Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» When the Head of the investigation committee goes off the reservation and needs to be investigated himself whom do we trust to do that? Why?
I thought that the phrase "goes off the reservation" was long ago considered to be racist, insulting, in poor taste, etc. Is it being given a comeback?
"...the phrase "goes off the reservation" was long ago considered to be racist, insulting, in poor taste, etc. Is it being given a comeback?---
There are a number of definitions for the phrase. The one I am most familiar with is to "go rogue," which means To cease to follow orders; to act on one's own, usually against expectation or instruction. To pursue one's own interests.
Your point being? I understood exactly what she meant by it, that is not the point of my post. If and when a racial/ethnic slur is used, its meaning or intended meaning may be obvious, but what I'm referring to it the use of it, not the interpretation.
Had she chosen to use other words (the ones you selected, for instance), I would not have brought up the question of insult. ~
My point is that if that were your current interpretation in this context---and you didn't in any way suggest that it wasn't until you responded to my comment---then you would have been in error.---
And since you are the only one who answered RosieG's question, perhaps others, like me, thought that this was your opinion and therefore didn't bother to post anything if what RosieG asked was going to be interpreted that way you implied.
I'll respond to the last part first: if other people decided to refrain from responding after having read what I wrote, I am not responsible for their decisions. You're correct in that it is entirely my opinion, as evidenced by the first two words I wrote, "I thought." I did not intimate that it was anything other than my opinion, I did not attempt to pass it off as fact. It is possible that some people are completely unaware of the expression that Rosie chose, and further possible that some people who are aware of it and do not find it insulting. If someone agrees with my point and did not answer her question, it may have been because they would not have answered it anyway. Rosie posts approximately 10 to 12 questions daily in rapid-fire succession. It is not uncommon for at least half of them to remain unanswered.
My interpretation of her phrase was that she meant exactly as you said, but you seem to be focused on explaining to me something that doesn't need to be explained. The mere fact that there were other ways that Rosie could have made her point without using a derogatory comment is what I brought up. There was a time when it was considered "ok" to use a reference to Native Americans "staying in line" as an example for correct behavior. The opposite was to "go off the reservation", hence the phrase in question. It went hand-in-hand with "the only good Indian is a dead Indian".
If you choose to further defend Rosie, it is your right. Please do not mistake the precise point or points of what I wrote based on your desire to stick up for her.
Really not sure how you think I am sticking up for you.---and I am disinclined to defend RosieG.---
Whether or not you intended to intimate what you did, you did in fact "communicate indirectly" that your interpretation as posted was the proper one for the phrase you commented on.---
Sometimes I answer a question and sometimes I post something I think germane to the discussion, but which is not necessarily an answer.
It wasn't a personal attack.---I am rather surprised it seems to have bothered you so much.
Next time you are making a point, please make it sharp enough so that it can be seen.
Sticking up for Rosie, not for me. Please read for comprehension, that way you won't misunderstand what's been written.
You may want to bone up on the definitions of the and the differences between the words 'opinion' and 'fact'. You may have interpreted what I wrote the way that you did as directly communicated [opinion], but that doesn't mean that it's what I wrote. Nothing in my original reply to Rosie's phrase has anything to do with its meaning. Example: If a person uses word Chink, or Wop, or Dago, or Flip, or Paki, or any other ethnic/racial slur, it may be preceded by or followed by an entire soliloquy, and regardless of the purported intent, the words themselves are slurs. My comment stated first of all that I thought it was out of use for being offensive, and then I asked if it's use was coming back into style. You are the one who inflated the issue.
I don't consider anything you've written here to be any kind of "attack", personal or otherwise, nor am I "so bothered", as you stated. It is, however, based completely on you having misconstrued two simple sentences that I wrote and built a mountain out of a molehill. Additionally, assigning the same criteria and motivations for how you answer questions doesn't necessarily translate to how I answer them or should answer them.
You're entitled to your opinions. You and I are not going to convince each other that either of our opinions are correct, we're both just as stubborn as the other. I'm fine with you disagreeing with what I've written, there's no mandate that you have to see things my way. At this point (unless you insist), it might be a good idea to let the issue lie where it is.
The one with which you are most familiar tom was the one which I had in mind. McCain and Palin said they were "going rogue" when they ran for prez and veep as you recall. Thank you for bringing that up and pointing that out. Of course some folks are always looking for ways to be offended/insulted so they can have an excuse to point out the flagrant and demeaning and denigrating and derogating and insulting way people speak of those upon whom they look down. I do think intention is important but I cannot PROVE my intention. Ah. I shall ask that question. I use everything as fodder for questions! Happy Sunday tom! :)
I don't know Randy. If it is racist I apologize. That was not my intention. My intention was to indicate that Nunes went out of his way to do something that ought not to have been done. It was not within the bounds of propriety. I certainly could have said that and didn't. But now I just did. So if you see me being racist/bigoted/homophobic/misogynistic in the future please call it to my attention as you did now. I don't keep up with what's okay to say and what isn't. I have you to remind me and not let me get away with it. Did I answer your question? Thank you for your response. You did not of course answer the question I asked. Would you care to do so now or was your sole purpose in responding to point out the inappropriate/unfortunate/thoughtless/ignorant choice of words I used as a question asker? Happy Sunday.
Normally when I read these answers, I am assuming that they even though they are opinions---such as God exist or God doesn't exist---they still reflect what the person who answers at least thinks to be true after some careful consideration.---
You are strong in syntax and grammar, Randy, but I do not see even average understanding of a good definition which---if you bother to look that up in a logic book---requires both a genus and a specific difference.---
"You people" didn't start out as a slur until Ross Perot ran for president. Before that "you people" was about as insulting as the phrase "ladies and gentlemen."---
You apparently require speech to serve words, I require words to serve speech.---
I did not mean to insult you, but no apology is in order---after all, It is impossible to insult you without your consent.
I hope you will understand that I am now bored with this topic and will proceed accordingly.
This post was edited by tom jackson at March 26, 2017 2:06 PM MDT
Randy D 