mcboulderdash
wistfulwizardwally
mcboulderdash

I submit that Katy Perry should be the number 1 choice as she’s been a bombshell for years, so could most immediately relate to her new position.

It’s not that much of a stretch to reach that conclusion as Perry’s reputation with the oil industry is literally his only “qualification” or association to the Department of Energy that I am aware of. Even so, I think it’s ok for the author to make a jump within the comment section so long as he leaves it out of the

Thank you. This is a good article, one of a species of articles that used to be regular to Gizmodo and io9, but for some reason has gone by the way side to sensationalist garbage. I don’t feel any better about the appointment, but I’m now more informed as to the role at which Perry will let us all down doing.

Isn’t twitter exactly the place you go to to share ideas no one wants to hear you talk about in person?

I do have an issue with the article, I don’t think it does anything other than to point out racism. I don’t see the benefit of simply pointing out the fact that someone said something racist.

I think we’re both talking in different directions, I’m not so much applying thought to the specific instance as to the practice of pointing out racism. I don’t mean to be defending Lulic or condemning him or his actions/comments. I merely was remarking on a problem I see with the way we talk about racism. My

My problem is how the conversation is approached. Racism is a huge problem but the conversation is not always actually a conversation, nor is it always productive. If there is no real educating happening, or acceptance that something may be done out of ignorance rather than intent to wound, then we’re not getting

Not really what I was saying at all. My point here was that the comment can work as just an insult of someone new to the league, without being racially charged. Understanding someone’s intent and the cultural forces behind comments is very important, so maybe an article that is less reactionary that in the beginning

Honest question: is it worth pointing this out as a racist comment? Being an American, I’ve never heard of anti-immigrant slangs about being street dealers (I assume this is wildly recognized in Europe and elsewhere as a slang) but on my reading I don’t see a racist comment, rather just one saying this dude hasn’t

I think you had a very good point up until you lost it at the end there. All ideas are not created equal, so someone may not have any ideas that are worth agreeing with, so not showing agreement is not necessarily a sign that compromise can’t work. Watching the debates I found it hard to agree with anything that came

I think you’re 100% right. I think it all needs to be talked about, but we need to talk about the issues that are actually the issues as you did, rather than just talk about how people are scared, like this. We’ve gotten to a point where people say something out of ignorance, and they are immediately vilified as a

No not at all, I do not like that this is our president and do not like the direction I see things lining up to be. The point is this is a news source that utterly fails at giving information, and if you want to call the subject matter of this article as information that it is manipulated information to leave out the

Yes, but relaying the actual fear of people (whom I believe to be justified in their fear) to others, without presenting the ideas of those who are not afraid is not good practice. Now if this article was just a bunch of random people’s thoughts on Trump without any sort of balance that’s one thing, but by saying

hahahahaha, I do like that idea, and you’re 100% right, but the goal should not be “give them a taste of their own medicine” it should be let’s come up with the right way to disagree in a democratic fashion, this is just yelling at each other.

It’s imperative to continue to report on things Trump says, but this article isn’t about what he said, it’s about 5 people in the military’s opinion of him. And it’s only 5 negative opinions, it doesn’t add anything to the discussion to present these letters, or emails, or whatever they were as anything more than the

Look, I’m not trying to say he’s a good guy or that he doesn’t believe those things but I think it’s important for journalists to back away from sensationalism. Inevitably popular movements will be hijacked and turned into something unclear, unfocused, and altogether harmful. It’s more important to present facts while

I agree, it’s important to remember who the person we just elected president is, and not to just blindly say “we’re all together in this now and need to see how it goes,” but the continued stream of vitriol that proved to have no power in dissuading voters needs to stop.

(It’s also worth noting that Jost is wrong in the most narrow sense: “white, rural, religious Americans,” to pull a phrase from the Times, largely only have the vaguest notion of what Tinder is, and wouldn’t have known about its new policy.) This kind of thinking is the problem. Do not assume you know about white,

Casey H. wins soley off of their subtle Marx Brothers’ reference

Although I could totally imagine a company, or individual doing something like this, I find it difficult to believe it was happening at any significant scale due to the fact that there are only two lawsuits, by individual people who were fired, rather than a large class action suit.