Disaster Interesting clickbait, op-eds, fluff pieces and other smaller stories -

What should the prefix to this thread be?

  • World

    Votes: 102 17.1%
  • Science

    Votes: 22 3.7%
  • Culture

    Votes: 125 21.0%
  • Disaster

    Votes: 346 58.2%

  • Total voters

Dracula's Spirit Animal

One time, I accidentally ate a bunch of nails
DailyMailTV scores two Daytime Emmy nominations for second year in a row

DailyMailTV has been nominated for two Daytime Emmy Awards for the second year in a row.

The show is once again nominated in the Outstanding Entertainment News Program category while also picking up a nod for Outstanding Main Title and Graphics.

DailyMailTV has scored record ratings in its sophomore season, and just this week broke the news that Wendy Williams had been living in a sober facility after the talk show host's recent relapse.

Jesse Palmer hosts the syndicated show, which is produced by Carla Pennington (executive producer of Dr. Phil and The Doctors), Jay McGraw (executive producer of The Doctors and the CBS drama series BULL), Dr. Phil McGraw (executive producer of Dr. Phil, The Doctors and the CBS drama series BULL) and Martin Clarke (publisher, dmg media) as well as Jeffrey Wilson and Eric Beesemyer.

The news was announced on The Talk Wednesday afternoon, with DailyMailTV nominated alongside Access, Entertainment Tonight, Extra and Inside Edition in the Outstanding Entertainment News Program category.

It will face off against Disney Parks Magical Christmas Day Parade, Prince of Peoria, Six Dreams and The Who Was? Show for Outstanding Main Title and Graphics.

The 46th Annual Daytime Emmy Awards, honoring the best in daytime television, will be held on May 5 at the Pasadena Civic Auditorium in Pasadena, California.

DailyMailTV has captured headlines with a number of exclusive stories this season, including: Asia Argento's first and only English-language interview since the death of her partner Anthony Bourdain and allegations of sexual assault; Donald Trump Jr and Kimberly Guilfoyle's first ever joint interview; and Tristan Thompson's affair with another woman just days before Khloe Kardashian gave birth to the couple's first child.

DailyMailTV is syndicated through CBS Television Distribution.

The show airs across 99.2% of the United States on Tribune Broadcasting, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Gray Television Inc., Nexstar Media Group, Meredith, Raycom, London Broadcasting, Graham, Heartland Media, News Press & Gazette, Northwest Broadcasting, Citadel, Scripps and Quincy

Every single one of those shows and channels could go bankrupt tomorrow and no one would notice. Soap operas have more integrity and news.


Another event who happened just after the New Zealand shooting, no need to guess the culprit.
( http://archive.li/c9NbF )

Senegalese man hijacks Italian school bus and threatens to kill children on board before setting the vehicle on fire in protest over migrant deaths in the Mediterranean
  • Ousseynou Sy is originally Senegalese but has been an Italian citizen since 2004
  • He had to bring two classes of high school students to the gym with a school bus
  • Nobody was injured but some students were treated for principle of intoxication
  • A student called the police when the driver showed a gasoline can and a lig
A Senegalese man abducted 51 children when he hijacked an Italian school bus and set the vehicle alight in a protest over migrant deaths in the Mediterranean.

Ousseynou Sy, originally Senegalese but with Italian citizenship, stopped the bus he was driving, with two classes of high school students on board.

He was said to have ordered the children's hands to be bound and threatened to kill them and himself during the drive, before setting the vehicle on fire when he was stopped by a police blockade today.

Officers broke the glass in the back door of the bus and got all the passengers to safety without serious injury before the flames destroyed the vehicle, authorities said.

As he was apprehended, the driver said he was protesting migrant deaths in the Mediterranean, Commander Luca De Marchis told Sky TG24.


News just broke four hours ago


Comedian Jim Jefferies took digs at Islam during an interview he had months ago with Jewish content creator Avi Yemini. The interview only recently aired as part of Jefferies’ coverage of the Christchurch, New Zealand shooting, where he used the footage of Yemini to mock him and attempt to portray the outspoken Jewish pundit as Islamophobic while pretending to champion immigration and open borders.

What Jefferies didn’t know was that Yemini had setup his phone to record the conversation while he was being filmed, so that he was able to capture some of Jefferies unedited comments and honest opinions about Islam that didn’t make it into the Jim Jefferies Show on Comedy Central. This was a smart tactic after Jefferies used some editing magic to make #ComicsGate supporter Richard C. Meyer appear racist in a carefully orchestrated hit-piece.

Yemini aired pieces of the segment on his YouTube channel in a seven minute teaser, which you can watch below.

Yemini has plans to release the full hour long video that his phone captured next week.

In the teaser, however, there’s one segment between Jefferies and Yemini where they discuss Muhammad and how you can’t joke about him in Islamic communities because of how dangerous it is. Jefferies ignores Yemini’s forewarning and proceeds to draw a mocking image of the Prophet Mohammad, saying “He looks like a wobbly ghost”.

Later on in the video that was recording the entire session, unbeknownst to Jefferies, the Australian host and Yemini both discuss their dislikes of Islam, to which Jefferies says…

“I’m not a big fan of Islam. […]

“I think that wearing a burqa is stupid and demeaning and all those things.”

The two also discuss which one is dangerous, a dingo or Islam. They both agree that dingos and Islam are dangerous. Yemini notes that a dingo ate a baby – Jefferies cut in and said if a dingo ate a “bloody Muslim baby” it would probably vomit it, to which Yemini recoils and says…

“No… I don’t actually agree with that shit. […] That’s not funny. You’re talking about fucking killing kids. That’s crossing a line. There’s a fucking line.”

Jefferies attempts to smooth it over by hand-waving away the exchange, to which he likely wanted to bait Yemini into furthering the joke to make him look bad during the segment but Yemini didn’t bite. Jefferies then says…

“We’ll edit this bit out. I never look bad in these interviews.”

That’s true for when there is no unedited footage of the interviews. In this case, Yemini provided footage from behind the scenes of Jefferies denigrating Islam and mocking Muhammad.

In the full seven minute segment that aired on Comedy Central, Jefferies is right that he completely avoided being made a fool, but definitely went out of his way to ensure that Yemini was made to look ridiculous. The segment was posted up on March 20th, 2019.]

Jim Jefferies Show
Does Australia's anti-migration fence hold up to its name? Ask the dingo that just crawled under it.

As you can see, the whole bait about the dingos eating Muslim babies was to get Yemini to say something so that he could use it against him during the part where they were talking about the dingo fence. However, thankfully, Yemini didn’t bite.

Also, you’ll note that in the tweet, Jefferies is getting absolutely ripped to shreds in the comment section by people linking to Yemini’s video exposing Jim for being “Islamophobic” and for mocking Muhammad.

As Yemini mentioned in his own video, one must wonder how the Muslims will respond to Jefferies mocking Muhammad?
And America is still sleeping


True & Honest Fan
I'm not a fan of Islam. Honesty don't blame him. If you actually study the religion and see it for what it really is people will understand.
I have been saying this about Islam for years. The first time I read a critical book on Islam, not just a puff piece on them, I was kind of sad.

It was saddening to me because there were 1.5 billion people (almost 2 now) that I thought believed every word of the Koran.

I have since learned that most Muslims are not as strict as we would believe, and that the closest adherents to literal interpretive beliefs on Islam would be ISIS for example.

But, most of the Muslim nations during the Crusades were not unlike ISIS is today. And what can be forgotten can just as easily be remembered...


I have been saying this about Islam for years. The first time I read a critical book on Islam, not just a puff piece on them, I was kind of sad.

It was saddening to me because there were 1.5 billion people (almost 2 now) that I thought believed every word of the Koran.

I have since learned that most Muslims are not as strict as we would believe, and that the closest adherents to literal interpretive beliefs on Islam would be ISIS for example.

But, most of the Muslim nations during the Crusades were not unlike ISIS is today. And what can be forgotten can just as easily be remembered...
Their preachers/priests in mosques behind closed doors still say they want non believers dead. They want to take over western governments (I honesty think they nearly have) to enforce their laws onto us and if people resist it's death or enslavement. They of course will deny this to save face in the public eye to be a religion of peace. But the most devout Muslim is the one most likely to kill you. The bloody history of Islam is available to all who care to study it. The Quran/Koran never once speaks of Allah's love for non-Muslims, but there are hundreds of verses that speak of Allah's cruelty toward and hatred of non-Muslims.

Having this knowledge and saying it irl or on the net might land me in trouble one day or worse.

I hope he stands by his comments, but I would bet money that he starts an apology tour ASAP.
He probably won't. He'll take it back and say he meant it a different way.
Last edited:
It's funny, people try to compare christianity and islam, saying the bible has some pretty bad stuff in it (and it does).

However, it's pretty easy to see the difference when you look at the two religion's most important messengers from god. Islam has Mohammed, warlord, conquerer, rapist. He told his followers to convert people by the sword.

On the other hand, christianity has jesus. Jesus was a communist hippy who wanted everyone to be kind to everyone else, even the lowest people, like whores and robbers. He said the response to violence is pacifism. He never recommended anyone be murdered, as far as I know.

I mean, come on. Sure, the old testament has some weird shit in it, but there simply aren't christians going around trying to enforce that nobody wear clothing made of mixed fabrics.


It's funny, people try to compare christianity and islam, saying the bible has some pretty bad stuff in it (and it does).

However, it's pretty easy to see the difference when you look at the two religion's most important messengers from god. Islam has Mohammed, warlord, conquerer, rapist. He told his followers to convert people by the sword.

On the other hand, christianity has jesus. Jesus was a communist hippy who wanted everyone to be kind to everyone else, even the lowest people, like whores and robbers. He said the response to violence is pacifism. He never recommended anyone be murdered, as far as I know.

I mean, come on. Sure, the old testament has some weird shit in it, but there simply aren't christians going around trying to enforce that nobody wear clothing made of mixed fabrics.
Well example what does Islam say about the Mohamed Atta? He is revered as a mujahid, meaning a holy warrior, and an Islamic martyr. They are only as peaceful as everyone else until they really get into their religion.

Did Jesus personally take up the sword or order his disciples to take up the sword and kill in the name of his religion?

No he did not.

Did Mohamed personally take up the sword and order his disciples to take up the sword and kill in the name of his religion?

Yes he did and he did violently.


do you are have stupid
Sure, I trust some random jackasses to accurately know the status of our and china's military readiness. Why not.
I've seen a few of these circulating recently; I'm sure that China's military abilities have grown very strong but I really fucking doubt they'd crush us like all this news is saying. I'd say it's either:

  • Bait to embolden china so we can smack them down
  • Progressive PR campaign to justify cutting the military budget under the presumption that there's no point trying to be the 10x international military leader


I've seen a few of these circulating recently; I'm sure that China's military abilities have grown very strong but I really fucking doubt they'd crush us like all this news is saying.
Yeah, I've seen it too. People have been shrieking about the imminent collapse of the US since before we were a global power. On this site there's a joker who claims Europe could beat the US, while the Luftwaffe is flirting with parity with Mexico, and the Brits have more admirals than warships.

It's just part of the background noise, probably.


That Defense Sperg.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is preparing to sign a contract with General Dynamics Electric Boat and subcontractor Huntington Ingalls Industries for the next tranche of Virginia-class submarines, according to budget documents submitted to Congress this week.

The 10-ship contract, which will include nine of the 84-foot Virginia Payload Module upgrades, is planned for April, the documents say. The VPM is designed to triple the Tomahawk cruise missile capacity of the Virginia-class subs, a move designed to offset the pending retirement of the Ohio-class guided-missile subs, which have a 154-Tomahawk capacity. Each Virginia Payload Module sub will have a 40-Tomahawk loadout.

The first Virginia Payload Module ship, SSN-803, will be awarded as part of the block buy and is slated for a 2025 delivery, the documents say.

The contract is sure to be the largest submarine contract since 2014, when the Navy signed a 10-sub, $17.6 billion contract with Electric Boat and HII for the Block IV Virginia subs. The first of the Block IV ships, the attack submarine Vermont, is slated to be delivered in October, according to budget materials, with the final Block IV slated to be delivered in 2023.

The contract could still face delays, however. Last year’s budget materials listed the contract date for the Block V boats as October 2018, which has come and gone.

The Navy is pushing to boost attack submarine production ahead of an expected dip in attack boat numbers. The Navy expects to drop from 52 to 42 attack boats by the late 2020s, a move that prompted the Navy this year to add a third SSN to the budget and bump the start of LPD Flight II construction.

The Navy’s top officer said the move is meant to get the Navy closer to its required SSN levels.

“We’re much farther away from our war-fighting requirement in SSNs than we are in amphibs," Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said at a March 13 roundtable. “So that was just a war-fighting priority.”

Richardson also sounded a cautious note on service-life extensions for Los Angeles-class attack submarines, saying the service is looking at each sub individually.

“It’s kind of a case-by-case basis,” Richardson said. "These submarines, the usage over their life is varying. You have to do it hull by hull. Overall, though, I’m pretty optimistic that that’s going to help us meet our requirements and attack submarine numbers.”


That Defense Sperg.
The Navy awarded Boeing a $4 billion multi-year contract modification to build 78 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters, according to a Wednesday Pentagon contract announcement.

The contract modification covers the production and delivery of aircraft between Fiscal Years 2019 and 2021. Boeing estimates the multi-year contract modification will save the Navy $395 million.

“A multiyear contract helps the F/A-18 team seek out suppliers with a guaranteed three years of production, instead of negotiating year to year,” Dan Gillian, Boeing’s vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18G programs, said in a statement.

Four years ago, Boeing executives were evaluating whether to shutter the entire Super Hornet production line. The Navy’s FY 2016 budget request did not include funding to purchase Super Hornet, though the Navy’s unfunded priorities list that year did include a desire to purchase more Super Hornets to begin replacing the fleet of legacy F/A-18A-D strike fighters that were wearing out faster than anticipated.

The Navy has since renewed its dedication to buying more Super Hornets. The Navy’s current five-year purchase plan – of which the new multi-year award is part – calls for buying 110 Super Hornets, according to Boeing.

USNI News messages left with a spokesperson for Program Executive Officer for Tactical Aircraft Programs were not immediately returned.

Congress authorized the Navy’s request to issue such multi-year contracts in the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. The Navy has steadily retired older legacy F-18 Hornets as the newer Super Hornets came off the production line.

In February, USNI News reported the last operational Hornet squadron, the “Blue Blasters” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 34, held a sundown ceremony before taking a final flight over Naval Air Station Oceana. The squadron is transitioning to new F/A-18 Super Hornets.

Of the 78 Super Hornets covered by the new contract modification, 61 are F/A-18E single-seat jets and 17 are F/A-18F double-seat fighters. All are Block III aircraft, which are slightly more stealthy than Block II and, per the Navy’s request, have a greater range and can carry more weapons on a more durable airframe expected to last up to 9,000 fight hours – about a decade longer than Block II airframes.

The following is the full Department of Defense contract award:

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is awarded a ceiling priced $4,040,458,297 modification to convert a previously awarded advanced acquisition contract (N00019-18-C-1046) to a fixed-price-incentive-firm-target multi-year contract. The target price for this multi-year contract is $4,001,410,000. This modification provides for the full-rate production and delivery of 78 F/A-18 aircraft, specifically 61 F/A-18E and 17 F/A-18F aircraft for fiscal years 2018 through 2021. Work will be performed in El Segundo, California (61 percent); Hazelwood, Missouri (9 percent); Longueuil, Quebec, Canada (2 percent); Torrance, California (2 percent); Bloomington, Minnesota (2 percent); Ajax, Ontario, Canada (2 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (1 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (1 percent); Irvine, California (1 percent); Palm Bay, Florida (1 percent); Santa Clarita, California (1 percent); Grand Rapids, Michigan (1 percent); Greenlawn, New York (1 percent); Endicott, New York (1 percent); Marion, Virginia (1 percent); and various locations within the continental U.S. (13 percent). Work is expected to be completed in April 2024. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $1,557,334,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.


I saw that one from the lolcos of the DailyStormer. The French police is as cuck as the British and NZ ones. http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link/france-video-of-moslems-sexually-harassing-chinese-toddler/ ( http://archive.li/QYMYK )

Charles Martel is spinning in his grave.

France: Video of Moslems Sexually Harassing Chinese Toddler
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
March 22, 2019
The French police made a French citizen delete this video of Arab men sexually harassing a small child in France from her twitter account today: pic.twitter.com/ab12IPyUdd
— z o m e r (@RightTingWakes) March 21, 2019
Someone posted a video of Arab men sexually harassing a Chinese toddler, who appears to be 3 or 4 years old.
The girl is cornered by the men in what looks like an alley, and one of them says “you want my dick in your pussy?”
When the girl starts crying, he says “it’s fine, I’m gonna fuck you, stop crying. On the Koran, I’m gonna fuck you. Wallah I’m gonna fuck you, stop crying.”
The men are both touching her.
This is pretty standard fair for diverse and vibrant France.
Also standard fair in that magnificently enriched kingdom: the French police demanding the video be taken down and threatening anyone who reuploads it.
Merci de ne pas diffuser cette vidéo. Les enquêteurs de la cellule Pharos ont été saisis. Pour signaler des contenus illicites sur le web, rendez-vous sur la plateforme #Pharos : https://t.co/ai0pIAv3afpic.twitter.com/E2XNvkwvf1
— Police nationale (@PoliceNationale) March 21, 2019
After the initial video was posted, the French police tweeted: “Please do not stream this video,” and told people to contact the police if they see any illegal content on the internet.
Obviously, the only reason that police would want crimes to remain hidden is that they are trying to cover-up the crime. Even if they hunt down these men and charge them for this action (they won’t), it would still be a cover-up, because they are using police authority to prevent people from knowing that this sort of thing is happening.


True & Honest Fan

In the thousand years since Donald Trump sailed down an escalator and crash-landed with a wet thump in the Oval Office, a lot of Americans have changed, for good or ill. Many of us are more political or more cynical, impassioned or deflated, hopeful or entirely gutted. The time before this presidency can seem impossibly distant.

But Trump has also been, in his own malformed way, a career-maker for some of his critics: his disastrous ascension has lifted their boats, making a few Resistance figures famous in their own right. (Take, for instance, a recent New York cover story on socialism, which made special mention of a few supposed stars of the movement, as well as some of my coworkers. Most of the main characters are people who are more Twitter micro-celebrity than organizer, but it’s undeniable that their tendency to criticize Trump online has made them much more well-known than they’d otherwise be.)

Among the stars of the Resistancephere is a woman named Lauren Duca, whose prominence rose virtually overnight in December 2016 after writing a fiery essay for Teen Vogue titled “Donald Trump is Gaslighting America.” Duca was, in fact, one of the very first people to go viral on Twitter after the election, and she exemplifies the way the social platform can elevate nominally involved people to pundit status, virtually overnight.

For someone who was just 25 years old at the time, it was a fast and impressive ascent, and Duca’s star has continued to burn brightly. She’s no longer at Teen Vogue, but has contributed to the New Yorker and the New York Times, as well as Out and The Nation. She’s been feted as a politics expert at places like the University of Delaware, and will be a visiting scholar at New York University this summer, teaching a course titled “The Feminist Journalist.” She was reportedly drafted as an editorial contributor at MTV in December, though she hasn’t written for them since that announcement, and it’s unclear if she’s still in that role. (MTV did not respond to a request for comment.) She participated this summer in a 10-city tour of prominent pro-choice feminists, Rise Up for Roe, which protested the appointment of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and was co-organized by Demand Justice, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Planned Parenthood.

Duca’s real power, though, is on Twitter, where she has, at present, more than 435,000 followers who come for her mix of feminism, centrist political analysis, and sassy clapbacks at her haters. She seems to have particularly ardent fans among young women, and it’s that audience that she frequently encourages to become more empowered, more politically engaged, and more outspoken.

It’s an admirable mission. But her growing platform has also created consternation among her former colleagues at Huffington Post, a workplace Duca left in 2015 after being accused of sending cruel and harassing anonymous emails to coworkers. (Huffington Post has since rebranded as HuffPost, but was called Huffington Post at the time, so we’re referring to it as such throughout this story.)

(Duca repeatedly viewed, but did not respond to, six emails I sent her requesting comment over a period of nearly two months. Duca has an auto-reply that reads, in part, “Due to the absurd volume of emails I receive here, I am not able to respond to everything, and I also miss a lot of stuff. I will try to get back to you, but, if not: good vibes only!!” However, I know she opened them because for professional emails, I use a tracking service, which shows how often they were opened; the service showed that Duca viewed every email multiple times from her iPhone, her Gmail account, and another mail client.)

According to accounts we’ve heard from 10 of her former co-workers, all of whom insisted on anonymity because they continue to work in media and wanted to be able to freely discuss a sensitive work situation and because they were concerned about professional repercussions, Duca left the company in November 2015. Her departure came after an internal investigation found reason to believe that she’d sent several inappropriate emails to and about her coworkers—and herself—from what was meant to be an anonymous account, many said to be in the space of one disastrous night in October. One email apparently referred to a male writer as a “bald freak.” Duca was referred to as a “feminazi.” The very first—and most damaging—referred to a Huffington Post writer as an “overweight fake blonde.”

One person who was specifically targeted by the emails sent that night in October confirms that she saw the one about her, was hurt by it, and that the hurt lingers.

This person has also, of course, noted Duca’s rise to viral feminist Resistance fame, and that stings too. Several of Duca’s former coworkers have come to see her newfound stardom as a referendum on the nature of viral fame itself, as well as how someone aligning themselves with the movements du jour—mainstream, marketable feminism; the more salient parts of the Resistance—can escape any real scrutiny, even as many people in media have been aware of the allegations concerning her time at Huffington Post.

“It’s infuriating, is the best way to say it,” the former coworker told me in the summer of 2017. “She’s such a hypocrite. I think that’s the biggest thing. She’s a huge hypocrite.”

True overnight fame rarely exists anymore unless you murder a lot of people with a high-powered weapon or go briefly viral while drinking wine out of a Pringles can in a Walmart parking lot. But Duca achieved something like it, and the nature of her sort of celebrity—her particular path to becoming a prominent public figure, and the norms and ideas she’s chosen to critique—is key to why her alleged conduct at Huffington Post has remained such a sore spot for her colleagues.

Before 2016, Duca had been mainly covering news in the fashion, style and celebrity arenas. She wrote an energetic newsletter for the Huffington Post called Middlebrow, which focused on pop culture and society more broadly, and often demonstrated a strong interest in feminist politics. (Sometimes, the two overlapped.)

Like many people, then, the Trump era galvanized and in some ways changed her, but it wasn’t the viral gaslighting essay alone that caught the nation’s attention. In the days that followed, Duca also went on Tucker Carlson’s show and ably sparred with him, calling him a “partisan hack” and smoothly managing to avoid Carlson’s many crudely sexist jabs.

“You should stick to the thigh-high boots,” Carlson scoffed, as a way of pointing out that Duca had previously mostly written about lighter topics. “You’re better at that.”

With a steady hand and a capable eye for self-promotion, Duca turned “Thigh-High Politics” into her tagline, making it the title of the political column she’d begun writing for Teen Vogue. In the years since, she’s taken on the Trump administration, sexism, and, in what some of her former coworkers see as a bitter irony, online harassment. Duca was harassed in a fairly disgusting way by now-jailed Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli, who was banned from Twitter for his comments about her. She wrote that the incident enraged her, and made her think about the reality of online harassment for other women journalists:

I’m often praised for being so tough, and that might be what needles me most of all. I am tough, and scrappy, and angry, and loud, but what about the people who aren’t? Harassment is guaranteed for women online, and a career hazard for female writers. Here’s a thought that haunts me: What about all of the young women who won’t become writers because of a fraction of what I’ve seen in my inbox this morning? I’m proud of being absurdly resilient, but I shouldn’t have to be.
In another interview, she called harassment of women journalists both “a career hazard” and “disgusting,” but again stressed that she was able to power through it, in part by acknowledging how hurtful she found it:

[W]hat helped me is admitting to myself that people saying these things hurts my feelings. I don’t have to be tougher than that; I can be resilient and power through it and defiantly express my opinion, but knowing the goal of harassment is to silence women, while it doesn’t make it easier to stomach emotionally, it does make it easier to confront.
Just this week, Duca and another writer named Talia Lavin were the subject of a truly obnoxious and fairly vile joke from conservative writer John Podhoretz, who said that their teaching at NYU this summer was cause to drop a neutron bomb on “J schools.” Podhoretz apologized for the joke and deleted his Twitter account—a net positive for the universe—and Duca joked on Twitter, “Update: 20% of my NYU course grade will now be earned by getting John Podhoretz to delete his account.”

