Yeah, those mean liberals, asking the right to be polite. If they’re wetting their beds over that and calling it censorship, they’re bigger pussies than I previously thought.
When I see someone from the Democratic party ask the President to be polite and apologize for his remarks regarding “bringing a gun to a knife fight”, then I will believe that the request for Palin and other conservative pundits to be polite are genuine.
I am reminded of an anecdote told by the late William Tenn. During his Army days, an officer warned him not to trust journalists and professors because “they’re all socialists”. The warning had the unintended result of suggesting that there might be something to this “socialism” business if the best-informed people and the best-educated people supported it.
Hmm. You seem to be pretty much by yourself in being unable to perceive that the likes of Palin and Limbaugh frequently rely on aggressively violent imagery. I’m not even sure they would deny it. Of course, that is not at all the same as saying that they actualy encourage or desire violence towards any specific individual or group (tho in a different thread we might debate the validity of such distinctions.)
There are anecdotes all over the place. Heck - even good old TJ recommended watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants every so often. But at some point I beieve anecdotes add up to a point that for one to deny a apparent generalization (absent a mighty fine counterargument) pretty much represents sticking one’s head in the sand. And simply refusing to join in the discussion does not IMO constitute a mighty fine counter.
If you will notice, I very carefully tried to avoid any such suggestion in my OP, and am dismayed (tho not entirely surprised) at attempts by partisans on both sides to bring that into this discussion. In terms of length, tis is one of my most successful threads ever. But in terms of spurring the type of debate I had hoped for, it’s about as unsuccessful as any I have started.
I give a shit. I decry the increasingly ugly tone I hear in so much of politics and social issues, and the general decrease of civility across our society. If one were trying to address something like pollution, wouldn’t it help to identify the worst polluters?
Not from an ideological standpoint. This is much akin to Al Gore and his global warming crusade running about in big ass gas guzzling brigades.
It’s either wrong or it’s not, for EVERYONE. To do othewise is like drawing a magical line in the sand that says ‘do not cross’
As Shodan points out, who gets to draw the line?
As you say, who gives a shit? I don’t see any reasonable way of calculating an increase in violent political speech.
It’s not about coercion, and anyone who thinks it is apparently doesn’t understand the First Amendment. Sarah Palin, et al, have the right to whatever nutbar speech they like. I have a right to call them douchebags for exercising it. See how that works?
Does anyone (including you) think Obama was speaking literally?
Let me guess, you’ve got a 100 page blog screed we need to read “to be informed”?
You realize you sound like a crackpot, right? People who aren’t crackpots usually can justify their argument and present decent cites.
If this was a court of law and you blubbered to the judge “the mean lawyer will argue against my evidence!”, and then refused to present the evidence you asserted, what would happen to your career?
OH MY FUCKING GOD!!! This is why I hate GD, because most LWNJ posters can’t see both sides.
You want Palin and others on the right to sit down and humbly listen to your request to be polite and tone down the “violent rhetoric” because they are responsible for 60% of it. Yet, when the POTUS, the actual leader of the free world, whom should be held to a higher standard than all of us, is guilty of the same thing, it is dismissed as, “well he wasn’t speaking literally”. I’m pretty sure if you look upthread I have asked the same thing about the Palin map, et. al.
Of course I don’t think he was speaking literally. YOU are the one that wants everyone to be POLITE, yet you don’t have the same expectation that the Democratic party ask that of their own leader. Jeez!!!
No U.
Why is the ugly tone so bad? They are metaphors. The American people are divided on the directions our country should be taking. It’s a fight in congress. There’s no reason to expect journalist, commentators, and even office holders themselves to not describe the process as a battle, a fight, a war.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t give a shit what somebody who calls me a left wing nut job thinks. In any event, I would be willing to give Palin the benefit of the same doubt if she wasn’t constantly using violent rhetoric. The fact that you have to go back to 2008 to find an example of Obama saying something comparable… well, you don’t see that as significant?
People expected football players and analysts to fall over themselves not to describe football games as wars in 2001 and 2003, as though anyone might actually be offended.
To repeat a truism, the plural of anecdote is not data. I would have thought that was obvious.
If you want to trade anecdotes, on a board like this where lefties outnumber everyone else by four or five to one, sure you will win that kind of argument - no one else has that kind of free time. And especially when either side can just wave away whatever they don’t like.
Do you believe that Sarah Palin was calling for anyone’s assassination on her website?
Regards,
Shodan
No, not at all. However, I think the odds of somebody taking Palin too literally are significantly higher than the odds of somebody taking Obama too literally.
As soon as you have any kind of evidence for this, or that someone was motivated to violence by a misunderstanding of something a politician said, I hope you will post it.
Regards,
Shodan
Based on what? Your 60% analysis? :rolleyes:
Libs are just pissed off that Palin et al were successful in motivating their voter base this past November. The events in Tuscon are a convenient event to try shine a negative light on their tactics.
Candidates, pundits, etc. use speech and communication to motivate voters. Motivate them to contact their representatives. Motivate them to contribute money. Motivate them to vote.
If the winds that carry the mood of the country blows to violent talk being insensitive, politically incorrect, etc. trust me a marketing advisers will counsel political speakers to tone it down. Because it will be ineffective. And politicians and pundits are all about being effective in their marketing. It’s not personal it’s about being effective.
As I suggested, this is a perfectly fine discussion for another thread.
Shodan - you truly believe it is merely unreliable anecdote to say that someone like Palin or Limbaugh relies on aggressive and violent data? Even Bricker does not have his head so deep in the sand as to prevent him from acknowledging as much.
Let’s try the trail of breadcrumbs approach. Answer me this: do you think militia types are more likely to support Palin or Obama?
If all they care about is being effective, then presumably it doesn’t matter to them whether I think they’re being irresponsible.
And please stop with the retarded “60%” thing. That was a number you pulled out of your ass. I don’t understand why you keep throwing it into responses to my posts, but it’s annoying, and kind of stalkerish.
A cite was given. The cite was dismissed because it came from Michelle Malkin. That’s not refusing to give evidence. That’s being held to an absurd standard of evidence: “I won’t read your cite because I don’t trust the source.”
Assuming I accept this, it is still evidence against the point being made: the claim that most journalists are right of center. You are arguing that most journalists are actually left of center, and it’s because they are well informed and well educated. Very well, for the purposes of this discussion I accept that: left of center is the place to be, as evidenced by the quality of the people occupying that position. Which includes most journalists.
Therefore, the claim that most journalists are right of center is inaccurate.