Skip to main content

View Diary: Were the women saved in the Aurora shootings "Worth it"? (166 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  à mes risques et perils, I disagree (0+ / 0-)

    I don't believe it is unfitting to wonder about the utility of a sacrifice.  If you'd like an example that does not fit in a tweet, read Lincoln's Gettysburg Address:  

    It is for us the living ... to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

    ...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain

    And that is the crux of this tweet's message:  You whom others died to protect, make sure that sacrifice is not in vain.  Be worthy of the sacrifice.  Is that such a horrible thing to ask of someone?  

    Perhaps.  But you see a different message altogether, something flippant like "hope she was worth it, bros!"  In that tweet alone, however, that message simply isn't there.  I believe you inserted it yourself.  It's telling that you've literally put words into his mouth, changing  worthy to worth it, a phrase with a whole different set of connotations.  Then you rail against the result of those connotations, but you are the one who put them there in the first place.  

    Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

    by nominalize on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:12:26 AM PDT

    •  But the point is those who were saved (7+ / 0-)

      are no doubt already going through agonies over the obscene exchange of one life for another. They would not be alive if their friends had not placed themselves between the shooter and them. I think "Be worthy of the sacrifice" is way over-generous to the tweeter.
      His tweet sounds like one of those thoughts you have and immediately pivot from because you know the thought is in fact unworthy.  

    •  That was in the context of war, a battlefield. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LSophia, Maianewley

      Does that make it different? Or victims of battlefield war, instead of the war on women. The war on women does have its battlefield context. As any ER demonstrates.

      Do you believe the tweeter meant his tweet In the context of Abe Lincoln? Do you believe he tweets about the military that sacrifice in combat to save people in their unit?

      Do you believe that he feels the same way about children that were rescued?

      Do you believe he feels the same way about people rescued from a fire?

      May I ask if you are male or female? It has a context for your comment, I believe.

      My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

      by CuriousBoston on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:05:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know if it makes it different (0+ / 0-)

        Does it?  I don't know.  There are differences, sure. For instance, the link between sacrificer and sacrificee in war is rather abstract--- few of us know any soldiers who die for us, and we are certainly not present for the act.  In the theater it was as direct as you could get.  Another difference is that Mr Lincoln was among those sacrificed for, while Mr Taranto was not.  

        The question is, do differences like these make this tweet inappropriate?  Maybe.  That said, I don't believe the outrage in this diary (and some of the comments) is warranted. It certainly isn't warranted for a misreading of the tweet.  

        As for your questions, I'm not aware of Mr Taranto's mental states, so I have no answer.  All I know about him is that he works for the WSJ, appears to be a middle-aged male, is likely of Italian descent, and has a twitter account.  The first fact suggests he is a fiscal conservative, which would inform me about his economic tweets.  But not his other ones.

        What I do know for certain, is that when you talk about one thing, it does not automatically implicate that you ignore the others like it.  That is the science about the nature of language.  To give you a topically-unrelated example of a similar nature: If I tweet about how gross Pepsi is, it does not automatically mean I like Coke.  I might hate Coke, too.     It just means that Pepsi was relevant when I said that.

        So I can infer that when he made that tweet, those particular sacrifices were on his mind.  But why?  I don't know.  Maybe he felt upset that the men were succumbing to antiquated gender roles of male-protection and 'women and children first'.  Maybe imagined himself doing the same thing and that would be his final thought as the bullets tore him apart (think the end of Saving Private Ryan, where the dying Captain tells the namesake private: "Earn this.")  Maybe he worried that he wouldn't have the courage to do the same, and figured that by consequence, those who would were good men and should not be taken for granted.  

        The point is, who knows what he meant? Given what little I know about this man, what I suggest are at least as plausible as the notion that he hates women and wants to rub salt into their their wounds.  As a man myself, I have had similar thoughts at various times in my life, so I know from experience how plausible they can be.

        Once you wash away any confirmation bias (i.e. he works for WSJ, he must be a misogynist conservative, so that must be what he meant), there's no reason to pick any one of these options or the one offered by the diarist.  Absent an unwarranted assumption that he's sexist,  there's simply not enough to be outraged about.  

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:13:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You thought carefully about your answer. Thank (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Themistoclea

          you. You did not respond the questions I posted about children or rescue victims.

          It is reasonable to think that he was questioning whether the women were worthy or not of being saved.

          If you can offer any evidence that would contribute to knowing his intentions, that would be welcomed.

