Actually, I think “they” is a good compromise.

“If a person wants to complain, they have a right to.” Is that really such a horrible construction?

Is the grammatically correct alternative “…., he has a right to” really in any way superior? Does it impart any more useful information? Not that I can see.

I hate SJWs (and leftists in general) as much as anyone ever has. And I’m assuredly way more of a “racist” than the timid Giraldi. So this has nothing to do with my political leanings. It just seems like a good idea on its own terms.

Even though the absence of a singular they is a mild deficiency of the English language, we must pause and ask ourselves why it is there. Could it be that there were (and are) real and immutable differences between the sexes? And are we ready to whitewash history (and reality) in the attempt to promote the most facile notion of equality?

For the record, I am willing to refer to Caitlyn Jenner (who gave a speech at my junior high school in 1976) as it, but only if he has the surgery.

But today if I were a teacher… I would tell them to “Get the hell out of here.â€�

You’d eventually get fired. The best you can do is roll your eyes and make a caustic comment. Hopefully it goes over the kid’s head.

That’s why we all come to Unz–to exercise what’s left of our free speech.

I was shocked to hear Gretchen Carlson use the white male priveledge card when she herself is an attractive blond white lady who obviously used her looks to her advantage.

Kudos to Philip to call her out.

On another note, who here thinks Megyn Kelly had to have sex with Roger Ailes to get her show? Don’t tell me she got it on talent alone.

I pass as a dear old lady but think you guys are wonderful. Keep it up!

I’m conflicted here. Carlson obviously owes some of her success to her striking good looks. Ailes, working from the Van Gordon Sauter “infotainment” playbook, is known for hiring eye candy. If the allegations against Ailes are true, the man’s a slob. It’s not clear to me if his alleged propositions were a way of forcing her out. Did he not know she was married?

I’ve worked with two workplace womanizers. Both severely damaged workplace trust. One manager resorted to embezzlement to hold on to his workplace honey.

When working with a beautiful woman, I try to find a good moment to ask lightly: “You taking any compliments today?” followed by something like, “You’re a very good-looking woman. Let’s make this project work.” It seems to put them at ease.

“On another note, who here thinks Megyn Kelly had to have sex with Roger Ailes to get her show?”

Which begs the question, who got the short end of the stick. Seriously, Megyn’s total pay package is reputedly $9m per annum … I might do Ailes for that action.

Collateral damage is an example of objectification.

Roger Ailes is the inspiration for Jabba the Hutt. Fox news is an abomination. Rupert Murdoch is in the service of evil. The Fox News bimbos are at least decorative. There. I objectified them.

So what do you do about all those languages in which the word for “they” is also gender specific? Every western Indo-European language I’m familiar with is gender saturated. Only English is relatively neutral and hence more subject to PC manipulation.

Mr Giraldi,

this piece reminded me of another one, that-s worth reading and has an unforgettable finale> http://www.city-journal.org/html/how-my-friends-and-i-wrecked-pomona-college-14331.html

[Which begs the question, who got the short end of the stick]

It only has one free end, and the girl with the silly name got that, for sure.

I usually write about foreign policy and boring stuff like that but for the moment I cannot think of anything more empowering to the human race than changing a singular pronoun to a plural pronoun and then pretending that the plural pronoun is actually singular.”

Pretending things is the trend now, more than ever.

Seriously folks, is there any end to this nonsensical victimhood culture where everyone has a grievance that can be pursued?

Everyone? Who is an everyone? Men don’t get to do this, White feminist women get to claim endless, bullshit grievance and all of it involves cash and prizes. I don’t see Black women doing this much of this. Hispanics? Nope. Homo-men? Not so far. This is the tried-and-true method of cashing out for aging, has-been White Feminist women in media. The unmitigated gall of a woman suing for being gazed at who made her fortune solely because she was a good looking object (we all saw those short-short skirts you voluntarily donned, Gretchen) is an breathtaking. She sucked up attention, money and esteem based on her looks, period. She was a potted plant, a ventriloquist’s dummy in dirty bleach.

She was never a serious writer or journalist or beat reporter. She was a good looking broad a long time ago who was in the right time and place when news outfits had to have women. And that’s it. Media is loaded with them, they’ve wormed their way into news, entertainment and they’ve infested even my beloved football and golf like a persistent rash and they’re morons and why? Feminism, and they’re all White Feminists with a media “degree”. Meanwhile, Gretchen and the rest of her ilk are well past their stale dates now and they’re trying to shake a little nuisance money from the tree and the label and complaint is “objectification”. Justice would be to tell her and all the other spoiled White women to be happy that they once were objectified. Jesus H. Christ in a hand basket, when does this end?

Seriously folks, is there any end to this nonsensical victimhood culture where everyone has a grievance that can be pursued?

No. And the reason is that it pays well. Even the rulers of the world can pose as victims, form cliques, and succeed like you wouldn’t believe.

“There’s no business like the victim business.”

BTW, your first three paragraph are exceptional gems.

So many snowflakes, too little heat.

Why should we, non-SJWs, non-non-binary, adjust our language to make THEM (“you people” – where appropriate) more comfortable?

HE or she needs to just get over it, along with the black radical activists who just spread mayhem and lawlessness (Shaun King, et. al.)

I’m sure the left’s Muslim allies will have no problem altering their various languages for the cause of gender identity justice.

Why do conservative types feel compelled to defend sexual harassment?

the crude comments are pretty revolting

Geez, what a flaming pussy you are, Giraldi, you limp-wristed whiner! Get over yourself! Carlson has ALWAYS made it on her looks. She even ran for Miss amerika what the hell do you think she won that on, her IQ? And leftists aren’t “progressive”, they are regressive! Just look at the women on FOX (which I no longer watch) – almost every one of them is a bottle blond if they aren’t a real blond. They know they are there as eye-candy as much as to try and add something to the conversation. Carlson’s lawsuit is BS like her talent. All she has are her looks and everyone who worked with her knew it.

The SJWs in Sweden are working to get rid of “han and hon” (he and she). Can’t remember what the replacement is. ‘De’ is the gender neutral term for they. Dunno if that’ on the way out, too.

“My friend ate a bagel. They beamed with perfect joy.� Both of them??

I didn’t suggest doing it to make them more comfortable; I called it a good idea in its own right. I’ve felt uncomfortable having to use a generic “his” or “he” in those contexts ever since grade school. It’s always struck me as grammatically – not morally – wrong. Of course, it isn’t actually grammatically wrong at all, but so what? Grammars evolve, and at least in this restricted sense, I believe it’s high time English grammar did.

Hen.

Getting social justice in America is like finding a needle in a garbage dump facility. America “social justice” like its “democratic values” is also for export only – or a tool to bring regime change in a non-friendly country.

In April 2016, a group of Palestinians affected by Zionist regime’s ‘land grab’ activities filed a $34.5 billion lawsuit against US Jewish Oligarchs, Jewish charities, and pro-Israel Christian groups supporting West Bank illegal Jewish settlements. The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court of Columbia in the United States. The lawsuit was filed by Washington-based law firm Martin McMahon and Associates.

The plaintiffs include Susan Abulhawa, a prominent American Palestinian writer, author, human rights activist, and blogger, and Bassim Tamimi, who has been incarcerated and tortured numerous times by the Israeli security thugs for staging peaceful weekly protests.

According to a statement issued by the law firm, the lawsuit is against construction companies, security firms, real estate agencies and private banks involved in supporting the growth of Israeli settlements in the Jewish occupied West Bank.

The case will also include Palestinians subjected to Israeli attacks which resulted in the loss of life, property and agricultural land in Palestinian Authority controlled areas.

The defendants include prominent pro-settlement Jewish oligarchs such as casino tycoon and political donor Sheldon Adelson, bingo tycoon Irving Moskowitz, and evangelic pastor John Hagee, and the US tax exempt charities like Christian Friends of Israeli Communities and Friends of the Israeli Army…..

https://rehmat1.com/page/26/?archives-list&archives-type=months

Why do you think “they” is a good idea in its own right? That word is, or used to be, reserved for referring to two or more people. How is it helpful to have a word that refers both to two or more people and one person of indeterminate gender? That’s confusing.

Some people are willing to go to any length to solve the nonexistent problem of using the male pronoun when you don’t know whether the person in question is male or female. And “they” is marginally better than “he or she.” But if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. “He” is perfectly fine on its own, and “they” confuses me.

This isn’t evolution, by the way. Maybe it will be eventually, after people forget. But for now it’s being pushed deliberately, for reasons other than convenience, or whatever you think it is. It’s more like eugenics.

English has a singular “they.” It’s called “he.”

“If a person wants to complain, they have a right to.� Is that really such a horrible construction?

“If one wants to complain, one has a right to” is already available and is superior. You’re just being a pinhead. SJW’s are not asking permission to use “they” or “one,” they are demanding that anyone who uses “he” be fired. Plus, they are not thinking about your example, they want it to be mandatory to say: “When Donald Trump ordered lunch, they got a taco bowl.” “They” referring to Donald Trump.

Why do you hate America?

“If a person wants to complain, they have a right to.� Is that really such a horrible construction?

How about, “If people want to complain, they have a right to”?

Why do you hate America?

Did you stop beating your wife?

Lawfare at its most virulent; did you see where the Israelis are suing Facebook (founded by gazillionaire Marc Zuckerberg) for allegedly providing a forum for Hamas. Give the izzies credit for knowing where the money is. And just imagine the lawyer jobs that will result. Absolutely hilarious!

What about “IT.”

The bagel agreed.

Giraldi touches on two different issues here. Carlson’s complaint is that the work environment encouraged the men at FOX to act like teenage boys deriding her with blatant remarks and sexual innuendo. Their behavior diminished her value as a broadcaster and an employee. Since the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings that kind of environment has been discouraged by responsible employers. Obviously, FOX isn’t a responsible. And that could be due to management/Ailes’ attitude toward Carlson. If she has proof that Ailes propositioned her, he’s toast. Let the lawyers and the courts sort that out.

As to the other issue, I have encountered the “gender neutral” culture at my church. Suddenly, asking if a baby or toddler is a boy or a girl is no longer politically correct. These folks try to foist the myth that there’s no difference between the genders. That’s BS. Two years ago, my daughter gave birth to fraternal twins – a boy and a girl. Same womb, two minutes apart. While very much alike, they have different interests. Already he’s into trucks and cars, but wants his blue dynasaur when he goes to bed. She prefers other toys like dolls and stuffed animals and wants her pink dynasaur when she goes to bed.

The politically correct crowd wants to impose “sexual neutrality” on the majority for the benefit of a minority transgender demographic, forgetting that children and adults identify their sexuality at various ages. Let’s not create a politically correct “neutral culture” regarding sexual identity. After all, some people don’t discover their sexual identity until their 20’s , 30’s, 40’s or even older. Also, men and women in same sex relationships are still men and women. Their sex hasn’t changed. They aren’t neutral, neither are straight men and women.

The use of “singular they” in sentences like “every student completed their homework” actually has a venerable heritage. You can find its use in Shakespeare. It was schoolmarms in the 19th century who decided “every student” had to be singular and thus be followed by a singular pronoun. Semantically, however, “every student” isn’t really singular, i.e. it does not refer to a specific individual. Instead, it refers to a non-specified member of a set, i.e. the set of all students, which is plural. So there is an implied plurality in the phrase “every student”, which justifies the use of the plural pronoun “they”.

Your second example, however, does show a truly innovative use of “they”. In sentences like “my friend ate a bagel; they beamed with perfect joy,” the pronoun does refer to a specific individual. My own intuition is that this is ungrammatical. It remains to be seen whether people will adopt “they” to refer to a specific individual of unspecified gender, but I do think it’s more likely to be adopted than coinages like “ze” and “zer”.

I read recently that a group of young women objected to being referred to a “guys� by a waitress. They were however at a loss as to what an appropriate term might be. In fact “gals� is the traditional feminine of “guys� but was banished maybe forty years ago by women who preferred to think of themselves as men.

The Romans didn’t put up with such bullshit. Latin, and the languages derived from it, have gendered nouns. “Educated” people should know that a female graduate is an alumna, a male graduate an alumnus.

Why don’t the little college SJWs get their panties into knots over that?

“The Romans didn’t put up with such bullshit. Latin, and the languages derived from it, have gendered nouns. ”

Yeah, but look what happened to the Romans … wait a minute, the Germanic languages also have gendered nouns.

Churchill said it best: “The masculine embraces the feminine.”

He was speaking off the cuff, too, during a Suez debate, of all things. Yet is there anything in the entire feminist or “social justice” corpus half as pithy, or even half as human?

The women writers I respect all seem to use the old way without a problem.

But then, every dog has their day…

In fact “gals� is the traditional feminine of “guys� but was banished maybe forty years ago by women who preferred to think of themselves as men

Funny, I grew up thinking “gals” was rather crude, almost street, and even “woman” was less preferable than “lady”. So I was shocked to move to the Upper Midwest thirty years ago and hear everybody use “gal” pretty generically.

“Every student” is singular because it agrees with singular verbs: “every student is,” not “every student are.” In quantitative expressions the quantified noun determines the number of the entire expression. “Every student,” “each student,” “one student,” “no student,” “any student,” etc. are singular; “all students,” “two students,” “no students,” “any students,” etc. are plural.

Have not you read Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’? Marc Zuckerberg is one thousands of Jew Shylocks who would sell their mothers for money.

How lunatic, American Jews are suing Facebook for $I billion for allowing Hamas that has killed 100-times less Jews than Israeli Jews have killed Palestinians on whose land they’re living forcefully.

So why did Shakespeare write things like this?

“‘Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o’erhear the speech.”

Will you argue that Shakespeare did not understand the grammar of his own language?

In this case them refers to a different, implied noun (mothers). You’re right that generic expressions like “a mother” and “every student” can imply the existence of a group, but that doesn’t mean you can treat the expressions themselves as grammatically plural. No one would write, “A mother are partial to their son.”

