It has been pointed out to me that my characterization of certain male conservative pundits as “numbnuts” is sexist in nature.
Actually, it’s got nothing to do with nature.
A search of various online dictionaries yields these definitions:
Idiot, stupid, moron, ignorant, untrainable, objectionable, contemptible, same as “numbskull.”
I just love quaint words, like “egad,” “balderdash” and “poppycock.” If they’re good enough for Dickens, they’re good enough for me.
DemWit today: Another MSNBC mea culpa
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
posts library
-
▼
2008
(69)
-
▼
Feb
(17)
- Quite a leap
- Mo of the same
- Taking a moment
- A quagmire by any other name
- Challenge the chant
- 'They are snakes'
- Whitewater: case closed
- Go figure!
- 'SCREW YOU!'
- 'What about the loaves and fishes?'
- Lanny's Story: The Sequel
- Calm down, guys
- Best Hillary-bashing rebuttal
- Do a little digging ...
- Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
- The 9/11 whodunit
- Debate winner!
-
▼
Feb
(17)
dreams
A warm welcome to the naturally curious, the politically engaged and constant learners. I am a retired newspaper editor with a fickle foe, retinitis pigmentosa, or RP. While my sense of sight is waning, my "vision" is not, and, by God, I can still see my dreams!
simply ...
- B.J.
- South Carolina, United States
- constant learner
traffic reports
fair use notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of current issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
5 comments:
Strange, I tried to leave a comment, and it was whisked away. Well, not to be outdone by a virtual reality, I will re-state my point. Humph.
Gender is not an issue, and the buck stops here, wherever you are. You are right in agreeeing or disagreeing with anyone based on what that person does! As long as you can say gender has been whiped from your slate.
Can you imagine how we would feel if all our criticisms of Bush were whiped away with, "Well, you criticize him because he is a man."?
Somehow I do fail to say things clearly, I think it's my lot in life. You can call them anything you want, and you will probably be right on the mark. Any of those words are fair.
I have been going through different approaches in my mind to being able to disagree with a politician or his or her actions without it being said that I disagree because of a person's gender. And I have noticed that I can say anything I want about Bush--or comment Bill Clinton's "two for one" approach in his presidency isn't to my liking at all. But when I say it's one of the actions from the past that makes me less than sold on Hillary--I'm said to be saying it because she's a woman. I'm not saying that it's been said to me personally, and I'm not trying to fuel the flames, but how do normal people, newscasters, supporters of another candidate critcize things like that? I was noticing in that really lovely supportive article you had in a former post that that very thing was brought up even there.
I'm confused. I just usually call stupid people stupid, I don't care what sex they are. "Stupid is as stupid does," as they say. And if I don't like politician's actions, consider them to be maybe presumptuous or whatever, I say so.
I need guidance. I live on a farm but have only one chicken.
Eowyn: I guess I’m not making myself clear. I have supported Hillary from the outset, not because she’s a woman, but because I feel she is most capable of handling the problems (severe problems) this nation faces. If Obama is the Party nominee, I will vote for him. All of these posts about “gender-bashing” and “Hillary-bashing” have not been about the candidates: they have been about the media, particularly the cable news outlets. (I know you have said you don’t own a TV, so you really haven’t had an opportunity to experience this.) The posts have been about journalism ethics – something I believe should be more than just an oxymoron. From early morning to late at night, MSNBC has promoted Obama and bashed Hillary. (It was expected of Fox News and even CNN has done this to an extent.) This has been done in straight news reporting as weel as on the opinion shows. My problem, as a retired journalist, is in the subjective news reporting (bold or subtle) when at least that portion of programming should be objective. I noted this on my blog early on. Finally, people are beginning to complain about the blatant sexism, resulting now in apologies from both Chris Matthews and David Schuster of MSNBC for making sexist statements, which were totally uncalled for in any situation. I noted both these apologies on demwit.blogspot.com – just look for “mea culpa” in both titles. All I can say is you have to hear these personal attacks on cable news to understand the depth of my concern. I have never seen anything like it in all my years of voting. If Hillary wins despite this terrible media campaign against her, it will once more prove to me that she can handle anything she faces as president. As for my use of the word “numbnuts,” I had a male editor who used that word a lot. The person who objected to my using it assumed (incorrectly) that it refers to, shall we say, a certain part of the male anatomy.
Oh well, I didn't mean that I didn't understand where you are coming from. And I don't care about the terms. Like numnuts. None of that matters. I was just wondering how we all handle critisizing a candidate.
I'm very happy that GW is moving on now, and we can all think about this or that. I love the information I find on your site. Part of the fun of thinking about politics again is seeing the info.
No, I'm not seeing what you are seeing on the TV. But we will both see GW step down! And we will meet on another thought. I was just musing on the new protocol.
And, for the record, I don't care if GW is a man, woman or child--he's a miserable human being. Glad to move on. Though I do envy you and Frodo to be so so behind your candidates.
Waiting for the next post.
Eowyn, of the one chicken (love it!!!): I would be raising just as much hell about cable news if Hillary was having the honeymoon with the media and Barack was being bashed. As was pointed out in the movie “Teacher’s Pet” with Doris Day and Clark Gable: we need to “dig into the WHY of the story,” the why of the media's biased election coverage.
Post a Comment