          Almost all USA females, from very early on, know that they are "inferior" to males. I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about now. Almost all of us, have been spoken to, questioned about, judged on our "worthiness".

          I believe if you discussed this with most women, their reaction would be outrage.

          My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

          by CuriousBoston on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:28:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Likewise! (0+ / 0-)
            You did not respond the questions I posted about children or rescue victims.
            I did; I said I couldn't respond because I don't know, and given the nature of linguistic implication, I couldn't honestly assume.

            I agree that it's reasonable to include the questioning of the womens' worthiness on the list of possibilities... but I don't know which possibility is the best, and short of that I will save my outrage (it's not like there's a shortage of targets for it).

            To that effect, I suspect that we would have learned a lot about his motivations if people had asked what would make these women worthy; in the absence of outrage he would have probably given a candid answer.  

            Almost all USA females, from very early on, know that they are "inferior" to males. I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about now. Almost all of us, have been spoken to, questioned about, judged on our "worthiness".

            I appreciate you bringing this up.  My point has been that the propositional content of the tweet itself is not evidence enough to warrant the outrage... so it's good to keep in perspective a reminder that when people listen, we don't just listen to the propositional content.  As a linguist I am well aware of this fact, and I don't say that to denigrate this outrage.  At the same time, there's a fine line between bringing your experiences to bear and arguing with a person from your past.  That's why my signals were raised when I saw the headline had changed the language.  That's of major  importance, because it shows that the propositional content was lost.  

            In explaining why I was not outraged when I read the tweet,  
            I'm also trying to understand why he made it.  He almost certainly wasn't trolling, so he didn't expect his statement to upset people.  Why not?  When one tries to understand the motivations of an action, one must take the perspective of the agent to try to figure it out. Taking a woman's perspective would simply not have been helpful for that task.  

            But it would be helpful for the task of understanding why the outrage came about (even with the original language).  So thank you for a woman's perspective.  That's something no man can get on his own, so I'm glad other people are willing to share.

             

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:57:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Taranto is not Lincoln (4+ / 0-)

      sorry, but I think you miss the point.  Abraham Lincoln as the Commander-in-Chief of one of the armies that met on the Gettysburg Battlefield  and President of the United States during the Civil War had every reason to comment on the battle and express his desire that the citizens honor the courage of those who died in the battle preserve the liberty and the country.

      Taranto is just a dick, who was not present when this horrific event occurred and has no reason or purpose to express his opinion about those who were killed or injured except stupendous dickery.

      Leave it to a member of Rupert Murdoch's empire to take stories of bravery, sacrifice and love and attempt to turn them into something hateful.

      Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. ~Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

      by Tchrldy on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:27:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not just that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Maianewley, Tchrldy

        Taranto did not ask if the PEOPLE saved by others' sacrifice were worthy, which would fit the sense of Lincoln's words or of those getting a transplant, let me be worthy of the sacrifice. He specifically asked if the "girls" were worthy. Like, were they cute enough or was it a waste to save a "not cute" woman? Or were they sluts who used birth control? Were they too independent? Because they were female the were presumed unworthy until proven otherwise.

    •  please (4+ / 0-)

      what on earth could the sacrifice of soldiers in a war prosecuted specifically in order to end the institution of human chattel slavery possibly have to do with civilians being murdered randomly and publicly in cold blood by a perfect stranger?

      Taranto is a right fucking moron for posting that. It's every inch as flippant and stupid as it seems like on first blush.

      And spare us the hair-spitting over "worth it" vs. "worthy."

      Views Differ On Shape Of Planet

      by nota bene on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:31:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No greater love... (5+ / 0-)

      Despite what this POS said (and why) I understand you point--but I would suggest that those whose lives were saved already understand the depth of the sacrifice.

      They will forever work at being "worth it"--and regardless of what they or others may thing, the struggle to uphold the legacy of their loved one's sacrifice by definition proves they are worth it.

      Sean

    •  Despite his BS backpedalling (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IreGyre

      he said "Hope they "were" worth it", not will be worth it. As if they possibly weren't worth it. The frat boy douchebag context is more appropriately inferred than the Lincoln/Saving Private Ryan one.

    •  If that's what he'd meant, then why didn't he (0+ / 0-)

      say something like, "Ladies, may you live your lives worthy of the sacrifices made." rather than posting it as a question of were they worthy.  Were is past tense, speaking to how they'd lived/acted to that point, which is in keeping with the idea of being "worth it".

      Like another commenter said, the men who made the sacrifices thought they were worthy.  That's all that needs to be said.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site