Exactly. A good example of why rhetoric should promote responsible dialogue. I’ll note that Pidrman claims he was spurred to his action by MSNBC reporting of… right wing violent rhetoric.
I’ll also note that Pidrman’s actions should in no way be linked to specific rhetoric, but instead is an example of how an extreme and partisan political climate tends to generate extreme and partisan political actions. A=A
Okay. We obvously disagree in that. In that context I’d be concerned about the effect of doing that, even if such was clearly not her intent.
But let’s take this further - let’s say that GWB had gotten on Fox and complained that HRC’s crosshairs concerned him, that he was worried that they would inspire violence, and a few pundits picked up that charge, and HRC ignored those complaints, because she knows she does not mean it that way.
Would that have crossed your line yet?
And then Bush was shot. Maybe the shooter had seen her graphic, maybe not. We never know.
Would there be people upset with HRC? You really think not?
David Brooks knows.
I’m all for more civil discourse, but because it invites more discourse, not because of this incident. Do we really want everyone to weigh their words on how they might be taken by the insane? That, in itself, would be insane, would it not?
Which was the point I was making. The left is using this as political fodder when there was no politics involved. Pathetic, but typical.
And so is the right. In other words, it’s Tuesday.
No, I want public figures to weigh their words on whether they promote irresponsible behavior and dehumanize their political opponents. This is not complicated stuff, and it’s certainly not a call for rhetorical eggshell walking.
If Tea Party figures are at least partially responsible for Loughner’s shooting is Al Sharpton responsible for the Freddie’s Fashion Mart shooting considering Sharpton had far more influence on the shooter than anybody did with Loughner?
Yes, he is. What’s your point?
I think it’s from the new movie Desperately Seeking Equivalence. Yes, Sharpton’s Jew-bashing and other behavior was reprehensible. I don’t think he said anything relevant to what just happened in Arizona.
I imagine the point is: those on the left don’t really believe that he was, given that the condemnatin directed against sarah Palin for this event is much greater in depth and breadth than any condemnation from the left against Sharpton after that event.
But, backed into a corner and with no logical options left, you’ll dismissively and without real conviction agree that he was responsible.
I’m not sure that is the point since it comes off as a tu quoque without a purpose. What’s your basis for your conclusion about the comparative levels of outrage?
It’s NOT a tu quoque, and this misuse of the concept of tu quoque is perhaps my biggest single point of frustration with the denizens of this board.
There are two options in play for people who critique the right-wing commentators because their violent rhetoric had some influence that made the Arizona shooting more likely:
This is not a tu quoque situation. Tu quoque says, in effect, it’s not bad when I do it, because you do it too. Tu quoque is a fallacy because it dodges the underlying question: is the behavior bad?
So to test which of these two cases is more accurate, we ask if Sharpton’s behavior was also bad. If we see that the answer is no, or if the condemnation of Sharpton was lukewarm or pro-forma, then we may infer that despite the claims, the real objection is violent rhetoric from the right, not all violent rhetoric.
NOT a tu quoque.
See?
And from where I’m sitting, that would apply to Qin Shi Huangdi bringing up Al Sharpton in this thread. Do you think the outrage directed at Sharpton in 1991 was lukewarm or proforma?
My recollection was that the outrage in 1991 from the left was lukewarm, but I freely admit that could be confirmation bias on my part and I’m willing to be disabused of that notion.
I have no idea what Qin Shi Huangdi was thinking, but the fact remains that using Sharpton as a litmus test for the sincerity of opposition to violent rhetoric is not a tu quoque.
The whole idea that levels of societal outrage can be reasonably judged, whether current or decades old, and that this measured outrage can then be bisected according to political views, is not even worth half a second of thought.
Bricker, I’m finding it extremely hard to take seriously your bragging about how non-partisan you are right now.
What killed it? The part where I said, “…but I freely admit that could be confirmation bias on my part and I’m willing to be disabused of that notion?”
I think he’s doubtful about the “willing to be disabused” part, since it pertains to a completely subjective and untestable judgement. I think Ichbin Dubist described the inherent absurdity of that task pretty well.
I don’t agree. People wrote columns and analysis and commentary in 1991. How hard would it be to find something about Sharpton that used the same kind of strong language we’re seeing now? I agree it’s not going to be completely objective, but surely someone can point to SOMETHING that makes the point?