I don’t use Twitter very often. This blog auto-populates to my account, and every once in a while, when the mood strikes me, I’ll engage with the particularly egregious who have the potential to amuse, or who just say something so obtuse, that it cannot go unchallenged. This was my intent when I questioned a particular Twitter user about her contention that the Telnaes cartoon portraying Ted Cruz’s little daughters as organ grinder’s monkeys was funny.
— Nicki (@Nicki_F) December 24, 2015
What ensued was a conversation that was so absurd, that at times I couldn’t believe it was real! It started with her claiming that the Univision incident was “criminal.” The response continued with an absurd fashion criticism comparison, and concluded with the claim that the First Lady can’t abuse her power to ensure an “art critic gets cut.” Of course, when a television talk host makes such an ostensibly racist comparison about the First Lady, Mrs. Obama doesn’t have to do anything. Her position alone ensures sufficient outrage that forced the station to fire him and prompted him to write a letter of apology, lest his career swirl the drain. But that Anna Faktorovich doesn’t acknowledge those facts, and the subsequent conversation went something like this (paraphrased, with my commentary in red):
Me (in response to her “fashion criticism” comment): Crack pipe. Put it down.
Anna: I don’t drink alcohol and have never used any illegal substances. You’re the one laughing at people getting fired…
Me (completely flummoxed at that contention): Dafuq? You’re obviously stoned. Where did I laugh at anyone? Идиотка (translation from Russian: idiot)
Anna: WAAAAAAH! You insulted my Russian heritage!
I had looked up this person and discovered that she was born in Moscow and is the owner of some obscure publishing house. I figured speaking to her in Russian was a nice touch. I also repeated my question, because I still couldn’t figure out where in the world she got the idea that I laughed at anyone getting fired, but apparently, Anna doesn’t like to answer questions when she’s caught lying. Instead she decided the best way to prove she wasn’t an idiot wasn’t by defending her position, but rather waving her sheepskin for all to see.
— Anna Faktorovich (@AnnaFaktorovich) December 25, 2015
It’s quite obvious they’ll give anyone a Doctorate these days, because this one is… well… not the brightest candle on the menorah.
The next thing Anna tried to do is explain away her “fashion criticism” comparison. I will reconstruct this word spew for you from her Twitter monologue. You’ll love it.
First, you claim that you don’t understand fashion criticism; if so, you should not be attempting to criticize cartoonists or other fashion critics. (I, of course, claimed no such thing. I actually don’t give a rat’s ass about fashion criticism. I merely thought it was inappropriate to the conversation.)
If you had read even short snippets from red-carpet “best” and “worst” lists, you would notice that, as in the example I provided before, somewhat racial descriptions and insults regarding weight, hair color, and all other imperfections are essential to this linguistic genre. (Thank goodness I actually have real literature to read, instead of wasting my time on “Red Carpet” snark.)
Let’s look at this example from: http://www.eonline.com/photos/14687/worst-dressed-stars-at-the-2015-golden-globes/449140 … A.
@keiracknightley “pregnant… butterfly-print design still looks more night gown than red carpet gown” (joke about weight of pregnant woman and just mean) B. Mamet: “poorly fitted… on the red carpet!… pink frosted cake…” (classist, joke about weight) C. @MzKatieCassidy “slashed in a freak accident?” (joke about potential assault). I could go on, but I really dislike reading these. (And yet, she spent an inordinate amount of time doing so in order to – unsuccessfully – prove her point)
To sum up, negative “worst-dressed” fashion criticism and political cartoons are supposed to be brutal. It’s at the root of their generic formula; a topic I published a couple of McFarland books about. (Note the immediate reference to her alleged published work in order to bolster faltering credibility.)
Secondly, I stated that
@FLOTUS could not retaliate because she had power, not because she did not. Humans did not evolve from “apes” but we did evolve in Africa and at some point all humans had black skin before some developed a pigment deformation. The film “Planet of the Apes” is an example of idiotic Hollywood mutations of reality. People cannot devolve into apes in the future because we never evolved from them. If somebody had given this film some brutal criticism in pre-release, maybe they could’ve improved this. (Fiction. I wasn’t sure whether I should inform her that Star Wars wasn’t real either, and that a wookie is not actually a real species. I also wasn’t sure if she understood the concept of humans’ and apes’ common ancestors, but I didn’t want to confuse the poor girl.)
