How does it feel to be the offenderati in this case then, eh? 
I’m afraid I cannot allow this attempt at insidious insinuation to stand without challenge. You are attempting to portray me in a way that couldn’t be more wrong.
I cannot imagine a realistic circumstance in which I would call Michelle Obama a cunt. Or anybody really. (This is one of the things that is most fascinating about this place to me: the righties seem to be more politically correct in their behavior than do the lefties. Go figure.)
In case you haven’t seen it yet, I deleted a sideways snipe at you because you were kind enough to wink at me.
(We men are such tools when it comes to women!) :smack:
I wasn’t portraying you. You asked:
And I said, go ahead, call her a cunt. It would say more about you than it would about her. That is my response to your question. If you don’t want me to answer your questions, don’t ask me questions.
You asked me to imagine a hypothetical situation wherein you would, right in that quote up there. I imagined it, then told you my reaction. I don’t see what I did that was anything resembling an insidious insinuation. It was an “IF you said this… THEN my reaction would be that” response.
And yes indeed, you are the PC offended party here: offended that we all weren’t screaming, “SEXISM!” immediately at the OP for using the word cunt. Well, sad to say that in these debased times, some of us are jaded to that word and it doesn’t warrant the hysteria that you seem to think it should, and it wouldn’t warrant it whether it was directed at Mrs. Palin or Mrs. Obama. JMO, YMMV.
Good grief—I retract the ‘cunt’ appellation, already. I dislike ad hominem rhetoric as much as the next person. I actually never really had any problem with Palin until I learned about her denialist attitudes towards global warming. Should have just left her out of the OP entirely (along with the fundies), and set my sights on the oil interests for which she speaks. But I’m still not going to dismiss my contempt for a person who would so willingly sacrifice such a magnificent species for the sake of economic interests, and justify it by simply denying that the available evidence is valid. In addition, she wants to use litigation to enforce her denialism. So no, I’m not going to apologize to her.
However, I now understand that the situation is not as dire as I had believed it to be. It’s very possible that there will only be a 75% decline in the present polar bear population between now and the year 2100. There’s still time to do something about it. They’re not nearly in as bad a position as mountain gorillas or bonobos. However, I’m still quite upset by the fact that isolated populations are resorting to cannibalism to survive. It’s bad enough when we shoot 'em, stab 'em, or poison them in the pursuit of financial gain, but it’s particularly appalling that we’ve caused this. This does not appear to be normal polar bear behavior, as some of you have contended. These animals are completely dependant on the formation of polar ice for their subsistence, and the lack of it is the direct cause of this newly identified behavior. But I’m still looking at all the information that’s been provided, along with other sources. It may be several days before I’m in a position to say unequivocally that I was wrong, and even if it turns out that I am, I’m sure that not all of my preconceptions will be fallacious. Some, probably—but unquestionably not all. The species is in a precarious position.
Moreover, I’m not going to be made to feel ashamed of myself for being emotionally upset over the situation that we’ve forced upon the polar bear population. I know plenty of grown adults who have shed tears over the loss of a pet hamster. If you can’t see the inherent tragedy in the situation that has already occurred, much less the situation that will likely occur during the rest of this century, your opinions mean nothing to me.
Nah, then the defense would be that that was just that one person.
The thing is, these kinds of things are promoted by the left in general. It has been a premise of the left for at least forty years that they are the ones who care about offending people, and they then attempt to persuade conservatives and/or the average Joe into adopting the same behavior or they deride them as being heartless, cruel, unevolved, insensitive, etc.
Much discussion on this board is devoted to criticism and/or castigation of conservatives/Republicans/the Right. The reason for this is that to a certain degree generalizations are necessary in order to facilitate discussion, and that’s why you rarely see me asking for cites wherein some individual conservative or other displayed the type of behavior under discussion.
So while it’s true that not all liberals decry the use of ‘cunt’, the fact of the matter is that whenever you see someone decrying it on television or in print, the person doing the complaining is invariably a liberal. It is also true that the driving force behind opposition to words that have been deemed offensive (and even who deems them so) invariably comes from the left, as does the phenomenon of political correctness itself.
Okay, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here, but phrased your answer in such a way as to make it appear that I was wanting to call her a cunt but was held back by social convention, and just to make it clear this could not be further from the truth.
No, I’m just pricking liberal hypocrisies, like I said upthread. You guys are the ones who, for the last forty years, have been trying to set the agenda for how people should talk and behave, and speaking of yourselves as being the ones who are more ‘evolved’, ‘enlightened’, ‘sensitive’ and ‘caring’ than those of us on the right, and you make no bones about your disdain and contempt for anyone who doesn’t go along.
So you can’t put yourselves up on a pedestal and hold yourselves forth as being evolved and enlightened and then expect to get a free pass when you show yourselves to be no better than the ones you jeer.
Yeah, and we all know who I hold responsible for that, don’t we?
Can I call Starving Artist a cunt?
You could, but I think he’s shown an admirable sense of humor in this thread, whatwith that bruised knee and all. (That can happen when it jerks.)
