As long as we are on the topic of shunning and consequences (see previous post):
Is HBO comic/political commentator/arrogant jerk Bill Maher stooping to outright misogyny in his gratuitous ridicule of Sarah Palin going to have any consequences at all?
On his cable show “Real Time” this week, Maher’s usual name-calling took a sharp turn into the despicable with this:
MAHER: Oh, and did you hear this? [Laughs] Sarah Palin finally heard what happened in Japan……and she’s demanding that we invade “Tsunami.” I mean, she says, “These Tsunamians will not get away with this.” Oh speaking of dumb twats, did you…
[Audience hilarity and applause]
MAHER: Oh, you’re right, yeah I let the cat out the bag on that one, huh folks?”
…………………………………………………………
That last line was a “pussy joke,” for those of you too genteel to appreciate Bill Maher’s “wit.”
I know this is cable, and being uncensored and able to use language that would make a sailor blush is part of its “charm.” Forget the vulgarity: what about civility, respect and fairness? Maher’s work is frequently featured on ABC News and CNN clips of comics’ current events “funnies.” Should serious news shows—including those on CNN, which has been claiming to be devoted to a new on-air civility—be promoting a so-called pundit whose idea of a critique is to call female politicians he doesn’t like “dumb twats“? (He also told a false story about Palin without identifying it as such, but that’s peanuts for Maher.)
Are there any standards below which someone like Maher can’t dive without forfeiting willing guests like Janeane Garafolo, Sen. Claire McCaskill, Cameron Diaz, The Nation’s editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, and Arianna Huffington, among others? Or is the position of these supposed feminists that it’s all right for men to denigrate strong, assertive women as dumb twats—on national TV— as long as those women are conservatives?
I must have missed the press release condemning Maher from the National Organization of Women…have you read it or heard it? Where is it? If these and other so-called progressives possess any integrity—forget about decency—and if their January calls for civility in the public square, many of them unfairly aimed against Palin and almost all of them oddly muted since the Wisconsin pro-union demonstrators began comparing Gov. Walker to Hitler and other dictators while threatening his life, were anything but calculated and insincere political theater, I would expect to see Maher’s post-twat invitations to appear on his show rejected.
If they are not rejected, that will tell me everything I need to know. Indeed, no respectable journalist or politician or celebrity should be willing to enhance Maher’s show unless he makes a credible apology, not just to Palin ( forget about most of Maher’s audience, which appears to be as unencumbered by ethics as he is) but woman generally. If he thinks it is OK to call Sarah Palin a dumb twat, then the only thing stopping him from calling Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton or my sister or your mother a twat is that he likes her or doesn’t know her. This is anti-woman rhetoric, no question about it. Even bitch, which is sufficient to sustain a claim of sexual harassment in the workplace when used by a man to describe a woman, is less denigrating than twat…and Maher knows it. The question is, will the feminists let him get away with it?
And not just the feminists. Calling a woman a twat as a means of political criticism should offend Andrew Sullivan, because it is no different from calling a gay public figure a fag. Calling a woman a twat should outrage Al Sharpton, because it is the equivalent of calling a black public figure a nigger. Are these men, both previous guests on Maher’s show, going to endorse his brand of hateful, humiliating discourse because Maher endorses their politics? If the dedication of progressives to civility and their rejection of misogyny and hate are suspended for Sarah Palin, they have no integrity.
Bill Maher needs to be held accountable. Until he is, any guest, from any part of the political spectrum, who agrees to discuss politics with a man who calls women..or any women– twats on HBO is enabling hate and incivility.
From now on, I’m taking names.
Ethics Alarms 
What about “broad?” I feel it’s underutilized in modern society.
Broad is closely related to “babe.” and I regard both as compliments, though politically incorrct.
Oh, I only use ‘broad’ in a negative way.
I still wonder if “chick” is OK to use.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with it, though I don’t know anyone my age that still uses it (on my end, I tend to use ‘dude’ to refer to peers of both genders).
Comedian uses vulgarity to garner attention and laughs. News at 11.
