That’s exactly it. You should no more join this conversation than you should wander into a group of lawyers and say, “You know, I don’t know anything about the law, but I’m willing to bet if you just flipped the judge the bird a few times, he’d probably be impressed by your balls and let the guy go” or walk into a…

I’m in an open relationship that really works... but it wasn’t something that we just decided to try one day. We’re both polyamorous, and we both knew it and were honest with each other about it from the start.

“If there’s one thing I don’t understand and feel pretty judgmental about”

To be fair, it sounds like people in healthy relationships might not want to be your friend or share that info with you.

Off topic, but that point has irritated me like no other. All the others basically said no chance of loss, but 538 gets mocked for modeling the just under 1/3 chance that trump became president.

but this map literally says that somewhere between 1 out of every 3 outcomes and 1 out of every 4 has trump winning? and they actually covered how he had a pretty decent chance of winning the EC while losing the popular? I’m definitely not on board the “Nate Silver is a stats god” train but I really wish people didn’t…

And look at that not insignificant probability of Cheeto winning. Everybody blamed them for saying Trump had a chance to win leading up to Election Day, then blamed them afterwards for not predicting a win? Cmon. We are supposed to be the party of logic here.

538 probably wasn’t wrong. A 71% chance is not a 100% chance. As Nate Silver pointed out repeatedly, their models gave Trump a better chance of winning than you’d have of losing in Russian roulette. If someone handed you a revolver with only one bullet, would you feel comfortable pulling the trigger?

You know what probabilities are, right?

Seriously, this has to be terrible journalistic practice to troll commenters on your own site. And it feels weirdly personal. Just defend the basis of the article! Wouldn’t that be a more appropriate response?

Gawker: An excellent journalistic example of when to shame people for being gay and when to not shame people for being gay.

Your replies here are so cringe inducing, Jesus. It’s like seeing a 13 year old thinking they’re super witty with their childish responses.

When your boss has to come in to the thread to defend you, it’s pretty clear you both fucked up.

No, dear, the joke-men ruined the joke by making it nonsensical. Skinheads are bald by choice, because they shave their heads. Shaved head is the damn signal. They would not want to use Rogaine. The joke is trying to build on skinheads’ reputation for being racist, but attempting to pun/equivocate “skinhead” into…

Sidenote:

“Cool attempt to gin up controversy though.”

Definitely not the only analysis. At all. Trump serves Putin, not us. Colbert made that point in ribald fashion.

Seems like it was more an attempt to characterize Trump as willing to suck Putin’s dick as a sign of obeisance.

Swing and a miss, Katherine.

“In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s cock holster.”