“Besides, is there any worse revenge on a bad ex than having a beloved new gig as a TikTok star, while their once-beloved talk show sinks deeper and deeper in the ratings?”

A nice thought, but Jezebel is not going to argue for their own extinction.

Wow! Are you an empath like that woman from Star Trek? I didn’t even know I was so gosh-darned angry. Thanks for telling me, not-mad Internet stranger! I hope, that with time, I can one day be as not-mad as you.

Yes, as I said, clearly not mad. Every new post drives drives home how not-mad you are. Thank you, for taking the time to tell us all about the extent of your not mad.

Yeah, that first comment was dripping with “fascination.” Your supercilious affect is very convincing, and you are clearly Not Mad.

Yes. And yet, somehow, the criticism stands.

“Mr. The Newsroom and Ms. “I Used to Be a Supermodel and Married to Ric Ocasek”

The statement “this isn’t for me” being interpreted as a criticism of anyone else says much about the insecurities of the person doing the interpreting.

“So as usual, under the guise of racial injustice, Jalopnik sides with someone who appears to be a criminal...”

If Jezebel’s house style didn’t demand corrosive cynicism at all times about all things, perhaps you could have skipped the introductory paragraphs about how you think anti-hate crime legislation is Bad, Actually, and the focus of the article could remain on how Josh Hawley is terrible for thinking anti-hate crime…

So Cher isn’t really humble, because she is too familiar with her own back catalogue, but a real fan would love her most popular and commercially pandering work. This is what effortful cleverness gets you, I guess.

I’m not sure that introducing the argument into a thread where it was not before present, even if to preempt it, is really an improvement over refraining from introducing the argument into the thread. Don’t do the troll’s work for him.

Ledes and story structures that presume universality of experience are almost inevitably going to alienate a large part of one’s readership, either because 1) the experience *isn’t* shared by the reader, or 2) many people resent strangers making presumptions about their lives. Back in the ancient times when I was a…

It was so freeing when I learned that I could listen to music without requiring that the artists pass some arbitrary authenticity test.

This article repeats several of the same quotes, verbatim. More evidence that the key qualification for Jezebel writers and editors is that they are never so foolish to read anything on Jezebel.

False positives lead to unnecessary further testing and - sometimes - unnecessary further procedures. Every new extra step is another opportunity for errors and false positives. Doing your best to maximize your effectiveness at the first step is in accordance with the principle of “First, do no harm.”

Am I missing something? The article didn’t say anyone was pissed about it, just that there’s a long wait to get tickets because of high demand. It’s Jezebel: never assume the headline is supported by the content.

The main thing I remember about this (other than being surprised that the Fantastic 4 guy was pretty good) was noticing how bad so much of the set design was: there were lots of scenes that looked like it was filmed in an old warehouse that nobody had bothered to dress up. It stuck with me, because I don’t usually…

Sexual lawlessness, really? That’s not a bit from a Church Lady skit?

Attractive white woman said something innocuous? That’s Joan’s bat-signal. Into the Sneermobile!