I’m probably a terrible fucking person

.....because of the labor struggle to make sure that those jobs could provide a stable life.

Her partner currently does not work. It would be nice if he could help her get her /their kids ready and pick them up from school, unless she does this out of enjoyment. Hopefully he is making her dinner and stuff like that at least.

“[M]ost low-wage workers in this country are women, though they are rarely included in the popular image of the struggling working class, or acknowledged by lawmakers still fixated on coal mines and the factory floor while largely ignoring the cash register and American household as scenes of actual labor.”

Looking forward to reading more of these. When we talk about people who “work for a living” or the “working class”, much less “hard working Americans”, we need to remember who makes up the majority of that category and what it really means.

If Rosa Parks had rolled over a bus and then set it on fire, that would have been property damage. Luckily for everyone, hers was civil disobedience in the true sense of the word - she did nothing but remain seated. The only law that made her a ‘criminal’ in the first place was invalid and discriminatory and…

Look buddy, this isn’t about protesting an unjust law as Parks and King did. Black or white, male or female, anyone would be criminally charged for pulling down any statue, pretty much anywhere.

I think if there’s one thing that LGBT advocacy orgs need to internalize from the way abortion has been treated in our country, it’s that even once we’ve “won”, we cannot stop fighting. I’ve been seeing a lot of gay-marriage-centric orgs shutting down, basically saying, “we won!”

Can you imagine if this was BLM or Standing Rock literally pushing and trying to physically fight riot cops?

People are reading the title as if it were saying that it’s absurd or somehow wrong for Oberst to make this comparison. Now I think people understand that wasn’t the intention, since that’s been clarified.

It doesn’t read as neutral, Madeleine. I don’t mean this as an insult to anyone at Jezebel, I’m just saying that people did not read it neutrally. That’s all.

I don’t think it is very neutral. I don’t have a huge problem with it, and none whatsoever in the article. However, my minor problem is that the collective creators at Jezebel know just as well as Conor does the inherent danger of a story like this being well publicized. Conor did his best in the interview to tell his…

It’s just about impossible to find Jezebel’s original posts about this false accusation now. Possibly by design. At the time, they were incredibly dismissive of Oberst.

It’s not projecting. There’s a very clear context and pattern which this fits (or, actually, doesn’t fit) into. Which is why people are surprised. The headline doesn’t exist alone, separate from all other things.

“You are projecting a lot on a very neutral and straight-forward headline, friend.”

I mean, it’s almost like Jezebel has a pattern of using fear and outrage to motivate readers. Novel!

The readership is more or less acclimated to a certain editorial tone. Most articles that start off with “X compares Y to Z” end with so and so person making an incredibly tone deaf comparison. In this case, the comparison was accurate.

It seems that about half the commenters had the same reaction as potterpoet. So either there’s been a strange epidemic of “projection” or the article lacks clarity and a coherent editorial thrust. But I guess we bitches just be crazy.

I thought this article was great, but is there really anything wrong or incorrect about pointing out that the implication/connotation of the headline was at odds with the actual story?

You are projecting a lot on a very neutral and straight-forward headline, friend.