Re: Palin's secret message

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.

**it was ignorance.  And it cost a staffer his job.  How about the fuss over
niggardly?

> 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.

**specific.  Huck Finn and the call to re-write it.


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?

**I am just saying that people take umbrage over words and concepts all the
time, when those words and concepts may have evolved.


>>> **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.

**hey, just noting that the concept is there.


>>>> 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. 

**right.  Lets tell her that after she is dead she has every right to be
offended.

 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. 


***she wanted to be involved with mass murder?  Really?


 *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.

**Is our history really that fraught?  Are not other countries more violent?


Like I said:  Has anyone ever vandalized Palin's office, the same way 
Giffords' office was vandalized?  Honest question.

**I know some McCain/Palin offices were during the campaign.  I also know
many republican and democrat offices are vandalized every year.


>>> **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.

**whatever.  When several prominent jews admit that the word has transcended
its original meaning, I would say the issue is not as bad as you represent.


>>>> 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. 


**well, who the f**k cares?  Honestly, that is exactly what I mean by
victimology.  No matter you say, at some point you will upset someone.  At
some point people need to get over it.  I am really tired of this hyper
sensitivity.


> **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. 

**all politicians and public figures do that, most deliberately.  Why does
she get special outrage?


 So it's just another reason why she (and/or 
her advisors) need to be more careful with her choice of words.

**I am sure they thought they were?


> **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).

**she she had it coming?  Really?  Why even bring that up?


> And no one on the left has showm the least desire to apologize for it.

Just wondering, when has *Palin* ever apologized for anything?

**what was she supposed to apologize for that she didn't?  When did she
accuse someone of inciting murder?


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