It’s funny. I never get these types of comments when I write about the disproportionate impact of enviro policy on coal workers and the rural poor in WV or MT. What is it about centering people of color that reads as a distraction (“pollution”) to some commenters? Do you care less about pollution having read this,…

When you set out to look for racism, you’ll find it wherever you look.

Maybe before you criticize you should learn what it means. Latino is masculine. Latinx is the accepted term for the inclusive “Latin” community.

I see what you’re saying but the point of this article is that it doesn’t affect everyone equally. Statistically some people (based on race) are more likely to be living closer to these pollution sources, less likely to be able to move away, and will be affected and hurt more than the average.

It is all part of the GOP plan to kill all the potential Democrat voters.

AND, you might get in your feelings over the shit-talking, because James isgoing to call you a bitch. He always does that.

“Like, y’all wasn’t trippin on that in 2011, or 2012, or 2013, or 2014, or half of 2015. But out of nowhere, the UK has a problem with me coming into their country?”

the extremity of Ms. Newitz conclusions is so counterintuitive.

ok, it’s true that it’s possible to superbly analyze faulty data...

Another thought occurred to me: The article states that less than 10,000 women have used the chat, checked, or replied to messages. It then states that 5.9 Million “replied to a message from ANOTHER PERSON on Ashley Madison” then who the hell were all of these men replying to?

Probably the only rub that was had.

This is strange to me. If you go over to http://reddit.com/r/adultery/ (as well as other subreddits) there are many users who, if you believe them, had a fair amount of success on AM.

I think the amount of real women maintaining profiles on gay dating sites is probably higher than on AM

Why are you so stupid?