IN THE COMMENTS: Chip S. said:
From the Journolist Manual of Style:(Link added.)
"You're no lady" = horrible sexism.
"the journalistic equivalent of a fluffer" = incisive commentary.
July 24, 2011
Daily Kos blogger calls WaPo columnist "the journalistic equivalent of a 'fluffer'" and says "she has an uncontrollable crush on Paul Ryan."
Rubin's writings about the Norwegian massacre deserve criticism, but aren't liberals supposed to refrain from writing about women like this?
IN THE COMMENTS: Chip S. said:
IN THE COMMENTS: Chip S. said:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
Hey, I know what a fluffer is from the John and Ken show, where it came up once as a gross out the newsbabe topic.
I don't see the analogy though.
A fluffer keeps the male aroused between takes in porn films, if I have it right.
Projection.
The Daily Kos blogger had "fluffing" on the brain. You can guess why.
As I understand it, a woman who wants to become a porn star will almost always have to spend some time as a fluff girl before getting the chance to act.
And of course she'll have to do something else far worse, though almost certainly she's doing it already. God damn it.
Peter
The universal symbol for "journalist" should be a white woman on her knees fellating a white male democrat politician- a symbol inspired by Nina Burleigh. Journalists are put on earth to do one thing and that is too offer aid and comfort to liberal politicians, not to challenge them. That they save for evil conservatives. So the Daily Kos guy is just upset by one of their own straying from the reservation.
I believe she's done a mea culpa on the Islam thing (although I still think there's something else we haven't heard yet).
But, in answer to Ann's question, "aren't liberals supposed to refrain from writing about women like this?", this assumes the Kossacks have any ethics.
If they do, it hasn't shown up yet.
From the Journolist Manual of Style:
"You're no lady" = horrible sexism.
"the journalistic equivalent of a fluffer" = incisive commentary.
This is the hazard of too much analysis too early. A lot of people thought this would be Muslim terrorism. Instead, the shooter appears to be a member, not of the Progress Party which is being attacked by leftists, but of something called the "European Resistance Movement," which sounds like a skinhead type outfit.
It has also been reported that some of the kids killed on the island walked up to the shooter to try to reason with him. The therapeutic approach is fatal in such cases. The same thing is supposed to have happened in the Richard Speck murders. The victims were student nurses who did not try to fight back or escape. The lone survivor hid under a bed and he lost count.
The Daily Kos is hardly a source of reasoned analysis.
"AA: but aren't liberals supposed to refrain from writing about women like this?"
Hey, if the cunt is a fluffer then the cunt is a fluffer.
Most liberal men are completely dominated by liberal women, and consequently must spend a great deal of effort to convince those who run their lives they are properly "feminized".
When mommy lets them off the leash and says it's okay to attack conservative women, all their suppressed rage and resentment comes out.
Hence, their misogynistic attacks are really nothing more than an impotent howl of frustration at their own status as the eunuchs in the progressive harem.
Guessing the ideology of a terrorist is a good way to end up looking awful.
Remember Mayor Bloomberg on the Times Sq. Bomber? "If I had to guess, twenty five cents... Homegrown maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”
Ha. No one remembers the "It could be anything." Everyone remembers "doesn’t like the health care bill."
Guessing the ideology of a terrorist is a good way to end up looking awful.
I agree, to a point. Assuming that the terrorist is Muslim is a good way to end up looking awful. Assuming that he's a wingnut (e.g., Loughner) mostly gets your Serious Thinker card punched.
Guessing the ideology of a terrorist is a good way to end up looking awful.
Definitely.
But then, her guess in this case, while wrong, is somewhat vindicated by the Islamic extremist groups cheering over the attack. They didn't do it, but they support it. Hardly heartening.
If she had actually "farted out a column," that would have been really impressive.
If she had actually "farted out a column," that would have been really impressive.
Nothing impressive about sharting. /titus
The Kos guy is just jealous. He's a self described former "male underwear model." He must have lost his fluffering job in the Obamacession. Well, there's always teabagging.
Did anyone know what either of those terms suggested before the lefty sewer mouths imposed them on the "political discourse"?
This Pliers guy (somehow an appropriate name) over at Kid Kos's place, has the audacity to take on Jennifer Rubin? With her conservative credentials, Jen secured a well-paying job at "teh WaPo" amongst the enemy. Bernard Baby couldn't get a paying job, well or otherwise, at the Village Voice!
"Ann Althouse said...
Guessing the ideology of a terrorist is a good way to end up looking awful."
Notonce the person is known and he is an Arab. You'd be batting 1.000.
Freeman Hunt said...
Definitely.
But then, her guess in this case, while wrong, is somewhat vindicated by the Islamic extremist groups cheering over the attack. They didn't do it, but they support it. Hardly heartening. Actually they claimed to have done it.
I'm sure garbage fully supports calling women any names as long as they are conservative women. Raping them them too. Thanks Maher.
Curious George said...
