Yes, I was surprised at not having encountered anyone before your post mentioning the Friends writers’ lawsuit. That kind of situation is what this seems aimed at.

No we’re not. I (as a man) have literally never had anyone tell me I’m “mansplaining” something, either online or IRL.

As long as there’s no prepayment penalty, I’ll take that deal.

I suspect people are willing to pay that because they don’t think that they are going to actually get a better deal after haggling or that the actual savings are going to be much less than $500.

Well given that the latter ship has sailed, we kind of need to rely on the first one now, don’t we?

Given that Nixon’s most recent political experience prior to being elected president was being vice president for eight years, I’m very skeptical that his slightly more than two years as a junior senator had any effect on how people viewed the qualifications of senators in general to serve as president.

While I know these are largely indicators, it’d be interesting to see how big the main cast would need to be for a movie to pass all these tests.

Which is precisely why I’ve been pointing out since the days of Gawker that “Black Lives Matter” is terrible framing if you actually want to try to implement reforms to reduce police violence. You need to make something a problem for white people if you want political change to happen in this country.

I don’t know what the best solution is, because -clearly- victims need to talk and group support is really valuable.

There’s also the fact that it’s not clear how much any of these people knew beyond rumors. Except for where mandatory reporting laws apply, I don’t think anyone has a duty to publicly denounce someone else for illegal or unethical behavior if they don’t actually have personal knowledge about it. (In fact, I’d note…

It seems odd to claim that three-time Academy Award winner (and 20-time nominee!) Meryl Streep is someone whose “cultural capital [is] most at risk” from criticizing Harvey Weinstein.

I disagree with Carlos Danger’s conclusions, but Australia most certainly has strict immigration policies: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/offshore-detention-centres-crime-against-humanity-icc/8270028

While I could see how that might affect the film’s box office performance in week two, I don’t see how that could have affected the opening weekend gross that much. The advertising for the film wasn’t particularly sexualized and, I would say, instead played up the idea of there being more significant female…

The whole thing hinges on a ridiculous one-fits all punishment that is totally unnecessary, but without which there would be very little moral quandary. Allow for investigation and parole of people caught for future murder and there is almost no moral dilemma about fate.

I’d say those aren’t analogous because in those instances (1) there were multiple prior good movies, so you couldn’t just write off the success of the first as a fluke, and (2) the bad films came out many years later, so popular perception of the earlier ones is a much more independent thing. The more analogous…

Probably the same people who would once upon a time complain about io9 covering Chuck — a TV show whose central premise revolved around downloading computer databases to the human brain.

+1 That was the biggest thing that bugged me about the whole film — if the global population is shrinking, then (a) why are there these massive refugee flows and (b) why are countries trying to prevent refugees from entering? In a real life situation, a shrinking population would mean more resources available per…

Overrating A.I. is a characteristic of hipsters? Who knew!

Yes, in reading through the list I kept saying, “OK, the next one has to be Dark City,” but by the time I got to the top five I realized that it wasn’t going to happen. :-(

Why does any of that matter? Why does any of that fucking matter?