Oh, I totally and absolutely meant that her death from a hunting accident would tickle me pink.
But that’s just me, not “liberals”. So you can go ahead and apologize to these other nice people.
Sorry, liberals. I took a broad-based swipe at you collectively, because I thought it would embarrass DianaG into seeing she was doing a very similar thing to what she was decrying. But you, jointly, didn’t deserve that.
And this apology itself may ring hollow, because I’ve made similar ones before. But … here’s what happens in my mind: I read thread after thread, page after page, criticizing conservatives as a whole, Republicans as a whole, and I begin to feel the need to swipe back. So I do, and then someone calls me on it, and I realize how unfounded it was.
But that understanding doesn’t seem to stick. So all I can say is… I’ll keep working on it.
DianaG – thanks very much for your forthright response… but to tackle what you said plainly, it seems to me to be inconsistent to criticize Palin for wishing injury on her opponents and then wish injury on Palin.
And emacknight – I trust this resolves your complaint.
Well, kinda. Unless you’re suggesting that Sarah Palin, if asked “What ***exactly ***did you mean by reload?”, would be as entirely forthright as I am?
I don’t think she was seriously suggesting that people shoot their congressman – do you?
Not exactly. I think it’s more that she was just throwing it out there and thinking “… but wouldn’t it be *neat *if they did?”
I think there’s a good chance Palin was making a joke. It can be tricky, though, as her “jokes” are often disguised as statements that aren’t funny in the least.
Well, DianaG has admitted she was (semi)serious. Why not Palin?
In the current climate (by which I mean this week), when people have vandalized several congressional headquarters and Eric Cantor wants to claim that someone targeted his office with a gun, and where someone “confronted a driver with an Obama sticker” by running him off the road, it seems reasonable to question if her suggestions really are just simple hyperbole and metaphor, since these things are really happening. If she’s not serious, she might be wise to clarify that, as her statements come off as foolish, irresponsible things to say.
Which was kind of the point of the original thread.
Well, this gets back to the OP of this thread, which you seem to have ignored entirely. If she was complaining about Palin’s remarks being rude or tasteless, then to make similarly rude or tasteless remarks herself would in fact seem inconsistent.
But if she’s complaining about Palin’s remarks being actively dangerous, then I don’t see it as inconsistent at all. Palin is someone who has a LOT of devoted followers, and this is a very polarized and angry time in our national discourse. Therefore, statements she makes have actual potential to lead to real life violence, far far far moreso than statements that a random someone on a message board makes. Not that I’m claiming that these particularly remarks DID cross any line, but it’s certainly not prima facie ridiculous to think they could have. Therefore they need to be held to a different standard. That seems like such a 100% clear slam dunk to me that I almost feel like we must be talking about different things if you disagree. But you seem to disagree. So how am I wrong?
(This reminds me of a previous conversation about Sarah Palin we had, concerning the initial spreading of the Trig-is-her-grandson rumor. I agreed with you that it is irresponsible and unethical (although certainly not illegal) for members of the national media to mention unsubstantiated rumors, even if trying to do so in a cutesy “we’re just reporting it exists” fashion, because doing so inevitably spreads the rumor. Does that mean it’s equally irresponsible and unethical for me to say to some guy over lunch “hey, did you hear the rumor about Sarah Palin”? Of course not. The standards for what you should and should not say:
-in a private conversation
-while giving speech at a political rally
-in a crowded theater
-on a nationally broadcast TV or radio show
-in a book you’re writing
-on a message board
-on a message board that you’re the moderator of
-etc etc etc
are all different. How could they not be?)
Yup, completely.
You know, I think we all learned something here today.
DianaG learned to be more consistent with the things she says, and here criticism of others.
Bricker learned that he has to follow the rules he sets for other people.
And I learned that if I hit reply enough time I’ll eventually win.
I think this relates a lot to our discussion involving the gambling politician and Bill Clinton.
Sarah Palin knows not to come out and suggest that people should shoot their congressmen. The woman and her handlers are not in any way that stupid.
But she wants to say that to play to here base. It’s all part of her wink-wink-nudge-nudge attitude. And her base eats it up, she’s hugely popular because of these comments. She knows that saying “attack liberals” gets her supporters exited, they want to hear it. It’s what they are thinking as they drive behind a stereotypical Prius covered in Obama/Biden stickers. So here is this charismatic leader telling them what they want to hear.
Except that if she came out and said, “attack liberals” she’d be held responsible, so she chooses her words. It’s not “attack” it’s “stop.” And it’s not flat out saying “liberals,” it’s “the driver with an Obama bumper sticker.”
She is saying everything she is allowed to, while still being able to plausibly deny that she was inciting violence.
