Who isn't?

I’m going to go with neither. I believe that the Awards Show Producer Integrity Index is a pretty comparable number to what we see on Kneejerk Internet Reaction Accuracy-ometer.

Wait assigning dollar values to human lives is neo liberal now?  Cause I'm pretty sure that one goes back a little farther than the Clintons.

I think the point was they were both bad, but Tony only sees the problems as coming from his mother, because if he acknowledged wrongdoing on his father’s side he would have to acknowledge his own.

Did Norm have some bad takes? Yea. Have you at any point in your life had a bad take?

The problem is that you read what he actually said. You were supposed to march directly to comments section and bitch about what you assumed he said based off the intentionally misleading headline.

I must have missed the part where Denis Villanueva pranced around gloating about how recent and cutting his complaint was.

Because interviewers keep asking them because we keep clicking on stories about famous directors criticizing marvel movies.

Okay I see this argument a lot. I like the MCU. But c’mon it’s not a miracle.

What’s the hot take? That they’re repeating themselves after 12 years and a few dozen movies? I like Marvel, but I don’t know how that’s even up for debate.

Oh don’t worry. They don’t actually care about Jeopardy or Jennings. I bet if you look back at their posts, there’s a lot of “I haven’t seen the show in a few years but...”

Its a pop culture site that no longer has an editorial staff that knows how to structure a piece without condemning or celebrating a person’s politics.

Do we really want Paul to face the intense scrutiny that comes with being the host of Jeopardy?  The man has hours and hours and hours of recordings that could be taken severely out of context.

Wow it’s almost as if we should judge people more by the overall pattern of how they treat people and what they believe, rather than by a strict true/false standard of whether they have ever said something offensive by the current standard of offensiveness.

Yes exactly. We all know the U.S. government would never meddle in the affairs of other non-european countries without first being attacked. No track record of that whatsoever...

What I don’t get is why people dont think about the motive for more than 2 seconds? Giant organizations act for their own perceived benefit. There’s no perceived benefit to sabotaging the towers or the levees.

“At least the moon landing could’ve been faked with a handful of people, only for Russia to promptly expose it.’

Because it’s a news piece written with an accusatory headline, the thing the commenter is referencing is “the thing the article is implying we’re supposed to be mad about.”

And you attacking another commenter because they dared to pick a different example of the same core issue than you would is a great example of the other half of this problem.

Yea I don’t care that people care about this. I care that people are talking about a game show with the same level of rage and implied stakes as the goddamn presidential election, a thing of real importance that actually impacted people’s lives in a meaningful way.