Thanks for your feedback on MinnPost’s comment policy. Your email was forwarded to me because I oversee our group of volunteer monitors.

You’ve raised an interesting point – one that others have raised as well — but you’ve also raised a very complicated issue.

This whole area of “offensive sexual terms” is a very deep quagmire for media sites everywhere.

It’s clear that the term generally is meant as a putdown of Tea Party followers and philosophy.

But its other meaning as a sexual term is extremely problematic.

That’s because all sorts of “offensive” words have this problem. One of the most common is the prevalence of the term “suck,” which many newspapers several years back routinely banned – or severely limited – because of its connotations. In recent years, however, most media allow the word to be used quite freely.

Two other examples – both all the way back to Watergate days – come to mind in terms of increased casual use : “let it all hang out” and “Deep Throat.” The list goes on.

In my view, such usages fall under the concept of English as a “living language” that is constantly evolving beyond original meanings.

This is true, as well, for non-sexual terms. My favorite example is the word “visionary,” which has grown beyond the negative dictionary definition of a person with “impractical ideas” to now also mean the opposite — “a person of strong and creative imaginative power and, often, the ability to inspire others.”

Again, thanks for your input. We’ll keep talking about standards here and look for ways to address issues like this – but it isn’t easy finding a mid-course.

– Don