Maddow: Pot, Meet Kettle

9/30/2009
Jaacesays...

hol·o·caust (hl-kôst, hl-)
n.
1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.
2.
a. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: "Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe" (Emanuel Litvinoff).
b. A massive slaughter: "an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust" (Rod Nordland).
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.

Get the fuck over it Rachel...jesus christ. The guy used the word "holocaust" correctly. He didn't say it was "The Holocaust." I'm sick of the media getting hung up on retarded shit like this...even Rachel Maddow.

MaxWildersays...

I love Rachel, but she was wrong here. If you are going to pick on a word, look at the definition of the word.

hol⋅o⋅caust
4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.
(Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.)


He used the word perfectly, and I wish he would have stood up for that use rather than the repeated political non-answers.

mizilasays...

Um... Just for the record here... she did say, "...a bad choice of words, unless you're talking about THE actual Holocaust, at least in my opinion."

She clearly understands it's actual meaning, just thinks he should've said something like slaughter, annihilation, mass murder, or maybe massacre... probably because too many people (especially republicans) are going to get all butt-hurt because in their minds holocaust can only mean THE Holocaust. Obviously not any of you brilliant chaps. I think she only pushes the issue to make it perfectly clear he was NOT trying to make a reference to THE Holocaust so that nobody can try throwing that in his face later.

Anyway, it's just her opinion...

Calm down guys.

Golgisays...

she's certainly not as un-biased as many would have you believe, but imagine if the other news channel conducted interviews like this.

well, nevermind, i like making fun of BillO.

xxovercastxxsays...

Whether you think he used the word holocaust correctly or not (and no, he didn't), it basically gave anyone who might disagree with his statement an easy way to dismiss it. It's a strategical error, if nothing else.

Leaving The Holocaust out of this for the moment, why is the word incorrect? Because there's no great destruction causing the widespread loss of life and there's definitely no fire. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a holocaust. 9/11 could be considered a holocaust. The siege of Waco could be considered a holocaust. The battle of Mabila, the Mystic massacre and the sleeping village massacre were holocausts. This is people dying because they have inadequate health care.

Calling it a holocaust is just dramatization.

Asmosays...

If 44 thousand people are dying that might (heavy emphasis on might) be saved by better healthcare, doesn't that sorta kinda move it up in to the ballpark of 'crime against humanity'.

Not taking away from the tradgedy suffered by the Jews during WWII but this is getting a bit propietry over a word used correctly and used in context.

kceaton1says...

>> ^gwiz665:
hel⋅i⋅caust
n.
1. a terrible escalopter accident resulting in mass death.


>> ^EDD:
Rachel Maddow is such a grammar Nazi.


Man those two in a near row made spit soda, you bastages!!!

/edit- If you think holocaust is a bad word to use, how did it exist and be used (OMG) before WWII. Should it be WLMDs; you know, woeful lack of medical discussion?

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More