Since the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings that kind of environment has been discouraged by responsible employers

No, that kind of environment has always been discouraged by responsible employers. There was a time when many companies wouldn’t let their workers even date while botg were employed.

This idea that underlings are fair game dates from the sexual revolution, not traditional mores.

Why do conservative types feel compelled to defend sexual harassment?

Fighting harrassment is not the job of the state, but of the male relatives.

but Crum goes much farther than that…

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/further-versus-farther

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/further-versus-farther?page=1

I agree that “a mother are partial to their son” sounds wrong. But “every mother is partial to their son” sounds right, or at least acceptable to me. Some theoretical linguists argue that, in the second example, the pronoun “their” is not really a referential pronoun at all, but what’s called a “bound variable”. I.e. we have to construe the sentence as the following statement in logic: “for every mother X, X is partial to X’s son.” The word “their” is simply standing in for X.

The real point is that rules of grammar are not the same as rules of logic. E.g. does the fact that classical Greek, the language of Aristotle, requires a negative sentence to negate both the verb and object mean that classical Greek is “illogical”? Hardly. Classical Greek simply has different rules of grammar from formal English. When a Greek says “oudeis ouk egno ouden” (lit. “nobody does not know nothing”) and means “nobody knows anything”, he is not being illogical, but simply following a different set of rules for mapping logical statements onto spoken form.

Fighting harrassment is not the job of the state, but of the male relatives.

This solution might work under certain circumstances of time and place and likely did at times in the past. It would be difficult to implement in a complex, mobile society where most women are in the workforce. So thanks, I can see the connection to conservatism now.

Actually, “they” has a singular form that’s gender neutral, “it.” So, the gender neutral, grammatically correct form ought to be, ““My friend ate a bagel. It beamed with perfect joy.â€� Of course, upon hearing this, it might feel a bit objectified, unless it is the bagel. But then, bagels don’t beam do they? It may take the gender neutrals a while to get used to it, but I’m sure that once they do, they’ll no longer feel objectified.

The Indo-European gender system has almost completely disappeared in Modern English. “He/she” is one of the few remaining vestiges. In many other Indo-European languages like German, Icelandic, Modern Greek, etc. it is still very much present. Reforming languages like these to get rid of gender would be such a difficult task that it probably would be a lot simpler to just forbid the use of such languages. The people in Iceland should be required to speak Chinese and give up Icelandic.

The Eskimo-Aleut languages are interesting in this regard in that some aspects of the grammar differ according as to the sex of the speaker and listener. That is if a woman is talking to a woman in some situations a different morphological form is used than when a man is talking to a man.

The evidence that behavior is influenced to any significant extent by the grammatical structure of
the language spoken is essentially non-existent despite repeated speculation along these lines.

” global warming deniers ”
This assumes that anthropogenic major climate warming is an unassailable fact and only a small number of scientifically illiterate people dissent.
This is completely untrue. I am an environmental scientist myself and can assure you that large numbers – probably a majority worldwide – dissent from this view.
Philip Giraldi is a languages graduate who became a CIA operative.
Mr Giraldi, speak about what you know best.

Yeah, I would have used that in a pre-Colbert, pre-Hannity world. Congrats on getting the joke.

This idea that underlings are fair game dates from the sexual revolution, not traditional mores.

The idea that women ought to be underlings of anyone other than their father or their husband dates from about the 19th C. Kind of like most bad ideas that way.

Your type of carefully worded approach should be encouraged – I would say taught but fear that it takes a few spare IQ points to achieve felicity – and i proffer my own long used formula for male to almost any woman. It is “and what keeps you busy?”

It avoids all presumptions about career or other possibly sensitive subject and can produce some amusing responses from relaxed and/or confident – or indeed resentful – women. Variations to taste and consider using it on possibly retired men as in “and what keeps you busy when you are not doing important things here [at the tennis club]?”

Aren’t you confused? Subordination of women to husband or father was very much 19th century.

It’s good that you can identify that confusion exists. Now, you just need to work on detecting its source.

Hint: Lots of people during the sexual revolution thought that underlings were not fair game for dates.

Hint, part deux: You have either serious reading comprehension problems or an unpleasant tendency to pretend to have serious reading comprehension problems when it suits you.

It is “and what keeps you busy?�

Let’s hope Joe Webb doesn’t take this up and put it to use. He spends too much of his time hitting on young girls as it is.

As Latin, if not Greek, was basic to serious education 150 and more years ago – and for quite a while longer in many schools – it was natural that grammatical agreement of each part of speech with every other which was inflected should infect English teaching.

Consider, incidentally, the use of lei – third person – instead of the second person pronoun in Italian as the polite mode of address. How long would it take to establish that in an egalitarian society? Or even vous for tu? Or sie for du and dich? Well, test case: how long did it take for thou to be eliminated (together with the plural “ye”)? As “you” took the place of both maybe the earnest reformers should be looking for some new word that will capture the field. If y’all can be indeterminate as to number what about “hy[e]-all”. Could it be accusative too as in “hy-all xxxxxd hy-all”?

Ugly and stoopid looking bitch.
Step into my office. You are fired!

You recognize a beautiful co-worker with a respectful, honest compliment on her looks, then quickly move to work talk. My formula’s worked for me so far. Anyone can adapt it to his personal style.

Gretchen Carlson is 50 years old. She should be flattered that a lot of guys still find her physically attractive at that age. A lot of 50 year old women no longer get complimented on their looks by men. What an ungrateful bitch.

……as well as the Second Amendment crowd, Truthers and global warming deniers coming from the right but this past week proved to be a bit too much.

Wow, I’d say Giraldi’s imtelligence and credibility took a hit with that statement. What’s wrong the the “second amendment crowd” and “global warming deniers”?

We only have a second amendment crowd because smarmy leftists have been working to gut the second amendment for decades. The global warming crazies have failed to prove their case and don’t seem to understand the earth goes through cooling and warming trends and that solar activity (sun spots, flares, etc) play a pivotal role in earth’s temperature changes. The die hards seem to forget that global warming is only a theory and not a fact.

Carlson was indeed hired in part because of her looks. It’s industry practice, it’s perfectly legal in that job. She was getting fat, her ratings went down, out the door she went.

The charge of “objectification” is dangerous to women, because that is their automatic way of perceiving other women. I am sure Carlson was objectified and maybe hated by other female hosts on that network. And she returned the favor. At least Ailes didn’t hate her, until now.

She was quite old, was getting fat and had other issues makeup could no longer cover, was looking worse than the new eye candy. Ratings down, out she goes.

How does this make Ailes a bad guy? Maybe he shouldn’t have hired her in the first place … If Carlson doesn’t go out, another woman doesn’t get a chance during her good looking years.

It’s not politically correct to ask the sex (not gender which could be any of 57 things theoretically) of the baby? We had ours 15-20 years ago, but it was certainly fine and expected then. I found that 100% of the PC baloney I had been taught evaporated starting in Lamaze class and while raising little kids. We all could see that boys and girls tended to sex typical toys. Pre-K teachers even pointed it out. When raising actual kids, and the teacher has her own kids too, we get simple and biological.

Tricky, ain’t it.

If I am expected to compliment but only like that and with so much respect … well maybe I just skip that and go straight to work. If it seems abrupt, maybe when women become a bit less dangerous to men in the workplace setting, I would dare to lighten up, which they would probably prefer. But I am not going to give only the comment on their looks they approve of. If it’s that rigorous, I refuse to play.

“Or did it apply when I was growing up Catholic and was referred to as a “mackerel snapperâ€� because we ate fish on Fridays? I don’t know and will leave that to the experts.”

As a fellow Catholic raised in NJ I found this locution puzzling. The only time I ever heard it was in reference to the Japanese. And that was in a movie.

I remember that Greg Egan used “ve” to denote a he/she/transgender in his SciFi novel “Distress”

Checking Jimbo Wales’ Entropic Grabbag of Trivia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_(novel) we indeed find:

“Egan uses his hypothetical future to postulate the existence of not just one but five new genders, and introduces a set of new pronouns for gender neutral people. One of the central characters of the novel, Akili Kuwale, provides a demonstration of this change and its implications. As an asexual human, Akili has had all reproductive organs removed entirely. Within the scope of the novel, Egan uses the pronouns ‘ve’, ‘ver’, and ‘vis’ to represent Akili’s definitive gender neutrality.”

Radical!

I didn’t say Ailes was a bad guy, or that Carlson was an innocent here. I have a headline-only view of this story, so there are plenty of facts I don’t know.

My experience is that a beautiful woman in the workplace can be skittish, insecure, induce serious cat-fighting among women, distract men. Solely because of her looks. My way of handling that worked for me, and, I think it kept me from being sandbagged by bogus harassment complaints. I suppose if there were two-headed people in the workplace I’d have to find some unobjectionable way of recognizing the obvious before getting back to work.

She has what Heartiste called the “I’d like to speak to the manager please” hairstyle.

You didn’t go into any specifics about the “second amendment crowd” or the “global warming deniers”, so based on the broad brush and snark I was left to assume you have a low opinion of most who profess these beliefs even though you’re obviously no liberal. The NRA and GOA members I’ve seen argue their case in the court of public opinion have done so with erudition and aplomb while weathering insults, hostility and ad hominem from the left wing hosts. Same with those who attempt to contradict the claims of the global warming fundamentalists.

