This indirectly confirms my suspicion that a small but not insignificant part of the Packers' success is that the city is deathly boring and provides few opportunities for the dreaded distractions. I'm a big fan and love going to games there, but it would be very, very hard to live in Green Bay.

Yes, but the point is that you can only apologize for the things you can control.

Yeah, we're reading that totally differently and I think using the wrong terms does not serve the NYT readers, or any readers, well in the least bit.

I appreciate your calm approach to explaining your point, I think I just don't understand why you think the Slate piece is particularly objectionable. I think it was appropriate and balanced. I really don't understand why it relates to the NYT readers, as they were not belittled, much less addressed, by the Slate…

My thought as well. Surprised and delighted that we are not there.

I find it strange that this should remind you of the period you described, as this situation is nothing like that. Stanley used the exact wrong terms, the ones that are the opposite of correct. What she did is not akin to calling someone black who preferred to be referred to as African American. It is more akin to…

What? She used the exact wrong terms. It isn't that she used a slightly less preferred term, her words were the opposite of correct. She isn't a YouTube commenter, she is a paid NYT writer.

At least he is ASKING. That appears to be a step she skipped.

That's my guess as well.

I'm a gentle soul and also felt bad, so I also had to look it up. I just watched Freaks and Geeks this weekend, and thought he was great in it. I totally bet he is in on the joke.

I'm not familiar with Ijeoma Oluo's work, so I can't really comment on whether she laughs at women who are assholes.

I recently signed up for one of those send-you-clothes-once-a-month companies. One of the questions it asked was which celebrity's fashion did I most admire. I'm 32, so the Spice Girls are basically tattooed on my soul, but even then I thought they were tacky (empowering! tacky, but still tacky).

Some women could also choose to engage in any one of these reductive arguments. There is no tenant of feminism that denies that women are also capable of being reductive assholes.

Sometimes I read the whole original article because I'm not positive that it is as bad as it is portrayed by the author.

Yes, on everything but cash bars. There is no "it depends" for cash bars. ;)

I know that opinions can be strong on this topic, but isn't the right answer "it depends"?

But sometimes it does. Sometimes the best thing you can do is listen. Just because we value our own thoughts doesn't actually mean expressing them is valuable to others.

I'm truly sorry that you feel that way, and I'm deeply thankful that the majority of the civilized world has decided to move beyond this terribly barbaric point of view. Rejecting your view point has contributed immensely to human progress.

Actually, I do. I happen to believe that even stupid (putting aside the idea that "stupid" is even an appropriate descriptor of these cases) people deserve and are entitled in this country to due process and other civil liberties.

It's super awesome that we have a sophisticated system of constitutional protections to save us from assholes like you. Assholes worry me a hell of a lot more than stupid people.