and fossil fuel lobbyists over ordinary people?

--imm

Because my dog will do anything to be petted or for a treat, not because she's female.

Why should anyone that supports Sanders need to apologize because HRC supporters associate Hillary with that word?

it seeded. And boy, did it seed. Apparently, there are no female palm trees in my yard.

Applied to men, the derogatory "whore" term lacks the gender specific connotations that explicitly singles out women as unworthy objects deserving of discrimination, and all too often attempting to couch the most misogynistic and sexist bigotry in the broadest of terms that are neither stated nor implied in the given context.

Do you think Song was only talking about Hillary, or other elected officials too?

He was talking about Clinton. He names her twice in the same paragraph. Sanders was forced to denounce his own surrogate because he knows how bad this looks, and now he's stuck making the apology tour instead of promoting his politics.

Pretending that it's anything but what it is is counterproductive and detrimental to Sanders campaign. In no small part due to his followers, Bernie is now tagged with these repetitive negative stories regarding women. Ignoring or denying there is a problem only serves to generate more and more focus on what is rapiding growing into one of his biggest, and apparently unsurmountable, problems. Look at today's headlines, this is the leading topic in today's TV news programming, the hot topic online, and one the top number of related threads right here in DU.

Wonder if there'll be follow up at the debate tonight...

Unless she's Sybil or something.

Is that how it goes? Look, there's no legitimate excuse for calling any women a sexual slur because those terms are used as a way to rein them in, to control them, to make them adhere to submissive boundaries that men -- most often, men -- as their detractors are determined to impose on them. If you are fortunate enough to have any women in your life, ask them, it's quite likely she recalls her own girlhood and remembers that word as the mother of all hurtful and demeaning names that she was ever called.

Ask yourself why you feel it is necessary to defend a man who refers to any women -- or even a plurality of people -- as whores, a word that has the sole purpose of limiting the power of assertive, outspoken women by dismissing them as complete, whole persons and just objectifying their utility as sexual commodity.

Giggolos? Joy-boys? What a sheltered life you must lead.

As a diversion that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion, this is so childishly obvious, so just picture me rolling my eyes... oh wait...



there you go.

My ignore list is too short.

We start being called a whore from 12 on. It is gonna come across as being called a whore.

I'm disappointed that so many people can't see that.

The use of the word "whore" as an insult to describe women who don't fit the mold imposed on them by society goes back all the way to Shakespeare. Don't pretend it has ever been applied equally to men and women.

a disgusting term

you leave DU.

Skinner and this site received a great deal of support from BartCop and Media Whores Online in the early years. That is beyond tacit approval of the term applied to either gender in a non-sexualized way.

But you are holier than thou, so you might want to go where your delicate sensibilities will never be offended.

but thanks for your concern

Because this has little to do with integrity and congruence. You are Clinton supporter with another bone to gnaw on. You will use it as long as you can to achieve the desired results. You will use it to deflect from the real outrage which is the state of medical care in this country.

In the political arena, it is understood.


Men are whores, too. So stop with the fake outrage.

your analogies aren't analogous.

A media-whore is not someone extremely dedicated to media, like the office worker is dedicated to her career, etc.

You damn well already know this, so don't play games.

we have corporate-whore, media-whore, and attention-whore so far.

What are the others that have been approved thus far?

but that might just be a subset of attention-whore.

What do you think?

or do, whatever. You've got no game, so who cares

All one has to do is to look at her donor list to realize the extent that she has done what some have called being a "corporate whore". Now in context of her being a woman, and ignoring the metaphor, that description can justifiably called cringeworthy.

So I prefer: Hillary Clinton has sold her soul to the devil.

Just look at her fucking donor list and one cannot come to any other conclusion.

My number one issue this year is Citizens United. If we do not change this our political system will forever be tainted. Only one presidential candidate is openly campaigning for campaign finance reform, and it is not Hillary Clinton whose campaign seemingly wholly embraces corporate donations. That is one of the big reasons why I am for Bernie Sanders.

The other is: Heaven help us all if we get Hillary as the nominee and she loses in November.
I will vote for the Dem nominee, but I do not think Hillary can win the White House. Many agree with that sentiment, as is told in national polls. She loses the independents.

... during which all the knuckledraggers piss and moan about not being able to call people n*gger. "It's just a word."

Gawd.

which is why everybody is talking about it and why Sanders himself called it inappropriate.

I respect him for his comment. And Paul Song apologized - which was appropriate.

