The Oldest College Newspaper in Pennsylvania

The Lafayette

The Oldest College Newspaper in Pennsylvania

The Lafayette

The Oldest College Newspaper in Pennsylvania

The Lafayette

Movie columnist assassinated by political dissident

Just+another+woke+idi%2At+trying+to+piss+on+a+great+movie+with+his+b.s.
Photo by SEX GOD for The Lafayette
Just another ‘woke’ idi*t trying to piss on a great movie with his b.s.

Tragedy struck The Scoffayette newsroom when beloved movie columnist Kilometers Tiger ‘23 was killed by a member of the Cinematic Collective Party (CCP).

Tiger had recently been assigned a full-time bodyguard after receiving multiple death threats regarding his negative review of “Elvis.”

The troubling messages came after Tiger raised concerns about the depiction of the relationship between Presley (an entire adult) and his girlfriend-turned-wife, Priscilla (a child; like, actually the age of a freshman in high school).

The CCP member, understandably enraged when a college student with absolutely no ties to Hollywood revealed he did not jizz every time he thinks about a man who died in 1977, traveled over 1,000 miles from his mother’s basement to complete the act.

Tiger was found with synthetic fibers from a black wig in his throat and particles of blue suede under his fingernails, leading some to question if Presley himself rose from the grave to get his revenge.

This was not the case, however — the culprit was merely a rabid fan. The suspect was heard screaming “THIS IS FOR ELVIS” as he ran from the newsroom dressed in full costume.

When reached for comment on the situation, “Elvis” actor Austin Butler deep-throated his microphone for the duration of the interview.

Editor’s note: This is a satire article featured as part of our annual Scoffayette issue.

Leave a Comment
About the Contributors
Slutty Librarian, Soles Ghost
Slutty Librarian, Like Ivan Provorov, you are well within your right to state your views. I’m sure we can both agree how great it is to live in a country where this is freely allowed to take place. I, personally, agree with Provorov’s choice to boycott the Pride night warmups. He has chosen to not take part in something that celebrates what his faith disagrees with. In this country, why is that wrong? If there is a “military appreciation night” and a player chooses not to participate, is that wrong? You make the statement, “…that Provorov’s actions essentially send the message that queer people are unwelcome in the NHL — both on the ice and in the stands.” I find that statement to be a massive misrepresentation of this man’s actions. I assume you agree that any player skating in the Pride Night event with a Pride themed jersey is agreeing with, if not celebrating, what the LGBTQ+ stands for. In my opinion, you have made an error in assuming his actions equate to queer people being unwelcome. Because we disagree with someone’s view on a certain issue does not mean we dislike them as a person, or view them as unwelcome in our homes or communities. It does not mean he doesn’t want queer people attending games or playing on the ice, it means he doesnt support that lifestyle. Why should he be forced to do that? You go on to say, “…by refusing to take the ice for Pride Night warmups, Provorov said that he did not believe in the message of the evening, which is essentially stating that he would not want to share the ice with a queer player.” Again, and I am not trying to hammer you, I am confused as to why you are making these assertions. He certainly never said he would not want to share the ice with a queer player. His actions, at least it seems to me, expressed he does not support the LGBTQ+ lifestyle. Again, why is that wrong? Another statement you make, “They were asking him to show that the space was welcoming to all types of people, and it clearly is not.” This would be another, in my opinion, assumption on your part. I would bet whatever little money I have (school teacher 😉 that Provorov, if asked, would not want LGBTQ+ or most any group of people to feel unwelcome. He is saying I have a right to what I believe and should not be forced to support something I am not supportive of. That makes sense to me. Though I understand your misreading of this situation (obviously, that is my opinion), your comparison of Provorov’s boycott to another athlete’s sexual assault accusations to be wreckless and obtuse. I have no idea what would cause you to compare a boycott with the horrible, if true, actions of sexually assaulting another person, but I would ask you to truly take a step back and reevaluate your choice. It seems to me, and if I am speaking out of turn I apologize, that you most likely subscribe to what we would call the ‘tolerance movement’ of the past 10 years+. It is my understanding, based on personal experience and what I have heard and read, that tolerance has come to mean “you agree with and accept all views.” However, those who espouse this view are, ironically, intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. I truly hope this letter to the editor is received in the loving way in which it was intended. Respectfully, Matt Murphy
SEX GOD, Susan Wild's #1 Fan
This probably isn't good for my digital footprint.

Comments (0)

If you wish for your response to an article to be submitted as a letter to the editor, please email [email protected].
All Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *