I actually agree that it's a rare Gawker comment thread that delivers much (except perhaps unwitting entertainment)... though it's a bit of stretch to imply there's much consensus on what "type of discussion readers at Jezebel wish to have..." On the evidence thus far, the only agreement is that what the commentariat…

Really enjoying Jez's new approach of rewriting Gawker content a day or two later, instead of just cross-posting it.

It was cross-posted on Gawker (via Deadspin) like four days ago, right?

For an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric, she's got very little sense of when to stop talking. Might be time to review her Cicero a little more closely. ("Silence is one of the great arts...")

Vitamix... and a food processor. Problems solved. Charge to Gawker HQ - tell Denton you're worth it. (105K views for a book review is kinda magical, right?)

How can you do a Brut advertising retrospective without a single Joe Namath reference? Ol' Broadway Joe WAS Brut... as well as arguably the first metrosexual jock.

"I was just saying their product is terrible."

It takes a single click on the embedded link to see that's not remotely the case. (All groups are broken out separately).

You'd have to think that every early-stage VC investor — now sitting on thousand-fold gains — kinda disagrees, of course.

Nice to see Jez adopting the Gawker house style of including Asians as "white" if it suits the author's editorial slant. (Gawker pulled this same stunt — with the same data — yesterday... so it's even more feeble the second time around.)

The "Iron Lady" is what she calls the strap-on. It's meta yet terrifying.

Kid stuff. Get back to us when you've escalated to the Hillary-Maggie Thatcher threesome scenario. Maggie is invariably stern and filthy; Hillary, omnivorous and insatiable.

"Her case was thrown out in 2012...." "It's good she's finally getting some justice."

No, the doctors' reasoning is a bit more detailed (see the WSJ today), and involved the presence of multiple sets of hand prints, etc. Throughout the entire initial investigation, the assumption was of multiple attackers, so some corroborating physical evidence wasn't even noted specifically if not deemed medically…

You started off suggesting it's "unconscionable" that the victim doesn't seem the young men as "innocent". Yet there are any number of scenarios where they're culpable to one degree or another, even where no DNA evidence would apply... and it's these scenarios to which Ms Meili surely refers.

Fair enough. I'd be inclined to give more weight to the medical team who treated the victim over seven weeks — and who contend to this day that her injuries were inflicted multiple attackers (and also weren't wholly consistent with Reye's confession) — than to the word of a total psychopath in no legal jeopardy.

It may be worth noting that at no point did any of the five confess to anything that would have yielded DNA evidence - it was all to lesser (sic) activity such as groping her, assaulting her, and hitting her in the head with a pipe (the last of which - from Salaam - wasn't videoed).

The antecedent "they" refers to the OP's comment (and the article's phrase) "black and brown teenagers would swarm and hurt anyone in their path".

"No different than the current hysteria over "the Knockout Game".

While I admire your willingness to double down, the cellulite literature (such as it is) identifies substantial variations in susceptibility. "Near ubiquitous" is about as strong a statement as you'll ever find.