Not once the person is known and he is an Arab. You'd be batting 1.000.
I want to apologize to Muslims who aren't Arabs. Their ideology is easy to figure out also. The omission was accidental.
But guessing is not necessarily "bad form," Ann, if it's based on an experiential/statistical base/record. As the '30s Tin-Pan Alley sports-writer and social observer Damon Runyan once penned: "The race does not always go to the swift; nor the contest to the strong--but that's the way to bet."
She is a conservative so it is ok to treat her however you want to. Those are the liberal media rules.
Actually they claimed to have done it.
Also true.
Since even the Islamic extremists guessed wrong by thinking it was one of their own, perhaps the outrage over Rubin can be spared.
Would "raging bitch on the rag" be more appropriate, then? Or Ann, would that cut too close to the bone?
Let's remember that the fluffer serves the film, not the male.
The make is if anything not interested. That's the problem.
ISo it's in the cause of art.
The analogy needs to be worked out though, to the journalism case.
I'm confused.
Are we supposed to take Daily Kos bloggers seriously, now?
When did that happen?
"Daily Kos blogger writes something offensive" isn't even a "Dog bites Man" headline, it's more like a "Dog eats biscuit" headline.
The Kos take is pretty funny. There is literally no rational way you can interpret anything she wrote as blaming the bombing on Muslims. She writes that this doesn't change the fact that we need to protect ourselves from Jihadists.
Leftists believe they can say anything because they understand other leftists don't care whether their assertions are provably false. This is why leftists demonize everyone else. They have to convince their audience even listening to other information sources is unacceptable, because even a cursory knowledge of reality proves them foolish.
Wouldn't the journalistic equivalent of a fluffer be an fact checker? They're the ones who make sure a story stands up.
Why does Rubin deserve criticism? That's a big accusation to throw out there, Mrs. Meade. What exactly do you not like about Rubin's analysis? For the record, I'm usually not a big fan of Rubin's. But I'm not sure what's wrong with what she wrote the other day. As has been pointed out, an Islamic terror group claimed credit for the bombing in Oslo. Rubin didn't know that it wasn't true at the time. And once she found out, she addressed the issue. This is in comparison to Paul Krugman who blamed blamed Jared Loughner on Sarah Palin with zero evidence and then refused to back down when it was clear there was no evidence.
Well to follow up on Chip S's comment. As Sully has shown, any porn jargon applied to a conservative is "witty" and "edgy".
I had to look up "fluffer." To me that remark coming from anybody at Kos is the pot calling . . ., well you know.
I'm really quite sorry that word is now in my vocabulary.
I was reminded of the great sandwich treat called a fluffernutter. Then I contemplated the possible meaning of that I might find at Urban Dictionary.
Nuts. Another childhood memory disfigured.
Are there really rules when the punditocracy/blogosphere (and yes I now put them together as one continuum) on one side criticizes/ridicules/name calls the other side.
Isn't it supposed to be like this
As has been pointed out, an Islamic terror group claimed credit for the bombing in Oslo. Rubin didn't know that it wasn't true at the time. And once she found out, she addressed the issue.
I wouldn't want to introduce anything so banal as a "fact" to a pack of rabid wingnut dogs, but Rubin wrote her column after it had been reported that the shooter was a right-wing Christian terrorist.
And it took more than a day for Rubin to take note of it. In the meantime, the wingnut bitch on the rag published several other columns, so it's not as if she was out of the office.
I do realize that this won't matter to any of you, but what the hell, why not toss into the pot. You know, for old time's sake, when even opinion writers were compelled to take notice of the facts.
" when even opinion writers were compelled to take notice of the facts"
You mean like the fact that she did not suggest the attacks were carried out by "Muslims" but by "Al Qaeda" or "jihadists"?
You mean like the fact that she did not suggest the attacks were carried out by "Muslims" but by "Al Qaeda" or "jihadists"?
Which the bitch on the rag did AFTER it had been reported that the shooter was a Christian wingnut. You people just can't help but defend your own, can ya?
"I do realize that this won't matter to any of you, but what the hell, why not toss into the pot."
So to recap, she's less offensive under every metric than Paul Krugman and the other leftists who blamed the Arizona massacre on Palin and the right in general. Krugman's insane partisanship is hardly news. I mention it to point out your own personal hypocrisy. You don't by any chance have any links to your criticisms of him at the time?
Not that any of this will matter to a left nut so delusional he thinks he's in a position to lecture others. But what the hell, I'll just toss it in the pot.
First: Why does Jennifer Rubin deserve to be criticized for reading al Qaeda taking "credit" for the attack, and then discussing the ramifications of such an attack?
Second: Has the Daily Kos made it a matter of policy that they understand that Republicans had nothing to do with the attack on Rep Gilliford? Do Daily Kos writers make it a policy to attack lefties who try / tried to blame the attack on Sarah Palin? No?
then no one published in the Daily Kos has any standing for attacking someone else for "blaming the wrong party" for a terrorist attack.
Post a Comment