Can We Just DUMP all social issues?

Regardless, we can all come up with plenty of explanation as to why Sarah Palin surely didn't have guns in mind when she was putting people in her crosshairs. However, the reason that I, and others, did get that meaning from her was because when considering what someone says I take into account not just the immediate communication at hand. In the case of Gregg and his relatives that likely means that he doesn't expect them to shoot him. In the case of Sarah Palin that means taking into account the many times she's spoken out in favor of Second Amendment rights and about evil democrats that want to take them away. Not to mention that she has a sizable following who are much more into guns then telescopes. If she had honestly not intended a weapons motif when using crosshairs she could have used camera or telescope imagery or whatever to make that clear. And with all the political consultants out there that pick through every single word of every marketing piece or advertisement that a politician releases, I find it difficult to believe that her crosshairs meant anything other then guns. They didn't have to be that blunt because they knew that people would come to that conclusion.

I'm amazed that we're still talking about crosshairs. Does anyone have any evidence that violence was committed as a result of a political poster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

I'm amazed that we're still talking about crosshairs.

---

I'm not at all.

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." - Some British Guy

I don't like the agenda it is used to smuggle in (which no is not actually leftism or anything of the sort). I think it is some kind of milquetoast discorse when noone says anything with any real fire. The world is going straight to heck in a handbasket (and oh with global warming, fascism on the march, and a rickety growth dependent economic system it really is), but the most important thing in the universe is that our words never be offensive to anyone. Yea, if there is any history, how do you think that is going to be judged? But that's the agenda I think is really being smuggled in.

Someone passing by my desk the other day commenting on wealth inequality said to someone else: "what this country needs is a revolution". I sat there silently smiling thinking: "that's the spirit!". With a full understanding that it is hyperbowl. This guy probably isn't even politically radical much less a revolutionary - I can't even conceive of it. If someone literally wanted a revolution I would be more like: I'm not saying it's not morally justified, but you do realize the casualty rates for geurilla armies, and that it's the biggest military force the world has ever known and on the home front, and that the country is so divided politically there'a a good chance any revolution would become civil war? But no, I know it's just talk.

As for politicians though, they are very public figures, with audiences and power of the type most can only dream of. I don't think it is unreasonable for them to act more professionally given the nature of their profession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

In the case of Gregg and his relatives that likely means that he doesn't expect them to shoot him. In the case of Sarah Palin that means taking into account the many times she's spoken out in favor of Second Amendment rights and about evil democrats that want to take them away. Not to mention that she has a sizable following who are much more into guns then telescopes. If she had honestly not intended a weapons motif when using crosshairs she could have used camera or telescope imagery or whatever to make that clear.

---

Well, I certainly do NOT expect my relatives to take pot shots at me. I also have very specific expectations that this country's political elite will not literally be shooting anyone. Clip art graphics on a poster may be in poor taste, but I assure you it is not the same thing as placing a rifle on a bench rest and "targeting" another person through the scope (presumably with the intent to do great bodily harm). Political correctness in this country is completely and totally out of control. Poor taste like Palin's poster, stupid comments ala Rush, etc. used to garner negative reactions, potentially reduce support for the offending party and then the country moved on. That was appropriate. I'm not sure what this "issue" is designed to divert our attention from, but in terms of the Newspeak that bae and that British dude spoke of, it worked perfectly.