Letters to the Editor
BryanS
Published Letters: 365 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Three things
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Forgive me if I'm repeating what's been said before, but I wanted to share my thoughts, and I haven't had time to read the 300+ comments that this article has generated:
1) "Whore" is unique among slurs in that it can also be an accurate descriptor of a person's chosen behavior. Calling someone a "kike" or a "wetback" is strictly an attack on the identity that they were born with, but a person of either gender who performs sex acts for money is, literally, a "whore." That means that it's also valid to extend that definition metaphorically, if the person in question undertakes any ethically questionable activity in exchange for cash. Under our current political system, every politician who doesn't self-finance their own campaign leaves themselves open to charges of metaphorically whoring themselves out for campaign contributions. Calling a random woman a "whore" just because she's a woman is unacceptable. Calling a particular ethically conflicted person a "whore" is rude, but in some cases, it can also be true.
2) It's an especially ugly thing when someone from outside of a particular identity group uses a slur to attack someone who's a member of that group. I don't call women "bitches" or black people "niggers," because momma didn't raise me like that. But I've called ignorant white guys "cracker assholes" to their faces and not felt bad about it, because I'm white (and more than capable of being an asshole). Similarly, if Randi Rhodes -- who I generally consider to be an obnoxious hack -- wants to call Hillary a "whore," I don't know that I'd frame that as a misogynist attack, any more than I considered it homophobic when a gay friend of mine recently referred to our equally gay waiter as a "fussy little faggot."
3) Congratulations on the boost in readership since taking over as EIC. I know that most news sites and channels are experiencing significant upticks in reader/viewership as a direct result of their primary coverage as well. This historical and exciting Democratic primary has sent me back to a lot of sites that I'd sort of tuned out over the past several years. However, my reasons for spending so much time on Salon lately revolve around countering what I consider to be unfair editorial biases against Obama and for Hillary in the Democratic primary. Once Obama secures the nomination, I don't think that I'll be visiting nearly as often, because I no longer have the faith in the quality or integrity of Salon's journalism that I had before the primary began in earnest.
-
@ bernbart
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As far as the word Bitch. What is the equivalent for term for men?
I guess calling a guy a "dick" or a "prick" would be the closest you're likely to get to a purely male slur. "Arrogant prick" is a term that gets thrown around a lot (yes, even in Salon's comments) to describe successful or ambitious men -- many of whom, I freely grant, are arrogant pricks.
Maybe this isn't considered as big a deal as calling a woman a "bitch" because men historically haven't been oppressed to the degree that women have. Or maybe it's not as big a deal because other men who support these "arrogant pricks" don't cry foul every time the term is used.
-
Was it just me?
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Or did anyone else just see a response from "christopherwalsh" to Uncle Fester's last message that disappeared almost as soon as it was posted? It was very short and didn't contain any offensive content, so I don't know why it's not there anymore.
-
Hear, hear
[Read the article: Lieberman's unusual take on "the facts"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've been very pleased with the quality and quantity of War Room postings this week, and I'm not saying that just because you haven't posted anything that makes Obama look bad. :)
It's a real delight to see short but insightful analytical articles appearing almost hourly, and nary a cut-and-pasted press release in the bunch. I'm also glad to see the War Room's considerable potential being used to launch broadsides against Republicans and Joe Lieberman (if I'm not being redundant there).
-
@ david
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It was something to the effect of, "You seem to think that I'm serving someone. Who exactly do you mean by that?"
Honestly, it seemed to me at first glance like it was written as a personal response to Fester, who directed his comment specifically to Joan. It was really weird, and it vanished almost immediately. Is Joan trolling the boards under fake usernames?! :)
-
@ kreniigh
[Read the article: Lieberman's unusual take on "the facts"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, you know what they say about guys with tiny hands... perhaps Joe's hawkish positions are the result of a "little man" complex.
-
@ MichaelC02
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Reading many of the negative comments to what Joan has said makes it clear that most of writers don’t even comprehend the point she is making. Salon’s comment pages will be more enlightening without their input.
No, I think most of us do comprehend Joan's points. That's part of the problem.
And if those of us who disagree with Joan stop posting, the only commenters left will be people like you and MellenB, who sign up for multiple accounts and post one or two quick drive-by responses to make it look as if you're not vastly outnumbered by folks who hold the opposite opinion.
-
@ raymundohpl
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Um, do you realize the irony inherent in supporting Joan's tirade against Randi Rhodes' calling Hillary a "fucking whore" by calling Rhodes a "CUNT" in all caps?
-
@ Joan
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for clearing that up, Joan. I'm also glad to see that you're reading the comments about your article. Hopefully some of the more articulate ones will cause you to rethink a few of the positions you've taken in the past few months, because you're obviously alienating a significant portion of those new readers you've brought in lately.
-
Awww, sheeeit!
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan's stepping into a flame war!
This has officially turned into a Battlestar Galactica messageboard.
(And for the record, I have no problem with them making the new Starbuck female.)