Nevertheless, you are obviously entitled to your opinions, but it was very surprising based on some of your previous articles.

I think Roger is flattered by the attention.

I once saw a cartoon which every man should read/see. A woman in a short skirt in an office environment says to another woman who is sitting at a desk “its not harassment if he is date-able.” Ailes should have realized he is not date-able and cut out any sex talk end-of-discussion to avoid this type of result when she was fired. Given her age letting her go was in the proverbial cards.

What is ironic is how “PC feminist talk” has made Fox and Ailes miserable this year. The very first question asked at the gop debates was by Megyan Kelly taking on the persona of an agrieved left feminist essentially denouncing Trump for his sexism. After Trump slapped back the question, the crowd roared with approval. Foxnews created the gop’s anti-hero anti-establishment figure head by taking on a phony feminist outrage to undermine Trump. Fox forgot who watches their programming.

And now Carlson is using the feminist language of the left to sue him.

In this environment, I can’t get drawn into a lot of those problems between women. If they’re going to harass each other, it’s their issue. Men can be distracted. I am normal at least in this way and can be distracted too. Beyond that, it’s whatever you like. I may not be very nice but I’ve also never been in danger of any harassment complaints. A woman has to earn any acknowledgment I give, same as a man would, but if anything I am more formal with women. It’s definitely not about being a gentleman any more, unless they’re people you trust.

Or Roger Ailes was a powerful man and eminently date-able. But after rejection, and especially if they did hook up, she wants revenge.

I’ve seen too many comments that seem to think she should get a little bit, or there’s blame on both sides, etc. No I think there is zero blame on Ailes’ side even if there’s some truth to the rather mild allegations Carlson accumulated over years of working at Fox — all without complaint at the time.

And nobody should ever hire Carlson again. This nonsense has to be shut down. She’s a walking litigation risk. Furthermore I wouldn’t watch her show and try not to buy from advertisers on it.

The thing is, even if all those things had happened, these cases would still be irrelevant. “Sexual harassment” is a catch-all phrase for derailing society to suit the whims of a few women. It is a tool used by egalitarian swine to delegitimize people through victimhood, regardless of their accomplishments.

I could not care less if a man chases skirt or grabs women’s asses as long as he understands the importance of hierarchy and nationalism. Roger Ailes is not such a person, but some guy’s horniness is hardly worthy of national discussion.

It is OK for men to comment on women’s appearance. The proof of this is the lengths/$$$ women go to in order to induce or outright provoke such commentary. Also true that all women avidly want harassment from certain top-status men, except that the approved list is constanty shifting and the women are unreasonable to think they can choose their harassers ahead of time. Life is unfair, as some are challenged to realize. Carlson’s not a knockout– she certainly isn’t ugly, but her facial symmetry is a little blecch (Fox News has a standard look or quasi-Barbi template, much like the requirements of Hugh Hefner or the Gibson Girls; not all men are into it equally but it’s part of the brand). Anyway her face reminds me of one of those tiny show dogs at Westminster Kennel Club. It’s not my type, but at the same time I don’t doubt that hundreds of millions of women would literally kill & maraud in order to look more like Carlson– and she knows it. So her ego is like the Goodyear blimp at this point which is closer to rather than farther from the end of her TV career. Ailes just might be sleazy (and deluded) enough to have blurted the unprofessional remarks, but the timing makes me think Carlson was happy to have harassment on her way up and is now profit-taking before it dries up completely.

And “they� is marginally better than “he or she.� But if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. “He� is perfectly fine on its own, and “they� confuses me.

On the other hand, if it is broke, do. And that’s what I’m trying to do: fix it.

It’s happening independently of what I think anyway. If this usage of “they” is adopted, you’ll simply be shit out of luck, so I recommend you get to work if you want stop being so confused.

The French vous addressed to an individual initially confused me too. It didn’t take long for it to start sounding natural, though. That’s the beauty of human languages: they’re designed so that even the dumbest among us can understand them.

You’re just being a pinhead. SJW’s are not asking permission to use “they� or “one,� they are demanding that anyone who uses “he� be fired.

Calm down.

I’m not acceding to SJW demands. The idea is worthwhile regardless of what SJW scum think of it.

I could not care less if a man chases skirt or grabs women’s asses as long as he understands the importance of hierarchy and nationalism.

That’s ridiculous. I wouldn’t want my sister or daughter or girlfriend or wife to feel that she has to put up with that kind of behavior (in the workplace or in school; a bar is another matter).

