Hoopleton is an idiot. They totally misread Don Draper, Mad Men and the whole point of art and artists. I don't even really agree with Doug's take but it's closer.

Wow, this is HUGE! PULITZER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am, sure. But I do think it's instructive to think in those terms. I think it helps to separate who (myself included) is being ideological - something is "always" ok or "never" ok. I don't think we should bust chops over getting around however, if I know them and care about them, what do I do then and how do I view…

That's all well and good in theory but if you had a kid (or just knew of someone, anyone) who'd had sex with 100,000 people by the age of 20, you might reasonably say, I think you've got some unresolved issues you need to deal with. I guess I'm just not an ideologue.

So the only person that slut shame you is YOU! Ha. But seriously, I think people do have the right to "project our own morality." That projection is called culture or society.

I have a slut shaming question for everyone - say I'm twenty or whatever, is there any number of people I could have sex with that would be a shameful amount? 100? 1,000? I mean that semi-seriously. I mean, there is a limit, right? Amanda Knox was not there, clearly, but there is a limit where you go, hold up, this is…

You all need to stop using this joke - "Science!"

They don't want to help you, Grimes. They want to bang you.

Neither do non-angry extremist feminists - oh, how's it feel?

This is not actually a thing.

Y'all need to write some articles about people eating buttz out or something - this shit LAME.

I think this is a pretty reasonable reaction.

I'd add that her godawful acting makes it patently obvious this thing is a "joke".

Kristen Schaal - this generation's answer to Rita Rudner. And she ruined 30 Rock for a while.

Exactly, "something telling of it's objective" - equality. Is it about YOU or your objective? I say it's about the objective. You say it's about you.

It's not the idea, it's the language. Say I'm me, and I want me to be treated fairly and equally, an objective everyone would agree with - we all should right? Should I call that movement me-ism - why aren't we all me-ist (me being me) - or should I just say I want an equal and just society. You tell me.

Well, sure. So what to anything - right?

As I said, there is no equivalent language for other social justice movements.

I'm obviously not joking. LOL. To defend feminism you just compare it to racism? My issue is not with the objectives, it's with the language. It's exclusionary.

I disagree. The isms you named are all political or economic systems with no stated objectives. Feminism is not. It's a "movement" whose objective is equality - for women. No one else, as you so clearly stated. It's alienating. No other disenfranchised group uses that language for it's cause. It's combative and…