She’s still young and is still learning from the masters.
She’s learning anything at all and improving herself? Well, that’s a welcome change
I’m not trying to “pull” anything. The quaint “strumpet” sobriquet made me smile. That is all. The subsequent ranting about it made me despondent for our culture.
I read it as a witty attempt , a play on words implying the spokesperson (lean and squeeze Leavett) for the lecherous in chief (Trump) is whoring (strumpeting) for her whoremaster. Which she does on a daily basis.
It’s applicable
This right-adjacent “war on woke” that you and Maher engage in is not well-received here. Not after this site put in a lot of effort to try to curb the casual misogyny.
I strongly disagree. Speaking only for myself, I found “strumpet” funny because it was so suggestive of “trumpet”, which might more accurately be spelled “Trumpette”. IMHO all the concerns about implications of misogyny in this context are hugely overwrought. My evidence is that this small matter of interpretation has derailed this entire thread. I apologize for my role in this, but I’m astonished by the visceral reaction to something so trivial.
I’ve gotta say, though, the person who seems to be reacting to this situation with the most overreaction and hypersensitivity appears to be you.
Nobody called the OP sexist or misogynist for using the word “strumpet”. Nobody hurled any “denunciation” or any accusations of harm or offense or malicious intent.
A few of us quietly and moderately agreed that using a sexualized and gendered insult like “strumpet” was not the best choice for this situation. That was all.
But that apparently harshed your smile buzz so bad that it made you “despondent for our culture”. Really?
I’ve got a question for you, wolfpup: Is anybody ever allowed to object, in a moderate and reasonable tone, that they think somebody else is using an inappropriately insulting term albeit without malicious intent?
Or is it just not possible for anyone ever to comment on things like unintended connotations of language use from something resembling a “woke” perspective, without sending you into your distressing spiral of cultural despondency?
Good, because AFAICT it’s mostly you making the big fuss about not very much here.
I entirely take the point that the gendered socio-sexual implications of ‘strumpet’ are irrelevant to the qualifications of the paid mouthpiece of the President; but how about spelling it as ‘$Trumpet’ to conflate being paid to perform as Trump’s pet trumpet?
It’s no secret that I’ve never had much respect for you, but this thread has changed things.
I no longer need the word “much.”
The visceral reaction? Was it this?
Or this?
This one?
Tame. Polite. Fair minded.
The first visceral reaction I saw in this thread was yours, coming out of the gate calling people hypersensitive and escalating from there because how dare we call out misogyny when we see it.
“asshole” has no gender baggage and is a good default term that doesn’t get anyone’s “panties in a bunch” (I kid intentionally).
If your goal is to get the most people to engage on the substance of the argument, avoid a mysoginistic term that may cause rat holing.
I learned this trying to have conversations with gun “nuts”. Avoiding “trigger” language made for slightly better discourse. 
This is what I suggested above and I think fits better since Leavitt spews shit daily.
Karoline Leavitt [replying to question about Trump making money on his meme coin]: ~“it’s ridicuous to suggest that President Trump would do anything for his own benefit. He left a life of luxury and a very successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice, for public service.”
JAW-DROPPING: Trump’s press secretary HUMILIATES herself at podium
Despite the click-baity titles of this video clips, I watch them to see what these people publically say (at least until the deep fakes take over, which seems to only be a matter of time).
Kellyanne Conway had a giveaway tell whenever she was about to spew some “alternative facts”. She would pause, swallow, and toss her hair a little and then say something about the “Bowling Green Massacre” or whatever was the bullshit-talking-point-of-the-day. From what I’ve seen of Leavitt, it’s more like George Constanza’s approach: “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
I’m offended on behalf of strumpets. Karoline Leavitt and anything remotely related to sex ought not be in the same sentence.
With apologies again for having digressed the thread, but if I may, I have several acknowledgments and a clarification. First of all, there are words in the language that have such powerful racist or misogynistic connotations that they should never be used. No reasonable person disputes this. But in this particular case, the word “strumpet” in my view was humourously appropriate for obvious reasons that have more to do with orthography than Leavitt’s sexual proclivities, and I thought the OP should get kudos instead of being criticized for it.
As for my description of the “visceral” reaction to it, it wasn’t a reference to any one specific post. It was the way the whole thread began to revolve around it. I freely admit that part of the hypersensitivity here is mine. I really do have a fundamental problem with well-intentioned but basically stupid and pointless attempts by self-styled language police to lay out the guidelines for what is and is not “appropriate” language, like we were all first-graders being chastised for using “bad words”. Why is this a bad thing? Because, gentle people, this is part of the kind of tiresome political correctness that put Trump in the White House.
And so I wait for some actual CONTENT, apart from my obvious faux-pas with using the word ‘strumpet’ (which at the time, I thought was entirely appropriate as a descriptor of Karoline Leavitt btw). Not in a misogynistic way, I would have used that word if Trump’s Press Secretary was a bloke. Would that have passed the test here on the Dope?
So, if I call a bloke a dick, am I using sexist language? If I call a woman a fishwife or a harridan, is that also sexist? If I call Trump a whore-mongering son-of-a-bitch, what then?
Seriously Dope, there are times when words are just words, and not meant to imply anything more than what appears on the screen.
And I stand by my use of strumpet, and I shall wait patiently for some actual responses to my OP.
Apologies, I can now see some actual responses to my OP, amidst the dreck of hyper-sensitivity to words. Thanks to those who helped me understand Leavitt. A big, fat raspberry to those who chose to jump onto the offenderati bandwagon.
To get this thread back on track, there’s also the fact that one won’t last long as Trump’s press secretary by trying to deal with the mainstream media in good faith. You thrive in Trump’s circle by being a mean, lying, shit-talking snake.
My big problem is her age. (Not in a ageist way)
She is so young, I’m afraid she’s gonna pick up the evil ways and spread them around.
If I was her Mother I’d be doing some fast talk into her ear.
Remind her lots of Trumps associates ended up in court and/or jail.
My kid is near that age. I wouldn’t want her anywhere near the Whitehouse press room.
It’s typical of White House press secretaries to be apologists for the President, some more than others. The standard-bearer up till now has been Ron Ziegler, press secretary for Richard Nixon, who famously termed false Administration statements about Watergate as “inoperative”.
Leavitt seems determined to outdo Ziegler in making excuses and lying for her boss.
She has a role, and she fulfills it.