Call them corporate whores or whatever you want....Politicians who sell out the public interest to Big Corporations are causing men women and children to DIE needlessly.

That's immoral. Call it whatever you want.

People are DYING because of lack of access to medical care because Big Phatma, Health Insurance Industry and Corporate Providers own our government and politicians who stifle a service oriented healthcare system, rather than a profit oriented one.

Many millions more arfe forced to buy overpriced and inadequate extortion called health insurance because of our policies.

Whether or not the word "whore" to describe that relationship is used is of minuscule importance compared to that basic fact.

why do some insist on using it?

Sorry if the term offends you -- but I am far more offended by the facts.....And right now I am offended that a word is being used to distract attention from the fact that people DIE needlessly because politicians follow the orders of big donors and corporations more than the public interest.

They both seek to obfuscate the real issues.

Your interpretation of "corporate whore" differs from others.

can't leave the house without triggering Hillary supporters right and right.

is banned (hidden) on DU.

It's a term progressives like to use, so I'm not surprised that you're not familiar with its common use by people who have liberal values.

and do their bidding.

Corporate whores -- yep.

There are no sexual connotations, it refers to the behavior of selling one's power and influence for money. Hence corporate whore and not simply whore.

Trying to drum up a bunch of faux-outrage to score points. Transparent and pathetic.

With this prissy "well I never hmph!" pearl-clutching thread.

Except that I don't believe that coincidence exists in politics. I do believe in timing, coordination, and opportunism though. All this hullabaloo rings exceedingly hollow.

I know whose side I'm on, and it's not the corporate side.

Can I do so, not as a sexual comment, but to convey that he sells himself (in a figurative sense) for the attention?

All of the supposed, and probably actual, outrage here is an attempt to shut down speech describing some corporatist Democrats because in many cases the complainers cannot justify the conduct of the Democratic politicians.

Anyone who sells their vote for money deserves whatever language is used to describe them. This has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with political corruption disguised as free speech by corporate entities.

I guess that also means the "n" word is ok as long as not referring to race.

And "fag" can be applied to someone as long as it does not imply sexual preferences.

The other two have no political relevance. And the speaker, Mr. Song, was making a political statement.

How many non-whites do you think laughed at these two whites making a racist joke? Where is the equivalent outrage from the Clinton supporters?

I don't care if its Carly Fiorina, Ann Coulter, or Kim Davis: referring to any woman as a (insert profession/religion/hobby here) whore is just plain wrong. We don't need to go back to the Jackie Gleason days. Trump's already taking us there. He doesn't need our help.

And... how fucking refreshing .... if you would just OWN it.

Don't add perjury to your other charges.

No matter what Bernie or his supporters do or say by way of personal attacks nasty or nice, he and his supporters will just ignore it, the media will give Bernie a pass and his supporters will accept anything said or done by his surrogates.

No matter what Hillary or her supporters do or say by way of issue attacks, nasty or nice, she and her supporters will always be accused of personal attacks and advertised as such by the media and Bernie supporters.

last time you saw hors d'oevres?

Talk about corporate whores at a party or some other function, I bet no one bats an eye. Because they know you are talking about corruption in our political system. No one will take it personal. But, hey if you want to go and get personal with people just doing their thing go for it.

and then throw in the n-word for good measure . . . might as well go for broke.

And no I don't use that word to describe women. Hell I didn't even use it to describe that cash grabbing crap that Hillary does until now. But, fuck it that is what it is. I have been offended by that behavior since forever. And you are the one that suggests calling women whores just for living their life so go ahead do it.

I wouldn't even dream of calling out Hillary if she actually did all that she has been hyped to do and she didn't sell out to big pharma and big oil and big war. It is unfortunate we don't actually have words that are harsh enough for that kind of behavior. And the ones that we do are deeply rooted in misogyny. But, they were historically used on men first. Yet, when used on men no one cares. No one cares the term is misogynist so save your faux outrage it's obvious you didn't care about that word until five minutes ago.

I called the OP a "corporate whore" which he said in the OP was NOT offensive. Double Irony?

PS. I hope this isn't meta (which I do not understand)

If you started a post, "I hate so and so because...", that alert would go to hosts, and they would decide if that was Meta and might be locked.

If you commented in an already running thread, "I hate so and so because...", that alert would go to a jury and might be hidden.

OP's get locked, comments get hidden. I hope that helps.

That clarifies greatly. I just couldn't out what the rules were trying to tell me. Thanks!

That's what I learned.