Aggressively violent imagery - equal among both parties?

Great Debates
141

Have any of you actually bothered to look at the Michelle Malkin page? It’s a collection of well known images from protests, videos of left-wing violence, etc. There’s a LOT of it.

I find the whole notion that the left never engages in violent imagery to be just bizarre. You can’t walk three feet at a left-wing protest without seeing a Che Guevara T-shirt or poster. The far left steeps itself in violent revolutionary imagery. Che Guevara was Castro’s hatchet man and the murderer of many innocent people. But many people on the left treat him as a hero.

The far left has the “Smash the State” movement which overtly calls for violent overthrow of the government.

I don’t recall police with riot shields being called out at any Tea Party protests, but they sure were called out in Cincinnati last year when a left-wing protest turned violent.

The only actual violence that has happened at Tea Party protests in the last two years was violence instigated by lefties and union members. Michelle Malkin’s page has video of some left-wing thugs chasing down a person and beating him. A man at a Tea Party protest last year was beaten by SEUI goons and sent to the hospital.

Right-wing college speakers have to have security assigned to them for their protection. And for good reason, since they are routinely attacked, shouted down, and harassed. Some right-wing speakers have had their engagements canceled because the university was afraid of violence breaking out. Left wing speakers? Not so much.

Bill Ayers, friend to the President of the United States, was not only a terrorist in the 1960’s and 1970’s, but he has said in recent interviews that violence may still be necessary and that he regrets nothing he did.

Does anyone remember the violence that broke out at the 2008 Republican National Convention? Left-wing protesters threw bricks at buses full of convention goers, and dropped bags of sand from overpasses at vehicles passing into the convention area - that’s attempted murder, btw. It’s well known that heavy objects dropped into the windshields of moving cars can kill the occupants. We recently had a murder trial in my city over a case where a man was killed in just that way.

From the LA Times:

Outside the GOP convention, protests, violence and arrests

I can’t imagine the hysteria that would be taking place around here if 10,000 tea Party members descended on a Democrat convention and torched the streets and tried to kill people, with 135 Tea Party members from multiple organizations around the country being charged with felonies as a result. You’d probably be calling for Sarah Palin to be arrested for incitement to riot.

And of course, who can forget the Seattle WTO Riots?

142

N/M

143

Your entire post is a coprophilic mass of equivocation. None of the groups you are referring to gather anything like 30% support amongst Americans. And no one here has suggested that those groups should not tone down their rhetoric.

So for your post to go beyond meaningless drivel in this context, it would have to refer to popular yet violent speech which the majority of people here have apologized for (this presumably being a far-left site), and it fails on at least two of these three counts (and partly on the violent part, as well, as not all of the examples are a blatant call for violence.)

144

Really? So, since Palin’s map didn’t suggest assassinating anyone then it is irrelevant? Well, I guess neither side has displayed “aggressively violent imagery”

I’d say you don’t think much before you post. You can’t imagine that the film in question portraying the assassination of a sitting president, as opposed to a fictional president, may cause the same harm that many here have claimed was caused by a map with gunsights on it?

I suppose you missed the word “commentator” in the OP? Or do you believe that works of art cannot ever be considered commentary?

Not particularly.

145

I’ve made this assertion in a different thread but it bears repeating here:

Populist movements, by their very nature, produce leaders who try to whip up the people against “the elite” and are prone to over the top rhetoric. Right now the populist movement is of the Right and the Democratic Party consists more of those who may considered more “statist” - Obama, for all his hope and change rhetoric, is an intellectual elite. The GOP has had more significant populist threads than the Democratic Party has for at least since Reagan. Which is not to say that there are not populist threads in the Left, but is to say they are less the mainstream of the Democratic Party or of those Left of center, whereas populism is a major theme on the Right and in the GOP.

Because of THAT the Right tends to produce the more vitriolic rhetoric.

146

Aaaand, the rest of your post is meaningless, because comparing leftist individuals to conservative candidates doesn’t mean squat. Yes, there have been violent leftists in the past. But we don’t nominate them for federal office. You conservatives just can’t help voting for your extremist whackjobs.

That is the difference between liberals and conservatives; we don’t glorify the violent extremists the way you do, and we don’t reward them with high office.

147

Sam, I don’t think anyone here is denying that radicals on both sides of the fence have long advocated and used violence for political ends. The question is whether images of violence are creeping into mainstream political dialog.

Of course anarchists are smashing things up at WTO meetings. They are anarchists, not Democrats. And of course white supremacists are going to use violence for their ends, too – but stormfronters aren’t Republicans.

Now, this whole sideshow of OMG someone said they want to abort Sarah Palin! or OMG this gun nut issued a liberal hunting license! is really of no larger significance. There are nuts on every side of an issue.

What I have said in a different thread is that the tone of “mainstream” political speech is increasingly dehumanizing, and yes, I find it more on the right than on the left (that punk Alan Greyson notwithstanding). It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the more political speech dehumanizes one’s political opponents (who really aren’t terribly different from each other – it isn’t like we’re fighting the Spanish civil war in the United States, it’s just two parties who both like the Constitution) of course violence is going to become more likely.