Your damnable obstinacy is inadvertently making SJW’s case for them.

i wonder if mr. giraldi was aware of the horrors the cia engaged in when he worked there? the assassinations, disappearances, tortures, drug dealing, experimenting on unsuspecting americans, and so many more extra-constitutional depravities.
the cia ought to be closed forthwith. or, at least, return to its singularly analytical roots.
the president(dictator?)should not have a clandestine army unaccountable to any but itself.
like east germany with its stasi, america maintains a secret police.
i wonder if mr. geraldi cares?

Roger Ailes should seek authorization of the Chief Rabbi. Roger has been under a lot of pressure late;y – it is a war zone for him and FOX

” Israeli military appoints rabbi who appeared to permit rape

July 12, 2016
JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli military came under criticism Tuesday for appointing a new chief rabbi who in the past has disparaged female soldiers and once appeared to justify the rape of non-Jewish enemies.
The military said it summoned Rabbi Col. Eyal Karim over his past remarks after an outcry from lawmakers. Israel’s military rabbinate provides religious services to its soldiers and makes rulings on religious issues that affect the military.
In a 2002 post on a Jewish website, Karim responded to a user asking whether, in light of certain biblical passages, Israeli soldiers were allowed to rape enemy women. Karim wrote that the Torah allowed soldiers to satisfy “evil inclinations” during wartime because fulfilling such urges could assist soldiers and thus serve the greater good. In 2012, following an uproar over the post, Karim sought to clarify his words, saying rape is prohibited in every instance.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/israeli-military-appoints-rabbi-appeared-permit-rape-174537358.html?nhp=1″

Seriously folks, is there any end to this nonsensical victimhood culture where everyone has a grievance that can be pursued?

I just listened to a few seconds of Theresa May’s speech. It sure as hell isn’t about to end in the UK.

England is sooo screwed!

/Yeah, I know we are too.

Seems it’s actually Americans (Jews) who are suing FB.

Israeli-Americans Sue Facebook for $1 Billion over West Bank Violence
BY: Nisreen Eadeh/Staff Writer

On Monday, the relatives of four Israeli-Americans killed by Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem between 2014 and 2016 filed a lawsuit against Facebook, suing for $1 billion. The families are accusing the social media company of facilitating the attacks carried out by Hamas militants.

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, despite the fact that the attacks took place in occupied Palestinian territories, not the U.S. They argued that Facebook “knowingly provided material support and resources to Hamas… to communicate, recruit members, plan and carry out attacks, and strike fear in its enemies.�

The Lawsuit

The plaintiffs were able to file the case under the 1992 Anti-Terrorism Act, which prohibits American businesses from providing any material support to groups defined as terrorists by the U.S. State Department. Hamas was designated a terrorist organization in 1997 by the U.S., and claimed responsibility for one of the four attacks brought forth in the case. The plaintiff’s Israeli lawyer claims that there are “expert assessments� connecting Hamas to the other three attacks.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, responded to the lawsuit, calling it an attempt to blackmail Facebook and use the social networking website to spy on Palestinians. Abu Zuhri argued that Israeli politicians and citizens use Facebook to express pride and advocacy in the killing of Palestinians, constituting a double standard in how censorship laws are applied to people in the region.

[The Facebook group “The People of Israel demand revenge� took off at the start of the 2014 Gaza war, with over 35,000 people joining in 2 days. Members in the group called for the revenge and murder of Palestinians.]

Facebook indirectly responded to the latest lawsuit, saying, “We work regularly with safety organizations and policymakers around the world, including Israel, to ensure that people know how to make safe use of Facebook. There is no room for content that promotes violence, direct threats, terrorist or hate speeches on our platform.�

Israel’s Public Security Minister, Gilad Erdan, called Facebook and its owner, Mark Zuckerburg, a “monster� that hinders security.

Although some Israelis and Israeli-Americans are looking for anyone but themselves to blame for Palestinian anger and violence, this case is perhaps too far-stretched.

http://www.arabamerica.com/israeli-americans-sue-facebook-for-1-billion-over-west-bank-violence/?utm_source=July+13%2C+2016&utm_campaign=Arab+America+12%2F3%2F14&utm_medium=email

Singular “they” has been gaining traction for a while and most editors and style guides now recognize its use, partly due to the need for a “gender-neutral” singular pronoun and partly due to historical use of “they” in this way. There are examples in the literature dating back centuries and among famous writers. The main thing that’s changed is its recognition as an acceptable usage.

See John McIntyre’s article about it in the Baltimore Sun: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/language-blog/bal-singular-they-the-editors-decision-20150410-story.html

Thanks for the link to the case, Rehmat.

