Re: Is Palin's blood libel sacred? was oh please

My sense is that conservatives object more to the hypocrisy of the allegations 
of hateful rhetoric - we've heard ad infinitum that Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, 
Hannity, etc are hate mongers for what is political speech - while not even 
raising an eyebrow about that film.  While I think the left is far guiltier of 
both hypocrisy and real hate speech, (assuming for the sake of argument that 
there is such a thing but that's a different issue), I believe at this point in 
history both sides are looking for anything they can use as ammunition whether 
it is real or not.

Good spot to insert a Althouse blog post:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/01/if-you-really-believed-political.html
 
January 12, 2011
If you really believed political rhetoric caused Jared Loughner's killing spree, 
you wouldn't dare to say it. 

Some people displayed a crazed hunger for a vicious murderer who was inspired by 
the criticism of the government that has been so powerful over the last 2 years. 
Jared Loughner was not that guy, and, of course, they looked ridiculous and 
despicable jumping to say that he was.

Now, what if it were really true that incendiary political rhetoric pushed 
mentally unstable individuals over the edge and caused them to act out 
murderously? Picture such a mentally unstable person reading and listening to 
the rhetoric that spewed out over Jared Loughner.

I'm imagining a young man who takes it to heart that the Tea Party and the right 
wingers are ruining America and thwarting our fine President and the Democrats 
in Congress who set out to bring us hope and change.

He might think: Oh, if only Jared Loughner really had turned out to be the 
Tea-Party-inspired wingnut the liberals and lefties originally thought he was! 
How effective that would have been in squelching the right!

This mentally unstable young man decides that he could be what the left hoped 
Jared Loughner was. "Loughner2" tweaks his Facebook page with the titles of 
conservative books and joins various right-wing groups on-line. He sets about 
making Tea-Party-style pronouncements in the comments sections of various left- 
and right-wing blogs, stressing the right-wing rhetoric he's heard and restating 
it with a sharper edge of violence. He stocks his house with books written by 
the right-wingers most demonized by the left. He hangs a big Gadsden Flag on his 
living room wall. 


Then, believing he is sacrificing himself for the greater good of the liberal 
cause, Loughner2 goes on his shooting spree. The pundits who revealed their 
raging hunger for a right-wing murderer will finally have the rich feast they 
deserve, he tells himself. Loughner2, like Loughner1, grins ghoulishly in his 
mug shot. He steels himself the hatred of the world and the secret pleasure of 
reading, from his prison/asylum cell, about the left-wing paradise he has made 
possible.

Do you think that's an absurd fantasy? Then you don't really believe that 
inflammatory rhetoric inspires unstable individuals to act. If you're one of 
those who's been saying it does, then admit that you've been lying. Or take 
responsibility for the effect your words are now having in the minds of the 
deranged. 



 



________________________________
From: Peter T. Chattaway <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, January 13, 2011 2:23:08 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Is Palin's blood libel sacred? was oh please

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:
> I don't think any reasonable person should believe that the film is dangerous 
>or an incitement to violence.  It may be in poor taste, but it is a movie, 
>incapable of causing anyone to do anything beyond experiencing it if one chooses 
>to view it.

I seem to recall right-wingers taking a rather dimmer view of that film when it 
played at the various festivals in 2006 (or was it 2005?).  But I agree that the 
film certainly wasn't meant to *incite* violence.

Then again, the Danish cartoons weren't meant to incite violence either, and yet 
violence happened in response to them.  (Which, incidentally, some conservative 
bloggers have taken pleasure in pointing out:  The media resisted showing the 
cartoons in print and on the air, for fear that they might incite violence, but 
the media has been quite gleeful about showing Sarah's "crosshairs" graphic -- 
which suggests that they don't *really* believe, deep down, that the graphic 
*will* incite any violence.)

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot