Democrats - You Can Not Under Any Circumstance Use The Word "Whore"

[scottie55]

The word whore is meant to demean female prostitutes, and it is a sexist attack on only females. It has no place in politics, ever.

When referring to politicians who sell themselves out for cash, donations and favors, the proper term is prostitute.

Prostitute, well, we all know what it means, and it covers both sexes. When used in politics it may be 100% accurate, but not actually sexist.

In the future refer to Wall Street sellouts as prostitutes not whores.

[Warpy]

1. Thank you for appointing yourself Linguistic Dictator.

I will, of course, give you all due respect and continue to use words that are appropriate to the situation.

[Bubzer]

10. +1 Billion

[Politicalboi]

2. Are you the new rule maker

I will not change my vocabulary to be PC. Political whore is a legitimate word and it fits certain people. We can't help it if Hillary people think it's about her. I wonder why they think that.

The truth hurts sometimes.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. How about if I disguse my voice

and "checkerboard" my image?

Will the Word PD still know it was me? How high-tech is the spy department, anyway?

[rock]

4. Will you guys use the sarcasm tag when your post is sarcastic, please

We cannot hear the tone in your writing. (If you're not being sarcastic - never mind!)

[scottie55]

7. I Am Being 100% Sincere

Using the word whore is in some ways an attack on all women. The word is never meant to be applied to men, but it would seem to fit if one thinks about it hard enough.

[Bubzer]

11. Word usage and meaning evolves, as all things do.

It doesn't matter if the word wasn't meant to apply to men, as well as women. The reality is that since the 90s, the word whore has had a far broader application across the gender spectrum... to the point where it's not a gender specific term any longer... except, perhaps, to those who cannot seem to escape the past.

political whore

A politician who will sell out their constituents if it means they might get one step higher on the ladder. They will completely flip-flop on an issue that was the core of their campaign platform just because they think it might help them get elected to, for instance, Lake Forest City Council. They will even sell out the person who threw them proxies to get them into office. They become so "whoreish" that in the end, they are so slutty and nasty that nobody will touch them with a ten foot ballot.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=political+whore

You don't have to like the word, but it's gonna get used... you'll have to cope with it.

[EdwardBernays]

5. Lol

Ha!

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

6. Horse shit!

The word whore is meant to demean female prostitutes, and it is a sexist attack on only females.

Not buying that crappola.

All repugs and even some Dems prostitute themselves for the almighty dollar. Whores!

[msongs]

8. as you wish - the Lockheed prostitute from Vermont included nt

[Gamecock Lefty]

9. Some candidates . . .

prostitute themselves out to crowds of 25,000 adoring fans.

[Craig234]

12. The word

I disagree with the OP about some big difference between "whore" being bad and "prostitute" better.

And I disagree that the word 'whore' is meant to demean prostitutes, at least as 'the' definition.

I think the word has a troubled history. It goes back to a more sexist period, when a promiscuous woman - however much men were happy to take advantage - was attacked as a "whore", while a promiscuous man was something to be admired much of the time.

There were some weak efforts to sometimes use 'male whore', but the word largely remained about its use for shaming women for having more sex than the accuser approved of - or having the 'bad character' to want to.

When it's mixed with the issue of the male domination in money and power, it's problematic in its 'other meaning' - which is otherwise right on - to attack politicians who are lacking in principles and morals, to 'whorishly' indulge in corruption.

The word was often used for a prostitute, but not always. The bottom line - a woman selling what 'should not be sold' for money, or a politician who sold 'what should not be sold for money', sex in one case and the public trust in the other.

When it's used against a male politician, it makes its point very well, but still has that misogynist bite to it of its history, and there are plenty of other words to say the same thing, so why not use them and remove the sexism issue.

But when the context is the first woman close to being nominated for president, it adds a whole new wrong level of sexism to the word. And when that woman's campaign is just looking for any hint of sexism to use to motivate its voters, it inflates the issue.

It's like phrases that have a history of racism against blacks being used against candidate Obama - didn't you think he sounded uppity in that speech? Even if it's a legitimate criticism, it's also an appeal to racism in the wrong hands.

So, in my opinion - drop the word, because of the sexist history, and make the same point with other language. And do it out of some respect for the first female candidate this close to the presidency - while attacking her strongly where she deserves to be attacked.

[hobbit709]

13. How about a corporatist politician of easily negotiable virtue?