<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fact-dodging Geoff Nunberg</title>
	<atom:link href="http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2006/07/17/fact-dodging-geoff-nunberg/feed/rss2/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2006/07/17/fact-dodging-geoff-nunberg/</link>
	<description>anythingarian bubbles and troubles from the land of the sweating hun</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:55:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eh Nonymous</title>
		<link>http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2006/07/17/fact-dodging-geoff-nunberg/#comment-62693</link>
		<dc:creator>Eh Nonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:29:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2006/07/17/fact-dodging-geoff-nunberg/#comment-62693</guid>
		<description>Man-hating doesn't refer to liberals.  It refers to "those goddam dykes."  Abortion-advocating would be another way to tar the same group - although don't think there weren't compounded slurs against the suffragettes.  Home-wrecking?

I think your critique, although pointed, is more "bollocks" than is his.  He's not making a linguistic point.  He's making a point about recent political linguistic tropes - which go directly back to the time when the Democrats had the south as a stronghold, and the Republcans were the party of Lincoln - or possibly of Congressional reconstruction.  If not earlier.

If you draw the lines the way he does - racist anti-intellectual equality-hating pro-violence (heh - kidding!) anti-civil rights pro-war meatheads (no offense if you know anyone like this...), vs. the above-described "pot-smoking" (because no conservatives ever smoke up) "bra-burning" (GREAT compound - too bad no feminist ever did in the 1960's - look it up) etc. liberals...

... then he's right.  The unstated salient, the underlying assumption, is that liberals are bad because they like the Other.  Faggot-lover.  Illegal alien-apologist.  Osama-coddler.  Terrorist.  Ann Coulter and MM are as guilty of this as anyone anywhere- but I'm done trying to make the shameless feel shame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Man-hating doesn&#8217;t refer to liberals.  It refers to &#8220;those goddam dykes.&#8221;  Abortion-advocating would be another way to tar the same group - although don&#8217;t think there weren&#8217;t compounded slurs against the suffragettes.  Home-wrecking?</p>
<p>I think your critique, although pointed, is more &#8220;bollocks&#8221; than is his.  He&#8217;s not making a linguistic point.  He&#8217;s making a point about recent political linguistic tropes - which go directly back to the time when the Democrats had the south as a stronghold, and the Republcans were the party of Lincoln - or possibly of Congressional reconstruction.  If not earlier.</p>
<p>If you draw the lines the way he does - racist anti-intellectual equality-hating pro-violence (heh - kidding!) anti-civil rights pro-war meatheads (no offense if you know anyone like this&#8230;), vs. the above-described &#8220;pot-smoking&#8221; (because no conservatives ever smoke up) &#8220;bra-burning&#8221; (GREAT compound - too bad no feminist ever did in the 1960&#8217;s - look it up) etc. liberals&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8230; then he&#8217;s right.  The unstated salient, the underlying assumption, is that liberals are bad because they like the Other.  Faggot-lover.  Illegal alien-apologist.  Osama-coddler.  Terrorist.  Ann Coulter and MM are as guilty of this as anyone anywhere- but I&#8217;m done trying to make the shameless feel shame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trevor</title>
		<link>http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2006/07/17/fact-dodging-geoff-nunberg/#comment-61647</link>
		<dc:creator>Trevor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2006/07/17/fact-dodging-geoff-nunberg/#comment-61647</guid>
		<description>I'll quite happily look u p "trope" if he'll look up "own" and "origin".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll quite happily look u p &#8220;trope&#8221; if he&#8217;ll look up &#8220;own&#8221; and &#8220;origin&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James P. Crow</title>
		<link>http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2006/07/17/fact-dodging-geoff-nunberg/#comment-61639</link>
		<dc:creator>James P. Crow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:20:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2006/07/17/fact-dodging-geoff-nunberg/#comment-61639</guid>
		<description>I guess you're just too busy to look up "trope" in a dictionary, hey?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess you&#8217;re just too busy to look up &#8220;trope&#8221; in a dictionary, hey?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
