It’s pretty typical of the Jezebel crowd who is selectively a little left on few social issues when it suits a particular identarian agenda but still holds to conservative notions.

The headline and its insinuation is stupid.

No, he looks like someone who is dedicated to social and economic equality unlike most liberals who don’t actually care about that.

If you have a no idea, why don’t you look to country that have successfully legislated and implemented some of his policy goals?

Those vague statements are necessary because a general change of attitude towards social and economic issues is necessary before legislation can be passed.

Why would we want to do that?

yeah, she should totally get solitary and three life sentences.

You don’t like things “ironically.”

She “deserves” our attention. No, she doesn’t. Especially for being a “good singer.” This is the sort of mindset that propagates bad art. What’s more interesting or “deserves” more attention isn’t the quality of her voice (which is unremarkable) but the context of her music and what it says about commercial art and…

The writing is stupid. But so is this:

“she is a good singer, so she deserves your attention.”

A person can be healthy and eat Oreos, duh.

The problem is that you are looking at a website that is largely conservative with the exception of some aspects of some social issues.

You think cheetahs would make quick work of elephants and rhinos?

Actually, it’s more like an argument of semiotics. Farewell, I’ll miss you!

I’ve made the argument “ridiculous” because I asked you to define “attitude” (a word you used) in a discussion about ideology and how it manifests in rituals and cultural practices related to diet? You know, a discussion about imaginary relationships imposed on the natural world to justify behavior?

What does the word “attitude” mean?

You still aren’t talking about the same thing I’m talking about: ideology, structures of power, language and how that manifests in behaviors towards people, animals, and the environment (which encompasses issues like climate change, the factors that drive it, and potential disastrous consequences amongst many other…

Yes, you can make a very sound argument about patriarchy. Here’s the most basic stupid version of the argument you are making: “x can happen because of reasons a, b, c, d, e, f, etc. so x can’t be the result of a (but it can be b, c, d, e, f).” You do understand that the very same arguments that assert justification…

I’m not arguing these issues wouldn’t exist without patriarchy. My reading comprehension is working great, thanks!