Venger;3538357 said:
This is your response - an emoticon. Way to stake out the intellectual high ground.
"Emoticon" hate.
*oops*
Venger;3538357 said:
Well who can argue with such a detailed and rhetorically significant argument like that? I guess it's all settled, the metaphor was "not needed". Is there a flow chart or database somewhere we can tap into to know when the "needed" metaphors are required? What kind of argument is that? Are you a linguistic syntactician? Exactly what are you qualifications for determining which metaphors are indeed needed and not needed? Jeez...
You are overreacting. Answers: 1) No one should; 2) No; 3) It is not an argument. It is a statement and reasonable one at that. 4) No (and you are really overreacting now); 5) My "qualifications" should be the same as any other "reasonable" human being. You have taken the stance that any statement can be offensive to any and everyone. In the literal sense, that could be correct; but in the real world which we both live in, that does not happen.
On the one hand, Hampton's comment may or may not have been offensive to members of the New Orleans Saints; but it was taken as offensive by some members of the city and the region. Not all, but some. That is the consequence of making an insensitive remark as he did.
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that anyone, both within or outside the region would consider any of my examples as offensive to the degree as you would suggest. Mine were taken from commonly used phrases of speech. Any reasonable individual (or at least I thought were reasonable) has not observed others reacting overtly negatively to the examples which I suggested after hearing or reading them.
Venger;3538357 said:
Sigh... pedantic non-response. The point is that even YOUR phrases can be offensive to a group looking to take offense.
In the literal sense, you are right. Using an example which you gave in a previous post, I am sure that someone with access to broadcast or print media such as Hampton, has addressed comments, directed solely towards New York City residents, that someone or some organization should hit them like a ton of bricks.
However, the question would then arise in the course of discussion if that particular commentator qualified his statement by intentionally associating "a ton of bricks" as those (literally) which fell during the most worse blatant act of terrorism which the country has ever suffered. Would someone consciously and willfully state something such as
"The Minnesota Vikings should hit the New York Giants like the ton of bricks which fell from the Twin Towers"?
Of course, that could happen. Has it happened? I am asking because I do not know. What I do know (and what I assume any reasonable person would as well) is that both "ton of bricks" comments would not be taken equally by its intended audience. The previous comment is taken from common speech. The latter is purposely associating deadly debris from an actual traumatic event in U.S. history. Question: Is this particular example really how you see
everything spoken by
anyone as being nonoffensive to
everyone else?
Venger;3538357 said:
Really! What insight to see such a nuanced distinction... the thing is, had you addressed the point - that, again, violent metaphors all carry groups that can take offense should they so choose - we'd be further along.
Hampton's comment was taken as offensive to a set group. Regardless of whether he considered the aftereffects of his comment, that was his intention. Maybe you can provide quantifiable examples of "groups", large or small, whom have taken comments such as my examples as offensive as well.
Venger;3538357 said:
Again, you are missing something called "the point". There is a difference between giving, and taking, offense. Given the oversensitivities on display it can be taken where it isn't given, even in what you think are your "safe" examples.
I have not missed the point which you are maligning for your own self-interest. The natural disaster which ravaged the Gulf Coast has not been forgotten by the citizens which endured its wrath. Some of those same people, which numbers in the hundreds of thousands, heard or read Hampton's comments. They associated his phraseology with an event which changed forever their lives profoundly and fundamentally either personally or familially.
You believe that this particular group should just "shake it off" and "not take things personally". Unfortunately, it is not human nature to consciously adopt amnesia after living through traumatic events and your indifference to their feelings on the matter will not enact that change as well.
Venger;3538357 said:
I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or not - this is like arguing with Rainman. Why is a sports metaphor regarding something that killed 1700 people okay on hand A, but not on hand B? Again, it's all back to taking offense, isn't it. Why are 1700 dead passengers "needed" for your sports metaphor, but 1700 dead Louisianan's "not needed"? Is it okay to hit the Dolphins like a hurricane? How about the Texans? Should it, for the sake of trembling cowardice everywhere, only be reserved for non-tropical locales? What hath female hormones in the water supply wrought?
*oops*
1. Hampton did not just say hurricane. New Orleans and the Gulf Region have endured many hurricanes for nearly two centuries. He singled out and associated one of the most devastating hurricanes in history. While all human life is precious, the deaths of thousands of people due to natural disaster are commonly horrific milestones within the human psyche and are not considered as equal to that sustained by a few or only one or none at all.
Hampton did not thumb through American meteorological history, selected a hurricane which came ashore and inflicted minimal damage and/or loss of life. He picked Katrina. That was his intent. He wanted the association to qualify his comment. Perhaps it seems reasonable to some that all "natural disasters" are equal and the same, but they are not. Hurricanes (plural), in particular, hit the United States every single year. Category Four and Five hurricanes do not and occasionally some do not cause the loss of life in the magnitude which Hampton pinned his words onto.
2. The team and city of Miami have endured hurricanes (again plural) as well. Even their most visible university's nickname reflects them. However, while you may neither understand nor see it, there would be a marked difference between Hampton (for instance) stating that, "The Minnesota Vikings should hit the Dolphins like a hurricane" and "The Minnesota Vikings should hit the Dolphins like Hurricane Alex" (which the city fortunately did not suffer a direct impact from).
3. (see #2)
4. Devastation and loss of large numbers of human lives are not overlooked by some. Any form of devastating disaster, whether natural or manmade, should be solemnly reflected upon. That would be a reasonable mindset for some. Others would may say, "meh. get over it".
5. You are still overreacting.
Venger;3538357 said:
Oh gee, self righteousness - who'd have guessed... you're fighting for good - how heroic of you! What time are you and the other Superfriends getting together at the Hall of Justice?
Well, I always fancied myself being Black Lightning!!! Still, that guy never wore pants...
Maybe it was because his legs transformed into lightning..?
Ah, who cares? A superhero wearing short-shorts while fighting crime? I don't THINK so!
*oops*
