No, we don't. Even one Iggy Azealea is one too many.

Just call the cops, lady. Putting it on facebook with your full name on it is pretty much the same thing, since it wouldn't take a Hercule Poirot to figure out who the son was anyway. What I don't understand is why are so many people are afflicted with acute attention-whore-itis and feel the need to make everything in…

Future's an interesting guy because he already had three children by three different women

And this has anything to do with this story or my comment because?

I was joking. Of course I know John McCain is a POW. I meant that that was as obvious as the fact that his idiot daughter is an idiot.

How about a moratorium where you have to post, say, 500 comments before you're allowed to post images?

Say, have you heard that John McCain was a POW?

I don't think this is the best solution either. I think it would have been easier to either get rid of burner accounts, or restrict burner accounts so that they can't post images or gifs. That way, you at least limit the speed at which these assholes can post these images, without making the comment system way less…

Apparently, in this world of unbridled "free speech" we've created on the Internet, a daughter can't even mourn her father and share memories with a grieving public, because a few people decided this was the ideal time to torture a woman who dared share her story.

Studios and networks should ensure their movies are on the whole diverse. Publishers should ensure that they publish a wide range of authors, including women and minorities. Where I draw the line is with dictating or thinking we are entitled to dictate an individual artist or writer's vision/creative process because…

Backpedal? How? Yes, I make a distinction between having an opinion on a book and expecting that the author owes me a change in how he or se writes a book based on said opinion. I mean, how many authors do you know who ask their readers what they want for the next installment? That's right, zero. Because that's not…

I guess when I read a book and I don't like something, I say "I didn't like that this writer did/didn't do X in this book", rather than, "this author needs to listen to what his readers say and do/not do X in the next books in the series". Basically, I accept that a writer writes what he/she wants, and I can like it…

Oh, I understand the difference, but I take issue with the fact that you think there really is a difference. It's basically saying the same thing, except in a more patronizing, condescending and hypocritical manner - criticism trying to pass itself off as concern. It's basically the literary critique version of…

Oh please, stop it with bullshit euphemisms like "he should aspire to do better". If you really thought it's a writers's prerogative to put only what he/she wants in his/her books, you wouldn't be saying that they should "aspire to do better". At least be fucking honest and say that you DON'T think that writers should…

See Sandytaco's reply to you because that is exactly how I feel as well. You have every right not to like what an author is doing but the author has absolutely no obligation to respond to your criticism. They're his books. He can write them however he wants and put in or leave out whatever he wants, for reasons that…

His whole argument basically boils down to "there's no gay sex because I didn't want to put any in".

I agree. Lots of books don't have gay characters, or female characters, or black characters, or Asian characters, or male characters, or trans characters, or (x) characters). Since when do we get to tell artists what their works must contain?

I really hope this is a temporary solution because it would really suck if we end up being essentially "punished" because of a troll harassing the site.

and in the same sense that Dr. Phil is a doctor...

Fuck that shit. If he's going to have the gall to say Michelle Obama is fat, then he needs to take care of that gut.