You wrote:
<<We regard attacks on Dubya pretty much the same way you regard attacks on X, I guess...... >>
I replied
<<A humorous piece of political satire of a public political figure is, by 'you,' received exactly as though it were the same entity as a vicious, intentionally unfunny personal missive placed nastily on Dubya's breakfast plate by a neighbor down the road from his ranch. >>
And you now imply that at least part of the reason you "regard attacks on Dubya pretty much the same way [I] regard attacks on X" is that the satire isn't usually clever? Did I get that right?
And I believe there is some implication also that because X has "elicited hostility," what was said to her here is as justifiable as are stupid mean jokes about an international political figure whom you admire?
I won't bother to go into the issue of your characterization of Dubya as having done "one" (those who make jokes about him) no "personal injury."
But it's an unusual concept, or implication, if I get your drift, that jokesters and satirists and John Q Public would best, from now on, restrict their ridicule of public figures to those who have done them, personally, some injury.
Or was that an implication that X had inflicted personal injury on CH, for example? I may have misunderstood. |
