How do I know? Because the media tracked some of them down, many of them recanting the statements and expressing regret when it made the news. Apparently the FBI is investigating as well.
The Left & The Politization Of Tragedy
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
How do I know? Because the media tracked some of them down, many of them recanting the statements and expressing regret when it made the news. Apparently the FBI is investigating as well.
A) "Hate" is one of these vaguely and subjectively defined terms that may be emotionally appealing, but ultimately only confuses the issue.
B) "Hate" is only a symptom, not the problem
There is a difference between define and understand.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it. . .
-Abraham Lincoln, February 27, 1860, Cooper Union Address
-Abraham Lincoln, February 27, 1860, Cooper Union Address
To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?
Glenn Reynolds, JANUARY 10, 2011, The Wall Street Journal
Glenn Reynolds, JANUARY 10, 2011, The Wall Street Journal
tireman
Dedicated LVC Member
Why all the fuss?
A few people die in Tuscon by a mad man and it makes national news with opportunistic politicians stepping in to continue the rhetoric. More people are killed by vehicle accidents every day of the year. More people are killed by smoking, murder, starvation every day. There are more murders by shootings in every major cities every week. Put this in perspective of the whole picture. The opportunists have found a way to get national attention quickly by focusing on a tragedy, its great for ad revenue, as more people are drawn to the TV to watch the horror unfold. Most people are sheeple.
A few people die in Tuscon by a mad man and it makes national news with opportunistic politicians stepping in to continue the rhetoric. More people are killed by vehicle accidents every day of the year. More people are killed by smoking, murder, starvation every day. There are more murders by shootings in every major cities every week. Put this in perspective of the whole picture. The opportunists have found a way to get national attention quickly by focusing on a tragedy, its great for ad revenue, as more people are drawn to the TV to watch the horror unfold. Most people are sheeple.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
3000 people die in the US every day from various causes.
The same argument could be made about the 9/11 victims
and conservatives have milked this for 9 years despite being asleep at the wheel and having it happen on their watch.
Now I support a hard line against Islam but it shows what masters of their pr the republicans are.
People who die because of our ideals are eulogised and held in great esteem like an icon.
THEMOJOMAN
Dedicated LVC Member
ALL THE APPLAUSE IS WHAT PISSED ME OFF. HOW MORBID. 0bama should have "shhhed" that down,,but he didn't. GOES TO SHOW YOU.
If OBAMA was a 'TRUE LEADER" he would've "shhhed" that down. I almost expected the ballons to start dropping and a banner start un-furling at the end.
From here:
Those insisting that right-wing rhetoric is to blame for this, or future, atrocities have two goals: to generally disparage conservatives and to silence political opposition to liberal policies. The former is the typical politicking customary to baser characters in every party. The second, however, bears on a fundamental aspect of American democracy: free speech.
So, what is your understanding of incivility?
Regarding your quote - I don't blame right wing rhetoric for this - nor do I blame left (they both equally could be guilty however). But, can't this tragedy open a door that has us review at our rhetoric.
For good or bad the idea that violent or hateful rhetoric caused the Arizona shootings is out there... So, lets at least take this opportunity to look at it. It needed to be looked at anyway - for quite a while. Not because it could cause things like this (however, don't totally discount that), but because it has held our political discourse hostage for a while now.
There is the false statement. If we are actually going to look at the FACTS and try to assign a political motive to him, that motive is the nihilistic streak in leftist political thought (again stemming from social justice and the need to first tear down before society is rebuilt more "justly"). There is nothing "equal" about it.
However, it would be foolish to try and assign any true political motive to his actions.
But the bigger issue is in the title of this thread; The Left and the Politicization Of Tragedy.
This thread is NOT directly about this sicko's actions but in the Left's opportunistic response to it and a reflection on that response. You wanna talk about the tragedy itself, please start a new thread.
From here:
Which leads me to wonder: If the current frenzy for "civility" means Republicans have to take the sharp edges off their Tea Partyish rhetoric, will that really help Democrats? Democrats may think so. Byron York speculates that they're quietly congratulating Obama for raising the civility issue in his Tucson address even as he denied that incivility had anything to do with the shooting—a strategy Obamaphile Jon Alter had advocated before the speech. Boy did it make Palin look bad! What's more, just when the number of GOP representatives is about to dwarf the number of Democrats who'll be listening to the State of the Union address, there's MSM momentum behind the idea that the parties should sit in an interspersed jumble so viewers won't be able to tell. Brilliant! Republicans are in a position to be mean to Democrats, and there's suddenly a campaign against meanness. What a happy coincidence!
Why shag - if he were found to tons of evidence strewn about his room that indicated that he was some left wing looney who thought that Giffords was way too conservative, and he also testified to the same... you would be foolish not to assign a political motive. That would be ignoring evidence, which is wrong.
Either side's rhetoric could have caused this (note - not did) - in that respect they are 'equal'.
Actually I think that the Democrats lose more in the 'civility' edict. As you stated...
If the current frenzy for "civility" means Republicans have to take the sharp edges off their Tea Partyish rhetoric, will that really help Democrats?
Republicans can show 'results' - "look voters we aren't mean any more", Democrats have the image of not being 'edgy' with their rhetoric, they can't improve as much...
Unless of course, all the Republicans have is 'edge' and no 'content'.
So, they have been uniquely mean in the past?
