Yes.
To suggest that political commentary and rhetoric needs to operate on a higher level than it does now is right on the money, and I agree completely.
But to suggest that RIGHT-LEANING commentary and rhetoric needs to operate on a higher level than it does now is unfair, because (although true) it’s incomplete and suggests that only the right is at fault.
OK. I had only seen transcripts, not the actual piece. If that’s true, then obviously it doesn’t fit here, and my withdrawal of it is completely without protest.
Honestly, from my perspective, I don’t care who is more at fault. If they are both forced by public opinion to be decent, I think that will be a bigger change for the right than for the left, but it doesn’t matter which one actually makes the bigger change so long as both make it.
I do hold politicians to a higher standard than private citizens. Dan Savage is a sex columnist. He is not equivalent to a politician (and frankly, I don’t trust your summation of his actions. You aren’t a trustworthy source in my experience). Alec Baldwin is an embarrassment and still not equivalent to a politician who has garnered actual votes.
But none of this matters. I’ll agree the left should be held to the same high standard I hold the right to. Fine. I’ll say that none of them should indulge in violent rhetoric. Okey dokey. That you think this affects the left as much as the right means that you should be willing for the right to give it up. Works for me.
True, and it’s equally disingenuous to act as if the right and the left are exactly equivalent in terms of violent rhetoric.
There has been a large rightward movement in the past two years to tap into the fear and anger that many people feel about government in general and progressive policies and politicians in particular. That movement has tried to associate itself with the American Revolution, during which the call to take up arms and fight for their country was quite literal.
There may be a time when a movement takes hold that mainstreams violent rhetoric on the left the way the Tea Party has done on the right, but that time is not right now. I’m not saying that the Tea Party and the politicians who have used violent metaphors bear responsibility for this shooting, but I’d have a hell of a lot of respect for those who took this as an opportunity to publicly admit that his side may have gone too far in its rhetoric and needs to tone it down (especially if they did so without the “both sides” canard).
Yes, and during Bush’s years, it was the left that had the upswing of extreme rhetoric. I agree the past two years have been more noisy on the right, but the eight years before that were more noisy on the left.
If someone had taken a shot at Bush following Craig Killborn’s “Snipers Wanted” would it have been the fault of the left? Or of the would-be murderer?
Abso-fucking-lutely. (well, or a prominent figure in news media, but I’ll even put that aside for the moment).
It is absolutely totally and completely different in every possible way when it’s our politicians coming out with such rhetoric. In fact, that to me seems so obvious that I can’t believe you would imply the distinction is arbitrary. There will always be fringe groups who protest government policy they don’t like, sometimes violently. There will always be racists and paranoid conspiracy theorists on the fringes with little cult followings who try to make some noise for their cause.
But when a politician running for the state senate (who incidentally managed to get 44% of the vote. This isn’t some jane schmane who put her name on the ballot at a dare from her friends) actually suggests unambiguously on multiple occasions that it may be necessary, should she lose the election, that someone shoot her opponent…
AND, there’s absolutely NO outrage from other right-wing politicians?? No one to say “whoa, that was too far”.
Those are the goalposts as far as I’m concerned.
Then do some research. Here, I’ll help:
Probably you don’t trust that site, either. Probably they’re not trustworthy.
Now do you have an opinion?
Why?
In other words, if the concern is that the rhetoric will move people to do something crazy, why do you assume that a state senate candidate will be more persuasive than a famous actor or talk show host?
I surely don’t remember calling rightwingers unAmerican for opposing the war.
People have been calling liberals traitors ever since 9/11.
False equivalence.
Show me the last trillion dollar war the left sucked us into with a politically orchestrated hate campaign, or STFU about how libs do it too.
Oh, another goalpost move. Now the issue isn’t shooters, it’s the Iraq War?
Typical. You never lose a discussion; you just change the subject when things start going bad for your first point. And then for your second point.
Well, tell me this, then: how many Democratic votes were there for war in Iraq? (Hint: more Democratic Senators voted FOR than AGAINST it).
The war is relevant because that’s when this current policy of demonization began.
Yes. That’s true, the “Snipers Wanted” thing was definitely after the war began.
And that war was voted for by a majority of the Democrats in the Senate, right?
Why do you keep trotting this canard out? Do you think everyone is as partisan as you? Yeah, some Democrats were fucking wimps who let themselves be cowed by the right’s rhetoric and lies. What, you think I have no choice but to back them?
I live in Arizona. I’ve tried to vote McCain out and Democrats in. I can’t exactly dictate what those other assholes do.
Yes, this is true. So anyone, and I DO mean anyone tries to play innocent and blame all rhetoric on libruls is either a fool or a liar. And it was/is not limited only to discussions about that war either.
Dan Savage is a disgusting human being, frankly. He has many things going for him (I can’t really say a bad word about the It Gets Better Project), but he’s a hateful, intolerant jackass.
And yes, he’s a lefty.
The trouble with this sort of thing is that people are often blinded a bit by the rhetoric on their own side. If you’re a left-wing atheist and you’ve got people like Dan Savage ranting about how all Christians are evil and at fault for anything bad that ever happens to a homosexual ever, you might not stop and realize exactly how bigoted he’s being. Or if you’re right-wing and listening to rhetoric about the evil, socialist, Nazis out to take all your money through taxes, you might recognize it as hyperbole but not see just how utterly offensive and inaccurate that really is.
It’s always easier to see the speck of dust in your neighbor’s eye. This is why violent, divisive rhetoric is so damaging. It encourages an us vs. them mentality which makes it difficult to stop and listen and realize when the people you don’t agree with politically are rightfully pointing out that the people you do agree with are taking it too far.
I don’t think Bricker is trying to say all should be blamed on the liberals. He apparently wants to make us either acknowledge that all hateful rhetoric is bad, including that on our own side, or else shame us into silence. Why he can’t do that by being a good example himself and admit that the shit on his side stinks, I don’t know.
Good grief, when have I so much as suggested otherwise? Would you like links to the myriad posts here where I’ve called Palin an idiot and worse? I don’t support Palin and I think her entire approach is damaging and divisive and I’ve said so many times.
It was pretty clear that **Bricker **wasn’t talking about you, personally, so I’m not sure how your own behavior refutes his point in any way. “The left” is a lot bigger than you. Surely you recall how often members of the Bush administration were called traitors. I can remember several threads on that very topic on this MB alone.
I can’t imagine why I wouldn’t have seen it.
Eh, it’s just a piece of rhetoric.
Wait, shit, noooo! implodes