Overall, though, Duca’s level of self-regard can feel excessive and even unwise to her former Huffington Post coworkers, who began more openly talking about the email incident as the years went by. According to several people, it stemmed from—of all things—a drunken tiff at a company Halloween party in October 2015.

Several people told us that in the months leading up to the email incident Duca had a growing amount of workplace tension with several of her coworkers. “There was a lot of drama,” one confirms, dryly, including both interpersonal conflicts and some amount of jealousy over the fact that Duca had been specifically plucked to write that special weekly email on pop culture.

The night things came to a head was, according to those present, fueled by a toxic mix of alcohol and semi-mandatory work-related socializing. According to one former co-worker who saw things unfold, Duca confronted someone at the Halloween party—one of the people with whom she’d been semi-feuding—and demanded to know why the woman had unfollowed her on Twitter. The woman, not wanting to get into a dispute at a work event, brushed her off and walked away. Soon after, Duca left the Halloween party. Then, per several of her former colleagues, the emails began rolling in—or, more specifically, the corrections.

“There’s an area on the website where people can leave corrections,” one former Huffington Post employee explained to me. “It’s not public, but you can enter your correction and the note you write gets sent to everybody on a certain listserv.” That would mean that a correction on an entertainment story gets sent to everyone on the entertainment listserv. “The listserv is all the editors so someone can hop online really fast. It also gets sent to standards.”

But the emails, per the coworker, also sometimes showed what address they were coming from. As Duca’s coworkers were still mingling at the party, minus her, they got an email on a story written by the woman she’d just argued with, referring to the woman as an “overweight fake blonde.” The address it was sent from showed as an iCloud account in Duca’s name.

Duca maintained to her colleagues, they say, that the email address was spoofed. She also tweeted something to that effect while the situation was unfolding:


A key aspect to unraveling the mystery here would be knowing whether the emails were sent from a desktop or a mobile phone. That’s important because of how the corrections system is set up. From a desktop, you have to manually enter your email into a field:


Which means, of course, that one could enter any email address. On a mobile phone, though, it appears that your email address will auto-populate, as we were able to verify by trying it ourselves. (In either case, one person tells us that editors included on the listserv would have been able to see the email address of the person who sent the correction.)

The theory, a former co-worker tells us, is that Duca realized what she’d done as soon as she sent the emails. (Duca, again, did not respond to several requests for comment from Jezebel.) Immediately, several of her former coworkers say, Duca responded to the emails to claim she was being impersonated.

“She’s like, ‘Who would ever do this? This is so fucked up,’” one recalls.

Another few emails were almost immediately sent from the same address, to the same email list, including the “bald freak” one. Another called a writer “stupid.” One even attacked Duca herself, calling her a “feminazi.”

Duca, her co-workers say, claimed throughout that she had been hacked.

“Everyone thought it was bizarre,” a co-worker says. “Nobody bought that explanation.” For one thing, the coworker says, the messages all read like the person writing them was familiar with the people they insulted. The person referred to as a “bald freak” did have a buzzcut, for instance, but it wasn’t visible in his author profile photo. The writer referred to as “stupid” was called by a shortened version of her name, not the version she used in her byline. People were also aware, of course, that Duca had been feuding with her colleagues, which increased their skepticism. (Numerous people told me that screenshots of these emails still exist, but no one seemed able or willing to provide them. One email was shown to me as a forwarded version.)

According to everyone I spoke to, the tides turned swiftly against Duca from that point on.

“When you go out and try to hide an anonymous attack on one of your own—people were pissed,” one person told me. “People hated her from then on out.”

One person who was targeted by the emails was particularly unamused and filed a formal internal complaint. The company began investigating the matter. Two weeks later, according to several people, the investigation, which the sources we spoke to believe involved the company’s IT department and Verizon Communications—Huffington Post’s parent company—was closed, and Duca subsequently left the company. (“We don’t comment on internal personnel matters,” a spokesperson for Huffington Post told me via email. Several editors who we’re told would have dealt with the matter directly did not respond to requests for comment.)

There is a possibility that situation was exactly what Duca described to her coworkers: that she was unfairly being accused of sending these emails, and that she had no viable way to defend herself, and had no choice but to leave the company. In texts to a co-worker just after her departure, which we were shown screenshots of, Duca denied sending the corrections. She called them “batshit” and added that she was thinking about suing the Huffington Post. “It’ll be like litigating with a brick wall,” she added. (There is no evidence she has ever sued or formally threatened to sue.)

Several people told me that they were surprised she didn’t more vigorously deny the claims, given that she was known for being a strongly opinionated writer who didn’t hesitate to advocate for herself with her editors. In her texts to the coworker, however, Duca likened Huffington Post to forced labor and said she didn’t want to jump into another job: “I’m emotionally exhausted and so scared of being in another fucked up internment camp.”

There was, then, no love lost on either side, and by all accounts, Duca moved on to a bigger stage with some relief.

The bizarre “corrections,” though, did not immediately stop.

According to two people, a few more filtered in between 2016 and 2017. All of them either insulted the “overweight fake blonde,” or else posed as her. The ones with her name on them, according to people who viewed them, were written in an angry or insulting tone, and were seemingly designed to create awkwardness for her at work. (The woman denied sending them, we are told, and no one believed they were really from her.)

But there’s no way to know for sure where those emails came from either. From there, the matter has stewed and festered below the surface, until Duca’s unearthed, cruel tweets about fatness and community college brought the matter back to life for some of her former co-workers.

The story of Duca’s ouster has been an almost comically open secret in media as her star has continued to rise, yet it has, for various reasons, never been reported on. (In January, a New York magazine writer referred cryptically to it as “the best known, least reported media gossip story of our time.”)

Some of the media silence, surely, stems from reasonable uncertainty about whether the foibles of a relatively minor public figure are actual news or just gossip. But the fact that it continues to generate so much backchannel discussion is also an indicator that the irony of the situation has struck many journalists, at least, as newsworthy: Here is an outspoken feminist advocate and champion for social justice who’s accused of cruelly harassing other women.

It would seem that many people, rather than deeming it not of interest, quite simply did not want to be the ones to make it public, possibly because of a fear of backlash or a concern about looking petty. That meant that this story has remained in far pettier realms, somewhere in the permanent churn of secretive media scuttlebutt—in secret Slack rooms and hidden Facebook groups—alongside other stories everyone is sure will someday be written and that no one is all that eager to touch themselves.

But Duca’s alleged past came to light again in January (by which I mean that journalists started subtweeting about it again) when several people, including a few of my coworkers, uncovered some very old, very bad tweets from her.

The tweets, which were mostly from 2009 through 2012, were largely cruel jokes about fat people, with a jab about community college students thrown in. (“Of course, they pick a fat girl to read a poem during the opening ceremony,” one went. “Fat girls have a lot of feelings.” She also said an apparent high school graduation ceremony held in a community college auditorium was “nice and convenient for the stupid kids.”)

Duca sent these tweets when she was in her late teens and early 20s. She says she’s evolved considerably since then, and surely has. (So has what’s considered good comedy on the Internet.) Duca responded to my coworker, Splinter’s Katherine Krueger, at the time, acknowledging that she made “some shitty fatphobic comments” in the past, but also asserting that she’s learned and evolved past them by learning to love herself. (She didn’t acknowledge the community college stuff.)

“Unequivocally,” she added, “I’m sorry and promise to do better.”

It was a reasonable apology. All of this, though, spurred an immediate round of rejoinders that seemed to be referencing Duca’s departure from Huffington Post.

“Have you ever apologized to your former coworkers at HuffPost?” reporter Tyler Kingkade tweeted. (He is, himself, a former Huffington Post reporter.)

At its heart, and before we even delve into the particulars, the question of whether any of this matters depends on where you come down on several issues. Is personal growth possible without any acknowledgment of what you’re accused of having done, let alone offering an apology? Is the left unhealthily obsessed with cancellation culture and sniping at each other rather than focusing on our real enemies? Have I avoided reporting this story for nearly two solid years—despite receiving dozens of tips about it and conducting some of these interviews in the summer of 2017—because I don’t want to deal with the volcanic mess that it’s going to unleash on my Twitter mentions?

These are all open questions, save the last one. I can’t speak to why no one else touched the story, but my editors and I have all shared a reluctance to report it out for years, for a complex mix of reasons. We didn’t want to punch down, as the saying goes, at a younger writer, and in my case, I was frankly reluctant to go after a woman for anything short of an egregious offense, especially a woman who isn’t an elected official or a true household name.

But as time went on, that began to feel like the wrong choice, one we were making more out of expediency and perhaps cowardice than actual news judgment. People had spoken to me about Duca’s alleged behavior and had shared the ways it had hurt and continued to hurt them, and I was choosing to walk away from it out of a desire to avoid controversy.

That didn’t feel like what my job is about, and it didn’t feel like what this cultural moment is about. We’re at a point where accountability matters perhaps more than it ever has. And an era of heightened accountability means reconciling our own behavior—past and present—with our standards. It got to a point where choosing not to do this story, allowing it to remain the realm of half-known, heavily-circulated journalism scuttlebutt and shady tweets, was no longer tolerable.

Even as I write this, though, I’m not entirely sure that making these allegations more visible does any good, and whether it necessarily creates a situation where reparative justice is possible. And without a response from Duca herself, though I made a sincere effort to reach her multiple times over two months, I simply don’t know how these alleged past actions inflect her current writing around power, justice, abuse, or harassment.

It’s clear that she’s given some thought to those issues, even if she didn’t respond to my questions about them. In late January, after I’d written a draft of this story and was waiting to hear from Duca about it, the course description she wrote for her planned NYU course began to circulate on Twitter. It came in for some teasing for not being altogether coherent. (“Through two reported essays and the establishment of a fully-conceptualized social media presence,” one part of the description reads, “the Feminist Journalist will establish the imperative of interconnected motivations in the ideology of feminism and practice of journalism in the totality of the writer’s communication with the world.”)

The course syllabus is also public. In it, Duca demonstrates an interest in the idea of public shaming: the course features an entire session dedicated specifically to the notion of online discourse and the subject of people being “canceled.”

“[P]ick a time a celebrity, politician, or other cultural figure was ‘cancelled,’ Duca’s assignment for the week reads. “What was the offense? How did condemnation arise? Was there an apology? If so, was it effective? Send me about 300 words addressing these questions.” One required book for the course is Jon Ronson’s So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. It’s an interesting idea. (Given that this story will be public by then, it will perhaps create a lively class discussion.)

At the same time, though, the course also promises to help students create “a concrete set of ethics for guiding radical transparency.” This seems like an unignorable irony, given the opaque circumstances around Duca’s rise and her seeming unwillingness to talk about it.

As I continued to report this piece out and talk to Duca’s former coworkers, she came in for yet another round of criticism for a tweet calling Kamala Harris a “prosecutorial renegade” and dismissing the controversy over Harris’s record as a prosecutor.

Perhaps frustrated over the Harris discourse—and minutes after I’d emailed her for the fourth time—Duca tweeted about her own frustrations with “cancellation culture.”


That point of view is, again, totally reasonable: it’s not kind or productive to simply pummel people when they’re making a sincere effort to change.

At the same time, though, growth and evolution would presumably require an acknowledgment of one’s past misdeeds. And the bigger Duca’s reach has become, the more relevant the mismatch between her public persona and her past alleged behavior has begun to feel.

You have a huge audience,” Duca once counseled the permanently wrong Jonathan Chait, under a different set of circumstances. “And that should come with a sense of responsibility.”

We are all guilty, from time to time, of thinking of ourselves as the victim in situations where we’ve created harm. We are all capable of treating others badly, of doing things we’re ashamed of, and—with work and patience and the generosity of other people—of growing and learning as a result of those errors. It’s as difficult as anything in life; it’s constant, ongoing work.

It’s impossible to precisely map the distance between Duca’s personal conduct and public persona, given that she has apparently decided not to discuss it. The reality, though, is that however you read it, Duca’s past behavior has been at odds with the carefully curated personal brand she now promotes. This matters not just because she’s a prominent figure, but because she became a prominent figure by calling out other people’s moral failings and asking them to be better, and because she has presented being kind and good as something she has achieved, and is in a position to advise others on:

Being kind isn’t simple, though, and it isn’t easy. It’s also hard work, just like personal growth, and truly well-intentioned people mess it up all the time. Duca, to all evidence and by many accounts, wants credit for putting in work towards serious self-improvement that she hasn’t necessarily done. (Even leaving aside the allegations her former colleagues have made, her immediate response when her old tweets were resurfaced was to blame my coworker for resurfacing them, and to quickly turn the conversation towards her increased capacity for self-love.)

In the process of building her public persona, Duca has, specifically, made crusading against all types of harassment into one of the cornerstones of her public brand:


Making the choice to live life in public, and as a public arbiter of a certain kind of decency and ethical conduct, means that a person has to reckon with their treatment of others. The coworkers who received the emails certainly felt so; they have never understood, one told me, why Duca never addressed the matter.

Many of Duca’s former coworkers see her as symptomatic of a bigger issue, and as just one of the many people that the Twitter Resistancesphere has elevated into something approaching true fame—and for whom fame is seemingly a bigger motivator than politics or social change.

“The whole thing has actually been very revealing for me,” one former co-worker said recently, with a note of resignation. “In terms of what traits are valorized and rewarded in the media, and the mainstream liberal resistance.”

The ultimate issue seems a little different to me, though. At 28, Duca is fairly young, and like many young people, still figuring it all out. But due to a viral essay and the ability it gave her to project a certain moral authority, she’s been able to position herself as wiser, more ethically coherent, and more professionally skilled than she is.

It’s a nice bit of sleight of hand. It’s an opportunity many people would take. It’s also a disservice to her readers, her followers, and the NYU students taking her course, all of whom deserve more candor. But it is the perfect #Resistance grift for this moment.

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino