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

>>> **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.

What would you be judging if not my heresy?

**is that all person can be judged over?  Are you suggesting that Palin's
comments are likewise heretical?


>> 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*."

Yes, and why does language affect everybody?  Because everybody uses it.

**your comment implied you were concerned with that particular word.  If you
were just waxing philosophical, never mind....no, you the "the word".  So make
up your mind.

> **You are making an assumption at best that the subliminal message of
> that word overrides all else . . .

Overrides, no.  That is not the right word.  You'll have to find another word
with the right set of meanings or nuances or whatever.

**whatever.  You are now going to completely block meaningful dialog with nit
picking.  You overstepped.  Deal with it.


>> 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?

Yes.  There is, admittedly, sometimes a point where you throw in the towel and
accept that "gay" means "homosexual" and "bad" does not, etc.  But even then, it
is helpful to know where words come from and *how* those meanings evolved.
Connotations tend to persist.

**sure.  But that is not at issue.

> **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.

Well, as we've seen, context is a sword that cuts both ways.

**particularly when you ignore and allow your personal preferences to cloud it.

>> 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?

All the people calling for a repudiation of "violent rhetoric", natch.

**no, they were demanding a confession.  I heard numerous times how she should
admit she was wrong and then back out of public life.  I also heard most
complaints focused solely on her and the Tea Party, and it has been done so
using fairly harsh rhetoric.  So what we have in essence is a demand for peace
enforced by a billy club?

>> 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?

It's all I've *been* doing.  Are you just figuring that out now?

**nothing better to do?  There has to be something good on TV....



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