Romney to Prez: Don't bullshit a bullshitter

OIC, well my understanding is that lesbians using it is like gay guys calling each other faggots and blacks calling each other nigger, an attempt at appropriation and disarming of a slur. But in mho, there's more than a little bit of fail there, because it's butch lesbians attempting to affect testosterone airs and talking about femmes like they are pieces of meat

And that's what I see when I see you write "I want to get some pussy" (instead of "I want to make love to a woman" or "I'm horny" or "I want to get laid"):

I want one of them female pieces of meat; women as their genitals; all of you females why don't you just shut the fuck up and fuck us; put a bag over their heads, that part is useless, who needs anything but their cunts, etc.

I believe the etymology is that it started with hetereo males, often adolescent or of similar mind, using pussy as such a derogative of women, amongst themselves, bragging how many conquests they racked up, like pieces of meat. Then from there they started calling lesbians "pussy eaters." And the butch lesbians picked that up as a sign of solidarity with the whole testoterone mindset, they can demean a femme along with the best of them. From there of course as others pick it up it might lose its sting within the subculture, but it doesn't to me and a lot of other women.

It is very macho, it's like locker room bullshit. No surprise that it's used in porn and stripper world as they're selling bodies, and also using derogatory terms is part of some couples sex play. Both are fine with me (sex as commodity and using words in private sex play that are not appropriate elsewhere,) I just don't like seeing it used in public discourse, because the real ugly baggage comes with it then.

I think it's such a negative to see a writer use it, I think it's so bad that If I didn't know your opinions and style as I do, and I saw you use it, I would immediately judge you as a troglodyte male sexist pig.

This has nothing to do with using the word as a political slur, BTW, I read calling a male politician a pussy as saying he's a kitten, a pussycat, that is actually the main use of the term in the King's English going way back

would sorely miss it were you to boycott my posts.

Not planning on it! Appreciate your participation in this little discussion group and miss it when you're not here. As I tried to imply, it's not something that's going to get me up out of my chair to protest, I just always found your non-political use of the word  puzzling, as if you didn't know how offensive it was to many, including me. Always meant to say something in case you weren't aware; this time the occasion seemed to present itself. It's kind of dumb to be insulting when you don't mean to, I thought you'd want to know that's how it could come off.

P.S. I found this good description of the offensiveness on an old discussion board somewhere, my bold:

.I do--it's dissociating a body part from my body and making up a name for it. My body parts all belong to me, and I am a complete human being--you can not reduce me to one of them and mark the fact that you have reduced me to a body part by making up a demeaning name for that body part and calling me by that name.

I especially like her use of "mark," because to me there is that dog marking his territory thing to it, ownership of all the females, just so many breeding organs there for your pleasure to utilize.

No kidding? Huh, who knew...specially since I believe I can reliably pronounce her safe from visiting the site. but, whatev. Other than the usual slurs, while we're exploring the Canon, can I feel safe continuing with the unrestrained use of prick? It is so much more usefully evocative than any alternative. I know there is a pass for schmuck, as Genghis applied it to me as a term of endearment. Please, also, Ramona, (just a guess) guide. me re:"cracker", which I always took as a shortened whip cracker, ie., overseer, but which I am informed is sometimes rendered "soda cracker", hence racist, by the White Aryan Resistance, whom, of course, we would be loath to offend.

She's welcome to the top of the wall if I can avoid being up against it...

Careful reading of your comments shows no trace of the simplest element in TMac's reply to JR. I heard her saying that taunting references to perceived defects in character such as the cowardice of a "punk" is an emasculation of a certain kind, an expulsion of a man from the world of manly men.

You speculate that the motive behind TMac saying this is ulterior to her true purpose; humiliating JR in her capacity of another role you have assigned for her.

All this matter of assigning ulterior motives is an infinite regress. For instance, I could take the fact that you evaded the simplest part of TMac's question and offer it as evidence of a defect in your character.

