SEK: Conservative Rhetoric Made Murdered Abortion Doctor a Target
In a cheap argument that I would have thought unworthy of him, Scott Eric Kaufman tries to tar all conservatives with the murder of an abortion doctor:
Nidal Hasan didn’t consider himself a liberal, nor did he devote himself to liberal causes—he was, it seems, someone with pretensions to Islamic jihad. Scott Roeder, however, shot George Tiller in the service of a mainstream conservative cause. The difference, obviously, is not in the media’s furtherance of a narrative, but in the non-incidental relation of particular ideologies with acts of violence.
What utter nonsense. There is a difference between pursuing a goal and condoning a violent method of achieving that goal.
Nidal Hasan did indeed devote himself to a liberal cause: getting America out of its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He chose a violent method of pursuing that goal — a method that most liberals in this country don’t condone. Similarly, while Scott Roeder may have been devoted to the elimination of partial-birth abortion, his method of pursuing that goal is condemned by the overwhelming number of conservatives in this country.
Kaufman continues:
Conservatives complain 1) when liberals ask that any brown person with a funny name not be labeled a jihadist until evidence of such is unearthed, and 2) when mainstream news outlets link the murder of prominent abortion doctors to conservative causes. They fail to see the lack of equivalence: liberals don’t espouse jihad against the United States, but conservatives do inspire those on their fringes to engage in politically motivated violence. The politics of the George Tiller murder are an indictment against conservative rhetoric because that rhetoric made Tiller a target . . .
No, Roeder’s own radical beliefs and screwed-up values system made Tiller a target.
What SEK does is to conflate a goal with an acceptable means of getting there. The fact that a homicidal maniac shares your goals doesn’t make you responsible for his methods. Yet that is the cheap argument made by the David Niewerts of the world — and now, the Scott Eric Kaufmans.
Is it fair to say that I “inspired” Scott Roeder’s actions if I have engaged in full-throated condemnation of partial-birth abortion (and I have)? If I accurately describe the horrific acts of violence involved in that monstrous process, does that rhetoric “make” an abortion doctor a “target”?
If you’re going to say that, Scott, then your side is going to have to take responsibility for the Nidal Hasans of this world after all. By that logic, liberals have inspired Nidal Hasan by making irresponsible claims about Bush waging war for oil. (Can I just ask: where is our damn oil?) Tim Rutten has made innocent people targets by falsely claiming that Dick Cheney has admitted supporting torture.
The list goes on. Indeed, these cited examples are even more worthy of condemnation than conservative rhetoric against partial-birth abortion, because these are examples of dishonesty and exaggeration.
SEK’s argument is equivalent to the position that one who honestly advocated against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq “inspired” Nidal Hasan and made the Fort Hood victims a target.
This is irresponsible demagoguery. This cheap argument will backfire on your side, Scott. I expect it from the David Niewerts. I really didn’t expect it from you.
I can’t say that I have seen much in the way of logical argument in his comments here. Maybe it’s a matter of impulse control, sort of like the guy who shot Tiller.
Mike K (2cf494) — 2/16/2010 @ 7:53 amWhat could be more liberal than jihad and following an extremist religious interpretation?
imdw (e870b9) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:08 amMurdering racists, all of you. This is vintage douchenozzlery from SEK. He and his angry band of hatey haters what hate on his behalf will soon be by to hate on all of you.
JD (ae4c43) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:10 amimd-dumbass, yeah, like a super Obama supporting Liberal Professor using a gun on campus, a gun-free zone no less, to shoot fellow Liberal professors.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:21 amOh not to give imd-dumbass room to lie,
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?&articleid=1232943&format=&page=1&listingType=Loc#articleFull
There, one of Obama’s rabid cultists.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:23 amRoeder was an excon Montana militiaman bombmaker, not your typical prolife activist, apparently he
ian cormac (b07ff6) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:24 amlike von Bruenn, another violent neonazi excon wasn’t on the DHS watchlist
imdw – huh?
P – “Is it fair to say that I “inspired” Scott Roeder’s actions if I have engaged in full-throated condemnation of partial-birth abortion (and I have)? If I accurately describe the horrific acts of violence involved in that monstrous process, does that rhetoric “make” an abortion doctor a “target”?”
No, but there is a point at which strong rhetoric has consequences. For example, if your rhetoric is that “George Tiller” is (was) a “baby killer” (even as he engaged in a medical procedure that was legally permissible), then I do believe you bear some responsibility for helping to create the framework that allows someone to act on those beliefs. After all, it is pretty reasonable to stop someone, even violently, from killing a baby, right?
So too, if I made the argument that U.S. soldiers murder innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, that rhetoric would similarly justify action being taken to prevent this murder from taking place. And I would bear a degree of moral responsibility for the results of those who acted within that same mentality.
But this idea that “Scott Roeder… shot George Tiller in the service of a mainstream conservative cause” is utter nonsense. It is not a “mainstream conservative cause” to kill abortion doctors.
Tom (79a87e) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:25 amDid environmentalist rhetoric inspire the Unabomber, imdw?
Patterico (5070db) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:25 amCheck the TEA party charter – says it right there: Go forth and kill as we see fit. It’s also implied in the right to bear arms. What could be more conservative than using your God-given revolver in Church? (/sarcasm)
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:33 amUnworthy of SEK? Perfect SEK, I think.
nk (db4a41) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:52 amYou wouldn’t want him to be denied tenure just for failing to advance a false liberal narrative when he had the chance, now, would you, Patterico?
nk (db4a41) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:55 am“There, one of Obama’s rabid cultists.”
Yeah obama inspires people to be for tenure? Or against it? what?
“Did environmentalist rhetoric inspire the Unabomber, imdw?”
I don’t know. From what I recall, he seemed to be anti-modernity. So no green tech for him.
imdw (803b85) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:58 amFirst, check your title there, Patrick.
Second:
There is a difference between pursuing a goal and condoning a violent method of achieving that goal.
I didn’t argue differently. There’s a step missing in your equation though.
Roeder’s own radical beliefs and screwed-up values system made Tiller a target.
To an extent, every murderer has a “screwed-up value system.” However, not every murderer murders someone who’s been targeted by pro-life groups for decades. Operation Rescue moved its headquarters to Kansas to be closer to Tiller. They held daily vigils outside his clinic, directed a campaign against him and his clinic that led to him getting shot in 1993, etc. This isn’t that difficult to understand: pro-life groups have targeted Tiller for decades, and he ended up getting shot by a fringe member of the pro-life movement. There’s a one-to-one correspondence between “stop him at all cost” and “he stopped him at all cost.”
I haven’t seen you deliver that sort of eliminationist rhetoric, Patrick, so I’m a little confused as to why you think you’re the target here.
If you’re going to say that, Scott, then your side is going to have to take responsibility for the Nidal Hasans of this world after all. By that logic, liberals have inspired Nidal Hasan by making irresponsible claims about Bush waging war for oil.
That’s a false equivalence: Hasan wanted to be a jihadi, contacted al Qaeda clerics, etc. That he wanted to end the war, a concomitant liberal cause, doesn’t mean that liberal rhetoric against the war drove him to target Ft. Hood. If you believe that liberal rhetoric drove him to it, you’ll need to 1) provide evidence that liberals call for violent action against conservatives, and 2) prove that he wasn’t influenced by the anti-American, pro-jihad rhetoric he actively sought out. I think you have work cut out for you.
SEK (fd077c) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:03 am(Never mind, don’t check your title. I misread it.)
SEK (fd077c) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:11 amIt I a mainstream conservative cause to murder people. Yup. It is true.
JD (2c1e5e) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:11 amIt is a mainstream conservative cause to murder people. Yup. It is true. SEK told us so, so it must be true. Racists.
JD (2c1e5e) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:13 amSounds like the same lefties, now balding with ponytails, who greeted us vets as we arrived at west coast airports (Travis AFB) from duty assignments in the 60’s. Sanctified by the Krishnas banging their tambourines they called us all kinds of vile names including baby killers as we left the base. the atmosphere was so toxic we were advised to pack our uniforms and wear civvies because the military would not reimburse for damaged uniforms.
Their self-proclaimed moral supremacy and intellectual dishonesty permits them to act hypocritically in matters of import to them. Misogyny is also a hallmark of this brand of humanity. In short, they are anarchists bent on intellectual tyranny against their fellow citizens portrayed as apostates, infidels and non-believers. With that false logic reason goes out the window.
vet66 (9d1bb3) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:16 amA Leftist lies about his political opponents?
AD - RtR/OS! (c781de) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:17 amSurprised I am not!
I better shut up about prisoners’ rights because I’m inciting Americans to shoot police, judges and prosecutors. Right, SEK?
nk (db4a41) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:24 amTo me the breakdown is as follows
1. Does the nut job self identify with a political movement/party?
2. Does this self identification make sense?
3. Was the nut job accepted as a member by other members prior to their despicable acts?
4. Were the nut job’s wacko actions undertaken to further the stated goals of the movement?
5. Does the nut jobs decision making process make any sense at all?
6. Does the rhetoric of prominent members/leaders of the movement support the nut jobs wacko logic?
So for Roeder
1. Yes, Religious conservative.
2. Yes.
3. Seemed to be.
4. Yes, he did what he did to stop PBA.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
so I think, that yes, it’s appropriate to criticize violent extremist rhetoric wrt to PBA as contributing in some small way to this nut jobs wacko actions. How much this is true depends on how correct the yes answer is for 1-6. I’m showing it as a bright line here but it’s obviously not. Also, I don’t feel that in any way should mitigate Roeder’s punishment, or culpability.
To use an example from the left, ELF, Earth Liberation Front.
time123 (03e182) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:26 am1. Yes, they say they’re environmentalists.
2. Yes, makes sense to me.
3. They hide their identity, but I see nothing about them, aside from their violence, that would make them a bad fit on the left.
4. Yes, stop urban sprawl return.
5. Yes, if there were enough fires it would slow down development.
6. Yes, Al Gore isn’t talking about burning hummer dealerships but there’s plenty of violent alarmist rhetoric on the left about the environment.
#18 Yoda are you?
#13 How many liberal groups have headquartered in Washington to be closer to take on conservatives? How many target elected figures with rhetoric and hate speech? Are all such to be charge with attempted murder?
I think not. I am against the Pro-Death movement that Tiller promoted and based his practice and livelihood on. But my views and the groups that I support cannot be held responsible any more than any other group with a belief system.
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:29 amIf one wanted to accept his faulty logic on face value, I think more valid is the claim that liberal rhetoric has contributed to, if not caused, the death of millions of very young US citizens over the last 30 years or so. Every purposeful death of an innocent is a tragedy, but we do distinguish between “murderers” and “mass murderers”.
In fact, the consequences of liberal rhetoric in this area alone has contributed to the approaching collapse of Social Security and Medicare, contributing to the deaths of many older American citizens as well.
So, accept his logic and raise him 35 million or so.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:30 amSEK wrote, “If you believe that liberal rhetoric drove him to it, you’ll need to 1) provide evidence that liberals call for violent action against conservatives…”
However, “if you believe that conservative rhetoric drove” Roeder to kill an abortionist, now you no longer need to prove that conservatives (or pro-lifers) call for violent action against abortionists.
On the contrary, it is the conservatives who are calling for the END of violent action against innocent unborn children.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:33 amSEK – How about posters reading “We support the troops when the shoot their Officers!”
Now granted not all liberals espouse such thoughts but the meme is prevalent at anti-war demonstrations.
Were posters reading “Please shoot Doctor Tiller” or even “Would someone rid me of this troublesome physician!” a regular part of protests in Kansas?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:33 amThere’s a one-to-one correspondence between “stop him at all cost” and “he stopped him at all cost.”
Do you have any support for the contention that mainstream conservative thinkers used rhetoric such as “stop him at any cost” when it came to the activities of Dr. Tiller?
If you do, I think your argument has merit. Supporting the cessation of Dr. Tiller’s activities at any cost implies that there is no action too base to be utilized.
If you don’t, I think you’re being dishonest.
RWL (4400c6) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:37 amWhatever became of that guy who shot up the Army Recruiting office?
Techie (217a89) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:37 amSpeaking of “What ever became of”, how about the case of the abortion protester that was gunned down? I think the common sentiment was that the murder was not directly a response to his activism but when a guy who protests abortion every day is shot down while holding his sign one could reasonably assume the two had something to do with each other.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:49 amActually rereading my 24 I think that should be “meddlesome” not “troublesome”.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:51 am/hate it when a literary allusion goes awry.
It’s ok to rewrite Jean Annouilh. Not Shakespeare, though.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
nk (db4a41) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:54 amOh, good. I didn’t quite recognize this site without at least one Blog vs. Blog posting in the front page.
rtrski (336865) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:55 am“In fact, the consequences of liberal rhetoric in this area alone has contributed to the approaching collapse of Social Security and Medicare, contributing to the deaths of many older American citizens as well.
So, accept his logic and raise him 35 million or so.”
You might like what the UNABOMBER wrote about the psychology of leftism.
imdw (490521) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:56 amInstead of wasting time writing that, you could have eaten an ice cream cone.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/16/2010 @ 10:17 amGotta disagree with you about the Nidal Hassan example, Patterico.
How about alleging that Lyndon Johnson’s lukewarm statism was to blame for the Weathermen Underground’s murders as an alternative example. Both Lyndon Johnson and the Maoist Weathermen supported greater state control over economic production. A single point of ideological confluence doesn’t mean broad support among the general populace. The mainstream conservative view on abortion is that it is morally wrong, but it should be overturned through legislative means to preserve the order of the republic. The fact that Roeder believed abortion immoral doesn’t mean that conservatives support his position just as I doubt most liberal professors would have supported the Baader-Meinhof group.
Also note how SEK neglects to address how the mainstream conservative support for a society built on law and order directly contradicts his assertion that conservative positions support the murder of abortionists.
Hadlowe (f36744) — 2/16/2010 @ 10:38 amNidal Hasan didn’t consider himself a liberal, nor did he devote himself to liberal causes
Yeah, but liberals considerd Nidal Hasan to be an examplar of the liberal cause. Hasan was a non-white man, a non-Christian, an example of the sort of person the current Democratic party views as the perfect American of the future. It was liberal policies whch got Hasan into this country in the first place. Once here, it was liberal polcies which allowed Hasan to thrive in the US military even while he he made it clear that he was this countries sworn enemy.
American liberalism owns Nidal Hasan lock, stock, and smoking barrel.
Subotai (c6f0d1) — 2/16/2010 @ 10:59 am“Yeah, but liberals considerd Nidal Hasan to be an examplar of the liberal cause.”
Like I said above: “What could be more liberal than jihad and following an extremist religious interpretation?”
“It was liberal policies whch got Hasan into this country in the first place.”
Hasn’t it already been pointed out to you that he was born here?
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:01 amDo you think we could get Imadickwad to go underground if we denounced him as a Muslim Apostate?
AD - RtR/OS! (c781de) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:10 amLike I said above blah blah yak yak
What you “said above” has no bearing on what I said. In fact what you “said above” has no bearing on anything which anyone here said. I’ve noticed that this is a common occurence where your remarks are concerned.
Hasn’t it already been pointed out to you that he was born here?
You’re being denser than usual, if possible. The reason why we have Palestinian Muslims being born in the US is entirely attributable to American “liberalism” and its desire to transform the demographic makeup of this country.
Subotai (c6f0d1) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:13 amI think SEK nails it, you can tell by all because Hassan’s murderous actions were universally condemned by Muslim leaders and liberals while conservatives and Christians were silent in speaking about Roeder’s murder.
I may not have my facts straight, but if it roundly condemning conservatives and Christians facts don’t matter. If SEK if incorrect, we can certainly count on a retraction, along the lines of: “In comparing the abortion murder to the Ft. Hood killing spree I may have erred – it appears that one conservative (who as requested to remain namesless out of fear of retaliation) does not support the murder of Dr. Tiller.”
Dudeman (b50a96) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:15 amApparently I don’t proof read, my apologies.
Dudeman (b50a96) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:16 amWhere I come from we don’t spend much time analysing the death of the like of Tiller the Baby Killer. We lament the process but welcome the outcome because as the saying goes “what goes around, comes around.”
HeavenSent (c3c032) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:16 amSubotai, you’re asking someone who has difficulty connecting known dots to deal in simple abstract concepts where educated assumptions have to be made (the key word being “educated”).
AD - RtR/OS! (c781de) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:18 amSince nobody else has said it yet – Amy Bishop!
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Subotai (c6f0d1) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:19 amDudeman, sarcasm is best left to professionals.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:20 am“What you “said above” has no bearing on what I said”
Of course it does. It at once completely agrees with you and also shows what a fool you are.
“You’re being denser than usual, if possible. The reason why we have Palestinian Muslims being born in the US is entirely attributable to American “liberalism” and its desire to transform the demographic makeup of this country.”
Oh I see, what “got him” into this country is he was born here to family that came here due to liberals. My mistake in not seeing this logic.
“Where I come from we don’t spend much time analysing the death of the like of Tiller the Baby Killer. We lament the process but welcome the outcome because as the saying goes “what goes around, comes around.””
Heavensent wins the thread.
imdw (603c39) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:24 amConservatives complain 1) when liberals ask that any brown person with a funny name not be labeled a jihadist until evidence of such is unearthed
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m inclinded to think that murdering a group of American soldiers constitutes an abundance of such evidence.
But that’s the root of the problem here. Liberals standards of evidence operate on a sliding scale. When they don’t want to believe something the amount of evidence required to convince them is of Mount Everest proportions, compared to the mole-hill of evidence needed to convince them that e.g. “Bush lied!”.
So they believe Nidal Hasan is to be assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a resonable doubt, but don’t extend the same standard to cover the Hathida marines.
Subotai (c6f0d1) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:30 amIt is like a variation of a spambot. It never actually processes input, as was noted above.
JD (2fb05a) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:32 amOf course it does. It at once completely agrees with you and also shows what a fool you are.
You’re blabbering incoherently again. Ask your doctor to check your dosage.
Oh I see, what “got him” into this country is he was born here to family that came here due to liberals.
See? Even you can understand simple facts as long as they are pounded into your head with a mallet.
Subotai (c6f0d1) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:33 amWait … Amy Bishop triggers the spam filter?
Subotai (c6f0d1) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:40 am46.
Wow, it is not usually JD’s MO to attack someone else without actually offering any analysis. It doesn’t realize that even its cohorts laugh at it behind its back.
See what I did there? I replaced ‘he’ with ‘it’ so that JD is even further demeaned.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:49 amSpam filter and moderation filter are different. Akismet is the spam filter and has a mind of its own sometimes. Short comments sometimes get pegged falsely as spam… other times they’re fine. Using an anonymizer will frequently cause the comment to end up in spam. Moderation filter is admin-controlled and uses keywords, IP addresses, and other things to keep a comment from being seen until a moderator approves it. I just put a little note on things I release or fish out of spam so everyone knows the comment may have been delayed.
You have to have some status to demean someone. Just sayin’
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:56 amA person who disagrees with me does not matter to me.
See what I did there? I made your opinion not matter.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:57 am49, We consider the lying source, you, and you are immediately dismissed.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:59 am“but conservatives do inspire those on their fringes to engage in politically motivated violence.”
Just out of curiosity, what inspired FDR to firebomb Tokyo?
Given the liberal love for slaughtering millions of innocents during war time, as well as their fondness for slaughtering millions of unborn babies in peacetime, I don’t think libby-wibbies are in much of a position to be whining about violence, whether politically motivated or not.
Dave Surls (a134a0) — 2/16/2010 @ 12:06 pmactually, what happened there is that you posted something that doesn’t matter at all, but it was humorous, albeit at your expense.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 2/16/2010 @ 12:11 pm52. I consider you to be one of the smartest people I have ever come across on the web. I’ll bet you are very highly educated.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/16/2010 @ 12:11 pmUsing his logic anyone who is against prostitution would be encouraging Jack the Ripper.
Roux (09a786) — 2/16/2010 @ 12:11 pmI suspect, Intelliology, that given your reputation for lacking in honesty and integrity, that your comment is not going to impress anyone.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 12:16 pmBy this logic, Barack Obama and his minions drove Amy Bishop to kill 3 and wound 3.
Neo (7830e6) — 2/16/2010 @ 12:27 pmPerhaps tenure boards need protection from Obama supporters.
Neo (7830e6) — 2/16/2010 @ 12:28 pmSEK,
Your comment reveals the continuation of your double standard. I must show liberals calling for violence. You need only show that a group “targeted” (i.e. expressed targeted opposition to) a particular person. Of course, I can show liberal groups expressing targeted opposition to conservative people like George Bush or Rush Limbaugh. So what?
Set out a single clear defined standard and apply it equally and you’ll see your case fall apart.
Each of us can show fringe members of our broad group advocating violence, and more mainstream elements rejecting violence. Each can show people acting violently in pursuit of poitical goals with which we sympathize.
You just pretend to be better by playing games with language and applying blatant double standards.
Patterico (5070db) — 2/16/2010 @ 12:42 pmYeah, normally I would point out that this doesn’t follow from SEK’s argument, and that you’re arguing against an extrapolation of a strawman, but since SEK begins his article by mischaracterizing Reynolds’ argument…
Sauce for the goose, and all that.
Hadlowe (f36744) — 2/16/2010 @ 12:54 pmI’ll bet you are very highly educated.
Very highly? Are you still in Prep School, sweetheart, or did the trust fund run out after the crash?
Dmac (799abd) — 2/16/2010 @ 12:58 pmPerhaps you are not aware of the different constructs of the English language, Dmac. There is ‘high’ and ‘very high’. ‘Very’ just means ‘even more’. Silly boy.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/16/2010 @ 1:10 pmI see idiotology is begging for attention again.
JD (459763) — 2/16/2010 @ 1:14 pmSo Kaufman must believe that Amy Bishop killed those people because of leftist rhetoric? If we start dissecting why crazy people do crazy things we too become crazy. Kaufman should just shut his big ignorant mouth.
ChicagoJedi (884039) — 2/16/2010 @ 1:18 pm“Using his logic anyone who is against prostitution would be encouraging Jack the Ripper.”
You know how the bumper sticker goes: “prostitution stops a beating heart.”
imdw (603c39) — 2/16/2010 @ 1:21 pmSilly boy.
As always, the projection is strong with this one.
Dmac (799abd) — 2/16/2010 @ 1:28 pmIs iamadimwit some kind of progressive performance art?
JD (459763) — 2/16/2010 @ 1:31 pmNope JD,
Just a turd that keeps getting flushed and then crawls back out of the sewer to spew more crap.
peedoffamerican (b21f59) — 2/16/2010 @ 1:42 pmThis is the heart of SEK’s case.
On the strength, then, of a single comment by an upset undergraduate, conservative hacks are folding socialism into what they imagine her profession to be—be it a professor or a serial killer—in an attempt to create the impression of equivalence between ideology and act where none actually exists.
This thing is, it’s not based on “a single comment by an upset undergraduate”. According to the Boston Herald:
A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children – the youngest a third-grade boy – was a far-left political extremist
Subotai (c6f0d1) — 2/16/2010 @ 2:03 pmtwo comments! Anyone find her name on fundrace yet?
imdw (d6bd12) — 2/16/2010 @ 2:05 pmBUNNIES !!!!
JD (e89f46) — 2/16/2010 @ 2:18 pmI guess I have to repeat a comment I made earlier.
Liberals standards of evidence operate on a sliding scale. When they don’t want to believe something the amount of evidence required to convince them is of Mount Everest proportions, compared to the mole-hill of evidence needed to convince them that e.g. “Bush lied!”.
Subotai (c6f0d1) — 2/16/2010 @ 2:29 pmDing! Ding! Ding!When a liberal says “liberals” and “brown people” in the same sentence, alarms go off in my head and my immediate reaction is to wonder why they are so adamant about implementing policies that kill, cripple, disfigure or otherwise make life hell for brown people all around the world.
And that conflation immediately reduces that person’s moral authority to make any argument about the ethics of political parties to less than zero, in my estimation.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 2/16/2010 @ 2:36 pmEW1 – Does it not seem like liberals have no problem using the actions of any non-liberal as representative of conservatism as a whole, but when the bad actor is a liberal, it is an isolated incident that reflects only on the bad actor?
Idiotology – since you do not read well, I will clarify my analysis of SEK’s douchenozzlery for you. The idea that Roeder is representative of mainstream conservativism or ideals is laughable, and anyone that advances said idea should be mocked, scorned, and laughed at. And, you are all racists.
JD (2f1bff) — 2/16/2010 @ 2:58 pm“Yeah, but liberals considerd Nidal Hasan to be an examplar of the liberal cause. Hasan was a non-white man, a non-Christian, an example of the sort of person the current Democratic party views as the perfect American of the future. It was liberal policies whch got Hasan into this country in the first place. Once here, it was liberal polcies which allowed Hasan to thrive in the US military even while he he made it clear that he was this countries sworn enemy.
American liberalism owns Nidal Hasan lock, stock, and smoking barrel.”
Spot on! It’s the leftwing-inspired poisonous practice of political correctness that allowed Hasan to continue behavior that should have raised several alarms over the years and throughout his career. Fear of ruining one’s own career by raising honest concerns.
To deny that is to deny reality.
GeneralMalaise (4d34a1) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:04 pm“Silly boy”.
Comment by Intelliology
Foppish twit.
GeneralMalaise (4d34a1) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:07 pmThat was terribly unkind to actual foppish twits, General.
JD (2f1bff) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:09 pmPatterico’s series, Deport the Criminals First, documents examples of liberal failure to enforce the immigration laws of the country resulting in injury and mayhem to its legal residents. You don’t have to advocate violence to create violence as a result of your policies and I would throw that one out there for SEK’s delectation.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:18 pmThat was positively racist, daleyrocks.
JD (2f1bff) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:22 pmI’d consider Rush Limbaugh a mainstream conservative voice, wouldn’t you? Please, for the class, evaluate his rhetoric here:
The phrase “soldiers in that process,” in which that “process” is stopping “infanticide,” is completely neutral language then, right? Envisioning opposition in martial terms encourages the crazies to act; so, too, does encouraging them to act, as Limbaugh does here. Is he encouraging people to murder abortion providers? Not directly. Is he encouraging those people invested in the cause of stopping infanticide to imagine that they’re “soldiers” in a “process” who should “confront [evil] when [they] see it”? Absolutely. Remind me again: how do soldiers confront evil?
But here’s your problem:
As per above, I’m not talking about people who advocate violence; I’m talking about political rhetoric that inspires violence. Your argument is correct, inasmuch as no contemporary mainstream figure calls for the deaths of his or her political opponents. Put another way: there’s a difference between talking about a “War on Poverty” and a “War on the Poor.” The former is innocuous, because you can’t take up arms against an abstraction; the latter, however, could easily inspire an unstable person to take up arms against impoverished people. See what I’m getting at here?
SEK (9e7eee) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:24 pmI’m still waiting for said Fop to adequately explain his fascinating theories regarding AGW – sadly, he has permanently run away from the challenge.
Dmac (799abd) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:26 pmSubotai, @34:
liberals considerd Nidal Hasan to be an examplar of the liberal cause
Which liberals are these, subotai? Certainly the liberals I know and speak to every day do not; the dude is a murderer who attacked and killed people for no reason. That doesn’t sit well with members of a milieu which evolved out of groups of pacifist hippies.
Hasan was a non-white man, a non-Christian, an example of the sort of person the current Democratic party views as the perfect American of the future.
That argument really only works if you assert that all non-Christian non-white men are the same. Surely there’s a difference between Nidal Hassan and the Dalai Lama – both of them are non-Christian non-white men, but they’re no more alike than Scott Roeder and JD are.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:26 pmBTW, Eric pointed me earlier in the direction of a series of “lectures” that SEK has given to his students – all I can say after viewing them is…yikes.
Dmac (799abd) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:27 pmaphrael
Do you accept that Hasan survied and thrived in the US military, in spite of his being quite vocal about his views, because of what is known as “PC”? If not I can document it for you.
If you do accept that, do you accpt that “PC” is a description of the liberal outlook on cultural matters, especially one relating to race, religion, ethnicity, and sex?
if not I can document that for you as well. But first you’ll have to stake out a position.
Subotai (366af1) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:33 pmSo, SEK is tripling down on his douchenozzlery? Code Pink, Sen Durbin, Rep Murtha, Olbergasm and their ilk incite violence amongst jihadis with their rhetoric, if you follow his illogic.
Thanks, aphrael. Sadly, some on your side are as bugf*cknutz as the crazies on my side.
JD (2f1bff) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:33 pmSEK sees codewords
JD (2f1bff) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:36 pmSubotai, I note that you carefully did not answer my question. 🙂 Which liberals consider Nidal Hasan to be an exemplar of their cause?
As for your questions:
(a) I do not know enough about Nidal Hasan’s job performance or experiences in the military prior to the day of his murders to be able to express judgment. It’s clearly true that he ‘survived’, but what little I do know suggests he did not ‘thrive’.
(b) I need you to define “PC” before I am willing to accept or reject the proposition that it is a description of the liberal outlook on cultural matters. It’s one of those terms which is used to mean different things by different people; I can’t tell how what you mean by it is different from what other people have meant by the same term, so I cannot respond to the proposition without such a definition.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:37 pmMainstream conservatism incites murder and the racisms. SEK has deemed it so, so it must be true.
JD (2f1bff) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:38 pmWho said “we’ll use the power of persuasion and if that won’t work we’ll use the persuasion of power?” Must’ve been some Conservative since that’s inflammatory rhetoric.
John Hitchcock (03b4ac) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:39 pmThat argument really only works if you assert that all non-Christian non-white men are the same
You truncated my argument, which was that the Democratic party is dedicated to transforming America into a non-white and non-Christian country. (Hasan being just an instance of this idea made flesh.) You can take issue with that if you like, though I think you’ll find yourself on shaky ground.
But saying that not all non-whites and non-Christans are the same comes close to concedeing my point and moving past it.
Subotai (366af1) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:42 pm2009 called. It would like to discuss the left’s this-one-goes-to-eleven demonization of health insurers and Tea Partiers and Wall Street in light of the above.
Hint: what do we do with villains and evil-mongers perpetrating or defending an obscenity? Hell, doesn’t merely couching leftist policy aims in terms of “social justice” insinuate that those responsible for the status quo are in fact criminals?
BC (fe6289) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:48 pmWhich liberals consider Nidal Hasan to be an exemplar of their cause?
In the sense that Hasan is a member of the “other” which liberals admire so much. Did you read SEK’s comments on Hasan? His being “brown” is sufficient reason for liberals to stick up for him.
I have to grab a bite and your other questions will take time to fully address. Catch you later.
Subotai (366af1) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:48 pmThere’s a point you missed, Subotai, when you said this: Democratic party is dedicated to transforming America into a non-white and non-Christian country.
That non-white/non-Christian country will be ruled by white/Christian-by-lip-service only Democrats. At least, that is the way it appears to be working itself out.
Vivian Louise (643333) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:50 pmSubotai: I understand that your argument is that the Democratic party is dedicated to transforming America into a non-white and non-Christian country.
I am neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with that argument at this time, because even if it is completely true, it does not support your claim that liberals consider Nidal Hasan to be an exemplar of their cause.
In order to support your claim that liberals consider Nidal Hasan to be an exemplar of their cause, you need to also show that liberals either prefer mass-murdering non-white non-christians to law-abiding non-white non-christians – or, failing that, that liberals are indifferent as between the two.
I don’t think you can do that. And regardless of whether or not you can, you haven’t.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:50 pmSubotai – saying that the Dems want to transform America to a non-white non-Christian country seems a bit hyperbolic, no? Especially, when so many Dems happen to be white, and Christian, especially during campaign time.
JD (123e8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:51 pmsaying that the Dems want to transform America to a non-white non-Christian country seems a bit hyperbolic, no?
You must not know many white liberals. They’ll tell you this to your face. You must also not spend much time at liberal sites on the web, where you can easily fnd people salivating over the not-so-distant day when America becomes a minority white country and the “RethugliKKKans” are consigned to oblivion.
Subotai (366af1) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:59 pmEric pointed me earlier in the direction of a series of “lectures” that SEK has given to his students – all I can say after viewing them is…yikes.
That’s funny, not to mention an absolute lie, as I don’t lecture.
SEK (9e7eee) — 2/16/2010 @ 3:59 pmSubotai: Your comment in #93 strikes me as being so bizarre that I don’t even know where to begin to respond to it.
(a) there’s certainly a degree to which many liberals, when seeing a member of a historically discriminated against group being criticized, will reflexively rush to their defense without stopping to understand what is going on, because they have a preconcieved notion that the person must be being treated unfairly just like people in that group have historically been. That doesn’t make the person in question an ‘exemplar of their cause’, though … any more than rushing to defend someone against false allegations of criminality means that you’ve adopted that person as an exemplar of your cause.
(b) i wouldn’t say that liberals admire the “other”. i’d say that liberals believe that there is no reason for assuming that our culture’s ways are superior to the ways of other cultures. there’s an enormous difference between those two.
(c) the only things SEK has said about Hasan here, in this thread was:
#13: Hasan wanted to be a jihadi, contacted al Qaeda clerics, etc. That he wanted to end the war, a concomitant liberal cause, doesn’t mean that liberal rhetoric against the war drove him to target Ft. Hood.
That’s not sticking up for Hasan; it’s criticizing Hasan and trying to distance liberals from him.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:00 pmSubotai, at 97: you appear to be conflating ‘Democrat’ with ‘liberal’.
This is very much like conflating ‘Republican’ with ‘conservative’: there’s an element of truth to it, but it’s not absolutely true.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:03 pmNow you are making huge assumptions, Subotai.
JD (123e8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:05 pmWho said “we’ll use the power of persuasion and if that won’t work we’ll use the persuasion of power?”
As Malkin herself quotes: “Let us unionize your workforce or we will destroy your reputation.” I don’t see the invocation of “power” there as the equivalent of a martial metaphor that will cause mentally unstable union members to think of themselves as soldiers who need to stop infanticide. You can’t murder someone’s reputation, after all.
SEK (9e7eee) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:06 pmJD: I think most liberals (as opposed to Democrats) believe that the day in which whites are not a majority is inevitably coming, and I think most liberals are either indifferent to it or believe it to be a positive thing.
That’s a far cry from assuming that liberals are actively trying to bring it about, or that it is a goal which motivates other policy decisions. My sense is that most liberals think it’s inevitable, and so it’s pointless to either hurry it along or hold it back; it’s sort of like the weather in that regard.
[None of this speaks to the claim that liberals believe the country will soon have a non-Christian majority. Anyone who believes that just isn’t looking at the data; we might end up with a protestant plurality as the relative number of Catholics increases, but a variety of factors – high birth rate in the hispanic population, immigration from latin america and africa, the fact that many of the immigrants from the middle east are actually christian – suggest that the population of the US will remain predominantly Christian pretty much indefinitely.]
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:07 pmEarth to SEK. Inquiring minds still want to know whether labelling health insurers “villains” and Tea Partiers “evil-mongers” who are perpetuating the “obscenity” of for-profit health insurance might not inspire the mentally unbalanced to lash out in violent ways.
BC (fe6289) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:14 pmFor example.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
BC (fe6289) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:15 pmthere’s certainly a degree to which many liberals, when seeing a member of a historically discriminated against group being criticized
I had not even realized that Palestinians were a historically discriminated against group in the US.
i wouldn’t say that liberals admire the “other”. i’d say that liberals believe that there is no reason for assuming that our culture’s ways are superior to the ways of other cultures. there’s an enormous difference between those two.
I would say that liberals are hell-bent on bringing those other cultures to America, and that once here, they are intent on protecting and preserving them. I’d say that they show no such interest in preserving and protecting other cultures which are indigenous to America. And I’d say that, whatever they may think they are doing, this works out in practice to idealizing foreign cultures and denigrating that which is native to America.
Subotai (366af1) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:15 pmIt is different when it is done by the left, BC. Sophists like SEK just like to call conservatives racists and murderers. It makes them feel better about themselves.
JD (123e8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:16 pm“In order to support your claim that liberals consider Nidal Hasan to be an exemplar of their cause, you need to also show that liberals either prefer mass-murdering non-white non-christians to law-abiding non-white non-christians – or, failing that, that liberals are indifferent as between the two.”
aphrael – Make the corollary for Roeder, that conservatives prefer murdering pro-life white christians to law abiding pro-life white christians – or, failing that, that conservatives are indifferent between the two.
I think you and SEK will have a hard time with that.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:17 pmBut here’s your problem:
SEK – You are assuming you know what motivates crazy people to act. You claim it is political rhetoric which is otherwise innoccuous to normal people. Validation for your assumption lies where exactly?
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:20 pmDaleyrocks – I do not believe the average conservative prefers pro-life white christian murderers to pro-life white christian non-murderers.
I believe the average conservative dislikes murderers regardless of whether or not they happen to agree with the murderer’s politics.
I also believe that the average liberal dislikes murderers regardless of whether or not they happen to agree with the murderer’s politics.
But then, please note that I’m not agreeing with the characterization that prompted Patterico to make this post. I don’t think that political rhetoric is responsible for Roeder’s actions.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:23 pmIt is easier to point out that he is a mendoucheous f*cking sophist, daleyrocks.
JD (123e8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:23 pmThat’s a far cry from assuming that liberals are actively trying to bring it about, or that it is a goal which motivates other policy decisions.
Really? What do you think motivates the liberal and Democratic desire for increased immigration into America, immigration which is directly at odds with all sorts of other liberal/Democratic stated goals such as raising the standard of living of the poor and saving the enviroment?
What explains it if not the belief that it’s the lefts path to political power and their triumph over those white people who have not voted for them in generations?
(The last Democratic Presidential candidate to win the majority of the white vote was LBJ in 1964)
Subotai (366af1) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:26 pm“Which liberals consider Nidal Hasan to be an exemplar of their cause?”
The ones that support jihad and religious extremism.
imdw (89ba95) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:28 pmOh good Allah.
JD (123e8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:32 pm“What do you think motivates the liberal and Democratic desire for increased immigration into America, immigration which is directly at odds with all sorts of other liberal/Democratic stated goals such as raising the standard of living of the poor and saving the enviroment?”
People who immigrate here find that their standard of living rises dramatically.
imdw (bb8086) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:32 pmIn order to support your claim that liberals consider Nidal Hasan to be an exemplar of their cause, you need to also show that liberals either prefer mass-murdering non-white non-christians to law-abiding non-white non-christians
The assumption here is that I’m saying that Hasan is an exemplar of the liberal cause because he killed people, when what I’m actually saying is that he’s an examplar of the liberal cause because he is non-white and non-Christian.
And, as I’ll get around to showing later, that Hasan was able to survive and get promoted in the military because of liberals hyper-active concern that “minorities” not be “oppressed”.
Subotai (366af1) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:33 pmPeople who immigrate here find that their standard of living rises dramatically.
Yeah, and American people find their standard of living lowered.
Perhaps when the Dems call themselves “the party of the people” they should make it clear that they mean “the people of the world” and not “the American people”.
Subotai (366af1) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:36 pm“I don’t think that political rhetoric is responsible for Roeder’s actions.”
aphrael – Good. Neither do I.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:39 pmWhich liberals consider Nidal Hasan to be an exemplar of their cause?”
The ones that support jihad and religious extremism.
If you support the importation into America of jihadists and religious extremists then you can reasonably be accused of supporting jihadism and religious extremism in America. I’d think that was obvious enough that even a dimwit could grasp it.
Of course, we’re dealing with a dishonest dimwit here.
Subotai (366af1) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:40 pmPeople who illegally immigrate here find that their standard of living rises dramatically.
imdw – FTFY
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:41 pm“Yeah, and American people find their standard of living lowered.”
No I don’t think the historical data shows that.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (c20262) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:46 pmInterestingly, the British people recently discovered that the Labor party intentionally increased immigration in order to improve Labor’s electorate base.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:48 pm“If you support the importation into America of jihadists and religious extremists then you can reasonably be accused of supporting jihadism and religious extremism in America. ”
See, JD, you thought I was joking.
imdw (842182) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:55 pm“Interestingly, the British people recently discovered that the Labor party intentionally increased immigration in order to improve Labor’s electorate base.”
SPQR – Clinton and Gore speeded up the naturalization process in the 1990s to increase the voter base.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:57 pm“I also believe that the average liberal dislikes murderers regardless of whether or not they happen to agree with the murderer’s politics.”
Yeah, right. That’s why murderous thugs like Che Guevara or Mumia Abu-Jamal are pariahs in liberal-land.
Dave Surls (d2c1ed) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:57 pmLets see, a member of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives once led protests in favor of a cop murderer defendant with the chant “We don’t get no justice, you don’t get no peace.”
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 4:57 pmNo, dimwit, I did not think you were joking, I thought you were being mendoucheous. And you were.
JD (5b403b) — 2/16/2010 @ 5:02 pmThat is different, SPQR. Their intentions are pure, yours are evil. And codewords.
JD (5b403b) — 2/16/2010 @ 5:04 pmGod forbid more people get to vote.
imdw (017d51) — 2/16/2010 @ 5:26 pmThe phrase “soldiers in that process,” in which that “process” is stopping “infanticide,” is completely neutral language then, right? Envisioning opposition in martial terms encourages the crazies to act; so, too, does encouraging them to act, as Limbaugh does here. Is he encouraging people to murder abortion providers? Not directly. Is he encouraging those people invested in the cause of stopping infanticide to imagine that they’re “soldiers” in a “process” who should “confront [evil] when [they] see it”? Absolutely. Remind me again: how do soldiers confront evil?
I’ll tell you what, SEK- if that was an intellectually honest question I’ll be more than happy to provide you with the multitude of ways in which soldiers confront evil other than with violence. For example- Civil Affairs soldiers, among the bravest soldiers we have, have a mandate to confront “evil” in ways that would surprise any reflexively anti-military leftist.
Not every soldier’s job is to close with and kill the enemy. In fact, that’s the job of a surprisingly small percentage of the military.
RWL (e1e3e8) — 2/16/2010 @ 5:34 pmHere comes the performance art.
This is about SEK’s post, dimwit. What say you?
JD (5b403b) — 2/16/2010 @ 5:35 pmGod forbid more trolls get to comment.
Fixed that for ya.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 5:36 pmSEK-
I do not know you or of you aside from this thread, so I will try to limit my remarks to what can be clearly demonstrated.
I thank you for including the reference at post #81, for in looking at it I do not think the limited quotation you made adequately supports R.L.’s point, and I think his point is quite different from what I understand as your argument.
From where you quoted to the end of what is available at the link:
Well, if child abuse is evil, as Mr. Morrissey points out here, then infanticide is even more evil. What did Obama do when he saw this evil? Did he confront it as one of God’s soldiers, or did he facilitate it? He facilitated it. He facilitated the evil. The answer now from the Obama campaign is clear: Obama facilitated evil in order to protect abortion on demand, which was never threatened in the bill in the first place. That much, apparently, was not “above [his] pay grade.”
The quote was in the context of Obama’s speaking along with McCain at Warren’s church. They were talking about how Obama was supportive of infanticide instead of opposing it. It was not a statement suggesting that abortion is the equivalent to infanticide and those who are anti-abortion should “oppose it like soldiers” in a literal and concrete sense.
It seems that either I misunderstand the reference or you misunderstand the reference.
Another possibility would be a purposeful disengenuous quote out of context to try to defend an indefensible point, but to make that assertion would be, in the terms of the president, “above my pay grade”. I will be eager to see what comment, if any, Patterico and those of appropriate pay grade will make to clarify this issue.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 2/16/2010 @ 5:43 pm“And, as I’ll get around to showing later, that Hasan was able to survive and get promoted in the military because of liberals hyper-active concern that “minorities” not be “oppressed”.”
Again, the desire to be politically correct drives their behavior. To the lefty, a Muslim fanatic is entitled to his views and promotion of mayhem, resistance and murder, as much as your average Joe is big on mom, apple pie, supporting our military and reverence for our flag.
It’s that “moral equivalence” thing.
GeneralMalaise (4d34a1) — 2/16/2010 @ 5:54 pm“Not directly. Is he encouraging those people invested in the cause of stopping infanticide to imagine that they’re “soldiers” in a “process” who should “confront [evil] when [they] see it”? Absolutely. Remind me again: how do soldiers confront evil?”
Obviously Rush advocating that we nation build.
imdw (017d51) — 2/16/2010 @ 5:58 pmYou are trying out for an NEA grant, right?
JD (8ce84a) — 2/16/2010 @ 6:02 pmGood one, JD.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 6:15 pmNice thread
Free Mumia Abu-Jamal!
SteveG (909b57) — 2/16/2010 @ 6:20 pmWho caused those bussed-in ACORN activists to vandalize private property and terrorize the occupants of that private property up there in Connecticut?
John Hitchcock (03b4ac) — 2/16/2010 @ 6:25 pmThis is blatant goalpost-moving, and continued double standards.
It’s goalpost-moving because we were talking about a “call for violent action,” and now you’re talking about whether the language is neutral. Asking me whether the language is neutral is a sleight of hand; if I “admit” it’s not, it’s as though I have made a concession.
But I haven’t. I never said Republicans’ or conservatives’ language is “neutral” or that it must be or that it should be. I say we can be FULL-THROATED in our condemnation of that which we deem wrong (or even evil!) without being blamed for violent and lawless actions taken by people who share our views of that evil, but hold very different views about how to address that evil.
It’s a double standard because you told me that I was required to “provide evidence that liberals call for violent action against conservatives” to prove my point — yet you need only provide evidence that a conservative has called other conservatives to action by calling them soldiers. Which is not the same thing, as you and I both know.
Are you telling me that if I can find a liberal who has exhorted someone to act as a soldier in a battle of ideas, that will now qualify as “evidence that liberals call for violent action against conservatives”?
Come on, Scott. Stop playing games and articulate a clear standard for what constitutes an exhortation to violence. I am asking you now for a second time. Then we’ll see if there is really any difference as to how and to what extent each side meets that standard.
Consider this a challenge.
But the key issue is whether he INTENDS for them to act in a violent manner. As I have already demonstrated, the articulation of certain liberal ideas may well encourage the liberal crazies to act. The issue is whether that is intended by the people articulating the ideas. If it isn’t, then it is unfair to tar them as if they did intend it.
So all I have to do is find a prominent liberal using martial rhetoric in a policy context, and we have achieved blessed moral equivalence. Correct?
Nope.
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/16/2010 @ 6:45 pmI see SEK has a new post up in which he repeats the fallacious arguments made above, quotes Limbaugh’s language, and asks: “What conclusion might an unstable person draw from it?”
Who the hell cares?
How is Rush Limbaugh responsible for the conclusions that an UNSTABLE person might draw from his words?
SEK also sez:
Sure. I can easily see myself telling people to envision themselves as soldiers in a battle of good against evil.
The fact that some unstable person might badly misunderstand me is neither here nor there.
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/16/2010 @ 6:52 pm“… how do soldiers confront evil…”
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!
Refrain:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
2. At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee;
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
(Refrain)
3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
AD - RtR/OS! (c781de) — 2/16/2010 @ 6:53 pmbrothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we,
one in hope and doctrine, one in charity…
That’s funny, not to mention an absolute lie, as I don’t lecture.
You’re right – you don’t lecture – you talk down to others from your high post of moral rectitude. Keep your hands off those kids in the future, asshat.
Dmac (799abd) — 2/16/2010 @ 7:19 pm“The fact that
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 7:21 pmsome unstable personSEK might badly misunderstand me is neither here nor there.Fixed that for ya.
Hilariously, in comments to the Lawyers, Guns, and Money version of SEK’s post, a commenter is non-ironically talking about the veiled racism displayed by this thread.
It’s as if they were trying to parodize themselves for our amusement.
Racists
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/16/2010 @ 7:22 pmHeh, AD – RtR/OS. I was just considering writing something snarky about how Christians are obviously supporting a violent crusade against infidels when they sing that song, since conservatives are apparently unfamiliar with metaphor as a rhetorical device.
Hadlowe (061332) — 2/16/2010 @ 7:23 pmI’ll be the token racist here since I believe there is only one legitimate human race.
John Hitchcock (03b4ac) — 2/16/2010 @ 7:25 pmI gotta wear a veil now, Patterico?
Sheesh.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 7:26 pmSabine Baring-Gould wrote that song in the 19th century for school-kids to sing as they marched down the street! Lucky none of the kids started blowing people away! (WARNING: you’ll hear the music and might kill someone if you click the link.)
John Hitchcock (03b4ac) — 2/16/2010 @ 7:33 pmThey never fail to live down to expectations, Patterico.
JD (8e9826) — 2/16/2010 @ 7:34 pmPatterico-
If you haven’t looked at my post at #133 I ask that you would. I think when all of Rush’s quote is viewed, the main point is that infanticide is worse than child abuse, and we would expect “God’s soldier”, i.e. Obama in this instance, to confront such an evil. But he didn’t, he supported infanticide in the case of a “failed abortion”.
Rush is not advocating that anti-abortion folk take-up arms like soldiers, he is castigating Obama for showing up in a church and playing the role of a “God-fearing man” while facilitating an undeniable evil.
I think to use a partial quote of this to support SEK’s argument is dubious at best.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 2/16/2010 @ 7:54 pmIt was the #2 marching song of the Grand Army of the Republic after “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”!
AD - RtR/OS! (c781de) — 2/16/2010 @ 7:55 pmWhere is the story about republican congressional members who denounced the stimulus but requested money? I mean, either the stimulus works or it doesn’t, but you can’t have it both ways.
Oh, right. You guys (just like everybody who is too far off to one end of the spectrum) are hypocrites. Idiots.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:08 pmCleanup in aisle 153. Some toddler’s pull-ups failed.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:13 pmWe’ll pretend that the subject of the post is off topic. It is much cleaner than addressing the severe hypocrisy of our party. Of course, using poop to emphasize the point makes it much more adult. Right spqr? Who is calling whom a toddler?
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:16 pmYou can’t figure out who is being called a toddler, Intelliology? Well, so much for the idea that you are brighter than anyone here.
Not that there was anything left of that idea.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:27 pmBy the way, Intelliology, you did say hello to Sunstein for me, didn’t you?
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:29 pmI didn’t realize this blog was similar to a full inclusion class at a high school. But, if you want to use poop to emphasize your points, then I guess you are welcome to do so. Just don’t be surprised when get sick when you eat finger foods directly after you handle poop and don’t wash your hands. But, by now I’ll bet you’ve built up an imunity. Congrats? I guess.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:31 pmOur party, idiotology? You are a good little foot soldier for Olbergasm and MadCow. Now, run along. Your cries for attention are rather pathetic. Do you have anything to add about the actual topic?
JD (1f5216) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:33 pmDon’t worry about what I brought up, jerkwad. Just keeping marching to the drum.
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:38 pm“Remind me again: how do soldiers confront evil?”
About the same way abortionists confront innocent, unborn babies, I reckon.
Dave Surls (2bd51d) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:41 pmIntelliology is just trying to get people to latch on to one of the liberal talking points du jour. It’s what he does. He has no thoughts of his own.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:43 pmI do not worry about what you bring up, as you have proven yourself to be aggressively dishonest. In this instance, you are simply repeating the talking points and screeds from Olbergasm and MadCow. You have not produced a unique thought, thoughtful comment, or anything that suggests an ability to do so.
Murderous racists
JD (1f5216) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:47 pmIt is cute when it accuses me of marching to the beat of someone’s drum, when it is mindlessly parroting the MSNBC and DNC talking points du jour
JD (1f5216) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:50 pmYou have not ever produced a thought on your own. Join The Club. Jump in, the water’s warm!
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/16/2010 @ 8:56 pmRepeating Maddow’s airheaded talking points I see.
BTW, it wasn’t the “stimulus” the item was in that the “hypocritical Republican” voted against dingbat. And he wasn’t a hypocrite for voting against a $447 billion bill that had one thing that he was in favor of.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:00 pmhttp://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Rachel-Maddow-throws-a-cheap-shot-at-an-honest-vote-84414382.html
Gerald A (a66d02) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:01 pmYou are more childish than others have given you credit for.
JD (1f5216) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:01 pmThanks!
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:06 pm“About the same way abortionists confront innocent, unborn babies, I reckon.”
Heavensent beat you to it, but it’s good that you make sure that the thread delivers.
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:38 pm“http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Rachel-Maddow-throws-a-cheap-shot-at-an-honest-vote-84414382.html”
See it’s ok because it was an earmark request he wanted before the stimulus, so it’s ok to vote against it. Some other asshole pays the price of being for it.
Ron Paul functions like this.
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:40 pmSo, MadCow, dimwit, and idiology are spitting out talking points that are not accurate. SHOCKA. I think any district whose congresscritter votes against a bill should be banned from receiving and money or services contained therein. Is this the best you have?
JD (61528e) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:52 pmIt’s also gotten coverage on the wall street journal and neil cavuto. Well, not this particular republican. Some other one taking credit for projects they voted against.
“I think any district whose congresscritter votes against a bill should be banned from receiving and money or services contained therein.”
Naah. But it’s a whole other thing to go out there taking political credit for funding things when you are also taking political credit for … being against the bills that fund those things. Just a little thing.
imdw (8f8ead) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:57 pmJD, notice that Intelliology has completely given up any attempt at making any kind of specific point. That’s because he’s realized that he’s made his reputation for fabrication and won’t shake it here ever.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/16/2010 @ 9:58 pmSaying it over and over and over and over does not make it so, especially in the case that MadCow chose to make, since this project had previously been requested under the Education budget where it belonged, but then out of his control, got rolled into the omnibus pork bill.
JD (61528e) — 2/16/2010 @ 10:04 pm“especially in the case that MadCow chose to make, since this project had previously been requested under the Education budget where it belonged, but then out of his control, got rolled into the omnibus pork bill.”
I fully understand the impulse to think all pre-stimulus unpassed earmarks are legit to be for before you were against. Those weren’t all socialisty and kenyan. I myself don’t have the earmark rage. I think plain old earmark transparency is the solution for any problems folks have with those.
imdw (05d41e) — 2/16/2010 @ 10:16 pmF*ck you, monkeyboy. I am so tired of your passive-aggressive bullsh*t.
JD (61528e) — 2/16/2010 @ 10:23 pmFirst, I can’t misunderstand my own argument, which was about the effect of violent rhetoric on unstable people.
Second, I’m not moving any goalposts when I insist that I’m talking about the effect of violent rhetoric on unstable people, what with me having planted those goalposts and all in the post Patrick’s responded to.
Third, Patrick’s 100 percent incorrect. He’s a smart guy, but he’s just wrong here. If he wants to ignore the obvious meaning of my original post and focus on a comment in which I talk about a “call to violence” in the midst of a comparison with jihadi rhetoric that calls for violence in no uncertain terms, then fine … I’ll let him win on points an inconsequential argument that has nothing to do with my original post, the meat of which he still hasn’t been able to spoil.
Fourth: Patrick wrote: Who the hell cares?
To which I can only say, “I do,” which is why I wrote a post about it, the bulk of which you’ve ignored in order to write this one. Odd as it may sound, my post about the effect of violent rhetoric on the mentally unstable did, in fact, concern the effect of violent rhetoric on the mentally unstable. Moreover:
It’s goalpost-moving because we were talking about a “call for violent action,” and now you’re talking about whether the language is neutral.
This is exactly backwards. My post was about violent rhetoric, and I only mentioned the “call for violent action” in a comment that was written, go figure, after my post was. My goalposts are where they were and where they’ll be; if you want to make hay with my points to score cheap political points, by all means, go ahead … but you’ll be arguing with shadows.
SEK (9e7eee) — 2/16/2010 @ 10:44 pmJD can, however, continue to “win” this argument by virtue of posting every other comment on this and every other thread. It’s not that he’s shouting everyone else down, though, he’s just saying the same thing over and over again until other people shut up.
SEK (9e7eee) — 2/16/2010 @ 10:50 pmSo many troll posts get in the way of the flow of dialogue.
In reference to my posts (133, 151) above, do you think you accurately portrayed Limbaugh in the partial quote you referenced, and that the quote in its entirety supports your contention?
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 2/16/2010 @ 10:52 pmI really could not care less what you have to say, SEK. Why not just scream racist and get it over with? This post of yours is so mendoucheous, on so many levels, that you should have to wear it around like a yoke, or an anchor attached to your ankle.
JD (221357) — 2/16/2010 @ 10:57 pmMD – he most certainly did not accurately represent the quote he is using. I meant to note above that was an excellent catch, and an excellent point, which he will not address.
JD (221357) — 2/16/2010 @ 10:59 pmIf conservatives are responsible for inciting Roeder to murder, then The Beatles are responsible for the Manson family murders.
After all, an unstable person heard a call to action in their lyrics.
Some chump (d97978) — 2/16/2010 @ 11:06 pmI would like to murder everyone that falsely accuses me of inspiring murder by my rhetoric.
Icy Texan (33337e) — 2/17/2010 @ 12:32 amEasy, critter. No need to stop acting like a lady.
(you know it’s mad when it cusses…. it’s mad because it knows that imdw made an interesting point. Sure, it will deny that point, but cornered rats fight back, right?)
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/17/2010 @ 4:20 am“mendoucheous”
How difficult it must have been for you to navigate this world before you learned this word.
Though, what I’m waiting for, and someone with some research will no doubt find this, is a list of republicans that have straight up said the refrain: “the stimulus hasn’t worked.” But then touted jobs gains from specific projects.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (b67c0f) — 2/17/2010 @ 4:43 amBeing Rachel MadCow little b*tch is not all that rewarding of a job, huh? Run along and wait for your new talking point.
JD (24122d) — 2/17/2010 @ 5:19 amMadcow. Seriously. Cavuto and the WSJ are running with this — likely not the only ones — and all you got is “madcow” and “talking points.” How old are you?
imdw (c5488f) — 2/17/2010 @ 5:24 amThe disingenuous part of SEK’s moving target argument is the adjective “conservative.” Bold rhetoric is not solely the province of conservative rhetors.
Vote or Die!
Meat is murder!
Don’t rape the planet!
So the idiots who burned the SUVs and Hummers in SoCal a couple of years back (nice carbon emmissions there, guys) were preventing rape. Guess they were inspired by bumper stickers and their own apparent inability to grasp metaphor. Perhaps the targeted dealerships should sue Greenpeace.
As pointed out above, this argument at its base is an attempt to distance the perpetrator (Roeder) from his own actions make him a victim of society and circumstance. It’s a devil made me do it argument, with Limbaugh substituting for the devil. Guess that’s par for the leftist course.
Hadlowe (f36744) — 2/17/2010 @ 5:31 amWhat if ‘madcow’ and Glenn Beck both observe that it is raining outside? Who are you going to believe, JD?
Intelliology (00d844) — 2/17/2010 @ 5:33 amRe 182- Thanks JD for the confirmation.
Re 183- Great Point, Some Chump
And along that line, were there not movies or some such about assassinating President Bush?
I guess every movie or TV show that has violence in it is responsible as well, as well as news reporting that covers crime.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 2/17/2010 @ 5:54 am#188 Bingo. But I don’t see how imdw nor intelliology will understand. It’s different. That’s all that matters.
Corwin (ea9428) — 2/17/2010 @ 5:58 amThough, what I’m waiting for, and someone with some research will no doubt find this, is a list of republicans that have straight up said the refrain: “the stimulus hasn’t worked.” But then touted jobs gains from specific projects
Why are you waiting for someone else to do your own work, Obi – Wan?
Dmac (799abd) — 2/17/2010 @ 10:57 amMy work? Nah this is oppo research the campaigns / DCCC / DNC can do. Or pay someone to do.
imdw (b67c0f) — 2/17/2010 @ 11:24 amYes, I do.
And it is pure unadulterated poppycock. The kind of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” argument sophists like you engage in because you are unable to make any real, meaningful contribution to the world.
Tell me what you’ve done lately to help brown people anywhere. Like this week. Or last. Or even within the last year. Or two.
You are as useful as teats on a boar.
That is all.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 2/18/2010 @ 5:26 am