Verbal lynching
Linda Mayberry
to defend one's self or being given a chance to respond.
The attack on the POTUS was called a "lynching" and in a need to strike
back, he launched an attack with the best weapons he possessed: position
of authority and an easy target.
It doesn't matter whether that the position of the POTUS is right or
wrong, what he did and how he did it was inexcusable. She was totally
blindsided. And having worked in radio, I know who controls what goes
on the air. But when a person calls "Dr. Laura" they deserve what they
get, since they placed the call.
Did the POTUS lash out at her because he was suffering from stress? Yes!
Would someone suffering from the mental problems associated with
multiple sclerosis act like this? Yes!
Should she have stood up when the POTUS was announced? Yes, but to
denounce her in public would be the social faux pas of the year.
Using the guise of religion as a means of judgement and bigotry has been
the cause of almost all of the wars involving mankind. ANY religious
text that teaches hatred should fall under suspicion on if that is the
true teachings of any diety.
The Bible is a man-made creation that has perverted the one and only
religious law that we need: Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you.
Linda
http://www.nmss.org
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Mayberry) wrote:
>Verbal lynching - a verbal attack upon a person who is not in a position
>to defend one's self or being given a chance to respond.
Who invented this definition, you?
-Naomi
Bobbie Dean
LMay...@webtv.net (Linda Mayberry) wrote:
:Verbal lynching - a verbal attack upon a person who is not in a position
:to defend one's self or being given a chance to respond.
:
Charlie did nothing to bring an attack upon himself. But opening
calling someone an abomination, and then trying to use the bible to
justify one's bigotry demands that a rebuttal be given lest anyone
think that there was any hint of agreement by POTUS.
:The attack on the POTUS was called a "lynching" and in a need to strike
:back, he launched an attack with the best weapons he possessed: position
:of authority and an easy target.
:
She could have avoided everything by behaving herself. She didn't
have to remain seated so as to stick out - - that was challenge #1.
Nor did she have to quote the bible to defend her bigotry. That was
challenge #2. And if you let the statement stand without confronting
the attacker, it appears you agree with the attack.
:It doesn't matter whether that the position of the POTUS is right or
:wrong, what he did and how he did it was inexcusable. She was totally
:blindsided. And having worked in radio, I know who controls what goes
:on the air. But when a person calls "Dr. Laura" they deserve what they
:get, since they placed the call.
:
And she choose to remain seated - I wonder, does she also have to be
told to stand up for the playing of that Star Stangled Banner?
:Did the POTUS lash out at her because he was suffering from stress? Yes!
:
I would confront such a person saying bigotted things in my home. I
do not allow a guest at my home to expound on their prejudices. If
they do, they are asked to leave. Why would I invite them - -
sometimes you don't know about prejudices before inviting people,
especially in connection with work-related entertaining. If I know
that they are bigoted, they aren't invited; if they can't behave
themselves in our home, they are asked to leave. Do most people who
work for my hubby know this - - they should by now.
:Would someone suffering from the mental problems associated with
:multiple sclerosis act like this? Yes!
:
Talk about stooping to the bottom of the barrel. You are assuming
something that is not evident. Do some people with MS have
depression, etc. Yes. Do all people with MS have mental impairments
- of course not.
:Should she have stood up when the POTUS was announced? Yes, but to
:denounce her in public would be the social faux pas of the year.
:
Why - she was given several opportunities to correct her faux paus - -
he kept pausing and coming back to her - - if she is so dense she
can't glance around and see that she is behaving incorrectly, that's
her problem. Her continued bottom on the chair attitude showed that
she was contemptous of the institution.
:Using the guise of religion as a means of judgement and bigotry has been
:the cause of almost all of the wars involving mankind. ANY religious
:text that teaches hatred should fall under suspicion on if that is the
:true teachings of any diety.
:
:The Bible is a man-made creation that has perverted the one and only
:religious law that we need: Do unto others as you would have them do
:unto you.
:
She got back what she was shoveling - - and all present were able to
learn how POTUS views bigotry.
B
Remember - Usenet isn't like life - it is often worse! ;-)
susanb...@mindspring.com
"Lone waddie" <lonew...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001022203022...@nso-fl.aol.com...
> In article <18489-39...@storefull-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> LMay...@webtv.net (Linda Mayberry) writes:
>
> >
> >Verbal lynching - a verbal attack upon a person who is not in a position
> >to defend one's self or being given a chance to respond.
> >
> >back, he launched an attack with the best weapons he possessed: position
> >of authority and an easy target.
> >
arguments
> good ones.
Does this sound like a definition of a "real" lynching? "A physical attack
upon a person who is not in a position to defend one's self or being given
[sic] a chance to defend one's self." Sounds like a (bad) definition of
assault, perhaps battery. And what, pray tell, would a "polite" lynching
look like, verbal or otherwise?
As someone who grew up in Virginia, just at the end of the last era of
lynching (we may be moving into another one, given recent events in Texas),
I take strong exception to the description of what Bartlett did as any kind
of lynching -- verbal or otherwise. To lynch someone is to target them
because of their race and then to kill them in a particularly dehumanizing
way, often sexually mutilating them (most lynched Black men were castrated;
often their penises were put in their mouths). I wasn't even completely
comfortable with Barlett calling the attempted assassination of Charlie a
lynching, although it certainly is a hell of a lot closer than showing up an
idiot and a bigot in public. He humiliated her. She deserved to be
humiliated -- some people do. Part of what I loved about the scene was that
I thought I could detect a bit of a war in Bartlett between treating her as
a Lady (his Gentlemanly response to her not having stood up; traditionally
only men stood when a more powerful man came into the room), and treating
her as the person she is, including the views she represents. Abigail won
that war, he didn't treat her like a Lady.
The scene does not depict a lynching. The strongest term of approbation I
think applies would be the favorite term of scorn of the 90's --
"inappropriate" -- Barlett was "inappropriate."
Susan
Lone waddie
LMay...@webtv.net (Linda Mayberry) writes:
>
>Verbal lynching - a verbal attack upon a person who is not in a position
>to defend one's self or being given a chance to respond.
>
>The attack on the POTUS was called a "lynching" and in a need to strike
>back, he launched an attack with the best weapons he possessed: position
>of authority and an easy target.
>
>It doesn't matter whether that the position of the POTUS is right or
>wrong, what he did and how he did it was inexcusable. She was totally
>blindsided. And having worked in radio, I know who controls what goes
>on the air. But when a person calls "Dr. Laura" they deserve what they
>get, since they placed the call.
>
>Did the POTUS lash out at her because he was suffering from stress? Yes!
>
>Would someone suffering from the mental problems associated with
>multiple sclerosis act like this? Yes!
>
>Should she have stood up when the POTUS was announced? Yes, but to
>denounce her in public would be the social faux pas of the year.
>
>Using the guise of religion as a means of judgement and bigotry has been
>the cause of almost all of the wars involving mankind. ANY religious
>text that teaches hatred should fall under suspicion on if that is the
>true teachings of any diety.
>
>The Bible is a man-made creation that has perverted the one and only
>religious law that we need: Do unto others as you would have them do
>unto you.
>
>Linda
Good posting, Linda. I'd change the "almost all wars" to "many wars" and
wouldn't lay off too much on the Bible, but it's intrupreters, but those points
are arguable among reasonable people.
Lone waddie
<xit...@sirinet.net> writes:
>
>In article <18489-39...@storefull-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>LMay...@webtv.net (Linda Mayberry) wrote:
>
>:Verbal lynching - a verbal attack upon a person who is not in a position
>:to defend one's self or being given a chance to respond.
>:
>
>Charlie did nothing to bring an attack upon himself. But opening
>calling someone an abomination, and then trying to use the bible to
>justify one's bigotry demands that a rebuttal be given lest anyone
>think that there was any hint of agreement by POTUS.
>
Actually he did. Knowing I'm not going to be very popular saying this, but
let's look at this dispassionalty. There is a corollary not only between
Charlie and Dr Jenna, but the two would be assassins and President Bartlet.
Charlie decided he wanted to express himself freely, as he is guaranteed by the
Constitution, he dated the President's daughter. He had to know this would not
be a popular position for him to take. It is his right, though. There were at
least two people that were outraged at his desision to express himself this
way. They were willing to risk everything they had to show this outrage. They
tried to kill Charlie. They thought that this behaviour of his was so
grievious that any other considerations were secondary. The rules of a
civilized society were put asside in their passionate anger. Other people,
even just bystanders who just happened to be there, could be put at risk to
assuage their anger at Charlie and his actions. They shot three people and
died themselves. It was that important to them.
Dr Jenna felt she wanted to express herself. She thought that gays were an
abomination to her idea of God's will. She didn't sneak around saying it. She
said so on a public forum, but she didn't advocate doing them any harm. She
had an opinion. She too had to know that others would not agree with her
position and some very passionatly. President Bartlet was one of those. She,
like Charlie, went about her business feeling safe, because she was only
exersizing her rights under the same Constitution as Charlie. President
Bartlet, in his passion and outrage at her lawfull exersize of her rights,
violated the rules of good maners, of civilized people, and publically took
her to task and with no direct provacation. He, like the shooters had the
power; the shooters with their guns and he as President. It was that imporant
to him.
I, and I suppose you, feel that the Charlie was quite within his rights to date
who ever he wants. I, and I suppose you, feel that Dr Jenna is wrong in saying
that being gay is an abomination in God's eyes. Interestingly enough, about
fifty years ago Charlie would be arrested for dating a white woman. Fifty
years ago, no one would have batted an eye at Dr Jenna's position. We have
progressed in our evolution as a society, one hopes.
I, and I suppose you, feel that the shooters were wrong in doing what they
did. I, but I suppose not you, feel that President Bartlet was wrong in doing
what he did. I believe that having power does not give you the right to abuse
it, be it with guns or political power. Societies have rules. Societies are,
or should be, govened by laws not passion. You don't shoot people who you
disagree with and you don't abuse people because you have the
politica/govenmental position to do so. Might does not make right, even if you
are convinced you are morally in the right. Bartlet didn't shoot anyone,but it
just a matter of degree, isn't it, power was abused.
People like Dr Jenna do have to be stopped. Bartlet's arguments were massive
and good ones. His method was wrong. He gave in to his passion just like the
shooters did. We cannot let the people we hate make us less than we are.
There are times when we fight dirty, but those times are when our survival is
directly and immediatly threatened. It may be satisfying to see Bartlet
destroy that woman, like the quips in a "Die Hard" movie when the building
blows up and the bad guy splats on the pavement. It satisifies the blood lust,
but it is sort of sick. If we are going to make a better world, be
progressive, we have to do it by the rules, by our morality and not by those
of the abusers of rights. If we do it the other way, we become them. What
have we gained then?
Charlie and Dr Jenna were exersizing their rights under law, like what they
were doing or not. The shooters and Bartlet were exersizing their power driven
by passion, like what they were doing or not.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>Actually he did. Knowing I'm not going to be very popular saying this, but
>let's look at this dispassionalty. There is a corollary not only between
>Charlie and Dr Jenna, but the two would be assassins and President Bartlet.
There is no correlation between verbal humiliatoin and physical
violence.
>Charlie decided he wanted to express himself freely, as he is guaranteed by the
>Constitution, he dated the President's daughter. He had to know this would not
>be a popular position for him to take. It is his right, though. There were at
>least two people that were outraged at his desision to express himself this
>way. They were willing to risk everything they had to show this outrage. They
>tried to kill Charlie. They thought that this behaviour of his was so
>grievious that any other considerations were secondary. The rules of a
>civilized society were put asside in their passionate anger. Other people,
>even just bystanders who just happened to be there, could be put at risk to
>assuage their anger at Charlie and his actions. They shot three people and
>died themselves. It was that important to them.
>
>Dr Jenna felt she wanted to express herself. She thought that gays were an
>abomination to her idea of God's will. She didn't sneak around saying it. She
> said so on a public forum, but she didn't advocate doing them any harm. She
>had an opinion. She too had to know that others would not agree with her
>position and some very passionatly. President Bartlet was one of those. She,
>like Charlie, went about her business feeling safe, because she was only
>exersizing her rights under the same Constitution as Charlie. President
>Bartlet, in his passion and outrage at her lawfull exersize of her rights,
>violated the rules of good maners, of civilized people, and publically took
>her to task and with no direct provacation. He, like the shooters had the
>power; the shooters with their guns and he as President. It was that imporant
>to him.
The shooters did physical damage. The president did nothing more than
exercise his *own* freedom to say what he liked, which was identical
to Dr. Jenny's right to do likewise. What part of "killing is
different from speaking" don't you understand?
President Bartlet's behavior was rude as well as extremely impolitic.
It was not a lynching. A lynching *cannot* be verbal; the definition
of a lynching requires physical violence.
>Charlie and Dr Jenna were exersizing their rights under law, like what they
>were doing or not. The shooters and Bartlet were exersizing their power driven
>by passion, like what they were doing or not.
The president has the same right under law to speak that Dr. Jenny
does, even if it's not a good political idea for him to use it. The
shooters do not have the same right under law to kill people that
Charlie has to free association.
-Naomi
Lone waddie
<susanb...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>"Lone waddie" <lonew...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20001022203022...@nso-fl.aol.com...
>> In article <18489-39...@storefull-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>> LMay...@webtv.net (Linda Mayberry) writes:
>>
>> > // SNIPS//
>Does this sound like a definition of a "real" lynching? "A physical attack
>upon a person who is not in a position to defend one's self or being given
>[sic] a chance to defend one's self." Sounds like a (bad) definition of
>assault, perhaps battery. And what, pray tell, would a "polite" lynching
>look like, verbal or otherwise?
>
I'm not a lawyer, but a physical attack it battery.
a polite lynching? why a neck-tie party, I suppose
>As someone who grew up in Virginia, just at the end of the last era of
>lynching (we may be moving into another one, given recent events in Texas),
>I take strong exception to the description of what Bartlett did as any kind
>of lynching -- verbal or otherwise. To lynch someone is to target them
>because of their race and then to kill them in a particularly dehumanizing
>way, often sexually mutilating them (most lynched Black men were castrated;
>often their penises were put in their mouths). I wasn't even completely
>comfortable with Barlett calling the attempted assassination of Charlie a
>lynching, although it certainly is a hell of a lot closer than showing up an
>idiot and a bigot in public. He humiliated her
He did that.
Many people have been doing vigilante justice for years. "Lynching" comes from
Judge Lynch, an Irish judge who hung a defendant found innocent by a friendly
jury. It has nothing to do with race. Personally I'm against injustice, from
the most hidious to the slight. I've seen it and it sickens me. Seeing
Bartlet telling that woman to get on her feet sounded a whole lot like,
"Boy,you know who you're talking to! you get your uppity black butt out of
town by sundown, or you'll be talking to Judge Hemp!" But that's just me.
by the way . . . can you recommend "humanistic" ways of killing?
I thought killing was the ultimate in dehumanizing someone.
Lone waddie
Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>The shooters did physical damage. The president did nothing more than
>exercise his *own* freedom to say what he liked, which was identical
>to Dr. Jenny's right to do likewise. What part of "killing is
>different from speaking" don't you understand?
