Re: just checking...

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:37 PM, pcg <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am inferring from your comment that it is not Palin's problem if
> other people are inflamed by what she said, because she didn't mean it
> in an inflammatory way. Is that correct?
>

Well, not exactly. I *do* think people are overreacting to what she said,
but if people are truly offended, I think she should apologize ("no harm
meant") to try to avoid offense in the future. Not that this is going to
happen, as it appears she has a very masculine view of politics and wouldn't
want to be perceived as weak or backing down.


> If I understand your response in the other current thread, the

difference is that you don't see "sacred" as being inflammatory in the
> same way that "gay" is.


Yeah.


> But now I'm wondering why it matters whether
> *you* feel that "gay" is more inflammatory, or whether *I* feel that
> "sacred" is more inflammatory, or whatever. If we're going to make
> judgement calls on a word-by-word basis, do we actually have a
> position? Or are we just rolling with the waves our personal feelings?
> That wouldn't be sound.
>

Well, if you feel an individual is overly sensitive and want to ignore their
sensibilities because society as a whole doesn't consider the speech
offensive, I could see that. You're always going to offend *someone*, that
can't be helped. I know some of my Christian views are offensive to others,
but I'll still express them from time to time.


> So on the one hand I'm beginning to feel Palin's pain, and feel more
> inclined to cut her some slack. On the other, I didn't seem to get any
> slack when I was in her shoes.
>

Oh, I cut you plenty of slack. Sorry if you don't feel the vibes through
email. :)

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