Indeed; WHY NOT. Not, WHY NOT?
If you read the article in question -here you go - the article concludes with its, well, conclusion;
Conservatives are probably too busy working.
Please don’t tell me you fell for that. “Plausible deniability” is the term used when someone wants to disavow something they clearly favor but don’t want to take responsibility for. The purpose of the cover was to make the statement; the purpose of the article was to provide plausible deniability that the cover was the statement.
Yes, it was. You can watch the video for yourself if you like, and you can clearly see the “victim” assaulting the shooter up to the point where he was shot. Here’s one edited for maximum clarity by somebody who is against Milo.
It’s been my theory all along that this is the reason for the smaller crowd for Trump’s inauguration that there was for Obama’s or for the women’s march.
Well that, and the fact there was no nationwide effort made to bus or otherwise get them there at no cost to themselves.
What leads you to assume that’s the situation in this case?
And out of curiosity, assuming you don’t just regularly read left-wing Irish media, from where did you first discover this cover? Could I get a link?
Life experience combined with decades of watching liberal extremists resort to violence in an effort to get their way or in response to not getting their way.
Sure, it’s currently up on Drudge, along with a cover from Der Spiegel showing Trump apparently taking a cue from ISIS and having cut the head off the Statue of Liberty with a large bloody knife.
This is gotta be the most intellectually dishonest thing I have seen in a very long time. On the 'Dope, that is saying a lot.
I will break it down for you into little tiny easy to understand pieces:
2017 Berkeley riots: Liberals burning shit and breaking things because they are mad
2016 Ongoing Anti Trump protests: Liberals burning shit and breaking things because they are mad
2017 Washington DC anti-Trump riots: Liberals burning shit and breaking things because they are mad
2016 Oakland anti-Trump riots: Liberals burning shit and breaking things because they are mad
2016 Dakota Access Pipeline protest: Liberals burning shit and breaking things because they are mad
2016 Charlotte riot: Liberals burning shit and breaking things because they are mad
2016 Milwaukee riot: Liberals burning shit and breaking things because they are mad
Oh my, you claimed that there were 3 examples of leftist violence. Going backwards, the first 7 were leftist. Though it appears one, the Democracy Spring protests, didn’t actually burn anything. Yay liberals!
Shall we keep going? Sure, why not.
2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest: 5 people injured along with two police officers. Liberals yet again breaking shit.
2016 - Anaheim, California: KKK rally. 3 people stabbed, 13 arrested. Now, I am sure you will want to claim that the KKK is actually the Republican party. However, I don’t hold that view. But, being generous, we will call this on right.
So far we are at 8 to 1 with the liberals racing ahead.
2016 – Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge: The Bundy idiots. We will call them on the right so we are at 8 to 2.
2015 Baltimore protests: Liberals burning shit and breaking things
2014 New York/Berkeley/ Eric Garner protests: Turned violent in California.
2014 Ferguson unrest: More liberals breaking shit and burning things
2013 Flatbush Riots: Liberals breaking shit and burning things in Brookland
2012 Anaheim police shootings and protests: Violence after a shooting. Call this one situational and therefore not on either side.
2012 NATO 2012 Chicago Summit.
2011 Occupy Wall Street Oakland: Liberals yet again breaking shit and burning things
2011 Occupy Wall Street Brookland: No real harm. Call this one ok.
2011 Penn State riot over firing Paterno: Sports
2010 Oakland Protest Riot: Yet again with the burning and breaking of things.
2010 Westlake District Riots: Riots after police shooting. Call this one situational.
2010 Bart verdict riot: Liberals yet again taking out their anger by breaking things.
2010 Santa Cruz May Day Riot: Leftists burn shit and break things again.
2010 Springfest riot: College party gone wrong.
Now we are at 19 liberal, 2 right, 1 sports related and 2 situational. Oh, and a party. So out of 25, 19 are from the left.
Now, that is only going back 7 years. However, the numbers don’t change much going back to 1970.
I showed my work going back through 2010. Your turn.
Slee
Are the contributors to this magazine liberal extremists?
Too, I’m unsure that your life experience would be a good measure as applied to a single situation unless that life experience leads you believe that at all times and in all cases such people resort to violence (I’m assuming you’re including incitement of violence in that, given that there isn’t any violence even assuming your view of the magazine).
Thank you. I’m afraid I’m not great at navigating Drudge at the best of times - is their reference to it solely that picture of the cover at the top?
Correct. Drudge linked to neither mag. This isn’t uncommon on Drudge, even with non-political images.
Long post incoming. Apologies.
Not from the list you gave, I’m afraid.
No way to narrow this down to leftists alone from the list.
Likewise, no way to know this is “liberals”. There aren’t even any cites here; how are you getting liberals to blame from this list? Are you presupposing a lack of counter-protestors?
Oddly, you’ve set up this list as a lookalike to the one you cite… except you’ve split one bullet point into two to get this one. Bad form. Regardless, again, we don’t have evidence to assume liberals here, and the cite link is broken.
Again, liberals? Also, I noted that in terms of violence we do have reference to pepper spray and guard dogs being used against peaceful protestors by private security; if these are liberals, then this is anti-liberal violence being employed.
Liberals?
Liberals?
Or perform any kind of violence at all, so far as I read the page in question. I’m sorry you feel the need to be so sarcastically happy about nonviolent protest; when you’re annoyed about violent liberal protest, and you’re annoyed about nonviolent liberal protest, it does rather suggest the “violent” part is not where your annoyance lies.
Several references to both anti-Trump and pro-Trump supporters involved in “small scuffles” here. I’m afraid you’ll have to add “Rightists breaking shit too” to your tally-marks.
You are incorrect; I do not claim, nor want to claim, that the KKK is actually the Republican party. Might I ask for a retraction? Or, at least, an explanation for why you would assign to me such an odious viewpoint.
It might interest you to learn that I actually didn’t score this as “right” violence; there’s no link to a page, and for all I can tell from that list alone, it could have been people stabbing the KKK members.
I called this one right, too.
Liberals?
I think you missed this one. There’s arguably references to violence against leftists, but nothing to really pin a hat on.
Another tricky one. On the page itself we only get “breaking shit”; burning things comes from the list description, but that also talks about heavy tear gas usage on protestors. The problem here is one of scale; if we go with the limited damages from the page itself, then heavy tear gas usage is clearly violent. If we don’t, then we’re left with why “heavy” is indicated here.
Slightly tricky; with the subsequent ruling mentioned on the page that police were to blame for insufficient warning that arrests would occur if protestors crossed the bridge, one could count those needless arrests as violence… but personally, I didn’t.
If this is the thing I’m thinking of, this is the child abuse scandal, right? Regardless, it’s not mentioned in the list, and it’s not political, anyway.
But no cites about leftists.
I had this down as an unknown, but I have to admit; now I’m confused.
Up until this point, you’ve called all the examples of rioting and violence in the wake of perceived unjust police killings “liberals breaking shit” and so on. Why is this one “situational” and the others aren’t?
Liberals?
Yes, this seems fair.
Yep, also fair.
That seems dishonest. Obviously from my point of view, as someone who thinks that the cover doesn’t mean what you think it means and whose basis is the article. But even as I thought as you did - that the article is a mere fig leaf to cover the cover’s intent - then absenting that information means that readers aren’t going to be aware of that further villainy.
I mean, I don’t know if you went and searched for the magazine and the accompanying article before I linked it to you, but it seems very possible that from your perspective I’ve done you a favour that Drudge didn’t.
As I said before, Drudge does this often in an effort to draw attention to links that perhaps perhaps lead to stories that don’t have equally compelling graphics. I imagine the editors at Drudge are aware that most of its readers are quite capable of Googling the unlinked stories behind the photos they publish should they want to do so.
No, I’d Googled the cover and determined the both the political nature of teh magazine and the location where it was published. Given the sixty-odd year history of belligerent and violent left-wing behavior when faced with circumstances they find intolerable, I saw no need to drill down further to see what the article actually said, and my opinion of the purpose of the cover wouldn’t have been any different if I had. Even a modicum of critical thinking ability would reveal that there are any number of other, less obviously inflammatory and potentially deadly ways to get the message across that assassination is not the answer, if that were truly their intended message.
What would be your assessment of a pro-califate Islamic magazine showing a jihadist with a nuclear dirty bomb on board crashing a large truck into the White House accompanied by a bold inscription reading “WHY NOT”, followed by a weakly stated article to the effect that blowing up the White House really isn’t the thing to do, and that’s why not?
My guess is that your response would be pretty much like mine was to the Trump assassination photo, which is that, denials aside, it’s real intent was to inspire the very action it’s paying lip service to counseling against.
You are being very generous blaming the Anaheim KKK on the right. Whatever your opinions on the KKK from the video I saw it was the KKK having the living shit kicked and stabbed out of them.
I have to agree with **Starving Artist **on this one: The words buried deep in the article don’t excuse what is meant to convey a very different, much less subtle, message on the outside cover.
Imagine if a newspaper ran a cover of Casey Anthony: GUILTY AS CHARGED, but then, deep down inside the article, said, “Actually, not guilty…” That’s not excusable. That’s a willful tactic meant to mislead.
I apologise, I’m not getting what you mean. Drudge posts compelling graphics without links, so that different stories without compelling graphics will draw attention?
No doubt. The question seems more to me like one of if they would rather than could. As you point out, you’re capable of Googling the unlinked story but saw no reason to.
I have to direct you back up to my point about how I am a liberal, yet not violent in my actions. Unless your life experience consists solely of violent behaviour of left-wingers, I don’t see a reason to presuppose that’s what’s going on here, even putting myself in your shoes.
I actually agree with you there. Personally speaking, I think the idea of posting an obviously intense and vivid piece of imagery in order to coax attention to something substantial or useful is a poor way of actually getting to the truth of some matter.
To be honest, I think your example does your argument discredit; that’s such an obviously overblown image that I’d say it managed to be much less inflammatory than gunsights over Trump, purely from the Michael Bay factor of it all. Nor would I agree that the article in question is “weakly stated”. But, to answer your question; my reaction would be “This is an article about not doing that.”
Your guess is incorrect. Which is interesting.
The equivalent of “GUILTY AS CHARGED” would be “NO REASON WHY NOT” - the question is settled by the title, and later contradicted. “WHY NOT?” is the next step; it supposes that there is a question to be asked, but that it could go either way. And finally, “WHY NOT” is, simply, “why not”; here are those reasons why not. Your example, a direct statement totally at odds with the conclusion of the piece, is not a good analogy.
I don’t think I’d agree that (what I make) roughly 1,700 words before the conclusion is boldly highlighted is “buried deep” in the article, but opinions may of course differ. But the title agrees with those words; here is why not. There is no change of opinion.
Fortunately no, but I have been called a lot of other unpleasant things by people on both sides of the political spectrum.
There certainly were when I was at uni and I encounter enough people online going on about them for it be an issue.
The thing is, if you say "You need to go to the hardware store, buy some cement and harden the fuck up"to people, you’re essentially saying “yeah, I’m guilty of whatever PC nonsense you’re accusing me of, so you and your lefty friends can hold it against me forever and spam my social media feeds with YOU ARE A BAD PERSON AND WE HATE YOU posts.”
If you say “There’s nothing for you to be offended by” then you’ve at least got some claim to not being a [insert insulting term for person with the wrong opinions here].
No, it’s not. Statistically there are so few transgender folks in Australia (I looked into for a story a couple of years ago and IIRC it was around 30,000 across the entire country. There are also harder to hide physical traits too.
Don’t misinterpret “I don’t know any transgender folks” with “I think they’re awful and must be shunned and persecuted!” because that’s not cool. My point stands: I don’t know any transgender folks but if I did I’d want them to have the same rights and access to a fair go as everyone else.
The problem is, saying “I really don’t care that much because this issue doesn’t affect me or anyone I know” gets me labelled an asshole by progressive types. I agree that if someone’s gone to all the trauma and work of adopting a new gender identity etc they should live their life hassle-free as that gender - but I also won’t be taking up a placard and loud hailer and joining any protest marches to facilitate that.
And that’s where the problem with political correctness is nowadays - it’s not enough to merely agree that everyone should be treated fairly, you have to loudly go out of your way to advocate for it or you’re a horrible bigoted monster who kicks puppies and has a signed group photo of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin on their living room wall. Basically, I think political correctness has moved well and truly into “YOU ARE NOT TOLERANT ENOUGH!” territory, with bonus virtue signalling.
I think it’s been pretty well outlined, TBH. Personally, I use the term to describe nonsense like “safe spaces” and “microaggressions” and the euphemism treadmill and over-sensitivity to things that aren’t actually harmful to most people.
Objecting to punching people on the Nazi end of the political scale isn’t political correctness at all.
If I might make an observation: A lot of the excessily PC folks I know claim “We want a better world” which is a fine goal - but the world they want is worse in some ways for a lot of people they are in opposition with.
Except that “Why Not”, as an expression, typically in speech means supporting something, not opposing it. The ploy is obvious. The magazine is trying to do something while technically, on semantic nitpicking, claiming that it is not doing that thing.
I think you might be thinking of “Why Not?”. Of course directly that doesn’t mean support either, but used just generally in speech in my experience it’s often used as a rhetorical question and not one for which an answer is actually expected or given. There’s also “Why not…” as commonly used in adverts (at least over here), as in “Why not try our rich, delicious chocolate?” which likewise is a rhetorical question neither expecting nor giving an answer. It’s the rhetorical nature of the question that lends support; essentially, using it is presupposing on behalf of the questioned that they won’t have a reason, or the user saying that they don’t have a reason themselves.