What kind of criticism is that? How does writing about it mean he hasn't "risen above it"?
DiallingWand
diallingwand
Presumably because they take the view that criminal reform is possible, he's shown (as far as I can see, from admittedly very far away) genuine remorse and attempted to atone for both, and he was a hopeless, suicidal drug addict at the time of the latter?
and @ austinfilm, I did mean that facetiously, apparently it wasn't clear...
For the record, I also think his articles stand out and I don't always agree with what he's saying, but not because of a creepy tone, more just that he tends to write about men more (which isn't surprising). I don't have a huge problem with his articles but lots of people do, and they seem to be a bit vague if you ask…
It's not completely beyond belief to think someone might enjoy that. That is kind of slut-shaming.
You can identify someone by their writing style or choice of topic? Clearly you're some kind of magician.
The way I see it, if nobody was willing to be a soldier, nobody could fight wars. Although I concede that is a little idealist. And the fact that that is considered idealism is morbidly depressing.
I feel like the shittest team in each league, each year, should be forced to have a ridiculous, offensive caricature of a white person as its mascot for the following year.
...Word. With all due respect to the article (it was pretty good), I think this comment sums it all up flawlessly. I tip my my hat to you, sir/madam, and if I could promote this comment, I would.
Why do American politicians always use war metaphors in rhetoric? War on drugs, war on terror, war on marriage, war on poverty...
There's a long history of supervisors getting the credit for work done by their students, it's not necessarily sexism in this particular instance.
Agreed.
There aren't enough of them in positions of power. Or they're too willing to sacrifice that position on the altar of popular opinion.
I don't consider it to be so inaccurate as to be useless.
I agree. But I don't see anything in the quoted comment that suggests they disagree either. It's better for feminism that the choice is between Romney and Obama than if it was between Obama and Santorum (possibly not, if we take the view that Santorum was highly unlikely to ever win and his selection would have pretty…
I didn't mean to be mocking, but I did mean to be critical. No American soldier since WWII has died protecting their country, they've died invading other people's. What soldiers do is sign up to do harm on other people without regard for the morality of the possible cause.
Wait until you try suggesting that we should have a gender-neutral singular pronoun. People go apeshit for some reason. Sweden have introduced one and people are acting like it's the end of the fucking world. I'm pretty sure it's not one of the biblical criteria for the end times.
Reposting it in its entirety somewhat undermines your amusement at the original (and out of context) quote.
She was being hypocritical. It's good that she changed her mind, but she only changed her mind because it personally benefited her to do so. She was all in favour of making pregnant women poor or dependent on husbands before she decided she wanted to be pregnant but didn't want to be poor or dependent on her husband.