Patterico's Pontifications

9/5/2010

Glenn Reynolds on Eliminationist Rhetoric: Is He Serious or Not?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:31 am



I honestly can’t tell.

Reynolds’s latest Examiner column is titled Who is responsible for Warmabomber’s violent agenda? To me, the answer is obvious: the person responsible for the Discovery Channel gunman’s agenda is the gunman himself: James Lee. But Reynolds argues that some responsibility lies with environmentalists, for their “eliminationist rhetoric.”

I want to believe that Professor Reynolds’s column is a grand piece of ironic performance art, in which he turns “eliminationist rhetoric” arguments on the the left, by holding the left to its own standards.

I want to believe it, and I think I do. But I just can’t tell for sure:

In contemporary America, no respectable person would advocate, say, the involuntary sterilization of blacks or Jews. Why, then, should it be any more respectable to advocate the involuntary sterilization of everyone? Or even of those who cause “social deterioration?”

Likewise, references to particular ethnic or religious groups as “viruses” or “cancers” in need of extirpation are socially unacceptable, triggering immediate thoughts of genocide and mass murder.

Why, then, should it be acceptable to refer to all humanity in this fashion? Does widening the circle of eliminationist rhetoric somehow make it better?

I don’t see why it should, and I don’t see why we should pretend — or allow others to pretend — that hate-filled rhetoric is somehow more acceptable when it’s delivered by those wearing green shirts instead of brown.

If Reynolds is being serious — and again, I can’t tell if he is — he is saying that we should declare a particular set of environmentalist arguments as taboo. According to this argument, we should treat environmentalists making the “humanity is a cancer” argument just as we treat people who advocate Nazi policies. Let’s read on:

Our leftist friends have told us for years that right-leaning public speakers must watch their language with exquisite care, or be held responsible for any violence that occurs. This degree of responsibility has had its effect — virtually all of the violence associated with the Tea Party movement, for example, has been perpetrated by leftists, while Tea Partiers have been remarkably restrained — but now it’s time to recognize that responsibility cuts both ways.

The environmental movement needs to bring its hate-filled rhetoric under control, before it’s too late. There are too many potential James Lees out there, and some of them may be more competent than Lee was. Don’t encourage them through over the top rhetoric.

I would say “it’s for the children,” but I’m afraid they’d hear “the children” as “the filthy human babies.”

If he is serious, Reynolds is buying into the leftist theory that strong rhetoric is (at least partially) responsible for the actions of nuts. Even though we might feel a certain satisfaction in sticking the other side with their own argument, the gratification we receive is short-sighted. Because making such an argument is a concession that speakers can be responsible for the actions of lone crazies. And in the end, accepting that argument is a loser for free and unfettered speech.

I think Prof. Reynolds is smart enough to realize that. So yeah, he’s gotta be kidding.

Good one, Glenn!

UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn for the link. He has started a READER POLL! about whether he was kidding.

Given the options he presented, I pick “kidding on the square.” Which I think accepts a flawed leftist meme as its underlying premise.

Note that, in the poll, most of his readers (69% currently) think he was “deadly serious.”

228 Responses to “Glenn Reynolds on Eliminationist Rhetoric: Is He Serious or Not?”

  1. He is kidding, right?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  2. “According to this argument, we should treat environmentalists making the “humanity is a cancer” argument just as we treat people who advocate Nazi policies.”

    Patterico – The DHS and SPLC should really be tracking these people just as they are tracking returning veterans and non-violent militia groups.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  3. Meaning they shouldn’t be tracking any of them, I think is what you’re saying.

    It’s a serious question, though: his column is in fact performance art, right? Like I say, I want to believe it is, but I can’t find that “tell” that shows me it’s obvious. It’s like he’s winking at the reader, but I wasn’t looking at him when he did it, so I missed it.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  4. the resources already diverted by the dirty socialist NPR John Kerry George Soros Barbara Boxer United Nations Time Magazine climate change fraudsters for to perpetuate their climate change fraud could have bettered saved improved how many lives?

    The answer is many.

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  5. you know who does the performance art is that Lady Gaga she’s something else

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  6. See, I’m not sure which strategy to use in responding, because I can’t tell if he’s serious.

    The thing is, if he’s serious, I don’t want to insult him by acting like his argument is so stupid that it has to be a joke. But if he’s kidding, you don’t want to be the one guy in the room who doesn’t get the joke. There’s a downside either way you go.

    So I wrote the post to try to cover both bases: surely he’s kidding, because if he is serious then here’s my response.

    In that way I have managed to combine the worst of both strategies. If he’s serious, I have probably insulted him by treating it like a joke. If he’s kidding, I still look clueless because I thought he might be serious.

    Genius, I tells ya.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  7. Patterico, could you fix this typo, please? I’m not sure I’m understanding your point in this text:

    a grand piece of ironic performance art, in which he turns “eliminationist rhetoric” arguments on the the left

    m (aaada8)

  8. “Meaning they shouldn’t be tracking any of them”

    Patterico – Those environmental wackos are human filth and dangerous. Just look and the time and treasure they have diverted to the fraud that they call anthropogenic global warmening for their own dirty socialistic purposes of greasy greed and power.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  9. the only thing these wackjob Obama-voting environmental fetishizers need to be focusing eliminationistical rhetoric on is the bedbugs what were caused by dead people-hating fruit loop Rachel Carson

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  10. m,

    One too many iterations of the word “the.”

    Thankee for bringing it to my attention.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  11. Here’s a link that it would have been good for Reynolds or his Washington Examiner editors to supply for Reynolds’s reference in this claim:

    And, as Mark Hemingway pointed out in these pages a few days ago, one need only look to the writings of President Obama’s “science czar,” John Holdren to find something similar.

    m (aaada8)

  12. I think you underestimate the power of a mob mentality. Feeding into that mob mentality with violent rhetoric, and a “they’re out to get us” “us v.s. them” ideology mixed in with some colorful misinformation demonizing people or organizations can make a powerful brew unstable people might be tempted to drink heartily, and act upon. I think it can be dangerous with ignorant, unstable people who are terribly misinformed and easily whipped into a frenzy of hatred. Some PETA members would fit the bill… So would that nut that wanted to have a shootout at the tides foundation because of Glenn Beck’s rantings.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  13. This is probably the wrong time to point out that I consider myself an environmentalist, and that I share the concerns of those who say that humanity seems like a cancer on the planet.

    Certainly my solution is not eliminationism — in fact, I have no solution. But I have long said that if aliens came to our planet and saw what was going on, they would conclude that one species had gotten out of control and was reproducing at an alarming rate and destroying the planet in the process.

    Commence piling on.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  14. Chris Hooten’s comment makes my point better than I can.

    If you buy Prof. Reynolds’s argument — that is, if he’s serious, which maybe he’s not — you’re feeding into this ridiculous leftist view that holds speakers responsible for the actions of crazy people.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  15. Humanophobes should be universally condemned — period. And when enviros or leftists start ranting about “hate speech” on the right, they should be asked if they’re also condemning the humanophobes who use enviro rhetoric to advocate a final solution for humanity.

    Not all, but some of these nuts do need to be tracked, especially the animal rights fanatics who carry out or advocate attacks on people. They are the KKK of the enviros.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  16. Patterico – Those environmental wackos are human filth and dangerous. Just look and the time and treasure they have diverted to the fraud that they call anthropogenic global warmening for their own dirty socialistic purposes of greasy greed and power.

    Well, we don’t really agree on that one either. I’m not convinced it’s a fraud. Continue piling on!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  17. Humanophobes should be universally condemned — period. And when enviros or leftists start ranting about “hate speech” on the right, they should be asked if they’re also condemning the humanophobes who use enviro rhetoric to advocate a final solution for humanity.

    I have no problem asking them that question. But the fundamental question is, when we don’t like speech, are we SERIOUSLY going to start blaming the actions of crazy people on that speech?

    Because if we do, that makes us David Neiwerts, just with a different set of political beliefs.

    No thank you.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  18. I don’t know about “performance art”. I see it as, “How do you like it back at you, lefties?”
    Point being that the eliminationist rhetoric is so pointed and so clear that you can’t take it as metaphorical. In fact, some of them act on it.
    So, you want to talk responsibility…?

    Richard Aubrey (c25396)

  19. stop frauding stop frauding I don’t wanna hear it no more

    oops you left your head and your heart on discovery’s floor

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  20. Perry de Havilland covered this topic pretty well:

    The problem I have with this whole discussion is that it grants what is a monstrous totalitarian perspective a polite hearing rather than the sort of response it truly deserves. It strikes me to just dignify the proposition “the state should spay women and castrate men” with “wouldn’t it be better if we just find a way to reduce the fuel we burn?” is to in effect tolerate the intolerable. A far better response, and dare I say a more ethical one, would be “your policy will indeed reduce the world’s population because people like me will put a 10mm hole between the eyes of totalitarian scum like you.”

    I think he’s right that we need to simply stop tolerating this sort of nonsense. Sure, people have a First Amendment right to say it, as I have a right to suggest that blood will run in the streets if they get their policy preference implemented.

    Borepatch (b0a0fc)

  21. Would you have prosecuted Jim Jones for telling the people to drink the kool-aid? Provided no one was forced, would he have a defense?

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  22. But the fundamental question is, when we don’t like speech, are we SERIOUSLY going to start blaming the actions of crazy people on that speech?

    No, we shouldn’t. Crazies will always find stuff to justify their views, even if they have to wrench it out of context.

    But the really tough question is what if large numbers of *sane* people start believing in and acting on extremist rhetoric? Don’t the hate-inciters bear a major portion of the blame? It’s certainly happened before.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  23. I don’t know about “performance art”. I see it as, “How do you like it back at you, lefties?”
    Point being that the eliminationist rhetoric is so pointed and so clear that you can’t take it as metaphorical. In fact, some of them act on it.
    So, you want to talk responsibility…?

    I get the “back at you lefties” bit — but there are two species of that:

    1) I don’t buy your argument, so let me show you how your own argument comes back to bite you. My ultimate point: it is always wrong to politicize the actions of nut cases.

    2) Your side encourages nut cases too. Here is an example of your side engaging in extreme rhetoric and a consequence of it. Am I seriously blaming your side’s rhetoric for your sides’s nut cases? You bet I am.

    Those are very different arguments. The difference lies in whether the speaker takes seriously the notion that so-called “eliminationist rhetoric” (which very often is not) is responsible for individuals’ acts.

    I am an Argument #1 type of guy.

    Glenn’s article, if not ironic, is an Argument #2 type piece.

    I am firmly opposed to Argument #2, no matter which side it comes from.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  24. I think that he is serious, in a way: by using the arguments of our friends on the left — and when he used the description “Our leftist friends,” I thought that I deserved a royalty, or at least an InstaPundit link 🙂 — he is both attacking their form of argument, and making an argument that they cannot attack with undermining much of their own case.

    More, with his use of “Policing the science is likely to prove difficult,” he has also turned on its head the arguments of the liberals that the science rules, and that anyone who questions the science — or perhaps that’s The Science® — is a dismissible whacko. Perhaps I’m reading more into it than Mr Reynolds intended, but it seems to me like this was a hoist them by their collective petards format.

    One further point: our absolutistly-framed First Amendment prevents us from having laws which would criminalize eliminationist rhetoric, but just sail across the pond and you’ll find a variety of laws banning certain political movements, primarily Naziism, and criminalizing offensive speech like Holocaust denial.

    The Dana in Pennsylvania (8a8a86)

  25. Extremist rhetoric, while legal, is horribly irresponsible, and is found far too much in nearly all media in the last 30 years.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  26. But the really tough question is what if large numbers of *sane* people start believing in and acting on extremist rhetoric? Don’t the hate-inciters bear a major portion of the blame? It’s certainly happened before.

    No. You are responsible for your actions. Period.

    Any other viewpoint gives power to the people who want to suppress people from articulating views they don’t like. We have to squelch that speech, for the good of all of us — otherwise we’ll have Nazi Germany all over again.

    This is easy to see when you share some agreement with the rhetoric labeled extremist. When you don’t, it’s easy to go all David Neiwert. We have to resist that.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  27. I should have said “violent extremist rhetoric.”

    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  28. But if you guys really want to throw in with the Chris Hootens of the world, I guess I can’t stop you.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  29. A subtext in Hemingway’s and Reynolds’s columns is–I think I’m not overreading–that Holdren’s support in the book Ecoscience for governmental programs including

    Laws requiring the abortion or adoption of illegitimate children; sterilizing women after having two children; legally requiring “reproductive responsibility” to those deemed by pointy-headed eugenicists to “contribute to general social deterioration”; and incredibly, putting sterilizing agents in the drinking water

    (Hemingway 2010 citing Hemingway 2009) should have been a deal-breaker in Holdren’s appointment to a czarship by a POTUS. Not that no one can have those thoughts, make those statements, publish those statements, but that someone who does support those statements is to be held sufficiently at odds with–what, a generally acceptable understanding of the function of US federal government–as to be unacceptable as a spokesperson within its inner and federal sanctum.

    Broader agreement on that point?

    m (aaada8)

  30. “I’m not convinced it’s a fraud.”

    Patterico – As long as you are not an elimationist or calling the rest of us the equivalent of holocaust deniers, I’m down with that. Number 2 son, currently an undergrad science major basically tells me you can’t get a research grant unless you buy into the religion of AGW. University and government money flows one direction, a war on science. Academic freedom is dead.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  31. I’ve read Professor Reynold’s piece 3x now and still don’t know if he winked when I wasn’t looking, or if I imagined he winked when I was looking but in reality all he was doing was just blinking.

    There is always a move to conveniently relieve individuals of being held directly responsible for their own actions. Teenagers are masters of this. This is nothing new.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  32. “Teenagers are masters of this.”

    Double Heh!! It wasn’t MEEEeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (940075)

  33. #20 Borepatch
    Good one.

    m (aaada8)

  34. Broader agreement on that point?

    I certainly agree. However, Obama obviously doesn’t. Judging from the history of his appointments, Communist beliefs, eugenics or other noxious beliefs are a positive advantage for job-seekers in this administration.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  35. Instead of speculating Patterico, why don’t you email him and ask?

    BT (74cbec)

  36. “Extremist rhetoric, while legal, is horribly irresponsible”

    Hooten – Yet you frequent Bradblog. Please link your forthcoming condemnation of his blog.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  37. I just think people in the public spotlight have a responsibility to not use violently inflammatory speech, or misinformation and propaganda. Not everyone takes that responsibility seriously, hence we have oodles of misinformed ignorant folks who think all kinds of crazy things about our government and different organizations. Some people will act in good faith on bad information.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  38. So, just to be clear, Patterico, you feel that if person A goads person B into doing something violent and illegal, that person A bears no responsibility, moral, ethical, or legal, for the outcome?

    I’m not sure that’s a position that very many people would agree with. I would be just fine with no legal responsibility, but no moral or ethical? No way.

    Skip (9b88fa)

  39. Yeah, I was a little disturbed by this article, coming from a libertarian no less. Whatever happened to the idea that even Nazis and Communists had the right to free speech, to compete in the marketplace of ideas?

    Subotai (a83e22)

  40. I think the strategy is not to ban, but to focus strict attention on this. Of course, Manbearpig’s
    apocalyptic screed is often regarded as passionate
    not psychotic

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  41. I just think people in the public spotlight have a responsibility to not use violently inflammatory speech, or misinformation and propaganda.

    Taken seriously, that would ban both political parties along with 90% of the media.

    Subotai (a83e22)

  42. BTW I am not here to defend from everyone’s crazy assertions about bradblog. Don’t go there, see if I care. I DO care about election integrity, and getting rid of those stupid computers before it is too late. This has been the main gist of bradblog for years, and is why it is so popular. It has a plethora of accurate information about elections, election integrity, and computerized voting machines. He was integral to having our Secretary of State actually do an evaluation of the machines, finding tons of problems with them. Pretending like he is some big liberal liar is just that, pretending. So stop with mentioning bradblog. This is one of the few times I will mention it at all. If you hate the place, why do you feel the incessant need to drag it into all these conversations? Just to demonise me with your conservative buddies? Does it really have anything to do with this thread, or did you just want to mention “Chris Hooten” and “bradblog” in the same sentence together? Please no comments on this comment, and I apologize it is OT.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  43. So, just to be clear, Patterico, you feel that if person A goads person B into doing something violent and illegal, that person A bears no responsibility, moral, ethical, or legal, for the outcome?

    No. If you aid and abet a crime, by instigating it or encouraging it, you are responsible for that crime, and others that are the natural and probable consequence of that crime.

    But you should be able to engage in passionate rhetoric without being held responsible for a nut job committing violence in response.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  44. Instead of speculating Patterico, why don’t you email him and ask?

    I did.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  45. Pretending like he is some big liberal liar is just that, pretending.

    He seems of average size.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  46. Reynolds has been using the phrase “violent eliminationist rhetoric” for a while now, and in a clearly ironic fashion, so this is definately a piece of Swiftian satire, nothing more or less. He picked up the phrase from someone on reliably lefty outlet (too lazy to look it up myself at the moment) attacking Tea party folks some time in summer ’09 when town hall meeting started getting uncomfortable for Democrats.

    Like I said, I’m too lazy to look it up myself, but I bet if you email Glenn he’d tell you exactly where that “violent eliminationist rhetoric” line came from.

    Sean P (6f6c60)

  47. Chris Hooten, I share your concerns about the Diebold machines. I do not think that should be a partisan issue. I suspect you agree.

    Brad is still a dishonest character though.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  48. Sean P,

    I tend to think you are right. If so, however, it is more subtle than most.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  49. Would you have prosecuted Jim Jones for telling the people to drink the kool-aid?

    Yes, at a minimum because they gave it to children.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  50. “…hence we have oodles of misinformed ignorant folks who think all kinds of crazy things about our government and different organizations…”

    Indeed we do. And good luck, Patterico.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  51. I have long said that if aliens came to our planet and saw what was going on, they would conclude that one species had gotten out of control and was reproducing at an alarming rate and destroying the planet in the process.

    I’m in the same boat. Although I don’t believe in AGW, it does seem blindingly obvious that increasing numbers of people do have a deleterious impact on the environment. There really is a problem.

    The trouble is, the lefts solution to the problem boils down to granting near-dictatorial powers to the left.

    Subotai (a83e22)

  52. It doesn’t matter whether Reynolds is serious or not. I think most of you have missed the point (or meta-point) of his essay:

    In the standards of public discourse, we should all be consistent. If it’s OK for one group to talk this way, then t should be OK for other groups to do it. If it’s beyone the pale, then everyone who uses that sort of argument should be condemned.

    Mikw G in Corvallis (fd5fcd)

  53. Once more without typos:

    It doesn’t matter whether Reynolds is serious or not. I think most of you have missed the point (or meta-point) of his essay:

    In the standards of public discourse, we should all be consistent. If it’s OK for one group to talk this way, then it should be OK for other groups to do it. If it’s beyond the pale, then everyone who uses that sort of argument should be condemned.

    Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd)

  54. I agree we should be consistent but I think it matters whether he is serious.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  55. I said no comments on that comment! (kidding)
    We can agree to disagree on Brad, and leave it at that. You are basing your evaluation on your interactions with him while defending your dishonest friend, so that may muddy the water a bit. We can agree to disagree on Mr Breitbart, too, I guess.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  56. Perhaps the answer depends on whether the people using eliminationist arguments are really serious.

    Mike G in Corvallis (fd5fcd)

  57. The environmental argument goes all kinds of extreme places on both sides. On the one hand, humanity as a cancer. On the other, nature will recover from anything. The truth, as always, is in the middle. We shouldn’t mess our nest up for example. I like the self-regulating option: make the board of directors of water treatment plant drink from downstream. But that’s me.

    Still, few of us are willing to give up our goodies, or our children (though we seem okay with telling other people what to do) to heal the planet. Except the planet is always in a state of flux.

    Now, about two billion years ago, all living things on the planet were doing their thing. There wasn’t a lot of energy to be had, but they were pretty good at doing well with the small amounts of energy available.

    Then, a strange mutant organism appeared. They were primitive cyanobacteria, and they were able to harvest energy from the sun. Now, other organisms could do that, too. But this one was able to use sunlight to split water into high energy electrons (from the hydrogen) to run their metabolism, but released a highly toxic byproduct: oxygen.

    That oxygen killed the vast majority of organisms on the early Earth. We see the effects in the very geological record. It would be as if some kind of pond scum was growing wildly and generating cyanide gas.

    Except now, a couple of billion years later, we all use oxygen to make our livings. The original inhabitants of the planet, decimated, live at the bottom of the ocean, or inside the gut of organisms, or so forth—away from the toxic oxygen.

    So…what would aliens had thought at the time of the Oxygen Crisis? The science fiction writer Larry Niven actually wrote a nice story about this, called “The Green Marauder.”

    Yes, I think we need to be mindful of the environment. But I know a lot of people who have strong opinions on this topic without any kind of background in ecology or science in general. Of course, everyone has a right to an opinion. But the extremists on both sides of this equation like people to be ignorant. Because it serves their political purposes toward wielding power.

    Sorry for the speech.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  58. I more or less agree with Reynolds.

    “Looking at the environmental literature, we find terms like those used above — the currently stylish description is “eliminationist rhetoric” — used widely, and plans for mass sterilization are fairly common.

    And, as Mark Hemingway pointed out in these pages a few days ago, one need only look to the writings of President Obama’s “science czar,” John Holdren to find something similar. Seeing humanity as destructive, Holdren wrote in favor of forced abortion and putting sterilizing agents in the drinking water, and in particular of sterilizing people who cause “social deterioration.”

    I support free speech and believe radical environmentalists should be able to say whatever they want, short of calling for murder. But when they say extremely offensive things about humanity and people, you know what? I can be conversationally intolerant to such vicious rhetoric.

    Babies are cool. They are a good thing.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  59. Perhaps the answer depends on whether the people using eliminationist arguments are really serious.

    It’s probably worth discussing what the left means when they talk about “eliminationists” on the right.

    The clown who started this whole “eliminationist” train rolling is a lefty journo named David Neiwert, author of The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right.

    From the blurb:

    “.. right-wing rhetoric has been explicitly eliminationist, calling for the infliction of harm on whole blocs of American citizens: liberals, gays and lesbians, Latinos, blacks, Jews, feminists, or whatever target group is the victim du jour of right-wing ire.”

    ” .. eliminationism, an ideology rejecting dialogue and debate in favor of the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through suppression, exile, and eviction, or extermination. Eliminationism has taken many forms in American history, from the attitudes of early settlers toward the Native Americans they displaced and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan to the establishment of Sundown Towns that banned nonwhite residents and the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. In recent years, the eliminationist urge, articulated by conservative fringe groups associated with the Christian Patriot movement, has emerged in talk radio, news networks and national press outlets providing a platform for attacks on immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals and liberals.”

    Subotai (a83e22)

  60. Maliciously hollering “Fire” in a crowded theater is not protected speech.

    How is this different than maliciously hollering “Warming” in a crowded world?

    If people kill others as a result of fear engendered by both outbursts, those who provoked the fear should be punished to the full extent of the law.

    emrys (52b053)

  61. I have been suspicious of Professor Reynolds and any idea he puts forth since becoming aware of his support for Net Neutrality and the Marxists at Savetheinternet.com (since Guns Owners of America got taken to the woodshed for their support the site has moved the supporters page, it’s no longer the first thing you see).

    SaintGeorgeGentile (5ea33e)

  62. #24 The Dana in Pennsylvania

    this was a hoist them by their collective petards format

    That–and your attendant elaboration of that–seems the right call.

    m (aaada8)

  63. Glenn is making the argument that when you advocate violence, for example through eliminationist rhetoric, maybe you are responsible.

    The left sets the bar lower: if you are against
    illegal immigration, and then some one beats up an illegal alien, you are responsible.

    A not unsubtle difference.

    Jack (e383ed)

  64. It’s pure reverse-Alinsky, demanding the Left live up to its own rules, or proke them into publicly disowning them.

    Karl (83846d)

  65. I happen to treat extremist environmentalists as I would treat Nazis.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  66. It’s pure reverse-Alinsky, demanding the Left live up to its own rules, or proke them into publicly disowning them.

    Karl:

    I think you are saying that Reynolds is speaking ironically: in other words, he doesn’t actually believe that such speech should be considered “unacceptable.”

    Or are you?

    If so, could you point me to the part of his piece where he makes that clear (where he “winks,” in other words)?

    He’s not responded to my e-mail, so I’m still left to guess.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  67. Emrys: If there is a fire in a movie theater, you are allowed to yell “fire.” You are working from the assumption that global warming is a known scam, so yelling “warming” must be malicious. This assumption is false, not because global warming is real (or not), but because there is quite a bit of evidence that it is real, so it is not all that unreasonable to have people yelling “warming.” without it being malicious.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  68. When it comes to environmentalism, I probably lean more on the side of the leftists overall, but there is a decidedly laissez faire side of me as well. If you consider that most environmentalists are old-earth Darwinists, it seems particularly strange that they can muster so much energy worrying about the state of the mother planet in the long run. According to the prevailing science about the history of the planet, it has gone through several cycles of “reinvention” where dominant species prevailed. If it is true that humans are simply a form of environmental parasite, it will not have much impact on the earth in the grand scheme of things. So what? Like many parasites, we may kill our host and thus kill ourselves, but the earth will recover as it has in the past, and some other species will emerge at the top of the chain and the history of the human species will simply be a small blip on the historical time-line. What is 6.5 million years over a 4.5 billion time line?

    Seems to me that there is zero justification for killing humans to save the planet. The planet will do just fine thankyouverymuch. Now, if you are trying to kill humans so that you make the earth more hospitable for humans, that is much more logical…er..no…wait.

    Ron Cody (6b4275)

  69. #68 Chris Hooten
    O.k., but isn’t it malicious when someone yells “Warming!”–or sounds any other alarm–in advocating a selective culling of the crowd?

    m (aaada8)

  70. I don’t know anyone that advocates that. I am sure there are nutjobs around that have wanted that for a variety of reasons. You are really losing me on your argument.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  71. Ron, the point is we are the first life form capable of destroying the Earth, through overpopulation, or environmental disaster of one sort or another, or nuclear war. If we can prevent it, it is our responsibility to do so.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  72. But not by killing people, of course.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  73. [disclaimer: I am still heavily medicated with pain killers from having my operation last tuesday. I will probably make more typos than usual. Sorry.]

    I think it is actually more ambiguous than the two options offered. I think sometimes intellectuals, particularly academics, like to mentally play with ideas. So I guess its unserious in the sense that it is more like something he hasn’t 100% convinced himself of, yet.

    But let me spring off that and get at the substance of the issue. I think it is absolutely valid to point at violence as an expression of deeper problems in a movement or worldview, if done appropriately. And its that last word of that sentence that is the problem. Like for instance, in the Civil Rights Movement, it was wholly appropriate to point at Klan violence as an indictment on racism. It is entirely valid to point at 9-11 as an indictment on islamofascism. It is entirely valid to point at Nazi Germany as an indictment on Eugenics, racism and dictatorship.

    Now, it is often said that the first person to invoke Hitler or the Nazis loses the argument. This isn’t because we don’t use that epoch as sort of a “warning from history” an anti-precedent to be avoided. The problem is too many people OVERuse it, so it is reduced to triviality, so that many people say at some point, “Okay, that’s it! NO ONE can invoke Hitler!”

    Now by saying that, am I relieving these people of blame? Hell no. Blame is not a zero-sum game. Blame is not a commodity that can be used up. Hitler is 100% to blame for his evil. All his soldiers were, too. But so were people all over the world that paved the way philosophically to that evil, without diminishing Hitler’s blame.

    So the problem isn’t that it is never appropriate to share blame with a larger movement for the violence of a few nuts. The problem is that it is used all the time, so that we get so sick of hearing about it, that it is very normal to say, “okay, that’s it. no one can blame larger movements for violence.” Its like charges of racism. Everyone knows it still actually exists, but we’re sick to death of hearing it thrown about so loosely.

    And then there is another problem. What if its just the case that some people are just sick, they want to act out this way, and it was really just a matter of time before SOMETHING set them off? Mark Steyn’s famous example of the man radicalized to terrorism by a church dance in Greely, Colorodo in 1949, to “Baby its Cold Outside” is a prime example. http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060925_133309_133309

    I will honestly say I haven’t worked out when the distinction between the valid blame-the-movement arguments and the invalid ones should be. I think one distinction would have to go something like this. When a philosophical POV logically leads to violence, then it can at least said to be a product of the same.

    So there is now increasing evidence that the entire global warming scare is just a scam. This doesn’t surprise me. I have probably said it here at least once that all of my life I have been told I was about to die. First it was global cooling, then acid rain, then holes in the ozone layer, and now global warming. They have recently tried to rebrand global warming as “climate change” but I think the term is so objectively idiotic, that the rebranding has only partially taken hold. Point is, it is pretty clear that the scientific community has exercised zero self-restraint on the subject. So even before “Hide the Decline” and other similar issues, I felt that the government wasn’t even close to the burden of proof.

    But let’s pretend the lies were true, okay? So if the entire world is about to wipe us out, or something, wouldn’t it make sense to then take extreme action? As Spock said in The Wrath of Khan, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… or the one.” And then he went and basically gave his life for the whole crew of the ship. In Lee’s idiot mind, he was giving up his own life, and a lot of innocent bystanders to save billions. If you accept the bad science that almost makes sense.

    So then you fold back on those guys who hid the decline and the like and say, “didn’t you have a responsibility to tell us the truth? Isn’t this act your fault, too?” I mean the lawyers here would recognize this logic: “couldn’t it be said that but for your lies, this might not have happened?”

    I think when you tell us all that we are going to die unless extreme political measures are adopted, and then your political prescriptions are not adopted, it is entirely foreseeable that a person will go from peaceful political processes, to violence.

    But then let me throw another monkey wrench in all of this. Let’s consider this an issue that everyone can agree on. Slavery. Slavery was evil. And the abolitionists were right to say so. They were right to say it was a violation of the God-given rights of the persons enslaved.

    What about slave revolution? Justified? George Washington and their crew rebelled against England for far less than the deprivations that slaves had suffered, and indeed Washington said so himself. So yes, the slaves were easily justified in rebelling. And of course if a slave was justified in taking up arms to end slavery, so was any white man. Just because he was not personally oppressed didn’t mean he didn’t have the right to take it personally.

    Now at the time leading up to the civil war every abolitionist alive just about stated that they had nothing to do with John Brown and his violence (and his violence, particularly in the Bleeding Kansas incident, was wrong, even if for a cause we can agree with). It was one of the earliest examples of using violence to discredit a movement. But let’s be honest, here, folks. OF COURSE the abolition movement gave birth to the guy. But what do you say to someone pointing that out? You can’t say it was wrong to be an abolitionist, or expect a person not to call it out as being as evil as it was. So you say, “well, a certain amount of that sort of thing is just the price of telling the truth. It can’t be helped.”

    And likewise, let’s tell the truth. I am pro-life. But I am not going to lie about things. If you tell a person that life begins at conception, you are telling them that abortion clinics are murder mills. You can’t say all that and then pretend to be surprised that some people then conclude that morally, if not legally, they are justified in taking life to defend life. But what is the pro-life supposed to do? Pretend they don’t believe what they believe?

    I think then what we have to say (and I will admit I am trying to work this out and I am not sure of all of this), is I think that if you are going to go back to the advocate of a position and blame him from someone taking his political position and translating it into violence, you have to find a wrong in it. So if you lie about an oncoming global catastrophe and someone reacts with violence due to the alarm you created, yeah, you bear some blame for that violence. Morally, mind you, not legally. And if you INSINCERELY state that babies are being murdered every day at an abortion clinic, and someone murders the doctor, of course you are to blame. Blame cannot exist without fault; that is you can’t be to blame for a bad thing happening unless you are doing something wrong.

    And yes, that can even go to more substantive concerns than just honesty. It is wrong to hate a man based on the color of his skin. And even if you are sincere, if you stir up that kind of hatred until someone else turns to violence, you bet you’re a$$ I consider you at fault, in addition to the perpetrator.

    But asserting that someone’s anti-government rhetoric led to a census worker being killed? (Forgetting that in fact the man in question actually killed himself.) Give me a break. If you are sincere (and that is obviously a big “if” when politicians get involved), there is no obvious right or wrong answer to the proper size and role of government. You are never morally wrong to say the Federal Government should be smaller. It is not wrong in and of itself. And to tar people with that kind of violence, when and if it really happens, is invalid.

    That all being said, the left really should not play this game. Because it is in fact the left that more often kills these days than the right. Any time the g20 meet, for instance, you can predict as surely as the sun will rise that there will be violence. The media has never shown any interest in using that violence to discredit the various socialist causes they advocate. But the mere fear that the tea party will turn to violence has them pissing their pants.

    Which kind of gets at Reynold’s point which is if you are going to play that game, lefties, you are not going to like how it turns out.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  74. “I don’t know anyone that advocates that.”

    Hooten – Read the post.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  75. Every human being who strives to maintain a balance between their needs and natures is an environmentalist.

    Had academia not elevated Wicca beliefs and practices to parity with quantum mechanics there would befar less zealot environmental wackos.

    highpockets (adaced)

  76. I don’t know them. Read my comment. I know about them, of course.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  77. Ron, the point is we are the first life form capable of destroying the Earth, through overpopulation, or environmental disaster of one sort or another, or nuclear war.

    Blatantly fals. Nuclear war wouldn’t come close to destroying the Earth. It has already survived catastrophes of even greater magnitude, such as the mass extinction at the end of the Permian.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  78. #71 Chris Hooten

    Many are those on the left who wail that AGW will lead to certain doom, caused by melting glaciers, shrinking ice fields, raising of the sea levels, and other various other dire happenings all caused by the ignorance of the rapacious masses primarily in the wealthy countries of the West. All this based on a lot of faulty data and wishful thinking. Great wars have started with less threat to all mankind. Malicious intent, indeed.

    emrys (52b053)

  79. I just hope the methane clathrate crystals don’t melt or we are all f*cked.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  80. What my Brother Bradley says. We have absolutely no ability to “destroy the Earth”. The closest we have the capability to achieve is the extermination of a few marginal species and many of those we took care of with stone age tools, e.g., wooley mammoths, short faced bears etc.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  81. Hooten, what are you doing now, pretending to be Mike Hydrate?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  82. Huh? Right over my head.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  83. No, he isn’t kidding in the least, except the part about the speech “causing” the violent result.

    What he IS saying is that the Left allows and accepts violent and bigoted viewpoints that the Right has generally abandoned. While “rightist” hate groups exist, they exist as ostracized fringe groups. On the Left these groups are quite central and accepted. This will not change until the Left discovers the consequences of this acceptance, and Glenn is simply airing it out.

    As far as “causing” violence, the individual remains responsible. But if his house is strewn with this kind of eliminationist hate literature, and prosecutor is going to find it relevant at trial.

    Kevin (298030)

  84. Some of you think he’s kidding and some don’t.

    Isn’t this where I usually get accused of deliberately distorting the speaker’s position?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  85. Oh no, Patterico, this is an example where the only thing that matters is what the reader decides the writer’s message is …

    ** running for the exit **

    SPQR (26be8b)

  86. It doesn’t matter where the violent hate speech is coming from, it is wrong. I have not seen “the left” accepting any violent and bigoted viewpoints (except for extreme fringe groups). I certainly don’t (although I’m not really a lefty, either) Where are these throngs of supporters that you are conjuring up? Not to mention do you really think that the right has “abandoned” that sort of rhetoric? No, I guess they are not outright telling people to go off their representatives, but it comes damn close sometimes.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  87. The article was rather snarky, and was obviously sarcastic.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  88. SPQR: Cute. I did e-mail the author for his take, as noted. I just sometimes find it interesting that some will say it’s obviously x and others will say obviously not x — and I have in the past been excoriated in such scenarios for saying one of those interpretations is reasonable.

    But whatever.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  89. Aaron, I wanted to just comment on one small part of your post. The fringe kooks that riot at the g20 and terrorize are not a part of “the left” They don’t reflect the values of most people. You are somewhat conflating the behavior and beliefs of the fringe terrorists onto the whole of the “liberal left.” It is not unlike conflating the attackers on 911 with all Muslims, and carries the same faulty logic.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  90. Ron, the point is we are the first life form capable of destroying the Earth, through overpopulation, or environmental disaster of one sort or another, or nuclear war. If we can prevent it, it is our responsibility to do so.

    Comment by Chris Hooten

    This is nonsense, as others have already pointed out but I think we have passed the point of maximum danger when the AGW scandal broke. Whoever released those e-mails should be up for the next Nobel Peace Prize.

    Hooten, you keep pitching these softballs.

    The fringe kooks that riot at the g20 and terrorize are not a part of “the left” They don’t reflect the values of most people. You are somewhat conflating the behavior and beliefs of the fringe terrorists onto the whole of the “liberal left.” It is not unlike conflating the attackers on 911 with all Muslims, and carries the same faulty logic.

    Comment by Chris Hooten

    First, the anarchist rioters are expressing physically the same sentiments that the far left (Most of the Democratic Party) is writing about. With respect to Muslims, read the Quran and look for the “moderate Muslims” who really do oppose the radicals. They are very rare or very quiet.

    A couple of questions about Sharia and Hamas should sort the sheep from the goats.

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  91. I have not seen “the left” accepting any violent and bigoted viewpoints (except for extreme fringe groups).

    Here is a comment posted at Crooks and Liars.

    When talking about COWARDS and TRAITORS ..

    they have alot to fear. I sure wish someone would point out to these IDIOTS and BUFFOONS in the republiCANT partyy of LOSERS and the INBRED White Trailer Trash Clowns of FEAR and HATRED that we know who they are and these MORONS do not know us.
    Going down the road how about a bullet through the window or a rock.

    How about backing out of your drive way and you run over a doll that could very well have been one of your children.

    How about coming down the road one night and a cable gets stretched across the roadf decapitating you.

    You Morons on the right havbe real big mouths and NO strategy, yeah yeah you got your bang bang how about a arrow from 150 yards right through your chest.

    This is a warning to the right you have alligator mouths and row boat asses, and that Alaskan DINGBAT isn’t helping you to show you how STUPID you are when you look left your liable to get kicked in the balls if you have any.

    Your mad because a BLACKMAN got the Presidency and your joke American TRAITOR and WAR CRIMINAL was APPOINTED. Your mad because you LOST your control of the MINORITIES look at your signs you Racist Nazi pieces of shit.

    You have been proven WRONG at everything you have done and you have been proven to be totally out of Touch with reality.

    So I say keep calling for DEATH and see if it doesn’t find you we know were you LIVE and your Families live.

    You White trash have been Publicly SPANKED for the whole WORLD to see how STUPID you really are. HAHAHAHA!, LOSERS

    The comment was not deleted and the commenter was not banned. So as of right now, you have indeed seen “the left” accepting violent and bigoted viewpoints.

    Subotai (a83e22)

  92. I think Reynolds is just shining a bright light on the left’s hypocrisy.

    SteveP (27fa24)

  93. What Steve said.

    Consider this, Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald are considered RIGHT wing killers. Seriously? I think that the left has a lot to answer for in rhetoric.

    Chris Hooten, have you not seen the pictures of the signs at protests during the Bush years? Every protest, all 8 years. Never once did the Nightly News cover it, yet we have ALL heard about the LaRoucheites (leftists, BTW) whose Obama as Hitler signs are attributed falsely to the right. Sheesh. Maybe it’s ignorance, but the level of vile vitriol that was thrown at Bush for 8 years has yet to be aired properly and vilified. I mean, has anyone on the left, big name leftist, taken Sandra Bernhard to task for wishing that Sarah Palin gets gang raped by a bunch of black men? Does she still get work? She shouldn’t.

    Vivian Louise (c7cad6)

  94. I think many want to have it both ways: criticize Neiwert-style rhetoric and engage in it at the same time. That is a poor choice because if you are trying to make a serious point about the other side’s rhetoric, that forces you to accept flawed premises we should be rejecting.

    Patterico (5bd5a2)

  95. Chris Hooten, the G20 protestors in fact echo the exact sentiments that I hear from “the Left” on a daily basis … and at times hear on the floor of the House and Senate from Democrats. “Corporations bad”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  96. Patterico, Glenn Reynolds has a … well, not exactly a response but at least an acknowledgement.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  97. So I’m driving home in rush hour traffic. There’s a woman with three kids and a baby stroller sitting at the bus stop ahead. To my horror she pushes the baby carrier out into the street in front of my car, pulling it back at the last instant.
    Of course I slammed on the brakes, and the guy in the truck one back smashes into my bumper.

    Who caused that accident?

    The insurance company wants to know.

    I have an opportunity to bumper stickers supporting the California Jobs initiative Yes on 23 – many as I want gratis. But the problem is putting them on your car makes you a target for the eliminationists.

    Isn’t it true that Patterico’s home is in the path of eco-terror arsonists?
    And the global warmers love to claim “wildfire” as evidence of global warming, especially when no other evidence is forthcoming.
    So they get to predict fires, go out and set them, then later on point at them saying “See, I was right about those fires”.

    Isn’t there a law?

    papertiger (9e7e47)

  98. Should groups be held accountable, you know ethically and morally for gut ugly extremist rhetoric when making their argument justified? I don’t have a problem with that and that’s what Glenn’s doing. Such inhumane answers is dangerous because it can influence and, because it’s wrong. The more people realize that the more likely the counter argument with justified repulsion.

    I initially questioned if Patterico was serious. The big dilemma. I can’t help to wonder, if he wasn’t an enviro guy would his emotions be more comfortable.

    Steevo (8a76c6)

  99. But here’s what worries me: What if we get the two in combination?

    This to me is the key that Professor Reynolds is being serious. This is a ‘what if’ question that has a potentially devastating outcome that is encouraged by rhetoric. To view it as satire is to believe that ‘what if’ unlikely, an extreme exaggeration of the possible. If you view it seriously you consider the possibility a real one however remote.

    That is the difference.

    What is difficult for you (Patterico) to determine is the acceptance of the premise that “strong rhetoric is (at least partially) responsible for the actions of nuts.” The converse is you believe that strong rhetoric is not at all responsible for the actions of nuts – it must be their own fault. [They were not encouraged in their extremist views or dissuaded from acting out.]

    That’s fine for a belief, but, because of this strong individualist responsibility you are absolving the agitation and radicalization by those espousing strong rhetoric. Even if you are an Argument#1 kind of man, you are dismissing Argument#2 as not valid or reasonable. You are in fact arguing that there are no consequences for extreme rhetoric which is why you can’t tell that Professor Reynolds may actually be serious and not writing satire. It goes completely through your blind spot.

    warpish (2bf1bf)

  100. What the heck is that supposed to mean, Steevo?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  101. The trouble with Reynolds article is that it supposes some rough equivalence between the “eliminationist” rhetoric from the left and from the right.

    The trouble is that when people on the left talk about the “eliminationist rhetoric” on the right, they are NOT referring to calls for killing people. As far as the left is concerned, you are an “eliminationist” if you oppose gay marriage, or support deporting illegal immigrants, or hold any one of a large number of normal and widely held conservatives views. No, seriously,that IS what they mean.

    So saying “Great, lets prohibit all the eliminationist talk from both sides” is actually a very poor deal for the right and a fantastic one for the left.

    Subotai (a83e22)

  102. The SEIU thugs that beat up Gladney were a fringe element of the Obama administration.

    JD (b88cc9)

  103. “What the heck is that supposed to mean, Steevo?”

    Say what? Calm down and be specific.

    Steevo (8a76c6)

  104. Reynolds ran a READER POLL!

    Most think he is serious.

    Patterico (5bd5a2)

  105. Well Gore early last month, after the failure of the Copenhagen Accord, insisted direct action was need to push forward the climate bill, Van Jones at the Kos convention, insisted that Obama was finally
    turning progressive, but he needed the help of others. James Hansen has defended the ELF and other
    acts of civil disobedience, the apotheosis of stupid, has to be Brad Pitt, who thinks BP execs deserve the death penalty; but for borderline personalities like Stack, Bishop, Bedell, Lee, et al
    anything can set them off

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  106. Steevo: I’ve read it 3X and it’s (sorry) very close to gibberish. I’d really like to know what you were trying to say, so requesting a rewrite.

    Old Coot (4ac3a6)

  107. Patterico, you seem to be arguing that ideas don’t have consequences. Am I misreading your argument?

    chemman (dffdc1)

  108. I’m late to the party. But didn’t the guy who wrote Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarden already cover most of this stuff?

    elissa (421fb1)

  109. Patterico, you seem to be arguing that ideas don’t have consequences. Am I misreading your argument?

    Yes.

    Patterico (f49e3d)

  110. “Steevo: I’ve read it 3X and it’s (sorry) very close to gibberish. I’d really like to know what you were trying to say, so requesting a rewrite.”

    Sorry Old Coot, I can’t satisfy your longing.

    Steevo (8a76c6)

  111. So we’ll just stick to gibberish,eh Steevo? Good plan.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  112. “If so, could you point me to the part of his piece where he makes that clear (where he “winks,” in other words)?

    He’s not responded to my e-mail, so I’m still left to guess.

    Comment by Patterico “

    The 6:16 pm entry on Instapundit is a wink, in my opinion.

    BRUCE WALKER: Don’t let leftists limit language. Or, at least, hold them to the standards they propound.

    Posted at 6:16 pm by Glenn Reynolds

    The latter part of the entry is a link to the Wash Examiner article in question.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  113. “Patterico, you seem to be arguing that ideas don’t have consequences. Am I misreading your argument?”

    That’s the impression I got. If you’re part of a movement with a podium and audience and make an argument to save the world through the death of others while you’ve also claimed those you are at enmity with preach similar stuff, what’s wrong making it known you are hypocritical, dangerous, and flat out wrong? That’s what Glenn is doing and wants done on a broader scale, period. He’s not trying to demonize with the intent to prohibit free speech. Nor did he claim some law should be enforced to stop it. He’s saying it’s time to hold up a big mirror. Time for society to wake up to the threat of the Left inciting violence – and for the Left to wake up if they have the slightest conscience.

    That’s… being responsible.

    Steevo (8a76c6)

  114. I suspect he’s kidding–a sort of reductio argument showing bad conclusions from a flawed premise.

    CliveStaples (2181d3)

  115. 105.Reynolds ran a READER POLL!

    Most think he is serious.

    Comment by Patterico — 9/5/2010 @ 5:13 pm

    (sigh) Pat…that’s part of the joke. Don’t be going all Charles Johnson on us now

    Barney (46b990)

  116. (sigh) Pat…that’s part of the joke. Don’t be going all Charles Johnson on us now

    Thank goodness I have you here to explain these things and to discourage me from going all Charles Johnson. Until I read your comment I was off the guitar store and had already resolved to grow a pony tail.

    Patterico (f49e3d)

  117. Subotoi: sorry couldn’t respond until now…

    That guy is a nut. Are you suggesting no one at crooks and liars called him out on his suggestions of violence? I don’t hang out there. If that is the case I will go over there and do it myself. That is disgraceful and crappy. Suggesting violence is pathetic. I have not seen tons of people suggesting violence, but when I do, I say something. I’m not sure he should be banned unless he does it again, as it was vary vague, and didn’t specifically target anyone. Also, that individual presumably does not have a radio or tv show that allows them to spew that hatred to millions of people. I think that changes the equation as well.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  118. Can anyone show my an LGF post that says, essentially, “I respect this person, and I disagree with them if they meant X. I have a hard time determining if they meant X or actually were making a subtle criticism of X. Let’s discuss.”

    No… that really doesn’t give me the LGF feel.

    And I mean pre or post his shift. Same for Andrew Sullivan.

    Not all criticism is an attack. There’s a reason Instapundit is letting this article get more discussion and exploration, too. It’s an interesting problem.

    I think the left really does incite violence sometimes. But a lot of them just sort of ignore the incitement should-be fringe, while the right simply shuns the nuts. The idea of forcing people to have fewer children is not enough to be shunned by the academy, as one example.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  119. The beauty of free expression is that we also can self police. That self policing is also the ugly of free expression is one of the prices of a free society. Just saying.

    Vivian Louise (c7cad6)

  120. Mike K: regarding the climategate email scandal:

    You still believe that! LOL! That has been totally debunked. Climategate was a big fail. Somehow you didn’t get that information? I wonder why.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  121. The old Charles Johnson, presented evidence of the
    speeches, transcripts, other records, video tapes
    of Wahhabi and left wingers doing their thing. the new one is just like Cole, Niewert and our good friend Boehlert

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  122. Where did you get the idea that climategate was a big fail, Chris?

    You should consider the source.

    papertiger (56e157)

  123. Chris Hooten:

    The debunking was debunked. You honestly didn’t know that???!!! For real???!!! OMG LOLOLOLOL

    Patterico (f49e3d)

  124. you suggesting no one at crooks and liars called him out on his suggestions of violence? I don’t hang out there. If that is the case I will go over there and do it myself.

    This is me, holding my breath.

    Patterico (f49e3d)

  125. SPQR:

    Chris Hooten, the G20 protestors in fact echo the exact sentiments that I hear from “the Left” on a daily basis … and at times hear on the floor of the House and Senate from Democrats. “Corporations bad”.

    You are insane. Those people are advocating violence as a force of change. It is complete nonsense to suggest that “the left” as you call it support and are behind such criminal activities. Methinks you inflate similarities in your mind, whilst ignoring the overwhelming number of differences. To you, there really is no difference between “the left” and those hurling Molotov cocktails at cop cars.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  126. No, Hooten, it’s not been debunked. I believe the guilty parties got to be their own juries and said it was debunked, but there is no defense for their ‘hide the decline’ activities, and certainly the proven facts of their fight against peer review publications considering real science was damning too.

    But that’s not really here. If you’re cool with that behavior, that’s your business.

    Mike K has a point: you are making incredibly grandiose claims. You’ve claimed we are destroying the Earth. That kind of rhetoric is so silly it’s hardly dangerous, but it would justify a lot of murder if you were correct.

    Tell me: if we are destroying the Earth and killing billions, why wouldn’t you take to arms? It makes perfect sense that if you really convince someone that this is a crisis that could “destroy the Earth” that that person would be willing to kill. I would be willing to kill to protect billions of people. I think that’s pretty normal.

    In all reality, real scientific method led to people predicting that Martian temperatures would increase and decrease relatively similarly to the Earth’s. That hypothesis has now been tested with Martian rovers and non Michael Mann screwed with Earth data. And lo and behold: hypo verified.

    so if you’re considering the kinds of reactions that would naturally accompany your claims, I hope you step back and realize that Mike K is dead right.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  127. So what if he is serious?

    Did he ask for censorship? No.

    He is advocating self-restraint and social ostracism of those without rhetorical self-restraint.

    That’s how I read it.

    mockmook (7f7a06)

  128. They said that if he voted for McCain that it would mean the blurring of serious and satire and they were right!

    CERDIP (e79439)

  129. So what if he is serious?

    So it would be cool to know for sure. Some people are saying it is obvious he’s joking, to the point where anyone saying he was serious also must be joking, and it is an LGF level freakout to say otherwise.

    I think you’re right, BTW, that he’s advocating ‘self restraint’, while also making fun of just how unjustified much condemnation of conservative rhetoric has been. Sadly, these points are not thematically similar. That’s reality for you.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  130. I have not seen “the left” accepting any violent and bigoted viewpoints (except for extreme fringe groups).

    Let’s just add to the list that Vivian helpfully started:

    – we had a film released during the Bush years that explicitly depicted his assassination. To date, not one prominent figure from the Left has said anything even remotely negative about that abomination.

