OK fair enough Bricker. I saw you take an extra cheap shot and I reacted to it.
Who’s said it’s “not so bad”? Who’s said she has her heart in the right place? **Washoe **got called out in the very first reply for not making sense, and I called her histrionic before the tenth. Is it that we’re not *specifically *calling **Washoe **a cunt that your (collective your, you can join Starving Artist) knickers are in a twist? Is merely mocking her and pointing out over and over that she’s wrong not “not so bad” enough for you?
Sorry if I’m not vitriolic enough for the Pit, that’s never been one of my strong suits.
ETA: And I didn’t jump in to defend Palin, because honestly, I thought that a rhetorical device. I thought the OP (and the thread) was about endangered polar bears.
Actually, Starving Artist has never given a moment’s thought as to whether or not Washoe is, or should be, called a cunt.
The problem, as I’m amazed at having to explain, is the unchallenged use of the word in such a liberal forum when for so many years the liberal PC crowd has decried its usage as sexist and held it forth as being just below the n-word in offensiveness.
Well that, plus the additional hypocrisy evident in that it has apparently gone unchallenged because the target of the slur is a Republican.
That’s okay 'cause you’re fun. 
I’m not rebuking the board population in general for failing to criticize Washoe, and if I left that impression I apologize. I’m criticizing Washoe him/herself for failing to own up to the magnitude of the error.
Part of the confusion arises because I feel constrained to speak in more general terms than I usually would, because I dislike constructions like (s)he and him/her.
But make no mistake: my ire is directed solely at the OP. Whatever his or her gender is.
And to your postscript – when the title of the thread is “For Sarah Palin” and the first line of the OP excoriates her so vividly, I think it’s fair to say she’s more than simply a rhetor’s device.
Look, SA, you’re committing the fallacy of division. Just because “PC language” is a “liberal virtue” doesn’t mean that all liberals interpret it the same way, or subscribe to the theory that it is a virtue at all. Taking this board’s liberals to task for what other liberals have done is fallacious.
And, as I’m sure you’d find, plenty of liberals here called Hillary a cunt, and worse. There’s no hypocrisy. Hillary gets called a cunt. Palin gets called a cunt. Admittedly for different reasons, but those likely to object to it as a sexist insult would likely object in either case. I’d wager most people are simply not opening up Palin themed threads at the present, actually. So we have a much smaller sample size that’s self selected in any case (which, as I’m sure you’ll realize, invalidates any generalizations made from it).
While I’m at it, sure, we’ve had many debates here about ‘sexist’ language. And, generally, there are liberals on both sides of the debate.
SA, your argument will only really hold up if any of the posters in this thread were the ones to complain about that word in the past. I don’t use it as I just don’t use. Not for any silly PC reason. Now were there any specific hypocrites in this thread that you have found? I have seen the word used against other posters, certain celebrities that were probably not Republican and several Republican pundits and now Palin. Should we make a list of usage and compare? Or are you maybe making too much of the whole thing?
Jim
They have Bush.
Plus, cunt is an awesome word and it can be applied to both men and women.
Cunt cuntiddy cunty cunt cunt.
It has the monosyllabic ‘ooomph!’ that “bitch” lacks.
You may be on to something here. My impression of liberalism has been gleaned from years and years of its promotion by (are you ready for it) the liberal media. During this time one would continually see or read in any national magazine or on television or in movies a message coming from the left that appears, as a matter of fact, not to be the case in reality.
So it is indeed possible that I’m holding liberals to an impossible standard in that they can’t possibly live up to the image of liberalism promoted by their self-appointed public spokespersons [aughh!].
Ah, got it now. And yes, I agree. I know how hard it is to admit when I’m wrong, but still - it’s frustrating that she (he?) can’t just say a few mea culpas, admit to her ignorance, and let’s all get on with our day. Goodness knows I’ve eaten a few plates of crow in my years here! 
Nah, actually for some reason I’m just having a little fun here. Pricking hypocrisies, but without a rise in blood pressure.
And I probably shouldn’t have weighed in today as I have things to do; I just wanted to correct WhyNot’s apparent belief that I felt Washoe should have been called a cunt.
Well, you’ve got problems there too. Let’s assume for the sake of argument (you and I have done this debate before) that there really is a liberal media. Hell, let’s say that there is a Liberal Media. Do you really think that your average liberal working a 9-5 has any say over the message, ideology, tone or positions that the media talking heads take? Hell, not even all of the talking heads agree with each other.
Put it another way, would it be fair for me to insult you as a hypocrite if you didn’t slavishly follow the (often contradictory) rage that comes out of talk radio? Should I assume that the religious fundamentalist talk radio folks who claim that Obama is paving the way for a One World Government which will be exploited by the Anti-Christ… that they’re speaking on your behalf?
Or should I instead assume that both you and they would self-identify as conservatives but that you most likely have numerous substantial differences of opinion on everything from what flavor of ice cream you like to exactly how government should be run?
P.S. I’d point out, by the way, that depending on who I’ve argued with on the Dope they’ve placed me as everything from a “traitor” and a “liberal” (for objecting to our nation torturing people to death) to a “war monger” and “neocon” (for saying that we shouldn’t attack Iran but the Iranian theocracy are still a bunch of scumfucks and they’ve been stonewalling the IAEA and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise). I’m used to the politics of Us-Them and to be honest, it’s a shame to see you engaging in them quite so freely.
This board definitely and undeniably has a liberal slant and yes, there are quite a few hypocrites and bigots here. But take people to task for what they’ve done, not for what media talking heads have done who happen to share the same party affiliation.
Who hasn’t?
You raise very good points here. I may be on the verge of an epiphany!
I did exactly that. Post # 65.
Sorry that wasn’t enough. They needed more blood first. 
No, you didn’t. I have kids. I know a whiny non-apology when I hear it. You made excuses, you defended yourself, you explicitly refused to take back what you said about Palin and you continued to scrabble for the supposed moral and emotional high ground.
I don’t need blood. I don’t need anything at all. But don’t pretend *that *was a mea culpa.
I’ll do my best to oblige. :rolleyes:
This.
“…the Aristocrats!”
(I’m with jsgoddess back on page 1.)