Not sure I understand. What’s wrong with making a joke at Harvey Weinstein’s expense?

She’s not wrong. But in a world where we get outraged because inconvenient words hurt our precious ears, reliably progressive Gawker will lose its mind and shit on her anyway. Truth be damned.

If that is your form of reasoning, then you either don’t have a high IQ, or you have sufficiently convinced me that IQ tests are indeed bullshit.

Also, fuck the publisher. Since the printing press was invented, they’ve run a cartel to keep prices high and screw both consumers and authors. I have no sympathy for them and I found it especially weird that lefties we rushing to Hachette’s side during its dispute with Amazon a few years ago.

It seems that in an effort to avoid hurting feelings, people have adopted this idea that “Nope, IQ tests are completely useless! Don’t worry about it! It means nothing!”. This article falls into that trap.

This is the central conceit at the heart of this double-standard and, frankly, identity politics as a whole. It is the assumption that a particular individual’s “power” is defined simply by their gender or race (group membership). In the case of “mansplaining”, the implication is that men are more powerful, and…

Risk: You cull people and accounts that expose you to different perspectives, thereby further entrenching you in your own echo chamber.

...And your statement is the literal, diametrical opposite of this:

Thus we reach the logical conclusion of militant identity politics: Any black person who doesn’t fall in line is an Uncle Tom/race-traitor/house negro, take your pick.

No, your statement is unequivocally the dumbest statement in the universe.

Interestingly he’s not wrong on substance. I assume that the commentariat realizes this based on the fact that they’ve resorted to dispensing fat jokes and nothing else.

It’s actually really easy for the IPhone cropping tool to just rotate the image right as you open it without even realizing. About half the time it does this to me and I have to hit “cancel” and then do the crop. I can definitely sympathize with someone having this problem.

I don’t see why. She specifically went on the record for him.

About the Slate writer, you left out a critical part of that blurb. The next line was:
“Reached by BuzzFeed News at the same email address, Auerbach said the suggestion that he had written the emails was ‘untrue’”

Replace man with “black person” and woman with “white person” and ask yourself whether there’s something wrong with this picture.

People say “I don’t want to victim blame but...” for 2 possible reasons:

“Assigning blame” is different than “discussing cause and effect”. One is a discussion of ethical responsibility and the other is not.

I get why people thought this was a good idea in the 1960s maybe, but they should know better by now.

Wouldn’t #1 simply be “I’m not racist”? Presumably someone who is not racist would lead with that claim.

I agree with the overall point of this article. Though there is one nit I have to pick: