After the Arizona tragedy earlier this month, there has been a lot of introspection from journalists on what sort of language should be used in political discourse – or at least what type of language they feel is appropriate for our elected leaders.And yet some people are free to use racial slurs anytime they want. Ever heard a Chris Rock routine? Or just about any hip-hop song? Nobody goes after them for using the "n" word.
National Journal’s Michael Hirsh wants to raise the bar on decorum to an entirely new level. On Thursday’s MSNBC airing of “Hardball,” Hirsh told host Chris Matthews certain “gun” terms should be stricken from political discourse and referred to instances where Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Republican Nevada senatorial candidate Sharon Angle used such off-limits language.
“Well we don’t want any more duels and thankfully that was the last one,” Hirsh said. “[B]ut the point I was trying to make is you can draw a line particularly in the use of certain kinds of metaphors. The use of gun metaphors – killing, murdering, taking out, which was another metaphor for a – Michele Bachmann used in one of her statements, Sharon Angle – the Nevada Senate candidate’s now infamous comment about quote, unquote, ‘second amendment remedies’ to deal with the problem Harry Reid, her opponent.”
His proposal? Make such language inappropriate in the same racial slurs are inappropriate.
Let's use the same standard for gun language. If you own a gun or support gun rights you can use all the gun metaphors you want without criticism. However, if you're an anti-gun weenie your use of gun metaphors would be deemed morally repugnant.
Posts
1 comment:
So...Let's go all samurai on them, all the time. Channel your inner Toshiro Mifune! And Shakespeare, too: say "Lay on, MacDuff, and damn'd be him that first cries 'Hold, enough!'
And you know, that's what the Left has said.
(Sorry for the lack of snark and cynicism; I'm feeling better today.)
Post a Comment