It is passion over law. He missused his authority just as the shooters
missused their weapons. Having the power doesn't give you right to use it
anyway you wish. Having power makes you , or should, more carefull about
exersizing it and doing right.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>Seeing
>Bartlet telling that woman to get on her feet sounded a whole lot like,
>"Boy,you know who you're talking to! you get your uppity black butt out of
>town by sundown, or you'll be talking to Judge Hemp!" But that's just me.
You're right, it is. It had absolutely nothing to do with what he
actually said, which included *no* threat of physical danger
whatsoever. No threat of anything, actually. He spoke his opinion of
her and it wasn't pleasant, but he in no way said *anything* that
included an "...or X will happen to you" clause of any kind.
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
You're ignoring the fact that he has the same right to free speech
that Dr. Jenny has. He didn't use power in that case, only speech.
-Naomi
susanb...@mindspring.com
> Many people have been doing vigilante justice for years. "Lynching" comes
from
> Judge Lynch, an Irish judge who hung a defendant found innocent by a
friendly
> jury. It has nothing to do with race.
This may be historically true, but in the context of the United States and
this TV program, to say that race has nothing to do with lynching is a bit
like saying that abortion has nothing to do with women (whether your fer it
or agin' it).
Personally I'm against injustice, from
> the most hidious to the slight. I've seen it and it sickens me. Seeing
> Bartlet telling that woman to get on her feet sounded a whole lot like,
> "Boy,you know who you're talking to! you get your uppity black butt out
of
> town by sundown, or you'll be talking to Judge Hemp!" But that's just
me.
I'll let Naomi's eloquent rebuttal to this non-sequitur stand.
susanb...@mindspring.com
>
> by the way . . . can you recommend "humanistic" ways of killing?
> I thought killing was the ultimate in dehumanizing someone.
personally, I'm against the death penalty. but part of the whole hanging,
electrocution, lethal injection debate is about trying to find a way to put
someone to death that's about making them dead and not about torture, and
dehumanization. You may be right that there is no such way. But surely
there's a moral difference between, say, tying someone to a car and dragging
their living body until their head snaps off and giving them an OD of
narcotics.
Perhaps it's easier to see in the case of animals: we (mostly) think it's
kind to put very ill and suffering animals to sleep. We think it's morally
repugnant (and a predictor of later serial killing behavior) to, say, set
dogs on fire, or cut the flesh off cats with a pocket knife until they bleed
to death -- stuff like that.
Susan
Mike and Dorcie
> You're ignoring the fact that he has the same right to free speech
> that Dr. Jenny has. He didn't use power in that case, only speech.
>
> -Naomi
Yes, but Bartlet also had the freedom of speech to speak out against the man who
was running for the school board. He chose not to do so because, as CJ pointed
out, it would be wrong for him to use his power as POTUS to influence other
peoples opinions of someone. Just as it was wrong for him to use his position
as POTUS in front of all the other talk radio hosts to speak out against and
humiliate Dr. Jacobs.
Dorcie
--
When you come to a fork in the road, take it - Yogi Berra
Mike and Dorcie
> On 23 Oct 2000 04:17:29 GMT, lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
> >Seeing
> >Bartlet telling that woman to get on her feet sounded a whole lot like,
> >"Boy,you know who you're talking to! you get your uppity black butt out of
> >town by sundown, or you'll be talking to Judge Hemp!" But that's just me.
>
> You're right, it is. It had absolutely nothing to do with what he
> actually said, which included *no* threat of physical danger
> whatsoever. No threat of anything, actually. He spoke his opinion of
> her and it wasn't pleasant, but he in no way said *anything* that
> included an "...or X will happen to you" clause of any kind.
>
> -Naomi
That doesn't matter. The President of the United States told her to stand. He
didn't have to add that something would happen to her if she did not do as he
said. It was implied.
Personally, I found it disgusting. I do not care if it is polite for someone to
stand in the presence of POTUS, no one actually has to. The president is
considered our equal, and he was wrong to demand that she stand in his presence.
The president should not be demanding respect or fealty.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
>> You're ignoring the fact that he has the same right to free speech
>> that Dr. Jenny has. He didn't use power in that case, only speech.
>
>Yes, but Bartlet also had the freedom of speech to speak out against the man who
>was running for the school board. He chose not to do so because, as CJ pointed
>out, it would be wrong for him to use his power as POTUS to influence other
>peoples opinions of someone. Just as it was wrong for him to use his position
>as POTUS in front of all the other talk radio hosts to speak out against and
>humiliate Dr. Jacobs.
Actually, as far as I could tell he didn't speak against the guy
running for the school board because it would be *impolitic* for him
to do so -- counterproductive for his own party's overall results and
his political purposes. CJ was pointing out how it would look, not
merely that it would be wrong. I don't think there's anything
particularly wrong with the President getting involved with a local
school board election, any more than I think there's anytihng wrong
with any other concerned citizen getting involved with a local school
board election, but I certainly think it's stupid of him to do so and
throw away political capital he needs for more important things.
Likewise, arguing down Dr. Jenny was impolitic and counterproductive
to his own political ends, and he shouldn't have done it for that
reason; he was in a rotten mood from everything else that had happened
and he lost his temper. It was a bad error of judgment, and it was
also rude, for which reason alone he should not have done it. But it
was not a lynching or anything remotely close to one.
-Naomi
Mike and Dorcie
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:26:44 -0400, Mike and Dorcie
> <miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
> >
Yes, CJ pointed out that it would look bad for his party if he spoke out against that
guy, but POTUS said he didn't care about that. I got the feeling he didn't do it
because he realized it would be an abuse of his power, which CJ also pointed out.
I do agree that Bartlet did not lynch her. However, I do think that the Hollywood
writers that have written in Dr. Laura-type characters merely to bash Dr. Laura are
participating in a lynching. They are writing her in a fashion where the character
is unable to defend herself so that the audience is left with a oneside view. Of
course, most of us know what Dr. Laura stands for, but it is immature writing to not
show Dr. Laura's view in their writing. By doing this, they have become no better
than Dr. Laura herself, who frequently only shows one side of things.
Lone waddie
Rivkis) writes:
>
>On 23 Oct 2000 04:22:45 GMT, lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
>
>>In article <39f3b780...@news.cris.com>, nri...@concentric.net (Naomi
>>Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>>
>>>The shooters did physical damage. The president did nothing more than
>>>exercise his *own* freedom to say what he liked, which was identical
>>>to Dr. Jenny's right to do likewise. What part of "killing is
>>>different from speaking" don't you understand?
>>
>>It is passion over law. He missused his authority just as the shooters
>>missused their weapons. Having the power doesn't give you right to use it
>>anyway you wish. Having power makes you , or should, more carefull about
>>exersizing it and doing right.
>
>You're ignoring the fact that he has the same right to free speech
>that Dr. Jenny has. He didn't use power in that case, only speech.
>
> -Naomi
>
>
>
He has the right of free speech.
The Supreme Court has intrupreted free speech to include more than verbal
communication, such as burning The Flag. The shooters were expressing their
feelings as was Bartlet. Both were expressing their outrage at people they felt
were transgrssors. It is against the law to shoot someone, while it is not
against the law to be rude. Both, though, are considered to be inappropriate
behavior in a civilized society.
She was an invited guest. The invitation was not to a gathering discussing
religion nor the positon of gays in society, as far as I understand. It was
not the time or place for such a discussion. Being President, Bartlet changed
the rules without telling anyone. He abused his power, in my oppinion.
Having the right to express yourself doesn't mean you should do so on your
whim. He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the rules of
civilized behavior. It is a matter of degree, but this is what the shooters
did as well. They both put themselves above the law, because they thought they
were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
Lone waddie
Rivkis) writes:
>
>On 23 Oct 2000 04:17:29 GMT, lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
>>Seeing
>>Bartlet telling that woman to get on her feet sounded a whole lot like,
>>"Boy,you know who you're talking to! you get your uppity black butt out of
>>town by sundown, or you'll be talking to Judge Hemp!" But that's just me.
>
>You're right, it is. It had absolutely nothing to do with what he
>actually said, which included *no* threat of physical danger
>whatsoever. No threat of anything, actually. He spoke his opinion of
>her and it wasn't pleasant, but he in no way said *anything* that
>included an "...or X will happen to you" clause of any kind.
>
> -Naomi
It wasn't an invitation to discuss Biblical Law nor the inturpretation of
same. He didn't ask her questions expecting a response. He reeled off a
string of questions then told her to get to her feet, because he was President,
this is his house, he makes the rules and there is no further discussion..
I have been told that, when in a position of authority, you praise in public
and criticize in private. She is an important radio personality with a large
audience. She must be or she would not be invited to the gathering at the
White House. It would be advantagious to convince her that her position is
wrong. Bartlet certainly has the facts to put her positon in question. He
chose not to do so, but rather to make her look foolish. He attacked her.
Many rational people havel been in her position: of not having thought out a
position, or of not having all the facts, or of coming to a irrational
conclusion. Being wrong does not make you a villian, it just makes you wrong.
Being wrong is not a crime.
I'd give her the benifit of the doubt, at least at first. Take her asside.
Give her those bits of Biblical Law and ask her how we pick and choose which
ones to follow. She might become an ally against discrimination.
He doesn't do that. He tells her to get on her feet. No, that wasn't a direct
threat, but it was an abuse of power and power carries with it an implication
of threats, remember Nixon's enemies list? Ever see a school bully "ask" for
lunch money from a fellow student . . . there is no direct threat there either.
He made it clear, this is his house and his rules . . . now jump! He was
rude to her and felt he could do so because of who he was. She was
defenceless.
Am I defending her anti-gay positon; no, I am not. Should she have risen when
he entered the room, certainly, but that was Sorkin giving Bartlet a tag line,
it was a set up. I am saying that it was inappropriate behavior and would not
be condoned, except that he was President and did have the power.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
>
>> On 23 Oct 2000 04:17:29 GMT, lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
>> >Seeing
>> >Bartlet telling that woman to get on her feet sounded a whole lot like,
>> >"Boy,you know who you're talking to! you get your uppity black butt out of
>> >town by sundown, or you'll be talking to Judge Hemp!" But that's just me.
>>
>> You're right, it is. It had absolutely nothing to do with what he
>> actually said, which included *no* threat of physical danger
>> whatsoever. No threat of anything, actually. He spoke his opinion of
>> her and it wasn't pleasant, but he in no way said *anything* that
>> included an "...or X will happen to you" clause of any kind.
>
>That doesn't matter. The President of the United States told her to stand. He
>didn't have to add that something would happen to her if she did not do as he
>said. It was implied.
Er, no it wasn't. If I glare at someone being rude to me and tell
them, "Your behavior is uncalled-for and abysmal. stop it at once!" I
don't mean that if they don't stop it at once I am going to shoot them
dead or drag them by a rope behind my car till their neck breaks. At
absolute worst it *might* have been interpreted to mean "Standup or
you will be courteously escorted to the door and disinvited from this
reception."
My god, can you people really not see any difference between this and
firing a hail of bullets into a crowd of pepole, or stringing an
innocent man up from a tree by his neck?????
>Personally, I found it disgusting. I do not care if it is polite for someone to
>stand in the presence of POTUS, no one actually has to. The president is
>considered our equal, and he was wrong to demand that she stand in his presence.
>The president should not be demanding respect or fealty.
He has the same right to demand respect that any other private citizen
does, which is some but not a whole lot. I agree that he should not
have flown off the handle at her -- it was incautious, impolitic, and
impolite. It was not, however, a lynching.
>Dorcie
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I do agree that Bartlet did not lynch her. However, I do think that the Hollywood
>writers that have written in Dr. Laura-type characters merely to bash Dr. Laura are
>participating in a lynching. They are writing her in a fashion where the character
>is unable to defend herself so that the audience is left with a oneside view. Of
>course, most of us know what Dr. Laura stands for, but it is immature writing to not
>show Dr. Laura's view in their writing. By doing this, they have become no better
>than Dr. Laura herself, who frequently only shows one side of things.
Dr. Laura doesn't lynch people either. Lynching is physical. It isn't
just "anything you do to someone who can't defend themselves" -- the
term *requires* physical violence, almost invariably murder or at
least attempted murder. Calling the attack on Charlie a lynching was
cutting it fine; I wouldn't use the term for it, but as a rhetorical
flourish, it passes. Calling ANY verbal attack a lynching, whether it
comes from Bartlet, Sorkin, Dr. Laura, or Matt Hale, is simply wrong.
It's inaccurate, and it's dangerous because it devalues the term and
makes it useless for the shock value it should have when we need it to
talk about people coming physically in a mob for someone, hauling them
bodily out of someplace they have a right to be, wrapping a rope round
their neck, and killing them dead.
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In article <39f4117...@news.cris.com>, nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle
>Rivkis) writes:
>
>>
>>On 23 Oct 2000 04:22:45 GMT, lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <39f3b780...@news.cris.com>, nri...@concentric.net (Naomi
>>>Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>>>
>>>>The shooters did physical damage. The president did nothing more than
>>>>exercise his *own* freedom to say what he liked, which was identical
>>>>to Dr. Jenny's right to do likewise. What part of "killing is
>>>>different from speaking" don't you understand?
>>>
>>>It is passion over law. He missused his authority just as the shooters
>>>missused their weapons. Having the power doesn't give you right to use it
>>>anyway you wish. Having power makes you , or should, more carefull about
>>>exersizing it and doing right.
>>
>>You're ignoring the fact that he has the same right to free speech
>>that Dr. Jenny has. He didn't use power in that case, only speech.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You seem to have missed this part, so I'm pointing it out again.
>He has the right of free speech.
>
> The Supreme Court has intrupreted free speech to include more than verbal
>communication, such as burning The Flag. The shooters were expressing their
>feelings as was Bartlet. Both were expressing their outrage at people they felt
>were transgrssors. It is against the law to shoot someone, while it is not
>against the law to be rude. Both, though, are considered to be inappropriate
>behavior in a civilized society.
Yes, they are. Bartlet was rude and inappropriate and he should not
have said what he said. It was not, however, any form of a lynching.
> Having the right to express yourself doesn't mean you should do so on your
>whim. He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the rules of
>civilized behavior. It is a matter of degree, but this is what the shooters
>did as well. They both put themselves above the law, because they thought they
>were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
They did NOT both put themselves above the law. The shooters put
themselves above the law; Bartlet put himself above the unspoken and
unenforceable rules of social convention and custom. There was no law
against what Bartlet did; he behaved badly but well within his legal
rights and without violence. The shooters behaved badly, outside their
legal rights and with violence. There is a difference.
Would you rather have someone be rude to you in public or kill you?
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>Am I defending her anti-gay positon; no, I am not. Should she have risen when
>he entered the room, certainly, but that was Sorkin giving Bartlet a tag line,
>it was a set up. I am saying that it was inappropriate behavior and would not
>be condoned, except that he was President and did have the power.
That is NOT all you are asying. You also say that it was a lynching.
It was not. Lynchings are PHYSICALLY VIOLENT. Anything that does not
include the element of physical violence is not a lynching. I agree
entirely that what Bartlet did was inappropriate behavior and ought
not be condoned. If you retract your stupid insistence that this form
of inappropriate behavior deserves the word "lynching" and is exactly
morally equivalent to inappropriate behavior which involves shooting
deadly bullets into a crowd of innocent bystanders, we're basically in
agreement. You seem to think that all forms of wrong are exactly
alike.
-Naomi
Mike and Dorcie
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:31:57 -0400, Mike and Dorcie
> <miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
> >
> >> On 23 Oct 2000 04:17:29 GMT, lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
> >> >Seeing
> >> >Bartlet telling that woman to get on her feet sounded a whole lot like,
> >> >"Boy,you know who you're talking to! you get your uppity black butt out of
> >> >town by sundown, or you'll be talking to Judge Hemp!" But that's just me.
> >>
> >> You're right, it is. It had absolutely nothing to do with what he
> >> actually said, which included *no* threat of physical danger
> >> whatsoever. No threat of anything, actually. He spoke his opinion of
> >> her and it wasn't pleasant, but he in no way said *anything* that
> >> included an "...or X will happen to you" clause of any kind.
> >
> >That doesn't matter. The President of the United States told her to stand. He
> >didn't have to add that something would happen to her if she did not do as he
> >said. It was implied.
>
> Er, no it wasn't. If I glare at someone being rude to me and tell
> them, "Your behavior is uncalled-for and abysmal. stop it at once!" I
> don't mean that if they don't stop it at once I am going to shoot them
> dead or drag them by a rope behind my car till their neck breaks. At
> absolute worst it *might* have been interpreted to mean "Standup or
> you will be courteously escorted to the door and disinvited from this
> reception."
>
That is exactly what I meant. I never said that he lynched her, and I even agreed
with you in another post that he did not lynch her. While I agree that physical
violence is normally necessary to refer to something as a lynching, there have been
many case where the word lynching has been used in a rhetorical sense to refer to a
verbal attack.
>
> My god, can you people really not see any difference between this and
> firing a hail of bullets into a crowd of pepole, or stringing an
> innocent man up from a tree by his neck?????
>
Umm, I didn't call this a lynching. Please try to read a bit more carefully.
>
> >Personally, I found it disgusting. I do not care if it is polite for someone to
> >stand in the presence of POTUS, no one actually has to. The president is
> >considered our equal, and he was wrong to demand that she stand in his presence.
> >The president should not be demanding respect or fealty.
>
> He has the same right to demand respect that any other private citizen
> does, which is some but not a whole lot. I agree that he should not
> have flown off the handle at her -- it was incautious, impolitic, and
> impolite. It was not, however, a lynching.
>
Again, I did not say he lynched her. Still, he was not just demanding respect as a
citizen. He said that "When the President stands, noone sits." That is morally
wrong. He was not saying that because he was the host it was impolite for her to
remain sitting. He was saying that because he was POTUS and she was in the White
House, she had to stand. While I agree that out of decency and respect she should
have stood, she did not have to. That is why this is The United States of America.
If a citizen of this country does not feel that she should stand when in the presence
of POUTUS, she does not have to. Whether he wants to call it respect, manners, or
whatever, he was demanding fealty as POTUS, and that is an abuse of his powers, and
goes against everything this country stands for.
Lone waddie
<susanb...@mindspring.com> writes:
> But surely
>there's a moral difference between, say, tying someone to a car and dragging
>their living body until their head snaps off and giving them an OD of
>narcotics.
Certainly. One is a crime, murder, and the other is a legally sancioned
execution, no matter what you, or I, may personally feel about ececutions. I
never defended murder, no gave my opinion one way or the other about legal
executions.
Please don't attribute a postion to me that I have not taken.
Lone waddie
<susanb...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>> Many people have been doing vigilante justice for years. "Lynching" comes
>from
>> Judge Lynch, an Irish judge who hung a defendant found innocent by a
>friendly
>> jury. It has nothing to do with race.
>
>This may be historically true, but in the context of the United States and
>this TV program, to say that race has nothing to do with lynching is a bit
>like saying that abortion has nothing to do with women (whether your fer it
>or agin' it).
>
I do understand your point of view, but lynching is executing someone, by
hanging, without benefit of trial. You may put a racial aspect to it if you
wish.
Calling something a "verbal lynching" is modifying the noun "lynching" to show
a similarity between lynching and what Bartlet did to Dr Jenna. She did not
have the oppertunity to defend herself, whether or not she could is another
point.
You may or may not agree with this act of Bartlet's as a sort of "lynching",
but that is what the discussion in this tread is about.
Conserning abortion, you might also say that it has something to do with the
unborn child. It is a matter of your point of view versus another persons. I
would hope we don't start discussing that, but restrict ourselves to points
brought up by the show. Things are getting testy enough. <smile> God knows,
we might get there before the end of the season.
Lone waddie
Gayle Rivkis) writes:
Lots of phyisical violent and abhorant acts take place that are not lynching.
Murder, for one. I did not name the thread, but like you are responding to it.
Technically, the word lynching is slang for a killing, by hanging, without
legal trial. The modifier "verbal" has been added to the noun, lynching, to
show a similarity. If you think me stupid, you are intitled to your opinion,
however I am not denigrating you for you opinion nor lack of understanding the
phrase as used by the origional poster.
We may agree, then, that Bartlet's act and that of the shooters was morally
wrong, while there are degrees of criminalty to be considered. I am saying
that there is a similarity in intent, if not in execution.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In article <39f46087...@news.cris.com>, nri...@concentric.net (Naomi
>Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>
>>On 23 Oct 2000 15:49:06 GMT, lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
>>
>>>Am I defending her anti-gay positon; no, I am not. Should she have risen
>>when
>>>he entered the room, certainly, but that was Sorkin giving Bartlet a tag
>>line,
>>>it was a set up. I am saying that it was inappropriate behavior and would
>>not
>>>be condoned, except that he was President and did have the power.
>>
>>That is NOT all you are asying. You also say that it was a lynching.
>>It was not. Lynchings are PHYSICALLY VIOLENT. Anything that does not
>>include the element of physical violence is not a lynching. I agree
>>entirely that what Bartlet did was inappropriate behavior and ought
>>not be condoned. If you retract your stupid insistence that this form
>>of inappropriate behavior deserves the word "lynching" and is exactly
>>morally equivalent to inappropriate behavior which involves shooting
>>deadly bullets into a crowd of innocent bystanders, we're basically in
>>agreement. You seem to think that all forms of wrong are exactly
>>alike.
>
>Lots of phyisical violent and abhorant acts take place that are not lynching.
Yes, but no lynching takes place that is not physically violent.
Lynching is a subset of physical violence, wholly encompassed by it.
>Murder, for one. I did not name the thread, but like you are responding to it.
No, but you elsewhere in this thread defend its name.
> Technically, the word lynching is slang for a killing, by hanging, without
>legal trial. The modifier "verbal" has been added to the noun, lynching, to
>show a similarity. If you think me stupid, you are intitled to your opinion,
>however I am not denigrating you for you opinion nor lack of understanding the
>phrase as used by the origional poster.
I understand the phrase as used by the original poster. I understand
it prfectly. It means "I don't like this behavior so I am goig to
yelland scream and jump up and down and hold my breath till my face
turns blue and use every nasty evil word I can think of to shock
people so they'll all know I realy really mean this thing was
BAAAAAAAD!!!!" It has absolutely no bearing on accurate language. I
dislike inaccurate language in politics; it devalues the strong terms
and we don't have their strength available for when they truly apply
anymore, because everyone has grown hardened to them from overuse.
We've already gotten used to calling every murder of more than three
people a holocaust, and everybody we don't like a Nazi; now we're
going to call every act of verbal aggression a lynching?
>We may agree, then, that Bartlet's act and that of the shooters was morally
>wrong, while there are degrees of criminalty to be considered. I am saying
>that there is a similarity in intent, if not in execution.
I don't much care about intent, so I won't argue with you about it. I
do dispute that there are degrees of "criminality" to be considered --
the term criminality, like the term lynching, has a precise meaning.
Something is not criminal if it is not against the law, peroid. (Yes,
it is possible for something to be against the law but not criminal;
again, it is a subset.) Therefore, there was only one criminal act of
these two acts -- theshooting. Now if you want to say "Bartlet's act
and that of the shooters were morally wrong, while there are degrees
of unethical behavior to be considered," I'll go along with you.
-Naomi
Userb3
> She was totally
>blindsided.
I've been mulling this argument over, and I just don't buy it, for the
following reasons:
1) Dr. Laura knows that her position is controversial, and being a
public figure, should likely have two or three defenses on the ready at
any given time.
2) Both in the show and in reality, Dr. Laura (Jenney) and Jed Bartlett
(Clinton/Truman/Kennedy/whoever he's based on) are well versed in the
other one's positions and their points of disagreement. When she opted
to attend an event at the whitehouse, she should have been prepared to
handle any potential disagreement. Had the situation been reversed, and
Bartlett attended a reception hosted by the producers of the Dr. Laura
program, he would likely have expected some sort of confrontation.
3) Any person past their teens, holding a PhD, and being prominent
enough to attend a White House reception, should know enough to stand
when the POTUS enters the room, and should certainly figure it out when
everyone else stops speaking and stands - remaining seated was a
provocation.
userb3
--
use...@my-deja.com
She was a Jung girl who was easily Freudened.
AMYSA
>1) Dr. Laura knows that her position is controversial, and being a
>public figure, should likely have two or three defenses on the ready at
>any given time.
i'm sure dr. laura was...but, dr. laura wasn't on "the west wing".
>2) Both in the show and in reality, Dr. Laura (Jenney) and Jed Bartlett
>(Clinton/Truman/Kennedy/whoever he's based on) are well versed in the
>other one's positions and their points of disagreement.
on what do you base that jenna was well versed in anything? the two seconds
where we saw her getting her picture taken or the one line about the bible
condemning homosexuality?
>When she opted
>to attend an event at the whitehouse, she should have been prepared to
>handle any potential disagreement.
oh, please. my thoughts on it, from the beginning, have been that if the scene
had been better developed, i would've accepted bartlet's outburst, but this
woman (and everyone else in that room) went to that dinner to schmooze, to have
some appetizers and to, maybe, catch a glimpse of the president. they went for
a little party and the chance to tell their families that they'd been to the
white house. that event wasn't a debate.
>Had the situation been reversed, and
>Bartlett attended a reception hosted by the producers of the Dr. Laura
>program, he would likely have expected some sort of confrontation.
why? i've never been to a reception where a confrontation was something that
one should expect.
amy
"i tried calling you at your office...they said you were fired. were you
stealing things?"--toby
Lone waddie
Gayle Rivkis) writes:
ok, I'll accept that as the working definition of the two acts, the shooters
and Bartlets.
I do think that the first usage of "lynching" was by Sorkin, and not the
origional poster. I am not defending the term "verbal lynching" I am just
using it, as I have come to understand the use of it in this thread.
I do believe that not all laws are set by govenments. There are moral laws,
legal laws divine laws. My usage of "criminality" was to say a violation of
one of those laws. I can work with you on this if we can agree that both
acts were wrong.
I hope you begin breathing again. Blue is not a usual color for people,
unless, of course, it is true blue.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In article <39f4745c...@news.cris.com>, nri...@concentric.net (Naomi
>Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>
>> Now if you want to say "Bartlet's act
>>and that of the shooters were morally wrong, while there are degrees
>>of unethical behavior to be considered," I'll go along with you.
>
>ok, I'll accept that as the working definition of the two acts, the shooters
>and Bartlets.
>
>I do think that the first usage of "lynching" was by Sorkin, and not the
>origional poster. I am not defending the term "verbal lynching" I am just
>using it, as I have come to understand the use of it in this thread.
If you use it, you'd better be prepared to defend the definition you
are using if it isn't the dictionary definition. Whether someone else
used it first doesn't matter. Sorkin's use of it was for an event
which *did* include physical violence, and hence is somewhat closer to
the proper meaning of the term, although one can legitimately argue
that other elements of the shooting exclude it from the category. I
would not use the word for either, myself, but it's at least *closer*
for a racial murder attempt than it is for being loud, rude and
obnoxious in public.
>I do believe that not all laws are set by govenments. There are moral laws,
>legal laws divine laws. My usage of "criminality" was to say a violation of
>one of those laws.
As such, it's a reasonable but somewhat confusing use of the term when
comparing to something which violates both the laws of morality and
those of the state. It becomes hard to tell which you mean, or whether
you admit there is any difference between something which breaks both
the laws of morality and the state and something which breaks the law
of morality alone. You weren't exactly incorrect in using
"criminality" that way but I'm glad you explained it; it makes things
a lot clearer.
>I can work with you on this if we can agree that both
>acts were wrong.
I'll go along with that.
>I hope you begin breathing again. Blue is not a usual color for people,
>unless, of course, it is true blue.
I'm quite all right, thank you. I was paraphrasing the person who used
the term 'verbal lynching' initially. I'm not blue, he/she might be.
-Naomi
Userb3
>use...@my-deja.com said:
>
>>1) Dr. Laura knows that her position is controversial, and being a
>>public figure, should likely have two or three defenses on the ready at
>>any given time.
>
>i'm sure dr. laura was...but, dr. laura wasn't on "the west wing".
It is fair to assume that any talk radio personality prominent enough
to be invited to an event at the whitehouse would hold the same
qualities.
>>2) Both in the show and in reality, Dr. Laura (Jenney) and Jed Bartlett
>>(Clinton/Truman/Kennedy/whoever he's based on) are well versed in the
>>other one's positions and their points of disagreement.
>
>on what do you base that jenna was well versed in anything?
The fact that she was a talk radio host prominent enough to be
attending the function in question, and the obvious fact that her
character was based on Dr. Laura.
>>Had the situation been reversed, and
>>Bartlett attended a reception hosted by the producers of the Dr. Laura
>>program, he would likely have expected some sort of confrontation.
>
>why? i've never been to a reception where a confrontation was something that
>one should expect.
I certainly have.
AMYSA
>>why? i've never been to a reception where a confrontation was something that
>>one should expect.
>
>I certainly have.
such as? what sorts of receptions or photo-op events require that one be
prepared for an ugly confrontation and public humiliation? i want to know so
that i can stay away from those and stick to the ones with the coffee and
pastries.
Bonnie Addicott
>He
>didn't have to add that something would happen to her if she did not do as he
>said. It was implied.
>
>to
>stand in the presence of POTUS, no one actually has to. The president is
>considered our equal, and he was wrong to demand that she stand in his
>presence.
>The president should not be demanding respect or fealty.
>
Would it have been acceptable to you if someone other than POTUS himself had
told her she should be standing? How about if, when CJ announced his arrival
and she noticed Dr. J. was not standing, she said to her, "When the president
stands, everybody stands."
Again, it isn't Bartlett the man that requires the respect, it is the office of
the president.
Bonbon
Userb3
>use...@my-deja.com said:
>
>>>why? i've never been to a reception where a confrontation was something that
>>>one should expect.
>>
>>I certainly have.
>
>such as? what sorts of receptions or photo-op events require that one be
>prepared for an ugly confrontation and public humiliation? i want to know so
>that i can stay away from those and stick to the ones with the coffee and
>pastries.
