Please point out where I said there was nowhere similar to New Jersey, because I can guarantee that I did not. I referred to people that get overly defensive when New Jersey is criticized and said that I would rather live almost anywhere else, and cited class divides as one of multiple reasons.

I think I find it different due to the close quarters of NJ specifically - for example, Camden and Cherry Hill are about 20 minutes apart from each other but at opposite ends of the spectrum on wealth. I've lived in various places throughout my life and none of them have been like NJ in this regard.

It took me ages to understand this comment, hahahaha. I read it as "she's not the new IT girl", as a negation of the article, and "because she's not awesome" as the reason she's not the new IT girl. I was like "...well, that's mean :("

"Shouting down"? I've been completely reasonable, what is with you and captain_spleen reading a completely normal comment as shouting and authoritarian? No one is shouting here, except captain_spleen replying to me.

This is a weird reply to someone who's from NJ and hates the state.

Look at the title of this post. That is how it's derailing.

Some people are for some reason treating the two issues as one.

But to throw around the term victim-blaming for someone who has such wealth and control is ridiculous.

Who said to admire her? You don't have to admire someone to be sympathetic when they're harassed due to their husband's race.

People getting mad because your state is insulted is like people getting mad that their favorite book is insulted. Just because someone thinks your state is shitty doesn't mean they think you're shitty! Even if it's a reference to the people; if you have any reasonable amount of intelligence you can figure out that…

Don't we criticize articles centered around the appearance of powerful women instead of their accomplishments?

I didn't argue that. What I'm arguing is that the only reason airlines don't raise their price is because it's not as profitable. If an airline could get away with raising prices without losing customers, they would. Talking about it being the lowest price possible obscures where the emphasis lies for those setting…

No, you've got it backwards. Prices are as high as possible - if the airline could get away with making more money by raising prices, they would. It's not like the airline has any vested interest in making sure we don't have to pay much to fly. The prices are at the point of maximum profit, that's all.

I'd like to see your proof of the SAT being consistent, reliable, and an indicator of intelligence.

What's the point if it doesn't get you high...?

Yeah it's all about how much of a troll you are in real life. Intentionally riling people up online is far different from intentionally riling people up in reality.

There are plenty of other situations in which people are screwed over by policy through litigation, often to worse results - take for example the woman that was raped by a man pretending to be her boyfriend, who wasn't protected because she wasn't married. That woman lost her chance to get closure on her rapist…

The courts shouldn't serve that way is what I'm saying. Because people shouldn't get screwed over because the law hasn't caught up. It's all well and good to talk about how it works now, but what I'm saying is that the way it works now isn't working and the "factual laboratories" of the courts just isn't acceptable to…

That was my childhood in nerdy circles - I was terrified to wear a skirt or makeup because I had guys on all sides calling those girls fake geek girls and painted up and on and on and on. It took me until I graduated high school and met my football-loving, video game-loving boyfriend in college that I felt comfortable…

And you'd probably have to pay those people a lot, if only because they'd have to be knowledgeable about both the law and technology, both highly-paid areas of expertise, which makes it even harder.