Re: oh please.
pcg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> It's bonkers for Palin to use definition #4 of the word when people could > misinterpret her as using definition #1? When there's a possibility that the misinterpretation could be dangerous? Yes, I think that's bonkers. The national political climate has become heightened to the point of being surreal, with violent language and imagery permeating even the most mundane discussions. The divide between left and right is increasingly defined by those who are "stealing America" and those whose guns will have to be pried from their cold dead fingers. People with this level of ideological fervor aren't famous for their ability to parse language, nor for their discernment of philosophical boundaries. Right now, I feel it is extremely important that we do not blur the lines between political and spiritual ideologies. I'm not saying that Palin did anything diabolical or malevolent, just lazy and dangerous. > Usually people adapt to the given > context, applying to most probably > definition. I think that should apply > here. Context is entirely dependent on who is reading/hearing the comment. If a comedian walks out of the House of Representatives and jovially says to the security officers at the door, "I just murdered everyone in there," how far do you think he would get? ;) -- -pcg [email protected] -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot