It seems so weird to drop in the actual winner at the French open like “See, nobody even cares that she won!” It’s like the site can’t decide if it’s the actual play that matters, not the media attention or actually the media attention is what makes the players, so nobody cares if an “uninteresting” player wins.

Wimbledon has existed for 144 years. They don’t need shit from Osaka...she could literally have never existed and it would have made zero difference to Wimbledon.

I can only assume that the outraged Osaka headlines are getting lots of clicks because there’s been more tennis coverage on Jezebel in the last 2 weeks than some professional tennis publications.

This is so provincial. How could a nearly 150-year-old tournament possibly succeed without a person who’s famous in America in it?

Wimbledon existed before her, and it will continue to exist after her.

Naomi Osaka Doesnt Need Wimbledon, Wimbledon Needs Naomi Osaka

This.

“the focus remains on Osaka” Not really. It remains so in the US. The rest of the world doesn’t care much: I can attest that, being a French citizen who lives in Canada and reads both European and Canadian news. The French media stopped caring the moment she dropped from Roland Garros (The French Open), and Canadians…

Has anyone reported on what a lack of player availability to the media does to TV contracts?

“I don’t know what the solution is, but insisting the mentally ill population’s rights trumps their need for safety, food and clothing isn’t working.”

Man. As someone who grew up with a father I never knew because of the disease of Schizophrenia.

The fucking naivete that the vast majority of this thread is operating under, and the writer above incorporates into their slapshod ass argument is pretty overwhelming.

Yes Yang spoke like a dumbass. No I don’t care for the…

There has to be a solution somewhere, because right now the homeless mentally ill population is neck deep in crisis and not getting any help.

This would be a solid response if Ashley

It’s circular logic at this point: Once upon a time, we agreed and found plenty of data that illustrated that deinstitutionalization in the Reagan era contributed MASSIVELY to homelessness, drug abuse, harassment and nearly every other societal factor that helps foster violent and nonviolent crime. People were left…

If we approach any policy with the assumption that the treatment given to the mentally ill will be poorly executed, then by definition any solution you can dream up will be bad and we should basically end the conversation and leave these people to their own devices.

I can’t even begin to understand what your (and that twitter twats) point is.

If you’re going to write about politics, you might want to have some basic knowledge of how all this works.

You can deride it as pageantry and going along to get along, but you only show how ignorant you are of the interplay between relationships, psychology, and leadership.

It’s teamwork 101 to provide opportunities for people to interact that are casual and not strictly about work. You’re more likely to bend for a person you know and respect rather than a person you’re assuming is the picture of everything you’re against. It also gives you insight on their motivations and ultimate…

Might this case of bullying be one where everyone involved just sucks?