A segment of CNN's “Newnight with Abby Phillip” on Wednesday evening seemed to be stretched after conservative commentator Scott Jennings threw an insult to colleague panellist Keith Boykin, a former Core House Assistant to President Bill Clinton.
During a discussion about the announcement of Columbia University that it had reached a deal with the Trump administration on Wednesday to pay more than $ 220 million to restore the federal investigation money, Boykin Jennings called for the interrupting of the Republican commentator Ana Navarro, who commented on the agreement.
“Do you have to interrupt every conversation? Do you have to be part of every conversation?” Asked Boykin.
'You are such a nagging [inaudible]”Jennings replied.
“A nagging something, scott? Say it, Scott … say it, Scott,” Boykin replied. (Note the moment here.)
Boykin had also called Jennings because he had previously interrupt him in the conversation: “You talk about people who interrupt you, but you always do it.”
People on X, formerly Twitter, closed the polarizing CNN expert for calling Boykin “Whiny” after the segment was broadcast on TV.
“Why shouldn't Abby Boykin allow Jennings to tackle adequately?” Written an X user, and called Jennings's behavior an example of a micro -aggression.
“Accusing someone else to be a nagging ass in the midst of your own nagging is peak pie pirony,” wrote another.
Alexandra Cromer, a recognized therapist at ThriveWorks, said that the moment on-Air said a lot about the tense attitudes that exist in our current political climate and the insult to Jennings was a “full communication interruption”.
“From a clinical point of view, if you want to communicate effectively, clearly, objective and immediately possible,” she said, adding to it, “at that moment, calling someone 'nagging' takes meaning from their statements and promotes no further conversations or civil discourse.”
By calling Boykin 'Whiny', Jennings may have tried to reduce his power, Cromer explained.
“In this situation, calling someone 'nagging' can communicate a rejecting and downset tone,” said Cromer. “By using an insult in every circumstance, you strive to reduce the power of the other and to gain more observed control over the situation.”
Cromer explained that the use of the word 'nagging' could have been specifically an attempt by Jennings to imply that what Boykin thought and felt 'not good enough'.
″[It] Promotes the concept of a power hierarchy and structure in the conversation when the panel is displayed as as fair as possible in the Panellid's input options, “she said.
And Cromer said that Boykin's direct response to Jennings can be an example of “a useful solution for a disagreement and/or miscommunication problem.”
However, she warned that when someone addresses someone who insults him, they must ensure that they use 'clear, direct and objective communication'.
“The way Boykin responded to Jenkins can also be seen as a personalized insult or armed conversation,” she said.
In general, Cromer recommends that people take the time to organize their thoughts in the receiving side of an insult to 'be the most effective version of yourself'.
And since it relates to Jennings that Boykin mentions “Whiny” during a panel discussion about network TV, Cromer emphasized that the resort of name-oriented in any form of professional environment can be considered in particular as “rejecting and disrespectful”.
It can communicate a “flagrant lack of respect”, as well as perhaps a “deliberate intolerance of views, opinions and emotional reactions that are different from yours and outside your own emotional experience.”
