Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
But it turned out that way because you failed to understand that people with convictions are a dime a dozen.
|
You made that assumption. The context of most of our discussions involving the concept of conviction is politics. Conviction in the political arena is rare in my opinion. Making the connections with other threads, most seem to agree with the proposition that the best politicians are the ones that are most willing to compromise. I have gone around and around on this issue with DC and he geneally believes my view on this is impractical, extreme and out of touch with pragmatism. I don't recall anyone supporting my point of view, or one that would indicate that having conviction in the area of politics is like a dime a dozen.
Quote:
|
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.
|
It is clear to me that I don't understand your point of view and you don't understand mine. I don't know what to add until you give some specifics. I do think it is a point worth discussing. As you might say - I don't accept the premise - with that as a given we are at a dead-end or you would consider any response as unresponsive.
Quote:
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.
|
I already agreed that she purposefully choose the term. her intent was to be provocative, her intent was to insult, her intent was to attack, her intent was to stir emotion. with all that as a given, I still support her, and I believe it was the proper context. I might not have used the term and it very may well prove to be an error, but I doubt it.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I agree.
Quote:
|
She wants liberals on the attack. It's an important part of her energy and high public status.
|
She is "scrappy", she likes a good fight. Again, I agree. I even tried to explain the personality type, which I share with her. If there was no "fight", she would get bored, and go away. For example with me - I get love, friendship, kindness, civility, hugs and kisses at home. To satisfy my needs for "combat" I have other out-lets including TFP. If Palin wasn't fighting liberals, she'd be out hunting caribou or something.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Again, I agree. And my question was, given the above - what do liberals want to do? Do they (you) want to be doing the same thing next month? do you want to risk Palin stumbling on a fight that can carry her into the WH? Now she has a small hard-core support group, that has been made as solid as granit, she can not go lower in popularity, the next moves are up.