I don’t really follow your train of thought, I confess. You were astounded, you disbelieved, but you had an explanation? I mean, generally, when i’m astounded by someone’s actions. When i’m in disbelief, it’s because things run contrary to my expectations. But you seem to already have an understanding as to actions here, and they seem to have run entirely within your expectations.
I think you’ve misunderstood my point. I’m saying what you’re saying here; there is no type of slavery, allusions to the U.S.'s history included, that isn’t a bad thing. I’m of the mind that all allusions to “slavery”, “enslavement”, etc. should directly and necessarily point to, you know, slavery and enslavement. If they don’t, then they are unreasonable points, and given the context in which the examples of Biden and Palin use them, likely a matter of attempting to tie one’s political enemies to what is necessarily an evil thing.
I have to confess i’m slightly offended that you would think I would consider slavery to have some form where it is not a very bad thing. I mean, really, if I saw you write even something like “Hey, slavery sometimes isn’t bad!” I think i’d probably assume you’d mistyped or phrased rather than actually think you meant that, because it would be pretty dumb!
Well done on adding that “predominantly” in there - it really does help the point you’re making.
Anyway; as i’ve pointed out, i’m not saying “slavery” in these two instances is an allusion to “historical American slavery” here, quite the opposite. I think there’s a decent argument there that the limits of Chinese labour practices as regards workers is about as close to slavery as would be acceptable to profit from in American political terms, but that to one side, Palin is still using the term. She’s using the term for a reason. Even if all that she’s using it for is just to link her opponents to a very bad thing (which i’d say she probably is, likewise Biden) without actually meaning “They’re coming to put you in chains!”, though of course both actually used those words, too.
Exactly so! So when you talk about Biden’s no-good, very-bad thing, and point to his use of direct shackling terms as being evidence of the directness of what he’s saying, it seems perfectly reasonable to say that we should judge Palin’s use of such terms in the same way. Likewise, when you’ve pointed to Biden’s use of such terms to suggest that he was being hyperbolic rather than metaphorical, likewise, it seems reasonable to use that same standard when looking at Palin’s words.
