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

> 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.

**so this is as much about you judging her than anything.  Shouldn’t you be a
Christian first and foremost?  Oh wait, that might be construed as me judging
you.


> . . . 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*.

**wow.   That is fairly audacious.  How are you qualified to judge the vast
majorities subliminal feelings?


> 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*.

**but that is a perfect example.  The majority of people use it in its 6th prong
definition of " a lamentable, dreadful, or fatal event or affair; calamity;
disaster" whereas you are the minority who wants to pigeonhole it to the
literature definition.


 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.

**and...so?

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.

**there is a debate over Obama's birth certificate, that does not mean it is a
legitimate issue.

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.

**Actually, I will take that one.  I think anything she said would have been
seized as fodder to hate her more.

> 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.)


***they said she was hiding.

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.

***and as we have said, anything she had said would have been problematic.
Unless she knicked under and apologized for being mean, which then would have
pissed off her defenders.

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