Maybe they aren't pulling their punches, but their punches hit pretty weak to begin with. Is there a division below fly-weight? Bush league is being generous. Jezebel et al are nothing more than echo-chambers for the anointed, where sermons are preached to a choir that simultaneously sing its praises.
Racism and sexism are real and serious issues, and they merit discussion and debate. Then again, so is campaign finance reform and lowered voter standards. Both have which have more immediate bearing than the race and gender of the candidates, because working on either of the former would address issues in the latter. Expert opinions and cited analysis on all of these issues can be had from reputable news sources all over the world, the least of which I would take much more seriously than Jezebel et al. I have little time and patience for the petulant shrieking of the perpetually offended.
I completely agree. The loud shrieking voices from both extremes (on any issue) make it very hard to have a real conversation about anything. Especially when witty one-liners receive more attention than a reasoned analysis.
I actually have no idea what they were going for with this piece. Looking specifically at the bit about Bobby Jindal, I'm just left scratching my head. There's a lot to talk about with him, he's left our state in financial ruin. Our higher education system is basically banking on the idea that whoever the next governor is will clean up Jindal's mess. Instead of actually talking about the issues, though, Jezebel goes on some rant about the Aztecs? And puts up a picture of a muppet. I mean, I get that it's an entertainment piece, but they could have at least based their story somewhere in reality? Maybe I just expect too much.
Maybe they aren't pulling their punches, but their punches hit pretty weak to begin with.
And yet, you felt compelled to respond to the article not by arguing their claims but by slandering the site. Interesting. Weak, you say?
Both have which have more immediate bearing than the race and gender of the candidates, because working on either of the former would address issues in the latter.
I don't disagree at all but I'm curious as to what you mean by this. Please, elaborate.
I have little time and patience for the petulant shrieking of the perpetually offended.
Maybe they aren't pulling their punches, but their punches hit pretty weak to begin with. Is there a division below fly-weight? Bush league is being generous. Jezebel et al are nothing more than echo-chambers for the anointed, where sermons are preached to a choir that simultaneously sing its praises.
Racism and sexism are real and serious issues, and they merit discussion and debate. Then again, so is campaign finance reform and lowered voter standards. Both have which have more immediate bearing than the race and gender of the candidates, because working on either of the former would address issues in the latter. Expert opinions and cited analysis on all of these issues can be had from reputable news sources all over the world, the least of which I would take much more seriously than Jezebel et al. I have little time and patience for the petulant shrieking of the perpetually offended.
I completely agree. The loud shrieking voices from both extremes (on any issue) make it very hard to have a real conversation about anything. Especially when witty one-liners receive more attention than a reasoned analysis.
I actually have no idea what they were going for with this piece. Looking specifically at the bit about Bobby Jindal, I'm just left scratching my head. There's a lot to talk about with him, he's left our state in financial ruin. Our higher education system is basically banking on the idea that whoever the next governor is will clean up Jindal's mess. Instead of actually talking about the issues, though, Jezebel goes on some rant about the Aztecs? And puts up a picture of a muppet. I mean, I get that it's an entertainment piece, but they could have at least based their story somewhere in reality? Maybe I just expect too much.
And yet, you felt compelled to respond to the article not by arguing their claims but by slandering the site. Interesting. Weak, you say?
I don't disagree at all but I'm curious as to what you mean by this. Please, elaborate.
Thank you, I needed that laugh. :)