I'm Drunk

That's all. I love you guys. (And Jen and Renee , who may or may not
be  members any more.)

That's all.

On 1/15/11, Peter T. Chattaway <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Karl Swenson wrote:
>> **Oh god, many.  How about the black caucus getting riled when the guy
>> used the phrase black whole?
>
> Assuming you mean "hole", that's just ignorance.  There is nothing about
> the colour "black", or the word designating that colour, that is even
> remotely exclusively or even predominantly African.
>
>> Slave is considered offensive when used it some contexts.
>
> Way, way, *way* too general.  Slaves have always existed, and still exist,
> and will probably continue to exist for quite some time.  And there is
> nothing about slavery that is intrinsically or uniquely black.
>
> Although, as you say, in *some* contexts it can certainly have a special
> resonance that is particular to the African-American experience.
>
> So... anything that might be even remotely analogous to "blood libel",
> which *does* have its roots in a very specific Euro-Jewish milieu?
>
>>>> **as a Christian are you likewise offended when someone claims to have
>>>> been crucified by the media (or similar)?
>>>
>>> Don't see why I should be.  Crucifixion was awfully common in the Roman
>>> world.  Plus, it doesn't really happen much nowadays.
>>
>> **yet I heard that offered as an excuse by some liberals recently, who
>> said
>> "Christians would feel the same way about the word crucified"...
>
> Oh please.  The *last* thing I'm going to do is let a bunch of ignorant
> non-believers tell me what *I* should find offensive.
>
>>>>> Is she the victim of violent persecution?
>>>>
>>>> **do death threats count?
>>>
>>> Honestly, I don't know.  I imagine *all* politicians of her stature (or
>>> Obama's) get death threats of one sort or another.  Maybe Palin's
>>> office was vandalized once, just as Giffords' was, I dunno.
>>
>> **Her death threats have increased exponentially due to this, I would
>> say that qualifies.
>
> But they're still just threats.  Which I would never want to minimize.
> But Palin is an active participant in the current political climate and is
> not exactly being scapegoated for something she had no wish to be involved
> with, the way the medieval Jews were.  *Especially* in the United States,
> with its history of assassinations etc., you have to assume that becoming
> a public figure will attract this kind of attention.
>
> Like I said:  Has anyone ever vandalized Palin's office, the same way
> Giffords' office was vandalized?  Honest question.
>
>>>> **so the term can only have a single example, not be used
>>>> metaphorically?  Really?  When did we decide we have to be so strict?
>>>
>>> When the metaphor betrays no sense of proportion, natch.
>>
>> **but it did, plenty of people have already concluded that.
>
> It did... what?  Betray no sense of proportion?  Yeah, I agree.
>
>>>>> The fact that Rep. Giffords is, herself, Jewish just makes Palin's
>>>>> "I'm a victim just like the Jews were" posture that much more
>>>>> distasteful. And no, the fact that Palin might have been clueless
>>>>> about the term's meaning when she used it does not, in and of itself,
>>>>> make the faux pas any less distasteful.
>>>>
>>>> **that wasn't her position.  She was complaining about herself only,
>>>> any reading of equivalency is yours.
>>>
>>> Again, I don't know what you're saying here.  "Complaining about
>>> herself"?  "Reading of equivalency"?  I have no idea what these terms
>>> mean here.
>>
>> ***Palin was not saying she is just like the jews.
>
> Perhaps she didn't mean to say that, but that's what some people heard.
> As I've said before, she wasn't speaking in a vacuum.  Language is a
> two-way street.  (Or maybe even more ways.  Just not one-way.)
>
>> **you are reading more into it then necessary, likely because you find her
>> even complaining of being a victim distasteful.
>
> Actually, I'm not "reading into it" at all.  I'm just noting that the term
> has a very specific set of resonances, and Palin, by using this sort of
> language in a public setting, is going to plug into those resonances
> whether she likes it or not.  So it's just another reason why she (and/or
> her advisors) need to be more careful with her choice of words.
>
>> **the reality is that she IS a victim, a victim of libel, slander and
>> demogoguary.
>
> And I agree with you completely (though I certainluy don't rule out the
> possibility that she has done the same to others and thereby encouraged
> this sort of feedback).
>
>> And no one on the left has showm the least desire to apologize for it.
>
> Just wondering, when has *Palin* ever apologized for anything?
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>


-- 
-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