I think you’re badly mischaracterizing the piece.

By that definition, then golf isn’t a sport either. Old men play it, very low physical exertion. Just throwing that out there. Golf is a game.

The article ties in a series of caveats about how the Republican donor class is so much worse, and how the GOP making wind about Weinstein is an Oscar-grade performance of hypocrisy. Nowhere is it suggested that Democrats really need to denounce him. Instead, the political significance is diminished to how the matter…

Ah, got it, you don’t know anything. You probably also a times will go with “they’re basically the same party!” or “Democrats founded the KKK.” Jesus, try reading something that isn’t a Federalist blog entry.

There is tons of criticism of Weinstein and his enablers on liberal websites like this and Jezebel.

I’m sure the millions of Americans that have lost legal protections because of the racist, homophobic misogynist this President appointed as Attorney General completely agree with you.

I’ve lived 42 years and never once have I voted nor has a president affected any part of my life. Other than your irrational fears, and hurt feelings can you name 1 way Trump has affected your life in any way? Live your life and stop crying about something that has 0 affect on your life.

Could you imagine if Weinstein was a conservative? The liberal media would be going nuts! The late night talk shows, SNL, etc. would all be having a field day on this. Instead, they all decided to stay silent.

Yeah, I think the way this article parses the issue is pretty reckless, actually. Especially the very end, which seems to suggest that wringing our hands about colonialism is more important than increasing immediate disaster aid to Puerto Rico. Like, umm, no it fucking isn’t. That’s some guilty white liberal college…

So the final season will be out in 2029 and 2030 now?

I think it’s patronizing to argue that problems belonging to Set A automatically nullify or render meaningless problems belonging to Set B, as you did in your original response. It’s fucking sociopathic. And it’s sad that you can’t see that.

Then don’t feel sorry for yourself when you don’t get what you want out of these men who control your fate but feel they have to keep you at arm’s length in order to protect their careers.

So your editorial ethics are determined by some random Tumblr run by anons, then?

The question, for some, is how to deal with a beloved work once it bears the taint of Weinstein’s involvement.

It’s not that we want to pretend that good movies are bad, it’s that there’s a plethora of talent that doesn’t get a chance to shine because assholes get second, third, eighth chances.

I hope this guy gets all the bad things coming to him, but Hollywood doesn’t have a great track record for really admonishing their own

It’s tricky. Being antagonistic and making someone want to punch you is not a defense to an assault. You cannot consent to being assaulted.

Question to any lawyers in the audience: if evidence is unearthed that you actually sought to incite a famous, wealthy dude to punch you so you could “get a payout,” does that negatively affect your chances of getting said payout in a court of law?

What’s your point?

They are failing because they are incapable of governing.