Jul 20 2012 Published by dr24hours under Uncategorized
Over at my personal blog, I've reposted my thoughts on mental illness, responsibility, political rhetoric, and mass killings.
17 responses so far
Your post confuses culpability with causation, and it also ignores the fact that events have multiple causes and that more than one individual can be culpable for a single act. "Lone wolf" shooters can be culpable for their crimes, can have caused their crimes, and this is 100% consistent with extreme violent right-wing propaganda also playing a causal role in these crimes and the purveyors of such propaganda being culpable. It is also exceedingly naive to conclude that because someone like Loughner couldn't be proven to have affirmatively listened to or subscribed to violent right-wing eliminationist rhetoric, it implies that such rhetoric must have played zero role in his crimes. The ubiquity and normalization of such rhetoric permeates all of society, sending the message that violence against perceived social or political enemies is acceptable.
Point taken. But I don't think that "not culpable" equals "no influence". And of course, there's plenty of violent left wing rhetoric as well (though less lately than on the right.).
and yet for some mysterious reason the amount of violent action that results in a clear causal chain from the left wing rhetoric is much less frequent. The Unabomber comes to mind...but who else? Which of the near monthly FBI roll-ups of bomb plotters involve lefties versus right wing libertarian teaparty militia types?
You're right, lately, in the USA, it's mostly right wing. But the world of left wing violence and rhetoric is long and storied. See Cuba.
DM -- You don't get out much, do you?
There's maybe 3-4 incidents in that entire list that are similar to the militia/teabag problem N-c. pales by comparison. Gee, I wonder why? Oh right, because the right wing is stoked constantly by their captive propaganda media and their actually political leaders to do this stuff. Again, this doesn't happen on the left.
HAHHAAAHAHA. You mean since the 70s? Because that's how far you have to reach to find anything like what we've seen since the Clinton Presidency in terms of right wing, politically motivated (and FoxNews fanned, the left never had that) violent rhetoric.
There was plenty of violent rhetoric on the left during the W years. But you are a virulent partisan. I don't expect you to be objective here.
Find it then. You should be able to Google up some evidence of left wing types arming themselves and talking endlessly about shooting authorities or innocent people to advance their agenda. You should be able to point to the successful FBI stings. Etc. of course you won't be able to find anywhere even close to the numbers you can find for right wing motivated nutters during Clinton and Obama administrations.
So, nice try at false equivalency but you are going to have to present some evidence. Like N-c tried to do.
Arguing left v right about this is literally the least important possible aspect. However, the evidence was already provided. Cuba. There've been dozens of leftist revolutions.
The fact that you see your own co opinionists as faultless wrt violence shows me that there is no point is discussing politics with you. You're delusional.
Since I didn't say "faultless" then we can only conclude that you are listening to your own internal straw man DM instead of what I am actually saying here.
But remember too that it isn't just that it "couldn't be proved" that Laughner didn't listen to right wing bullshit. We had affirmative testimony to that from his friends and family. He was apolitical.
How quickly they forget...
DrugMonkey is a textbook example of multiple cognitive fallacies.
Um, really dude? That link is full of the same kind of self-comforting pseudoanalysis strawmen that you're supposedly complaining about. Lame argument.
Um, what? I provided links with countless documented examples of left-wing violence and incitement. Your response makes no sense.
Countless links that documented (via picture of protest sign, usually) some relatively legit and some trumped up and ridonkulous accusations of left-wing violence and incitement--none of which had a full complement of "opposite side" examples to counterbalance it. So your list of examples is just as biased as the bias you're attirbuting to the "other side." It's all just a bunch of self-comforting straw argument.
Pictures of protests? That's what you deploy in response to a discussion of plots and actions that rise to the level of FBI operations and arrests?
You are delusional. Or else so totally caught up in the right wing false-equivalency strategy that you cannot act rationally anymore. It is not the same, not even close. Right wing nutters are the ones perpetrating violence and collecting the means for perpetrating violence. This is not coincidence.
If your point is that lefties *could* behave this way, I totally agree with you. It *could* be the case. In the current US politics, it is not the case, however. Why is that? The main thematic thrusts of the political-propagandist structure of the right wing. It encourages and justifies these excesses.
Site Admin | Theme by Niyaz
Scientopia's Guest Blog Copyright © 2017 All Rights Reserved