I Really Despise SE Cupp

I Really Despise SE Cupp September 25, 2012

I mean really, really, really despise her. She’s like nails on a chalkboard to me. Charles Pierce highlights this clip from The Cycle, where she throws out every right-wing myth about Obama — the out of context “you didn’t build this” quote, the “collectivist” nonsense. Steve Kornacki is trying his best to be polite rather than just blurt out “you’re a fucking moron” — which she is.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you can’t see the video, follow the link above. The bottom line is that Cupp just isn’t very bright. She’s fairly glib, but she seems to be almost completely devoid of critical thinking skills. That MSNBC is promoting this person boggles the mind. And I’m not sure it’s merely a coincidence that she pronounces the word “ingenuity” the way we pronounce “ing’enue,” an entirely different word with, perhaps, an ironic meaning.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Don’t despise her. Despise the people who provide her with a platform on tv and in print.

  • ewanmacdonald

    Didn’t you hear? She’s an atheist, so we have to accept everything she says uncritically, otherwise we’re being divisive.

  • Michael Heath

    Whenever S.E. Cupp is on Bill Maher’s show I suspect after listening to her for a sentence or two she’s on because Maher either wants to get in her pants or thinks his audience does.

    Or perhaps her guest slots is how Mr. Maher demonstrates his gratefulness for prior access. He’s demonstrably loyal to those who’ve benefited him in the past; like P.J. O’Rourke who helped Maher when he was young and now gets periodic guest slots where Mr. O’Rourke is also cringe-inducingly bad. O’Rourke’s shtick used to be mildly amusing when the Republican traits he riffed-on were quaint and relatively harmless; not so funny now given those he tweaks have enormous power and are doing immeasurable harm we’ll suffer with for centuries.

    And I don’t think my speculation on Ms. Cupp is sexist. I can’t perceive Ms. Cupp getting the quality of access she enjoys now if she wasn’t considered physically attractive. In my preferred reality media consumers would never encounter her but instead people who have arguments worth considering.

  • Maybe she’ll change. Like, maybe she’ll finally repent of her (always half-assed and probably fake) atheist ways and have a HUGE evangelical publicity campaign — oops, I mean epiphany — just in time to grab national attention away from Romney’s wretched character and record.

  • jjgdenisrobert

    She’s not really an atheist. She says she is in order to fit in with the members of her religion, AynRandism. Just like so many communists in the first half of the century would claim to be atheists to fit in with their religion (I see Communism as a religion, not a political ideology). Her spiritual master was an atheist, so she must call herself an atheist. But she clearly doesn’t really believe a word she says: she’s only parroting what her Great Leader says, because then she doesn’t have to take responsibility for anything.

  • janiceintoronto

    Yup. Moron.

  • cheesynougats

    How oblivious to what you are saying do you have to be to fail to realize you claimed that collectivism is not an economic policy?

  • thalwen

    I think you all give her too much credit for having a consistent political philosophy. I’ve always seen her as a GOP hack who was first brought out on the GOP’s platform of “our women are hotter than those ugly Dem lesbos,” and now she’s an “atheist” so she can be on MSNBC because Fox news doesn’t have any openings.

  • She’s not really an atheist. She says she is in order to fit in with the members of her religion, AynRandism.

    I never believed she was an atheist either, but I don’t think she claims she is for the reason you state. Rather, she claims to be an atheist who wants to be a person who aspires to have faith because that’s what her intended audience (Right wing Christians) want to hear, an atheist who bashes atheism. It also is a way to make her stand out a little from Ann Coulter and other right wing female pundits.

  • slc1

    Re jgdenisrobert @ #5

    The late Martin Gardner argued that dialectal materialism was a religion.

  • Ugh… I got about 45 seconds in and couldn’t take it anymore.

  • carlie

    I remain unconvinced that I’m not projecting/stereotyping/assuming every time I see it, but she definitely has that glazed-over look to her eyes that I always associate with the brain not being entirely engaged. I can’t quite describe it, but “I know it when I see it” (hence being not entirely convinced that I’m not making it up).

  • Michael Heath @3: And I don’t think my speculation on Ms. Cupp is sexist. I can’t perceive Ms. Cupp getting the quality of access she enjoys now if she wasn’t considered physically attractive.

    I don’t see how it can be construed as sexism to anyone with an understanding of real world gender dynamics, especially on television. She’s an objectively physically attractive woman with no other redeeming qualities. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that someone decided (correctly, sadly) that she can get eyeballs on the screen and put no other consideration in play.

