The metaphor you use is
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2025 9:41 am
"Zero percent research and one hundred percent prejudice"
That means, dear Ms. Blumer, that your total criticism is based on zero percent research and one hundred percent prejudice. It is a particularly lousy piece of demeaning journalism that, in your opinion, no one appreciates anymore. already revealing: that of a pit bull that bites and tears apart everything with its drooling lips. With this animalistic nigeria rcs data image, you dehumanize the old white man you are presenting with a single, clear attribution. In today's heated gender debate, no comparison is too extreme for the Tagi media editor to verbally denigrate a "privileged" man. Conversely, a man who described a woman in a similar way would rightly be torn to pieces. That is why no man today would dare to use similarly degrading vocabulary. But in the emotionally charged #MeToo climate, even the most extreme verbal insults are apparently permissible if you can get the most prominent example of the exploitative gender in front of the lens.
You also strongly condemn TV interviews in which, according to your view, every guest is deliberately frightened in order to expose him and ultimately even make him "stutter". By means of such distorted images, you declare this form of journalism to be dead. It is only practiced by scattered remnants from the distant year of 1968, to which you count me with an explicit age statement.
That means, dear Ms. Blumer, that your total criticism is based on zero percent research and one hundred percent prejudice. It is a particularly lousy piece of demeaning journalism that, in your opinion, no one appreciates anymore. already revealing: that of a pit bull that bites and tears apart everything with its drooling lips. With this animalistic nigeria rcs data image, you dehumanize the old white man you are presenting with a single, clear attribution. In today's heated gender debate, no comparison is too extreme for the Tagi media editor to verbally denigrate a "privileged" man. Conversely, a man who described a woman in a similar way would rightly be torn to pieces. That is why no man today would dare to use similarly degrading vocabulary. But in the emotionally charged #MeToo climate, even the most extreme verbal insults are apparently permissible if you can get the most prominent example of the exploitative gender in front of the lens.
You also strongly condemn TV interviews in which, according to your view, every guest is deliberately frightened in order to expose him and ultimately even make him "stutter". By means of such distorted images, you declare this form of journalism to be dead. It is only practiced by scattered remnants from the distant year of 1968, to which you count me with an explicit age statement.