sig1964--disqus
Sig1964
sig1964--disqus

If he really wanted us to like him more he'd do something about his annoying face, have somebody throw acid in it or something. Words are cheap, acid shows commitment.

O.J. Simpson, the last great murderer?

Yeah, remember when the AV Club used to interview people? Back in the classic layout days…

Not dissing Todd, but your argument is dumb. Todd making money at his writing has very little bearing over whether it's good. Lots of people make money from things they suck at. The list of people who fuck up at their jobs is endless.

The Av Club's official position is now fat women can only talk about how sad they are, and only when their dialogue is written by Louis CK.

They said written and recorded, presumably meaning written and/or recorded. He didn't write Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain either.

Articles like this make me miss Zmf. So many words spent trying to unravel the appeal of Game of Thrones when you only need one: OWNAGE

Okay, clearly we're now going to be stuck in an endless cycle where I call you an idiot and so you quote Vonnegut and we both do the patronising "let me explain to you how to read a comedy site/argue on the internet" bit at each other forever, and I guess I started it with the literally unbelievable thing, so I'm

It's not lazy, facile, time wasting bullshit though. Read the actual articles, I'm sure you probably haven't. They're clever, probably took a lot of time to write, and aim to do more for the reader than simply get them to click. While you obviously hate clickbait, by forming kneejerk opinions on stuff you haven't read

See, I don't think you've actually read any of the articles. They're not dashed off, and they go further than "isn't buzzfeed stupid".

You sound exactly like those people on Literally Unbelievable who get told that the onion is a satirical site, and go "well, maybe so, but I'm still outraged that Obama's eating all those babies."

"Ugh, another clickbait site. I hate that shit! Why can't there be more substantial content on the internet?"

Any article that's frivolous and low content with a title that will attract clicks is clickbait. You're just describing upworthy articles, which are a kind of clickbait, but not the definition. By your definition nothing on buzzfeed is clickbait, since when I see "Jon Snow knows how to wear some hot glasses" or "what

I guess the lesson is sending weird postcards is a surprisingly effective way to get internet writers to write about your video.

Your comment was basically the modern equivalent of "remember back when Dylan was awesome but then he went electric and ruined everything."

The Rise and Fall of Makavelli the Don is clearly going to be the Tombstone to Tupac's Wyatt Earp.

Ha, I remember you, you're the same guy who was posting yesterday about how modern music sucks and kids today don't even know about the Eagles. Is your gimmick doing an impression of all the worst people on the internet? You should complain about Girls next.

So, you find unfunny racism despicable, but funny racism you enjoy. So your real issue is not the racism, which you enjoy, but that she wasn't funny enough about her racism. She didn't make racism palatable enough for the masses through humour. Essentially she had a chance to get across a lot of the racist ideas near

If Walt had just bought the damn laser tag place like Saul wanted everything would have worked out. That was Walt's fatal flaw: not seeing the value of laser tag.

Can't wait for the Av Club's Wire Classic reviews: