Movies

Autostraddle Apologizes for Favorably Reviewing the 'Animated Queer Taco' in Sausage Party

Salma Hayek's lesbian taco character is really racist, apparently.

|

Sausage Party
Sausage Party

A news site aimed primarily at LGBTQ women issued a remarkably comprehensive apology after it ran a review of Seth Rogen's new film, Sausage Party, that hailed the inclusion of Salma Hayek's sexually-curious Latina taco character.

That's probably not a sentence anyone expected to read.

The apology is unintentionally hilarious. Autostraddle's Heather Hogan writes that she decided to remove the review from the website—it was deleted entirely, but is available at afterellen.com—after receiving a barrage of criticism. Says Hogan:

After we published the review, we heard from Latinx readers who believe the portrayal of Salma Hayek's taco was racist and that it reinforced harmful stereotypes. We heard from readers who were upset that we labeled the taco a lesbian when it seems more likely that she was bisexual. We heard from readers who questioned the consent of the sexual encounter between the taco and the hot dog bun. We heard from readers who found the taco to be a damaging portrayal of a predatory queer woman.

In other words, people disagreed with the author of the article, Elyse Endick. And that's okay—people respond to art differently. One person might think a female cartoon taco hitting on a female cartoon hot dog bun is a positive portrayal of a lesbian relationship. Someone else might disagree.

But it's a little odd to disappear the review entirely just because some readers had a problem with it. (To be clear, Autostraddle is a private company that can publish and un-publish whatever it wants.) Equally troubling is Autostraddle's editorial policy—which becomes clearer as the apology goes on—of denying writers the authority to review works of art depicting or concerning characters whose race is different from the reviewer. Indeed, during the Slack chat about whether the review should run in the first place—a conversation we are privy to only because Autostraddle has decided to be weirdly transparent about this—one of the first things a senior editor, Yvonne, asked was whether the reviewer was white. Hogan responded that she didn't know. (The editor also complained that the film was "meant for stupid fucking men.")

Hogan eventually notes that their coverage of Netflix's Orange Is the New Black—something she's proud of—revolves around the race of the reviewer. It was essential for the majority of episodes to be reviewed by women of color, and it was important for episodes principally concerning black characters to be reviewed by black writers, Latina characters to be reviewed by Latina writers, etc.

Back to Sausage Party. Yvonne offered her own apology "to Latinx readers specifically" for deciding to run the piece:

I knew the taco was a racist caricature but attributed it to a systemic problem in media that wasn't necessarily our problem. But it became our problem when we used our voice as a queer publication to write a positive review of that racist caricature and perpetuated a racist narrative for the sake of the queer representation in the film. I was wrong for not stopping this immediately, especially when it deeply effects my own people.

But Endick didn't say anything positive about the racial aspect of the character. On the contrary, she noted, "Sausage Party is far from perfect. There have been accusations against the studio for underpaying its animators, and even more lobbed at Rogen for the film's cavalier takes on issues such as race and sex." She merely suggested that the taco's same-sex attraction was worth celebrating.

Autostraddle's apology is a really easy thing to make fun of, and here I am, making fun of it. Let me say this one more time: its editors have every right to publish and subsequently remove content from their website.

But shouldn't we all take exception to the idea that one must belong to a certain racial or gender category in order to comment on that group's portrayal in a work of art? And shouldn't we all be a little skeptical that talking tacos are so evil, so patently racist, that failing to properly disparage them in an article should be grounds for deletion?

Advertisement

NEXT: Matt Kibbe of Johnson-Supporting AlternativePAC Talks About Gawker Report on $30,000 Spent on "Internet Memes"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let me be frank…I do not relish the prospect of another round of puns about this.

    1. This is why the comments are the wurst part of any Reason article.

      1. My last pay check was 9700 dollar working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
        This is what I do,…. http://bit.do/FOX92

    2. The fact that the lesbian author of the article is named “Endick” ought to be good for a joke or two.

      1. Yeah, but it’s (puts on shades) low hanging fruit.

    3. dude come on you missed the bun/pun pun are you even trying?

    4. Done in one.

  2. Uncle Gustav didn’t like the movie, but I thought he was just a sour Kraut.

  3. I want some Salma Hayek taco. Not the first time I’ve thought this.

      1. I got excited when I saw fried chicken but then they had to ruin it with “served in a lettuce cup”. Lettuce is evil.

        1. Do you know what else is evil?

          1. That which is fought by Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy?

        2. That vegan quinoa tostada actually sounds pretty good.

      2. I am shocked, like gobsmacked, to find that the menu of a taqueria in LA with Danny Trejo’s face on it has a less impressive menu than one in downtown Annapolis, Maryland.

        The lengua is outstanding, btw.

        1. That’s what she said.

        2. Yeah, and they even have Purple Drank!

  4. “We heard from readers who questioned the consent of the sexual encounter between the taco and the hot dog bun.”

    1. American culture in the early 21st century…future historians will be accused of making this up.

        1. Yes, because current historians are likely to be worried about the consent between the taco and the hot dog bun.

          1. I’m thinking about a team of historians, one of them standing guard against zombies, the other going through the hard drives in locations which avoided the effects of the EMP blasts, trying to reconstruct the history pre-Apocalypse America.

            1. “going through the hard drives”

              There going to to think that all we did was have sex.

              1. With tacos and buns…

              2. With tacos and buns…

                1. You having seconds?

                  1. sloppy…. uh posting….

            2. And they’ll accidentally stumble onto a collection of divinely inspired poetic works of a prophet called ‘Agile Cyborg’. And a new religion will be born…

              1. Why wait

              2. No, all religions but Islam will be extinct.

              3. John Titor:

                I approve of this message.

              4. And he said, unto the can of corn
                ye have jaggedly somnabulant whores
                and all the bunnies wept tears of acid
                and it was good

                1. Needs more space jizz.

          2. If my university was any indication of a trend, current historians are more worried about getting high and arguing about whether Frederick the Great was gay.

              1. Well, hello there, Mrs. The Great!

              2. Hey, you think Frederick was great, you ain’t seen nothing!

            1. To find the answer, go here and advance to 1:40.

            2. He simply had mutilated or deformed genitals after contracting a STD at an early age. Because he was a pimp like that.

  5. The editor also complained that the film was “meant for stupid fucking men.”

    At least we can agree on something.

    1. “”You have young crews working long hours for minimal pay because they just want to be in the industry,” said Steve Hulett, who sits on the board of the Animation Guild. “You have lowball bids, tax subsidies and enormous pressure to bring things in on deadline and as inexpensively as possible.”

      So they do it because they want to ? They have to compete against lowballs, tax subsidies, and pressure to bring it in on deadline ?

      Poor fucking babies. They have to live in adultsville like the rest of us ?

      Artists, who really aren’t artists but programmers, should have to live in the real world should receive special treatment ?

  6. This item should be on the agenda of the mayo and city council.

  7. We heard from readers who found the taco to be a damaging portrayal of a predatory queer woman.

    Predatory queer women should be positively portrayed? Man, I cannot tell anymore where we are in the spectrum of sexual revolution to rape culture.

    1. Don’t you understand, you hater? LGBTQWERTYUIOP folk are just like anyone else, except that they never have any faults that anyone can make fun of.

      1. You aren’t a queer taco, so you aren’t qualified to comment on this.

        1. I was, but I got better.

    2. In Costa Rica for lesbian they say ‘tortillera’….

  8. But shouldn’t we all take exception to the idea that one must belong to a certain racial or gender category in order to comment on that group’s portrayal in a work of art?

    Yes. Good thing I don’t read Autostraddle.

    1. I think the will likely be the only look I have at their website. I kept scrolling down expecting the satire payoff.

      Note: There was no satire payoff, they are really that wackadoodle crazy.

  9. After we published the review, we heard from Latinx readers who believe the portrayal of Salma Hayek’s taco was racist and that it reinforced harmful stereotypes. We heard from readers who were upset that we labeled the taco a lesbian when it seems more likely that she was bisexual. We heard from readers who questioned the consent of the sexual encounter between the taco and the hot dog bun. We heard from readers who found the taco to be a damaging portrayal of a predatory queer woman.

    I think a simpler explanation is that the movie doesn’t cater to the hurt feelings crowd. And maybe they missed the part where there were, you know, Nazis.

    1. You watched the movie, didn’t you? That’s a level of commitment I admire.

      1. I did, and I enjoyed it. It struck me that it was deliberately trying to offend these types of people. I’d like to see more of that.

        1. Oh, a Trump voter, eh? ;->

        2. I mentioned this elsewhere, but isn’t the very concept of “talking taco in Seth Rogen movie” kind of a tell about the baked-in P.C. ‘quality?’

  10. Robby, when you get older you’ll come to realize that spending that much time contemplating derp of that magnitude is a waste of your precious time.

    1. This. Even the act of trying to apply a rational construct to the derp completely misses the point.

      1. yes, the whole earth, perpetually steeped in derp, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until derp is extinct, until the derp of derp.

    2. Look, you’re commenting on a review of an article in a lesbian radical periodical reviewing a movie about animated foodstuffs.

      And I’m commenting on your comment.

    3. No need to contemplate. Just point and laugh.

    4. Yeah, it would be more effective to just quote a couple of excerpts, say “Look at these fuckwits”, and laugh. What else is there to say?

  11. But it’s a little odd to disappear the review entirely just because some readers had a problem with it.

    But is it? Isn’t that pretty much de rigueur now? Wouldn’t an entity – rightly or wrongly – built upon identity politics almost be required to remove something made even one person feel unsafe? Wouldn’t it be hypocritical not to?

    1. Depends on who was made unsafe. Cis-hetero male whitey I am sure can show himself out.

    2. Their entire website makes me feel unsafe, they should remove it from the Internet.

      But then I’m not a total wack job trans, so I don’t get to have a vote….

    1. Every Hillary voter?

  12. Damn you, Froot Sooshi! No hat tip?

  13. The word “autostraddle” makes me uncomfortable. I demand an apology!

    1. +1 Sybian

  14. Humorless cunts exist, crybully spineless retards into submission.

    1. Is there a verb in that second clause?

      1. “Retards”?

      2. crybully

        1. “Crybully” was it. Sorry for the ambiguity.

  15. I think there’s 2 possible choices re: this sort of thing.

    #1 = Never read shit like this , or even acknowledge it exists. why waste anyone’s time any further?

    #2 = Call it what it is. = The most retarded, embarrassing, vapid, intellectually-self-destructive shit humankind has yet produced, an enemy to the free-exchange of ideas, and a cancer within liberal society. ]

    If you’re too much of a pussy to do #2, see: #1

    1. It might be a form of advertising.

      1. for H&R?

        If the only goal is “mo’ clicks”, i can think of a plethora of better ways than recycling SJW horseshit and adding nothing to it but tepid, highly-qualified, gentle admonishment, entirely devoid of wit or insight.

        1. And hey, we got not one, but two Robby Disclaimers out of it.

        2. Not for H&R. For the movie.
          If the intended audience is stupid fucking white men, then having these nutbags bitch about it helps the movie.

          1. I see your point.

            But I’m generally sort of leery of anything ‘false-flag’ or ‘conspiratorial’. Why attribute to X [malice, venality, corporate-mind-control] when mere Stupidity provides a comprehensive explanation?

            im just not sure these “nutbags” help anyone, including themselves. Even incidentally.

        3. You’re gonna give Robby’s hair a sad.

          1. Honestly? I never understood the fascination with his poorly colored and badly managed coiff.

            It looks bleached out and sun damaged, and really isn’t terribly impressive.

            1. Lol, I’ve never even looked at it, as far as I can remember. But you know, memes and jokes and all that.

              1. You don’t look at Robby’s hair…Robby’s hair stares at you

            2. I never understood the fascination with his poorly colored and badly managed coiff.

              ‘poorly colored’?

              You think a man should ‘choose’ the color of his hair?

              Its bloody golden, man. its like prometheus’ fire, brought down from heaven as a gift to mankind. It transcends mere ‘color’. its elemental.

              and ‘badly managed’?

              Again – you think a man should look in the mirror and wonder, “What am i to do with this today”?

              It exists in a state of nature. Does the leopard groom its spots? Does the bald eagle concern itself with its neck-line?

              It virtually levitates. “Bouffant” fails to do it justice. The swoop of his forelock reminds us of the Japanese Great Wave off Kanagawa. Its an expression of the eternal tension and balance of the universe. Its fucking *sublime*

              1. Nowhere else but here. Gracias, G.

        4. GILMORE is right about this. Robby needs to add some snark. The tut-tutting and finger-wagging are weak sauce. It is ok to call Jezzies a bunch of humorless cunts, because getting offended over a stupid lowbrow movie that features animated talking food is like writing that fact in the sky.

    2. I believe this is called the Marcotte Dilemma in professional parlance

      1. Being too retarded to breathe?

  16. This:

    We heard from readers who questioned the consent of the sexual encounter between the taco and the hot dog bun

    May be one of the most unintentionally hilarious English-language sentences ever crafted.

    Most of my coworkers have rushed to my location, wondering what was wrong and why it sounds like a strangled coyote when I laugh.

  17. I rather enjoy stories like this. There is no better and more incontrovertible proof that we are the wealthiest and most leisured civilization in the history of our species than the fact that we have time to argue about shit like this.

    That’s my optimistic view of things.

    1. That is increasingly becoming my take, and I have to admit, I’m finding it liberating.

      1. Agreed. It feels like first time one streaks through a nursing home.

        1. To me, it feels like every time.

    2. “I rather enjoy stories like this. There is no better and more incontrovertible proof that we are the wealthiest and most leisured civilization in the history of our species than the fact that we have time to argue about shit like this”
      -Found etched on an Egyptian stele memorializing the Christological debates of Roman Empire, dated just prior to Arab conquest

      1. Yes, it’s hard for me not to see this as a sign of civilizational decline.

        1. Don’t be such a negative Nancy. Simone Biles an inspiration and Cokie Roberts is back in the news. Life is good!

      2. Uh, if they were dated just prior to the Arab conquest, then Egypt would have been going through a time of massive and horrible instability, warfare and economic decline.

        1. Forget it, TIT is rolling.

        2. I think you’re exaggerating the bad effects of illegal Persian immigration to the Roman Levant just a tad, heh.

          But seriously… fair point. Kinda makes me wish I’d dated that stele to the 4th century, but when you’re on a roll…

        3. Are we not going through a time of instability, warfare, and economic decline?

          This is news to me.

    3. Yeah. And I’m happy that someone goes out and finds this shit so I don’t have to.

  18. Under no circumstances should Sausage Party be projected on receding glaciers, or in the presence of burkini wearers.

  19. It seems everyone is running out of hills to die on.

  20. Hey, more important than the subject matter at hand, is anyone else having repeated shockwave flash crashes in Reason the last few days?

    1. Shockwave flash? What is this, 2010?

      1. It’s whatever the year before FlashBlock came out was.

        1. Flashblock causes nearly as many problems as Flash.

          1. Not the security issues.

            1. Way way way way way overblown.

              Way overblown.

              (Can you tell I think they’re not issues at all?)

          2. I’ve never had any problems with it.

            1. Look a unicorn!

              No, if you need to occasionally actually use flash, flashblock is an awful kludge with many know issues of its own.

              If you don’t ever use flash, its fine.

              1. When I want to view a video, I click on it, and it opens.

                The internet is all an awful kludge. Maybe I’m just lucky.

                1. “Awful Kludge” is a great name for a rock band.

    2. I have, yeah, but I disabled Flash yet again.

      I hate Flash. There’s nothing wrong with it in and of itself, but it seems like people who use it don’t code it properly, or they’re using it via some WYSIWYG code generator or something.

      I’m a huge JavaScript nut, and I think, combined with HTML5/CSS3, there’s nothing Flash does that can be done with those non-proprietary, widespread, standardized technologies. And, typically, performance issues in JS manifest themselves early and hard, or not at all.

      1. *can’t be done, that should read…

  21. We heard from readers who questioned the consent of the sexual encounter between the taco and the hot dog bun.

    THEY HAVE NAMES, YOU KNOW.

    One assumes.

  22. It was essential for the majority of episodes to be reviewed by women of color, and it was important for episodes principally concerning black characters to be reviewed by black writers, Latina characters to be reviewed by Latina writers, etc.

    Ok, we’re done here.

    1. Who, dare I ask, will they find to write articles on Tiger Woods?

      1. And only fat white guys can write about Michael Moore.

        1. Fat dumb commie white guys.

          1. Hey Bernie, since you’re not doing anything else right now, have we got a job for you!!

            1. Not doing anything? Why, he’s earning a nice, taxpayer-funded salary!

              1. You misspelled “collecting”.

  23. From their website:

    Founded in March 2009 by Riese Bernard and Alexandra Vega and still run by a dedicated team of indentured masochists, Autostraddle is an intelligent, hilarious & provocative voice and a progressively feminist online community for a new generation of kickass lesbian, bisexual & otherwise inclined ladies (and their friends).

    I think that pretty well explains everything about the story.

    1. Now, I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush here, but it’s a good thing women look pretty and have lady parts, because, by God, they are insane.
      And, it’s not just the wacko lefty women, either, although they are definitely worse.
      Now, libertarian women might be different, but, as we all know, there are no libertarian women.

      1. but, as we all know, there are no libertarian women.

        ?

        “libertarian” “women”

        I recognize both those words, but run them together and the English language collapses.

      2. Ugh, we prefer sanity-challenged. Thanks.

        1. *Makes a note- not crazy, sanity-challenged.

        2. Only because you put up with libertarian men.

  24. Relevant:

    “It is a cardinal rule of social identity that people have the right to call themselves whatever they want. That’s as true for Dolezal as it is for Caitlyn Jenner. But with this right comes at least one responsibility: what you call yourself must be comprehensible to others?The problem for Dolezal is that her “Black” identity does not make sense.

    THERE ARE RULEZ PEOPLE! RULEZ!

    1. what you call yourself must be comprehensible to others

      Some people seem to take the entirely opposite POV = that the less-scrutible, the better, for then they’re always at advantage.

      When someone says “lately they’ve been exploring the idea of identifying as ____________”…and then discusses how “other people’s attitudes toward it” are then required to conform as a result?

      ….they’re basically admitting that they choose “who/what to be” as a means of wielding power.

      And what’s bizarre is that they’ll then insist that the identity they’ve chosen makes them a victim of other people’s failure to “understand”. Yet they seem to be looking to make this ‘understanding’ as complex as possible.

      Its a game. they may not know they’re playing it, but Adorno & Horkheimer knew it was a game and they recommended it for exactly the reasons so many people choose to play. It recognizes that power-relations are embedded in social-perceptions, and if you can control those social-perceptions, you can modify power relations to your advantage.

        1. +1 Finally, someone else who saw that!

          1. I love how that show kept a grip on the seventies like grim death.

      1. As an example, many feminists can be found who, on their blogs, insist that part of their identity is “queer” and related terms, when in fact they have a boyfriend/husband. And they dare you to contradict them.

  25. “Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.” ?George Carlin

    1. One of the more pretentious political self-descriptions is “libertarian”. People think it puts them above the fray. It sounds fashionable and, to the uninitiated, faintly dangerous. Actually, it’s just one more bullshit political philosophy.?George Carlin

      1. Yeah, I don’t know if he got quite why people are libertarians, but I can’t really deny the conclusion. Politics sucks.

      2. I’d agree that it’s a political philosophy, but bullshit?

        That’s Carlin having one of his frequent bouts of retardation.

        Plus, he played for laughs, so I don’t attribute much value to taking anything he says too seriously.

        1. I just thought it’d give some balance. Carlin may have been down on PC, but he was no libertarian poster child.

  26. Gone are the days when the alleged miss treatment of workers was the cause of progressive-minded individuals everywhere.

    Now they’re so lazy they whine about skin color.

    1. I am outraged that those jobs have not been outsourced yet. No wonder tickets are so expensive.

      1. They were. To Vancouver, BC.

        1. I thought we owned Canada?

          1. You own Vancouver, Washington. Vancouver, BC is owned by the Chinese.

    2. “You have lowball bids, tax subsidies and enormous pressure to bring things in on deadline and as inexpensively as possible.”

      What?!!? you mean the same forces plaguing every single business on earth??

  27. There goes the neighborhood.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer……le/2599521

    1. i have no doubt that the first victims will be small websites that criticize China.

      1. A web that eventually balkanizes into various digital fiefs will be a far more interesting one to play in at least.

        1. A web that eventually balkanizes into various digital fiefs

          is that what’s likely to happen? everyone has their own (dot)something?

          i thought the complaint would be that the international-registrar would be more likely to bow to pressure from over-seas govts to deny/revoke addresses to organizations which they think don’t deserve speech-rights.

          I remember reading about the issue way way way back when it was first decided to eventually “hand off” ICANN, but not recently.

          My gut says that the US is the only place on earth that could be trusted to defend “Free speech”, even weakly, which is what made us the right place to allow the internet to incubate. if the idea is that its now mature enough now that no one can substantially affect things? I suppose so. But i’m concerned.

          What does the EFF say about it? They seem to think the org will be over-deferential to copyright, other law-enforcement claims

          this is one of the sort of issues someone at this mag could be writing about instead of whining-lesbians, and trumps latest brainfart.

  28. “Salma Hayek’s lesbian taco character is really racist, apparently.”

    I bet you never thought you’d have to type that sentence when going through journalism chool, eh, Robby?

    1. He would have learned about it if he’d gone to Columbia.

      1. They have lesbian tacos in Columbia? Or you were high on coke?

    2. Tacos, for the most part are usually awesome.

      1. They *were,* now the thought of tacos is just weird and disturbing.

        1. Really? I think it makes them even more awesome.

  29. Bonfires of the goddamn quivering faking Tenders stretch sharpened bloody fingers from fallen thuds, shearing ragged holes into the sides of bright calling skulls chained in the canyons of communism brimming white gates shadowed by flickering elms and gatherings of ivy league princes and queens stoically trancing their clash of cuffing irons within jostling sentences guarded by laws built on the steel of deception and triads.

    Freedom is now entering such a state of rarity that precious metals no longer remain the zeitgeist of the widened eye.

  30. The phantoms of voice paradises will be caged by the furious governing hatred of wandering globe dreamers. Nightmares will be industrialized and spun from factories while the Fuck You Angels will be melted into cobblestones tread by simpletons.

    1. Please please please write a fucking book. Please?

      And I will be your editor. As soon as I store up a big enough stash.

      1. Effervescent sparkling lines tipple dreams thick with love infected with moon landings called notjoe.

      2. You can’t edit AC. Did Moses edit the burning bush?

        1. No, that was Aaron’s job.

  31. And yet White People aren’t supposed to review art portraying White People enacting racist policies. Nor even to go so far as to talk like they fucking understand it. Nobody should understand racism better than the racist.

    1. I think it’s just taken as-read that white people 100% support any racist or misogynistic writings, so we can’t be trusted with reviewing things even if it’s our ‘people’ who made it.

      You see, that’s part of the magic. White isn’t a race or anything, it’s an enemy that can be used to *unite!

      *Well, unite into splinter fringe groups mostly but you get the idea!

  32. It’s stories like these that make me think that maybe ISIS has a point

    1. It’s stories like this which make me think ISIS prisoners should be locked in tiny cells with dramatic readings from Queer Theory textbooks playing on the loudspeaker at all hours.

      1. Even ISIS doesn’t deserve that.

      2. It’s stories like these that make me think that next time someone says that the problem with Islamic culture is that a small minority of radicals is allowed to run riot by the vast majority of moderates who are just too timid to say anything that person should think very carefully about the “social justice” movement in the West.

  33. Yells are broken at the stem with sweet knives fashioned from the hilts of justice.

    1. * reports AC to homeland security

  34. It’s a stupid cartoon movie with idiotic teenage boy humor. Who the F cares about any of this SJW nonsense?

    1. You should. If Hillary wins, you’ll have another four years of it as official federal policy.

  35. Doomco, you here? I replied the other day but it was late, so I don’t know if you saw it. I would be up for a Denver meet up, if it was a Saturday evening or anytime Sundays or Mondays.

    1. Hey man. Yeah, but that might have been this morning. I think I’ll be looking at Sunday in lodo. Delaneys sounds good to me.

      1. Never been. Pool tables?

        1. Not sure, we’ll have to ask cliche.
          You’re a pool shark, eh?

        2. Looks like a few bowling lanes.

          1. Yeah, it doesn’t really matter, but if it doesn’t have tables it increases the likelihood that I haven’t been there. Not a shark, that’s a hustler. But I am an aficionado of the greatest game ever invented.
            Anywhere the beer is cold is good by me.

            1. I get okay after a few beers.

              1. Yeah, that’s the secret. Sober, your aim is good, but you got no finesse, caphice?
                To drunk, is easy to aim, because you don’t see double, you see in triple, because the two viewpoints merge in the middle, so just shoot the middle ball. You’ll have finesse, but not much aim.
                You have to get into a totally relaxed, constant buzz state.
                Or, you can trip acid. I only played once while tripping, and haven’t tripped in decades, but man, I could see the geometry. Like “hit it here and this will happen three steps later”. But I was tripping, and it was at least 25 years ago, so, you know.
                Me and my pool friend usually play bank-eight, and if it’s less than three rails, then it’d better something cool or you’re a punk.

                1. Or the opposite on the second line, or somewhere.
                  Thank God nobody reads this drivel

                  1. Noone cares how fucked up we are, AC has us beat by a mile.

  36. ” It was essential for the majority of episodes to be reviewed by women of color, and it was important for episodes principally concerning black characters to be reviewed by black writers, Latina characters to be reviewed by Latina writers, etc.”

    Presumably it’s also appropriate for those reviews to only be read by audiences of the respective race. I had no idea how progressive I was being in completely ignoring these morons.

  37. I’m going to put my fingers in my ears and assume this is parody and not let anyone tell me otherwise. Because I don’t think I can take a world where this is reality.

  38. “One person might think a female cartoon taco hitting on a female cartoon hot dog bun is a positive portrayal of a lesbian relationship. Someone else might disagree.”

    Speaking of sentences I never expected to read…

  39. “Stupid fucking men”?

    I resemble that remark…

  40. Environmental regulations are good according to MIT:

    “…In short the findings reported here (and throughout the economics literature for specific industries and earlier periods) are not all that surprising when the complex interaction between environmental regulatory demands and
    the economy are considered in context. Environmental policymaking provides numerous opportunities for substitution, tradeoff, accommodation, learning, and adjustment that effectively mitigate what in theory should be a measurable
    economic burden…”

    “Of course not all firms and industries learn, and even among those that try some will undoubtedly lack the resources to adapt or reengineer ? especially small businesses. Indeed large corporations such as Dow, 3M, and Chevron dominate the anecdotal evidence on the positive economic effects of environmental regulation. In contrast, small businesses with low capitalization, and firms already teetering at the margin of profitability may fold, unable to
    maintain production and comply with envrionmental restrictions. Firms that cannot compete without dumping some of their costs on the environment (and thereby compel the public to subsidize their operation) never were really
    competitive in the true sense of the term. But the loss of such companies is ultimately compensated for by new start up companies that use more innovate technologies.”

    (cont’d)

    1. Got that small business owner just providing for your family? You’re not innovative and inefficient enough for *our* enlightened ideas and Gaia. On the flip side, what happens if the policies enacted have negligible impact on the environment? Does it justify putting businesses out of business?

      “…Instead efforts should shift to factors that have been shown to really affect the bottom line: state
      tax and labor policies and transportation and communication infrastructure….”

      “…But the loss of such companies is ultimately compensated for by new start up companies that use more innovate
      technologies.”

      “…Gutting environmental statutes merely prolongs pubic subsidization of inefficient uncompetitive businesses.”

      Sounds an awful like paternalism to me.

      http://web.mit.edu/polisci/mpepp/Reports/Econ Impact Enviro Reg.pdf

      1. It’s not my fault that these businesses’ are undercapitalized.

        /Hillary Clinton circa 1993

    2. “Firms that cannot compete without dumping some of their costs on the environment (and thereby compel the public to subsidize their operation) never were really
      competitive in the true sense of the term.”

      First, “EXTERNALITIES!”
      Secondly, there are NO waste-free businesses or human beings. To claim they are thereby ‘subsidized’ is a lefty redefinition of the word.
      MIT, oh, how you have fallen!

      1. And I left out the obvious reliance of broken windows in your quoted post.

      2. If you summon choad back here, I swear, I’m gonna come through your screen and stab you in the eye with a rusty spike.

    3. Firms that cannot compete without dumping some of their costs on the environment (and thereby compel the public to subsidize their operation) never were really competitive in the true sense of the term

      This is the same horshit semantic-redefinition that the ACA used to claim that pre-existing policies were ‘a ripoff’ for failing to include lots of features no one actually wanted.

      Academics have gotten absurdly brazen with these sorts of rhetorical gimmicks, knowing that no one will actually call them on it.

      What they describe as “dumping their costs” are people like the ranchers who ended up occupying Malheur. The people the BLM fuck with capriciously on a day-to-day basis and basically try and starve out of existence. they don’t want small property owners. They want federally controlled land, and big corporations to play the tax-subsidize game with.

      1. The progressive left truly LOATHES small enterprise and the small folk.

        Also, Dutch women athletes are hot.

      2. OK, but is there room in libertarian theory for government to protect the Commons with environmental regulations? I mean these guys are over the top, but requiring companies not to pass on their environmental costs to the public seems kinda legit.
        Or am I missing something? I admit to not being able to concentrate on the article very closely, and not just because I’m buzzed, but GOD IS IT DRY!

        1. requiring companies not to pass on their environmental costs to the public seems kinda legit.

          Remember: in the end, the customer always pays.

          1. Sure. But, sometimes, people other than three customer pays. In Libertopia it’s pretty easy to say, you polluted the water upstream, you need to compensate me. But what about things like air pollution? People polluting the air instead of being required to keep their emissions clean, pass on that cost to society, often in the case of higher taxes and bigger government to clean up after private actors.
            So, the government can sue those polluters, but can anybody else? I’m not really playing devil’s advocate, I’ve been thinking about how to handle pollution in Libertopia.

            1. I don’t tend to think there is any formulaic answer for that.

              At least conceptually, regulation is passed by popularly-elected legislatures. Simultaneously, sane company behavior is defined according to market preference. So that’s two ways for the people to communicate the same thing: how they want companies to behave. How does it come to be, then, that the two are often misaligned?

              Is it that the legislature tends to act outside the actual will of the people, which demands less than does the legislature? Is it that the people find it easy to want something when it only requires marking a ballot, but find it more difficult when it comes to choosing to pay a premium for a product from a greener company?

              Some might argue that society is evolving, and that the govt serves as its better angel (to put a friendly face on coercion) dragging along stragglers to reach a point where regulation would not be necessary. The question there, of course, is just how it comes to be that Top Men know where society is supposed to be going.

              My view might be something like the flipside of that — that nobody prefers living in shit if they can help it, and that this produces a definite pressure toward a state of affairs where regulation becomes similarly superfluous. A main difference being, I don’t, at any given time, specify what level of greenness (or what have you) ought to be the status quo — I’m okay going with what people are willing to pay for voluntarily.

              1. OK. I’ve dealt with enough people to realize that, if the cost of complying with something, say, like disposing of old antifreeze, if that cost is great enough, then people will just dump it down a drain.
                I’m not sure I’m arguing, I think I’m giving myself an example of why I’m a libertarian and not an anarchist: there is a role for government to play in Libertopia, but not in Anarchtopia. (I’m just trolling now. Good night everybody, and live well!)

        2. I mean these guys are over the top, but requiring companies not to pass on their environmental costs to the public seems kinda legit.

          Sure, but i assure you these people aren’t talking about “libertarianism” as the alternative-opposite. they’re basically talking about = “anything that lacks federal laws dictating behaviors = “dumping” by default. Without rules…well, its anarchy! and anarchy will mean that the land is despoiled. and we can trust Govt to serve everyone’s best interests.

          and those behaviors don’t have to have any rational-connection to “the environment'”. Right now the fed-gov is imposing artificial carbon emissions limits in order to purposely try and put certain kinds of electricity generation out of business. Its effectively using environmental regulation as an excuse to control economic development. The air is literally clearer than its ever been in the last century because of the rapid uptake of natural gas. But the gov isn’t happy letting these things happen on their own- they’ve got to engineer politically approved results.

          I certainly think there are reasonable environmental regulations. I don’t think the system we have in place rewards “reasonable”. It rewards ‘expanding the mandate’.

          1. Ok. Fair enough. I am kinda struggling with environmental protection under libertarian theory. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a watermelon, but I do see this as being… I don’t know, an area where more smarter persons than me should tell me what to think? Not really, but, can anybody point me to some writings on libertarian solutions to environmental problems?
            And specifically ones that deal with things like air pollution? I know all that stuff about private animal husbandry and water rights, I’m talking about more nebulous things.
            BTW, I think they, even if man made global warming is true, I’m not concerned. Warmer is better for humanity, and, once self replicating nanotech arrives (a few decades at the most), there will actually be a shortage of atmospheric carbon.

            1. Perhaps one way to look at is this way: If the parts of environmental protection known to have dubious results extends into destroying the right for people to live, then it’s illegitimate. We all know laws end up being superfluous. In this case, academics seem to have taken to legitimizing it by taking it to another level by claiming regulations that put one out of business is actually good for the economy since the inefficient business will be replaced by new *more* efficient ones (ie in this case big corporations). It’s as Sevo said, a warped take on the Broken Windows Fallacy that completely overlook (nefariously in my view) the pain it causes families small businesses feed. Destroying them for, say, effen global change is outrageous and MIT seems to be taking this route.

              1. Oh, in addition, they claim it leads to more growth. I don’t see how and the study didn’t convince me. It defies logic.

                In other words, follow the enlightened progressive yellow brick road and MAGIC happens.

                1. No, I started wrong.i see this approach is totally statist; what I’m looking for is a libertarian solution to threats to what truly are “Commons”, such as the atmosphere.
                  Libertarians aren’t anarchists, at least I’m not. So libertarian philosophy accepts and provides for, say, water rights. Things that can be easily traced are easily fixed.
                  I’m not convinced that global warming is a problem, for instance. But, it’s a great “what if” example.

                  1. I’m sorry, that was just crap. I’m very buzzed (whiskey, beer, and bud), so I don’t even know how to properly phrase the question.
                    This is why there are no libertarian sober people

  41. This is a thing. I thought there is only No Man’s Sky. Back to game…

  42. Spot the Not: Trump = Hitler 2: Hyperbole Bugaloo

    1. Is Trump the Next Hitler?

    2. Is Trump a New Hitler?

    3. Trump’s Proposed First Move Eerily Like Hitler’s

    4. No, Trump isn’t the next Hitler: But his real historical comparison is still scary

    5. Donald Trump Isn’t Hitler?He’s Like Goebbels

    6. 5 Ways Donald Trump Perfectly Mirrors Hitler’s Rise To Power

    1. This is not easy. 3 seemed too click bait like, so I’ll guess 5.

      1. It’s a trick. This is Salon’s top 6 articles of the week.

        1. You’re probably right. Gah!

  43. My apathy about this is palpable.

  44. So this whole “my form of social justice is the most important aspect of everything” deal is actually a thing. Coincidentally I bopped over to Skepchick for the first time in probably a year, just to see how they were doing. I kinda liked the idea of a website devoted to women’s voices in skepticism when it was first announced. I was too optimistic to realize that what they meant was “neo-feminist SJW with the word ‘skeptic’ slapped on it”.

    So anyway, they were talking about movie reviews themselves. It seems that they are all upset that people didn’t cotton to the new Ghostbusters movie. Specifically, because it is very misogynistic to not like a remake with female leads replacing the men. They pulled this out as evidence of rampant misogyny.

    I found it interesting enough to read because of the huge blinders ideology can create. Their main point was that people were tweeting about the movie based on the trailer, and it had a decent 3/4 positive reviews on the tomatometer. So obviously the only reason you could dislike the movie was if you are a hateful misogynist.

    1. They totally missed the fact that the entire reason that people were reacting to the idea of replacing the gender of the characters was that the only point of the movie was “Hey, look! It’s the same 4 characters, except now we have them written as women! See! Funny!!” Which to my mind is more anti-feminist than ridiculing that as an idea. And it means that the twitter folk they are upset at didn’t inject gender into the issue, the producers did.

      And as to their point about reviewers… it seems that some folk thought there was some bias in the positive reviews… mostly over at Reddit I guess. But mentioning the Tomatometer rating inadvertently makes the redditors point. Because the reviewers give it 73%, but viewers only give it a rotten 57%. That’s a pretty big gap. And the gap on popcorn schlock comedies like this usually swings in the other direction. So I’d say point made for the folks who think the reviewers are a bit biased.

      I mean it isn’t like this is 1963. Linda Hamilton was the badass lead over 30 years ago. Heck, the top 2 movies of all time had female leads that kick ass. And they both date back 77 years. Nobody is shocked by “strong women” in film. Or even lead women. The 3 main actors in Ghostbusters are huge comedy headliners that have multiple star vehicles under their belt. Nobody is thinking they can’t be the lead in a movie in 2016.

      So the SJW need to go back to the 60’s so they can fight this battle when it was a battle.

      1. It is so weird when this classroom sexual politics stuff enters real life. It reminds me of the 70’s TV comedies aimed at black/crossover audiences. They’d always toss in a white character… but he had to be a complete buffoon. The white cop on Sanford and Son comes to mind. It was always such a lame trope, but at least at that point in time there were still some old fogies who grew up in an era of active racism and had an excuse.

        Hollywood has always been a following indicator of where people are, just like politicians. Latching on to Ghostbusters as some sort of feminist statement just seems weird. It reminds me of the movie “Shallow Hal”, where Jack Black was the living embodiment of every negative male stereotype and hollywood was going to show us that women were more than their physical appearance. And they did this by having fat and ugly people appear to be hot models to him, because of how beautiful they were on the inside. And beautiful women looked fat and ugly to him. And they thought they were exposing our biases and attacking stereotypes.

        Ghostbuster’s producers are doing the same thing. They thought they were being edgy by making an all female cast instead of all male. But that isn’t edgy any more. It probably hasn’t been edgy for 30+ years. Heck, everyone tried to pretend it was edgy in Thelma and Louise. But it wasn’t edgy then either. At least, not outside the media’s ivory towers.

      2. There was a lot of that with the new Star Wars, too — if you didn’t like it, you’re sexist about Rey being the lead. No? I didn’t like it because it was exactly the original Star Wars and Rey was just Luke all over again. The only character I liked in the entire movie was Finn because he was the only one that wasn’t a carbon copy of an original trilogy character or a poorly written older version of an original trilogy character. But okay.

        1. Here’s why you’re wrong!

      3. I have to agree. I havn’t seen the film but I find it annoyingly patronizing for Hollywood execs to think they’re catering to my sex by simply making a remake of Ghostbusters with the characters as female.

        I love films with strong female characters. Simply reversing the gender of a male character is lazy and stupid.

        On a side note, they did something similar with True Detective. First season was great, and some idiots complained about the lack of strong female characters. So they next Season they have a female character – who is an alcoholic victim of child molestation who ends up pregnant and fleeing in order to be rescued by her lover. Sorry, but if that’s your idea of a strong female lead, please stop trying. And the rest of you, please, don’t try to make people who have no idea how to write strong female characters write strong female characters.

        But back to Ghostbusters, the kind of feminists who think that this is somehow honoring women are the same sort that buy pink bicycles from the special women’s section at the bike store.

    2. I thought the trailer looked like crap so I have no desire to see the movie.

      Meh?

  45. Trump squad is a goddamn token Suicide movie in the popcorn halls… like, Jesus FUCKING Christ- how does a FUCKING golden building maker and TV icon become a total tinsel tossed daft boom…? Like the motherfucking steel clad tank dollar is too thick with self and his fucking self got 2oo big and self that made the fucker get B.I.G got lost in ego.

    You FUCKING wanna run this fucking, berg, bitch and take down the fucking South-derived mafia racket called the Clinton Crew Ya gotta step it up, nigga. Play some goddamn motherfucking ghetto shit, fucking billionaire loser dimple crimp.

    Jesus Christ… Fucking summer movie business cycle produced the most vacuous superdream superfantastic what the fuck hellacious worthless loss of clacking plastic ribbons… called suicide squad… Hillary is the fucking twitchy Chinese-bought FUCK splaying cheap Chinese sword alongside cheap Government will… Trump… is the plot..which did not exist in the spite of the fact that the motherfucking premise was volcanic and earthquake with potential…

    Like the goddamn movies so go the fucking assholes who try to architect the chains that bind us. Fuck this goddamn shitty planet of destructive villians.

  46. Things I never thought I would see on Reason: anything about Autostraddle.

    I used to visit them daily, comment relatively frequently, actually had a paid account for a brief period… Then they decided that what queer women really want is more politics, and we all know what flavor of politics they mean. After like a week of that I was done.

    I did fill out their reader survey and went on a few rants about being libertarian. I’m sure the editors loved that. Sometimes I think about looking to see if they ever mentioned it in their reader survey results posts, but that would involve actually going on there again and I value my sanity too much for that.

    1. Of course, the only libertarian woman is gay. Sigh

      1. And forever alone, since there are no other libertarian women.

        1. Lol. Touche

    2. Yeah, every “community” targeting gay men has been explicitly leftist for decades. I got fed up with that noise long ago.

  47. If you want to goddamn run this town, motherfucker… you have to never say, “i don’t know’. And you should learn to lie extremely well. Also, your genuine self? That thing you think makes you billionaire gold?

    Piss it down the shitter.

    Listen to alley cats, rural angels, and fence sitters. Old men with phantoms in the attic. Romney thought he could do it after his artist act of athletes but Romney is a disjointed river… Broke off long branch. clipped from the fake trees of what Plastic billionaire is dealing with right now.

  48. The Chair of the LP:

    Remember when @SouthPark destroyed @Scientology by telling people what they actually believed?

    That’s what’s happening on @CNN right now.

    1. maybe if we’re lucky someone @ reason will edit Jill Stein’s Q&A responses and provide the “greatest hits”?

      naw, we’ll probably just get trump froth.

  49. Republicans should lose because they run shitty political alleys in the crak yak filler towns of democrat diffles… but Republicans should win because… nah- they suck like communists- fuck them dummie rains

  50. Welp, looks like the staff of Autostraddle is due for a racial bias cleanse.

    Step right up, folks! Get you racial bias cleanse! Wash away the sins of your white privilege!

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23320/

    Actual tips include listening to media that promotes empathy and switching the background on your phone to an image of a non-white person.

    1. Never forget: we’re the racists here.

  51. OT: This is supposed to make me want to use Airbnb.

    “The plan would be for Kimye to live there for a few months for free, and Kim will post on social media about the apartment, like her sisters did from Turks and ?Caicos. Airbnb would pick up the tab for the rent.”

  52. Old clouds frank in the mirror like a chapping recoil
    hot sounds melt the stairs and feet toes scream and ladder
    the trapping song clouds dripping tones into the cellular closets
    outside the thick ricket thickets pricking tricks and 0.0090.000.
    point.sigh.o breeze man breath0 bring it drown into tap tip tap.00/080/.0
    .80//.000
    goddamn the walls just all fall down and all the lands are forever out there in the suns and little stars are fancy- so fancy

  53. Well, this has international incident written all over it.

    I guess Brazil knows they’re never, ever going to get the Olympics again so they’re just going to burn all their bridges.

    Kinda like Obama’s final months in office.

    1. You defame the state by suggesting they can’t protect even high profile athletes and the state will make an example of you.

      1. Brazil seems to be doing a good enough job defaming itself without my help.

    1. That’s awesome.

      That’s almost as good as Richard Nixon bowling.

      http://tinyurl.com/j9dsj4f

        1. Nixon actually looks relatively cool sitting next to Eisenhower, and it looks like Nixon is holding a cigarette.

          Isn’t that Nixon in that Eisenhower photo?

          I say we bring back those hats.

    2. How old was RR in that photo?

  54. I think we should all make an effort to stick to the topic of what lesbians think of Sausage Party.

    1. shultz is a noetic.
      shultz is also a rigid peruser of notes and words.
      shultz also should be ignored when drugs and booze flows freely like tall majestic oaks in the background of twirling odd sounds where green demons gather
      shultz is the icon for this odd online edifice filled with icons
      shultz prose is odd and swag amoung the army but notable
      reason might be the finest alley where sentence generals gather while
      the clouds cry

  55. When is a valley of there stood up by why
    Ah, but back alleys behind where connected with
    dusts of who on the cobblestones of stars and thought
    space boats I travel on into the deep rainbows of forever deeps
    where lines converge forever and romance involves thousands of years
    sticky space bee cum spilled when humans trickle off into space and fuck
    their muscular astronauts and svelte tight space screaming odd blondes under
    the swerving moon jades….

  56. reason is the swamp for evident winds
    ridden by gods and queens above and below
    reason exists for the reeds and cattails of comets and bedrooms casting old shadows
    on the curved corners of steel guitars winding like eagles in the
    edifices of cliffs melting behind my goddamn existense.

    ladders break into the attics of old dreams
    ladders break into the meme attics of modern stiff
    ladders climb above the clouds but brains don’t make ladders except in
    the rain and when green creeks overrun but if you swim underneath
    the shore under the tall green creeks I used to see whole earths
    loving the lightning and storm swells where the bank
    ended the uplifted eye but below
    the lives joined the tunes and loves and stories
    …. lost underneath and found forever

    1. Someone should do a “Collected Poetry Works of Agile Cyborg” … 😀

  57. In case you were wondering how to properly conduct a shakedown, I present this.

    It’s because we never address the real reasons that the situation for the impoverished never improves: There is never a serious commitment to reducing poverty, addressing income inequality or improving educational opportunities for many urban students. Why? Because others would have to give something up to make it happen. Take, for example, the existing law that requires contracts with the city have a certain percentage of minority contractors. This rule is never examined and barely enforced. Why? Because some majority contractors would lose out.

    1. Wow. How many trillions of dollars have we thrown at poverty over the years…?

      “Desperate people have limited options.”

      At the age of 11, I never fully understood these words, but I do now.

      Yeah, it takes a few years of pickling in SJW bullshit in order to “get it”.

      1. I agree with the author that there is never a serious commitment to reducing poverty. A serious commitment would mean doing the opposite of what he is proposing.

    2. This rule is never examined and barely enforced.

      I’m pretty sure (as i mentioned last night?) that there’s a Milwauke version of Clay Davis who has raped the fuck out of that rule and piped millions to crony pals

      this guy actually has the gall to ask why “nothing’s ever been done”. Look a city like Newark, where Zuckerberg threw 100m at Newark schools, and it vanished like a splash of water in the Sahara.

      Its not that no one’s ever made ‘serious attempts’ at reducing poverty. That anyone can say that after a half-century of the “Great Society” is an insult. Its that the institutions you keep asking to “solve” these problems are nothing but gigantic money-sinks and opportunities to use poverty a ‘business’ to milk patronage.

      If you stop trying to “fix” things with social programs, you might see results. But that terrifies progs more than anything = knowing that the actualy solutions require them getting out of the way, rather than be made the “Experts” in charge of another 5yr plan.

      1. If I followed their advise, my daughter at age 20 would have gold-plated, 20 inch training wheels on her bike.

        1. Ooooh shiny

  58. I saw this last night and i laughed my ass off about about it.

    its a custom car, built for a traveling sales guy who hates to fly. The guy who built it normally does these 1/4-million$ specialty trucks. but he took on this odd project and created some cross between mad-max, a cop car, and a mobile living-room. all in a package intended to make people think its a piece of shit.

    1. I’ve always hated 80’s and 90’s cars for the same reason: plastic. Even today, many cars look like they were designed by shampoo bottle manufacturers. He did a great job with that beast.

      1. I did love the idea of removing plastic parts, 3-D scanning them, and reproducing them in aluminum on a CNC mill.

      2. any cars look like they were designed by shampoo bottle manufacturers

        yeah, that’s a good way of putting it. I’ve always hated what happened to a lot of car design in between the 1980s and the mid-2000s. everything got “blobby”, and filled with plastic. You could hardly distinguish one brand from another. When Jaguars became owned by Ford, it was sort of the nadir. Jags always had very distinct shapes. Then all of a sudden they became hard to distinguish from a Taurus. Even the Porsche 996 was a hip-less blob. people described it as a ‘soap bar’.

        but jon ward @ ICON is the best. he’s a design guy first, and a car-geek second, but he’s got both in spades. his Bronco rebuilds are the shit.

        1. Obviously they wanted to create less drag with those designs. For me, unless I’m in a formula one race where fractions of a second count, I want my car saying, “Fuck you wind. I’m going to plow through you and see what you got.”

          1. Obviously they wanted to create less drag with those designs

            I think that was maybe part of the idea. but from what i’ve heard, aerodynamic drag isn’t much affected by shapes in that way. I’d guess the drag coefficient on many of those blobby cars wasn’t any different than sexier-designed ones.

            (*here’s some interesting reading about that)

            my suspicion? Was that a) it was cheaper to make and b) they tested well (enough) in focus-groups.

            early in my career i was involved in focus-group testing.

            Summary = Corporate over-reliance on badly designed marketing research results in horrible bland shitty half-baked concepts which based on the data, might lead you to believe that it hits a perfect ‘happy medium’ with all customers…but in reality? inspires no one and doesn’t differentiate itself from ‘the other company’s’ shitty-focus-group-tested designs.

            Design is inherently psychological, and you need to ‘suggest’ things that provoke a response. If you try and design things based on the ‘average person’s positive/negative feedback’, you end up with oatmeal- something that produces a “Non-reaction”. because non-reactions don’t “offend” anyone. But anything good *should* turn some people off. Not everyone needs to be your customer.

          2. The aerodynamics aren’t about speed – they’re about fuel economy and meeting CAFE targets.

            1. aerodynamics aren’t about speed –

              Yeah, i know. I was just noting that the 90s car-design stuff we’re talking about probably had zero effect on actual aerodynamic improvements, which can often occur in ways that aren’t so obviously visible. Just because something *looks* like its supposed to be aerodynamic, doesn’t mean it is.

    2. Ha! But “stealthy”?? Paint a car matt black and it stands out. Paint it that boring silver that half the cars use now if you want nobody to give you a second glance. Even then the push bars and the stance give it away.

      1. But “stealthy”?? Paint a car matt black and it stands out.

        I think you might not get it. I think its not “stealthy” so much as “Sleeper”. Its not that its intended to be ignored, but that if people see it, they will think, “Oh, that’s got to be a cop” and give it a wide berth.

        He mentioned in the beginning that The Blues Brothers was an inspiration, and the intent was to “get people out of the way”. The model is a cop-car, the lights on the front are standard “cop-issue” as is the computer stand in the passenger seat, etc.

        1. Its got a cop motor, cop shocks, cop brakes

        2. It’s got a cop motor, a 440 cubic inch plant, it’s got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks. It’s a model made before catalytic converters so it’ll run good on regular gas. What do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?

          1. fix the cigarette lighter

    3. It needs a panel or door of a different color.

      1. right? yeah that would be hilarious. one panel look like it had been in a body shop.

        1. Or just have the doors done in white – then it’ll make everyone freak out that he’s a cop.

  59. Ears are like money. No fucking amount of cumming will make the music better if nake d asshole is plopped on your godddamn face and if the ass is little you can wriggle free and run to the goddamn green spaceship and slip about the system wink… so this is how the brethren escape this goddamn meltdown a fucking lone last ditch fucking metallic orb of salvation… might as well get on that metal stallion and ride it into the perfect vision of the future of the milky way melted while our band and light ship of trickling ankled traps lovely boobs while we steer this velvety nightclub from the hell pinpricks unleashed from only jesus fucking christ and all those odd fucking doofy gods know… praise brain angels and shit but I like to stick my fat cock in brain angels lifted from all those earth kneels enjoyed by the gods..

  60. steer the fuck away from rusty orbs and plant ladders on the outside lights man because rivers of the universe filled with sparkles and peace flow like eternity and the shores of eternity accommodate better places than all the metal shiv encrusted dumb brains of the place you all love to praise hallejuah and jumpy about and get all excited and bullshit dummy about- even tho you fucking even actually know better= but FUCK freedom isn’t a country sandwich… but it may as well be because all those cock sucking gays and outside the box witches always being killed by Saudi Arabia and this is only the beginning….

    The world is killing our song, bro. The tank weather is wearing a frown and the nature of hells is being manipulated by clever lost souls, man

    Rise up and let us reveal the greatest obtuse lost transmatic ever.

    1. Agile Cyborg 2016…he’ll take so many drugs there won’t be any left to tempt your kids!

    2. Take a doo-doo pie.

      AG,
      I think Kenye has wriggled into your brain.

  61. “Latinx” How are we even supposed to pronounce that? Are the writers at Autostraddle aware that in Spanish, un latino y una latina son dos latinos? Mixed groups are masculine in Spanish.

  62. I’ve been seeing this a lot lately, but what in the fuck is “Latinx”

    1. A Latino minx. ?Muy guapa!

    2. Because Spanish is a gendered language, the SJW types get themselves all in a quandry deciding when and where to use Latina or Latino — you know some fellow SJW will get offended no matter what you choose — so they use Latinx where x is a variable that can be replaced with ‘a’ or ‘o’ or whatever other phoneme the reader deems suitable.

  63. It is tiring watching these bigots engage in bigotry writ large without even a hint of self awareness.

    1. You get a pass if you swear your allegiance to cankles.

    2. Look, it takes collectivists to make the grade and be branded racist or any of the other stereotypical labels collectivists fling at each other. To non-collectivists these are all hilarious, but the hive mentality types hate being guffawed at worse than anything. Luckily, this repels them from trying to join the LP and ruining our law-changing effectiveness.

  64. OK, think of the fun that could be had with this. Make a comment account on autostraddle.com, Then complain loudly about how every article is “problematic.”

    From their main page:

    “Every Way To Find A Date, Ranked By A Shane” — offensive to the asexual. “It triggers me that you assume everyone is just out there trying to find dates!”

    “You Need Help: How Do I Break Up With a Casual Someone?” — offensive to everyone who’s ever been on the receiving end of a breakup. “As a gender-queer-demi-femme-monogamite, I was traumatized by this article that assumes the existence of such a thing as a ‘casual’ relationship!”

    And so on. The insane, hysterical complaining writes itself.

  65. But shouldn’t we all take exception to the idea that one must belong to a certain racial or gender category in order to comment on that group’s portrayal in a work of art? And shouldn’t we all be a little skeptical that talking tacos are so evil, so patently racist, that failing to properly disparage them in an article should be grounds for deletion?

    Yes, and yes.

    And though I’d never heard of Autostraddle, I now know to avoid anything they publish as being axiomatically “problematic” from the start.

    Their revolution will eat itself, fortunately.

  66. Switching in the word “idiots” for the “persons” shrieking all the hysterical complaints at a cartoon makes the whole situation easy to understand. Then again, the same lot would doubtless regard that very clarity as some sort of insulting oversimplification. Ya can’t win when the grownup IQs are in the single digits, regardless of biological age.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.