The American Mind

Malkin should take her own advice. Britney’s not the only one who’s been trading on her looks, but at least Spears isn’t held up as a pundit.

Malkin’s wise enough not to let herself get her picture taken sans underware.

So let’s look at Chet’s logic

Michelle is a beautiful woman so therefore, even though her writing is intelligent and well thought out, she must be trading on her looks to get readers. Would you say the same thing about women reading a male pundit, blogger, editorialist? No you would not. Your statement is sexist and possibly, because she is of Filipino background, racist.

I do not read editorials by someone because of their looks I read them for the content. If I disagreed with Ms Malkin or found her editorials not worth my time I would not read them or listen to vent no matter how pretty she is.

I thought we got past those stupid ideas awhile back. Guess not, as long as the left wants to find some way to discredit a rightwing editorialist they will trot out race or sex to demean and marginalize the person.

Chet you have exposed yourself in a much more interesting way than Britney Spears ever did.

So let’s look at JAH’s logic:

Chet makes an accusation regarding Michelle Malkin trading on her looks. Therefore, the entire left is racist and sexist.

This is a logical fallacy known as “guilt by association.” Here’s a newsflash, y’all–Chet does not speak for the entire left. Chet speaks for Chet.

If you keep making this gross sweeping blanket assumptions you will never be taken seriously.

“Michelle is a beautiful woman so therefore, even though her writing is intelligent and well thought out”

It’s not, though. Malkin is a terrible writer and an even worse thinker; not to mention a hypocrite on almost every issue. (Her recent book on ad hominem attacks by liberals was chock-a-block with her ad hominem attacks ON liberals.)

“Your statement is sexist and possibly, because she is of Filipino background, racist.”

That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. How do you know I’m not Filipino, too?

Malkin is an awful pundit and writer, unintelligent and vapid, and she’d have no success in the field whatsoever if not for her good-looks, which is exactly how even her supporters recommend her works. I’ve lost count of how many conservatives have told me that Malkin is worth reading because she’s easy on the eyes (which makes absolutely no sense.)

Nice try, JAH, but anybody who has actually read her knows that it’s impossible to support your claim that her writing is “well thought out.”

Chet.

I have read her and I find her to be well thought out. I said possibly racist by the way. I can support the charge of sexist though. You believe that anyone who reads her columns must do so because of her looks. That is a sexist remark.

So DJ prove me wrong right now by denouncing Chet as sexist for his obviously sexist remark towards Ms. Malkin and for using the sweeping generalization that the only reason Ms. Malkin is read is because of her looks.

I am pretty sure you won’t and that is the reason I wrote what I did and how I did. I have heard so many sweeping generaliztions of conservatives from every corner of the internet, (ever read the dailykos), that I decided to fight fire with a little fire. Guess you could not stomach having the tables turned on you could you.

I have heard so many sweeping generaliztions of conservatives from every corner of the internet

Any from me personally?

Yeah, ok.

Look dude, both sides do it; i just make a habit of trying not to as much as possible (although i confess to weakness occasionally). So, i’m gonna keep on calling out ad hominems, generalizations, red herrings, and other fallacies as long as i’m around because i’d like to see an elevation of the discourse above childish bullshit like “liberals all do this” and “conservatives all do that.”

And for the record, i DID find Chet’s comment a little strange and maybe sexist at first, but since i’ve actually read his writing on here for some time now, i was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and wait for him to explain a little more. In other words, i was interpreting his statement based on what i know of him personally, and not some phantom fairytale Liberal Collective Consciousness. You oughta try that.

“You believe that anyone who reads her columns must do so because of her looks.”

Right - because conservatives who read her column tell me that they read it for her looks.

Look, maybe you don’t. If you find her commentary intelligent and topical - well, there’s no accounting for taste. But just because you do, doesn’t mean that all of her readers do. And it’s pretty clear from her TV appearances, etc, that she’s making a considerable effort in terms of makeup and clothing to put forward an attractive appearance.

She’s an attractive woman and she employs that to her advantage. Which is fine, but it doesn’t leave her in a position to criticize others who do the exact same thing. Why is my comment “sexist” but Malkin’s isn’t? Women can be sexist to women. (Filipinos can be racist to Filipinos, too. Not sure why you missed that.)

“I have heard so many sweeping generaliztions of conservatives from every corner of the internet, (ever read the dailykos), that I decided to fight fire with a little fire.”

Which is what I knew you were doing all along - not leveling an accusation of sexism because it fit the situation, but because you’ve been called on your sexism in the past and you saw a chance to take some revenge.

Well, it’s nonsense to assert that what I said was sexist and what Malkin said was not. She trades on her looks, you can’t deny it. Spears does the same. Why should Malkin be immune to criticism for doing exactly what Spears does?

Chet wrote,

“It’s not, though. Malkin is a terrible writer and an even worse thinker; not to mention a hypocrite on almost every issue. (Her recent book on ad hominem attacks by liberals was chock-a-block with her ad hominem attacks ON liberals.)”

That’s not hypocritical if the idea is to explain how leaders in power behave.

Generally, it is perfectly fine to issue ad-hominen attacks as an American Voter and Entertainment/Politico Writer.

There’s nothing wrong with that.

It is just that people expect people in a position of power to behave professionally and leave the unprofessionalism to the opinion columnists and authors and news reporters/anchors/guests.

I read Michele Malkin for both reasons, great looking and intelligent writer.

Her commentary is usually well researched and spot on.

A lot of liberal book authors such as: Steven Crane

don’t use source material for their opinions.

At least Michele Malkin does.

Just because you are LIBERAL and Michele Malkin is CONSERVATIVE does not mean that Michele is a horrible writer.

I can be just as lame by badmouthing every single Liberal Writer in existence and saying they suck.

Another thing.

Since when have great liberal writers ever NOT been hypocritical?

Being hypocritical is not by itself enough to justify labeling a writer as a bad writer or a bad thinker as it seems to happen all too often on both sides of the aisle.

But, again, you have to be 100% specific when you make an assertion that someone is being hypocritical.

Accusing people of being hypocritical has been overplayed and overused and most people don’t really understand its true meaning any more.

Chet wrote,

“Right - because conservatives who read her column tell me that they read it for her looks.

Look, maybe you don’t. If you find her commentary intelligent and topical - well, there’s no accounting for taste. But just because you do, doesn’t mean that all of her readers do.”

I think are you are 100% wrong Chet.

People can identify that Michele Malkin has good looks. (fine)

But, no one reads a columnist if her column stinks.

If she was a poor writer, thinker, speaker as you describe her to be conservatives would generally NOT read her at all!

Simply because it doesn’t make any sense!

There’s no common sense to sit around and believe people will read through a bunch of Garbage because they liked the photo.

People won’t!

It’s like Playboy magazines.

I don’t know anyone that purchases a Playboy magazine for the sole purpose of the writing.

Yet, because people DO READ MALKIN, it is without a doubt that they are enjoying her writing and consider it engaging and informative.

And I am pretty sure DJ will continue to give CHET a pass on everything as he always does.

CHET has said much worse than making his own sexist remarks.

He’s accused Rush Limbaugh of molesting children without any evidence or proof.

DJ (as far as I could tell) never really said much about it.

Oh and we all know that DJ (LIED) on the American Mind.

DJ wrote,

“I never received a single benefit from President Bush’s tax cuts.”

I have yet to see DJ prove this.

He has refused to discuss his statement with any evidence to support it.

DJ is a flat out liar and no one can trust a single word he says on here until he addresses his statement.