Jack. I don’t know his history or where he is from but in the Marines the twat is used to mean idiot or fool. Its also how the Brits use it which may explain why its used that way in the Corps as we use a lot slang that comes from the British Naval Service.
Sure…calling a guy a bitch is also different. I’m certain that only one meaning of “twat” applies to women though—I sure know that Maher is no Marine.
Well, Jack, Maher is no Marine, as you said. He’s just showing solidarity by swearing like one, being the classy guy he is, and all.
But Twat as used in the Corps and in the British Marines and Navy is a bastardization of the word twit. It has no more connection to the female anatomy then the word fag does when referring to cigarettes.
But I’m sure he was using it as you say.
Boy, when you start resembling Tom Fuller, I get scared. But thanks for the etymology…I didn’t know the twit connection. Harney Korman calls Madeline Kahn a “Teutonic twat” in “Blazing Saddles.” My mother was shocked for a month.
Also…I’d think the “cat out of the bag” reference (Har! Har!) pretty much erases all doubt about which meaning Bill had in mind, no?
Very depressing. Maybe Jarrod has the only answer. Many of my liberal friends watch Maher and urge me to watch. When I say he’s too ugly for me, they say, “oh, but he’s so funny.” They are shocked, however, if a Republican calls Michelle Obama fat, or saying Barack is a socialist..But anything about Palin is funny. Ugh.
“Ugh” is right.
For a second there, I thought you meant Jared (as in Tucson) and was thinking, “Boy, Bob is STRICT! What have they been feeding him in Turkey?”
I wish this man would go away. I remember an interview of Maher I read in Rolling Stones. It was an eye opener for me. People said it was supposed to be comical that Maher would suggest that not voting for Obama was racist. It was just a big joke. I will now never read Rolling Stone Magazine.
Imagine if a conservative said what he said about Michelle Obama. Everyone would be up in arms. Just think what would happen to Rush Limbaugh if he said this.
Do you remember the response Meg Whitman received in California from NOW? I do not believe we will be seeing NOW come to the defense of Palin.
We live in a strange world where groups do not do as they claim.
I am still waiting for the NOW response.
I have 2 issues with your blog, and 1 with a reply you wrote. In the blog, you wrote:
“the Wisconsin pro-union demonstrators began comparing Gov. Walker to Hitler and other dictators while threatening his life”
First, your statement implies that ALL the demonstrators compared Walker to Hitler, an obvious misstatement.
Second, have the police ever figured out who threatened Walker’s life? Have you considered the possiblity that an anti-union person did it to falsely implicate the unions? Until we know the truth, ’tis best to not state speculations as truth.
In a reply to Jeff you wrote: “Broad is closely related to “babe.” and I regard both as compliments, though politically incorrct.” Given that a “compliment” is in the ear of the beholder, I disagree. I find both terms objectionable. The speaker does NOT get to decide what is a compliment, the listener does. Just as you get to decide that Bill Maher’s language was offensive to you.
1.No question, the union protesters did not all engage in personal attacks on the Governor. I saw a lot of anti-war rallies in the Sixties that were hostile to LBJ or Nixon in which everyone didn’t hold uncivil signs, but a lot did. The union signage that I saw was far, far more consistently abusive than, say, Tea Party, yet though the latter could more credibly argue that the extreme signs were an aberration, the signs were treated by much of the media as typical. All union members didn’t blow up people either. Groups are responsible for the tenor and conduct of their rallies, and the anti-Walker rallies had nasty chants as well as signs. You can nit-pick if you want–I don’t find your distinction especially helpful.
2. Walker has received many death threats. Sure, maybe one or two were intended ti make the unions look bad. So?
3. “Babe” and “broad,”: unlike “twat” are almost always intended as a compliment. I would never use either of the first two in direct address of a woman until I was certain that she would take it the right way. In fact, compliments are determined by reasonable intent—some women are insulted, or claim to be, if you say they look nice. In sexual harassment law, it is indeed the object/victim/ accuser who gets to define the dispute (if she likes “broad,” there’s no complaint…if she doesn’t, you better apologize quickly.) That’s the law—that doesn’t mean that a comment reasonably intended as a compliment suddenly becomes uncivil because of a hairtrigger offense.
3. “Dumb twat” used to describe a woman in public is universally regarded as an insult, and a vile one.Maher’s comment was objectively objectionable…and, by the way, a person who takes an objectively judged compliments as an insult is the one in the wrong, not the speaker.
To add to point number 3 (both of them): remember that whole kerfuffle in DC with the guy who apparently took offense at the use of the term “black hole”? Yeah, the listener doesn’t get a blank check that allows him/her to declare that something is ‘offensive’ just because they take personal offense to it.
That’s a great example. A group of DC residents who had never heard of black holes decided that the reference was to “black ho’s.” It quickly reminded everyone of the “niggardly” uproar.
That reminds me of this:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2164#comic
Love it. Though the cartoonist is wrong about “It’s offensive” having no agreed-upon standards. There are community values and cultural values that can be identified, need to be, and are. Then there are those that we argue about with the objective of moving them into that category. I’d say calling a woman a twat (or cunt) is already in the first category. Maher is arguing for a Sarah Palin exception.
1. You used the phrase “The union signage that I saw.” I think this is key, in that we only get to see what the media deems interesting enough to cover. Alas, this is what happens with media that has become too commercial; they go for what is most titillating. So, if you agree that ALL union demonstrators didn’t behave a certain way, it is incumbent upon you to present your blog statements in a way that makes that clear, perhaps by using the word “some” to qualify your statements.
2. So we don’t yet know the origin of the death threats against Walker. So…where did you come up with “maybe one or two?” This suggests you are guessing. An ethical stance therefore would be to reserve blame until one is sure where the threats emanated from. I am not saying it couldn’t be from union folks, but I will wait to assign culpability until the proper investigations are completed.
3. I challenge you to do a survey of women and see what they think about being referred to as a “broad.” I think you’ll find that you’re not dealing with a “hairtrigger offense.” That being said, I think “babe” is less offensive, but ask women what they think; here I think context is important.
4. I totally agree with your assessment of “dumb twat.” But one cannot have an “objectively judged” compliment. Any judgment of another is by its very nature “subjective.”
5. I enjoy sparring with you. Thank you for your timely responses to my comments. I also enjoy reading your blog articles, and agree with you that ethical behavior seems to be in short supply these days.
1. Regarding the signs—given the chants and general demeanor of the Madison demonstrators, which were much more uniformly uncivil than the Tea Party demonstrations, which were routinely characterized by the worst on display, I don’t think it is misleading to call the union demonstrations unfair. I don’t recall the Tea Party groups, for example, using kids as props or teaching them anti-Obama chants.
2. You’re stretching. The signs in the union demonstrations included death threats. You’re assuming double-reverse dirty tricks: Occam’s Razor says that when death threats are delivered to a politician, they are far more likely to have come from enemies rather than friends. You’re theory is pure speculation. I’m taking them at face value. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
3. Since many women, especially of an earlier generation, referred to themselves as “broads” and affectionately, too, I don’t think a survey is necessary. As I said, I would never call a woman that to her face until i knew her likely feelings on the matter. What is the pejorative meaning of “broad”? I don’t know of one. “Bitch” and “Twat” and “bimbo” and “skank’ and “slut” all have insulting meanings. I look at these kind of words like I regard the word “black” when it goes out of fashion. It’s not insulting to use “black,’ and I’ll be damned if I’ll use a clumsy politically correct code-phrase like “people of color.” If there is no substantive insult attached, then the “offense’ is just a power play. Oddly, I don’t see women stomping out of “South Pacific” when the sailors sing about their love of “dames” and Nellie sings about a girl who is “broad where a broad should be broad.”
4. By that logic, all reading of language is “subjective,’ and when I say to you, “See the cute puppy,” you can interpret my words as “Lick my eyebrows, honey!” Nonsense. A compliment on its face is a compliment. Meaning, when the words are clear and the context is clear as well, is not subjective. Try your subjective meaning theory on a judge sometime.
5. Ditto.
1. Oh the Tea Party was SO civil; they merely spat on black members of Congress, shouted the “N” word at them, and castigated Rep. Barney Frank for being gay! A few people at some of Sarah Palin’s election rallies talked about killing Obama; there are videos of this and Sarah said nothing to them. John McCain, however, did not let such statements go unaddressed at his rallies, much to his credit. The union demonstrations, on the other hand, were deemed generally very civil by Governor Walker himself. Hmmmmm.
2. Go back and read what I said. I am not speculating. I stated that I am reserving judgment until the facts are in. If you have facts of which I’m not aware, share them.
3. According to my Webster’s Dictionary, [“broad” is slang for a woman: a vulgar term of contempt.] And your argument that the word was used years ago does not have merit. Many words were used years ago that are now considered offensive. I did a quick browse on a search engine and found that others feel the same way I do. I’m telling ya, do that survey! As far as using clumsy politically correct phrases, if that’s what others wish to be called then I have to question why you wouldn’t honor their request. As my mother says, it’s best to take the high road.
4. Again, I turn to my trusty dictionary. Subjective refers to anything that comes from the human mind, especially feelings. Compliments by their very nature are riddled with feelings. Yes, we could agree on what is a compliment, but that doesn’t make it objective. Objective, rather, is something that no one can logically refute, such as “That building’s exterior is made of bricks” or “He is taller than his teammates” or “The DNA result is a match.” And judges can certainly be subjective. In fact, they are. That’s why 2 different judges can interpret the same set of facts differently. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, it’s just the way human nature is. It does not matter that the speaker speaks with clarity, feelings can be expressed quite clearly, but they remain subjective.
You have got to start being a little more savvy about Left media press reports. THIS: “they merely spat on black members of Congress, shouted the “N” word at them, and castigated Rep. Barney Frank for being gay!” has been entirely debunked. There was no record of it, and the news organizations that reported these things mostly admitted that they had no proof. This story was a smear job. The so called “spat” was latter edited by the spatee to clarify that what really happened is that a protester was shouting in his face closely enough for some spittle to hit him…he agreed he hadn’t been “spat upon.”
Which makes THIS statement pretty funny: “2. Go back and read what I said. I am not speculating. I stated that I am reserving judgment until the facts are in. If you have facts of which I’m not aware, share them.”
“3. According to my Webster’s Dictionary, [“broad” is slang for a woman: a vulgar term of contempt.]”
MY handy dictionary says “Often Offensive Slang A woman or girl.” In other words, it depends. And it does.
“And your argument that the word was used years ago does not have merit. Many words were used years ago that are now considered offensive.”
Considered by whom? Not by women who don’t consider the the term offensive, and i wouldn’t use it with any other kind of woman. Some people find “Merry Christmas” offensive, and I don’t care: that’s their confusion.
“I did a quick browse on a search engine and found that others feel the same way I do.”
See above. I am not bound, ethically or otherwise, by manufactured offense.
“As far as using clumsy politically correct phrases, if that’s what others wish to be called then I have to question why you wouldn’t honor their request.”
Really? Because I don’t believe in allowing fads and political manipulation compromise clear speech, that’s why.
“As my mother says, it’s best to take the high road.’
It’s not a high road..it’s the road of least resistance. You and she are vulnerable to “everybody does it” conduct, regardless of merit.
“4. Again, I turn to my trusty dictionary. Subjective refers to anything that comes from the human mind, especially feelings. Compliments by their very nature are riddled with feelings. Yes, we could agree on what is a compliment, but that doesn’t make it objective. Objective, rather, is something that no one can logically refute, such as “That building’s exterior is made of bricks” or “He is taller than his teammates” or “The DNA result is a match.”
You’ve got to get away from that dictionary. One can be objective about value judgments. You are mixing up universal objectivity with personal objectivity. You are also mixing up objective truth with objective meaning.
If I say, “You are wonderful,” that is subjective as truth, but one who hears it can, absent any other data, objectively conclude that it was meant as a compliment….the so-called reasonable person standard. Unreasonable interpretations do not deserve deference or respect.
You have to wonder at the mentality of producers and promoters who forward obscenity and vileness in general as “comedy” and “avaut garde” entertainment. In fact, on Comedy Central, you get this non-stop. Adding politics to the blend does not justify this under free political speech… anymore than “redeeming social value” justifies kiddie porn. As I see it, this all stems from a misdefinition of the 1st Amendment that all0ws depravity free play. It likewise comes forth from immoral producers who will promote anything for the sake of money and politics.
Skimmed the Post and Comments – so I will give “in General” comments –
1) Bill Maher – Smart, funny, topical humor and subject matter, mostly makes sense… but he is a diabolical egoist and prima donna jerk. It lends itself to the almost fact that nice guys finish last, and supreme assholes and those w/o conscience seem to run the country, have their own HBO specials and are the voices that rise above the din.
2) You categorize SP as a “strong, conservative woman” – and that is strictly your opinion with which I would COMPLETELY disagree. She has done nothing to prove she has any original thoughts in her head, she is “handled” and when any of these handlers bruise her ego, they are cast aside. Her recent “scandal” of her trip to the Mideast and wearing a Star of David pendant is just another stunt to fit into this political horserace mold that diverts our attention away from the real issues that confront us, the first and formost is the ramping up of worldwide disasters.
http://bit.ly/gBUOuo
3) With that, the potential of massive radiation contamination and the flaccid, lukewarm response of the “powers that be” who say there’s “Nothing to see here folks” are seriously trying to fool us here.
So all these topics – it’s all a giant distraction from what is really happening here… the physical manipulation and contamination of this planet. It is pretty sad .
Come on: what do you dispute? Is she a woman? I’d say that’s pretty clear. Is she conservative? Well, she says so, and her supporters think so, and Maher sure thinks so. Is she “strong”? You really want to dispute that? I think she’s incredibly strong—resilient, gutsy, determined, assertive. I think that’s beyond dispute. “Strong” isn’t a value judgment—it can be objectively determined by observation. A man who lifts a car is strong. A public figure who weathers the kind of unfair and vicious ad hominem attacks and slander that she has and comes out swinging is by definition “strong.”
That doesn’t mean I like her as a political leader, or trust her, but she’s strong, just like three other politicians I don’t trust are similarly strong: the Clintons and Nancy Pelosi.
You’re falling victim to a reverse Halo Effect—you don’t like Palin, so you ignore her obvious admirable character traits.
tgt put it better than I can, but I’ll give it a crack; bad policy makers are often very, very good politicians.
“I am still waiting for the NOW response.” – Jack Marshall
You’ll never get any such response. They pretty much use the same language about Palin and any other ‘conservative’ woman that Maher uses.
Many years ago when I was running my own graphic arts firm, I was inundated with requests to join the new group of women who wanted to run women win in various elections and get them appointed to positions of power. They felt that I bucked the traditional male role of “printer” by starting my own successful business despite all the odds against me. They were specifically looking for ‘strong’ businesswomen.
I got talked into one of their schemes and was given a huge application that also stated what would be expected of me. I called my ‘good’ friend that managed to talk me into going to these meetings and let her know how I felt about the alleged “application.” One of the examples was that I had to fight for abortion rights despite the fact that I was pro-life. Pro-lifers are not allowed. So much for the alleged ‘women’s rights.” There’s no way NOW believes in real equal rights for women. If you don’t subscribe to all of their agendas you’re a pariah.
It became very uncomfortable after I objected to what was expected of me. I was also disillusioned by my ‘best friend’ who was also pro-life that she didn’t think it was important what one really believes in.
I wonder if a younger generation of women has grown up with different connotations around the word “broad”? To my [29-year-old] ears, it’s right up there with “bitch” as a term of dismissal and contempt, and I truly can’t imagine it having the familiar tone of affection that “babe” can have when used by a lover or a close friend.
That’s anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I assure you I am not “manufacturing” offense.
Okay—I’m convinced. Broad is an insult. Thanks, JULIAN, for getting me into this!
Hey, I was only responding to Jeff’s query of whether the world “chick” was an insult. Hell, no one my age actually uses the term “broad” anymore.
Whippersnapper!
Pingback: The Original Musings » Blog Archive » Whatever NOW
You asked for the National Organization for Women article denouncing Bill Maher’s remarks? Well, here it is (such as it is). Notice that Communications Director Lisa Bennett did not dare mention who said what or where but made a point of taking aim at her conservative detractors.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/23/now-defends-palin-being-called-dumb-vagina-without-mentioning-maher-t
To add to sarge927’s post, here is NOW’s response:
http://www.now.org/news/blogs/index.php/sayit/2011/03/22/a-few-thoughts-on-media-sexism-and-conservative-women
I have to say, reading the comments is an eye opener. It seems Maher is no longer the only focus of this issue. Lisa Bennet is quickly becoming the next poster child for hypocrisy.
According to Ms. Bennet, the only reason they do not defend people such as Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton is because they do not have enough time.
“a. You’re trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women’s bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc. Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women’s equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.”
I think her words speak volumes about her character.
Thanks for that link…I may do some more on it. It is ethically incoherent.
So if feminists support a female politician, they’re called ‘sexist’ by sexists because ‘they’ll vote for anybody as long as it’s a woman.’
And if some feminists despise a female politician who’s a living Bronx cheer to everything feminism stands for — and don’t explode at her being called the female equivalent of “pr1ck” — then a self-important blogger says we “fall silent.”
To hell with it. Feminists get bashed no matter what we do, and I have a much worse name for the likes of Sarah Palin. Good for Bill.
Wowie Zowie, what a delightfully unethical and illogical comment! So balancing the nuances of advocacy, respect and civility are just too darn tough for you, eh, Marcia? Gee. My recommendation: stay out of political and ethical debates, since you find it necessary to resort to calling people you disagree with “twats.” Especially stay out of discussions on feminism, since whatever it is you think you are, anyone who claims that a ex-beauty queen-cheerleader who goes on to become a wife, a mother, a mayor, a governor, a Vice-Presidential candidate, an author and a national political and cultural figure is “a living Bronx cheer to everything feminism stands for” is no feminist herself, and doesn’t have a clue what feminism is…and anyone claiming to be a feminist who cheers misogynist Bill Maher’s consistent sexism in both his life and his work—women are walking blow-up dolls to Maher, nothing more—embarrasses feminists even more that NOW embarrasses itself with its hypocrisy.
My only requirement if you want to make a gratuitously insulting comment is that it be a half-way intelligent one. You fail the standard. And the language–“Twat” is not the female equivalent of “prick.” There is no male equivalent of that epithet….we’re not talking about anatomy.
Wish I’d said that, Jack. Why is the Left constantly pushing you and me to defend Palin? Ah, well, we self-important bloggers have to stand up for ethics and civility.
I always feel so dirty whenever I have to defend Palin; she’s bad enough without certain idiots trying to make her look even worse.
The amazing thing is that it never involves substance…just personal attacks. The idea of an attractive, charismatic, successful conservative woman just drives some people insane, causes them to abandon all restraint, common sense and fairness. I’ve never seen anything like it—I’m not sure there has ever been anything like it.
Really?? This is the first and last attempt to honor a friend who posted this blog. I thought I should at least read what the flurry was about. In my own opinion, and call that what you would like, subjective subtext or anything along the lines of dissecting rhetoric, I really don’t understand why Maher has struck such a strong response here. He is who he is. Trying to tie comments to instances in history, as if that would qualify a response, is “flailing” at it’s best. You like what you like and dislike what you dislike. Maher is a comedian. It appears that a lot of comedian’s do this. If you don’t like it, turn the channel.
By the way, I really dislike the term “broad”. I don’t think I need to qualify that.
Thanks for all the fish!
1) References to Douglas Adams are always welcome.
2) “He is what he is” is humming, meaning nothing. Bigots are bigots, racists are racists, crooks are crooks, misogynists are misogynists. What’s your point? What Maher is, is unacceptable.
