N
nwebster
Guest
>
> It's not an attack to indicate someone's sexual orientation.
> If it was "dirty lesbian," I'd be in agreement with you.
>
I don't know. Mentioning her purported sexual orientation in this context seems to serve no purpose but to attempt to discredit her, as does referring to her as a libertarian. Apparently, neither is accurate. However, mentioning her purported political position in the context of political talk radio is arguably relevant. If we were talking about her books dealing with sexuality and sexual issues, then her own sexual orientation would be relevant. But her purported sexual orientation in the context of talk radio is not relevant.
I also think there would be a far different reaction if someone criticizing AAR's morning drive program referred to Rachel Maddow's sexual orientation.
> It's not an attack to indicate someone's sexual orientation.
> If it was "dirty lesbian," I'd be in agreement with you.
>
I don't know. Mentioning her purported sexual orientation in this context seems to serve no purpose but to attempt to discredit her, as does referring to her as a libertarian. Apparently, neither is accurate. However, mentioning her purported political position in the context of political talk radio is arguably relevant. If we were talking about her books dealing with sexuality and sexual issues, then her own sexual orientation would be relevant. But her purported sexual orientation in the context of talk radio is not relevant.
I also think there would be a far different reaction if someone criticizing AAR's morning drive program referred to Rachel Maddow's sexual orientation.