    Moreover, I’m pretty sure that pointing out motivations that are probably sexist in nature is not, in and of itself, sexism. That’s like how some people claim that calling out racists is “the real racism.” Now, if you were to say, “Well, she’s a giant moron, but I love watching her, anyway, because I like to put the TV on mute and imagine her taking her clothes off,” that…that might be a bit sexist.

    And possibly what Maher is thinking.

  • Here’s an interesting link that helps explain Cupp and other “captured” members of groups that the right wing despises:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/09/its-all-about-the-source/

    It is similar to how the media can always find plenty of black people who support Romney, even though statistically Romney has zero support from black people in America. They find people who belong to groups that seem inconsistent with the views they are supporting, and it makes for better television.

  • She’s not really an atheist. She says she is in order to fit in with the members of her religion, AynRandism.

    Unless she literally worships Ayn Rand as a deity, which would be terribly odd since Ayn Rand was an atheist and therefore did not consider herself a deity, this does not disqualify Cupp as being an atheist.

    Reason for quibbling: I hate it when people cast ideologies they dislike as religions in order to disparage them. Just because an ideology (might be authentically) horrible doesn’t make it a religion.

    She’s an objectively physically attractive woman

    Her physical attractiveness is an empirically verifiable fact, independent of human observation? I don’t think so.

    Reason for quibbling: Taste is still taste, no matter how many people share it. Your finding someone physically attractive is subjective by definition. If it were objective, then someone who disagrees with you would be mistaken about reality, rather than having different taste. There are enough tedious people in the world who believe this to be true; we don’t need to encourage them.

  • Who is she and where did she come from? I see her a lot, around the inter tubes and TV, but why does she get a platform as opposed to someone else?

  • Now, if you were to say, “Well, she’s a giant moron, but I love watching her, anyway, because I like to put the TV on mute and imagine her taking her clothes off,” that…that might be a bit sexist.

    In Cupp’s case, that’s making the maximum use of her talents. It’s all about the starbursts…

  • Just because an ideology (might be authentically) horrible doesn’t make it a religion.

    No, embracing it with an immature, simpleminded, irrational, religious mindset makes it a religion. And that’s how every Randroid I’ve ever encountered has embraced Randism.

  • She is an atheist like the liberals on fox news are liberals.

  • No, embracing it with an immature, simpleminded, irrational, religious mindset makes it a religion.

    Only metaphorically. The fact that people often embrace religion with an immature, simpleminded, irrational mindset does not mean that anything embraced in such a manner is a religion.

    Nor, for that matter, does it necessarily mean anything about the ideology embraced. People can after all embrace great truths in the same way.

  • Gretchen @15Reason for quibbling: Taste is still taste, no matter how many people share it. Your finding someone physically attractive is subjective by definition. If it were objective, then someone who disagrees with you would be mistaken about reality, rather than having different taste. There are enough tedious people in the world who believe this to be true; we don’t need to encourage them.

    Yes. And there’s nothing like a silly comment on a blog thread to influence the English language for decades, if not centuries to come. I hereby apologize for all of my crimes against the English language and vow to never, ever say anything that someone on the internet might disagree with on semantic grounds again.

    Because, y’know, I’d hate to be tedious.

  • IslandBrewer

    I almost watched this.

    I SO despise her, and my rage quotient has maxed for this morning, so I didn’t.

    I saved my computer monitor, and my fist, by not watching.

    I am now breathing very very slowly. … and counting.

    … and going to my happy place.

    Hanging the rage up on the coatrack next to the door, yes.

  • Beg pardon, Geds. I was recently informed on Facebook that I need psychiatric help if I don’t acknowledge that women of certain body types are objectively unattractive. That’s the sort of tedious person I was talking about; not you.

  • scienceavenger

    I can’t get too annoyed with what she says because she’s a fake, quoting memorized scripts. Her views are as a real as her glasses. She looks like a character from a movie. Sit her next to Erin Burnett and see how hot she seems. She can’t even get that right. Her show will flop, and that will be the end of her.

  • Tâlib Alttaawiil (طالب التاويل)

    am i the only one who suspects that she’s actually a robot?

    don’t hate her, she was programmed that way.

  • ewanmacdonald

    I really don’t think the focus should be so much on her gender in these comments. What she’s actually said is what should be remarked upon.

    Thankfully, and true to form, it’s a load of rubbish.

  • Cupp is the libertarian/right-wing conservative/authoritarian kind of “atheist”: no gods…except ME.

    I wrote a song about her once, but I find singing it revolting – to the point where my throat constricts and I sound like I’m gagging. Because I’m gagging.

