RUNNING MAN: just how long of a walk are we talking here

JAUNTING CHILD: longer than you think, Ben! longer than you think!

it's some of the bleakest, most cynical, most dystopian shit i've ever seen in my life

in fact it’s deeply annoying to have it called “an old school Deadspin takedown of the author,” when the piece is a meticulous engagement with his argument and only deals with him personally in a couple of discrete places. thats the last i’ll say about it, have a good one

also, it's weird to me to characterize my blog as eye rolling the central question. my main objection to Kang's piece, as i went into at length, is he's dismissing the question instead of examining it. tbh it's kind of hard to imagine someone who actually read my piece describing it that way

and where "integrity," as i went into extensively in the blog, means "can i trust that what's happening on-screen is on the up-and-up," the answer pretty obviously is yes

i don't disagree with any of this, but neither Kang nor I were examining the question of whether gambling is "killing" sports. we were examining whether it threatens the integrity of sports. that's a totally different question

i don't agree, but this was far, far, far from his best work

i truly don't see what the problem is with just leaving it unexplained. they're movies. they are not documents of history. if Legend of Zelda players can handle their stories being unconnectable, so can people who like to watch dumb campy British spy movies

I love the idea of applying this same logic to other serialized characters in fiction.

"Well, Robin Hood was just a fox, so how do you explain why Kevin Costner is a man now, huh?!"