So, this is a quote from Ms. Ora in another article:

This part was rough to read too:

Feminist issues aside, that is an EXACT description of Gal Gadot. Like if you put that in the dictionary there would be a picture of her next to it.

You don’t know too many rich old white ladies, do you? Old money society ladies will fundraise the hell out of wonderful social programs, be lovely with the kids and moms at the shelter or school, and then mutter about the young men standing on the corners as they drive past on the way home. They do the whole…

Ah, so the Bernie movement doesn’t exist, never did, and caused the downfall of the Democratic Party! This is an interesting theory and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Is the DCCC also inversely to blame for the political might the Democrats lost during the Obama era, where nearly a thousand legislative seats they previously held were lost to Republicans? Or do they get credit for good things and not get blame for bad things?

As someone trained in trial litigation, the Rule Zero of cross examination is that you never ask what, in the business, is known as “the question too far.”

Counterpoint: Just because something bothers someone doesn’t make it racist. Also, I don’t know what coconuts sound like, but I would question why you’re having conversations with them.

That’s what bothers me about the outcry over Apu. Why aren’t they against every “problematic” character? Why is it okay to make fun of desperately poor white people, but not a successful small business owner who is Indian American? They don’t mention the very successful Dr. Hibert, who is African American.

“weaponized”

My only problem with the critisim, is that it avoids every other extreme caricature in the show to make its base point.

Beyonce strikes me as super private and maybe not into a story about her being bitten on the face being the the media tidbit du jour.

I read an article that included an interview and one of the nuns actually said (not quite an exact quote) “I was supposed to be a millionaire after this.” That kind of dampened my sympathy for them.

Well, to be finicky not necessarily 2,000 years more like 900 or 1,000 (church started to definitively own all property around the same time they started requiring clerical celibacy, because too many Priests and orders were trying to leave church buildings to their kids;)). But yes, agreed, this is how it has always…

I think it’s because though they’re not the bad guy, they’re in a predicament of their own making. The vows they took mean that fair or unfair, even if the property was left to their order for as long as it existed, the Church has the last word. Even if there were a hundred  nuns there, it would have had the right to…

The nuns don’t have a plight. They weren’t living there anymore anyway. If they’ve got issues with their retirement planning, that’s nothing in which Katy Perry should have to involve herself.

You’re missing nothing. I’m actually finding it...depressing that Jezebel is still running with this narrative after most other websites, including some not so female friendly ones, have cleared it up.

I don’t know a lot about this particular case but I know a lot about legal fights over religious property, and as sexy as I’m sure all the news outlets find their Katy Perry headlines it seems like all of the lawsuits and debate are actually between the nuns and the Archdiocese, not the nuns and Perry. It’s the…

Not a Katy Perry fan, but she seems to be being villainized for something that is exclusively the fault of the archdiocese (unless I’m missing something). Perry is just trying to buy a property that was apparently on sale, the dispute of who owns the property is really not on her.

Yes, when Katy Perry pays for something she rightfully purchased from the actual owners, she should receive it.