re: Support for Cecil Hurt

quote:

---

You need to give up. BamaChick straight up exposed you when you tried to make the argument that Cecil Hurt hasn't gone after Finebaum, Cowherd, and Kannell. She gave you concrete evidence that he has, and there was no backlash at all in those cases.

---

Cecil went after them by questioning their journalism? Tweeting about everything being fine on a show unless Kannell is there isn't the same as saying Dinnich isn't qualified.

Difference between Cecil's previous comments against other Alabama trolls was that he made it personal against Dinnich.

quote:

---

The criticism now being leveled at Hurt by journalists, twitter idiots, and yourself is explicitly based on the presumption that he is sexist. Inherent in that argument is that their issue with his statements is that they were leveled at a woman.

---

Other people's criticism might be based in the inclination that he's sexist. I can't speak for that. It seems that most of his colleagues and fellow journalists are criticizing him for being unnecessarily dickish.

That's where my criticism of Cecil comes from. You don't question another journalist's qualifications if you don't agree with them. If their opinions are different, you don't immediately jump on saying they can't do their job. That's just illogical.

Cecil knows this. It's why he's tweeted that he should have stopped before he tweeted and thought about what he was going to say. It's why he's walked back the way in which he responded to Dinnich's comments but not his criticism of Dinnich's comments.

There isn't a sexist part of this. At least not to me. It's a professionalism thing. If you're a journalist who has years of experience, you should know that questioning someone's qualifications over a disagreement of opinion is just wrong.

quote:

---

I've never liked Hurt and I don't give a shite about the situation to be honest. But you're embarrassing yourself by taking on the role of White Knight (widely regarded as sexist, I might add) and continuing to argue even after the main crux of your argument has been proven fallacious.

---

The main point of my argument has been proved fallacious?

From the start, my argument has been that Cecil made a mistake by making a difference of opinion, a personal issue. I don't know whether or not it was based in sexism or not. Quite frankly, we don't have enough here to say that Cecil is a sexist and that's quite frankly wrong to label him as a sexist.

I know some people on Twitter are trying to make it a sexist thing and white knighting. That's not what I've done from the start. I'm saying that Cecil is wrong and shouldn't be defended because he was being a dick and he knows it. That's why he's said it was something he shouldn't have tweeted.

I'll give you an example. Let's say Cecil is a person who worked in the scientific community and his expertise is studying a potential cancer drug. Heather is another person who also works in the field and makes a statement that the new potential cancer drug should be looked at more closely due to side effects. Cecil takes issue with that and Tweets/responds by saying that Heather is unqualified. That would be nonsense and an incredibly immature way to deal with that. If Cecil said he disagreed and that he thought Heather's opinion was severely flawed, that would be completely fine.

Point I'm making is that Cecil is a professional journalist. He's a professional. He's not a message board poster. He's not some random person on Twitter. There's a certain level of maturity that you would expect from a professional.