Hahaha, “Siri, help me make a fire.” iPhone explodes.

What is colossally stupid is the number of people who criticize Sanders’s ideas (and Hamilton’s defense of them) without offering up ideas as to what Sanders/other candidates SHOULD do. It’s like you’re saying “Here’s a list of all this racist shit that’s wrong with this country!” And Sanders is like “OK, here is what…

It’s not about “good enough for you.” That is absurd. It’s about “good enough to get elected.” So tell us, which candidate - who has a real shot to get elected - would be a better champion for African Americans than Bernie?

Seems like a very all-or-nothing take. If Bernie can’t fix the problem 100%, on the day he takes office, then he’s ripe for criticism because he hasn’t done enough and won’t do enough in the future? Not really a fan of that analysis.

You’re totally right—instead of planning to alleviate racism with economic tools, Sanders should instead just plan to make every American sign a pledge stating “I won’t be racist.” That would be a much better solution.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Hillary gets advance notice and a closed door private meeting, Sanders and O’Malley get ambushed. Right.

If you don’t want a beer and have no idea what you’re doing and perhaps aren’t really into alcohol but don’t want to be a teetotaler, the easiest drink to order is a rum and coke. Tastes like coke.

Frankly, that’s an entirely different problem to solve. It doesn’t look like we’ve written a guide (I’ll make a not to pitch it some time!) but off the top of my head, here are a few suggestions:

But the article made a statement about all men. Why, in your brain, is it a somehow invalid or pathetic response to criticise a blanket statement?

In the letter, Clements calls on the actress to “demand change” and “Be a voice for our generation and for women — two groups who make up most of the victims of the gun violence in our country.”

No dispute that violence against women is an under-considered aspect of the larger conversation on guns, but the notion that women are the primary victims of gun homicide is the exact opposite of what’s true:

Summer camp was for rich kids.

It is also concerning because it calls Rousey’s comments hostile, but there is nothing in the comments that can be reasonably interpreted as such unless you’re predisposed. You can debate all day if her concern is valid, but she doesn’t go off hating on trans athletes.

Easy to say when you’re not the one who’s going to get punched in the head.

Competitive sports are comprised of people with the most physically advantaged bodies. And XY bodies are statistically more physically advantaged than XX bodies. That’s the point.

Jezebel desperately needs science writers, or at least science-literate writers.

There isn’t compelling medical evidence that trans women lose their physical advantages over cis women:

The “compelling medical evidence” you cite is the opinion of two doctors who perform gender reassignment surgeries — they don’t cite any studies on the actual issue, or indicate that they’ve done any specific research on the implications of gender reassignment for sports, and make casual statements like “she would prob…

“Maybe she doesn’t want to fight some of those fighters that are not gonna put on a dress, like Ediane Gomes. “