Many people here in the US believe left-wing rhetoric is also dangerous, especially far left rhetoric. Chomsky comes to mind, and that has been suggested by even liberals. I think that is non-sense, but still, it is suggested.
If the phrase "promotes violence" isn't meant to refer to the effect whereby violence is increased
Because, things that promote violence , like movies and tv shows, don't actually lead to violence.
there's no reason for anyone to find the promotion of violence any more objectionable than the promotion of flossing or dandruff shampoo.
Do you find movies and tv shows that promote violence objectionable?
But can I market it by saying "promotes penis growth"?
Yes. Who cares about "truthfully," the point is that you can. It also doesn't matter if anyone buys the product, or believes that the product does that, for you to still be able to promote that it does.
And what they mean is "causes an increase in violence", just as "promotes penis growth" means "causes an increase in the size of the penis."
That's the fucking point, that sometimes it doesn't actually do that! Sometimes it DOESN'T cause an increase in violence even though it promotes violence. Movies, tv shows, promote violence, but they don't increase violence in the community.
Islam, promotes violence as a resolution to problems, but it doesn't actually increase violence, so there is no reason to fear muslims. That's my point.
Judaism, promotes violence when it says 'kill the gays', but it doesn't actually increase violence toward gays.
That is the whole point to something promoting violence but not actually contributing to violence!
Similarly, telling your supporters that if they don't like the outcome of an election they should seek "Second Amendment remedies" is an idea that would contribute to violence.
IF IT ACTUALLY DID THAT.
In the case of me suggesting to go out and beat people up, if no one follows me, then me suggesting to go beat someone up did NOT contribute to an increase in violence.
How do I know that? Why, because of all the violence that these speech acts contributed to.
Yes, all of those things could have contributed to violence, but how do you know that this was one of those cases!
If all you're saying is that right-wing rhetoric in general contributes to violence, then yeah, sure, it does. You agreed that left-wing rhetoric contributes to violence, especially far left rhetoric. So both sides contirbute to violence, in general.
The point is, how do we know which side contributed to this particular act of violence, because he was found with far left-wing reading material.
So where is the evidence that right-wing rhetoric specifically, and not both, contributed to this act of violence?
What kind of proof?
It was either Hitler, or the Germans acted on their own.
Sure I did. I've given you every chance. Every single post you write to me is a chance for you to say "sorry, I misspoke" but instead you've insisted that you're incapable of error.
Oh bullshit, man. You jumped down my throat and accused me of not knowing anything about this event. I'm capable of error but not capable of being accused of not knowing something when I do.
At this point though, fuck your sorry.
When Republicans run the government that's described as "the Republican government." When Democrats run it it's described as "the Democratic government."
Ok, I get what context you mean that in.
But let me ask, do you think our current government is democratic, as in, the democrats run it? I know the president is a democrat, but that's just one branch of our government.
The claim I'm making - Republican murder speech has resulted in an increase in political violence - has been investigated by the Department of Homeland Security and found to be true, such that they issued a warning about it back in April of 2009
Crash, dude, I don't disagree with this. This is what I meant in the other post that I agree with some of what you are saying. The political arena is sometimes violent. I have never disputed that. And I don't disput that Republican rhetoric contributed to it.
But where is the evidence that Republican murder speech contributed to THIS case? That is the point of this debate. It could very well have been far left political rhetoric from books like Mein Kampf and Communist Manifesto. Who knows?
My question continues to be, what are you using as evidence that points to Republican murder speech contributing to THIS particular case?
Many said Palin, the targets and the Tea Party. You even suggested that she apologize. But there is no evidence that links Palin, targets or the Tea Party to Loughner. In fact, all the physical evidence points to left-wing propaganda.
This is the debate. This is the question. Where is the evidence that points to Republican rhetoric contributing?
Ok, but examples of it from the Netherlands - which is a whole different country, perhaps you're aware - aren't evidence for that view.
Really? This blows your entire position that the right is the only one that has dangerous rhetoric!
Huntard said, in his country it's not just the right side that uses dangerous rhetoric. You said, here it is, which is the entire point you're making with Loughner and the evidence. That it could only be from the right because the right is the only one that has dangerous rhetoric.
If you agree that both sides have dangerous rhetoric, then you have lost your entire position.
Sure they do, they just don't have to lead to violence for it to still be promoted.
Oni: "Lets go beat some people up who disagree with us." - (That would be me promoting violence as a resolution to people disagreeing with me.)
Friends: "No thanks. And you should really stop promoting violence as a solution to someone disagreeing with you because one day, someone may listen to you and follow you, and it can get ugly."
To "present the idea," or "advertise the idea," that is what the definitions you gave called it.
If they don't actually lead to any violence, there's no such thing as a "movie or TV show that promotes violence."
TV shows and movies where conflicts are settled violently promote violence as a solution to problems.
Well, no, I couldn't. It's against the law to make false claims of medical efficacy in advertising.
Are you telling me that every product advertised to do something, or promoted to do something, works?
Are you seriously saying there is truth to advertisement?
Are you saying that all pills that promote penis enlargement have to work if not they can't be advertised?
And what do you mean, "who cares about truthfully"? I care, that's why I specified it in my example. I believe it actually matters what words mean.
Truthfully had nothing to do with the meaning of a word, only to the veracity of the product promoted. Try to follow the discussion.
Oni writes:
Islam, promotes violence as a resolution to problems, but it doesn't actually increase violence, so there is no reason to fear muslims.
CS writes:
Well, but it does increase violence, that's how we know that Islam can be used to promote violence.
Yes but as I wrote: "Sometimes it DOESN'T cause an increase in violence even though it continues to promote violence."
For example, Christianity today vs 500 years ago. Same scripture that promotes violence as a resolution to a varity of things, but it doesn't cause an increase in violence anymore. Compaired to 500 years ago, the Christians of the world, for the most part, are significantly less violent. But the Bible continues to promote it.
Oni writes:
That is the whole point to something promoting violence but not actually contributing to violence!
CS writes:
But that's unintelligible nonsense. That's precisely what it means to "promote."
I should have ended that with "in every case." Does that make more sense?
Something can promote violence but not actually contribute to vioelnce in every case.
For example, lets hypothetically assume that Palin and the right-wing rhetoric had nothing to do with Loughner shooting the congress woman. That it was actually a voice in his head like Son of Sam with the dog. You wouldn't then say that that means Palin and the right-wing rhetoric doesn't lead to violence, right? You obviously evidenced cases where it did.
So in that example, you would have something that promoted vioelnce, but doesn't lead to violence in every case. In some cases, it has nothing to do with violence.
What was your proof that they didn't?
They could have, I'm not saying they couldn't. It could have been both, Hitler and self lead. In fact, it probably was both.
My point is that we couldn't prove only one or only the other, it makes sense that both could have, since they were both present forces at the time.
You misspoke. Cop to it, apologize for the lack of clarity, and we can move on. But we'll continue to go over it until you stop lying about what actually happened here.
Eat shit. Hows that?
Well, for the most part. The judiciary is still pretty heavily Republican, and Republicans now have a majority in the House of Representatives.
So our government is 2/3 Republican and you feel the Democrats run it? How does that math work out?
You wouldn't actually have to find someone who bought soap because of your ad - such a person might not even exist. The people who did go out and buy soap may not have even seen a single one of your ads - nevertheless, your ads were responsible for an increase in soap purchases.
That's insane!
Lets say you wanted to run the ads again. Would you spend a million dollars in advertising again on the ads if you didn't really know if your ads increased the sales in soap?
You'd want to make sure your advertisment directly caused the increase in soap sale before you invest another million dollars in running those ads again. Because if it was another factor, one that you were to lazy to figure out, and we spent a million dollars on advertising again, but this time sales never increased cause that unknown facotr failed this time, you would be out of a job.
You would be asked why you reinvested the money if there was no direct evidence between the ads and the increase in sales.
The evidence is that a congresswoman was targeted for assassination after an election where Republicans targeted her with assassination rhetoric in print ads, TV and radio media, and at campaign appearances where supporters were invited to fire at a picture of her with an automatic weapon.
And there is no evidence that Loughner followed any of that. What there IS evidence for is a disturbed kid, with an anti-establishement, anti-government attitude, who enjoyed reading far left-wing propaganda.
How do I know they've become predictable? Rep. Giffords herself predicted it.
The prediction as evidence was so weak you dropped it earlier, now you bring it back?
She said "That kind of thing could have consequences," 9 months ago, in a 5 sec blurb on a show. That is hardly a prediction of anything.
quote:But corporations continue to spend billions on it every year. Because it works! Because speech matters. Because advocacy works. Because it's possible to influence millions of people in entirely predictable ways as a result of mass media. If you were defending ad expenditures, the mere correlation between a mass change in behavior and the presence of advertising would be sufficient. And, similarly, it's sufficient in this case.
What crash's argument boils down to is that it's ok to speculate because of the correlation between behavior change and just the meer presence of advertising.
But that is a very weak argument.
That is no better than Jenny McCarthy's stubborn argument that MMR vaccine shots casued autism, just because there was a perceived correlation between the two. Even though she had absolutely no scientific evidnece to back here position, she still had the percieved correlation. In the end, the scientific evidence proved her wrong, and her correlation was worthless.
What does that tell us? That it's not good enough to have just a meer perceived correlation without evidence. You could be completely wrong, like in the case with McCarthy.
That does not mean it is illogical to claim that the speech of these people is dangerous, irresponsible, and having a negative effect on society.
And I haven't either. If crash's only point was that it had a negative effect on society, then I would agree with him, which I did.
But to imply that their rhetoric contributed specifically to Loughner shooting the congress woman is ALSO dangerous, irresponsible and will have a negative effect on society, because there is no evidence to support that.
The ONLY evidence there is, suggests that far left-wing propaganda (which is what Loughner has been found to have) and his dislike of the government contributed to Loughner shooting the congress woman. And even that would be weak, because it would still be speculation.
Until, of course, Loughner opens his mouth and says why he actually did it. For now, it is premature to imply anything else about the Loughner case.
The claim I'm making - Republican murder speech has resulted in an increase in political violence - has been investigated by the Department of Homeland Security and found to be true, such that they issued a warning about it back in April of 2009.
Oni writes:
Crash, dude, I don't disagree with this. This is what I meant in the other post that I agree with some of what you are saying. The political arena is sometimes violent. I have never disputed that. And I don't disput that Republican rhetoric contributed to it.
See, I don't disagree with that statement.
What I hear crash saying and what I agree with him on is that the kind of evidence for the kind of causation being suggested is a complete misrepresentation of the claims being made by those who say the rhetoric had something to do with this.
Then you haven't read the full thread. Lets quote a few things and see if what you claim is true, or if what you claim is what crash eventually, and deceivingly, changed his position to.
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann gave a blistering and vitriolic diatribe about Sarah Palin's use of crosshairs on her website, seemingly suggesting that she's some kind of co-conspirator in the shooting.
CF writes:
You elute the fact that those crosshairs were on Rep. Giffords, that Giffords herself predicted that she would be subject to violence as a result, and that she was proven right.
Gifford was subject to violence as a result of the crosshairs.
Nobody thinks Sarah Palin wanted this. The point is, she's taking literally no responsibility at all for how her rhetoric incited a crazy person to murder.
Palin's rhetoric incited a crazy person to [murder].
Which, btw crash, did you mean to say "shoot" instead of "murder"...?
What need, when it was broadcast on TV? Are you saying Loughner never watched TV? That he never was on the internet? That he had never heard of Sarah Palin?
Why does Loughner need to have been a conservative to have been influenced by Sarah Palin
Loughner was influenced by Palin.
So now here you come and say this:
Jazzns writes:
in order to prove that Laughner was motivated by Palin. But nobody is making that specific claim!
Aren't they? Isn't that exactly what was being said in all the quotes I provided?
That is why I keep asking for the evidence, because the claim was made by CRASH that Palin influenced Loghner, and, that the congress woman being shot was a result of the crosshairs.
Do you see that now, Jazzns?
What I see happening in this thread is a repeated failure to understand the point that crashfrog is trying to make despite what I feel are very lucid arguments being put forward by him.
What you are reading now to be "crash's point," is the end result of me bashing his argument into the ground until he HAD TO change it to just "Republican murder speech has resulted in an increase in political violence."
But fuck that! He wants to deceivingly change his position after claiming Palin, and the crosshairs, influenced Loughner, and that the congress woman was shot because of it...well, I don't think so!
At least not without HIM clearly, and openly stating that he was wrong in that assumption.
At which time, if his only remaining point is that Republican murder speech has resulted in an increase in political violence, then I agree with him 100% and have nothing else to debate about in this thread.
But I want that fucking admitance to being wrong! ...cause I know it hurts him to have to do so.
But thanks for your contribution, Jazzns, I always like to read your PoV. I hope this post corrected any misunderstandings between you and I.
Well, then perhaps you should choose your analogies more carefully. If anyone needs a picture with crosshairs on it it would be Jenny McCarthy.
Fair enough. They can't all be gems, I'm usually baked 85% of the time.
It is perhaps straining at gnats but I think crash is rightly claiming more than that. I think maybe you are going too far in claiming that he has shifted because it seems very much that you have too.
I still believe politicians get shot, idiots light themselves on fire. But that position was in direct reference to Palin and the crosshairs influencing Loughner.
Believe me, I hate the US political arena for the very reason crash made, their rhetoric is causing a great split in our society. Had he started off with just that point I would have been the first one supporting him.
But Palin and the crosshairs influencing Loughner? Na, can't accept that one. At least not without evidence.
Maybe you can just attribute that to the debate refining both of your positions.
But this would mean I'm not awesome.
Well, I mean you certainly don't make friends on a board full of skeptically minded people by calling them Jenny McCarthy. I understand your position, but I think you are still asking for evidence disproportionate to the claims.
Oni uses it the way I do. You promote your music or your comedy routine or your Irish Spring soap. Then you wait and see what happens. The two things are disconnected. The Later Developments do not and could not change the "promotion".
Right, and it is commonly used in that way. Crash gets this, he's just being a douche about it and dragging it on like another "embassy" situtation.
If nothing happens, then it remains promted as you and I use it. If something happens, then it takes on Crash's definition.
People don't say "promotes violence" like they say "promote a band".
Sure they do. I'm people, I used it that way. Xong understood the way I used it, and xong is people too.
See, here's where you're conflating two definitions, again. I'm not talking about products that are promoted, I'm talking about products that promote.
Do you understand the difference?
Yes I do. But I don't care how you are using it, it's my use of it that we are discussing. You need to understand how I'm using it and not drag this out telling me there is only one way to use a word.
All of your difficulties in this discussion are based on the fact that you don't appear to understand the difference between "contribute to the growth of" and "present for buyer acceptance", which are two very different definitions of the word "promote."
What YOU need to understand is how I'm using the word, and in what context, not the other way around. How you WANT me to use the word is of no concern to me.
When I say: Islam promotes violence as a resoultion to violence.
- If no one acts on that, then "promote" takes on the "present for buyer acceptance" definition.
- If someone does act on it, then "promote" takes on the "contribute to the growth of" definition.
It's that simple.
Similarly, we should recognize that the increase in right-wing violence directed against Democrats, minorities, and government employees is a function of unbalanced, violent people doing violent things and the creation of an rhetorical environment where violence is repeatedly invoked and approved of against the political enemies of the right-wing.
Ehh, I don't think it's that dramatic. But I get what you mean.
Well, it's not much of an apology but it's roughly the level of maturity you usually evince.
I'm just myself, not some up-tight, intellectually arrogant, faux personality that I only exibit on forums.
I mean you yourself identified in the Hitler example that we can't tell which Nazis were oppressing Jews because they were incited to do so by Hitler, and which were doing so because Nazism provided an outlet for their own pre-existing antisemitism.
Right. We have two facts, one that Hitler's speeches contributed, the other that their own personal feelings contributed. It could have been either one. And you'd have to do a case by case study asking each individual why he/she did it. Not only impossible, un-necessary. But you couldn't confidently say it was one specific one of those. More than likely, it was both, as you agree. Each case is different, but it remains pointless and speculatory to credited one specific one.
Loughner had far left propaganda and anti-capitalist propaganda. Also, there is the republican rhetoric. Just as above with germany, you couldn't confidently say it was one specific one of those. Each case is different, but it remains pointless and speculatory to credited one specific one.
So I'll end this the way I explained it to Jazzns, if you're only point is that Republican rhetoric creates a hostile political environment, then we are in complete agreement.
But to your original argument that Palin influenced Loughner, and the crosshairs lead to the congress woman being shot, you are wrong and should admit that.
Comedy dude. I'm wasting too much money flying to and from the city, I need to make it my home base. And why Brooklyn? Cuz it's fucking Brooklyn. Plus it's the cheapest place within 15min to the city, and specifically the lower east side.
Plus, once Jersey Shore came down to Miami, the city hasn't been the same.
Sorry dude, just saw this. Thought you left the thread.
You may have, but that's not what the people you're talking about mean
But I wasn't talk about anyone, really, I just made the statement to convey what I meant. And I gave everyone the courtesy of explaining myself further, because it could be read in different ways.
You're just dishonestly equivocating on terms (and calling me names about it.)
Na, man. On the equivocating part. I am totally calling you names, though.
When I asked you that before you dishonestly changed the subject to promoting hair growth products even though that clearly wasn't anything we were talking about.
Not dishonestly, it was to explain further how I am using the word. And I changed it to penis growth because those are products that are promoted but in effect do nothing.
I know how you are using the word, and if you made the statement, and explained it to me, I would go with your use of the word. You're telling me you can't do the same?
It''s really not that big of a fucking deal to say, "Oh, you're using it that way. Cool. I've heard it used other ways but I get the jist of what you're saying."
Is it?
Right, and you mean that Islam causes an increase in violence, "promotes violence."
No I don't, even if I'm using the word completely wrong, that is not what I meant. And I've explained myself further to correct that misunderstanding. But I'm not using the word completely wrong, just not the same as you do.
Are you talking about me, now? I don't know how you could possibly conclude that I'm not uptight, arrogant, and fake in real life, too.
Good point.
Similarly, conservative murder speech is contributing in the US to an environment condusive to violence against liberals, Democrats, and minorities both by convincing people to become violent against such people and by creating an environment supportive of people who already were, like Loughner.
I agree with all of that, untill you get to Loughner. I think this kid is a leftist nutjob, with anti-government and anti-establishment opinions, and he went a bit too far with that. I don''t think he listens to Beck or Rush, and I highly doubt some targets on a map lead him to do anything.
I never said that the "crosshairs led to the congresswoman being shot."
You did, and I provided the quote in the post to Jazzns.
And it's really not that big of a fucking deal to say "oh, you're right; I said something I didn't intend to say, made bad word choices, and miscommunicated my position."
Because I didn't make a bad word choice, or miscommunicate anything. If you notice, you're the only one hanging on this like newbie in a whore house. Let it go, brotha.
I used "promote" within it's accepted definition. You're claiming that "people" don't use it like that. Ok, fine, your opinion. I have heard people use it that way when refering to violence, so what happens now? Your way for you, my way for me. But in the spirit of good dialogue you should have, like everyone else has, read my entire argument to understand in what context I used the word.
Does promoting things work?
Come to an open mic in NY on a Tuesday and see if any of the promoting worked; when I'm performing to the 6 comics that were booked for the show like me, I can assure you, sometimes, promoting works for shit.
I think he's a currency nut who believes that the government is engaged in an effort to control the attitudes and actions of the American people through language. How, exactly, is that any different than Glenn Beck's program every single night?
Don't know, don't listen. I listen to his radio show at times, during the day if I'm driving - there is always good material. What is the point of this, though?
And please, spare me another tiresome dictionary game about whether or not Glenn Beck is a conservative.
Really? Me? After you've dragged on about one fucking word in what 30 plus posts? You got some balls, froggy.
And yet in that quote I do not state that the crosshairs led to the congresswoman being shot.
C'mon, you said almost that word for word.
CF writes:
...those crosshairs were on Rep. Giffords, that Giffords herself predicted that she would be subject to violence as a result, and that she was proven right.
Now who's the one being dishonest?
Or is it just a coincidence that Frances Fox Piven started getting death threats the day after Beck devoted an entire show to his goofy conspiracy theories about her?
Oh please, David Letterman gets death threats. It goes with being in the public eye and on TV. Beck gets plenty of death threats too, so do they all.
But Beck is an entertainer, so what's your point? You bashed Coyote for bringing up quotes from Bill Maher claiming Maher wasn't a politician. Well, neither is Beck...so who gives a shit what he says.
Conservatives are promoting violence against liberal targets. (And I do mean "promoting" as in "contributing to an increase in.") The proof of this is the dramatically increased violence and threats of violence against the very liberals conservatives are designating as targets - Giffords among them.
The liberals are being their usual faggy selves and being drama queens about the violence. Maybe they should learn to fight, because they're getting their ass kicked by the GOP, literally. They look like bitches out there. Whiny bitches at that.
Gifford was not targetted by a conservative, a right-winger or someone who follows that camp. She was shot by a looney kid with wacked out leftist ideologies.
Or, I guess you could just continue to pretend like you've never misspoken in your entire life. That's cool, too.
Whatever.
Hey, hey, hey...don't get like that. Not after everything we've been through.
No, I'm saying that when people say "promotes violence" like it's a bad thing, the "bad" part of that equation is the increased violence as a result, otherwise from what possible basis would they object? If "promoting something" had no effect on the rate or popularity of that something why would people even bother?
Yeah, I agree, but not in all cases and not with all things promoted. People have some sense of their own and can make a choice.
So while a feel islam promotes violence as a solution to problems they face, I feel for the most part muslims would rather a non-violent solutions. From the muslims I've encountered, this seems to be the case. And the violence that is seen is not islamic promoted violence, but rather politically driven.
Jesus, why so personal all the fucking time? Can't we just talk about this shit? Why does every little thing have to be such a huge fucking issue with you? Why do you have to be right about absolutely everything, even the stupid stuff?
Why do you so completely lose your shit when you talk to me? What's the deal, here?
Sorry dude, that's kinda how I talk. This is a debate site, I thought I was going with the flow...you know, debating and what not. Why so sensitive all of a sudden?
Trust me, I'm not losing my shit with any of this. You debate aggressively too, I've seen it. You have, not always, but sometimes, taken the bully role when debating creationist because you hold your intellect over them, and you do so arrogantly. Now, I'm not saying I care, or that you are wrong to do so - for the most part I like what you write and learn a lot from your knowledge in biology - but don't come play the victim role to me now when I do the same to you. If you can dish it out, then you should be able to take it too.
Either way, I don't give a shit so it's your call.
You, as usual. Where in the quoted material do I state that "the crosshairs led to Giffords being shot"?
It was implied. But if that's not what you meant, then cool. I won't say anything else before you throw another hissy fit.
David Letterman always gets death threats because he has a national TV show. Does Frances Fox Piven have a national TV show? What is the name of the show and when does it air? Be specific.
I meant, as public figures it's normal to get death threats. You don't need your own show, you just have to be on shows. Sam Harris gets plenty of death threats, so does Dan Dennett for some odd reason. But neither one has a show.
Since when is Frances Fox Piven on TV?
Look how cute she looks in the 80's:
Don't get me wrong, I recognize that Beck's listeners have made death threats to her, but she is in the political arena and Beck is going to talk about her. That's his show, he does whatever he wants on it. He can't be held responsible for the actions of others, even though I think he should and that TV studios should take the greater role in being responsible for what airs on their networks. My opinon on it doesn't change the fact that rhetoric on TV will be received differently by whoever listens.
I would not want it to become a free speech issue though.
Since when is Beck an "entertainer"? Be specific.
Huh? Since he started radio and tv...? What do you think he is?
No, I bashed Coyote for bringing up quotes from Bill Maher who isn't on the left
He's not? And you were claiming Chomsky was?
Then you tell me I have to be right about everything. How can't I not argue back when you are saying shit like this, crash? Maher is not on the left? Holy fucking shit! If he was anymore to the left he'd be a lesbian.
Well, wait now. Do both sides do it, or not?
That's my point, they need to stop whining for everything and man up a bit. Fight back. I'm not saying shot people, but you're making the case that every where liberals go conservatives are there to give them an ass kicking. Looks pretty sad for liberals then. I empathize, but I also see it as either pitiful, or the angle they are using to gain sympathy in the media. Neither of which I can respect.
How is it "leftist" to be a white, male currency nut obsessed with political correctness? Sorry, Oni, that's a right-wing beef. Giffords was shot by a Randroid gun nut. This kid was about as "leftist" as Paul Weyrich.
The reading material they found him with was leftist, all of it. He is also anti-government (US capitalist government) which would put him in the camp of Chavez and the like.
For some reason it continues to be unacceptable to point out this fact.
I think the media is, now, trying to shoot down ANY rhetoric that points fingers to avoid any further blood shed.
Also, it's hard to just claim the rhetoric is doing the motivation, when each case has specifics that point to other factors too. Take for instance a town hall meeting, where everyone is shouting at each other from all sides of the political spectrum. If a right-winger were to KO someone on the left, I wouldn't blame that on the rhetoric. It seems that right-wingers are just tougher, and more prone to fighting than their left-wing counter parts.
Sure. But why isn't there more politician violence?
I thought you've been claiming there is an increase in violence?
Currently you and Coyote are engaged in a kind of game where you try to pretend that there's no difference between an entertainer saying entertainingly angry things and a politician making angry claims that are taken seriously by people.
No, no, no, clearly there is as far as their titles go. But Americans pay much more attention to entertainers, actors, radio DJ's, comedians, etc. by a large portion, more than they listen to politician's speeches.
All I'm saying is that the audience is much larger for Alec Baldwin on 30 Rock than a 5 minute piece on FoxNews.
Then why wasn't Frances Fox Piven getting death threats before she was mentioned by Glenn Beck?
I don't know. Not to where she felt the need to be public about it. Or rather, the news networks saw a great opportunity to glorify what may not be that big of a deal in those death threats.
Why have death threats against congresspeople increased since the increase in conservative murder rhetoric? Haven't congresspeople always been "public figures"? Are you really saying that no speech could possibly have an effect on the number of death threats public figures get?
No not at all. I recognize the effects of speech. But I don't blame those saying it, I blame the TV stations who air it. I blame the stations who's main focus is to spew this nonsense.
I don't blame the right, most people on the right aren't even on TV. They're nobody congress people and politicians who get zero air time. There is a select few, who Palin has now joined, who say this stuff. But it is not the right's fault that a few do it, and certainly not the fault of the republican party as a whole (to include the voters.)
But why does he have to call for her death? Why does he have to portray her not just as an ideological opponent, but as part of a concerted threat to the nation? Millions of people listen to his speech. Why does he have to put people at risk by inciting violence?
He called for her to be killed? That I didn't hear about at all.
But frankly, to the rest of what you wrote, I don't know, man. The bigger question for me is, not that they say it, but why are they the one's on the air? If Fox got rid of literally 3 people, and Rush was taken off the air, all the rhetoric would pretty much be silenced.
He's a libertarian. Those guys aren't "leftists."
"Leftist" as in Hugo Chavez, Chomsky leftist? No. But they would be on the "left" when it comes to the US political spectrum.
Maher even says he is on the left.
I'm afraid that they are
Then they need to take some MMA classes or something, before they just look weak and pathetic.
Conservatives are passing these out at their conventions. You know, the ones that look like gun shows, there's so many firearms.
It's cute, funny and targets the pro-gun crowd. I wouldn't say, not even a little bit, that it's telling people to go shoot liberals. People have more sense than that. It is kinda not so tasteful, but not so much so to accuse it of being a call to violence.
Regardless, it remains that the kid was a currency nut who was against political correctness. His choice of reading material is irrelevant - he was as leftist as Rand Paul and shot a Democratic congresswoman who voted for the ACA, which proves it.
If you say so. I'll remain in complete disagreement.
Fair enough. They can't all be gems, I'm usually baked 85% of the time.
™ Version 4.2