The unfunny and inaccurate headline...I guess it’s snark but really just comes across as lack of effort, or too much effort...harkens already back to why Tolentino’s lengthy explanation of “we all do different things/deal with it/embrace the dissonance” just can’t be applied to a legitimate journalism venture.

San Diego Lifeguard Bill Bender emphasizes that accidents like this are—as these tragic circumstances demonstrate—all too feasible.

You’re not alone, there’s just no point in wasting breath or words on the rabid third wavers on Gawker/Jezebel.

Well, I think the point of the original comment was that these were not particularly good choices to illustrate “progressive” causes. I complain plenty about Jezebel so for this particular story I think it is important to note that not only has the reporter sought comment from the PR firm officiaries, which she has…

Actually, it is. Whether or not Assange is guilty of the two sexual assaults he is awaiting charges on, it is undeniable – event from his earliest media presence in Australia, before Wikileaks – he has been associated with radical leftist causes. Assange may be a terrible person, but look at some of the complaints…

Wikipedia should not be lumped in with “progressives.” There are many actions, petitions, scholarly papers, boycotts by academics and former editors, and so on, objecting to Wikipedia’s poor sourcing and vetting and near total domination by male writers and editors.

Two views, this from demanabolition.org: https://www.demandabolition.org/critique-of-am…

Just curious about what all the “sex positive” third wavers who were so supportive of Amnesty International’s revelation that it is A-OK with its workers making transactions for sex with the populations of “empowered” women they were supposed to be helping.