# Aggressively violent imagery - equal among both parties? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228 "2011-01-11T16:29:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/261 "2011-01-12T17:30:38Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Once again, I’ve said nothing whatsoever about the gun-related imagery put forth by Palin. If you want to know my opinion on Palin’s map, however, all you have to do is ask. Oh, wait, you specifically said you didn’t want my opinion on that. Guess we’ll never know, then. Opinions don’t matter here. The question is whether the left and right both use violent imagery equally. My link, as well as the mention of the book and film, show that there is plenty of violent imagery aimed at the right. > [@El\_Kabong](#): > > 1. No, I can’t imagine that a speculative film, made in the UK for a UK audience, concerning the potential effects of a presidential assassination, would automatically result in someone in the US trying to bump off Mr. Bush. I seem to have at least some supporting evidence for this view, given that, apparently, no one who has seen the film tried to bump off Mr. Bush. Of course not! Nobody outside of the UK would even know about the film! And now the violent imagery has to directly result in someone trying to bump off a public official in order to qualify? > [@El\_Kabong](#): > > 1. I haven’t said anything about any harm caused by a map with gunsights on them. Your repeated attempts to put words in my mouth are becoming tiresome and I’m asking you politely to stop it. I’ve not once suggested that you did. Go back and read my posts. Your repeated attempts to slander me by suggesting I am putting words in your mouth are becoming tiresome and I’m asking you politely to stop it. > [@El\_Kabong](#): > > I suppose you missed that I was quoting the thread title? I suppose you didn’t bother to read the rest of the first post in this thread other than the title? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/262 "2011-01-12T17:33:03Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I’m not trying to make an arbitrary classification just for the sake of special pleading. The reason why I think it makes a difference is that elected officials actually have the endorsement of their party and had a numerical majority (or at least a plurality) of the people in their region endorse them. The very fact that they were elected, in spite of or because of their statements, tells us something about the group of people that selected them. That they were willing to pull the lever (or fill in the bubble) for people making hatefull statements. > > We can’t draw any such conclusions a larger group of liberals or democrats from what a celebrity says, or the worst post you can find from an anonymous poster on DailyKos. Sure we can. We can look at ratings, at popular appeal. Given the dismal voter turnout percentages, in fact, we might say that MORE people are influenced by a Craig Kilborn or a Bill Maher or a Jon Stewart than by elected officials; I’m willing to bet that more people watch Jon Stewart than voted for Palin for governor. And note, by the way, that people had no choice about voting for Palin in a national capacity. She was the VP candidate; people VOTED for McCain. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/263 "2011-01-12T17:34:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What have you got against Ally McBeal, eh? Callista Flockhart was too skinny, that’s what. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/264 "2011-01-12T17:42:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure we can. We can look at ratings, at popular appeal. Given the dismal voter turnout percentages, in fact, we might say that MORE people are influenced by a Craig Kilborn or a Bill Maher or a Jon Stewart than by elected officials; I’m willing to bet that more people watch Jon Stewart than voted for Palin for governor. > > And note, by the way, that people had no choice about voting for Palin in a national capacity. She was the VP candidate; people VOTED for McCain. And just for record, who put Palin on his ticket? McCain, that’s who. Further McCain thought Palin would be a qualified replacement should the unfortunate happen. Now why do you think McCain put Palin on his ticket? Did he do it to help is campaign? if so, what does that say about those he was wooing? Was there any Republican objection to ms Reload? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/265 "2011-01-12T17:53:34Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Was there any Republican objection to ms Reload? Plenty, from within McCain’s campaign, even. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/266 "2011-01-12T17:54:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s not even close to equal. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/267 "2011-01-12T17:57:48Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > And just for record, who put Palin on his ticket? McCain, that’s who. Further McCain thought Palin would be a qualified replacement should the unfortunate happen. > > **Now why do you think McCain put Palin on his ticket? Did he do it to help is campaign? if so, what does that say about those he was wooing?** > > Was there any Republican objection to ms Reload? Just spitballing here, but I thought it was to have a young, photogenic woman on the ticket to balance off the “Old Man” vibe that McCain puts off. Much the way Obama picked the old war-horse (dammit, there goes that imagery again) Biden to balance his perceived youth and inexperience. Palin has since then taken her fifteen minutes of fame and turned it into a career. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/268 "2011-01-12T18:00:48Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And which of those was promoted by a Democratic nominee for federal office? At least we have the sense not to nominate our whackos; Republicans just can’t help voting for theirs. Well, here’s one whacko on the left who somehow slipped through the cracks. [http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/editorials-columns/roderick-random/kanjorski-ponders-nuts-bolts-from-blue-1.1052739#axzz1A4hLabIP](http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/editorials-columns/roderick-random/kanjorski-ponders-nuts-bolts-from-blue-1.1052739#axzz1A4hLabIP) Here is the relevant quote directed against a republican gubernatorial candidate…while Kanjorski was a congressman: > [@Kanjorski](#): > > “That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida. He’s a millionaire and a billionaire. He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook. It’s just we don’t prosecute big crooks.” ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/269 "2011-01-12T18:05:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course I understand it. In depth. > > In law, hearsay is admissible in many situations. At a probable cause hearing, for example, hearsay is routinely admissible. That’s most analogous to what’s going on here: a cite is not absolute proof, but merely shifts the burden to the other side. > > The idea that hearsay is utterly inadmissible in all contexts is a laughable one, often seen espoused by people whose legal training consists of Ally McBeal and a few Law and Order episodes. There are plenty of legal contexts in which hearsay is admissible, and in a discussion such as this, there’s no analog to be drawn between excluding hearsay evidence and Michelle Malkin. > > (Interestingly enough, there are other legal concepts you might bring into play, such as the finding that a particular witness is unreliable as a matter of law. This has nothing to do with hearsay but is pretty much what you seek to do here: a finding that because this witness has been proven to lie so often before, or because the testimony of the witness is _per se_ incredible, the testimony so unreliable that it won’t even be heard by the finder of fact. If you wanted to make such an argument, you’d be on solid ground from an analogy point of view.) > > And a moment’s thought on your part would make this point clear: presumably you would have accepted a cite from, say, Huff Post – which would have been no more or less hearsay than Malkin’s – right? I see you have a limited understanding of a general concept. It’s dissection into derivatives within the legal system is irrelevant. Michelle Malkin is not a credible source, as has been demonstrated within this thread. You have also been shown not to be a credible source within this thread for the same reason. I doubt you cite the case of Wile E. Coyote vs. Acme in actual legal proceedings, which is the equivalent of your and Ms. Malkin’s evidence. Your cite game is not a substitute for substantive argument. Had you been reading the thread instead of whining you would have found credible cites from both sides of the argument which demonstrate that your conclusions were unfounded, and shifted the burden to you. You still fail to provide evidence to support your opinion. I would be perfectly willing to look at such, and if it is credible and demonstrative of your point, I would feel the obligation prevent further evidence of my own, or change my view. And my answer would be the same regarding Huff Post. If you believe there is evidence to support your contention, stand up and present it yourself. So far you have engaged in the curious fallacy of\* appeal to non-authority\*. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/270 "2011-01-12T18:08:54Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I see you have a limited understanding of a general concept. It’s dissection into derivatives within the legal system is irrelevant. Michelle Malkin is not a credible source, as has been demonstrated within this thread. You have also been shown not to be a credible source within this thread for the same reason. I doubt you cite the case of Wile E. Coyote vs. Acme in actual legal proceedings, which is the equivalent of your and Ms. Malkin’s evidence. Your cite game is not a substitute for substantive argument. Had you been reading the thread instead of whining you would have found credible cites from both sides of the argument which demonstrate that your conclusions were unfounded, and shifted the burden to you. You still fail to provide evidence to support your opinion. I would be perfectly willing to look at such, and if it is credible and demonstrative of your point, I would feel the obligation prevent further evidence of my own, or change my view. > > And my answer would be the same regarding Huff Post. If you believe there is evidence to support your contention, stand up and present it yourself. So far you have engaged in the curious fallacy of\* appeal to non-authority\*. So do you still claim that hearsay is a relevant concept here? If so, how can ANY off-board source be used for evidence? Hearsay is, [by definition](http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/evidence-witnesses/hearsay-evidence.html), the out of court statement being used in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. If you’re saying that our current discussion is “Court,” then any statements outside it are outside court? How does “hearsay” permit any external cites? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/271 "2011-01-12T18:27:33Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Just spitballing here, but I thought it was to have a young, photogenic woman on the ticket to balance off the “Old Man” vibe that McCain puts off. > > Much the way Obama picked the old war-horse (dammit, there goes that imagery again) Biden to balance his perceived youth and inexperience. > > Palin has since then taken her fifteen minutes of fame and turned it into a career. Now I don’t see reason to disagree with that assessment, but I don’t think it helps the Republican case much. Honestly I think Palin was McCain’s biggest regret, however acting as an agent of the Republican party, he did endorse her, and I saw little if any dissent on this from the Republican party. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/272 "2011-01-12T18:31:17Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Well, here’s one whacko on the left who somehow slipped through the cracks. > > [http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/editorials-columns/roderick-random/kanjorski-ponders-nuts-bolts-from-blue-1.1052739#axzz1A4hLabIP](http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/editorials-columns/roderick-random/kanjorski-ponders-nuts-bolts-from-blue-1.1052739#axzz1A4hLabIP) > > Here is the relevant quote directed against a republican gubernatorial candidate…while Kanjorski was a congressman: Ohhh, I guess that makes it OKAY then. BOTH parties can and should engage in violent imagery. FINE! NOTHING to complain about here :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/273 "2011-01-12T18:41:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So do you still claim that hearsay is a relevant concept here? > > If so, how can ANY off-board source be used for evidence? Hearsay is, [by definition](http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/evidence-witnesses/hearsay-evidence.html), the out of court statement being used in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. If you’re saying that our current discussion is “Court,” then any statements outside it are outside court? > > How does “hearsay” permit any external cites? I’m not arguing about hearsay, you are. I am arguing that you continue to whine instead of presenting a cogent argument and evidence to support it. I won’t continue along this line. If you have something to add to the debate I’ll be happy to respond. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/274 "2011-01-12T18:44:35Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Ohhh, I guess that makes it OKAY then. BOTH parties can and should engage in violent imagery. FINE! NOTHING to complain about here :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Are you trying to say something relevant? Did you think you said something profound? How’s about reading the post I was responding to? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/275 "2011-01-12T18:56:00Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Now I don’t see reason to disagree with that assessment, but I don’t think it helps the Republican case much. Honestly I think Palin was McCain’s biggest regret, however acting as an agent of the Republican party, he did endorse her, and I saw little if any dissent on this from the Republican party. Yes, but during a campaign season one does not hear much grumbling against the party’s chosen candidate. Now, if she had been named as a possible VP candidate during the Primaries, every other Republican hopeful would have been all over her like cliches on a cliched thing. Isn’t that how partisan politics works? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/276 "2011-01-12T19:15:01Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I’m not arguing about hearsay, you are. Then you should report the following posts to the board’s management, since it appears someone hacked your account to post them: > [@TriPolar](#): > > Imagine! A lawyer who doesn’t understand the concept of hearsay. > [@TriPolar](#): > > Also, do you understand the\* concept \*of hearsay, or have you only memorized the definition? In the unlikely event that those posts simply slipped your mind, would you now say that you WERE arguing hearsay? That in fact you were the person who first brought up the concept of hearsay as a rationale? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/277 "2011-01-12T19:24:16Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Yes, but during a campaign season one does not hear much grumbling against the party’s chosen candidate. Now, if she had been named as a possible VP candidate during the Primaries, every other Republican hopeful would have been all over her like cliches on a cliched thing. Isn’t that how partisan politics works? Again, who chose that candidate? McCain, and how did McCain get in a position to choose the Republican VP? Further, if McCain, acting as an representative of Republican interests, didn’t choose Palin because he felt she appealed to his party, why did he choose her? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/278 "2011-01-12T19:28:20Z")
Well, the actual definition and technical use of “hearsay” is not dispositive. I’m not sure if its a penumbra or an emanation, just that its not dispositive. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/279 "2011-01-12T19:35:45Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Again, who chose that candidate? McCain, and how did McCain get in a position to choose the Republican VP? Further, if McCain, acting as an representative of Republican interests, didn’t choose Palin because he felt she appealed to his party, why did he choose her? But by the time the Vice Presidential candidates are chosen and announced, which is after the Presidential candidate has their nomination authorized by their party, the focus shifts from “appealing to their party” to “able to win the general election.” McCain seems to have believed that being “spunky,” “down-home” and photogenic would be enough to appeal to the non-partisan members of the electorate. You know, the people who swing elections because they don’t vote exclusively by party affiliation. There are a lot of us out here. Anyway, McCain was wrong, and Palin did not appeal enough to the general electorate to get him the election. But I don’t believe her whack-a-doodleness manifested until she got a good taste of the media spotlight. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/280 "2011-01-12T19:43:28Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Wow, you can’t even get an insult correct! This is Great Debates- please, what insult did I offer, and why didn’t you report my post to the mods? > [@yorick73](#): > > It doesn’t bug me at all either. I am also not up in arms over the Palin map or references to “lock and load”, or any other political rhetoric that has knotted the panties of many on these boards. If you go back and read my first post I was responding to the OP’s request to show that the left is also involved in violent imagery. And I’ve shown that you failed massively in doing so, at least in regards to the book and the movie. Neither of those demonstrate violent imagery on the part of Liberals. Or is any media which depicts anything bad happening to a Rightist which \*might \*be written by someone who has voted Liberal in any way in the past somehow a depiction of violent imagery perpetrated by the Left as a whole? In case you had trouble parsing that sentence, try this on for size: Please demonstrate that the book and/or the movie were written by Liberals for Liberals. 'Cause right now, they both seem like fiction to me. One examined what would happen if the sitting US President were assassinated (and, again, was produced by a \*British \*film company), and the other was two characters talking about killing the President with “Manchurian scorpions”. You know, personally, I’ve never read the book nor seen that movie. For Liberal propaganda, they’re not doing a real bang-up job. It makes me wonder why you’re so fascinated with them. Possibly just to have something to point to, an opportunity to say, “But you guys do it too!”? As I’ve said, there are other, better examples. Chasing after these two examples actually \*weakens \*your case. > [@yorick73](#): > > Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that a work of art that depicts violence against a sitting president is okay since it is art (since violence is inherent in the medium), but using a term like “lock and load” or a graph with gunsights in it is not okay? The book and the movie were both _entertainment_. What’s the intended message of “lock and load” and the gunsights? Fun and games? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228.md?page=15)