure, but I think Snyder’s not making an argument that people are just as passionate about Rebel Moon as Barbie. He was specifically making an argument about eyeballs on the movie, full stop.

Meh. I’m not sure I expect a comedian to divulge every aspect of his marriage to me. He said loving things about his wife during a period when he genuinely loved her. His marriage fell apart. His new special does not talk about his wife anymore, since he isn’t married to her.  He doesn’t say any mean things about her,

To be clear, you should only watch something if you want to watch it — we’re talking about entertainment products, after all. And I certainly understand that people may have a reaction to people like Spacey that makes it hard to watch his movies. If that’s your situation, either because of your own experience of

I’m not handing out a prize for World Most Moral Celebrity. I’m deciding whether to watch a piece of entertainment. When I do that, my main question is, “Is this something I’ll enjoy?” Whether an entertainer cheats on his wife, or recycles, or plants trees on Arbor Day does not factor into the answer to that question.

Yeah, I think some of the whole drama about whether we need to stop listening to Michael Jackson or watching movies with Kevin Spacey is just the flipside of the parasocial relationship a lot of people have with people like Taylor Swift. It imagines we have some sort of relationship with these people, and the stuff we

I don’t know what “get away with” means in this context.  The fact that John Mulaney may have cheated on his wife does not make him any less funny, and funny’s what I’m watching his shows to see.  He’s not a friend of mine.

True, but Hollywood is actually one of the few areas where cheating on one’s spouse is considered a matter of potential professional concern.  If I found out one of my coworkers had cheated on and was divorcing their spouse, I’d certainly think that reflected poorly on them, but I would think it was a subject that was

This seems fine. I think we’re probably at the expiration date for whatever punishment he deserved for defending a contestant on The Bachelor who attended an antebellum-themed party.

Gotta be honest, I came to this article kind of hoping that was the part Bening improvised.

Maybe, but I think many people (me included) don’t feel any inconsistency with enjoying a work in which an actor appears and thinking that actor has done bad things off-screen. Like, I don’t think anyone would argue that Russell Brand is a great actor, but his alleged misconduct really doesn’t have any effect on me

I think it can be helpful in these cases to remember that this trial is not making some kind of universal decision about how much fault everybody may or may not have had in this incident. It was evaluating only whether Gutierrez-Reed was guilty of involuntary manslaughter. I think the clear answer to that question is

So you’re saying Barsanti is going to write shitty articles to death.

Why does Barsanti constantly write like this? What is the point of this first paragraph?