I don’t understand why the tone towards the pioneer woman is so mean?

I think that’s the point of the comment, Kim K was actually pregnant her first two (absolutely shitty, physically painful and potentially fatal) pregnancies. This one she’s not actually pregnant, she got to have a good time and actually party it up. This commenter did “keep up” with the Kardashian (sorry I had to make…

In Kim K’s defense, besides that ‘has a fuck ton of money’ thing, this would be the first baby shower were she didn’t feel like death warmed over, if you don’t take her descriptions of her pregnancies as overtly dramatic. So maybe she just wanted to enjoy one?

“but look at what he’s done since then.”

11. Created a burner account so he could comment on The Root.

I’m sure all of the responses to this will be measured and nuanced, and definitely not picked apart or be weighed against the fact that she’s a rapper/former stripper/whatever the fuck else white feminists find unacceptable.

Yeah, this. And even if the lawsuit was frivolous (it doesn’t sound like it was. He broke his damn hip!), fuck Walmart. I applaud any citizen who can get large cash settlements from them, for any reason.

When Jen Kirkman reneged on her story and specifically said it was not Louis, I believed her. Since she was someone named on record, that was tho only real information any of us had. Then Jez was writing posts that were just like, “Email us if you have heard anything about Louis C.K. being sexually inappropriate,” and…

I’d be praising the NYT right now, they’re the real winners.

I mean if you’re going to link anything, you should be linking to this:

I guess I don’t get how you can play the “we’re doing real journalism” card when the NY Times busted the story wide-open with 5 sources in what, a few weeks since the Weinstein stuff broke? And you’ve supposedly had it for years?

People have the right to tell their own stories when they are ready to tell them. Reporting those stories without their permission, reporting them as rumors or “open secrets” is unfair to the victims and can even undermine their story when/if they’re ready to tell it. It may actually cause harm to the victims. Why…

No, as I’ve said before, if there is a rumor they should have jumped in with both feet. They should have gone to female comics and male comics. They should have talked with workers at comedy clubs and festivals. They should have made the fact that some rumors have been disavowed by women while stating that the fact…

I’m not defending myself. But it IS on the person who did it, not on commenters who didn’t have all the information that the writers had. I believed Kirkman. She obviously lied, I wish I hadn’t assumed she was telling the truth. Hindsight is 20/20.

You must have been overjoyed to find a reason to deflect my point. Congrats on being the left’s Fox News: partisan entertainment masquerading as “news.”

Oh, sick burn. Way to deflect the conversation. They teach you that in “journalism school?”

I will not condemn a man on rumor alone.

I’m sorry. I like this site. But to be clear, you have been horrible to Kirkman (including linking to a rumor she specifically denied several times when writing about CK) and you did go about journalism the wrong way while the NYT did it the right way.

Great. Who cares. I’m not going to watch a Wahlberg movie, ever.

Cool, so can we now tell all those shitheads still working with Woody Allen, still compelled to defend Polanski, that choosing not to work with them and choosing not to endorse them or apologize for them is, in fact, a choice they have, and that when they opt for another choice they’re doing so willfully and should…