@rodnerfigueroa said that she looked like she was in the “cast” of “Planet of the Apes.” Most of the cast members in that film were white, so why would this be interpreted as a racist joke? (Well, gosh! That’s OK, then!) He wrote a letter of apology stating that his criticism was directed at “the work of the [make up] artist, which left much to be desired…” The “apes” in the “Planet” were in costumes… unless you thought they were real? Obama had so much makeup put on her that Figueroa objected that she looked like she was built up to appear on a show about “apes” of the future. (I wonder if the mental contortions hurt.)
It’s because you fail to read into the details of a story and judge things based on your own inherent racist assumptions that you can find in the first gay man to be featured on Univision. (BUZZZZZ! Typical SJW fallback on racism!) You apparently have not seen Cruz’s ad because his children look whiter than me. So, the monkey symbolism in no way refers to their race but rather to their father’s immoral misuse of their adorable faces for his own political gain. (I also pointed out that politicians use their families in political ads all the time, such as Hillary Clinton’s “abuela” ad with her granddaughter, but Anna refused to acknowledge that fact.)
He threatened that the
@washingtonpost would lose its funding, which they need because of their dwindling readership if they did not remove the cartoon; that’s why they took it down. (Gee. They employ partisan hacks who attack little children. Wonder why their readership is on the decline!)
If all of that still confuses you, let me know and I’ll write a full article on this topic and will post it on my site.
Yeahno. I’ll pass on the full article, especially if it’s filled with the types of mental contortions present in the above spew. First she claimed that what Univision did was criminal. Then she claimed that racism is not really racism, because political cartoons (much like fashion criticism) are supposed to be mean and awful. Then she ignored the fact that the very office of the First Lady prompts the type of response (whether warranted or not) that will see a medium react to accusations of racism by firing the offender. And THEN, she claimed that Ted Cruz “threatened” the Washington Post, because the already-beleaguered paper relies on his advertising dollars.
— Nicki (@Nicki_F) December 27, 2015
This is what is considered a “threat” in the SJW world. If a newspaper runs a cartoon hostile to a candidate’s little children, and the candidate decides to take his ad dollars elsewhere, that’s apparently a threat, because the newspaper NEEDS that money!
Sense of entitlement much?
After I called Anna on her hypocrisy and lack of logical argumentation, her reply was typical. She trolled this site and accused me of lying about my degrees and veteran status, because apparently I don’t have a “single degree” listed on my site! Because that’s what you need on a personal blog – a CV!
— Nicki (@Nicki_F) December 27, 2015
At this point, I was convinced she was retarded and got her alleged PhD via some affirmative action program for slow women.
Anna: My credentials prove I’m not “retarded,” if you are is yet to be proven. If you’ve lied about having 2 degrees, you’re also a liar. (Uhhhhh… if you lied about your degrees, then you’re a lying liar who lies… or something.)
Me: Your lack of cognitive ability and comprehension skills do. As for my degrees, you’re welcome to do your research.
Anna: But… but… but… neither you nor Rob give your last names! How am I supposed to do my research, if you won’t spoon feed me information? (Kind of makes you wonder how she got a Doctorate, eh?)
Me: Not my problem, princess. See, princess – SOME of us don’t need to consistently hump our degrees to have thousands of readers. Some of us don’t have a miserable inferiority complex.
Anna: Well, if you check my website (gives URL), you’ll see I have lots of visitors, because I’m educated, and I have credentials. Because CREDENTIALS! Go visit my site! Go! I’ve had 183K visitors so far!
Me: Hmmmm. Yeah… I have 284K this year alone. Try again.
And then, Anna went full turnip.
— Nicki (@Nicki_F) December 27, 2015
Why is it that the world’s biggest morons are the ones waving their degrees around?
If this is the type of person Telnaes has defending her honor, or lack thereof, she’s in terrible trouble.