THIS RIGHT HERE. Amy Schumer doesn’t owe me or anyone else a damn thing. If she wants to block everyone on Twitter except people who tell her how pretty she is, then that’s her prerogative. She’s not obligated to receive or respond anything she doesn’t damn well want to.

Making this about Schumer definitely falls into the “eating our own” problem a lot of internet feminism can have. So much energy goes into policing the mostly good who are not perfect, versus focusing on garbage like Metzger.

Yes! Why do people feel soo entitled to her space? She’s fired the guy and called him out as an ass. There’s nothing left for her to say to you... I'd block you too!

Yeah, anybody can block anybody on Twitter. If the first I hear of you as a person is you up in my @s yelling at me about something (at the same time that THOUSANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE ARE ALSO YELLING AT ME IN MY @S) I would feel no compunction blocking you, and fuck anyone who tells me I am obligated to patiently let…

I mean, I get people tweeting her about it, but I also get her blocking people. If I were a celeb I would block so many goddamn people for a lot less.

I think posting her picture in that dress again is appropriate revenge. For now.

Can we not blame Amy Schumer for the assholery of men she may have employed/known? Let’s stay focused on the true jerks who deserve our anger.

I know. I’m not famous (like super not famous) but the idea that it’s cool for a company to be like “Hey, Sehjma, thanks for ordering <potentially embarrassing thing> from us!” all over their social media is...not cool.

I agree. If they wanted to write and include the note to her- fine. But posting it publicly is crossing boundaries/ a bit of a violation to me. Not cool.

Yeah, I don’t know about this... in theory it’s an awesome burn. But to put it out on social media seems like a low blow. I can’t say that I’m cheering for this even if it’s coming from someone in my political corner.

Maybe Donald thinks they’re hot.

Perspective: It’s her diary from 1979 - changing/editing this means readers are getting a washed and false view of her truth at the time. Her observations may be “dumb” but that’s for the reader to ponder and decide. It’s messed up that we live in a world where diary entries from 1979 have to be edited to be PC. I…

You do realize China is notorious for censorship/controlling their media and could easily falsify DOB, no?

But how can we reduce the prison population is we presume that people accused of violent crimes are necessarily guilty, as you’re doing here? If even those who have been legally acquitted are presumed to be guilty, then that inevitably and necessarily contributes to the culture that made mass incarceration possible.

But you’re assuming that he is in fact guilty of those bad actions despite doing everything that a person can do to demonstrate otherwise. That’s not progressive; it’s law and order conservatism. This is the very tension I’m talking about: you can’t claim to believe in the project to reform our criminal justice system…

But what if he sincerely is not guilty? Is that idea completely precluded? How can you claim to be in favor of criminal justice reform if a not guilty verdict does nothing to challenge your assumption that someone is guilty? There’s no way to reconcile the blanket presumption of guilt with commitment to restorative…

Restorative and rehabilitative justice requires the capacity for forgiveness. What you’re describing is not forgiveness.

If she changed her mind half way through, and then they stopped having sex, that still is not rape. People change their minds, and as long as all parties continue to abide by that evolving status of consent, there is no rape.

You know the issue is their records are false, right? I mean I can’t tell if people are being sarcastic, but the Chinese fake the kids’ birth records so they can compete.

“Unambiguously consensual” seems a bit generous. We must have different definitions of ambiguous.