But to hell with that; guys would start saying I hit like a girl.

Let's revisit the much-maligned and even deplored decision not to deport illegal immigrants of a certain age...

Here are three positive things "progressives" could take from this, at least potentially:

• A lot of kids will be helped. I understand there are some assumptions involved in this, like it not being reversed by Dij's man, but let's take on face value.

This strikes me as the main and overwhelming point. People who were not going to be helped are now going to be helped. Unless one's politics is entirely narcissistic, this should be a trump card.

Progressives sometimes remind me of that Jackie Mason bit about Jews ordering in restaurants. "Make it hot. Not too hot. But a little hot. And put it on a separate plate. Not a big plate. Not a small plate. Put it on the side, but not too close to the edge. And not too close to the middle. And can we move our table next to that table and take a chair from that other table?"

Meanwhile, the gentiles have ordered, eaten, paid, and are snoozing happily in their chairs while the Jews are rearranging furniture.

• Since the day Obama went rogue, all we've heard from "progressives" is: "We must confront Obama and get him to change, etc." Followed by the whine, "But THEY won't let us!" Or, "they're kicking us out of the party!" Or, "He isn't consulting us."

Well, assuming the multiple occupations were, in fact, the mechanism of action here, we have an example of what progressives have been talking about for the last 3.5 years.

And it worked! In fact, it would seem, those Quisling OFAers to whom Dij and I guess others have given a new orifice whenever they called, got the message to their boss and persuaded him to act. We don't know of course, but you seem to think those multiple occupations did the trick.

But instead of "cool, it worked," what do we see? "It doesn't 'count'; he was forced to do it." "Look at all the things he didn't do that he could have." "He co-opted Rubio's plan."

This last point deserves special mention. Since Rubio could end up as Dij's VP, I guess she feels protective toward him. But since when do Democrats regard it as a BAD thing when we co-opt the opposition's programs? Especially when the opposition's programs are nothing more than a co-optation of the plan we really support, i.e., The Dream Act? But in DijWorld, anything is possible when you break free from the shackles of party "loyalty."

Elsewhere, the pirate was seen sneering through his beard, "Blimey, you call that courage???? I've seen more courage in a dead fish." Here we have the "courage test." You can't call anything good, positive, hopeful unless it shows...courage.

But Jolly, aside from the fact that people will benefit whether "courage" was shown or not...courage is kinda hard to pin down. For example...

One could say that it shows a lot of courage to tell your base to go fuck themselves, right? Especially as, according to them, they are the reason you got elected in the first place. To bet on finding common ground with the opposition who openly hates you rather than playing it safe and huddling with the homies.

(Of course, since your base represents .0001% of the voting population, maybe it's a crafty move. Plouffe says that the latino vote will be important in determining the winner in 2012. No one is saying that about progressives--or have I missed something?)

And it gets worse: Everyone hates the health care bill (we're told)...right and left. I'm just an ordinary guy who gets up and goes to work everyday, but it seems to me that it takes a fair amount of courage to stick to your guns when your base hates you and the opposition hates you. What am I missing here?

Courage is a slippery concept and not very important, IMO. But if you're looking for some, I say, "Vote Romney." No one will know anyway, Jolly. You might as well take a stand in the anonymity of the voting booth. Baby steps, dude. And even if Romney wins the election, he won't win New York, by golly, and you can pass that lie detector test in flying colors.

• Thirdly, a profitable response to this victory, might be: Gee, that worked. What other issues can we apply the same winning strategy to? Maybe we could get some judges nominated. But instead of "let's see how we can build on this win," we get the usual "A win? It's not a win! It showed no courage. It was Marco's idea. It will only get reversed when my man Romney wins the election. He only did it because he was forced to do it. He didn't want to do it. He didn't do it sooner. He didn't do other things he could've done. He's just panicking." And so on...

It is true that a lot of progressives are Jews. Maybe THAT's why we never get anywhere!"

I was better than fine with security council justification