It’s not racism, but people do need to quit talking this way. Generalizations are for the weak-minded, or else the mean--in every case, always. There is not a group or type of people who like to be spoken of as a monolith, and it ALWAYS sounds like an attack. Pure amateur hour. 

His older work was exactly like this—and even more potent, since no one had heard of him yet. You need to back through his work. I love this new show, but it’s absolutely just more of the exact same (greatness).

A story about raw oysters, with a photo of someone grilling oysters? Might want to let people know there’s no danger in eating cooked oysters. Also, EVERY place that sells raw oysters has a sign up about the risks of eating raw shellfish, for like the last 100 years. The climate rising MAY make vibrio a little more…

No, it isn’t shade! And there are also several typos. This is my favorite website but the editing is atrocious. Every article has at least one glaring typo that jars me out of the reading experience.

The most succinct and classic line may have been, “[My son] died doing what I love.”

This reminds me of when I call out a white person for saying the n-word and they start in with the “obviously I’m not talking about ALL of them” crap. Generalizations about people are one of two things: comedy, or laziness.   

Lots of good things pointed out in the article — though the books are still fine. Kind of corny and pretentious (my daughters have ‘She Persisted’ [blech!] and ‘Rebel Girls’), but are useful and fun. Each book’s a small dot that will eventually connect to a broader understanding. I also wonder if the writer has kids,…

Isn’t the fact that he’s not responding at all proof that it’s not vital for him or his career that he responds? The result we have here, now, is far less damaging to him than an interview with him would have been (in the right hands, not someone who is like “So, like, what’s your fucking deal anyway?” = Amateur hour)

I don’t know about stenographers, but they should be able to use their skill to let the objective truth make the interview subject look bad, because while bloggers are allowed to give their opinions, most journalists are strictly forbidden. Every occupation has rules. Public Defense Attorneys have to somehow defend…

We should all be angry, but journalists shouldn’t be so angry that they show their hand and thus fail at getting the interview they were after. Frankly, H asks in the article why a non-trans person is writing about trans issues, while also sort of proving (by scaring off the article’s subject) that a person who is…

When trying to get important information from someone, do you shout at them to give it to you? Insult them? Does that work?

If you are giving your dog a pill, do you run up on it screaming about the pill, or do you quietly engage the dog, maybe wrap the pill in some bacon—just anything you need to do to be successful? Do you consider this sucking up to your dog, or do you considering it doing what you need to do to get the outcome you…

Journalists are supposed to document things, not mock them. The fact that so many Americans both liberal and conservative don’t know the difference is a big part of the problem.

If you come at an interview subject confrontationally, then they know not to do the interview, and that they dodged a bullet — that’s not just this interview subject, that’s ALL OF THEM. Convincing people to answer hard questions on the public record (esp since they don’t have to and have nothing to gain from it) is a…

The problem isn’t the meanness, it’s that a journalist with ANY experience would know how to make the interview happen, rather than flailing and being denied. Which is why, in general, journalists shouldn’t write about issues that are so close to them. If you can’t even feign objectivity long enough to land an…

It’s just not what a real journalist would do: write a bunch of insulting tweets about someone they want to interview, and then write a mean email asking to interview them... Yeah, there’s a reason why a real journalist wouldn’t do that. It’s just shooting yourself in the foot.

That’s what a regular person might think, but a real journalist would know better. He doesn’t “need” to answer any questions. So if you want him to answer questions, you get a real journalist, who knows the important of objectivity and respecting your interview subjects, and you get that person to deftly convince him…

That really jumps out at me, how this journalist doesn’t understand how objectivity is the cornerstone of the profession. So for one, no, you do not tweet a bunch of insulting shit about a subject before trying to interview them, because you’re showing the world that you couldn’t possibly objective while writing this,…

Our ideas about killing are so out of whack: If you kill yourself, you are not to be blamed for your mental state, but if you kill someone else, you are a monster. You can also have any sexual deviation/kink in the world and supposedly there is nothing anyone can do to change you, but then if you are a pedophile then…

I thought he said he wanted to see Drake get “hangry,” no? Hungry + angry, like what little kids are accused of getting? Angry is still good, but, I laughed when I thought he said hangry.