I love it when people wield that one, especially in the media. It's a sure sign they are on shakey ground in their argument. I feel much the same way about "unpythonic". It's a great way to distance ones self intellectually. If something in Python itself is called "unpythonic" then you essentially can't use it as an argument against Python or using Python. Doing this, as has been done with lamba, map, DOM, etc., is a bit of a catch-22, however. There is no spec for Python save CPython itself. So if something in CPython is unpythonic (especially core parts of the language, like lambda or builtins), then by simple deduction we must conclude the Python itself is unpythonic. Of course this is pure rubbish, nothing is more pythonic then Python.

Taking things this literally, no matter how entertaining, is not really credible, however. I do think it demonstrates that there is something that defines Python beyond CPython. Of course this thing is not formalized anywhere, hence the need for this vague word to indicate exclusion from its prinicples. It's a really more about aesthetics than anything. Fashions come and go, and at one time functional programming was fashionable to pythonistas. Now it is not. Surely there are things currently considered pythonic that will one day be "so last Friday".