Fellatial:
- Of or suitable for a blowjob.
- Of the nature of blowjobs, servile, fawning, with involvement of the mouth in a hoovering motion.
- Ready to suck off those in authority, usually in exchange for favors, prestige or political appointments.
- The way things work in Washington. [Arnold Zwicky, Language Log]
That definition is merely part of a much larger discussion of fellatial and other words in its family. However, please note that it’s rather explicit and vulgar in its word selection, so readers of a tender or prim disposition may wish to skip that reading.
In any case, fellatial is noted in “The Price Of Tucker Carlson’s Soul,” Andrew Sullivan, The Weekly Dish:
And in his fellatial conversation with Orbàn, Tucker actually allowed the prime minister to give the impression that Hungary was now dealing with immigration from other European states, when, of course, it’s Hungary that’s fast losing its younger population to freer societies like Germany and the UK. He also let Orbàn give the impression that he was defending a Christian country against secular nihilists, when, in fact, post-communist Hungary is profoundly secular, and Orbàn’s adherence to Christianity is about as credible as Trump’s. The transactional cynicism of this money-grubber is world-class. And the simpering flattery of Tucker made Sean Penn’s interview with Fidel Castro look like hard-hitting journalism.
Both Zwicky’s definition and Sullivan’s dissection of Carlson’s visit to Hungary as little more than manipulative entertainment are a reminder that the position of reviewer, pundit, and/or critic has, as its salient feature, an independent and fair-minded aspect to it that bans the quelling of criticisms of ideological allies. That is, an ideal specimen, despite necessary opinions and inclinations, discounts implicit alliances and applies critiques regardless.
Anything else is intellectual dishonesty, and the perceptive reader soon learns to discard such claimants to the position of critic, as they are unlikely to share a single observation that is both honest and surprising; more likely, they will be dishonest in service to their evil master, which is, oddly enough, loyalty.
Carlson is not a journalist, despite his claims. He’s, at best, an inept entertainer, trading in hatred and anger; at worst, he’s a propagandist for the worst in human nature.
