Well, MAD is not short for MADMSO, or Mutually Assured Destruction of Military Sites Only.

I’m sorry, what did you think Mutually Assured Destruction meant? That was the whole point. Nuclear deterrence is all about the idea that if you attack, you won’t have a country left, even if you “win”.

Considering Jez relies so much on their readership/commenters, it’s interesting that at every turn their writers try to show just how much they don’t care/actively hate the opinions of the women and minorities that read here.

But Jez isn’t and hasn’t been consistent for years. Jezebel has no reason to be consistent when people who complain will still click. I feel like articles like this don’t do anything, jezebel isn’t going to change at all when what they are doing works. Jia even points out that the articles where they are offensive…

I’m so glad you raised this point. It really threw me for a loop seeing Jezebel referred to as a “feminist website” in the very first sentence. Time and time again over the years, we’ve been reminded that it’s not, although that’s most often happened when they completely fucked-up and did something abjectly…

The “not a feminist site” always seemed like a little bit of a convenient cop-out.

The “not a feminist site” always seemed like a little bit of a convenient cop-out. It seemed to be deployed mostly when the site was getting criticized (perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly) for not toeing the feminist party line. I don’t doubt that it’s actually true that the site isn’t explicitly a feminist site,…

Because “single editorial vision” is a huge assfuck cop out. No writer here subscribes to the ideology of Phyllis Schlafly, or is secretly posting on MRA forums about how feminists are all worthless cunts. There are no articles about the evils of abortion or blaming rape victims for getting drunk and being…

They develop a singular vision when it comes to mocking their commenters on social media, though. If she really wanted to see her “flaws as they are,” then more listening and less mocking would be a good start. I’m speaking of the maxi dress article, precisely because it stands out in my mind as the most obvious…

You are not stuck in a job that has high public visibility, even if you fell into it accidentally.

Tfw ur tweet is short enuff 2 not need abbrs like tfw :-P

because people here definitely have a tendency to twist words and interpret their meaning in the least charitable way possible.

Nicely said. It isn’t about editorial consistency as much as it is about realizing clickbait like that will make people angry. I mean, it’s no good to pretend it’s someone else’s fault all the time when the editorial staff must know, upfront, what’s going to happen.

Agree. I could have take her post more seriously were it not for the staff teaming up and throwing shit at anyone who didn’t absolutely love the maxi dress article because...satire!

Good heavens no, Lindy wouldnt have been so open about the flaws here. Most of the stuff she wrote was binary, black/white views

I guess the problem people have here is the lack of internal logic to it all. Like, there has been such a long history of Jezebel authors being indignantly outraged because so-and-so made a comment about some woman’s body, and so there has been a huge culture against “body shaming” here... doubly so if has to do with…

I’m not sure why you’re in the grey. This comment is excellent. The thing, for me, is that the site is seeming to move into a more click-bait type model, which will naturally present some issues. She mentioned examples of how more somber pieces have gotten less clicks (67K) versus the posts where people took offense…

This, for me, is the problem.

What you meant: “It’s complicated, people. Let’s talk about it.”

See. This is your true opinion. Don’t make shit up about her email server or say you’re upset about this specific thing she said when the reality is that you’re against her regardless of what she says tonight and your animus towards her has nothing to do with this specific statement at all.