What are your criteria to be convinced that left wing outrage existed toward Sharpton’s rhetoric at the level you require? More to the point, what evidence will it take to refute your general premise that US liberals in the 20 year period we’re talking about are hypocritical in their expressions of disapproval for dangerous rhetoric?
It might be possible to judge a single person’s written reaction to similar incidents over the course of 20 years. But please note the plethora of fuzzy words that are being used as descriptors here – “strong” language, “depth” of condemnation, “lukewarmness” of outrage, “sincerity” of opposition. Everyone’s rhetoric-o-meter is calibrated according to their preconceived notions whether they like it or not – just like there’s no objective definition of “warm” (although the world has no shortage of people willing to argue to the death that warm starts at 73.5 degrees and only an idiot would think otherwise).
But a comparison of all columns and analysis of the Tawana Brawley thing versus this one? Sure, it’s not a tu quoque because who the hell is tu in this situation? Everyone who ever had an opinion that someone may have thought was leftist? How is that even slightly meaningful to what is happening right now? Could it in turn be balanced out by “proving” that the right had a lukewarm reaction to the Kennedy assassination?
Probably not relevant here or of interest to any of you, and I try not to e paranoid, but it thrills me to see this kind of report purportedly describing an increase of threats of violence against folk in my particular job. :rolleyes:
(I think my best response will be to spend more time on the golf course, where I can at least see them coming and have room to run!) 
I agree, that one doesn’t seem metaphorical like the rest of the shots targeting political enemies.
Correction to the above: sadly, due to my broken outrage-o-meter I forgot what the Freddie’s Fashion Mart thing even was and conflated it with the Tawana Brawley episode as the most memorable of Sharpton’s distant outrages. Sorry.
But it’s great way to introduce another point. I had several arguments with my dear Tea Party friend over the last 18 months or so, when I mentioned that I thought that bringing unconcealed weapons to a political rally (as a few people were doing at Tea Party rallies) made me uneasy. He insisted that it was merely a strong statement of Second Amendment rights and I was reacting out of fear. Which I don’t think it quite right: I’m not actually specifically afraid that these particular people will take up arms against the government, and if they do I do not think it will go to well for them.
I personally think my reaction is one of disgust. To bring arms into the political forum is symbolism that disgusts me. To play with this imagery for your own ends is worse to me than any inflammatory words against individuals or families or small groups of citizens that Al Sharpton may have perpetrated on the world. (Yes, I usually vote Democrat but, incredibly, I’m glad the Weather Underground and Black Panthers did not win. Or the Khmer Rouge.) For me, it’s like dabbling with the imagery of genocide. It’s hard to play off those yellow stars you’ve put next to Jewish people’s names on your website as a Webdings freakout. In my opinion. No, I won’t tremble that you will set another Final Solution in motion, I won’t believe that you are going to inspire murder in the weak-minded, but I will believe you are one of several flavors of jackass. And I won’t vote for you.
To me, the guns among the placards and “reload” and target-shooting your opponents and the rest of it meet the disgust test. And I don’t need to seek equivalencies on the other side of the political spectrum to validate it.
Kinda proves my point, though, doesn’t it?
There have been some Republicans who have also been targets of crazy right-wing threats.
How would the teabagger apologists in here like it if I demand that they answer for those crazies who threaten the mainstream GOP. They would probably sputter that they support the mainstream GOP more than the Tea Party and do not think that it is appropriate to threaten Republicans. They might also try to draw a distinction between the teabag nutters and the mainstream GOP.
Yet they insist that Sharpton and the BP are popular among mainstream Democrats in order to draw a false equivalence, when they actually enjoy orders of magnitude less. Boggling.
I’m willing to bet that in the days after Katrina and the New Orleans flooding, people weren’t in the mood to hear about how great water is; after the 2003 California wildfires, I’m sure no one there was interested in hearing the historical merits of the gift of fire.
I feel kind of the same way now. In the aftermath of this shooting we’re not particularly interested in hearing about the value of Second Amendment rights. But that doesn’t change the fact that there IS value in Second Amendment rights, and most especially in carrying in public. The more people that do this, the more the act will seem ordinary and not unusual. It’s not a threat – it’s an exercise of a right enshrined in the Constitution. As Wikileaks might suggest, exercising our First Amendment rights is not without peril and conflict – and in fact has the potential to kill more people than a handgun ever can. But we accept this downside because we want the freedom. So, too, should we view exercise of our Second Amendment rights.
It proves your point if in 20 years these events are equally unmemorable.
For what it’s worth, I live in the country and am familiar with guns; I don’t have this reaction to firearms in the woods or in people’s homes. I’d just rather not see them involved in electoral politics (God-given force of nature though they apparently be). I don’t think it’s too much to ask for candidates not to target-shoot their opponents photos. I’m not crying out for legislation, I just find it in incredibly poor taste.
Um… you seriously believe that this event won’t be remembered in 20 years, along with the claim that political rhetoric caused it?
I know I can’t prove the claim without waiting 20 years, but … c’mon. How about a little good faith admission here?
Gunshot deaths per year = ~30,000
Total deaths caused by Wikileaks, ever = 0
Total number of 31-bullet semi-automatic handguns in existence when the Second Amendment was authored = 0
I assume by “punish them” he does not mean to give them a stern talking-to.
Yes. And total number of websites in operation when the First Amendment was authored=0.
So what?
Good-faith admission of what? What I’m claiming is that you can’t point to the Sharpton “white interloper” as the handy inarguable equivalent to this current incident, because I don’t think it is, at all. (Of course I don’t, I forgot what it was.) It’s a fool’s errand, anyway.
I’m not sure what your point is supposed to be, actually – that I should have been madder at that? That the liberal media reported the Fashion Mart so poorly and so favorably to Sharpton that I mixed it up with another shitty incident by, er, the same guy? I already admitted that my disgust in these particular cases is influenced and skewed by my personal prejudices. I don’t need to have it all balance out left-right at the end of the day.
May I add option 1.5, right in the middle? Because you excluded it.
1.5 They think that violent rhetoric is in general bad, but its badness may be ameliorated when it comes from people of less importance, or when there’s more provocation, and it may be aggravated when it’s directed against “noncombatants,” and may similarly be ameliorated or aggravated by other circumstances, making any sort of drawing of equivalences just a cheap exercise in partisanship.
As for my reaction to Sharpton’s outrages, here’s why I didn’t react: I barely know shit about Sharpton, and most of what I know about him is what rightwingers keep telling me about him. Yes, I know he’s more of a power player in other regions of the country, but he isn’t one down here.
In general it’s an obnoxious tactic to say, “Why haven’t you condemned these people on your side?” It’s the equivalent of saying in a thread, “I can’t believe nobody’s brought up X yet.” If you want X brought up, bring it up your own damn self; and if you want someone condemned, condemn them your own damn self.
If you want to get into the game of forcing people to condemn those putatively on their own side, lemme get out my book of Rush Limbaugh quotes dating back to his earliest days in radio, and we’ll have a blast. Otherwise, this game is ridiculous and is little more than a distraction from current events.
My claim is: the outrage against Palin is phony, in the sense that it’s claimed to come from her violent rhetoric. The REAL reason for the outrage against Palin is that she’s attacking the left with this violent rhetoric.
What evidence could I adduce in support of this theory?
Well gosh, I suppose you could use the evidence by which you developed the theory, yes?
I suspect it’s based on articles of faith rather than evidence. As is your insistence that “this”, this debate we’re having about rhetoric, is a partisan one. I mean, it may be that the defense of eliminationist rhetoric is largely partisan, but that’s just happenstance because such rhetoric is, despite your gymnastics otherwise, a tool much more largely favored by the right.
But what makes you think the criticism is exclusively from the “left” of the political landscape? Got evidence for that?
Bricker, are you really comparing a minor local politician (who had, at the time, never run for any major office, let alone be elected to any office) to the words of a former Governor and VP candidate?
Also, you may want to look up my past comments about the murdering jackal. You calling my consideration of the suited snake dismissive and without conviction?
Sumbitch makes a mockery of the entire legal and political system.
Why would you want to support this theory, Bricker? It’s quintessential ad hominem. Instead, address the argument. Either Palin’s rhetoric is justified, or it isn’t.
Absolutely you can find some people attacking her who are doing so for partisan reasons. Similarly, you can find some people defending her who are doing so for partisan reasons. That’s trivial, and it gets us no closer to any sort of understanding of the situation.
So set the partisans aside, and address the actual arguments raised. Then you won’t need to engage in tortured equivalencies that distract from the situation at hand.
I wonder if there was any legislation proposed back then to keep Sharpton and his ilk from from doing what they like to do?