Hmmm, an incomprehensible, lame, unfunny gif as an (unacceptable) substitute for a meaningful, worthwhile response to the original commenter's point...

Welcome to Jezebel!

I know, right? How could anyone possibly have a different perspective from yours on the same issue? You're obviously always correct and not biased in your opinions whatsoever. Anyone who dares to disagree with you must be, oh, deeply disingenuous

</sarcasm>

Huh, wonder why this got relegated to a passing comment instead of mentioned in the article. Probably because it makes the "case" against Iggy look a lot more tenuous than the tweets you cherry-picked out of context. But hey, trolling attracts eyeballs, evenhanded coverage doesn't...although come to think of it, the…

Yeeeeaaaahhhhhh.... prolly not.

I can. Never started, in fact.

hash tag first world problems

How do you know this person is willfully ignorant? What happened to "innocent till proven guilty"? Why are you getting on your high horse about me "getting on my high horse"? Why must I read your entire comment history, subjecting myself to endless lame animations, before I can respond to the one vaguely irritating…

Another post that forgoes intelligent, reasonable explanation for snark. I can't give you a gold star because you didn't even try.

My point is that preaching to the choir, circlejerking with your friends/other people who automatically agree with you, etc. is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to the advancement of public opinion on the…

This person is asking for an explanation WHY it's not a false equivalence, and you had the opportunity to respond in a positive way. After all, not everyone has had the privilege of learning about the thorny issues of racial/cultural appropriation that you have had.

Instead, you took the easy way out and posted a…

I'm not comfortable with answering a question with a definition the way you do here. Just defining "appropriation" so that it works in one direction but not the other is not a response that will convince people who don't already agree with you.

I was uncomfortable with this Miley song/video (you could add to her list…

This is less of a biting joke than you clearly believe (since you put it in the header), because nobody who self-identifies as a "bro" or uses the word "bro" unironically will ever read this article. Or Jezebel.

If the direction of animosity were reversed, would any woman take a man seriously who said, "Listen up,…

I also like that after I wrote my last response, you edited your third response to include an attempted defense of "menz" as a joke. Protip: dumb jokes become lamer, not funnier, when you repeat them...especially if you get all defensive and try to go "uh its NOT dum ok mr?!?!? u can go back to ur internet porn…

The tone of your second comment is (barely) recognizable as sarcasm now that you've telegraphed it as such, but its content is incomprehensible. Specifically. The logic connecting "men haven't been historically oppressed as a group" with "men have no right to express opinions here, or anywhere, ever" is fabulously…

I don't even know what you're trying to say with this post, except that you think the word "menz" is hilarious (you're incorrect).

Near as I can tell, you seem to think when men make contributions to a discussion, they "hijack" it, cuz that's what people with penises do to discussions?? You seem to hold this truth…

Those asshole men, having opinions, and weighing in with them. How dare they.

At least they don't say, "Well, strictly speaking, I mentally lump you in with all the illegals, but I tolerate your presence because I like you. For now."

Can't...tell...if...trolling...or...turdburger...

Boy do I feel stupid. You weren't trying to passive-aggressively claim that you had "won" the argument in the ways that matter to you and (supposedly) the Supreme Court in your previous comment: you were being "generous". Gosh, you're a regular Mother Teresa! Pardon me if I sound ungrateful for your "charitable"…

Well, first of all, you're kidding yourself if you think that paragon of objectivity Scalia isn't considering the political side of things. Second of all, try telling gay people who are suffering because they can't get married where they are that this is a "theoretical/intellectual" argument, and not one about…

Well, I'm sincerely glad someone else has taken on the truly thankless task of making and following those social/biological arguments in detail, because I really, really, really don't want to write a ten-page essay in these comments about it.