It depends on what you’re into. People who aren’t into the whole “fashion”(or fitness or whatever that “thing” is that makes folks want to maintain their look for themselves more than anyone else) thing often read something like that and think it’s sexist or just plain wrong because it places the onus of the action on…

I think it’s a two way street. Part of my husband’s appeal (for me) was the fact that he was reasonably fit. He had a year or so where he ate a lot and didn’t exercise, and I was decidedly less attracted to him. I didn’t go elsewhere, but I expect he feels the same way about me. So, my desire to stay fit stems in…

You’re right. It should be called the March for Women. That’s why, btw, the National Organization of Women changed their name to the National Organization for Women - to be inclusive of men who wanted to support women’s rights without wondering if they were butting in. Leave it to Gloria Steinem to show us the way.…

Dude, it’s called the “Women’s March on Washington.” I didn’t even know men were invited. I hadn’t checked the Facebook group. I’m supportive of women’s issues, but I’m also aware that men getting involved with women’s groups, without being explicitly invited, is often seen (justifiably) as butting in.

No, the fact various members of leadership in our country were briefed on this story is not up for debate. It isn’t ‘according to Buzzfeed’ that this intelligence exists and is newsworthy, it isn’t according to anyone or anything, actually, as facts don’t need support to maintain existence. Just what can be confirmed…

Because the documents exist and are being circulated amongst our intelligence agencies, executive branch and the gang of 8. In other words, it’s news.

if it’s true that russia has been cultivating donald for five years, i see that as noteworthy and i’d like that to be further investigated. agree to disagree, i guess.

Yea, you’re right. That’s not encouraging people to take up the cause.

This is exactly why we are where we are. Progressives (and I consider myself one of them) have developed an ‘all or nothing’ view of the world. If a person does not agree with or support EVERY single one of our ideologies simultaneously then we don’t want them.

Tell me how accusing white people who should be on your side of racism will help?

Well of course you’re right, but why approach people on your own team who are trying to help with cynicism, sarcasm, and alienation, simply because they are white? 

I just don’t see how an attitude of, “They’re not REALLY on our side because they’re white” helps literally anything. Insulting and alienating people on your own team only helps the other team.

White women who are attending this rally did not vote for Trump, and it does no good to fight with them as a group.

I agree. This is a big part of why democrats lose elections. The GOP gets everyone to fall in line like good little soldiers while progressives are all over the place, worried about things that may be “problematic.” I am a fan of nuance. I love critical thinking! But shit is real right now and we need to join…

Really? Really? Can we ever...EVER stop eating our own? We (progressives) have the biggest single enemy (obvious) to defeat since...Christ I don’t even know who...and we’re still doing this? We’re going to criticize and alienate white people who are late to the party for being late to the party? Now is not the…

With respect, it isn’t really a test of fairness. It’s the fact that you’re talking about a law that explicitly targets speech content, in a country whose First Amendment to the Constitution begins “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech . . .”. That the information is readily available elsewhere…

Correct. The F-22 flies combat sorties. The F-35 doesn’t do anything.

That’s fair, but maybe they could have just made a Harrier, and a F-14 replacement instead of a “do everything” plane that can’t do anything.

This is one of those problems I don’t think you can legislate from existence.

The law, which became official in September...