"Rape" not an appropriate descriptor for high credit card rates.

Problem: I think the recent Consumerist story about someone being "raped" by a credit card company was over the line. I'm not usually easily offended --and I have to admit, I don't take any kind of personal umbrage at the misuse of the word "rape"-- however I think that there's a minimal level of common decency and respect gawker should use in its posts for certain highly emotionally-charged terms. And I understand those who are offended; using the word "rape" for something far less horrific than the common usage of rape subtly weakens the feeling that rape is horrific, and implies that it shouldn't be taken as seriously as some people take it. I doubt that was the author's intent, but nevertheless that is the effect. For future reference, I think using the terms "lynching" or "holocaust" or "gay-bashing" or "ethnic cleansing" to describe the practice of charging high interest rates would also be inappropriate, for the same reasons.
And mistakes happen. I'm not saying the author should be fired or certain terms blocked. But when the article was posted, and immediately comments showed that some users didn't think it was appropriate, I was very surprised that the author did not either a) edit the language to something with a similar intent but which was less offensive, or b) apologize and explain why he used the language he did, and why he's not willing to change it.