  • zb24601

    SE Cupp is THE reason I do not watch “The Cycle”. I saw Krystal Ball on another show a few times, and I liked her insights on the issues about which she spoke, so when I heard she was getting a show, I set my TiVo. But after watching a couple of episodes, I just could not put up with SE Cupp any more. I removed the season pass from TiVo and haven’t looked back. As for her looks, there are far too many attractive people on TV to have to put up with a person like SE Cupp just for her looks, even if that was a good enough reason to watch a show.

  • oranje

    Great. I had never heard of her until now. Thanks for helping me to know whom I may ignore and miss nothing.

  • Gretchen @23: Beg pardon, Geds. I was recently informed on Facebook that I need psychiatric help if I don’t acknowledge that women of certain body types are objectively unattractive. That’s the sort of tedious person I was talking about; not you.

    Huh. That seems a bit…over the top, really.

    I was informed yesterday on Facebook that if I were to actually study macroeconomics and history I’d know that voting for Romney is the way to go. To which I pointed out my 3.66 GPA in history and induction into the Phi Alpha Theta National History Honors Society. So, y’know, Facebook…

    Either way, to the point, I will agree that attractiveness is overall a subjective measure. I, personally, don’t get the fascination with Angelina Jolie. I was just making an off-the-cuff comment about SE Cupp’s physical appearance and I was really thinking of it more in the sense that an objective observer who doesn’t care either way for Cupp could say, “Yeah, I can see why someone would want to put her on TV and someone else would want to look at her on TV.”

    That, of course, is not a true objective measure, but it’s way easier to formulate than the more accurate, “Physically attractive according to the standard norms of the current American culture vis a vis television personalities.” Then again, I am the guy who got tired of hearing the phrase, “I’d hit that,” when I was in college, as I found it offensive on several different levels. So I started replying with ever-more elaborate phrases to the effect of, “I’d see if she’d be willing to engage in mutually enjoyable consensual intercourse.”

    For some reason people stopped talking about sex with me.

  • Also, too, they literally have a pundit named “Krystal Ball?”

    Really?

  • r3a50n

    This is why I don’t watch cable TV news channels anymore. It kills me that MSNBC is somehow tagged as the “liberal” equivalent to Fox News. How can anyone say that with a straight face considering that their morning show is run by a Republican and people like Cupp (and formerly Pat Buchanan) appear on their network regularly? Ugh.

    I can’t perceive Ms. Cupp getting the quality of access she enjoys now if she wasn’t considered physically attractive.

    Perhaps considered by some. For me, she is only moderately attractive and even then only until she opens her mouth. Then she becomes incredibly ugly. At least for me, stupidity is a major turn-off, I’m not able to separate her physical appearance from her intelligence. After watching a few video clips of her I now can’t look at her without repulsion, it’s like I can see the stupid. I agree, though, that she enjoys a lot of privilege to which she is more than likely oblivious.

  • ericatkinson

    I really despise the entire bunch of you FFTB assholes.

  • Chiroptera

    ericatkinson, #33: I really despise the entire bunch of you FFTB assholes.

    Oh, I get it! This is play on the title of the OP!

  • Rip Steakface

    Heath, you know that Maher deliberately tries to have at least one or two conservative panelists on his show every week, right? Its his own way of trying to be fair and balanced (yet somehow he’s still way more true to that claim than the actual Fair and Balanced ™ people). SE Cupp is just one example of that. He also has had wretches on such as Ron Christy and Ann Coulter.

  • Michael Heath

    Rip Steakface writes:

    Heath, you know that Maher deliberately tries to have at least one or two conservative panelists on his show every week, right?

    I both know that and wrote within the context of how Bill Maher structures his panels.

    Regular liberal guests Maher has on that makes me immediately fast forward the DVR while any of them are talking is Cornel West, Richard Belzer, and D.L. Hughley.

  • mantistoboggan

    “I was informed yesterday on Facebook that if I were to actually study macroeconomics and history I’d know that voting for Romney is the way to go. To which I pointed out my 3.66 GPA in history”

    People still use Facebook?

  • jimvj

    Preening poseur, that’s what she is.

  • I think they just have her on there to have someone to argue against – that makes stuff interesting I guess.

  • raven

    I was informed yesterday on Facebook that if I were to actually study macroeconomics and history I’d know that voting for Romney is the way to go.

    I’m studying macroeconomics and history right NOW*, and I didn’t think I could like Romney less. Now I do.

    He is a member of the 1% and paid by them. They don’t care about the USA, just themselves. He and his oligarchy will simply extract as much money from the USA as they can without worrying about where to send the dead body.

