... 'cuz - in no uncertain terms - she's an utterly distasteful, hateful, alarmist douche who uses "logic" to completely obfuscate (look it up if you don't know it...it's a FUN one!) issues and contribute to her reader's ignorance.
This first post is a perfect example:
How to Twist Scientific Studies to Promote Hate by Andrea Peyser
She has it in for the gays for whatever reason and tries to take them to task for their own bullying?!? The Gawker analysis is good in-and-of-itself, but the comments are priceless:
That pretty much sums up her argument, but the following kind of takes the prize for that post's comment thread:
The woman is hateful in that she spouts utter idiocy, but is able to couch it in terms that somehow sound reasonable to the ill-informed and easily misled. Her disingenuous "woman of the people" verbiage and the fact that she has a forum from which to spew it, i.e. - The Post, means she is a woman best described in two words: Danger-ous.
Rather then muzzle her, however, let's follow Gawker's suit and discredit her, instead. In the bigger scheme, a proliferation of hate does not give us call to trample freedom of speech. Let Andrea Peyser and all these ignorant blowhards we hear so much from these days speak, and with their words weave the rope from which they'll hang themselves (specifically, their credibility...not their body!)!
More discrediting:
