I will confess I confused you with another commenter. Looking back it appears that you have not personally armchair quarterbacked about what rape victims should've done. I apologize for the heated words that came out of that confusion.

And yet, on articles about pedophiles the comments are all "THAT PERSON SHOULD BE MURDERED I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL HE GETS RAPED IN JAIL," not "Gosh, what did that kid think was going to happen, getting in that man's car. What? Why am I not allowed to judge that kid for taking candy?" Seriously - did you spend any time…

Ah, fair enough. I didn't think about relative salaries. I still find it really frustrating (And does Jabbar make significantly more than Ruby?), but your point makes sense.

" maybe they didn't have much choice except to use the Hank/Ruby storyline to fill episodes"

And whose surrogate-mother figure was curling her lip and rolling her eyes at her every chance she got because Dylan had the audacity to be upset about said stalking!

Man, practically everyone was pissing me off this week. I guess not Hank, but that's because I kept nodding off during his plot.

Re: Julia's creepy boyfriend. For me, it has nothing to do with how he's written. It's just something about his face and bearing. When he showed up for his date with Julia, for example, I genuinely thought he was supposed to be sloppy, falling over drunk. But apparently he chose that hair sober? I mean, he's no Bob…

Re: "Gone Girl": It depends. The twist is exactly what it appears to be from the trailer. If you think you know what it is, you do. But if you genuinely have no suspicions, don't look it up.

.

Fair enough!

My understanding is that you think you correct people because you're trying to facilitate communication, but the correction does the opposite.

I've been around since about 2000 under various usernames, though I comment infrequently. I just thought, given the lack of self-awareness about why you correct people, you might also think noticing an error was the same as pointing it out.

Oh, gotcha. Your original comment was obnoxious and disingenuous on purpose, not demonstrating a wild lack of self-awareness. Good to know.

It's true that you can't help noticing errors and being bothered by them. You can, however, keep from hitting "reply," typing the correction out in the box, then submitting the correction. Those are not involuntary actions.

If you donate to PBS you get a tote bag, but it's still giving to charity. Giving out tokens to donors doesn't make it not a charity.

Eh, it creeps me out. The narrative that's sprung up around what it means to donate, to me, seems manipulative. Not in a way that should be illegal or anything, but I really think the big-time famous folk who use it should feel ashamed. They are often straight-up taking advantage of people wanting to feel included or…

I'm really annoyed at the people who gave money to his Kickstarter and are demanding that he give the excess to charity. I'm so sick of people using charity as a cudgel. If they wanted their money to go to a charity, then they should've given it to a charity. They don't get to pretend they have moral high ground here.

Unless you've already seen it or research the movies you go see, why would you think the stage version is different enough to bother with?

No one said he was serious about it. Of course it's cartoonish and absurd. The original comment said he makes jokes about feeling like it sometimes. How is making jokes about feeling like kicking your kid sometimes totally different from making jokes about feeling like beating your kid sometimes?

Yep, just like Louis CK could currently be lying about feeling offended.