I just got done watching this presentation of Mark Levin's BlazeTV show, and I'm hoping the link to it will allow visitors to this blog to watch it. The reason for my attempt is the comparison Levin makes between the Australian version of 60 Minutes to the typical American press as regards the reporting on COVID-19. Levin plays quite a bit of this particular episode of the Aussie version and it's absolutely remarkable and a fantastic example of what objective, probing investigative reporting looks like...or should. Afterwards, he presents a Jake Tapper interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci and the difference in tone, intention and journalistic professionalism is as blatant as a slap in the face. Levin is so impressed with the Aussie show...and with excellent reason...that while insisting our news media should take notes, his Sunday night FoxNews show, "Life, Liberty & Levin" would be in trouble if the American 60 Minutes was a good as the Aussie show (same time slot? I don't know...I'm at work and recorded it on the DVR).
Some people I won't name...such as Dan Trabue...wet themselves at the thought that Trump regards the press as enemies of the people. While FoxNews in general is not quite what it once was and what it ought to be, normal, rational and honest people know he's basically referring to the likes of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, WaPO, etc. and the disparity between his two examples is but one more example of the truth of that charge. Dan's defense of the press is absurd, though not as absurd as his pearl clutching over Trump's righteous frustration with it. Trump was never the only one in America aware of their failure to do their job as they're supposed to.
So here it is. If it doesn't play, one can get some free views of the BlazeTV lineup and find this episode of Levin's show, as it is only about a week old. Hopefully it will play here:
https://www.blazetv.com/watch/channel/series/series/bZ55M0eK8zTh-levintv-latest-episodes/episode/43-oormvpuje52i-the-american-unfree-press-infects-the-pandemic-story-ep-713
Saturday, April 25, 2020
Friday, April 24, 2020
Don't Call Her What She Is
Wow! I easily found eight links (those below) that totally agree with my claim that women are just as, if not more so, likely to refer to other women/girls as "sluts" (or "whores") as are men. I would say it's more likely, given that women/girls do it more openly, and with malice as they use the words to attack other women/girls for one reason or another. Men, on the other hand, should they use the words at all, are more likely to do so as a descriptor...to identify a particular type of woman/girl and distinguish that type from another, more virtuous type. That's not to say men never use the words to tarnish a reputation, but men are more likely to use other words, in my opinion, to disparage a woman. "Bitch" comes to mind as a typical choice, though some use it as a synonym to "slut" or "whore" (check out most hip-hop references to women).
I'm going to quickly go through these links. While I read each one from beginning to end, my summarizing might still be less than perfectly accurate. The main point, however, will remain that Dan's charge that the words I used to accurately and factually refer to the character of two Trump accusers are not the sole weapons of "rapists", "rapey guys" or "sexual predators". And while none of these following links refer to the notion, I fully doubt that Dan could possibly find any "study" or "research" that proves the notion at all. It's merely Dan working feverishly to defend his unChristian hatred of Donald Trump, so anything goes. In any case, here we go:
https://globalnews.ca/news/1373537/study-examines-why-girls-call-each-other-sluts-its-not-about-sex/
https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/opinion/enough-now-thing-slut/
The above two links refer to the same study dealing with a particular university. It speaks specifically to the use of the words by chicks against other chicks. As is true of all the links, the words still have a sexual connotation to their use, even when sexual activity of the victim is not the issue. As one of the last links offers, the words are used to make the sexual behavior of the harasser seem to her to be less wicked. That is, "yeah, I sleep around a bit, but THAT bitch is a SLUT!"
It seems pretty obvious that if one really finds a word objectionable, that is the word one would use to attack someone perceived to be some kind of threat, or to demean that person.
https://time.com/107228/women-misogyny-twitter-study-demos/
The above link refers to misogynistic attacks on women being perpetrated by women at very similar rates as by men. But how can that be when Dan insists that such attacks are solely the acts of sexually predatory men? The answer is that Dan doesn't know what he pretends to know. It's what he wants to be true in order to strengthen his hateful attacks on Donald Trump.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1093011/Women-far-promiscuous-men-says-shock-new-study.html
I added the above link because of what it says in not so many words, which is that women are not the put upon innocents that Dan needs them to be in order to assert that every charge against Donald Trump is credible and therefor his grace-embracing hate of Donald Trump is justified. He also seems to want to believe that my reference to two whores and sluts as "whores" and "sluts" puts me in league with those who give male whores and sluts a pass for being whores and/or sluts themselves. The only basis for this notion is that it serves to stifle opposing arguments. Dan wishes to shame anyone as defenders of sexual predators those who would lend any support of any kind to Trump. Said another way, Dan's lying again.
https://www.redbookmag.com/love-sex/sex/a47424/why-women-like-rough-sex/
The above link is interesting for its implications. That is, that some women like being abused and treated like whores and sluts.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a36095/leora-tanenbaum-slut-shaming/
https://feministsatlarge.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/lets-stop-calling-women-sluts/
The above two links provide insights into the radical feminist notions girly-boys like Dan find so compelling and worthy of serious consideration.
Opinions are like buttholes, and those of the radical feminists and the girly-male sheep, like Dan, are particularly foul smelling. They are largely based on the desire to be as immoral as they perceive men to be. Sure, many men are immoral, but it takes a self-loathing, "male-guilt" goof like Dan to indict the whole of mankind to defend his grace-embracing hatred of Donald Trump.
Whether intended or not, the above two links imply rather loudly that women don't mind being whores and sluts. They just don't want to be called whores and sluts. These links clearly assert the belief that there's nothing wrong with women having sex as often and in any way a woman might desire. But this is no more moral than men believing the same thing, and it doesn't matter how many centuries have passed where men have maintained they have that right. It was never moral and isn't now, nor is it for women. For them to engage in sex outside of marriage is an impediment to their salvation. I believe using the strongest terms to describe immoral behavior is a good thing given the consequences those behaviors may bring about. What hurts more...being called a whore or a slut, or never seeing inside the Golden Gates?
Shaming? Damned right. The women writing the above articles absolutely assert a woman should not feel ashamed at being promiscuous. And Dan seems very much to agree, showing once again that he is an enabler, if not a promoter, of sexual immorality. With champions like that, who needs oppressors?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-teen-age/201210/why-girls-call-each-other-sluts
The above link simply reiterates my point...that women and girls are more likely to call other women and girls whores and sluts than the "sexual predators" and "rapists" Dan thinks own the terms.
And here again it's important to point out that Dan is trying to make a case against calling a whore/slut a whore/slut, as if using another term...or never speaking of a woman's slut behavior...changes the reality, the seriousness of that behavior and all the negative consequences that it brings. He has NOT in any way demonstrated that the use of the terms alone...the mere hearing of them uttered...brings about savage harm to women everywhere or anywhere (I frankly don't care if the radical feminist wishes to assert such buffoonery, either). He mocks my ongoing polling of women to find one who is so horribly affected (so far, not a one...the polling continues), while he provides nothing to show that they are. Let's be clear: I have no doubt that a virtuous woman would very much dislike being called a slut. Such a woman cherishes her reputation and rightly would hate to see it tarnished, just as anyone else would hate to be slandered or libeled. But if the terms were not directed toward her, it's absurd to suggest she'd somehow take it as a personal attack or even on an attack on womanhood. I'm sorry. "Absurd" doesn't really go far enough. "Lie" is more like it, because there is no "study" that suggests such a thing. My links above bear that out nicely. The only way use of the terms causes harm, aside from the example of the virtuous woman, is as an epithet or as it exposes the character of the non-virtuous woman who prefers to keep hidden the truth about herself.
Dan will simply have to find a more legitimate way to disparage Donald Trump. This tactic is ludicrous, fantasy and totally deceitful. A whore is a whore, and a slut is a slut and a rose by any other name...
More to come....
I'm going to quickly go through these links. While I read each one from beginning to end, my summarizing might still be less than perfectly accurate. The main point, however, will remain that Dan's charge that the words I used to accurately and factually refer to the character of two Trump accusers are not the sole weapons of "rapists", "rapey guys" or "sexual predators". And while none of these following links refer to the notion, I fully doubt that Dan could possibly find any "study" or "research" that proves the notion at all. It's merely Dan working feverishly to defend his unChristian hatred of Donald Trump, so anything goes. In any case, here we go:
https://globalnews.ca/news/1373537/study-examines-why-girls-call-each-other-sluts-its-not-about-sex/
https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/opinion/enough-now-thing-slut/
The above two links refer to the same study dealing with a particular university. It speaks specifically to the use of the words by chicks against other chicks. As is true of all the links, the words still have a sexual connotation to their use, even when sexual activity of the victim is not the issue. As one of the last links offers, the words are used to make the sexual behavior of the harasser seem to her to be less wicked. That is, "yeah, I sleep around a bit, but THAT bitch is a SLUT!"
It seems pretty obvious that if one really finds a word objectionable, that is the word one would use to attack someone perceived to be some kind of threat, or to demean that person.
https://time.com/107228/women-misogyny-twitter-study-demos/
The above link refers to misogynistic attacks on women being perpetrated by women at very similar rates as by men. But how can that be when Dan insists that such attacks are solely the acts of sexually predatory men? The answer is that Dan doesn't know what he pretends to know. It's what he wants to be true in order to strengthen his hateful attacks on Donald Trump.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1093011/Women-far-promiscuous-men-says-shock-new-study.html
I added the above link because of what it says in not so many words, which is that women are not the put upon innocents that Dan needs them to be in order to assert that every charge against Donald Trump is credible and therefor his grace-embracing hate of Donald Trump is justified. He also seems to want to believe that my reference to two whores and sluts as "whores" and "sluts" puts me in league with those who give male whores and sluts a pass for being whores and/or sluts themselves. The only basis for this notion is that it serves to stifle opposing arguments. Dan wishes to shame anyone as defenders of sexual predators those who would lend any support of any kind to Trump. Said another way, Dan's lying again.
https://www.redbookmag.com/love-sex/sex/a47424/why-women-like-rough-sex/
The above link is interesting for its implications. That is, that some women like being abused and treated like whores and sluts.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a36095/leora-tanenbaum-slut-shaming/
https://feministsatlarge.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/lets-stop-calling-women-sluts/
The above two links provide insights into the radical feminist notions girly-boys like Dan find so compelling and worthy of serious consideration.
Opinions are like buttholes, and those of the radical feminists and the girly-male sheep, like Dan, are particularly foul smelling. They are largely based on the desire to be as immoral as they perceive men to be. Sure, many men are immoral, but it takes a self-loathing, "male-guilt" goof like Dan to indict the whole of mankind to defend his grace-embracing hatred of Donald Trump.
Whether intended or not, the above two links imply rather loudly that women don't mind being whores and sluts. They just don't want to be called whores and sluts. These links clearly assert the belief that there's nothing wrong with women having sex as often and in any way a woman might desire. But this is no more moral than men believing the same thing, and it doesn't matter how many centuries have passed where men have maintained they have that right. It was never moral and isn't now, nor is it for women. For them to engage in sex outside of marriage is an impediment to their salvation. I believe using the strongest terms to describe immoral behavior is a good thing given the consequences those behaviors may bring about. What hurts more...being called a whore or a slut, or never seeing inside the Golden Gates?
Shaming? Damned right. The women writing the above articles absolutely assert a woman should not feel ashamed at being promiscuous. And Dan seems very much to agree, showing once again that he is an enabler, if not a promoter, of sexual immorality. With champions like that, who needs oppressors?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-teen-age/201210/why-girls-call-each-other-sluts
The above link simply reiterates my point...that women and girls are more likely to call other women and girls whores and sluts than the "sexual predators" and "rapists" Dan thinks own the terms.
And here again it's important to point out that Dan is trying to make a case against calling a whore/slut a whore/slut, as if using another term...or never speaking of a woman's slut behavior...changes the reality, the seriousness of that behavior and all the negative consequences that it brings. He has NOT in any way demonstrated that the use of the terms alone...the mere hearing of them uttered...brings about savage harm to women everywhere or anywhere (I frankly don't care if the radical feminist wishes to assert such buffoonery, either). He mocks my ongoing polling of women to find one who is so horribly affected (so far, not a one...the polling continues), while he provides nothing to show that they are. Let's be clear: I have no doubt that a virtuous woman would very much dislike being called a slut. Such a woman cherishes her reputation and rightly would hate to see it tarnished, just as anyone else would hate to be slandered or libeled. But if the terms were not directed toward her, it's absurd to suggest she'd somehow take it as a personal attack or even on an attack on womanhood. I'm sorry. "Absurd" doesn't really go far enough. "Lie" is more like it, because there is no "study" that suggests such a thing. My links above bear that out nicely. The only way use of the terms causes harm, aside from the example of the virtuous woman, is as an epithet or as it exposes the character of the non-virtuous woman who prefers to keep hidden the truth about herself.
Dan will simply have to find a more legitimate way to disparage Donald Trump. This tactic is ludicrous, fantasy and totally deceitful. A whore is a whore, and a slut is a slut and a rose by any other name...
More to come....
Sunday, April 12, 2020
Temporarily Interrupted
After the end of the week, I will be in a temporary living situation for about three weeks, due to our moving from our home of 31 years. It's a bitter-sweet change in our lives for sure. So many memories from that span of time!
Once that three weeks ends, we'll be in our new digs for the next two years or so, before hopefully moving to warmer climes. But during that period, my ability to access the internet will be restricted to only my phone. At least that's the way it appears at the moment. As such, this may likely be the last post until we get in the new place. I've no doubt some...well...actually just one person...will abuse this situation and I was in doubt as to whether or not I would actually announce this whole thing. However, I felt it might be a good idea for the normal, civil, actually Christian people to know why my engagement in discourse might be so minimal. I've been considering getting a laptop, which would make things easier, but with the current situation I'd only be able to order one through Amazon or some such, and with the temporary situation that might not work out so well anyway. So, I'll just wait it out and deal as best I can.
Until then, behave.
Once that three weeks ends, we'll be in our new digs for the next two years or so, before hopefully moving to warmer climes. But during that period, my ability to access the internet will be restricted to only my phone. At least that's the way it appears at the moment. As such, this may likely be the last post until we get in the new place. I've no doubt some...well...actually just one person...will abuse this situation and I was in doubt as to whether or not I would actually announce this whole thing. However, I felt it might be a good idea for the normal, civil, actually Christian people to know why my engagement in discourse might be so minimal. I've been considering getting a laptop, which would make things easier, but with the current situation I'd only be able to order one through Amazon or some such, and with the temporary situation that might not work out so well anyway. So, I'll just wait it out and deal as best I can.
Until then, behave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)