Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Like I brought that up???? You said your dog had convictions, then you followed up with a musing about the convictions of your cats. I would love for a real impartial person to read this thread and comment on it, it would be enlightening.
|
But it turned out that way because you failed to understand that people with convictions are a dime a dozen. Almost everyone has convictions. That's not worth arguing. What's worth arguing about are people's specific convictions within the context of their careers and daily lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
On the subject of this thread, my premise is that the english language is a living language and the use of the term blood libel was used correctly and in context by Palin. The premise that I found invalid is that Palin is ignorant. Aside from the tangents here and there what I argue is very solid.
|
Well, we could very well unpack this and talk about it, but will you at least accept the premise that Obama has strong convictions just as Palin does? He even wrote a damn book full of them.
Okay, so let's assume that Palin isn't ignorant (I don't think she is on this particular matter). We can look at your "living language" argument. I don't buy it though. I think the term
blood libel still carries around much of its history. I don't hear it used very often, and it's still used quite readily in
actual blood libels carried out in recent times against Jews.
Palin could have used the term
false accusations. There are false accusations regarding murders all the time. "Blood libel" need not be conjured. Why? Because of the confusion of actual blood libels against Jews. They still happen from time to time.
Now assuming that Palin isn't ignorant about it (I don't think she is): I think she used the term in a calculating way to goad liberals into another round of criticisms about her and her own mode of rhetoric. Plus the use of the word
blood suits her own rhetoric just fine.
She wants liberals on the attack. It's an important part of her energy and high public status. You admit as much yourself. But she just so happens to encourage it on purpose. She criticizes the "lamestream" media of "manufacturing a blood libel." If you ask me, she's manufacturing her own confrontational political environment to help her leverage her reactionary politics. She wants to paint liberals—and by association, liberalism—as an unjust and destructive force in America, and she can't very well do it if they don't play her game.