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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Karl wrote:

>> What would you be judging if not my heresy?
>
> **is that all person can be judged over?

No, but it's the only thing on the table in this discussion right now.

> Are you suggesting that Palin's comments are likewise heretical?

They're inching there.  Civil religion is highly problematic at best for 
the true Christian (or for the true Just About Anything, really).

>> Yes, and why does language affect everybody?  Because everybody uses 
>> it.
>
> **your comment implied you were concerned with that particular word.

As indeed I was.

>>> **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 can call it nitpicking if you want to, but your summary of my views 
does not reflect my actual position on this matter, which suggests to me 
that you haven't been listening as carefully as you could.  And right now 
I can't be bothered to come up with a better word for what you think I 
said.  If that means I'm blocking "meaningful" dialogue, so be it.

>> Connotations tend to persist.
>
> **sure.  But that is not at issue.

Actually, it is.  Indeed, it's the *only* issue here.  It's the issue that 
links Palin's use of "sacred" to her use of "blood libel".  Words carry 
multiple meanings and if you're not careful in how you use them, you will 
find yourself pressing all sorts of buttons you never meant to press.

>> 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.

Well, that's just a meaningless ad hominem.  My whole point here is that 
there is a context in which Palin made her statement, and at least some of 
her terminology -- just a few words, really, but still -- was ill-suited 
to that context, and indeed likely to make things worse in that context.

As, indeed, it has.  You can't tell me that people *aren't* arguing over 
Palin's words.  Not without actually *arguing* over her words.

>>> **who asked for a cease fire?
>>
>> All the people calling for a repudiation of "violent rhetoric", natch.
>
> **no, they were demanding a confession.

Um, why the "no"?  Do you think you're contradicting what I said?

> So what we have in essence is a demand for peace enforced by a billy 
> club?

Do peace officers use billy clubs?  Hmmm, seems they do.  That's why it's 
also called a "peace officer's baton".

So, "peace" and "billy clubs" are not mutually exclusive.

>> 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....

I don't get cable.  And FWIW, I believe I was in the kitchen when I wrote 
the first e-mail in this thread.  (Right now I'm sitting on the living 
room floor while two of my kids watch Blue's Clues on Netflix.)

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