targeting

[victor steinbok]

My apologies for coming back with another politics-related post (not
political per se). The reason for this is a language-motivated
argument in the NYPost and, as a follow-up, by Ann Althouse (whom I
know in person).

http://goo.gl/yCPmF  (Althouse quotes the Post article which cites
Althouse here: http://goo.gl/WJeAw )

> Just a couple of months ago, in the wake of Jared Loughner's shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords,
> _simple_talk_of_"targeting"_a political_opponent_for_defeat_ was treated as beyond the pale. But let's
> _look_at_some_more_recent_language_ -- and conduct -- that our bien-pensant punditry can't be
> bothered to notice, let alone condemn.

[emphasis added]

I have no problem with the allegations of physical conduct--these, for
the most part, appear to be isolated incidents (e.g., a letter to
Althouse was sent by a random idiot with no connection to unions or
political organizations, or someone breaking an office window) but, at
least, the description appears to be fairly accurate.

But the language allegation appear to be off-base (again, aside from
the single inflammatory letter to Althouse where, while _generalized_
violence was threatened--the writer promised Althouse to "fuck you
up"--the only _specific_ threat was a promise to throw baseballs on
her lawn). Aside from political dishonesty--the post-Giffords
push-back concerned behavior by politicians, not random street
"supporters" as is the case with the Post targets--there is the
question of linguistic dishonesty.

AFAIK, most public displeasure dealt not with the _word_ "target", but
with metaphorical and literal use of weapons, gun-sights, bulls-eyes,
etc., to "target" opponents. The Sarah Palin flap (that lead to her
"blood libel" speech) was over her own use of gun-sight imagery for
political opponents that would turn red when that person lost either
primary or general election. In other cases, some Republican
candidates brought actual photos of the Democratic incumbents and
literally shot at them at rallies staged at gun ranges.

I am not trying to re-argue those claims. The reason I am bringing
this up is because NYPost dishonestly equates the more general use of
"target" with the use of "target" that was previously found
objectionable because of its _explicit_ connection to weapons
(specifically, firearms). Aside from morphological and etymological
connection, I see these as distinct glosses. If anything, such
conflations can be subject of humor--e.g., a stand-up comedian
recognizing the audience's interest waning may comment, "I could not
have bombed any worse if I brought a suicide vest." (Maybe sick, but
it's just an illustration.) There is no indication of humor either at
the NYPost or in Althouse's post.

VS-)

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org