According to the overpaid whore Sarah Huckabee-Sanders it is “highly inappropriate” to call attention to Kelly’s lying. Why? “Because he is a Marine four-star general.” I don’t understand the connection. Is she implying that, as a top Marine, Kelly knows karate and can inflict mayhem on journalists who challenge him?
I rather doubt a 4-star Marine fits that description.
Though I can’t imagine what made Kelly start following the Trump playbook.
I don’t see a thread on the Niger ambush, so I’ll call attention here to Dr. Maddow’s discussion. Her remarks about Chad begin about 13:45 in the video.
Chad, top U.S. ally in North Central Africa, was added to the anti-Muslim ban apparently just because they missed a deadline to submit a new sample passport. :smack:
Chad responded by withdrawing its own troops from Niger. Whether this was direct cause of the ambush that killed Sgt. Johnson and others is unclear, but the ambush was caused by inadequate ground and air support. Trump, when asked about all this, responded with silence — he apparently knows nothing about the entire affair, not even Sgt. Johnson’s name.
Damn but that’s uncharacteristic. (The silence part)
This is misogynistic bullshit, and you should be ashamed. Be better than that.
Is she lying for money? Or is she lying because she thinks God has told her to help destroy America? Either way, I have more respect for sexual prostitutes.
There’s an interesting question, to me anyway, that probably should be addressed in another thread. The question is, are all gender-based insults off the table, or is “whore” bad because it’s also used in the context of slut-shaming? Can you call a man a prick or a dick, or a gigolo? Since men are not really subject to slut-shaming, maybe it’s OK. Can you call a woman a bitch or a c*nt? (I know it’s allowed, but I just don’t like that word) Those aren’t really used in the context of shaming, but are gender based.
Just curious. I didn’t like the use of “whore” in that post either. I guess “asshole” is always safe – everyone has one!
/hijack
Whatever tiny respect I had for Kelly is long gone. Just another old-boys-club white guy, looking back with rose-colored glasses to the Fifties. Unfortunately, this episode probably makes Trump like him more.
The hijack continues:
Is there a gender neutral term for someone who has sold out their principles and morals for money or other material things?
I suppose “sellout” would work, but it seems pretty tame.
Whore is problematic because I don’t think you would call Kelly a gigolo, right?
All this is giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they had principles and morals to sell out in the first place. I’m doubtful.
I think whore is it. It does have that gender-neutral meaning in addition to the sex-worker one.
I see the big factor is that both Dad and daughter are allegedly devout Christians for whom lying should anathema to their beliefs yet they not only do it for money and power but they do it in wholesale lots without the slightest trace of guilt.
It’s all been downhill, hasn’t it? I don’t remember any part of this nightmare that has been positive.
This is a good question. “Whore” doesn’t really work, because of the sexual connotation. Sanders and Kelly have definitely exchanged their morals for something, though.
I’m talking about a much longer period of time going back decades. I also believe we have reached the point where we cannot reverse direction or even stop the decline. Everyone should hope that I’m wrong.
It seems the criticism is not that I called her a whore, but that ‘whore’ is supposedly gender-specific. :smack: Am I forgiven if I write
Kelly and Huckabee-Sanders are both whores.
?
Is this what political correctness has come to? I suppose men can no longer be described as ‘pricks’? I can’t refer to Bannon as ‘Trump’s hitman’; I have to write ‘hitperson’?
I said you should be ashamed. I guess engaging in self-pitying rationalizations of your shitty behavior is a viable alternative, and it looks like that’s the route you’re going.
Fix your shit, man. This isn’t about political correctness, unless you’re using the conservative meaning of “trying not to be an asshole.” This is about your using sexist shitty language to describe women, and refusing to acknowledge it.
Fix your shit.
No, that’s not it. You can call a man a prick. You can call a woman a bitch. The hitch here is that you called a woman a whore, which is a term that normally refers to a woman who accepts money for sex. I think we all agree that Sanders is a hypocritical, lying, mean-spirited waste of space, but she isn’t a sex worker. IOW, we either think that you shouldn’t use the term because it’s imprecise, or we think you shouldn’t use the term because it’s an unfair attack, and we’re trying not to sink to her level. It’s also complicated because men are not usually attacked by a term that has this type of sexual connotation (they aren’t called gigolos, whores, or pimps normally). Making the attack against her based on her gender weakens the attack because it’s irrelevant, and her sexual proclivities have nothing to do with anything.
We would like to think of a better term for her. Lying, two-faced weasel perhaps.
I think ‘whore’ would be appropriate here in it’s figurative sense except that he should have known that it could easily be misinterpreted. Perhaps simply apologizing for the poor choice of words is the correct remedy here. The incorrect approach is to get a general to try to justify your words.
Could we do something with “pottage” (as in, “sold one’s birthright for a mess of …”)?
Regarding the nature of a condolence call, I’m reminded of an incident reported by Bill Mauldin about General Lucien Truscott (who, according to Mauldin, could eat a ham like Patton for lunch). Truscott was invited to speak at a Memorial Day service at a cemetery in Italy, and when it was his turn he turned his back on the assembled dignitaries and addressed the headstones. The gist of his speech was an apology for the fact that they were dead in part because of decisions made by him and others like him. Also a promise that whenever he heard someone talk about the glory of war and dying for one’s country, he would do his best to set the speaker straight.
Leaving aside your rant at the end, yes, if you had said “Kelly and H-S are both whores who have sold out whatever principles they had to support a corrupt administration”, or something like that, it would have been better in my book. By including Kelly, you move the context and the meaning from “woman of ill repute, shameful slut” to the gender neutral meaning of “person who sells out his/her principles.”
Others may disagree.
Now is where you might consider saying, “geez, I was wrong and that was pretty poor phrasing on my part. I’ll do better in the future.” That way, this thread doesn’t become about you, it goes back to being about lying shitstain Kelly. General Kelly, ret., 4 stars of shit.
I hope everyone remembers this stuff when his name is mentioned as a candidate.