Re: Sacred tangent (was Re: just checking...)

>> I am not.  I had no trouble understanding her context.
>
> The funny thing is people assuming the worst possible interpretation of what
> she said. Never mind what she probably meant or how most people understand
> it, the pundits have their interpretations and their sticking with it.

FWIW, my reaction was to what she said, not any interpretation of what
she said. I've been neck-deep in RGR-related activities lately, and
hadn't heard anything about the hubbub until it was posted here. If it
had been *anyone,* my reaction would have been the same. I've never
noticed anyone referring to a legislative document as "sacred," and I
found it a shockingly dangerous and stupid choice of words, period. It
makes no difference to me whether "everyone" understands what she
meant or not.

Hrm. This reminds me of the whole "gay" debate from a while back,
where I was defending my use of the word as a derogatory term. I found
it ludicrous that anyone would misinterpret my meaning, and perhaps
that's the position Palin is in now. I suppose its clear enough to her
what she meant, and she may be baffled that anyone would think
otherwise. I guess now I'm chewing grass on the other side of that
fence. Hmm. Interesting.

Bruce, during that debate, IIRC, you took the opposite stance, saying
that regardless of my intent, it wasn't a good idea to use language
that might perpetuate a negative stereotype. Do you see this situation
as different from that one?

-- 
-pcg
 [email protected]

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