"Civility" is a vague concept that the Left is attempting to redefine through innuendo into very partisan terms. Conservative thought is inherently "incivil" and liberal thought is inherently "civil".
This kind of perversion of language to create the illusion of one viewpoint as uniquely rational is, unfortunately, rather common on the left; from their conceptions of "justice" to their conception of "rights" to their implicit partisan definition of "pragmatism".
Yes it's galling when clever people run circles around their opponents and successfully redefine the argument.
No - but, the recent 'press' (before the Arizona killings) has shown graphic images of Obama as Hitler, quotes of pegging the left as traitors, remember the public only really is concerned with the very recent past - and Obama isn't Hitler - and middle America certainly doesn't see their next door neighbor who put an Obama sign in his yard 3 years ago as a 'traitor'.
I would have to agree with '04 - define the argument, win the debate.
Is it about the "debate" or is it about arriving at the truth?
Because you can win the debate while advancing a lie simply by having greater rhetorical skills. But is that good? Does that make it true or does that just make you a convincing liar?
Because you can win the debate while advancing a lie simply by having greater rhetorical skills. But is that good? Does that make it true or does that just make you a convincing liar?
For a while the right has been defining the debate - they have been able to do this with quick, catchy labels - while avoiding the real debate. You don't have to debate a traitor - you just have to vilify them.
If you no longer have the label to fall back on, can you debate within the new definition, 'leave the hate at home'.
The Dems have sort of hung their hat on this idea (for the immediate future that is). Will it backfire - it might. Who will appeal more to the American public when you don't bring in false labels. It will be interesting.
How will the healthcare debate differ this time, if you limit the debate to the pros and cons of the actual bill? The Republicans have left that open - the Dems have been using this new platform to defend the parts of the bill that they think will appeal to the American people. Will the right be able to paint the bill as a great Democrat evil as convincingly this time? I think if they go back to using the hateful rhetoric they used last time, it might fall on deaf ears.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and truth or is it truthiness in politics is a moving target.
Republicans draw up a smear cartoon of Obama to attack so they shouldn't be surprised when the same tactic is used against Palin though she is much easier to lampoon.
And I would agree with Cal. If the "debate" is not aimed at seeking the truth, it is not worth winning and not a debate worth having. Those debates ultimately fall into a contest of who is the best bull$h!ter. The ONLY purpose those debates serve is to identify the dishonest.
"Defining" an argument is an important part of any debate. Those who look to redefine it toward one sided terms are inherently engaged in incivility by subverting honest discourse and stifling any attempt to seek the truth.
These people tend to function on one of two (or both) motivations; their own personal self-gratification or to simply confuse the issue so as to avoid the flaws in their own positions/arguments.
Any genuine concern for civility in discourse demands calling these people out for there dishonesty.
"Defining" an argument is an important part of any debate. Those who look to redefine it toward one sided terms are inherently engaged in incivility by subverting honest discourse and stifling any attempt to seek the truth.
These people tend to function on one of two (or both) motivations; their own personal self-gratification or to simply confuse the issue so as to avoid the flaws in their own positions/arguments.
Any genuine concern for civility in discourse demands calling these people out for there dishonesty.
However shag, what do you do when the initial definition is flawed? Often the debate is skewed from the onset, especially if you begin framing it in terms that have preconceived 'weight' to them. It is then the object of those who are part of the debate to expose the opening as dishonest from its onset.
You can stifle the truth within the very framing of the debate, creating bias within the context. It needs to be redefined, because subversion can happen from the first sentence.
Here the Dems are looking to define not the debate, but the 'room' the debate takes place in, by removing violent rhetoric from the onset. How does allowing violent rhetoric improve the debate?
Not so much.
The left has generally defined the debate for generations through their monopoly of academia, news media and the entertainment industry. That continued monopoly has not only allowed them to define the debate in the most partisan and self serving terms imaginable, but has lead to an intellectual laziness and ideological myopia which dismisses any flaws in leftist thought/policy and blame political failings on external factors.
This is demonstrated by the pervasiveness in leftist rhetoric of narratives that dismiss opposing thought as invalid as well as the redefining of certain ideas such as "pragmatism" in decidedly partisan terms (see the work of Richard Rorty, for instance).
The Right has occasionally been able to break through and redefine the debate on specific issue on more fair (meaning honest) terms but that is the most they have typically been able to accomplish. However, with the erosion of the monopoly in the media, that redefining of the debate toward more fair and honest terms is more common on more and more issues.
Of course, you will not see it like this and claim that the Right has simply defined the debate on terms which unfairly advantage them. However, you will not be able to do this without redefining this debate on terms favorable to your argument (for instance implying that the claim of "Obama=Hitler" comes from the Right when it comes from the Left, a LIE that has been made numerous times on this forum).
Also, that idea of the Right redefining debate on terms favorable to them misses the point that even though the left doesn't have a monopoly on the dissemination of information to the masses, they still dominate the "tools of propaganda" and the Right simply does not have the pull to redefine the national dialog on terms favorable to them. They have been more and more successful at redefining the debate on numerous issue in a way that does not accept, a priori that any non-leftist thought is invalid (for instance, the AZ Immigration Law and the Left's attempts to falsely brand support of it as "racist" (consistent with the "Southern Strategy narrative, I might add)).
Unfortunately, someone so caught up in the leftist worldview will have a hard time seeing this truth when they cannot look past their own ideology.