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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Karl wrote:

> > 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.  Shouldnt
> you be a Christian first and foremost?  Oh wait, that might be
> construed as me judging you.

If you think I'm being heretical about anything, I'd say it's your duty to point
that out to me.

**not heretical.  Judging.


> > 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?

Who said I was "judging" it?  I'm just saying that words never have only
*one* meaning.  They have *lots* of meanings, and the fact that someone chooses
this word instead of that word means that someone has chosen one set of nuances
and overlapping meanings instead of another.

**no, that is not that you said.  You said " Maybe I'm concerned with how the
word works subliminally for pretty much *everyone*."

**You are making an assumption at best that the subliminal message of that word
overrides all else, and I think that is presumptuous.

> > 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.

Well, sometimes minorities are right and majorities are wrong (and if you don't
believe that, then what kind of political commentator could you possibly be?).

**right and wrong in language?  In the meanings of words which everyone
understands evolve as our cultures evolve?

The fact is, "tragedy" does not have the range of meanings that "sacred" does,
for the reasons I mentioned, so "tragedy" is *not* a perfect example of the sort
of thing that's going on with "sacred".

**I think it comes close to demonstrating how the lesser preferred meaning can
override the larger historical one.  What makes it make sense is context, which
is the whole point of this thread.


> > 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?

Would you throw a grenade at someone who had asked for a ceasefire?  Maybe you
would, if the person asking for the ceasefire had started the war in the first
place.  Just don't pretend the grenade isn't a grenade.

**who asked for a cease fire?  They launched a bazillion grenades at her all the
while telling her that the battle was her fault.  They wanted to force her to
retreat and surrender, and bravo that she did not.


> > 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.

Perhaps.  That doesn't change the fact that she could have given them thinner
fodder instead of fatter fodder.

**coulda shoulda.  Really, is that the best you can do?  They should not have
accused her falsely giving birth to her feelings of being libeled.



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