And, all kidding aside, I’ll say that I’m trying to regain control over the word cunt myself. I’ve read some of, but not all, of Cunt, and I’m beginning to become desensitized to it, but some days are better than others. I may very well have chided someone in the past for using it; I’m not always in the same mood. But I assure you it wasn’t because of their political leanings, it was because of where my emotions were at at the time versus where they’re at tonight.
Okay, I’m gonna back out of here and let you get back to talking about polar bears. A friend sent me some photos recently of a polar bear approaching an adventurer’s sled dogs one day. The guy thought his dogs were gonna be toast, but the bear just started rolling around, hugging and playing with them. It came back each night for the next week and did the same thing.
And I recall a film I saw once about a lion that had been raised in captivity and then turned loose in the wild. The people who raised him became curious to see how he was doing and made a trip to find him. He was found on the wildlife refuge where he had been set free with a pride of his own. He spotted the people who had raised him and once he recognized them came running over and leapt upon them, licking and hugging them just like old times.
I think animals are a lot more affectionate than humans give them credit for. Probably because they are regarded as not having reasoning ability and taking down prey is such an ugly sight.
Disclaimer: Polar bears can be and usually are very dangerous critters. Lions too, obviously. No one should ever approach one in the wild (or in their own homes for that matter ;)).
Thanks. I enjoyed the interplay with you and RNATB. 
But it can be done for all the examples that there are of it, not just one. Then we’ll be able to single out the true hypocrites. It’d be accurate and fair, not to mention a more compelling argument.
I disagree. You’ve posted quite a bit recently in the Pit about how liberals are the cause of this current, unrespectful society, to paraphrase. That it is conservatives who are generally the polite ones, and the ones who stand in opposition to the more impolite social situation. And yet they are also the ones behind the opposition to offensive words? I think this pretty much highlights the problem; generalizations are necessary sometimes, but you’re doing it way too often, and too widely. The phenomenon of political correctness comes from a history of valuing politeness and respectfulness, and I very much doubt you would consider the left to be the sole bastion of those particular virtues.
The fact remains, however, that to judge some by the actions of others when you know only they share a political viewpoint is entirely silly. The “fact of the matter” is that whenever you see someone decrying political correctness* itself *on television or in print, it invariably comes from the right; by that token, would it be acceptable to accuse you of hypocrisy when you claim to prefer respectful speech? Can I reasonably take a point of view held by some conservatives, and apply it directly to yourself as an accusation without knowing whether or not you agree? Can I take it as a given that you as a conservative are in full support with each and every one of the main thrusts of American conservatism, that you have no disagreements, whether as far as total disagreement or merely a difference of opinion in degrees, the only thing I know about you being you’re a conservative? No. It would be silly. Generalizations are helpful because they’re quick, and they’re easy. But if you want to accuse someone of hypocrisy, I very much hope you’d agree that that is a serious accusation, and it is one that needs to be made only after careful consideration and very much not lightly. After all, to use it carelessly is to mean it loses meaning when you use it forcefully; if you’ve ever come across accusations of bigotry or racism or sexism in the past, where the rationale is careless and unnuanced, did it make you agree with them? Or did you lose respect for the accuser’s ability to truly recognise and reason?
The OP reminds me of that scene in Grizzly Man where the guy is in the tent, cursing God for not bringing rain. Why? MELISSA IS EATING HER BABIES!
Okay. Now, what about the “idiotic” descriptor?
I really think I’d have to let that one stand, as “so do you STILL think that polar bears are NOT an endangered species, you neo-Christian” doesn’t really make much sense, does it?
The speaker implies, the reader infers. You inferred. I did not imply.
Bullshit. And now I remember why I stopped talking to you. You’re a waste of time. Bye.
Yes, that much is obvious.
:rolleyes:
Every time conservatives approach me in the wild they think I’m going to eat them, but usually I start rolling around and licking their faces and nuzzling and stuff…
Well, you used “neo-Christian” as a pejorative. I don’t even know what that is.
So, wait. You spent three years with the bears, you love the bears, the plight of the bears brings you to tears, and you rant about it on the Internet, complete with silly and out-of-place fifty-cent words, but you need people in a Pit thread to educate you on the basic facts of the widdle bears that you’re ranting about?
Christ.
Yes, no species should ever be allowed to vanish from the earth. I myself mourn the senseless loss of the trilobyte population. The Australian diprotodons were victims of 50,000 year-old SUV-driving humans, after all. The greed shown by our ancestors for oil and material consumption undoubtedly drove Pampatheriidae into extinction. And I weep daily for the loss of the megatheriid ground sloths, gentle creatures driven into extinction by oil companies run by Dick Cheney’s great-great-great-grandfather.
Or maybe – just maybe, now – species have grown, flourished, and become extinct since life began. Maybe that’s evolution at work. I assume you’d be furious at any “Neo-christian cunts” who sought to remove the teaching of evolution from public schools… but when it comes to actually understanding that one consequence of evolution is that species die out, you seem utterly baffled.