# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/301 "2011-01-12T21:22:38Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > What examples of hate speech do you have of Mrs. Palin since last Saturday? None. > [@](#): > > And is using violent imagery now considered “hate speech”? It depends on the context. If there were images of nooses over african american candidate’s districts, there’d be near unanimous agreement on this board that this was unacceptable and it must have been from some vicious hate group like the KKK. But gun sights? It’s obvious from all these threads that there’s not a consensus on that. When I look at all her rhetoric, taken as a whole… that Obama is “pallin around with terrorists” that Democrats are trying to bring us “Death Panels”, and then I see the gunsights over the districts, it’s easy to see how a Palin follower could draw conclusion that Democrats ought to be killed to prevent them from slaughtering old people and bringing us Sharia law. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/302 "2011-01-12T21:22:39Z")
Honestly I don’t care if anyone admits “doing anything wrong”. They can deny all they want to and I’d expect them to - after all there is no … uh … smoking gun … here. The issue from here on out is if the rhetoric does or does not become a bit more within the pale. And we will see if it does or not. I am guessing it will for a few months just because it will be being scrutinized, and then go back to how things have been. But that’s just a guess. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/303 "2011-01-12T21:28:44Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Even if there’s not an iron clad proof of causation here, the correlation is still enough that an ethical person in her place would reevaluate her messaging and tone down the hate speech. > [@Wilbo523](#): > > What examples of hate speech do you have of Mrs. Palin since last Saturday? > [@Blalron](#): > > None. I guess none would be considered toning it down then. Sounds like Palin meets your definition of an ethical person. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/304 "2011-01-12T21:33:35Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > …it’s easy to see how a Palin follower could draw conclusion that Democrats ought to be killed to prevent them from slaughtering old people and bringing us Sharia law. Because most Palin followers are unhinged and don’t have the ability to discern literary metaphor? ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/305 "2011-01-12T21:35:57Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Honestly I don’t care if anyone admits “doing anything wrong”. They can deny all they want to and I’d expect them to - after all there is no … uh … smoking gun … here. The issue from here on out is if the rhetoric does or does not become a bit more within the pale. And we will see if it does or not. I am guessing it will for a few months just because it will be being scrutinized, and then go back to how things have been. But that’s just a guess. I believe you are correct. No need to be even innappropriately linked to mass murder. ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/306 "2011-01-12T21:43:02Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Because most Palin followers are unhinged and don’t have the ability to discern literary metaphor? …and you think you’re being sarcastic. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/307 "2011-01-12T21:56:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > See? When your guy does it, you fall over yourself to point out the lack of literal meaning; you give every benefit of the doubt. > > And the other side does it, you presume the worst. As I have explained before, I think Angle’s comments about Second Amendment remedies could only have one meaning. However, I am inclined to think that she was merely trying to play the “yes man” to a whacko radio host, and I doubt she had any clear idea what she was saying. But there is only one reasonable interpretation of what she said. The only question is the degree to which she understood she was agreeing with the concept of overthrowing the government. In any case, this is not a double standard. Statements made by Obama and Angle no more have to be given benefit of the doubt on an equal basis than someone has to give equal benefit of the doubt to statements made by Chris Rock and David Duke. Just because Chris Rock uses shocking language on race to make valid points doesn’t mean that I must credit Duke’s use of shocking language with also being social commentary worth listening to. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/308 "2011-01-12T23:43:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Plenty, from within McCain’s campaign, even. Actually, this is true. i remember a lot of annoyance, disbelief, and more than a little bit of “holy shit who is this moron” type of talk. ---
**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, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/309 "2011-01-12T23:51:56Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > This is Great Debates- please, what insult did I offer, and why didn’t you report my post to the mods? Please…I was half-joking anyway. > [@Lightnin](#): > > 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 just can’t seem to wrap your mind around the possibility that a film, book, or any piece of "art’ can carry a political message. Also, I’m not sure if you are naive or if you are trying to be coy about the fact that both the book and the movie play to the far-left wet dream of GW Bush being assassinated. So, yes, I put both the book and the movie on the same level with any other commentary. > [@Lightnin](#): > > 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. I’m not the one fascinated with them. I mentioned them both in addition to a list of left-wing lunacy. _You_, on the other hand, have kept this discussion going for 6 pages. Maybe you should look in the mirror. > [@Lightnin](#): > > The book and the movie were both _entertainment_. What’s the intended message of “lock and load” and the gunsights? Fun and games? Please…enlighten me. It seems you believe Palin was trying to instigate violence. Is that what you _really_ believe? ---
**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, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/310 "2011-01-12T23:54:25Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Actually, this is true. i remember a lot of annoyance, disbelief, and more than a little bit of “holy shit who is this moron” type of talk. Thanks. Most people here seem to have adopted the position that to concede even the smallest point means instant death for them and their puppies. I appreciate someone bucking the trend. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/311 "2011-01-13T00:02:12Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > As the thread title clearly states, the question is not whether the ‘left and right’ use such imagery equally, it’s whether the US Republican and Democratic parties use such imagery equally. You still have not demontrated that the US Democratic party had anything to do with the production of the film “Death of a President”, so in my view your cite is irrelevant. Thanks for your kind words regarding my intelligence and reading ability. Time to get past the title and read the fucking post! I’m not insulting your intelligence or reading ability but I am starting to wonder why you are attempting to go down this path when the OP clearly did not narrow the debate to the two parties. Since you spend all of your time arguing this point and simply cannot be bothered to read the OP I’ll quote the relevant sentence: > [@The First Sentence in the OP](#): > > In this Pit thread some people seemed to suggest that the use of violent imagery was used equally by politicians, candidates, and **commentators** of both Dem/liberal and Repub/conservative persuasions. Bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/312 "2011-01-13T00:38:11Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > P.S. Starving Artist: As you enjoy your relatively unpolluted air and water, your decent housing and standard of living, your relatively safe food supply, the education you and your children were able to obtain, your civil rights (if you happen to be non-White and/or female), your 40 hour work week, right to unionize and a minimum or higher wage complete with overtime, safety and other protections and recourse for abuse, the interstate highway system, our lovely national parks, unemployment insurance and/or food stamps (should you ever need it/them), Social Security/Medicare in your old age, federally insured bank deposits, etc, etc… > > take a moment and thank a fucking LIBERAL, ok? 🆒 About half of those things I either don’t approve of or think is particularly wonderful in the first place, and of the remaining half I’m unsure that liberalsim is responsible for half of it. So maybe a quarter of the things you mention are worthy of thanking “fucking LIBERALS” for. But even if I were to grant everything you mentioned to the wonders of liberalism, they’re nowhere near worth the negative impact that liberalism has had upon this country in the last 40 years - an impact that has not only resulted in what is probably the most coarse, vulgar and low class society in the western world, but which is literally responsible for millions of lost and ruined lives, lives that wouldn’t have been lost or ruined in the society that existed prior to the late sixties, the problems and inequities of that time notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/313 "2011-01-13T00:40:09Z")
> [@Wilbo523](#): > > Is Sarah Palin literally putting congressman in her rifle sights? No, I don’t believe so, though the imagery could well be misconstrued. But is Angle endorsing some sort of uprising? That is the only possible interpretation of what she said. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/314 "2011-01-13T00:46:09Z")
If you really want to examine the effect of speech by elected officials on the behavior of people who are afraid, feel disenfranchised, are crazy, or whatever, you have to go farther than to simply look at ‘violent’ imagery. You’d have to look at speech that is divisive, that attempts to marginalize those who are out of power or characterize them as un-American or otherwise sow the seeds of class and partisan anger. As an example of Democrat leaders’ speech to that effect, I can offer Obama’s recent claim that the Republicans in Congress were ‘hostage takers’. That both invokes violent imagery and is divisive at a moment that should have been inclusive. We could also look at the societal effects of politicians who attempt to rile up their constituents with claims that they are being disenfranchised, or that they need to rise up and fight back, or that grave injustices are being perpetrated. Class warfare rhetoric can lead to violence, and has many times in the past - including in the U.S. Then you have race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who have taken every possible opportunity to increase the level of anger in their supporters so they could gain more political power. ‘Community Organizers’ are often specifically liberal activists who go out into the community and foster a sense of outrage in order to induce political action. I think all of this is acceptable in a free society, just as the right’s rhetoric is acceptable. But if you’re going to attack the other side, you’d better be prepared to defend the behavior of yours. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/315 "2011-01-13T01:23:55Z")
I _knew_ it was liberal hypocrisy, I just _knew_ it! I was just waiting for official confirmation. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/316 "2011-01-13T02:05:38Z")
> [@Giant\_Robot](#): > > Pot, meet kettle: > > [http://vocalminority.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54f8c22b7883401311002fde9970c-500pi](http://vocalminority.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54f8c22b7883401311002fde9970c-500pi) > > [Hypocrite Sarah Palin-Denouncing Democrats Used ‘Targets’ On Their Maps | Start Thinking Right](http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/hypocrite-sarah-palin-denouncing-democrats-used-targets-on-their-maps/) The lefties looked like dartboards, the righties looked like gunsights. Both are targets, but darts are a lot less threatening. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/317 "2011-01-13T03:39:24Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Time to get past the title and read the fucking post! I’m not insulting your intelligence or reading ability but I am starting to wonder why you are attempting to go down this path when the OP clearly did not narrow the debate to the two parties. Since you spend all of your time arguing this point and simply cannot be bothered to read the OP I’ll quote the relevant sentence:. Jeepers peepers, enough already. I was thinking of spending another 20 minutes discussing how and why I think you are missing my point, but I’m sick of all the bickering, so I’ll turn it over to the OP. Let’s ask ask him if he accepts your cite as relevant. I’ll be perfectly fine with whatever he decides. OP, if you are listening: _Death of a President_: valid example of left-wing aggressively violent imagery, or not? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/318 "2011-01-13T04:52:40Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Jeepers peepers, enough already. I was thinking of spending another 20 minutes discussing how and why I think you are missing my point, but I’m sick of all the bickering, so I’ll turn it over to the OP. Let’s ask ask him if he accepts your cite as relevant. I’ll be perfectly fine with whatever he decides. > > OP, if you are listening: _Death of a President_: valid example of left-wing aggressively violent imagery, or not? This is not about what the OP thinks is aggressively violent. If the OP had the final say then why would we all be here in the first place. My point, which you still fail to get, is that you keep narrowing the group that the OP was referring to. I’ve pointed this out numerous times and you either fail to understand this point or you are deliberately misdirecting for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/319 "2011-01-13T05:59:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If you really want to examine the effect of speech by elected officials… Got it; “elected officials”. So I’m expecting specific examples now of “dangerous” speech by elected officials. > [@](#): > > As an example of Democrat leaders’ speech to that effect, I can offer Obama’s recent claim that the Republicans in Congress were ‘hostage takers’. That both invokes violent imagery and is divisive at a moment that should have been inclusive. The [exact quote](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj60GKsI-Pc) from President Obama’s press conference (White House, December 7th, 2010): “I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.” Though it is possible to characterize this rather vague comparison as “divisive” in isolation (a favorite trick of political spin), the fact of the matter is that it is describing a process which resulted in a real-world compromise, which by definition is pretty inclusive. I agree the metaphor is poorly chosen, but it’s hardly confrontational. If (given the ridiculous examples below) this is the best you can offer on left/right rhetorical equivalence, you are clutching at straws > [@](#): > > We could also look at the societal effects of politicians who attempt to rile up their constituents with claims that they are being disenfranchised, or that they need to rise up and fight back, or that grave injustices are being perpetrated. Class warfare rhetoric can lead to violence, and has many times in the past - including in the U.S. [Sarah Palin](http://thegazette.com/2010/09/17/palin-exhorts-iowans-to-take-back-the-country/comment-page-1/), GOP’s Ronald Reagan Fundraising Dinner, Iowa, September 2010: “It is time to take our country back…it may take some renegades going rogue to get us there.” Y’know, I’m sure we can trade quotes back and forth on this, but I think that somehow missed the point. > [@](#): > > Then you have race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson I was not aware there was an election for chief race-baiter; what public office, exactly, have either of the men been elected to (ooh, you got me; Jesse Jackson was the shadow senator from DC in the 90’s, which is at least as powerful/influential as House Speaker, President, or Fox News Pundit:-)). > [@](#): > > ‘Community Organizers’ are often specifically liberal activists who go out into the community and foster a sense of outrage in order to induce political action. I’d yell “cite” if I weren’t laughing so hard. Do the organizers of local Tea Party groups qualify as “activists who go out into the community and foster a sense of outrage in order to induce political action”? BTW neither position is a public office. > [@](#): > > I think all of this is acceptable in a free society, just as the right’s rhetoric is acceptable. But if you’re going to attack the other side, you’d better be prepared to defend the behavior of yours. Here I wholeheartedly agree. But to be fair, folks like Sarah Palin who’ve taken to Internet video defending their “rights” are engaged in a shell game. I don’t seriously question their right to use such violent rhetoric, but I certainly question their judgement. Just like I question the judgement of anyone who thinks the exaggerated rhetoric of a few left-wing bloggers and commentators is even remotely equivalent to the virulent-yet-routine spew of the GOP leadership. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2011, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228/320 "2011-01-13T11:13:32Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > The lefties looked like dartboards, the righties looked like gunsights. Both are targets, but darts are a lot less threatening. Or arrows… Dems targeting a minority group with their message maybe?😃 Whoops… I said “target”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aggressively-violent-imagery-equal-among-both-parties/567228.md?page=17)