Besides nothing, one could call this ding-a-ling a career race hustler, but maybe that would be paying more attention to this MSNBC something than she deserves.
And what is MSNBC ratings-wise? Nothing.
Old dino just tapping on keys here.

MA: I appreciate your comments and understand the impulse to want to dismiss MH-P and those like her. I often do also. Sometimes, though, an inane comment like she made just hooks you the wrong way and you want to vent (or maybe puke like Dennis55 suggested). Sorry if some of my puke spattered onto your monitor!

Using this rant by MH-P as an example, there is a danger in dismissing people who make destructive comments like this. The danger occurs in face-to-face encounters, not in second-hand ones like this. There is nothing we will say here that will ever get back to MH-P, but thinking about this incident serves an instructive purpose for me by providing an incentive to think about ways to respond to such asinine comments if I encounter them face-to-face. That’s why I asked the question about how you Gulchers might respond. I think the worst thing would be to not respond at all. The second worst thing would be to respond with snide or derogatory comments.

The most important thing is to register some kind of disagreement. In many face-to-face encounters, there are often other participants or just listeners. You might not say anything that will change the mind of the perpetrator, but you might of another listener. I ‘m thinking here of the many social situations one finds one’s self in on almost daily a basis. Except for committed hermits, I’m sure these situations arise often. I think of these “situations” as opportunities to let it be knows that the perpetrator’s view isn’t the only one and isn’t valid. They are opportunities to influence others and get them thinking about reasonable alternatives to the tripe that often comes out the mouths of progressives. Teachable moments, one might say.

Dismissing or ignoring destructive comments like MH-P’s carries some dangers – both substantive and tactical. (Again, this applies mostly to in-person encounters.) I’ve sort of addressed the substantive issue above – bad ideas need to be countered. Tactically, it is also mistake. A non-response reinforces to the perp and to anyone else aware of the discussion that the perp is winning. Undermining the validity of a destructive idea should be taken at every opportunity. Another tactical point is that you need to understand your enemy. Not just his ideas, but his tactics. Suggesting that one should not think of people like MH-P (like freedomforall) or take the time to look in on what people on msnbc are saying (like wiggys) and just ignore them concedes the entire battlefield to them.