Oh Chris Cillizza, You FUCKING Shitheel
Discover more from Wonkette
Oh Chris Cillizza, You FUCKING Shitheel
makes more money than you
John Cole over at the nice Balloon Juice website fucking called it. A couple hours ago, he published a thing noting that the front page of CNN featured the image just below, which linked to Chris Cillizza, the stupidest hack in the entire kingdom of hacks, doing a #HotTake on the awful Harvey Weinstein sexual assault revelations (which are getting awful-er by the hour ) by making it all about how nasty woman Hillary Clinton still hadn't answered the hard-hitting #journalism question, "Do you think rape and sexual abuse are bad?" Goddamn her for not getting back to Chris Cillizza in a timely manner!
Screengrab stoled from Balloon Juice
Cole noted exactly what Cillizza's game is here:
Make no mistake, this is no “analysis” as he has it labeled. And the thing you need to realize is Cillizza KNOWS that Clinton doesn’t support rape and sexual assault, he just wants make her respond. It’s him using his forum to make her jump -- he might as well be saying “Dance, mad bitch, dance,” because we all know that if she does respond, Cillizza’s next piece will be “what took her so long” and “was she sincere” and so on.
Well wouldn't you know it, but not long after Cillizza hit "publish" on the LiveJournal trash he inexplicably gets paid the big bucks to produce, Hillary Clinton made a statement on Harvey Weinstein:
"I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein," Clinton said in a statement through her spokesman Nick Merrill. "The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior."
Good. We done here? NOPE, because what did Cole say up there about how Cillizza's next piece would be "what took her so long"? The only thing he got wrong is that Cillizza didn't write a "next piece," he merely CHANGED THE FUCKING HEADLINE OF HIS ORIGINAL PIECE to reflect that Clinton had finally acceded to his wishes by releasing a statement, but that she had done so INCORRECTLY:
Hey, what can he say? He's a one-trick pony, and it's a dumb fucking trick.
Also, he haaaaates Hillary Clinton for some reason, just like he hates Nancy Pelosi for some reason. We'd call it a weird manifestation of deep-seated sexism possibly rooted in feelings of severe inadequacy, but ... nah fuck it, why not let's just call it that!
Now, we know what's likely rolling around in that weird-shaped head of his. Since Cillizza went to the Chuck Todd School For Kids Who Can't Journalism Good And Want To Learn How To Do Other Stuff Good Too, this is probably his proof that BOTH SIDES DO IT, because hey, President Donald Trump might be an admitted sex slimer, but did you hear about Harvey Weinstein? AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, #WhatAbout Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama BUT MOSTLY HILLARY CLINTON, who didn't comment on the Harvey Weinstein allegations on Chris Cillizza's holy schedule?
Jesus man, go fuck yourself.
On Monday, we noted all the men on the internet blaming all the various women for the actual sex crimes committed by Harvey Weinstein. Remember this one?
And this one?
Congratulations, Chris Cillizza, your #HotTakes are equally as hot as the ones leaking out of Julian Assange's and Dildo Stump Junior's assholes. Your mom should be proud.
Scanning Cillizza's Twitter feed for more wisdom, we found something else to make fun of for no other reason beyond pure meanness:
He is proud of ... that ? Good Christ, Wonkette wouldn't even award that headline a participation trophy . That's the sort of hed we put on our drafts while we are writing them , wait, no we don't, because not even our placeholders are that lame.
When, oh when, will CNN stop pissing away its money on this shit?
Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT HERE. Also, this is youropen thread!
Oh Chris Cillizza, You FUCKING Shitheel
OK, two things, just my opinion and in reverse order:1) Your objection to the phrases "in such a fashion" and "regardless of wealth or status" is either tone deaf or deliberate misdirection. Obama was our last president, (and probably capable of writing his own speeches, BTW) so I take these nuances as being barbs aimed at Trump. Trump was busted (during the campaign) for bragging about demeaning women "in such a fashion" and is currently still avoiding consequences of consequence due to his wealth and status. Trump won't notice, but those around him will, like Corker.and 2) "...perhaps awaiting permission from Hillary ..." - is this an attempt at humor? I thought my sense of humor was peculiar, but this is too much.
"Relative Motion"?! I've taught undergraduate physics on and off for thirty years and what you're saying makes no sense. There is no evidence that Einstein published anything in this supposed Relative-Motion-but-not-Relativity before his work on Relativity (http://www.einstein-website.... Furthermore, the mechanics of Relative_Motion was already understood hundreds of years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... BY GALILEO. You strike me as somebody who saw a shiny mirage once and now want to tell me about all the exotic fruit growing along the shores of a magnificent lake.
The reason that Mileva Marić's work has been "forgotten" is that there is no solid evidence for it. It's all based on conjecture, and sometimes, as in the citation I posted above, mistranslation or misinterpretation. Wrap yourself in that book you can't lay your hands on right now instead of rebutting the arguments in that article. It's not a good look for you.
Now, I give a shit about this and I am writing this screed out because (a) I've taught undergrad physics off and on for thirty years, (b) I've published a couple of research papers debunking junk science that has propagated in the public sphere because it resonated with people's confirmation bias, and (c) I strongly believe that fake news should be confronted regardless of who spreads it, even when it's something I myself truly, truly wish were true. Yours is just another tired example, posed by someone based on shaky circumstantial evidence, looking to sell books.
Speaking of gender discussions in undergraduate settings, I was in a reading group with my faculty peers some years ago and one of the books -- by a pre-eminent feminist scholar -- repeated the old canard (originally published in that renowned scientific journal Time Magazine around 1970; sorry I can't find it online) that women's marathon times will one day catch up with men's. A few problems with this conclusion. a) It is based on a simple linear extrapolation of world records vs year, a model according to which we will one day run ZERO-HOUR MARATHONS.b) The date projected for women catching up (mid-1980s, I believe) had already long expired.This was another great example of confirmation bias. The feminist (BTW I'm a feminist, too) writer bought into it without asking sufficiently pointed questions (See bullet (a).) and included it in her book even though it was totally irrelevant to her agenda.
This is the sort of bullshit you will hear about gender in your undergraduate colleges, even in a faculty reading group co-sponsored by women in the sciences, none of whom raised a peep when I pointed out the flaws in this model.
/tl;dr. I have a low tolerance for bullshit. If you wish to make your argument, please rebut my sources and/or provide your own. I don't care about some hypothetical book you lent to your girlfriend in Canada./dick joke