“The politics of Bond ... were never this literal or important.”

Ignaty, I love your reviews but can you just stop with the right-wing stuff about the first one? It’s fucking nonsense. One of the big climaxes of the movie was Colin Firth beating the crap of some proto Trump voters, you don’t have to shriek BUT THEY KILLED OBAMA over and over. It was a dumb fun movie and an equal…

“ Am I missing something else that justifies this?” 

I’m absolutely open to the possibility that Louis C.K. sexually harassed and/or abused women. Really, I have no dog in this fight one way or the other.

Oh it is so worse than that. Kirkman clarified that she was not alleging Louis CK masturbated in front of her almost immediately after Jezebel’s first go round. She’s said that clearly and consistently. She’s called out Jezebel by name for misreporting and misrepresenting her. Yet as evidenced above, Jezebel continues…

I’m so confused by this whole thing. I remember the original blind item and the assumption that it was Louis CK.

This is getting boring and a little gross. It’s reminding me of the call for unedited photos of Lena Dunham – skeevy and not what I’d expect from this site.

Wow, doubling down on this crap even after Kirkman’s statements. Gawker never really died did it?

That this subject was ever covered at all on this site is exactly why people lose faith in “media”. Rumors of rumors, covered like they’re validly sourced. And now, even the source of those rumors is pointing out they are false.

Annnnd Katie Rife again. Did they hire you direct from Gawker? Is that why you cradle the Gawker-balls so hard? Because you absolutely insinuate that a fucking Gawker Blind Item is anything to be taken with merit. Which is wildly irresponsible and just shy of fucking retarded (and being autistic, i reserve the right…

At the risk of being flamed, I’d argue that there are some valid disagreements with things like “slutwalk”. I have no issue with the sentiment behind the demonstration; I simply believe that some words can’t be “reclaimed”.

This is the NYT. They have fact-checkers out the ass.

I could read this every year and enjoy it just as much each time.

The dispute mentioned in the article comes down to this study, and Stassa Edwards does a good job of independently evaluating the dispute (i.e. it’s reasonable to believe that campus rape is a unique problem despite that study). Goldberg relies on the validity of NCVS for that claim and another (rape has declined…

Grigoriadis is up front about the weaknesses and holes in her data sets. That’s how science works, you do the best you can with what you have!

I don’t think we have to wait for time. While the nature of Goldberg’s fuckup has yet to be fully understood, one only needs to be familiar with her body of work to realize she’s not a campus rape skeptic.

I would have appreciated an independent assessment of Goldberg’s inaccuracies, but this article only presents Grigoriadis’s point of view, and it offers no quotes from the book to defend it. It merely states that Grigoriadis addressed what Goldberg accused her of not addressing, but it would have been great to see…

I feel like The Mary Sue and Return of Kings are two sides of the same coin: irrelevant opinion blog websites that are handy to mention when you want to score points online.

Looks like the brain surgens at Mary Sue need to sit this actress down and slowly explain, with small words, why FILTHY men have taken her agency away as a actress and she NEEDS to let her powerful female voice be heard(as long as she is in 100 percent agreement with Mary Sue)

On a show which opened with the attempted murder of a child and has an entire army of genitally mutilated child soldiers, yes.