I have attended professional functions where the guest lists included
people who were well known adversaries. While fisticuffs and shouting
weren't part of the evening's entertainment, a palpable tension and
some strong language were. Also, when I was a full time journalist (I'm
freelanceing part time now,and don't do as much hard news), it wasn't
uncommon to encounter a politician, businessman, or official who was
openly hostile at a reception. It went with the turf.
And if you make your living, as Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern,
and thousands others do, by provoking strong reactions in others, then
you have to acknowledge that when you encounter established
adversaries, they may not greet you the same way Miss Manners would
greet Martha Stewart at tea.
userb3
Bobbie Dean
am...@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) wrote:
:use...@my-deja.com said:
:
:>1) Dr. Laura knows that her position is controversial, and being a
:>public figure, should likely have two or three defenses on the ready at
:>any given time.
:
:i'm sure dr. laura was...but, dr. laura wasn't on "the west wing".
:
:>2) Both in the show and in reality, Dr. Laura (Jenney) and Jed Bartlett
:>(Clinton/Truman/Kennedy/whoever he's based on) are well versed in the
:>other one's positions and their points of disagreement.
:
:on what do you base that jenna was well versed in anything? the two
:seconds
:where we saw her getting her picture taken or the one line about the
:bible
:condemning homosexuality?
:
:>When she opted
:>to attend an event at the whitehouse, she should have been prepared to
:>handle any potential disagreement.
:
:oh, please. my thoughts on it, from the beginning, have been that if the
:scene
:had been better developed, i would've accepted bartlet's outburst, but
:this
:woman (and everyone else in that room) went to that dinner to schmooze,
:to have
:some appetizers and to, maybe, catch a glimpse of the president. they
:went for
:a little party and the chance to tell their families that they'd been to
:the
:white house. that event wasn't a debate.
:
:>Had the situation been reversed, and
:>Bartlett attended a reception hosted by the producers of the Dr. Laura
:>program, he would likely have expected some sort of confrontation.
:
:why? i've never been to a reception where a confrontation was something
:that
:one should expect.
:
:amy
:
I guess you have lead a sheltered life - - remember this is politics.
Anytime you are in a situation where opposing viewpoints are mingled
it is not unheard of for a disagreement to start. I come from a
university background and let me assure you that very nasty
disagreements often occur at receptions.
B
Remember - Usenet isn't like life - it is often worse! ;-)
Bobbie Dean
am...@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) wrote:
:use...@my-deja.com said:
:
:>>why? i've never been to a reception where a confrontation was
:>>something that
:>>one should expect.
:>
:>I certainly have.
:
:such as? what sorts of receptions or photo-op events require that one be
:prepared for an ugly confrontation and public humiliation? i want to
:know so
:that i can stay away from those and stick to the ones with the coffee
:and
:pastries.
:
Oh how dull! In fact a good argument can spice up the festivities.
I've been to many a reception at scientific meetings where opposing
sides hold forth - - makes for exciting and interesting dinner
conversation latter that day.
Mike and Dorcie
Again, it is not required to stand in the presence of POTUS. I do not care who
asks, I do not care that it is the polite thing to do, it is not required.
Bobbie Dean
lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
:In article <39f4117...@news.cris.com>, nri...@concentric.net
:(Naomi Gayle
:Rivkis) writes:
:
:>
:>On 23 Oct 2000 04:22:45 GMT, lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
:>
:>>In article <39f3b780...@news.cris.com>, nri...@concentric.net
:>>(Naomi
:>>Gayle Rivkis) writes:
:>>
:>>>The shooters did physical damage. The president did nothing more than
:>>>exercise his *own* freedom to say what he liked, which was identical
:>>>to Dr. Jenny's right to do likewise. What part of "killing is
:>>>different from speaking" don't you understand?
:>>
:>>It is passion over law. He missused his authority just as the
:>>shooters
:>>missused their weapons. Having the power doesn't give you right to
:>>use it
:>>anyway you wish. Having power makes you , or should, more carefull
:>>about
:>>exersizing it and doing right.
:>
:>You're ignoring the fact that he has the same right to free speech
:>that Dr. Jenny has. He didn't use power in that case, only speech.
:>
:> -Naomi
:>
:>
:>
:
:He has the right of free speech.
:
: The Supreme Court has intrupreted free speech to include more than
: verbal
:communication, such as burning The Flag. The shooters were expressing
:their
:feelings as was Bartlet. Both were expressing their outrage at people
:they felt
:were transgrssors. It is against the law to shoot someone, while it is
:not
:against the law to be rude. Both, though, are considered to be
:inappropriate
:behavior in a civilized society.
:
Excuse me - - you are equating shooting someone with talking with
someone? How do you do that? And you are wrong if you think
everyone agrees that POTUS was being rude. Pointing out bad behavior
is not being rude.
: She was an invited guest. The invitation was not to a gathering
: discussing
:religion nor the positon of gays in society, as far as I understand. It
:was
:not the time or place for such a discussion. Being President, Bartlet
:changed
:the rules without telling anyone. He abused his power, in my oppinion.
:
Well, that's your opinion. She was invited as a talk radio
personality. If she doesn't believe in what she does, why does she do
it. If she does believe in it, then she should expect that she is
going to have confrontations when she goes out of her way to show
disrespect.
If you have a guest in your home who makes an offensive remark about
someone based upon their ethnic heritage, do you just say nothing and
let the other guests assume you agree? Maybe you do - I certainly
don't! First I'll dress you down and if you haven't the decency to
remove yourself, I'll ask you to leave. That's part of the problem we
have in this country - to many people will not stand up to the bullies
and say, no you are wrong and I won't accept that behavior.
: Having the right to express yourself doesn't mean you should do so on
: your
:whim. He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the
:rules of
:civilized behavior.
And this social compact allowed slavery to go on and on. It allowed
child and spousal abuse to live on and on. It allowed subtle
discrimination and harrassment in the workplace to go on and on. All
because we are being 'polite'. Polite be damned. If you don't have
the courage of your convictions what does that say about you as a
person?
It is a matter of degree, but this is what the
:shooters
:did as well. They both put themselves above the law, because they
:thought they
:were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
You are confusing breaking the law with breaking some 'social
compact'. That you confuse the two disturbs me - - and it is
especially disturbing because the reluctance to stand up for your
convictions may lead others to think that their bigoted ideas are
acceptable and this is what leads to the kinds of things we have seen
lately. How do you differentiate between calling someone an
abomination in God's eyes and taking that person out and stringing
them between barbed wire in Wyoming? If we don't stand up to the
person calling them abominations should we be surprised when someone
decides to do "God's work" as they perceive it?
Mike and Dorcie
No. Part of the problem is that too many people do not realize that everyone
is entitled to their own beliefs, no matter how irreprehensible they may seem
to many.
>
> : Having the right to express yourself doesn't mean you should do so on
> : your
> :whim. He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the
> :rules of
> :civilized behavior.
>
> And this social compact allowed slavery to go on and on. It allowed
> child and spousal abuse to live on and on. It allowed subtle
> discrimination and harrassment in the workplace to go on and on. All
> because we are being 'polite'. Polite be damned. If you don't have
> the courage of your convictions what does that say about you as a
> person?
>
None of these abuses had anything to do with anyone being too polite to do
anything about it. It was about fear of change and the desire to keep things
the way they were. There is a difference.
>
> It is a matter of degree, but this is what the
> :shooters
> :did as well. They both put themselves above the law, because they
> :thought they
> :were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
>
> You are confusing breaking the law with breaking some 'social
> compact'. That you confuse the two disturbs me - - and it is
> especially disturbing because the reluctance to stand up for your
> convictions may lead others to think that their bigoted ideas are
> acceptable and this is what leads to the kinds of things we have seen
> lately.
No, Lone waddie is not confusing the two. He (or she) is merely pointing out
that in a civilized soiety there are certain rules we live by, and when they
are broken, it can be just as devastating as breaking codified laws.
> How do you differentiate between calling someone an
> abomination in God's eyes and taking that person out and stringing
> them between barbed wire in Wyoming?
Simple. One is a belief anyone in the US is allowed to have. The other is
illegal and punishable by death or life in prison.
> If we don't stand up to the
> person calling them abominations should we be surprised when someone
> decides to do "God's work" as they perceive it?
>
Yes, we should. In this country, people are allowed to call others
"abominations," and many have done so for a long time. It does not mean that
all of these same people will go out and kill those they find
irreprehensible.
Bobbie Dean
<miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
So you would sit there quietly when your guests calls someone a 'coon'
or 'monkey', etc? Really? What does that say to your other guests
about you?
:>
:> : Having the right to express yourself doesn't mean you should do so
:> : on
:> : your
:> :whim. He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the
:> :rules of
:> :civilized behavior.
:>
:> And this social compact allowed slavery to go on and on. It allowed
:> child and spousal abuse to live on and on. It allowed subtle
:> discrimination and harrassment in the workplace to go on and on. All
:> because we are being 'polite'. Polite be damned. If you don't have
:> the courage of your convictions what does that say about you as a
:> person?
:>
:
:None of these abuses had anything to do with anyone being too polite to
:do
:anything about it. It was about fear of change and the desire to keep
:things
:the way they were. There is a difference.
:
No - there isn't a difference. Calling a person an abomination is
wrong whether it is because of their skin color, their sexual
preference, their religion, or their gender. Why would you condone
that behavior with your silence?
:>
:> It is a matter of degree, but this is what the
:> :shooters
:> :did as well. They both put themselves above the law, because they
:> :thought they
:> :were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
:>
:> You are confusing breaking the law with breaking some 'social
:> compact'. That you confuse the two disturbs me - - and it is
:> especially disturbing because the reluctance to stand up for your
:> convictions may lead others to think that their bigoted ideas are
:> acceptable and this is what leads to the kinds of things we have seen
:> lately.
:
:No, Lone waddie is not confusing the two. He (or she) is merely
:pointing out
:that in a civilized soiety there are certain rules we live by, and when
:they
:are broken, it can be just as devastating as breaking codified laws.
:
:> How do you differentiate between calling someone an
:> abomination in God's eyes and taking that person out and stringing
:> them between barbed wire in Wyoming?
:
:Simple. One is a belief anyone in the US is allowed to have. The other
:is
:illegal and punishable by death or life in prison.
:
:
And one can lead to the other if we don't point out that the belief is
contrary to the belief of others.
:> If we don't stand up to the
:> person calling them abominations should we be surprised when someone
:> decides to do "God's work" as they perceive it?
:>
:
:Yes, we should. In this country, people are allowed to call others
:"abominations," and many have done so for a long time. It does not mean
:that
:all of these same people will go out and kill those they find
:irreprehensible.
But if you don't stand up to the bully calling the names, what do you
think that says to the others looking on - - no one disagreed
therefore it must be true, therefore I'm ok in doing "God's work" as I
see it. That's the same slippery slope that ended up with the Jews
dying in concentration camps - - first we demonize them (abomination),
then we sequester them - then we kill them, and no one says anything
because we are being polite.
I defend your right to say things - but don't expect me to keep quite
and not challenge you when you do. If you don't want me to challenge
you then don't repeat those statments in front of me. If you do, be
prepared to be challeneged.
Mike and Dorcie
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:30:24 -0700 (PDT), LMay...@webtv.net (Linda
> Mayberry) wrote:
>
> >Verbal lynching - a verbal attack upon a person who is not in a position
> >to defend one's self or being given a chance to respond.
>
> Fact 1: The gunmen tried to lynch Charlie.
>
> Fact 2: Bartlet was impolite to Dr. Jenna.
>
> Yes, okay, you could invent the term "verbal lynching" as you
> described above and apply it to Bartlet's actions, and claim you're
> justified in using the extreme term "lynching" because you stuck an
> adjective in front of it.
>
You seem to indicate that Linda Mayberry is the one to coin this phrase, when
in fact it has been around for some time. Most recently, it was used by the
media to describe President Clinton's treatment by Congress during the
impeachment hearing. I have an English professor that uses the term from
time to time as well.
>
> But if you want people to accept your new phrase, you also have to
> accept the one I propose below:
>
> "Gun Impolite" - a gun attack upon a person that contravenes good
> manners.
>
I do not see how this is any better or worse than "vertically challenged" or
any of the other PC terms that have originated in the past decade or so.
Bobbie Dean
am...@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) wrote:
:bobbie dean said:
:
:>I guess you have lead a sheltered life - -
:
:apparently.
:
:>Anytime you are in a situation where opposing viewpoints are mingled
:>it is not unheard of for a disagreement to start. I come from a
:>university background and let me assure you that very nasty
:>disagreements often occur at receptions.
:>
:
:so when you go to these functions you prepare yourself just in case
:you're
:sitting there minding your own business and someone, out of nowhere,
:decides to
:humiliate you in front of the entire group?
:
If I don't have the courage of my convictions and am not prepared to
agrue my position, then I had better kept my mouth shut. This wasn't
out of nowhere. She knew her position was the antithesis of
Barlett's, or if she didn't, whatever University awarded her degree
should take it back. When you walk into the adversaries arena, better
be prepared to backup your arguments. And she deserved to be
humiliated. What should Barlett have done when she spouted off about
a person being an abomination? Looked the other way? As the kids say
- NO WAY!
susanb...@mindspring.com
"Lone waddie" <lonew...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001023114904...@nso-cm.aol.com...
> He has the right of free speech.
>
> The Supreme Court has intrupreted free speech to include more than verbal
> communication, such as burning The Flag. The shooters were expressing
their
> feelings as was Bartlet. Both were expressing their outrage at people they
felt
> were transgrssors. It is against the law to shoot someone, while it is
not
> against the law to be rude. Both, though, are considered to be
inappropriate
> behavior in a civilized society.
this is the kind of incredibly sloppy thinking that used to drive me to
distraction when I was teaching philosophy/logic. Ambushing multiple
someones whom you have never met, with loaded rifles, acting in consort and
in hiding from a distance, for the sole reason that you disagree with what
they are doing in their personal lives is NOT (repeat, not in this world,
not in any alternative universe that is imaginable by a rational person,
not, not, not), "expressing outrage." it IS attempted murder, attempted
lyching (given the particular fact cluster), immoral, name your poison. The
legal/illegal distinction (which also applies) is the absolutely LEAST
interesting difference between the two situations.
And I rest my case about the vacuousness of "inappropriate." You might as
well say that it was inappropriate for me to neglect to write my sister a
thank-you note for my birthday present (true) and EQUALLY inappropropriate
for Hitler to have killed millions. It's like saying that the appropriate
reaction to each situation is the same: "oooops" ("sorry," followed by
girly smile)
>
> She was an invited guest. The invitation was not to a gathering
discussing
> religion nor the positon of gays in society, as far as I understand. It
was
> not the time or place for such a discussion. Being President, Bartlet
changed
> the rules without telling anyone. He abused his power, in my oppinion.
>
> Having the right to express yourself doesn't mean you should do so on
your
> whim. He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the
rules of
> civilized behavior. It is a matter of degree,
NO, IT IS A MATTER OF KIND
but this is what the shooters
> did as well.
NO, THEY DID SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
They both put themselves above the law,
BEING RUDE IS NOT ILLEGAL
because they thought they
> were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
I don't think the state of the Union was in danger because POTUS was a rude
son-of-a-bitch (about which no one seems to disagree).
Susan
Mike and Dorcie
No, I would not. Neither would I say that that person was a bully, evil, or
even wrong for believing what he or she said. I would just point out that I
do not share in those beliefs.
>
> :>
> :> : Having the right to express yourself doesn't mean you should do so
> :> : on
> :> : your
> :> :whim. He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the
> :> :rules of
> :> :civilized behavior.
> :>
> :> And this social compact allowed slavery to go on and on. It allowed
> :> child and spousal abuse to live on and on. It allowed subtle
> :> discrimination and harrassment in the workplace to go on and on. All
> :> because we are being 'polite'. Polite be damned. If you don't have
> :> the courage of your convictions what does that say about you as a
> :> person?
> :>
> :
> :None of these abuses had anything to do with anyone being too polite to
> :do
> :anything about it. It was about fear of change and the desire to keep
> :things
> :the way they were. There is a difference.
> :
>
> No - there isn't a difference. Calling a person an abomination is
> wrong whether it is because of their skin color, their sexual
> preference, their religion, or their gender. Why would you condone
> that behavior with your silence?
>
Slavery has been around for thousands of years, condoned by several
civilizations. Until fairly recently, no one except the slave saw anything
wrong with it. When people did start to realize that it was wrong, slowly
but surely more and more began to speak out.
Until fairly recently, what we would now consider child and spousal abuse was
condoned. When people began to feel that it was wrong, they slowly but
surely began to speak out against it.
All of these things took a long time to change, but that is only because
humans are very resistant to change.
>
> :>
> :> It is a matter of degree, but this is what the
> :> :shooters
> :> :did as well. They both put themselves above the law, because they
> :> :thought they
> :> :were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
> :>
> :> You are confusing breaking the law with breaking some 'social
> :> compact'. That you confuse the two disturbs me - - and it is
> :> especially disturbing because the reluctance to stand up for your
> :> convictions may lead others to think that their bigoted ideas are
> :> acceptable and this is what leads to the kinds of things we have seen
> :> lately.
> :
> :No, Lone waddie is not confusing the two. He (or she) is merely
> :pointing out
> :that in a civilized soiety there are certain rules we live by, and when
> :they
> :are broken, it can be just as devastating as breaking codified laws.
> :
> :> How do you differentiate between calling someone an
> :> abomination in God's eyes and taking that person out and stringing
> :> them between barbed wire in Wyoming?
> :
> :Simple. One is a belief anyone in the US is allowed to have. The other
> :is
> :illegal and punishable by death or life in prison.
> :
> :
> And one can lead to the other if we don't point out that the belief is
> contrary to the belief of others.
>
Possibly, which is why we are allowed to point it out in the first place.
>
> :> If we don't stand up to the
> :> person calling them abominations should we be surprised when someone
> :> decides to do "God's work" as they perceive it?
> :>
> :
> :Yes, we should. In this country, people are allowed to call others
> :"abominations," and many have done so for a long time. It does not mean
> :that
> :all of these same people will go out and kill those they find
> :irreprehensible.
>
> But if you don't stand up to the bully calling the names, what do you
> think that says to the others looking on - - no one disagreed
> therefore it must be true, therefore I'm ok in doing "God's work" as I
> see it. That's the same slippery slope that ended up with the Jews
> dying in concentration camps - - first we demonize them (abomination),
> then we sequester them - then we kill them, and no one says anything
> because we are being polite.
>
> I defend your right to say things - but don't expect me to keep quite
> and not challenge you when you do. If you don't want me to challenge
> you then don't repeat those statments in front of me. If you do, be
> prepared to be challeneged.
>
I do agree with this. The only thing I disagree with is that POTUS should
never have challenged Ms. Jacobs in the situation that he did in the first
place.
susanb...@mindspring.com
> > compact'. That you confuse the two disturbs me - - and it is
> > especially disturbing because the reluctance to stand up for your
> > convictions may lead others to think that their bigoted ideas are
> > acceptable and this is what leads to the kinds of things we have seen
> > lately.
>
> No, Lone waddie is not confusing the two. He (or she) is merely pointing
out
> that in a civilized soiety there are certain rules we live by, and when
they
> are broken, it can be just as devastating as breaking codified laws.
What the objectors to LoneWaddie are objecting to is not that he/she is
confusing law/social compact; what we are objecting to is your inference,
which I believe LoneWaddie shares, that breaking the law and breaking the
social compact are "equally devastating."
Bobbie Dean
am...@aol.comasutra (AMYSA) wrote:
:bobbie dean said:
:
:>If I don't have the courage of my convictions and am not prepared to
:>agrue my position, then I had better kept my mouth shut.
:
:and you honestly don't see how this doesn't apply to the talk radio
:people? she
:sat there, bartlet said he liked her show and then mentioned the
:"homosexuality
:is an abomination" bit. she said she didn't say that, the bible did.
:after
:that, i don't recall bartlet shutting up.
:
:i *agree* with what bartlet said...i'm on his side. but, aside from that
:not
:being the place for such things (he wasn't getting into a debate with
:her, he
:was using her to vent frustrations), there was nothing in that script
:that
:supported his side other than her one line.
:
:>This wasn't
:>out of nowhere.
:
:for us it certainly was. i don't recall any previous episodes where
:she'd been
:mentioned. i've never seen bartlet sitting in his study listening to the
:dr.
:jenna jacobs show.
:
:> She knew her position was the antithesis of
:>Barlett's, or if she didn't, whatever University awarded her degree
:>should take it back. When you walk into the adversaries arena, better
:>be prepared to backup your arguments.
:
:oh, please. bartlet didn't even have to go to the thing. i doubt they
:knew he
:was coming for sure. there was no reason for her to believe that the
:president
:was going to engage her in a one sided debate.
:
You are a right-wing radio talk show host and you're going to a
liberal Democratic strong-hold and you think they agree with you?
:everyone (myself included) found it rude that she didn't stand when he
:entered
:the room, but i'm pretty sure that interupting the president during his
:tirade
:would've been just as bad to most people in that room.
:
But why would you say something you KNEW would get such a response?
:>And she deserved to be
:>humiliated.
:
:for showing up? she deserves, imo, to be humiliated by a caller to her
:show.
:she deserves to be taken to task on a talk show. she deserves to be
:taken down
:in a debate of some sort. this wasn't the time or the place.
:
Then why did she answer the way she did - she didn't have to, but she
had to push the button, didn't she?
:> What should Barlett have done when she spouted off about
:>a person being an abomination?
:
:he should've given his little "talk radio is a forum open to many"
:speech and
:not said anything in the first place.
:
:>Looked the other way? As the kids say
:>- NO WAY!
:
:is that what the kids say?
:
Yes - and they do look at what you do, as well as what you say. So if
you want kids to think that it is ok to be a bigot, then just let a
bigot spout off and do nothing, because you want to be 'polite'.
Mike and Dorcie
> > > You are confusing breaking the law with breaking some 'social
> > > compact'. That you confuse the two disturbs me - - and it is
> > > especially disturbing because the reluctance to stand up for your
> > > convictions may lead others to think that their bigoted ideas are
> > > acceptable and this is what leads to the kinds of things we have seen
> > > lately.
> >
> > No, Lone waddie is not confusing the two. He (or she) is merely pointing
> out
> > that in a civilized soiety there are certain rules we live by, and when
> they
> > are broken, it can be just as devastating as breaking codified laws.
>
> What the objectors to LoneWaddie are objecting to is not that he/she is
> confusing law/social compact; what we are objecting to is your inference,
> which I believe LoneWaddie shares, that breaking the law and breaking the
> social compact are "equally devastating."
After reading your other post, I still think that in some circumstances they
can be.
susanb...@mindspring.com
> > What the objectors to LoneWaddie are objecting to is not that he/she is
> > confusing law/social compact; what we are objecting to is your
inference,
> > which I believe LoneWaddie shares, that breaking the law and breaking
the
> > social compact are "equally devastating."
>
> After reading your other post, I still think that in some circumstances
they
> can be.
>
>
> Dorcie
> --
Is Dorcie dead or shot with a bullet at my hands? Is Lone Waddie? (I can
testify with complete certainty, having never shot a gun in my entire life,
that the answer to both question is "no.").
therefore, in *no* circumstance is my post and breaking the relevant laws
"equally devastating."
It must people that (white?) people in this day and age are too far away
from physical violence if no one can tell the difference from being
humiliated/criticized/call it what you will -- and getting shot.
eri...@my-deja.com
> Charlie did nothing to bring an attack upon himself. But opening
> calling someone an abomination, and then trying to use the bible to
> justify one's bigotry demands that a rebuttal be given lest anyone
> think that there was any hint of agreement by POTUS.
>
It occurs to me that perhaps most people would not want to bring a
person with intolerant, hateful views into their house without
challenging their ideas. Certainly I would not invite a person like
Dr. Laura into my house (dorm room, to be more accurate) unless I
planned to challenge those bigoted ideas that revolve around her
persona. To invite her into my house without doing so would indicate
that I sanction her views to some degree. Thus I see how the president
would want to lash out at the "Dr. Janet Jacobs".
Granted, this is the president we're talking about, and it's true he
probably does not necessarily go over guest lists for White House
receptions with a fine tooth comb. But any fair administration would
want to think twice about inviting such a controversial figure to a
reception without challenging them.
Eric
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
AMYSA
>I guess you have lead a sheltered life - -
apparently.
>Anytime you are in a situation where opposing viewpoints are mingled
>it is not unheard of for a disagreement to start. I come from a
>university background and let me assure you that very nasty
>disagreements often occur at receptions.
>
so when you go to these functions you prepare yourself just in case you're
sitting there minding your own business and someone, out of nowhere, decides to
humiliate you in front of the entire group?
amy
dbmetzger
lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
> In article <39f4745c...@news.cris.com>, nri...@concentric.net
(Naomi
> Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>
> > Now if you want to say "Bartlet's act
> >and that of the shooters were morally wrong, while there are degrees
> >of unethical behavior to be considered," I'll go along with you.
>
> ok, I'll accept that as the working definition of the two acts, the
shooters
> and Bartlets.
>
> I do think that the first usage of "lynching" was by Sorkin, and not
the
> origional poster. I am not defending the term "verbal lynching" I am
just
> using it, as I have come to understand the use of it in this thread.
>
laws,
> legal laws divine laws. My usage of "criminality" was to say a
violation of
both
> acts were wrong.
>
> I hope you begin breathing again. Blue is not a usual color for
people,
> unless, of course, it is true blue.
>
>
Speaking of blue, you seem to be suffering from a case of
blue balls when it comes to this highly idealized fictional president
putting this fictional talk show host in her place. It's called the
bully pulpit and it's used quite often by presidents. Normally it has
to do with policy issues which effects hundreds and thousands of people
not one homophobic talk show host who is well recognized as a bully in
her own right. Get your priorities straight. No pun intended.
Moving on...The final scene, was the essence of self control by
Bartlett. Rather then abusing the constitution and his office and
giving in to his own post traumatic reaction to the shooting he
confronted bigotry face to face.
The person supposedly being "lynched" is a talk show host. Talk show
hosts like Dr.Jenna (laura) attain ratings by being contemptuous of
their callers. They are entertainment. They decide which calls to take.
they decide when to cut them off. They always get the last word and
they do it by building themselves up at the callers expense.
For the first time Dr. Jenna didn't get the last word. Get over it.
dbmetzger
.
Jon Darlington
Mayberry) wrote:
>Verbal lynching - a verbal attack upon a person who is not in a position
>to defend one's self or being given a chance to respond.
Fact 1: The gunmen tried to lynch Charlie.
Fact 2: Bartlet was impolite to Dr. Jenna.
Yes, okay, you could invent the term "verbal lynching" as you
described above and apply it to Bartlet's actions, and claim you're
justified in using the extreme term "lynching" because you stuck an
adjective in front of it.
But if you want people to accept your new phrase, you also have to
accept the one I propose below:
"Gun Impolite" - a gun attack upon a person that contravenes good
manners.
So really, the gunmen were guilty of being "gun impolite" to Charlie
when they shot at him.
It's a ridiculous distortion and abuse of the language; but if you'll
accept that the gunmen were merely "gun impolite" to Charlie, I'll
accept that Bartlet is guilty of a "verbal lynching" of Dr. Jenna.
- Jon
AMYSA
>If I don't have the courage of my convictions and am not prepared to
>agrue my position, then I had better kept my mouth shut.
and you honestly don't see how this doesn't apply to the talk radio people? she
sat there, bartlet said he liked her show and then mentioned the "homosexuality
is an abomination" bit. she said she didn't say that, the bible did. after
that, i don't recall bartlet shutting up.
i *agree* with what bartlet said...i'm on his side. but, aside from that not
being the place for such things (he wasn't getting into a debate with her, he
was using her to vent frustrations), there was nothing in that script that
supported his side other than her one line.
>This wasn't
>out of nowhere.
for us it certainly was. i don't recall any previous episodes where she'd been
mentioned. i've never seen bartlet sitting in his study listening to the dr.
jenna jacobs show.
> She knew her position was the antithesis of
>Barlett's, or if she didn't, whatever University awarded her degree
>should take it back. When you walk into the adversaries arena, better
>be prepared to backup your arguments.
oh, please. bartlet didn't even have to go to the thing. i doubt they knew he
was coming for sure. there was no reason for her to believe that the president
was going to engage her in a one sided debate.
everyone (myself included) found it rude that she didn't stand when he entered
the room, but i'm pretty sure that interupting the president during his tirade
would've been just as bad to most people in that room.
>And she deserved to be
>humiliated.
for showing up? she deserves, imo, to be humiliated by a caller to her show.
she deserves to be taken to task on a talk show. she deserves to be taken down
in a debate of some sort. this wasn't the time or the place.
> What should Barlett have done when she spouted off about
>a person being an abomination?
he should've given his little "talk radio is a forum open to many" speech and
not said anything in the first place.
>Looked the other way? As the kids say
>- NO WAY!
is that what the kids say?
amy
AMYSA
>You are a right-wing radio talk show host and you're going to a
>liberal Democratic strong-hold and you think they agree with you?
where in the world did i say that? i know that half the people in that room
probably didn't agree with her. it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility
that 100% of the people in that room were in disagreement with her beliefs.
i'm really wondering where you got that from my post.
>Yes - and they do look at what you do, as well as what you say. So if
>you want kids to think that it is ok to be a bigot, then just let a
>bigot spout off and do nothing, because you want to be 'polite'.
oh lord.
this thread is in the killfile as of now.
Mike and Dorcie
> > > What the objectors to LoneWaddie are objecting to is not that he/she is
> > > confusing law/social compact; what we are objecting to is your
> inference,
> > > which I believe LoneWaddie shares, that breaking the law and breaking
> the
> > > social compact are "equally devastating."
> >
> > After reading your other post, I still think that in some circumstances
> they
> > can be.
> >
> >
> > Dorcie
> > --
>
> Is Dorcie dead or shot with a bullet at my hands? Is Lone Waddie? (I can
> testify with complete certainty, having never shot a gun in my entire life,
> that the answer to both question is "no.").
>
>
> therefore, in *no* circumstance is my post and breaking the relevant laws
> "equally devastating."
>
Where is all of this coming from? In no way did I say that any of the posts on
this newsgroup were just as devastating as breaking a codified law. However, I
do think that there are some circumstances where breaking a "moral law," if you
will, can have consequences just as bad as the ones breaking written laws
carry.
>
> It must people that (white?) people in this day and age are too far away
> from physical violence if no one can tell the difference from being
> humiliated/criticized/call it what you will -- and getting shot.
Isn't this interesting. You have no idea who I am, but because of the basis of
my disagreement, you automatically assume that I am a white person who lives
"far way from physical violence."
Bobbie Dean
<miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
:>
:> But if you don't stand up to the bully calling the names, what do you
:> think that says to the others looking on - - no one disagreed
:> therefore it must be true, therefore I'm ok in doing "God's work" as I
:> see it. That's the same slippery slope that ended up with the Jews
:> dying in concentration camps - - first we demonize them (abomination),
:> then we sequester them - then we kill them, and no one says anything
:> because we are being polite.
:>
:> I defend your right to say things - but don't expect me to keep quite
:> and not challenge you when you do. If you don't want me to challenge
:> you then don't repeat those statments in front of me. If you do, be
:> prepared to be challeneged.
:>
:
:I do agree with this. The only thing I disagree with is that POTUS
:should
:never have challenged Ms. Jacobs in the situation that he did in the
:first
:place.
:
:
But she was challenging him - - her sitting while everyone else had
risen made sure he would see her. She drew attention to herself, she
was baiting him - albiet in a passive-aggressive sense. Look at the
body language - it was saying, I'm so special, I can behave anyway I
want. She played to close to the flame and was singed (sp?) - that
sometimes happens when you play with fire.
:
:Dorcie
:--
:When you come to a fork in the road, take it - Yogi Berra
:
:
Mike and Dorcie
Nevermind that POTUS eventually got around to demanding that she stand, which
was wrong in and of itself, she was not baiting him with "I think
homosexuality is an abomination," which is what POTUS originally challenged
her on. He started it.
R J Valentine
] Would it have been acceptable to you if someone other than POTUS himself had
] told her she should be standing? How about if, when CJ announced his arrival
] and she noticed Dr. J. was not standing, she said to her, "When the president
] stands, everybody stands."
No, that's not the way it works. He may require his employees to stand as
a condition of employment, but he's the employee of everyone else. When
someone else approaches, the president had better hike himself up if he is
physically able. There is no stretch whereby the President could in any
sense insist that other people stand merely because he is standing. It
was just a cheap scriptwriting trick that diminished the whole show.
He's not an old-time king.
] Again, it isn't Bartlett the man that requires the respect, it is the office of
] the president.
No, it's the people, and a real President would know it, even if the
scriptwriters don't.
As I mentioned back in the beginning of the discussion of this show, a
scriptwriter with some imagination would have had her signal for her
wheelchair and wheel herself on out of there. And what's wrong with the
actors that they would put up with a scene like that? What we get instead
are artificial shortcuts like the change in election years that make all
other comparisons with reality a waste of time. Maybe somebody was on
vacation this week and it'll tighten up again soon. I hope so.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@clark.net?subject=%3Cnews:alt.tv.the-west-wing%3E%20>
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
wrote:
>> > You are confusing breaking the law with breaking some 'social
>> > compact'. That you confuse the two disturbs me - - and it is
>> > especially disturbing because the reluctance to stand up for your
>> > convictions may lead others to think that their bigoted ideas are
>> > acceptable and this is what leads to the kinds of things we have seen
>> > lately.
>>
>> No, Lone waddie is not confusing the two. He (or she) is merely pointing
>out
>> that in a civilized soiety there are certain rules we live by, and when
>they
>> are broken, it can be just as devastating as breaking codified laws.
>
>What the objectors to LoneWaddie are objecting to is not that he/she is
>confusing law/social compact; what we are objecting to is your inference,
>which I believe LoneWaddie shares, that breaking the law and breaking the
>social compact are "equally devastating."
Depending on what law and what part of the social compact, it can be.
However when the law is that against attempted murder and the social
compact is a matter of rude speech, there's a major discrepancy of
degree.
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> What the objectors to LoneWaddie are objecting to is not that he/she is
>> confusing law/social compact; what we are objecting to is your inference,
>> which I believe LoneWaddie shares, that breaking the law and breaking the
>> social compact are "equally devastating."
>
>After reading your other post, I still think that in some circumstances they
>can be.
We're not talking about "some circumstances." We're talking about this
circumstance. Specifically we are talking about whether it is
precisely equally bad, not one little iota less, to be publicly rude
to someone as it is to shoot them and their friends nearly dead. Do
you realy think so? Which would you personally rather have happen to
you -- public humiliation or the kind of life-threatening ordeal Josh
went through?
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jon Darlington wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:30:24 -0700 (PDT), LMay...@webtv.net (Linda
>> Mayberry) wrote:
>>
>> >Verbal lynching - a verbal attack upon a person who is not in a position
>> >to defend one's self or being given a chance to respond.
>>
>> Fact 1: The gunmen tried to lynch Charlie.
>>
>> Fact 2: Bartlet was impolite to Dr. Jenna.
>>
>> Yes, okay, you could invent the term "verbal lynching" as you
>> described above and apply it to Bartlet's actions, and claim you're
>> justified in using the extreme term "lynching" because you stuck an
>> adjective in front of it.
>
>You seem to indicate that Linda Mayberry is the one to coin this phrase, when
>in fact it has been around for some time. Most recently, it was used by the
>media to describe President Clinton's treatment by Congress during the
>impeachment hearing. I have an English professor that uses the term from
>time to time as well.
And it is wrong each and every time, and you shouldn't repeat the
error.
>> But if you want people to accept your new phrase, you also have to
>> accept the one I propose below:
>>
>> "Gun Impolite" - a gun attack upon a person that contravenes good
>> manners.
>
>I do not see how this is any better or worse than "vertically challenged" or
>any of the other PC terms that have originated in the past decade or so.
"Vertically challenged" is stupid but no more than stupid -- it does
not devalue a term we may need in the future to have its full intended
shock value when referring to the original issue. If we call any
speech we don't like a "verbal lynching" we will be crying wolf so
often that nobody will respond when the REAL lynchings, the physical
ones, need to be described. They'll yawn, because they've heard the
word tossed around so much it isn't real to them anymore. This has
already happened with the word 'fascist' and is well on its way with
the term 'Nazi'.
>Dorcie
-Naomi
Linda Mayberry
of the underlying themes of the episode kept on referring to the gun
atttack as a "lynching," I assumed that those looking for reasons for
the behavior of the POTUS would be in response to his desire to get back
at someone. He couldn't legally have the White Pride group arrested and
he couldn't stop the bigoted former opponent from winning the school
board. He just had to lash out at someone.
Maybe a better phrase would have been "verbal assault" but I just
imagined that most would be able to think be beyond the straight
definition of a lynching to take in the character's responses to the
horrible attack. I'm sorry if I offended you with a phrase that I
though described the situation, in MY opinion.
I am offended by anyone who uses a position of authority to humiliate
anyone. I have seen teachers to it to students, bosses do it to
employees. I have always though well of Bartlet the POTUS, but the
attack made him appear petty and small in my eyes. I can understand the
stress, but I can't excuse what he did. I really think the scene was
put in by Sorkin to show how close to the breaking point Bartlet is.
I guess I just have to keep the potential for intellectual discussions
of reasons behind character actions elsewhere on Internet. This topic
was to be more of an analysis into the character's behavior than a
semantic discussion of my choice of words.
I just thought the people who could talk about egg creams (which have
neither eggs or cream) could think outside of the "box."
Linda
Jon Darlington
server, so I'm going to piggyback on Naomi's reply to address the bits
I can see.
>On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:09:23 -0400, Mike and Dorcie
><miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Jon Darlington wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, okay, you could invent the term "verbal lynching" as you
>>> described above and apply it to Bartlet's actions, and claim you're
>>> justified in using the extreme term "lynching" because you stuck an
>>> adjective in front of it.
>>
>>You seem to indicate that Linda Mayberry is the one to coin this phrase, when
>>in fact it has been around for some time. Most recently, it was used by the
>>media to describe President Clinton's treatment by Congress during the
>>impeachment hearing. I have an English professor that uses the term from
>>time to time as well.
As Naomi points out, the fact that some goofs in the media or an
English professor use the term doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
It's a distortion of language to political (or rhetorical) ends.
>>> But if you want people to accept your new phrase, you also have to
>>> accept the one I propose below:
>>>
>>> "Gun Impolite" - a gun attack upon a person that contravenes good
>>> manners.
>>
>>I do not see how this is any better or worse than "vertically challenged" or
>>any of the other PC terms that have originated in the past decade or so.
Exactly. They generally *are* stupid terms, because they twist
language beyond all clarity to conform to political goals.
There are times when this has merit: people apply new words to
concepts so that we see those concepts in a new way. In particular,
this is useful when old terms have become laden with emotional
baggage, like "the n-word" in discussions of race. The word no longer
signifies the thing it originally did -- "a person whose skin is that
colour" -- but now signifies a whole set of prejudices. The word has
become useless in rational discussion, and needs a replacement.
But "verbal lynching"? Please. To my mnid, this is a transparent
abuse of language to make a political point. In this case, it tries
to borrow the harshness of lynching and graft it onto a conversation
so that we can accuse Bartlet of something alarming, when he just
showed bad manners. This does nothing but water down the term
"lynching" for those occasions it is really required.
- Jon
Bonnie Addicott
>I've been to many a reception at scientific meetings where opposing
>sides hold forth - - makes for exciting and interesting dinner
>conversation latter that day.
>
>B
Wouldn't you just LOVE to attend a reception of about 20 or 30 or the people on
this newsgroup? WOW! Nobody would be able to get a word in edgewise!
Bonbon
Mike and Dorcie
There have been some people that have killed themselves due to public
humiliation.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Mayberry) wrote:
>Naomi - Yes, the term "verbal lynching" is my own definition. Since one
>of the underlying themes of the episode kept on referring to the gun
>atttack as a "lynching," I assumed that those looking for reasons for
>the behavior of the POTUS would be in response to his desire to get back
>at someone. He couldn't legally have the White Pride group arrested and
>he couldn't stop the bigoted former opponent from winning the school
>board. He just had to lash out at someone.
I agree, and I agree that the behavior was rude, inappropriate and
wrong of him.
>Maybe a better phrase would have been "verbal assault" but I just
>imagined that most would be able to think be beyond the straight
>definition of a lynching to take in the character's responses to the
>horrible attack. I'm sorry if I offended you with a phrase that I
>though described the situation, in MY opinion.
You didn't offend me, you SCARED me. I've been fighting for ten years
to get people to stop using the terms "Nazi" and "holocaust" for any
trivial offense that comes their way, because eventually it is going
to be MY head on the block when the *real* Nazis return an seriously
start trying to stuff people into gas chambers again. I will need
those words then to try and get across to the rest of the country what
is wrong here. They aren't going to listen to me, because they've
already heard the words too frequently for too many things and stopped
reacting strongly to them. And so I'll die, and all my people with me.
Well, you're doing the same thing to the word "lynching," and it's
going to have the same results. In this case it won't be me, it'll
probably be the gays, maybe the black people again, hard to tella t
this stage, but all the details will be the same. Not just once in a
blue mon and it makes headlines the way Matthew Shepard did, but in
great waves across the country. And they're going to scream for help
an nobod is going to listen to them because they will use the word
"lynching" s the only applicable word that makes any sense of the
facts in the situation, and people will be too hardened to it from
what you've said and other people have said, ad ew'll all yawn and
turn away thinking it's just hyperbole again. And a lot of people will
die.
>I am offended by anyone who uses a position of authority to humiliate
>anyone. I have seen teachers to it to students, bosses do it to
>employees. I have always though well of Bartlet the POTUS, but the
>attack made him appear petty and small in my eyes. I can understand the
>stress, but I can't excuse what he did. I really think the scene was
>put in by Sorkin to show how close to the breaking point Bartlet is.
I think so too, and agree wholeheartedly with everything in ths
paragraph.
>I guess I just have to keep the potential for intellectual discussions
>of reasons behind character actions elsewhere on Internet. This topic
>was to be more of an analysis into the character's behavior than a
>semantic discussion of my choice of words.
>
>I just thought the people who could talk about egg creams (which have
>neither eggs or cream) could think outside of the "box."
Well, I'm not discussing egg creams, but it doesn't devalue the word
'egg' r the word 'cream' to form a compound of them the way it
devalues the word 'lynching' to form a compound of that which means
something relatively minor by comparison to a real lynching.
>Linda
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:46:00 -0400, Mike and Dorcie
>> <miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> What the objectors to LoneWaddie are objecting to is not that he/she is
>> >> confusing law/social compact; what we are objecting to is your inference,
>> >> which I believe LoneWaddie shares, that breaking the law and breaking the
>> >> social compact are "equally devastating."
>> >
>> >After reading your other post, I still think that in some circumstances they
>> >can be.
>>
>> We're not talking about "some circumstances." We're talking about this
>> circumstance. Specifically we are talking about whether it is
>> precisely equally bad, not one little iota less, to be publicly rude
>> to someone as it is to shoot them and their friends nearly dead. Do
>> you realy think so? Which would you personally rather have happen to
>> you -- public humiliation or the kind of life-threatening ordeal Josh
>> went through?
>
>There have been some people that have killed themselves due to public
>humiliation.
You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask about some pepole, I asked
about you, Dorcie, individually and personally. Which would *you*
rather have?
-Naomi
Lynn
>> >>
>> >> what we are objecting to is your inference,
>> >> which I believe LoneWaddie shares, that breaking the law and breaking
>> >> the social compact are "equally devastating."
>> >
>> >
>> >After reading your other post, I still think that in some circumstances
>> >they can be.
>> >
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
>>
>> Specifically we are talking about whether it is
>> precisely equally bad, not one little iota less, to be publicly rude
>> to someone as it is to shoot them and their friends nearly dead.
>>
>
>There have been some people that have killed themselves due to public
>humiliation.
Destruction to the soul can be equally as devastating as destruction to the
body. Sometimes moreso because it's rarely understood by others, and often
is suffered in silence.
--
Lynn
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes
genius... -Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Valley of Fear"
============================================================================
WingNuts: <http://users.lmi.net/ennui/wingnuts001.htm> *
West Wing: <http://users.lmi.net/ennui/westwing001.htm> *
Netiquette: <http://users.lmi.net/ennui/usenet001.htm> *
**********************************************************
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<rameses...@postmark.net> wrote:
>Destruction to the soul can be equally as devastating as destruction to the
>body. Sometimes moreso because it's rarely understood by others, and often
>is suffered in silence.
Which would you, personally, prefer: to be publicly humiliated at a
party by rude words, or to have yourself and several of your friends
shot at and go through the near-fatal situation Josh did? Not "some
pepole," not "sometimes," but you, that specific situatoin -- choose.
-Naomi
mgoldmacher
> The Supreme Court has intrupreted free speech to include more than verbal
>communication, such as burning The Flag. The shooters were expressing their
>feelings as was Bartlet. Both were expressing their outrage at people they felt
>were transgrssors. It is against the law to shoot someone, while it is not
>against the law to be rude. Both, though, are considered to be inappropriate
>behavior in a civilized society.
>
> She was an invited guest. The invitation was not to a gathering discussing
>religion nor the positon of gays in society, as far as I understand. It was
>not the time or place for such a discussion. Being President, Bartlet changed
>the rules without telling anyone. He abused his power, in my oppinion.
>
> Having the right to express yourself doesn't mean you should do so on your
>whim. He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the rules of
>civilized behavior. It is a matter of degree, but this is what the shooters
>did as well. They both put themselves above the law, because they thought they
>were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
If Bartlett broke the law there would be a special prosecutor
appointed by the end of the evening.
It is painful to read a post by someone who equates attempted murder
with a verbal reproach. The point of Bartlett's tirade is to
demonstrate the difference between taking up arms and using rhetoric,
hence his statement, "That's how I do it". If the difference appears
to be one of degree you are missing the picture.
MGoldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor
mgoldmacher
>
>He lynched her and rudely so, even if it was understandable and the arguments
>good ones.
Lynching, by definition, refers to an act committed by an unruly mob.
Like the democratic caucus in the house of representatives according
to Clarance Thomas.
The only purpose for referring to Bartlett's verbal assault on Dr.
Jenna as a lynching is to equate that act with the attempted murder of
Charlie. The parallel just isn't there.
MGoldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor
Mike and Dorcie
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 08:55:41 -0400, Mike and Dorcie
> <miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:46:00 -0400, Mike and Dorcie
> >> <miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> What the objectors to LoneWaddie are objecting to is not that he/she is
> >> >> confusing law/social compact; what we are objecting to is your inference,
> >> >> which I believe LoneWaddie shares, that breaking the law and breaking the
> >> >> social compact are "equally devastating."
> >> >
> >> >After reading your other post, I still think that in some circumstances they
> >> >can be.
> >>
> >> We're not talking about "some circumstances." We're talking about this
> >> circumstance. Specifically we are talking about whether it is
> >> precisely equally bad, not one little iota less, to be publicly rude
> >> to someone as it is to shoot them and their friends nearly dead. Do
> >> you realy think so? Which would you personally rather have happen to
> >> you -- public humiliation or the kind of life-threatening ordeal Josh
> >> went through?
> >
> >There have been some people that have killed themselves due to public
> >humiliation.
>
> You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask about some pepole, I asked
> about you, Dorcie, individually and personally. Which would *you*
> rather have?
>
> -Naomi
Oh. In that case, I would rather be killed than face the public humiliation Dr.
Jacobs faced. I am being quite serious here. I have been through serious public
humiliation and I have no desire whatsoever to *ever* go through it again.
Dorcie
--
When you come to a fork in the road, take it - Yogi Berra
Bonnie Addicott
>Oh. In that case, I would rather be killed than face the public humiliation
>Dr.
>Jacobs faced. I am being quite serious here. I have been through serious
>public
>humiliation and I have no desire whatsoever to *ever* go through it again.
>
>Dorcie
Whew! THAT'S a pretty strong statement. I hope you'll consider your views on
that. Humiliation will eventually go away; death is forever.
Bonbon
Lynn
>
>Which would you, personally, prefer: to be publicly humiliated at a
>party by rude words, or to have yourself and several of your friends
>shot at and go through the near-fatal situation Josh did? Not "some
>pepole," not "sometimes," but you, that specific situatoin -- choose.
Neither.
Lone waddie
mgold...@sympatico.ca (mgoldmacher) writes:
>
>It is painful to read a post by someone who equates attempted murder
>with a verbal reproach. The point of Bartlett's tirade is to
>demonstrate the difference between taking up arms and using rhetoric,
>hence his statement, "That's how I do it". If the difference appears
>to be one of degree you are missing the picture.
>
>MGoldmacher
>Barrister and Solicitor
>
>
It might be the point of Sorkin's writing, but Bartlet is talking about Dr
Jenna's use of the Bible as a reason why she is against gays.
I belive that "That's how I do it," was actually, "That's how I did it," and
was an answer to the question he was asked about how he had defeated the school
board guy.
I believe you are missing the words.
Lone waddie
<susanb...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
>"Lone waddie" <lonew...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20001023114904...@nso-cm.aol.com...
>> He has the right of free speech.
>>
>> The Supreme Court has intrupreted free speech to include more than verbal
>> communication, such as burning The Flag. The shooters were expressing
>their
>> feelings as was Bartlet. Both were expressing their outrage at people they
>felt
>> were transgrssors. It is against the law to shoot someone, while it is
>not
>> against the law to be rude. Both, though, are considered to be
>inappropriate
>> behavior in a civilized society.
>
>this is the kind of incredibly sloppy thinking that used to drive me to
>distraction when I was teaching philosophy/logic. Ambushing multiple
>someones whom you have never met, with loaded rifles, acting in consort and
>in hiding from a distance, for the sole reason that you disagree with what
>they are doing in their personal lives is NOT (repeat, not in this world,
>not in any alternative universe that is imaginable by a rational person,
>not, not, not), "expressing outrage." it IS attempted murder, attempted
>lyching (given the particular fact cluster), immoral, name your poison. The
>legal/illegal distinction (which also applies) is the absolutely LEAST
>interesting difference between the two situations.
>
I cannot speak for what is possible in alternate universes, but perhaps that is
your destination as you are driving to distraction. The limits of your
imagination are not at issue here.
I take it Bartlet did not know Dr Jenna, he had to ask who she was. The
shooters disagreed with Charlie; Bartlet disagreed with Dr Jenna. The
shooters were attempting murder: Bartlet was being rude. Both were outraged
at their targets. Attempted murder is not the same as being rude. I am not
discussing the aftereffects of the acts.
>And I rest my case about the vacuousness of "inappropriate." You might as
>well say that it was inappropriate for me to neglect to write my sister a
>thank-you note for my birthday present (true) and EQUALLY inappropropriate
>for Hitler to have killed millions. It's like saying that the appropriate
>reaction to each situation is the same: "oooops" ("sorry," followed by
>girly smile)
>
Inappropriate . . . wrong . . . a bad thing. Hitler was wrong, Bartlet was
wrong, the shooters were wrong.
Smiles are nice, when honest and not catty.
>>
>> She was an invited guest. The invitation was not to a gathering
>discussing
>> religion nor the positon of gays in society, as far as I understand. It
>was
>> not the time or place for such a discussion. Being President, Bartlet
>changed
>> the rules without telling anyone. He abused his power, in my oppinion.
>>
>> Having the right to express yourself doesn't mean you should do so on
>your
>> whim. He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the
>rules of
>> civilized behavior. It is a matter of degree,
>
>NO, IT IS A MATTER OF KIND
Do you make it a practice to break up sentences? Did you do that to your
students? If so, maybe they were on that ride to distraction.
>
>but this is what the shooters
>> did as well.
>
>NO, THEY DID SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
>
One used words and the other two used weapons, but both did wrong acts.
>They both put themselves above the law,
>
>BEING RUDE IS NOT ILLEGAL
>
Illegal only means, in common usage, violating state generated statutes.
Bartlet and the shooters put their passionate feelings above accepted
civilized behavior.
>because they thought they
>> were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
>
>I don't think the state of the Union was in danger because POTUS was a rude
>son-of-a-bitch (about which no one seems to disagree).
>
>Susan
>
Danger? I didn't say that. I'll leave that to the fortune tellers. I am
just saying he was wrong. The shooters were wrong.
Lone waddie
tresb...@aol.comTakeOut (Bonnie Addicott) writes:
>
>Wouldn't you just LOVE to attend a reception of about 20 or 30 or the people
>on
>this newsgroup? WOW! Nobody would be able to get a word in edgewise!
>
>Bonbon
Frightening thought, eh? <laugh>
Lone waddie
<susanb...@mindspring.com> writes:
>What the objectors to LoneWaddie are objecting to is not that he/she is
>confusing law/social compact; what we are objecting to is your inference,
>which I believe LoneWaddie shares, that breaking the law and breaking the
>social compact are "equally devastating.
He
They are equally wrong, but not equally devastating.
Lone waddie
<xit...@sirinet.net> writes:
>:
>So you would sit there quietly when your guests calls someone a 'coon'
>or 'monkey', etc? Really? What does that say to your other guests
>about you?
>
>
She didn't do that. She responded to a question.
Personally, I consider those fighting words and would ask that person to leave.
>:
>
>No - there isn't a difference. Calling a person an abomination is
>wrong whether it is because of their skin color, their sexual
>preference, their religion, or their gender. Why would you condone
>that behavior with your silence?
>
I agree. I don't call a people abominations for any reason, be it skin color
sexual prefence, religion nor gender. It is not good manners. I may call
them other things, but it would be because that person individually, in my
opinion and from my direct knowledge, earned that epithet, and I only do that
when riled and do tend to restrain myself.
When I am in the company of someone who does generalize people, especially
negatively, I, as the saying goes, lock their heals. Bartlet needed his heals
locked after that speech. Had I been there I would have found a seat and used
it.
>:>
>But if you don't stand up to the bully calling the names, what do you
>think that says to the others looking on - - no one disagreed
>therefore it must be true, therefore I'm ok in doing "God's work" as I
>see it. That's the same slippery slope that ended up with the Jews
>dying in concentration camps - - first we demonize them (abomination),
>then we sequester them - then we kill them, and no one says anything
>because we are being polite.
>
I don't stand up to bullies because of what others might think of me, but
because of what I will think of me.
When someone says they are doing "God's Work" I ask them what they are getting
paid.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to say the foolish, wrong, and abhorant. It
is easy to defend the popular. Even Dr Laura, or Sorkin's clone of her, can
say what she wants. Actually, she is the one that seems to being "demonized"
here. Has she advocated putting people in concentration camps or wiring them
to fences?
>I defend your right to say things - but don't expect me to keep quite
>and not challenge you when you do. If you don't want me to challenge
>you then don't repeat those statments in front of me. If you do, be
>prepared to be challeneged.
>
Good for you.
Lone waddie
<susanb...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Is Dorcie dead or shot with a bullet at my hands? Is Lone Waddie? (I can
>testify with complete certainty, having never shot a gun in my entire life,
>that the answer to both question is "no.").
>
>therefore, in *no* circumstance is my post and breaking the relevant laws
>"equally devastating."
>
>It must people that (white?) people in this day and age are too far away
>from physical violence if no one can tell the difference from being
>humiliated/criticized/call it what you will -- and getting shot.
I am of Irish, French Canadian, Norse, and Amerindian ancestry, so I guess you
might call me white, if you wish. I really have no time for assigning
attributes to people because of their "color" nor their choice of sexual
partners. I have been shot at and returned the compliment, and I'm still here,
while others are not. I take it you have not.
I have also been the target of verbal abuse, and maybe just recently, Susan.
I understand that physical and verbal violence come from the same root, while
their outcomes differ. Some societies believe that physial life is temporary
while your reputation, your good name and deeds, lasts forever. We all must
deside what is more important.
Lone waddie
<xit...@sirinet.net> writes:
>But she was challenging him - - her sitting while everyone else had
>risen made sure he would see her. She drew attention to herself, she
>was baiting him - albiet in a passive-aggressive sense. Look at the
>body language - it was saying, I'm so special, I can behave anyway I
>want. She played to close to the flame and was singed (sp?) - that
>sometimes happens when you play with fire.
>
The sitting part was Sorkin at work. We have no reason to assume that Dr
Laura would have remained seated.
Lone waddie
<xit...@sirinet.net> writes:
. And she deserved to be
>humiliated. What should Barlett have done when she spouted off about
>a person being an abomination? Looked the other way? As the kids say
>- NO WAY!
>
She deserved to be educated. He had a good start,
but. . . she didn't "spout off", he asked her.
Lone waddie
<darli...@NOSPAMhome.com> writes:
>It's a ridiculous distortion and abuse of the language; but if you'll
>accept that the gunmen were merely "gun impolite" to Charlie, I'll
>accept that Bartlet is guilty of a "verbal lynching" of Dr. Jenna.
>
>
I could do so, if you wish. Once I had to deal with the phrase, terminate with
extreme prejudice.
Lone waddie
writes:
> Speaking of blue, you seem to be suffering from a case of
>blue balls when it comes to this highly idealized fictional president
>putting this fictional talk show host in her place. It's called the
>bully pulpit and it's used quite often by presidents. Normally it has
>to do with policy issues which effects hundreds and thousands of people
>not one homophobic talk show host who is well recognized as a bully in
>her own right. Get your priorities straight. No pun intended.
Such a curious intrest in the color of my body parts.
He can use the Bully Pulpit as he sees fit. He would have done better to do
it from there than a social occasion. It would have made it official and would
have been a policy issue that would affect the country.
and woad to the trasgressors . . . pun intended.
Lone waddie
<xit...@sirinet.net> writes:
> It is against the law to shoot someone, while it is
>:not
>:against the law to be rude. Both, though, are considered to be
>:inappropriate
>:behavior in a civilized society.
>:
>Excuse me - - you are equating shooting someone with talking with
>someone? How do you do that? And you are wrong if you think
>everyone agrees that POTUS was being rude. Pointing out bad behavior
>is not being rude.
>
>
I said one was illegal and the other was not. Both are inappropriate behavior.
In my opinion Bartlet violated the rules of hospitality. He knew who she was,
asked about her opinion about gays, did his argument, insulted her usual
company, and told her to stand.
Your opinon is yours.
>
He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the
>:rules of
>:civilized behavior.
>
>And this social compact allowed slavery to go on and on. It allowed
>child and spousal abuse to live on and on. It allowed subtle
>discrimination and harrassment in the workplace to go on and on. All
>because we are being 'polite'. Polite be damned. If you don't have
>the courage of your convictions what does that say about you as a
>person?
>
You believe rudeness would have cured those social ills? Rudeness is equatable
to courage?
I believe informing people of the social ills is a better way to change
society and that courage is mental and moral strength to persevere against
adversity.
>
>It is a matter of degree, but this is what the
>:shooters
>:did as well. They both put themselves above the law, because they
>:thought they
>:were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
>
>
>You are confusing breaking the law with breaking some 'social
>compact'. That you confuse the two disturbs me - - and it is
>especially disturbing because the reluctance to stand up for your
>convictions may lead others to think that their bigoted ideas are
>acceptable and this is what leads to the kinds of things we have seen
>lately. How do you differentiate between calling someone an
>abomination in God's eyes and taking that person out and stringing
>them between barbed wire in Wyoming? If we don't stand up to the
>person calling them abominations should we be surprised when someone
>decides to do "God's work" as they perceive it?
>
I don't confuse them. There are moral laws, legal laws and, for believers,
Divine Law. Legal laws are punishable under statutes written by govenmental
bodies. I think all those laws should be followed.
Freedom of speech can lead to abuse, that's true, but it is not wiring someone
to a fence. I don't think Dr. Laura condones murder, nor do I.
Lone waddie
>It occurs to me that perhaps most people would not want to bring a
>person with intolerant, hateful views into their house without
>challenging their ideas. Certainly I would not invite a person like
>Dr. Laura into my house (dorm room, to be more accurate) unless I
>planned to challenge those bigoted ideas that revolve around her
>persona. To invite her into my house without doing so would indicate
>that I sanction her views to some degree. Thus I see how the president
>would want to lash out at the "Dr. Janet Jacobs".
>
>Granted, this is the president we're talking about, and it's true he
>probably does not necessarily go over guest lists for White House
>receptions with a fine tooth comb. But any fair administration would
>want to think twice about inviting such a controversial figure to a
>reception without challenging them.
>
>Eric
>
I think it would be an odd person that would invite someone into their home
that held views they found intolerant or hatefull. If such a person were
there, why bring the subject up?
The White House does have a list of people that they do not invite, who's
presence would tend to make political statements they would not like to be
associated with.
If the President did have such a person there, it might be considered giving
them a forum for their views. Besides, the President might just loose the
debate, given that Sorkin didn't set it up, and that would be disasterous.
Bobbie Dean
lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
:In article <20001024081703...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
Not in the least - - challenging is what it would be!
I'll bring the dip!
B
Remember - Usenet isn't like life - it is often worse! ;-)
Mike and Dorcie
I am a living example of how the effects of stress from humiliation can
permanently disable someone. I have thought long and hard about this for over two
and a half years. I would rather die than go through anything like it again.
Bobbie Dean
lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
:In article <8t2vks$n6m$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
:<susanb...@mindspring.com> writes:
:
:>
:>
:>"Lone waddie" <lonew...@aol.com> wrote in message
:>news:20001023114904...@nso-cm.aol.com...
:>> He has the right of free speech.
:>>
:>> The Supreme Court has intrupreted free speech to include more than
:>> verbal
:>> communication, such as burning The Flag. The shooters were
:>> expressing
:>their
:>> feelings as was Bartlet. Both were expressing their outrage at people
:>> they
:>felt
:>> were transgrssors. It is against the law to shoot someone, while it
:>> is
:>not
:>> against the law to be rude. Both, though, are considered to be
:>inappropriate
:>> behavior in a civilized society.
:>
:>this is the kind of incredibly sloppy thinking that used to drive me to
:>distraction when I was teaching philosophy/logic. Ambushing multiple
:>someones whom you have never met, with loaded rifles, acting in consort
:>and
:>in hiding from a distance, for the sole reason that you disagree with
:>what
:>they are doing in their personal lives is NOT (repeat, not in this
:>world,
:>not in any alternative universe that is imaginable by a rational
:>person,
:>not, not, not), "expressing outrage." it IS attempted murder,
:>attempted
:>lyching (given the particular fact cluster), immoral, name your poison.
:> The
:>legal/illegal distinction (which also applies) is the absolutely LEAST
:>interesting difference between the two situations.
:>
:
:I cannot speak for what is possible in alternate universes, but perhaps
:that is
:your destination as you are driving to distraction. The limits of your
:imagination are not at issue here.
:
:I take it Bartlet did not know Dr Jenna, he had to ask who she was.
He did not know her by sight - - he certainly knew her by reputation,
hence his comments to her.
:The
:shooters disagreed with Charlie; Bartlet disagreed with Dr Jenna. The
:shooters were attempting murder: Bartlet was being rude. Both were
:outraged
:at their targets. Attempted murder is not the same as being rude. I
:am not
:discussing the aftereffects of the acts.
:
The aftereffects are as dissimilar as can be - - how can you even
remotely equate the two?
:
:
:>And I rest my case about the vacuousness of "inappropriate." You might
:>as
:>well say that it was inappropriate for me to neglect to write my sister
:>a
:>thank-you note for my birthday present (true) and EQUALLY
:>inappropropriate
:>for Hitler to have killed millions. It's like saying that the
:>appropriate
:>reaction to each situation is the same: "oooops" ("sorry," followed by
:>girly smile)
:>
:
:
:Inappropriate . . . wrong . . . a bad thing. Hitler was wrong,
:Bartlet was
:wrong, the shooters were wrong.
:
:Smiles are nice, when honest and not catty.
:
You are now equating Hitler and Bartlett and the shooters. And what
was so 'wrong' about what Bartlett did? Did he ask if she said
something? Yes, and she answered and went on to use the bible as her
corner stone. She then turned it around on her. She remained seated
in order to make sure that he noticed her (and thus that everyone
noticed her) and she got more attention that she bargained for!
:
:
:>>
:>> She was an invited guest. The invitation was not to a gathering
:>discussing
:>> religion nor the positon of gays in society, as far as I understand.
:>> It
:>was
:>> not the time or place for such a discussion. Being President,
:>> Bartlet
:>changed
:>> the rules without telling anyone. He abused his power, in my
:>> oppinion.
:>>
:>> Having the right to express yourself doesn't mean you should do so
:>> on
:>your
:>> whim. He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the
:>rules of
:>> civilized behavior. It is a matter of degree,
:>
:>NO, IT IS A MATTER OF KIND
:
:
:
:Do you make it a practice to break up sentences? Did you do that to
:your students? If so, maybe they were on that ride to distraction.
:
:>
:>but this is what the shooters
:>> did as well.
:>
:>NO, THEY DID SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
:>
:
:
:One used words and the other two used weapons, but both did wrong acts.
:
You equate words and bullets.
:>They both put themselves above the law,
:>
:>BEING RUDE IS NOT ILLEGAL
:>
:
:Illegal only means, in common usage, violating state generated statutes.
:Bartlet and the shooters put their passionate feelings above accepted
:civilized behavior.
:
I'm sorry, but I just don't see you can equate questioning a bigot
about their beliefs with spraying a group of people with bullets.
Bartlett did not go above civilized behavior - - he didn't harm
anyone, just held up a mirror so that she could see her reflection.
:
:>because they thought they
:>> were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
:>
:>I don't think the state of the Union was in danger because POTUS was a
:>rude
:>son-of-a-bitch (about which no one seems to disagree).
:>
:>Susan
:>
:
:Danger? I didn't say that. I'll leave that to the fortune tellers. I
:am just saying he was wrong. The shooters were wrong.
I don't agree that he was wrong. I can't imagine that people would
equate dressing down a bigot with taking out a gun and shooting
someone.
Bobbie Dean
lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
:In article <xiting-E10A2C....@news.sirinet.net>, Bobbie Dean
:<xit...@sirinet.net> writes:
:
:> It is against the law to shoot someone, while it is
:>:not
:>:against the law to be rude. Both, though, are considered to be
:>:inappropriate
:>:behavior in a civilized society.
:>:
:>Excuse me - - you are equating shooting someone with talking with
:>someone? How do you do that? And you are wrong if you think
:>everyone agrees that POTUS was being rude. Pointing out bad behavior
:>is not being rude.
:>
:>
:
:
:I said one was illegal and the other was not. Both are inappropriate
:behavior.
:
:
Shooting someone is just inappropriate?
: In my opinion Bartlet violated the rules of hospitality. He knew who
: she was,
:asked about her opinion about gays, did his argument, insulted her usual
:company, and told her to stand.
:
:Your opinon is yours.
:>
: He broke the social compact because his passion overcame the
:>:rules of
:>:civilized behavior.
:>
:>And this social compact allowed slavery to go on and on. It allowed
:>child and spousal abuse to live on and on. It allowed subtle
:>discrimination and harrassment in the workplace to go on and on. All
:>because we are being 'polite'. Polite be damned. If you don't have
:>the courage of your convictions what does that say about you as a
:>person?
:>
:
:
:You believe rudeness would have cured those social ills? Rudeness is
:equatable
:to courage?
:
: I believe informing people of the social ills is a better way to
: change
:society and that courage is mental and moral strength to persevere
:against
:adversity.
:
:
:
:>
:>It is a matter of degree, but this is what the
:>:shooters
:>:did as well. They both put themselves above the law, because they
:>:thought they
:>:were right. When passion overcomes law; anarchy follows.
:>
:>
:>You are confusing breaking the law with breaking some 'social
:>compact'. That you confuse the two disturbs me - - and it is
:>especially disturbing because the reluctance to stand up for your
:>convictions may lead others to think that their bigoted ideas are
:>acceptable and this is what leads to the kinds of things we have seen
:>lately. How do you differentiate between calling someone an
:>abomination in God's eyes and taking that person out and stringing
:>them between barbed wire in Wyoming? If we don't stand up to the
:>person calling them abominations should we be surprised when someone
:>decides to do "God's work" as they perceive it?
:>
:
:I don't confuse them. There are moral laws, legal laws and, for
:believers,
:Divine Law. Legal laws are punishable under statutes written by
:govenmental
:bodies. I think all those laws should be followed.
:
And what moral or Divine laws were broken by Bartlett? Even if he
were rude - and I don't buy that - I don't think that is breaking a
'law'.
:Freedom of speech can lead to abuse, that's true, but it is not wiring
:someone
:to a fence. I don't think Dr. Laura condones murder, nor do I.
But do you see how someone who is already on the edge, could take
someone's use of the word abomination and feel this gives them
justification for going the next step?
Bobbie Dean
lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
:In article <8t2n0e$vo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, eri...@my-deja.com writes:
:
:>It occurs to me that perhaps most people would not want to bring a
:>person with intolerant, hateful views into their house without
:>challenging their ideas. Certainly I would not invite a person like
:>Dr. Laura into my house (dorm room, to be more accurate) unless I
:>planned to challenge those bigoted ideas that revolve around her
:>persona. To invite her into my house without doing so would indicate
:>that I sanction her views to some degree. Thus I see how the president
:>would want to lash out at the "Dr. Janet Jacobs".
:>
:>Granted, this is the president we're talking about, and it's true he
:>probably does not necessarily go over guest lists for White House
:>receptions with a fine tooth comb. But any fair administration would
:>want to think twice about inviting such a controversial figure to a
:>reception without challenging them.
:>
:>Eric
:>
:
:I think it would be an odd person that would invite someone into their
:home
:that held views they found intolerant or hatefull. If such a person
:were
:there, why bring the subject up?
:
Well, if the guest behaved themselves, it wouldn't come up. But if
you go out of your way to attract attention, you're may get more
attention than you want.
:The White House does have a list of people that they do not invite,
:who's
:presence would tend to make political statements they would not like to
:be
:associated with.
:
:If the President did have such a person there, it might be considered
:giving
:them a forum for their views. Besides, the President might just loose
:the
:debate, given that Sorkin didn't set it up, and that would be
:disasterous.
Or it might be that the person was to ignorant to realize that by
beingi there they might become the lightening rod for a strike against
bigotry!
Bobbie Dean
<miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:Bobbie Dean wrote:
:
:> In article <39F503F0...@mindspring.com>, Mike and Dorcie
:> <miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
:>
:> [snipped for brevity]
:>
:> :>
:> :> But if you don't stand up to the bully calling the names, what do
:> :> you
:> :> think that says to the others looking on - - no one disagreed
:> :> therefore it must be true, therefore I'm ok in doing "God's work"
:> :> as I
:> :> see it. That's the same slippery slope that ended up with the Jews
:> :> dying in concentration camps - - first we demonize them
:> :> (abomination),
:> :> then we sequester them - then we kill them, and no one says
:> :> anything
:> :> because we are being polite.
:> :>
:> :> I defend your right to say things - but don't expect me to keep
:> :> quite
:> :> and not challenge you when you do. If you don't want me to
:> :> challenge
:> :> you then don't repeat those statments in front of me. If you do,
:> :> be
:> :> prepared to be challeneged.
:> :>
:> :
:> :I do agree with this. The only thing I disagree with is that POTUS
:> :should
:> :never have challenged Ms. Jacobs in the situation that he did in the
:> :first
:> :place.
:> :
:> :
:> But she was challenging him - - her sitting while everyone else had
:> risen made sure he would see her. She drew attention to herself, she
:> was baiting him - albiet in a passive-aggressive sense. Look at the
:> body language - it was saying, I'm so special, I can behave anyway I
:> want. She played to close to the flame and was singed (sp?) - that
:> sometimes happens when you play with fire.
:>
:
:Nevermind that POTUS eventually got around to demanding that she stand,
:which
:was wrong in and of itself, she was not baiting him with "I think
:homosexuality is an abomination," which is what POTUS originally
:challenged
:her on. He started it.
:
:
And I wonder where he got the idea that she thought it was an
abomination? Out of thin air?
Sometimes an opportunity for a lesson on bigotry presents itself and a
you take advantage of the situation right then and there.
Bobbie Dean
lonew...@aol.com (Lone waddie) wrote:
:In article <xiting-EDD722....@news.sirinet.net>, Bobbie Dean
:<xit...@sirinet.net> writes:
:
:>But she was challenging him - - her sitting while everyone else had
:>risen made sure he would see her. She drew attention to herself, she
:>was baiting him - albiet in a passive-aggressive sense. Look at the
:>body language - it was saying, I'm so special, I can behave anyway I
:>want. She played to close to the flame and was singed (sp?) - that
:>sometimes happens when you play with fire.
:>
:
:The sitting part was Sorkin at work. We have no reason to assume that
:Dr
:Laura would have remained seated
But this character did - - therefore, the character proved the
catalyst to expose the bigot. When the opportunity presents itself to
expose bigotry, why not use it?
Jon Darlington
Ew. But of course that phrase is a poster-child for distorted
language: people use it precisely as a euphemism so they can say
"kill" without actually *saying* "kill".
"Verbal lynching" and "gun impolite" both stem from that same desire
to twist language to suit some ulterior motive.
- Jon
Bonnie Addicott
>
>I'll bring the dip!
>
>B
No, please Gatteur at home! <g>
Bonbon
Mike and Dorcie
Have none of you people ever heard of metaphors?
Dorcie
--
When you come to a fork in the road, take it - Yogi Berra
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<miken...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> "Verbal lynching" and "gun impolite" both stem from that same desire
>> to twist language to suit some ulterior motive.
>
>Have none of you people ever heard of metaphors?
Yes. They're often used in politics as a way to "cry wolf" about
something which is not nearly s bad as the word used but which people
awnt to pretend is as bad as the word used. They don't succeed --
ever. The only thing they do is convince people slowly that the
original meaning of the word isn't really important anymore. They are
pleasant in literature, suspect in economics, and almost universally a
bad idea in politics of any kind.
-Naomi
Mike and Dorcie
Merely "pleasant in literature?"
I don't know if we are even arguing the same thing anymore. I am merely
trying to say that the use of 'verbal lynching' is applicable as a
metaphor.
This also goes back to etymology. Whether we like it or not, the meanings
of words change, whether because of politicians or just plain cultural
diffusion. Lynching originally referred to a type of "justice" dispensed
without an eye for ones race. Then, due to the majority of people that
eventually experienced it, the word evolved into it becoming symbolic of
racial injustice. I am sure that in a couple of hundred years it will
refer to something else slightly different.
The fear that using this word to mean represent something other than a
physical occurence is without warrant because whenever the meaning of a
word has changed throughout history, man has always come up with another
word. What do you think people like the Nazis were called before there
were Nazis? What do you suppose bigots were called before there was the
word "bigot?" I don't know, but I could find out with a little research.
Just like it is likely that in several hundred years there will be someone
discovering what we take the word "lynch" to mean today.