    It’s a lot like a leveraged buyout but in this case, a leveraged looting spree.

    *Reading books by Krugman and Shilling and a lot of websites.

    ericatkinson:

    I really despise the entire bunch of you FFTB assholes.

    Whatever. Feel better now?

    What bunch are you a part of anyway? Maybe we can despise the entire bunch of you. Right now it looks like driveby internet trolls, near illiterates, and morons. Hardly worth the effort really.

  • DLC

    Personally, I think Cupp is rofl-able. I laugh at her.

    I do not really care if she labels herself as an Atheist or not, but I really suspect that the author of The Left’s Attack on Christianity is not a non-believer.

  • zb24601

    Geds (#31) wrote:

    Also, too, they literally have a pundit named “Krystal Ball?”

    That is her real name. Her father has a Ph.D. in physics, and did his dissertation on crystals. See her Wikipedia page for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krystal_Ball

  • gussnarp

    I don’t think it’s about her being an idiot or a moron at all. Yes, I say to myself “what an idiot” whenever I hear her talk, but I don’t think that’s really true. I don’t think she could hold her own against any expert in any of the subjects she talks about: politics, religion, philosophy, economics, and certainly not science. But she’s actually probably fairly bright. It’s just that her field of expertise is media manipulation, and in practicing it she talks outside of her field.

    But wait, that wasn’t the point I meant to make either. She would be an idiot if she truly believed what she was saying. Maybe she does, but I don’t give her the benefit of the doubt. The fact of the matter is she’s a liar. A terrible, evil human being who is willing to say anything at all as long as it helps her to advance her cause career. She knows damn well that she’s being fundamentally dishonest about Obama’s remarks and philosophy. She knows damn well that neither he, not any other Democratic politician, nor most anyone in America even on the radical left, is a collectivist as Ayn Rand defines it, or would even use that term for themselves in a socialist gathering at the coffee house.

    What’s sad about this piece is that none of her co-hosts has the guts to call her a liar. No one at the network says, “we can’t put someone on air to just lie like that, we have a responsibility to our viewers to at least be fundamentally honest”. And why don’t they do that? Because they know exactly what game she’s playing, and they’re playing it too. Say the things that get attention, even negative attention, to keep people watching to see what outrageous thing she’ll say next. They want her to be dishonest, because it get’s eyeballs on the screen, and they’ll never call her out on it. This crap won’t stop until people stop watching it, which, sadly, won’t happen.

  • gussnarp

    @DLC:

    I do not really care if she labels herself as an Atheist or not, but I really suspect that the author of The Left’s Attack on Christianity is not a non-believer.

    She may or may not be an atheist, but it hardly matters. She is a person who has crafted her whole persona to succeed in media and who has shown herself to be fundamentally dishonest. There’s no reason to think that anything she says about herself is true. All we know about her is her carefully crafted persona.

  • Then again, I am the guy who got tired of hearing the phrase, “I’d hit that,” when I was in college, as I found it offensive on several different levels. So I started replying with ever-more elaborate phrases to the effect of, “I’d see if she’d be willing to engage in mutually enjoyable consensual intercourse.”

    Just for the record…that is awesome.

  • fastlane

    They need to get her and D’souza their own show.

    They could call it:

    ….wait for it…..

    Two Morons, One Cupp.

    I’ll get my coat.

  • r3a5on:

    This is why I don’t watch cable TV news channels anymore. It kills me that MSNBC is somehow tagged as the “liberal” equivalent to Fox News. How can anyone say that with a straight face considering that their morning show is run by a Republican and people like Cupp (and formerly Pat Buchanan) appear on their network regularly?

    Because they do some spin in favour of the Democrats, which is to say that they admit it when things look good for the Democrats. And Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews are loud. And Lawrence O’Donnell is snarky. And even Rachel Maddow does things…wrong…somewhere…

    (We have some fairly comprehensive writings on chilly climates towards feminism. Why have I seen none of the same regarding liberalism?)

  • jose

    Hmmm she misrepresents collectivism. She says “the idea that success is shared and the state alone can make all your dreams come true”.

    The second part is made up. What I’d argue is that without a collective effort, you can’t make any worthy goal come true. To life a good life we need others. In other words, this collective effort is necessary but it’s not enough.

    Then, Obama states simple facts that can’t possibly be denied. Then she quotes something irrelevant to Obama’s facts, because obviously Obama believes individuals have rights. Then she continues lying by saying “working has no value for Obama”. At this point I realize the rest of the video is not worth watching and I stop.