Re: oh please.
Bruce Geerdes <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:10 PM, pcg <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. "Sacred" is dangerous? Maybe I'm missing the context myself, having not watched her video. > People with this level of ideological fervor > aren't famous for their ability to parse language, nor for their > discernment of philosophical boundaries. > Based on Palin's getting hassled for words like "sacred" and "blood libel", I'm not confident in *anyone's* ability to parse language. ;) > I'm not saying that > Palin did anything diabolical or malevolent, just lazy and dangerous. > Oh, Palin's dangerous all right, just not for the reasons everyone seems to think. ;) > > 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? ;) Sure. I just don't see Palin saying that. Maybe it's in right-wing code? ;) -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot