and I'm going to borrow a few of them from you.

You just can't ignore Holocaust Deniers, or Nazis, or Fascists or the current GOP... Sometimes you must shout them down, and shut them down, even little nobodys like Shooter. Others can ignore them and go after the bigger targets, but they are all targets, and like an infection, if you don't get it all, it just comes back stronger, and resistant to treatment.

Yep, that's pretty much how I feel about the "ho" comments. For women-- of any color-- "ho" is just as unacceptable as any of your examples, and sometimes you just have to push back. For all the good it does...

Usually I do just ignore such comments, and I don't feed trolls (like Shooter), because it just enables hijacking the discussion. The Salon threads with 500-600 plus comments? Trolls (usually)... hijacking the discussion. Eventually, it becomes impossible to keep up with a discussion, because who has enough time to wade through all of that stuff?

Mostly, though, I don't want to see Glenn's excellent blog held hostage to the same level of commenting that occurs on so many other Salon threads... And I said so-- as a long-time Salon subscriber-- when GG first announced his move here. (I was already reading him at UT). The quality of commenting on his blog both then & now is at a much higher level than most. Let's not let it decline by not speaking up soon enough.

The guy who says "ho" is never going to get elected to office. The guys spewing all the crap Shooter does did get elected, and look where we are now. Priorities.

(Actually, I don't assume that the two are mutually exclusive.) In fact, some of the former did get elected, IMHO. I recall a particularly vulgar set of quotes from an interview of GWB (maybe w/ Tucker Carlson). As for the latter, I would not disallow their spewing... but would not return the lob. Either read and learn something, or get bored and go elsewhere, and the majority of comments are not then devoted to what will probably be a fruitless quest (since Trolls do not post in good faith-- that is the essence of being a Troll). Calling attention to sexism is one of my priorities. Aren't the guys-in-charge and the ones doing the spewing all about as sexist as they come? And isn't that a big part of the problem?

[Frankly, the tone of many of those who push back against Shooter is also undesirable, however understandable it might be. I am one of those who thinks that Progressives, Liberals, etc., should just forego the bad language, because it isn't necessary, and only distracts from what is more important, not to mention blurring the differences between "us" and "them." Read Harvey Wasserman's post at Huffington Post on Kurt Vonnegut: "Be civil," Vonnegut said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/may-peace-be-with-you-ku_b_45834.html

Vonnegut is as iconoclastic (and uncensored) as they come, and yet, nary a word requiring asterisks. He is always civil, even when he mentions Hitler. He does not say that Hitler and Bush are the same; instead, he notes a major difference. The man was brilliant. I know we can't all measure up, but shouldn't we want to?]

Anyway, I do appreciate your extremely courteous response. ;~) Usually, I just get called a "concern troll" (and then relegated to "moderation") when I bring up language, though not at Salon.

A fine point about language is never small, e_five.

I remember a conversation with a young man (working his way through college and trying to think in an enterprising way), who thought that operating something resembling a strip club might be a good way to earn some real money. He was single, no children, but had a younger sister, about whom he felt protective, even though he and his brother teased her quite a bit. It didn't take much discussion to make him see that any one working there would likely be someone's sister. Just like his. Just had to use her name a few times.

Sometimes, I agree with Joan when I see older fathers of daughters who really do get it. But, then I also see the ones that other commenters have mentioned... and they are probably more plentiful. Could it be that waiting for men to become fathers might actually be waiting too long? By then, they may have already been married for awhile, and used to having things their own way (until the baby comes along!).

Perhaps, earlier on, when they might still feel protective of a younger sister or cousin, or an older, female relative (who was held back by the dinosaur structures of a mere few decades ago)... they would be more receptive to learning about sexism?

Unfortunately, given what I know about Kos's site and the interactions there, I am not optimistic that he will be open to change, but you never know... anything is possible.

I don't think he merits a pass this time, though.