Susan Abulhawa was at Sunday’s DC screening of the film “Occupation of the American Mind: Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States”
See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/the-occupation-of-the-american-mind-documented/#sthash.kyydRx6c.dpuf

http://www.occupationmovie.com/

You write with the charm of a novel argument Mr. Giraldi, impressed, I must add, with the stamp of a damn good thinker. I attempt to examine whatever you write with an open but critical mind, and, to a great extent, usually agree. Although you offer here an interpretation of “social justice lunacy” with a penetration that exceeds most commentators, I must bluntly reject the idea that it is something exploited against only “Caucasian male domination”, “Caucasian” being the questionable qualifier. Bill Cosby has been publicly overwhelmed by the “social justice lunacy” mob, and, in objective respect, he ain’t no Caucasian. “Male is their key qualifier, at least at this point. The male animal is their object, and, as such, he, I mean, “they”, has got to be eliminated
”
According to a recent report by a research group at John Hopkins School of Medicine, 250,000 Americans die each year from medical blunders and safety lapses. Let me emphasize that horrifying, hard-to believe statistic: 25o,000, each year! – – – – 250,000! – – – – each year!

Talk about human objectification! Now that is certainly something to scream about!

Today Canadians probably have an excess of this sort of thing too, possibly even worse than here as they suffer from the social justice bug even more than we Americans do

I wonder what’s the agenda of Powercorporation and friends is for Georgia, Ukraine, and the Balkans (oh, and IRAN!! soon), as we Canadians are now asked to work for the European Union and ”defend the rights” of people there??? Powerconcentration (its politicians) have done drastic cuts to education, health care budgets, daycare and elders budgets, while preaching rights for almost every possible minority. Powercorp systematically gags ordinary people and inundate them with propaganda, lies and manipulation to justify useless interventions in the countries mentioned above… and not a word on Libya. We were supposed to be there to defend human rights.

Thanks for the clarification RobinG. Two things are certain, 1) these superfluous law suits will clog the American court system for years on end, and 2) jayish lawyers will become wealthy for having done so. America is no longer sovereign.

An older lady at the grocery store the other day called me “honey”. I thought that was sweet.

cia = close it already

“My friend ate a bagel. They beamed with perfect joy.�

Phil, “We” are not amused.

What a royal pain.

…but this “objectificationâ€� was clearly something new and exciting.

Eh? Have you been living in a 6′ cabin in Montana? You can’t even tangentially interact with the political left without hearing this radfem jargon.

Its bread and circuses for the masses in order to keep them from the important things like the levers of power.

I came to see if Philip Giraldi is talking Turkey since there is a coup underway. I’m curious to hear his opinion and analysis on the situation. It looks like the Turkey deep state has had enough of Erdogan. Why now?

We have a perfectly acceptable compound pronoun which is already in the English language and cannot help but satisfy everybody and lead to a Monad objectification therefore making it vanish into lean air. It is…

She He It thereby encompassing all possible states, utterly non-objective. Again

Sheeeeeee Heeeeeeeee Ittttt and of course has a familiar Southern inflection:

Shee- eeeee – it Love it

We can use it to signify Mr. Ailes and we can use it to signify Mz. Carlson. We can use it to
signify you, and to signify me. And it is completely nonobjective, as it also signifies Nothing!

Have not you read Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’?…How lunatic, American Jews are suing Facebook for $I billion for allowing Hamas that has killed 100-times less Jews than Israeli Jews have killed Palestinians on whose land they’re living forcefully.

Some how I doubt you have read anything in english. Your last sentence was clearly google translated from urdu.

I despise the whole SJW thing, but when writing I have often felt the need for a gender neutral third person singular. Plenty of other languages don’t have separate words for “he” and “she”, so it’s not like it’s some kind of linguistic requirement. English has already lost most of its original Indo-European gender distinctions, and its pronouns have also undergone significant change in the fairly recent past (e.g., the loss of “thee” and “thou”). Using “they” and “them” in place of “he/she” and “him/her” wouldn’t be that different from losing the second person singular/plural distinction — i.e., not really that big a deal. So I guess I’m OK with it. If it catches on it will always sound kind of strange to me, but at least “they” is a real English word, not some invented monstrosity like “ze.”

The Jew Murdock is apparently dumping Roger Ailes over some NY Jew political correctness about sexual harassment.

Ailes has made that Jew billions of dollars and a few days after the accusations he is gone. NO defense – no standing by your guy – after all he is not a Jew – screw him.

What ingratitude —- never ever ever trust a Jew.

Singular they is useful, language changes and it’s hilarious that you have a problem with it.

As for the rest of your screed. If I were a billionaire, I would hire men and women to treat certain outspoken white men the way that minorities and women are treated. It seems some people lack imagination, empathy and compassion.

On Monday an innocent black man lying on the ground with his hands in the air was shot, hand cuffed, and left to bleed for 20 minutes before the ambulance arrived. But God forbid anyone get upset by that though. Right?

I’m sure it’s been said many comments ago but “My friend ate a bagel. They beamed with perfect joy” means that both the friend and the bagel beamed with perfect joy.