148

I’d like to see a cite for that. But let’s assume that it is true, in this instance she just compiled evidence. Ignore the commentary and look directly at the links.

149

Sam Stone - Che Guevara? Seriously? Are you hanging out on college campuses all the time or something? No adults on the mainstream Left are hero-worshipping Che. Communism is over. The only people wearing Che T-shirts today are college kids who don’t really know who he was.

150

No. I have seen evidence that Michelle Malkin can’t be trusted. Source those images yourself and present them if you think they are valid.

151

Between, not among. I find the use of “among” when linking two entities to be the epitome of violent imagery. :wink:

The folks on the right are more likely to embrace military action, police action, hunting, violent sports, etc. It seems natural that they would carry that imagery into the political sphere. They are more likely to focus on punishment as a way of correcting societal problems.

On the left, it’s really only the fringe who embrace violence as a means towards an end when dealing with domestic issues. If anything, one would expect the left to use imagery from psychology or sociology in the political sphere. They are more likely to focus on the intervention side of things when dealing with societal problems.

These are obviously oversimplifications, but I think the do explain the greater prevalence of violent imagery in the Republican Party. That is not to say that the Democrats don’t use violent imagery-- they do. The difference being in quantity and degree, but not in kind.

152

If you demonstrate such a desire to keep your fingers in your ears yelling “lalalalalalala”, why should I take time out my day and jolt you out of your fun? :rolleyes:

I’m content having revealed the degree to which you’re interested in looking at the facts in how they apply to the OP.

Keep those fingers jammed in now. And keep those blinders on, or Michelle Malkin is gonna get you.

And I’m waiting for that cite.

153

I am perfectly willing to look at anything that comes from a reliable source. I would assume you have none.

If you want to play the cite game,here. A cite based on your concept of cite, of Michelle Malkin’s dishonesty. I wouldn’t give that guy any credence either, but apparently biased ranting is your idea of facts. You can search on ‘michelle malkin lies’ and get about 340,000 results. Or you could source some information yourself if it actually existed.

154

He is a dose of nostalgia, isn’t he? And “Smash the state!” Trashman comics, as I recall, always closed with that line “Kids! Don’t forget to smash the state!”. That was maybe 1970, and it was already wrapped in a thick layer of irony.

Sam, Che wasn’t Che. Perhaps nobody could be Che, actually embody the spirit of revolutionary justice, its not human. Its symbolic, Sam, and the vast majority of people wearing such a shirt know that, Its like your information about the left froze solid around 1970, and hasn’t been altered since. You go on and on about “labor bosses”, bringing to mind old editorial cartoons about beetle-browed, cigar-chomping ethnics.

If I looked carefully enough, might I find a post where you rag on the left for its blind obedience to Joan Baez?

155

Actually, I was basing it on what I’ve seen the majority of liberals say they think over the last few days. Like all generalizations, there are exceptions and you’re apparently one of the exceptions.

NRA types don’t view guns as about mexican druglords, known criminals, or the mentally ill. Look at some NRA literature sometime, it’s about freedom and passing on tradition with a large dose of John Wayne type manliness thrown in. Even while claiming I’m in paranoid fantasies, you did an excellent job of illustrating how the left views guns as violent while the right does not. Thank you for proving my point.

156

Let’s follow this out. Evidence of what?

157

Some small actual data from Fivethirtyeight:

So Democrats in power has apparently resulted in more “credible threats” made against members of Congress and the President. Make of that what you will.

158

Sam, did she include the violence at the 1968 Democratic Convention aimed at that well known right wing operative Hubert Humphrey?

Why don’t you read the thread and get back to us. We’re talking about the words of significant political figures. During the Clinton years the militia movement was full of violent rhetoric, but in those kinder, gentler times no leading Republican was saying anything that could be interpreted as encouraging them, and so no one was upset.
In the meantime stop wasting our time.

159

I pointed to you to a page that had the actual material. I told you to ignore any commentary by Malkin. Just look at the links. The links won’t magically change if I go and repost them. So, sorry, friend, I’ll let your unflinching refusal to expose yourself to information stand proud for all to see.

This is Great Debates. Asking someone to do busy-work and simply repost what already exists shows that you are unserious.

Ha. I don’t play the cite game, and ask for them very infrequently. But you made a claim and I did ask you to substantiate it. Which you haven’t, as it just shows one instance of Malkin “lying”. “Why the quotes around ‘lying’” you ask? Well, if you would have taken the time to read your own cite, you might have come across this"

Guess I can’t expect you to read other’s links when you don’t bother to read your own. So, you can go right back to your blinders and "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala"s.

160

This:

For the purposes of this discussion it’s really not all that important, as I’m not asking him to accept ANY of her commentary, but I just wanted to see where he was operating from.

Now I know.