Speech can absolutely be violent, as you yourself point out, and I don't particularly see violence—in deed or speech—as being worthy of defense, particularly when it is tied to outright prejudice.

I really don't mind when people disagree with me at all. I mind a lot, however, when people spew hate speech, ignorance, and disrespect from behind the cowardice of internet anonymity, and when certain groups of people are continually opened up to being harassed by, and alienated from, a community they might otherwise…

Then thank the gods that human psychology and social life isn't reducible to whatever reductive notion of "science" you happen to have.

There was a book called "The Science of the X-Men" that one of my college boyfriends read, and it had a similar explanation for Scott's optic blasts—they were a portal to an alternate dimension, which is where the energy blasts came from. I was similarly incredulous that this was, in fact, somehow plausible, but…

Pursuing a Ph.D. in English.

I guess the only thing I'd take issue with is Huler's notion that we should ignore evidence for some issues because they're somehow, magically about "feeling" instead of, well, having actual, rational argument. There's plenty of historical evidence one could (and should) offer that makes very quick work of same-sex…

Why wouldn't (or shouldn't) fictional universes reflect the same forms of diversity present in our own? I don't particularly see how the inclusion of gay characters in comics is either "edgy" or a sign that suddenly the medium is "taking itself too seriously." Could you please explain how this is the case?

It's as though the studio execs really insistently don't want the people currently watching and enjoying the show to be the one's watching and enjoying it. How odd.

He looks like that guy who plays Draco in the "Harry Potter" films...

Thanks for the link.

I agree, and I understand that this is the editors' long aim.

I'm more worried about being clear and comprehensive than I am about being concise.

Since you asked for feedback, I'm going to adapt a comment I already made in another thread because I think, well, it's worth getting off my chest in a more direct way.

This is why I have largely stopped reading Kotaku. Every now and then (so, today, for literally the first time in five months) I check back in to see if things have changed and if commenters are any more mature or respectful in dealing with difference, or if the writers have decided to stop trying to white knight by…

I think we're disagreeing about what is meant here by "passing scrutiny." If "passing scrutiny" means a movie completely suspends disbelief, and has scientific explanations that are both supplied and in keeping with how we understand the universe to work, then that's not really something I'm interested in, and I don't…

See above. I wish there were a way to reply to multiple people at once. :(

Off the top of my head, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Aliens (Alien isn't really an alien invasion movie, per se), District 9, and The Thing all hold up as pretty holding-the-dumb-stick free in my book.

See reply to Charlie Jane.

The ones where we don't? I guess I'm being unfair in trying to think of paranoid alien invasion films instead of the ones that are all action-flashy-explodey, but the statement still struck me as a defense for lazy writing and insulting an audience's intelligence more than anything.

Writing a script is hard, okay?