Re: Is Palin's blood libel sacred? was oh please

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:

> > Well, my whole point was that it was wrong, not that it was unusual, 
> > so you seem to be rebutting a point that I never made.<
>
> No, I'm suggesting that the two are intertwined; because of the 
> commonness of it I am suggesting that it is reasonable to understand her 
> words pursuant to the alternative definitions.

And I'm saying that she's a Christian first and foremost, or at least she 
ought to be, and that that should influence her word choices.

> In essence you are saying she is wrong for using a word when it is you 
> that doesn't understand how it was being used . . .

No, I understand.

> . . . or are forcing a definition of the word she didn't intend and the 
> majority of people hearing it didn't hear.

You know, maybe I'm not concerned with what the "majority" were thinking 
consciously.  Maybe I'm concerned with how the word works subliminally for 
pretty much *everyone*.  But even if it works on that level of nuance only 
for a minority, it could still be a very important minority.

> It would be like criticizing everyone for referring to the shooting as a 
> tragedy.  Yeah, technically you might be right, but you, (not you 
> personally), would still be kind of a dick to be fixating on that.   

Which is precisely why I haven't said anything about that.  Well, that 
plus the fact that the word "tragedy" gets abused *all* *the* time*.  Plus 
it has no special meaning for Christians.  "Sacred", on the other hand, 
*does* have a special meaning for the devout.  And it tends to be applied 
to only a limited number of things.  So it's worth making the point.

> > And yet the debate exists.  Which is all the proof you need that Palin 
> > and/or her advisers should have known better.
>
> No, there are good faith debates and bad faith ones . . .

This is a difference that makes no difference.  The *motives* of the 
people who know what the term means is neither here nor there; what counts 
is that Palin threw loaded rhetoric into a debate over loaded rhetoric.

This, incidentally, is a fact, not an opinion -- and the existence of the 
debate over her use of this term is the proof of this fact.

Surely you're not going to argue that there would have been a debate over 
*any* old word that Palin had used.  Surely you're not going to argue that 
all words are equally loaded or equally safe in debates like these.

> Well that was a Facebook posting or stuff in writing.

True, but her Facebook posts have tended to get media attention in the 
past.  People are watching, apparently.

> I'm talking about a visual appearance, which again, is what she was 
> being taunted for not doing. 

Really?  People were taunting her for not releasing an audio and/or video 
recording?  That seems ... weird.  (Not saying you're wrong, it just seems 
like an odd thing for people to have made a stink over.)

Incidentally, I think it's obvious that Palin would have had to deal with 
this at *some* point.  The next time she did an interview, or made a 
public appearance, or whatever, you just *know* that someone was going to 
bring this up.  So I don't mind that she issued a statement, per se.

I just wish the statement had been less problematic.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot