He mentions that Clinton didn't object when a reporter was fired for mentioning Chelsea, as if that's a problem. If you read the article he links to it says the editor made a decision that no one was going to write about Chelsea unless it was news, the reporter wrote about it anyway, and the editor fired him. Wow! Really? You can't do the opposite of what your boss tells you to do without getting in trouble? Surely it wouldn't be the place of the first lady of the United States to tell a newspaper editor how to run their office.

Secondly, the idea that because a word is commonly used in pop culture it must be acceptable in any context is both ridiculous and completely unsupported by the links he gives. The fact that "pimped" is now used to refer to things like cars or data in no way means that popular culture has decided it's acceptable to use it in reference to women. When MTV gets a show called Pimp My Daughter to refer to mothers getting their daughters dates, then you could make that claim, but Pimp My Car is in no way equivalent. I agree that popular culture has expanded the phrase from it's original meaning, though I completely disagree that it could ever be said to be devoid of at least a sexual undertone, but when you use "pimped" to refer to a woman, you're making the undertone explicit again. When someone says a person is being pimped out, it means they're a prostitute. When someone says a car is being pimped out, it means it's being decorated in the gaudy fashion that a pimp might like. It still celebrates the idea of the pimp, but it's no longer explicitly celebrating the act that a pimp performs. So pimping a car and pimping a person, while the same phrase aren't making the same comparison at all.

And in any case, one tv show and a random blog is hardly evidence that the phrase has actually entered the popular lexicon more than other offensive slang usages of sexual terms. I would guess that the phrase "raped" is used more often among young people than "pimped" is, in expressions like "that test raped me" or "that team just raped us" after a bad loss. Yet I think we could all agree that if an anchor were to suggest that Obama had raped Hillary in South Carolina it would be completely offensive to both of them. Certainly no one would argue that some college students use the word in a "non-sexual" manner, so clearly it's appropriate at any time. I think the comparison with the "lyching" comment in reference to Tiger Woods is apt. The only real difference I see between them is that while lynching would be unheard of now, sex slavery and pimping is still a problem around the world. For some reason though I don't remember anyone being up in arms defending the lynching comment though.

Well argued and hilarious.

Sorry if this is a bit of any easy shot, but I think you reveal more than you intend to when you refer to MTV's "Pimp My Car." The show is actually called "Pimp My Ride," and the kind of people who use "pimp" without intending any sexual associations know that. The type of people who don't know the name of the show, I'd be willing to bet, are also not the kind of people who are familiar with this evolving use of the word. I think there's definitely an element of good old fashioned misunderstanding in this whole tempest in a teapot.

I'm 22, I suppose you're right that that makes me about 7 years over the shows target audience.  Still, if anything I think my not remembering the name enhances my point; tons of people have no idea about this mtv show and even more have only seen it once or twice at most, it really is for one extremely specific demographic, not just young people, but a tiny portion of young people that is almost entirely male.

 I just don't think you can argue that "pimped out" has entered the general cultural vocabulary and is acceptable on a news show because of one not particularly popular cable show, any more than I would argue that raped  is acceptable because I've met people that say that.  You can argue that some people will find it acceptable, namely the people that supposedly use the phrase without intending sexual associations, but it sounds like we agree that the number of people that do so is pretty small, and probably completely negligible in the makeup of msnbc's audience. Knowing your audience is important.  If I'm hanging out with friends I have no problem cursing, but when I'm giving a presentation I would fully expect to be punished or even let go if I started saying f this and f that.  It shouldn't be shocking to find out that what's acceptable to some people in some situations isn't acceptable to everyone in all situations, and to see someone defend a national news anchor reporting on
a presidential election by arguing that some teenagers say it too about their cars is just idiotic.  

if 99% of your audience thinks something you said is offensive, then it's offensive, that's what offensive means: causing people to be offended.  If I were to say his remarks were mean spirited, someone could argue that by saying, well he didn't mean it, it was a poor word choice, and I couldn't really respond because I don't know why he said it.  But if hundreds of articles are devoted to writing about how many people were offended by the comments, then the comments were provably offensive.  It doesn't seem unreasonable for a tv station to punish someone who offended a major portion of their audience.