Which in my mind makes it worse. I’d respect her a lot more if she came out and said, “we’re at war with liberals, when you see a car with an Obama bumper sticker, stop it, and attack the driver.”
I’m not sure how you reach this conclusion. DianaG completely validated my characterization of her remarks. In what way do you feel that I didn’t follow the rules I set for other people?
And there’s no room in your mind for a scenario in which she doesn’t actually want to say such things? There’s no possibility of a Palin that simply said percisely what she meant?
You seem to have arrogated to yourself the absolute power to hear a person’s words, and announce, ex cathedra, what they really mean and what the speaker was really thinking. You are a perfectly reliable source on hypocrisy, given this power, since you can divine the inner thoughts and motivations of all speakers.
Unfortunately, I don’t acknowledge your ability. And since your authoritative pronouncements on hypocrisy seem to rest squarely on your clairvoyance, it’s hard for me to imagine how persuasive they’d be to the general audience.
Hey, Bricker, welcome back to this thread. I thought you’d forgotten it.
Can you respond to my most recent post when you get a chance? Thanks.
I agree that this is a viable distinction.
I’m an independent, and I endorse a Dick Cheney-like hunting trip involving Sarah Palin and one of her “friends” (hopefully Dick Cheney).
An irresponsible or unjustly-inflammatory statement on SDMB might not actually, directly inspire someone to mischief (though you never know)… but that’s not really the point, to me. If Poster X is willing to say something here, it is reasonable to assume that he is willing to say similar things in other venues. Moreover, several thousand readers (most of whom never post) could pick up on it and repeat it elsewhere.
Words and ideas are pretty easily transmissible–now more so than ever–even if the originator is not noteworthy in himself.
As do you (for your mouth, not hers). As do we all.
Agree.
I don’t agree with your second premise, at least not the way I think you mean it. None of us really knows how our speech is going to be used, or what effect it will have on others, once it leaves our mouths, or more especially our keyboards.
When political leaders or well-known pundits say irresponsible things, the fruit of their irresponsibility may well be more immediate and obvious than when anonymous internet posters do the same… but that doesn’t mean the anonymous poster isn’t irresponsible.
Everything I haven’t quoted I agree with. But that assumption is faulty. The Straight Dope Message Board has a certain culture. I’m not going to say anywhere near the same things I say here in real life. Heck, I’m gonna change it even on other message boards.
Immediate and obvious isn’t quite it, though. The thing is, someone in the public eye can have more direct consequences. The chances are much higher that their speech is going to go out further than anything I say. Thus they have a much higher chance of being acted upon by a larger group of people.
There’s an extremely small chance taht something I say here will become popular. Pretty much anything Palin says in public will.
All I said is that the two responsibilities are distinguishable if you believe certain premises. I did not argue that an anonymous poster has no ethical responsibilities.
I said “if one believes that the ethical responsibilities related to speech turn on how that speech influences others, then such a person may legitimately distinguish” the two. IOW, if you believe that the ethics of speech turn in part on how the speech is likely to influence others, then you may legitimately distinguish between a speech act that has a 3% chance of resulting in violence, and one with a .003% chance of having the same result. If you’re with me that far, then the only question is an empirical one of whether the likelihood of inciting violence is greater with the speech of a charismatic leader speaking in person than with an anonymous poster on the internet.
Okay… but why? Does this make sense?
I understand tailoring one’s presentation to the anticipated audience, but I don’t understand saying flat-out different things to different people. That just seems dishonest.
(Bolding mine.) I guess I have to say that I don’t accept this idea that it’s all about chances.
Deliberately simple example: Suppose a radio pundit says, “Obama should be shot,” and is heard by a few hundred thousand people. At the same moment, a citizen in a restaurant says, “Obama should be shot,” and is heard by a couple dozen people. Clearly at a theoretical level, the radio pundit’s speech has a greater chance of being heard by someone who will act upon it. But suppose the one guy who will act upon it happens to be in the restaurant. Obama is assassinated. Is the restaurant speech still more ethical than the radio? If not, then how can it have been more ethical before it was known who would or would not act upon it?
The premise of my whole argument was that you think the ethics of the situation depends on the influence of the speech. If you reject that premise, that’s fine, but you cannot then call the poster hypocritical who accepts that premise.
You seem to be saying that influence is a binary thing – either it does influence someone to commit a violent act, or it does not, and you cannot know that it will or will not ex ante. That’s a perfectly fine position, but for the purposes of this thread the question would be whether the people who hold the premise in question define influence that way. I think it more likely that they see influence as a proportional thing, such that the more people one influences the higher the reasonable expectation that one of those people will commit a violent act. Plenty of ordinary ethical situations, in most people’s belief systems, turn on whether some result is likely or whether it is just possible.