Re: I'm Drunk

I'm still here (sometimes). (:

jen

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 9:30 PM, pcg <[email protected]> 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