3) He is NOT a comedian, any more than Jon Stewart is jsut a comedian. Comedians do anything for a laugh; Maher is a social critic with an agenda. But even as acomdeian, there are minimal leval of civility that he is bound to respect.
4.) The Left, which was shamelessly lecturing the Right about “civil discourse,” has thoroughly disgraceed itself in the last 60 days, with Maher being a prime example. He neeeds to be called on it.
5) The incident proved NOW to be a fraud, which it has been for quite a while.
6) A lot of comedians call female politicians “dumb twats” on TV? Name one. But if we do not condemn Maher, we’ll get lots of them. How nice.
7) “If you don’t like it turn the channel” is another brain-free cop-out. I watch maher as a reviewer, not because I enjoy him: he is a phony, an inflated gasbag, and jerk. When he lowers the standards of civil dialogue, turning the channel is no remedy.
EIGHT) “Really?” is not an argument, just a rude fake at one. Pretty much sums up your critique, though.
9) You didn’t honor anyone with that comment, which was the textual equivalent of a shrug. Why bother?
10) But I really do appreciate the “Hitchhiker” reference.
‘since whatever it is you think you are, anyone who claims that a ex-beauty queen-cheerleader who goes on to become a wife, a mother, a mayor, a governor, a Vice-Presidential candidate, an author and a national political and cultural figure is “a living Bronx cheer to everything feminism stands for” is no feminist herself, and doesn’t have a clue what feminism is…’
The problem is that SP is a conservative; despite ‘having it all’ (the mantra of feminists since the 60s) and succeeding at most of it, it counts for nothing because she is conservative and pro-life.
Sorry I am late to the posting. I can’t in good conscious defend this woman in any way the attacks made on her. Considering she has said a lot of bigoted comments that no one seems to question or challenge her on I say good to call her a “Twat”. I say with no shame Karma is a Lipstick Bigoted Bitch and so is Sarah. Her nickname I give her affectionately is Queen Snowbilly Bitch and that’s all I gotta say about that!
1. Good.
2. I think you are a little confused on this ethics thing, and need to study the basics. Like “I hate this person so people can treat her as badly as they want for all I care” is not consistent with any ethical system or logic at all. It is essentially bestial. We try to do better here.
3. Name-calling is not an argument, even in response to a bigoted argument. It’s just lazy and rude.
Mr. Marshall my position still stands and quite frankly I don’t know you and could give a good two hoots what you think! My ethics and standards I adhere to (online and offline) are seperate on how I feel about the person who was called a name and how I view them. I DON’T LIKE PALIN! SHE IS A BIGOT AND IGNORANT! How simple is that point of view I am entitled to Mr. Marshall that I will not change from? I think Mr. Marshall you need to study the basics on how one is entitled to their point of view, regardless of the commentary you spout about ethics that I think is complete and total nonsense!
We agree to disagree! Have a nice life (shaking my head)!
Furthermore I will see your comments on Palin when you address the recently laugh fest Herman Cain had when someone asked him if Anita Hill was gonna vote for him. Hmm enlight of his recent sexual harassment accusations (which I honestly beliieve he did something foul) that wasn’t in my view something to laugh about AT ALL! Oh and unlike Palin I respect and admire Professor Hill and what she endured and her intelligence she has!
This is good information; now I know you are inarticulate as well as confused. From what I gather from your comments, what you call “ethics” is really easy when when one reasons at the level of, say, a cocker spaniel. I knew that already, but it’s always helpful to be reminded.
Actually, I DON’T agree to disagree—before I’ll do that, I have to see evidence of thought. In two comments from you, I can’t detect a shred.But I’m sure you’re doing the best you can.
Yes, Class, this is an excellent example of how futile it is to try to reason with someone whose comprehension of ethics ends with “I don’t like her, so why should I care if someone treats her badly”? Sad, but I would get lots of similar comments from 8 year-olds life this, if they read the blog. So there’s that.
Pingback: The Libertarian: Bill Maher - a pitiful human being
And almost a year later, we come full circle, with Limbaugh the idiot, and all the people who disagreed with you last March clamoring for his head to be struck off his shoulders.