Let’s Talk About Rhetoric and Vitriol, Shall We?

The video above represents various threats against Sarah Palin taken from Twitter in the wake of the January 8, 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona.

Let’s talk about rhetoric and vitriol, shall we?

That is all.

Share

Comments

  1. Anna says:

    Yep, those are some pretty reprehensible and hateful comments. They should stop immediately.

    But it’s disingenuous as hell for you to compare talk from, as just one example, a Twitter user whose bio lists her website as http://confessionsofateenagefangirl.tumblr.com/ , with that of NATIONALLY PUBLICIZED RHETORIC FROM THE GOP VICE-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE. This is what’s called “false equivalence” and the right is shoveling heaps of it like never before, these last few days.

    Furthermore, I can PROMISE you that if I wanted to make an apples-to-apples comparison of random lefty web-commenter nobodies vs. random rightist web-commenter nobodies, I could find stuff that makes @partypantscuddy look like freaking Gandhi. I would bet my house AND my car on that. I’m right and you know I’m right.

    I thought you rightists were allllll about The Party Of Personal Responsibility. Why can’t any of you just say what everyone else already knows—that if you expend enormous amounts of time and energy on violent eliminationist rhetoric, then violent elimination of political opponents becomes less unthinkable, PARTICULARLY to unbalanced folks who hear that talk as clearly as anyone else and perhaps even more so? Seriously: it wouldn’t kill the right to tone it just JUST A NOTCH… but it MIGHT JUST stop a nine-year-old girl from getting killed. Or is that less important than your all-sacred right to say whatever ugly crap comes to your minds?

  2. Jack says:

    I would bet that 95% of those comments came from people who consider themselves to be peace-loving, open-minded pacifists. I would also bet that 95% of them are among the 50% of Americans who pay no taxes. That makes them hypocritical leeches who believe that the world owes them a living.

    Now ask me about their IQ’s.

  3. Tilli says:

    Unreal.

    Sick people out there.

  4. doogle says:

    That vid is beyond scarey…those are some very sick individuals.

    It shows where the real hate resides.

  5. Brad Fregger says:

    Most of the hateful comments over the past decade has come from the Left, as most domestic terrorist groups are left leaning. The major difference is that the “drive-by” excuses the Left, while blaming the Right on everyone who disagrees with the Left’s progressive agenda. Even though it is extremely likely that the left-leaning Tucson shooter never read a conservative post, nor watched Fox news, it is still convenient to blame the shooting on Conservatism,. The Kool-Aid drinkers who can’t see past these lies are taken in by them.

  6. Tilli says:

    @Anna,

    you are saying the gunman in Tuscon did this because of politics? Pls, find a piece of FACT to support this.

  7. Jordan Bell says:

    Anna,

    Lets have some fun and change your words around.

    Here is a nice little quiz from American Thinker highlighting some of the NATIONALLY PUBLICIZED RHETORIC OF THE LEFT http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/right_wing_hate_speech_quiz.html. This is what’s called “false equivalence” and the left is shoveling heaps of it like never before, these last few days.

    Furthermore, I can PROMISE you that if I wanted to make an apples-to-apples comparison of random righty web-commenter nobodies vs. random leftist web-commenter nobodies, I could find stuff that makes @partypantscuddy look like freaking Gandhi. I would bet my house AND my car on that. I’m right and you know I’m right.

    I thought you lefties were allllll about The Party Of Love and Tolerance. Why can’t any of you just say what everyone else already knows—that if you expend enormous amounts of time and energy on violent eliminationist rhetoric, then violent elimination of political opponents becomes less unthinkable, PARTICULARLY to unbalanced folks who hear that talk as clearly as anyone else and perhaps even more so? Seriously: it wouldn’t kill the left to tone it just JUST A NOTCH… but it MIGHT JUST stop a nine-year-old girl from getting killed. Or is that less important than your all-sacred right to say whatever ugly crap comes to your minds?

  8. Tilli says:

    @Anna –
    Speaking of “hate speech and over the top rhetoric”

    one other fact for you to check. Who said the following:
    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
    “I want you to argue with them and get in their face!”
    “Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.”
    “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
    “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.”
    “A Republican majority in Congress would mean ‘hand-to-hand combat’ on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy.”
    “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

  9. Dee says:

    There are some creepy people out there. If I were Sarah Palin, I would make sure that I have good security around me. What a bunch of sicko’s.

  10. Old Bob says:

    “Anna” @ 11.28 AM:

    And you question the rhetoric on the Right? Incredible. I assume that that house that you are willing to bet is made of glass.

    Old Bob

  11. Carlyle says:

    A rhetorical question:

    Suppose something truly evil were to come into our midst. An actual enemy who was intent on destroying America and our way of life. Would wishing that such evil be ‘eliminated’ be a responsible and prudent stance, or should that be considered Hate Speech and/or irresponsible behavior?

  12. whats_up says:

    A question for my friends on the right. Why is it so hard for you to admit that BOTH parties have engaged in this rhetoric, politicians and radio and tv personalitites from BOTH sides of the political isle make a habit of doing this. Is it really so hard to admit that both the left and right do this, seriously are you a child or an adult?

  13. Carlyle says:

    to Whats_up:

    See my previous post. The thing you have to sort out is whether anybody “speaking out” against something is being truthful and to the point, or whether the are outrageously vilifying someone for having a legitimate difference of opinion. More strictly – at some point you get into realms of actual right and wrong and good and evil.

    I urge you to apply these considerations to a sizable sampling of what you hear out there and make a deep and honest assessment – and see what’s what, who’s who, and where’s where.

    You might start with some of the most famous proclamations from Sarah Palin and Nancy Pelosi over the last year. Vet each remark in regards truth, legitimacy, and impact. Also consider as to whether either person is addressing an issue straight on, or whether they are skirting the issue, confusing the issue, or even engaging in contrived disinformation.

    Finally consider the long-standing rules of formal debate and polite conversation. Compare and contrast these with Saul Ailinskies rules for being underhanded and manipulating your opponents. Or read Machiavelli’s The Prince, if you wish.

    Then take a look again.

    One could write much more. I only suggest looking beneath the surface and not just counting the respective bean counts of “negative” remarks.

    You might analyze a similar situation. Consider a contentious argument – choose the Israelis and Palestinians if you can’t think of a better example. Now suppose a news agency were trying to make a “fair and balanced” report. Does that involve giving each equal air time? Does it involve a independent auditor assuring that the number of statements or the number of minutes of positives and negatives squares out every which way? Or does it mean telling the truth? No matter how it comes out?

    Which leads to: What is a proper political compromise between right and wrong or good and evil?

  14. Anonymous says:

    Should we boycott ‘Target’ stores until they change their logo?

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Susan Rector. Susan Rector said: RT @AmericasRight: Let’s Talk About Rhetoric, Shall We? Video: Twitter threats on the life of @SarahPalinUSA http://j.mp/dGNJir #Palin # … [...]

  2. [...] To summarize: the attempt to link Palin, any other right-wing spokesperson, or any part of the American right with the shooting has backfired badly. Instead of looking righteously indignant, journalists like Chris Matthews—who condemned Mark Levin and Michael Savage—come off as incompetent Machiavellis. Instead of unmasking the supposedly violence-laden rhetoric of the right, the debate has revealed the extent to which the left has been just as extreme and deplorable in their own speech. (Example: the Daily Kos and of course Twitter.) [...]

  3. [...] To summarize: the attempt to link Palin, any other right-wing spokesperson, or any part of the American right with the shooting has backfired badly. Instead of looking righteously indignant, journalists like Chris Matthews—who condemned Mark Levin and Michael Savage—come off as incompetent Machiavellis. Instead of unmasking the supposedly violence-laden rhetoric of the right, the debate has revealed the extent to which the left has been just as extreme and deplorable in their own speech. (Example: the Daily Kos and of course Twitter.) [...]

  4. [...] is enough, enough?  Back in January, in the wake of the shootings in Arizona, we talked about the venom and vitriol directed toward the Palin family.  Love her or hate her, there’s a line that should not be crossed, and yet left and right, [...]

Speak Your Mind

*