Re: I'm Drunk

you're still not getting my bud light!

regards,
-Lance

On Jan 15, 2011, at 8:30 PM, pcg wrote:

> 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


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