# Am I a hypocritical little Lib? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2011, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201 "2011-01-11T06:39:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/21 "2011-01-11T15:58:47Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > I don’t think it has anything to do with ‘art’ versus ‘politics’ or ‘entertainment’ or ‘opinion’ or ‘news.’ It’s a matter of message and effect. > > I think if you’re a liberal who denies any possibility that popular entertainments, especially those enjoyed by adolescents, are capable of shaping their audience in counterproductive ways, then yes, you’re intellectually inconsistent to be concerned about the dangers of political commentary, and you’re hypocritical if you call for action against one form of influence but not the other. Not at all. There’s no evidence I know of that violent computer games make adolescents more violent; if anything they appear to have the opposite effect. People on the other hand have used speeches to create violence as long as humans have been able to talk; and not just with mere adolecents. You might as well try to claim that a pillow and a battleaxe are equally effective weapons. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/22 "2011-01-11T16:01:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > There’s no evidence I know of that violent computer games make adolescents more violent; **if anything they appear to have the opposite effect**. So you agree that this form of entertainment is capable of influencing its audience? ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/23 "2011-01-11T16:02:30Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Yeah, but liberals were the ones leading the charge. Or Dems, anyway. _For the children_, of course. Pubbies get distracted easily by particulars, especially anything to do with patriotism or religion, but if video games or rap as an entire genre were banned or heavily restricted I’d expect the Dems to have played the biggest role. As a hardcore video game nerd I thank my lucky power stars that Hillary didn’t become POTUS. Do you really think that Hillary would have been spending all her time working on ways to keep nerds from their video games? Besides, back when (some) Democrats were anti rap/video games, did anything actually get banned? I thought there were a few warning labels put on them. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/24 "2011-01-11T16:09:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Just as it’s wrong to make speeches to a bunch of conservatives that they should go and kill government officials or gays or doctors is wrong, because it’s a reasonable worry that they’ll do just that; they have. Pssst… right here is the part where you’re supposed to add, "Of course, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly have NEVER done or said ANYTHING remotely like this, so it’s an absurdly moot point. I won’t hold my breath. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/25 "2011-01-11T16:10:18Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > How can I reconcile this? How do all of the rest of the Liberal-minded folks here do this since I know that I am not alone in how I feel about these two different, but connected ideas? To my mind, the solution is to (a) hold people who spread messages of hate and fear in distain, to the extent that they are doing so deliberately (seperating out for example artists who merely _depict_ hate and fear); yet (b) support their legal right to do so regardless. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/26 "2011-01-11T16:23:21Z")
Certainly, at this point in what we know, Loughner is more easily connected to Drowning Pool than to Palin. The band has released statements that they are appalled that anyone would see violent themes in “Bodies (Let The Bodies Hit The Floor).” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/27 "2011-01-11T16:36:20Z")
There is a pretty obvious difference between politics and entertainment. That said, Glenn Beck cleverly holds himself out as an entertainer. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/28 "2011-01-11T16:41:02Z")
Before anyone goes off half cocked and blames Sarah Palin for politically motivated violence, it might be instructive to look at our own country’s founding narrative. Every child learns in school about the “patriots” how took up arms (2nd amendment remedies, anyone?) against a remote, “tyrannical” government that wanted to impose a modest tax on tea. Our country was founded in violence, and violence pervades almost every aspect of our entertainment. As far as inciting people to violence, Sarah Palin is pissing in the ocean. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/29 "2011-01-11T16:44:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > There is a pretty obvious difference between politics and entertainment. That said, Glenn Beck cleverly holds himself out as an entertainer. In terms of how they have an effect on most people’s behavior, I think this is true, and that entertainment is far and away more influential. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/30 "2011-01-11T16:54:30Z")
:dubious: Clothing purchases, maybe. But do you really think anyone is pro-choice because of something they heard on TRL? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/31 "2011-01-11T17:03:14Z")
The country as founded included subjugation of blacks and deliberate marginalization of indigenous peoples. The bloodiest war the country has ever fought was a civil war over the institution of negro slavery. Because of this history, racism was endemic and systemic in the US South of the 60’s, therefore it was half cocked to criticize George Wallace and Lester Maddox. They were just pissing in the ocean. People form their beliefs based on what they hear in the house and from their peers. They base their politics on what they hear from the people they choose to regard as ‘leaders’, whether they’re politicians, pundits, preachers or Bubba down by the store. Some leaders suck, in various varieties of suckitude, but as long as they’re regarded as worth listening to they’re influential among the folks that so regard them. If we care in general about what they’re talking about, we should also care about what they say. ---
**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 11, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/32 "2011-01-11T17:22:15Z")
Let’s just ask ourselves one thing: for all the political violence in the world, do people just spontaneously and coincidentally decide to start revolutions, ethnic cleansing, uprisings, rebellions, and so on? Are these events all rooted in some mystical, unspoken power which drives men to take up arms? Was the French revolution caused by some particularly rambunctious harpsichord tunes? Was the civil war in Sierra Leone caused by an ill-considered TV cop drama aired before safe harbor hours? No, of course not. They were driven by political speech. Of course political speech is, in a sense, more dangerous, because for better or for worse, it is an explicit call for people to DO something. That is, do something besides dance, chuckle, or be entertained. And it is specifically real in character – aside from metaphors or conspiracy theories, political speech is about the real world, not fictional or imagined situations. Now, do I think Palin et al are responsible for the shooting? Eh, clearly they were not actually calling for people to go out and do violence. But the trend toward more hostile political speech is of course going to have an effect on people. Surely the crazy will take it too far and do terrible things, but I think even normally sane people will, at some point, dehumanize the political opposition over what are, in reality, trivial matters. I refer to things like Senator Chambliss comparing his Democratic predecessor to Osama bin Laden in a TV ad; or calling Julian Assange a terrorist (as much as I hate that son of a bitch); or Mrs. Angle’s “second amendment remedy” nonsense. I think in another thread someone quoted various liberal comments of similar intolerant comments. Whether such speech specifically motivates acts of violence is debatable, but the dehumanization of fellow Americans who, in the big picture, aren’t all that different from you and I is a bad thing, so it can hardly be a surprise that violence is a foreseeable consequence of trying to make political opponents into enemies of America. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/33 "2011-01-11T17:52:47Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Pssst… right here is the part where you’re supposed to add, "Of course, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly have NEVER done or said ANYTHING remotely like this, so it’s an absurdly moot point. > > I won’t hold my breath. Why would I? It would be a lie. They and other prominent right wing figures constantly encourage violence towards their political enemies, and I don’t believe for a moment they don’t know what they are doing. Palin I’m sure did things like label politicians she didn’t like with a gunsight symbol specifically in hopes that they would be intimidated, and in the hopes some would be attacked or murdered. That’s what the right has been doing for years; whipping up the crazies until one of them attacks someone, then crying crocodile tears and lying about how they never intended that. Then going right back to whipping up the crazies. They do it with abortion, they did it with the health care bill, they do it with their political opponents; it is essentially a legal form of terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/34 "2011-01-11T17:57:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I congratulate the OP on having the honesty to post this thread. > > But I can’t help noticing that the OP’s question is basically “Help me find a rationale that allows me to keep both beliefs,” and not “…or maybe I need to discard one belief as wrong…” Possibly becuse, after much soul-searching and also discussions with the Ms. JSLE, I have come to the conclusion that, as others have intimated here, context and medium are important distinctions. Entertainers and artists are in a different medium than pundits and politicians. Art, though sometimes employing the spoken word, is a different medium than speeches, op-eds, and pulpit-pounding. It is designed for a different effect and a different audience. The line is blurred these days, much more so than ever, which is what I think the cause of my conundrum is more than anything. There was a huge difference between 2 Live Crew and Tom Brokow, whereas the difference between Rage Against The Machine and Jon Stewart is less apparent. While one can argue that the influence of art upon people is just as profound, if not more so, than that of politicians and pundits, the intent is not the same. Even the most politically-motivated artistic statements - or on the other side, the most puerile - is not created for the same reasons as what some call hate speech in the media. In short, there are levels of accountability at play here. Notice I don’t say influence, but accountability. I feel, for example, that the level of accountability for horrorcore rap artists when Richard McCroskey commits quadruple homicide in Virginia is not the absolute moral equivalent to the Tucson shooter taking up arms because of Fox News and Sarah Palin. To use an example, there was a counterculture that used the arts to protest the war in Vietnam for decades. However, no matter how persuasive and large this movement would become, it wasn’t until Walter Cronkite and others in the media and political realm started to question things that the business of ending that war really started to come to a head. So, no, I don’t think I am hypocritical with the two thoughts in my OP now. More evidence: In the wake of the shooting, you had Sarah Palin deleting the infamous crosshairs image from her website. You now have Joe Manchin (D-Wva) who would [reconsider using guns in his ads](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028128-503544.html) since this tragedy unfolded. WIth a few notable exceptions, you see people either trying to cover up their influence or admit that they should probably do things differently in today’s climate. When the arts come under attack, the arts don’t go away. The art doesn’t go away (unless the corporations behind the marketing of the art insist, such as when “Cop Killer” was taken off of Body Count records; the band still played the track live anyway). In most cases, the artists stand by their artistic statements even if they regret how a fringe might have taken it. Finally, for those on the conservative side who are quick to see the OP and say “Yeah, see you are a hypocrite?” I ask of you: Do you hold the Bible accountable for all of the violence that has caused? Or just the Koran? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/35 "2011-01-11T18:25:01Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I cannot help but see a very problematic double standard above and I don’t know how I can say “A band should be able to release whatever lyrics they want and not be responsible for the small percentage of fucked up individuals who take it the wrong way” and at the same time say “Sarah Palin and Fox News need to calm the rhetoric because of a small percentage of fucked up individuals who take it the wrong way.” What does “responsible” mean? Are you thinking of law or morality? I hold everybody–politicians, artists, _everybody_–morally accountable for the content of their speech. I have been known to carefully recant or restate my own ill-considered remarks a time or two, even in contexts where it would seem unlikely that there could be any “real” consequences. I think some recent political rhetoric _has_ been irresponsible and hurtful to the country, and I do urge people to think more about the implications and possible consequences of what they say. I will continue to defend their free expression in any case. > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Entertainers and artists are in a different medium than pundits and politicians. Art, though sometimes employing the spoken word, is a different medium than speeches, op-eds, and pulpit-pounding. It is designed for a different effect and a different audience. > > The line is blurred these days, much more so than ever, which is what I think the cause of my conundrum is more than anything. There was a huge difference between 2 Live Crew and Tom Brokow, whereas the difference between Rage Against The Machine and Jon Stewart is less apparent. I think the blurred continuum is much more the reality than the arbitrary distinctions between kinds of expression. _All_ human expression is ultimately part of the same society. Ripples go out from everything we ever “say,” in whatever medium. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/36 "2011-01-11T18:36:50Z")
And another thing: it’s called Fox News, not Fox Entertainment. The same can be said for MSNBC is that will allow conservative-minded folks from getting their panties in a wad. Jon Stewart has often been accused of being able to hide from “responsibility” because he gets to exchange his entertainer and pundit hats whenever it is convenient for him. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin - who is a political figure, the disingenuous arguments above that a VP candidate just two years ago who spent many years in civil service is somehow not political notwithstanding - stars in reality TV. The lines between entertainment and arts with political authority have blurred. I think that has a lot to do with this issue. But I think you can take someone who is frustratingly ambiguous such as Jon Stewart and use him as the outlier here. Regardless of whether Glenn Beck is a political pundit or an entertainer is irrelevant because he is employed by what is called a news organization and he is paid to opine on things political. Stewart is employed by Comedy Central, an organizastion that I am sure would not care if Stewart did nothing but dick jokes if it meant getting good ratings. In an era where entertainment and politics are so closely intertwined, I think intent is an important distinction. If anyone doesn’t see that the intent between Stewart and Limbaugh are vastly different, I feel they are being purposefully obtuse. And in the case of influencing people, I think intent matters. To use the old “Yelling fire in a crowded theater” cannard as an example, you will notice that it isn’t just about yelling “Fire.” The crowd in the theater is what matters. The audience is what matters. The context is everything. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/37 "2011-01-11T18:45:28Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > If anyone doesn’t see that the intent between Stewart and Limbaugh are vastly different, I feel they are being purposefully obtuse. Broadly speaking, both intend to entertain their audiences (and make a living at it), and both also intend to advance their political views. Do they not? Stewart _presents_ himself as primarily an entertainer and Limbaugh _presents_ himself as primarily a serious pundit, but I’m not sure the form (not to say the content, of course) of what they do shows as bright a line between them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/38 "2011-01-11T19:03:34Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Broadly speaking, both intend to entertain their audiences (and make a living at it), and both also intend to advance their political views. Do they not? > > Stewart _presents_ himself as primarily an entertainer and Limbaugh _presents_ himself as primarily a serious pundit, but I’m not sure the form (not to say the content, of course) of what they do shows as bright a line between them. If all things are equal (not saying they are in this case - I think that Limbaugh attempts to spread his views in an entertaining manner while Stewart is an entertainer with views and that there is a distinction - but assuming equivilance) then the issue then, I think, is how they are percieved as much (if not more so) than what their intent is. And by percieved I mean by their core audience. I think if you ask Limbaugh’s core audience their perception of him and do the same with Stewart’s of their perception of him, you would get vastly different responses. And that is not trivial to this discussion, I don’t think. ---
**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 11, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/39 "2011-01-11T19:12:20Z")
And in both circles, entertainer’s and political pundits, metaphors have the same meaning…not literal. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201/40 "2011-01-11T19:14:31Z")
I do think that there is a clear distinction between art and politics, and that it has a clear effect on how influential a message is, but I don’t think it means that anyone other than the actor has any responsibility for those actions. Most people have come to accept the idea that music, movies, and games that have violence or other messages aren’t responsible, but if we extend that to those messages, why not to all? For instance, I hear a song that incites violence, I don’t hold those beliefs, I’m a stable individual, so I don’t do it. Then I hear a politician say something that could incite violence, but I don’t believe in violence and I’m stable, so I don’t do it. However, if I did it in either case, how does it not still take some already established belief or some level of instability to act that way anyway? And if someone is at a point where some random message from some random person will get them to be violent, who’s to say some other random message wouldn’t get them to do something equally as bad? The bottom line is that freedom of speech is a wonderful freedom, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some downsides in that sometimes people will abuse it to spread hate, fear, or other messages. These people who incite violence are douchebags of the first order, but it still takes the actions of someone else to do it. But the problem isn’t that there’s these douchebags spreading these messages, its that there’s not enough people spreading the right messages. One may favor one media outlet or another, and they get noticed because they are loud and their messages are designed to trigger our insecurities and fears. So how do we respond? We can either decry the bad messages, give them blame, maybe ban or limit them, and all the negative consequences that go with that, or we can expand our freedom, taking advantage of it and drowning out those bad messages with good ones. So, yes, IMO, the OP is being hypocritical. You can either blame a message for the actions of the receiver, or you can’t. Yes, some sources are more likely to be more influential, but a politician or musician ultimately bares no more responsibility than the crazy old guy ranting on the corner for the actions of anyone who hears their messages. If you don’t like what Fox News says or MSNBC says or whatever, the answer isn’t to point fingers and create more divisiveness, but to work hard to disprove their messages and undermine their credibility so people won’t listen to them more in the future. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-a-hypocritical-little-lib/567201.md?page=3)