My goodness, this is surprising. Especially since not everyone is nearly so introspective.

I like Samantha Bee a lot, but she is flat wrong to call Ivanka a cunt.

Cunts are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest.

— Sally Field (@sally_field) May 31, 2018

No, actually, this isn’t that surprising. Brooke Baldwin was also the CNN anchor during the segment last year when Clay Travis made his lame “First Amendment and boobs” joke. Baldwin found that demeaning to women and said so. She found Bee’s crack about Ivanka Trump demeaning to women and said so. Single standard for left and right. She’s practicing what she’s preaching in this case.

I still can’t fathom how angry-progressive heartthrob Sam Bee ended up apologizing to America’s second-most famous Trump. Six hours ago I would have told you it was inconceivable. Was I right in this post that it was the heat from Bee’s left, from feminists unhappy to hear “c*nt” mainstreamed at anyone’s expense, rather than the heat from the right that did it? It just can’t be that Bee felt genuine remorse that she might have hurt Ivanka Trump’s feelings. Remember who we’re talking about here:

It was hardly the first time Full Frontal had gone, guns blazing, after the sick or the meek. During the campaign, Bee dispatched a correspondent to go shoot fish in a barrel at something called the Western Conservative Summit, which the reporter described as “an annual Denver gathering popular with hard-right Christian conservatives.” He interviewed an earnest young boy who talked about going to church on Sundays and Bible study on Wednesdays, and about his hope to start a group called Children for Trump. For this, the boy—who spoke with the unguarded openness of a child who has assumed goodwill on the part of an adult—was described as “Jerry Falwell in blond, larval form.” Trump and Bee are on different sides politically, but culturally they are drinking from the same cup, one filled with the poisonous nectar of reality TV and its baseless values, which have now moved to the very center of our national discourse. Trump and Bee share a penchant for verbal cruelty and a willingness to mock the defenseless. Both consider self-restraint, once the hallmark of the admirable, to be for chumps.

Cruelty in service to political virtue is no vice: Lots of nasty activist jackholes on either side follow that philosophy. Bee is one, albeit with a much bigger platform than most. Why would she suddenly abandon that philosophy now, particularly when the shot at Ivanka was obviously intended to delight her own side and outrage the other? She got the reaction she wanted. She even baited the White House into attacking her. Now she’s sorry. Why? Whatever the answer is, it ain’t because CNN is disappointed in her.

Since we’re having yet another debate today about when “controversial” speech should and shouldn’t be a firing offense, here’s David French hashing out the differences between Colin Kaepernick, James Damore, and Roseanne Barr:

Damore and Kaepernick’s speech, by contrast, could only be characterized as unprofessional and indecent if a person buys the notion that disagreement on matters of identity or patriotism is inherently suspect. In other words, the difference between Barr’s speech and Damore’s and Kaepernick’s wasn’t just a matter of degree, but also kind. A respectful, silent kneel — even if it scrapes against the reverence for American flag that many NFL fans, myself included, feel — isn’t unprofessional. A thoughtful memorandum — even if it struck many readers as an ill-conceived assessment of, if not attack on, Google’s diversity efforts — isn’t indecent…

Neither case involves personal insults of the type Barr has flung. In fact, both Damore and Kaepernick, in different ways, made clear they wanted to express support for those who felt most offended by their speech. In his memo, Damore stated, “I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity and think we should strive for more,” and he offered concrete suggestions as to how to improve female representation in Google’s ranks. Kaepernick reached out to veterans and, in an interview, explained to those who saw his protest as unpatriotic that “I’m not anti-American. I love America. I love people. That’s why I’m doing this.”

Where’s does Bee’s shot at Ivanka fall on the spectrum? One approach you could take is that racism is different, period. In light of the country’s history, an attempt to demean someone who’s black as subhuman crosses a line that even nastiness like Bee’s doesn’t. Zero tolerance. The other approach is to focus on the speaker’s intent, reasoning that the worst offenders (and probably the ones most likely to reoffend) are those who are being insulting for the sake of being insulting. By that measure, Bee is closer to Roseanne. As I said in the last post, though, the dreary phenomenon of late-night leftist comedy is a hydra. You cut off one head, two screechy, unfunny heads desperately seeking “clapter” affirmation will grow back. No sense firing her.

"It's outrageous, it is unacceptable, and should be called out. She could have easily made her point without using those words." – My take on @iamsambee’s vulgar insult of Ivanka Trump. Bee has since apologized on twitter. https://t.co/UD4BJs4tZX

— Brooke Baldwin (@BrookeBaldwin) May 31, 2018