3 ms·

One of a few cases when "bitch" is completely justified. She endangered people's lives because of her greed.

• alasdair_ 10y ago
  Whose lives were put in danger exactly? Was there anyone specific?
• danso 10y ago
  There are ways to condemn someone without casting aspersions on an entire gender. The WSJ was able to basically single-handedly dismantle her hype and company without even any kind of insult. Cue the protest of "political correctness", as if not explicitly deriding her gender would put us at risk of whitewashing her crimes. I've liked using the b-word too. I stopped after working construction in a rural town, where perfectly decent fellows would use the n-word in the same context as the b-word, e.g. That's -work, or: I got shotgun, you're sitting . I found it hard to believe that I could use the b-word and not have it be a subconscious comment on what I thought of women. Holmes is an asshole, no thought of gender needed.
  • imaginenore 10y ago
    What are you talking about? He called one person "bitch", not the whole gender. Your attempt at Oppression Olympics is just sad.
  • tnones 10y ago
    And yet "asshole", "dick", "creep" and so on are perfectly valid to throw at a man without anyone worrying it's casting aspersions on the entire gender. Double standards, must protect the m'ladies!
    • danso 10y ago
      I didn't call anyone a dick. Though I wouldn't go on the stand and say that I never casually use it. Also, you're probably aware that there's often different tolerances for in-group use of a word. That shouldn't be a surprise, really, it's usually not the physical presence of a word that people object to.