    – eight years of the MSM endlessly showing the marchers screaming “BOOOSH IS A NAZI!” with not one commentator from the Left decrying such hateful rhetoric;

    – Air America’s noxious host (Randi Rhodes) playing a tape of a Bush speech on the public airwaves, immediately followed by a sniper’s gun blast. To date, NOT ONE LEFTY COMMENTATOR HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THAT EPISODE.

    Need some more examples? Just ask, I’ve got dozens more. If you honestly expect us to believe your earlier statement, then you’re worse than clueless.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  131. BTW, I believe that Mr. Reynold’s tongue was planted firmly in his cheeck when he wrote that – but he’s also making a serious point with his cheekiness.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  132. In investigating the “climategate” issue, one finds there have been three investigations into allegations that scientists “cooked the books.” The investigations were done by the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the second was by the Science Assessment Panel (created by The University of East-Anglia and the Royal Society) and the third was a UAE-commissioned independent review.
    All three investigations arrived at the same conclusion, that the scientists in question did not manipulate research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
    After conducting said research, one begins to think the idea of a global warming “hoax” is a bit outlandish, especially when considering the logistics involved. It would require thousands of globally dispersed scientists over multiple decades to coordinate their research to fool the public — to what? Impose a global redistribution of wealth? Gain tenure? Fame?

    They debunked all three investigations? I would be extremely surprised that there is any legitimate debunking of those institutions on this issue. Maybe some Craig Steiner type who thinks they know better than everyone else?

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  133. “Need some more examples?”

    Dmac – I wonder whether Hooten has read Kos’ new book, American Taliban.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  134. Well, are you going to tell me where that comment was, so I can tell him to STFU? I’m not reading the whole site to find it. Searches apparently don’t bring up comments. That guy is an ass.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  135. The problem is sometimes environmentalists’ rhetoric does goes overboard. How do we deal with that? And then the other question: Is PETA an “environmental” organization?

    49erDweet (a01cf9)

  136. No, I don’t go to that site, and would not read his books. He thinks election integrity is a conspiracy theory. I am rather unimpressed when I see him on TV.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  137. Don’t forget the Daily Show, ‘snipers wanted’ caption, Charlie Brooker of the
    Guardian,speculating’ where is Oswald when we need him’

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  138. DMAC, I’m not really a lefty, but I’ll say that was inappropriate. There now someone has said that was a messed up thing to do.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  139. followed by a sniper’s gun blast.

    Incidentally, one of the most infamous assassins in this country’s history — and certainly THE most infamous in modern history — Lee Harvey Oswald, was of the left.

    Reynolds is buying into the leftist theory that strong rhetoric is (at least partially) responsible for the actions of nuts.

    The main problem is the left correlates that argument with a frequent desire to also absolve — or greatly rationalize away — the guilt and responsibility of the nut. Because liberals love to buy into the notion that “my heart does bleed, therefore I’m humane and loving,” a lot of things they analyze end up corrupt and ass-backwards. So even if outside influences do further inflame the reaction of fanatics, the one who ultimately is guilty (and ultimately fully responsible for his or her own actions) gets a free pass from “progressives.”

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  140. Yes, I agree, but I would characterize it as him trying to have it both ways. Leftists are jerks for making arguments based on premise x. Also, here is my serious point based on premise x.

    Patterico (f49e3d)

  141. I’ve got to admit Pat, you make no sense to me here. For starters, if you buy into the particulars that obviously Lee bought into, is what he did irrational? When you consider plenty of supposedly respectable people are claiming the very survival of life on Earth is in the balance what could be an irrational response to it? Even despair, of the sort that led the Argentine couple to murder their children and commit suicide, wouldn’t necessarily be irrational. Reynolds is right, the logical consequence of many of these ideas justifies violence against mass quantities of human beings. Remember, many of these “ideas” begin with the notion that there is nothing special about human beings, and that it is “speciesist” to value human life more than any other organism. Couple this with fantasies of a “tragedy of the commons” scenario at work, and you have the makings of an ideological vision with authoritarian and, frankly, murderous impulses. I don’t think any thinking person can look at the history of the 20th Century and claim that such ideologies cannot result in murderous consequences or immense proportions.

    So, your basic premise (i.e. that people could only arrive at murderous consequences if they were deficient in reason), is simply ahistorical, illogical, and, well, wrong.

    But, of course, we already KNOW this, even if you want to pretend you do not. We know not everyone in Germany was insane between 1936 and 1945. We know not everyone intimately involved in the concentration camps (or the gulag system in Russia) were insane. We know very FEW of them were insane. Simple coercion does not explain why we had so many “willing executioners”. A part of the explanation has to be the propoganda, the IDEAS, the SPEECH, that prepared the way to Auschwitz.

    Besides, where did Reynolds say he wanted to ban anyone’s speech? Respecting the 1st Amendment doesn’t mean one is not allowed to make moral judgements upon people’s speech.

    Rich Horton (c49a7d)

  142. Wow, 141 comments and counting.

    What’s so complicated and mysterious? Glenn is suggesting it might be wise to police insane rhetoric on the enviro-left, just as racist and (at least in my circles) anti-Semitic comments are shunned.

    Think you stampeded down the wrong path here.

    Christopher Fotos (b9376a)

  143. Why is inciting violence being wrong seen as such a partisan issue for so many of you? “But the lefties did this, and this guy was a lefty, and those rock throwers are lefties…” The point is that it is wrong, and should not be done by anyone, especially on public airwaves. These examples do pale in comparison to the rather inflammatory speech that has been regularly floated by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Malkin, Savage, Palin, or any of the other hate-and-fear-mongering wingnuts. Rhandi Rhodes always did rub me the wrong way. She is so annoying and inflammatory. But some guy on a blog’s comment section is not equal to someone who has a national media show.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  144. It’s a really crazy notion, that strikes me as very arrogant about what man’s capacity to change the climate, is. but if one strongly believes it there
    are certain consequences, as Earth First and the ELF
    have shown. Now Bainbridge, not surprisingly is being more obtuse than usual, missing that Clancy’s
    evil scientist, was not intended as a hero in Rainbow 6, anymore than the Palestinian with the nuke in “Sum of all Fears”

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  145. After conducting said research, one begins to think the idea of a global warming “hoax” is a bit outlandish, especially when considering the logistics involved. It would require thousands of globally dispersed scientists over multiple decades to coordinate their research to fool the public …

    The basic premise, that the sun’s variations could not be used to explain climate over the last 3 decades – now get me, because I want to make this perfectly clear – the core belief used to justify all the other derivative global warming theory – is based on a single study by a solitary astrophysicist who was also the lead author and only astrophysicist used by the IPCC.

    She was hand picked for the task, not based on merit. Her findings are the result of a rejiggering of the satellite data to make it conform to the GW theory that was protested by no less an authority then the guy who invented the satellite sensors himself.

    It didn’t “require thousands” – just one. The thousands are just the scumbags who profited from the thing.

    papertiger (56e157)

  146. And I seriously want to tell that guy he is an IDIOT, so please tell me the section he was commenting in on crooks and liars…

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  147. Rich:

    For starters, if you buy into the particulars that obviously Lee bought into, is what he did irrational? When you consider plenty of supposedly respectable people are claiming the very survival of life on Earth is in the balance what could be an irrational response to it? Even despair, of the sort that led the Argentine couple to murder their children and commit suicide, wouldn’t necessarily be irrational

    Indeed. And if you call abortion “murder” then bombing abortion clinics wouldn’t necessarily be irrational.

    But, of course, we already KNOW this, even if you want to pretend you do not. We know not everyone in Germany was insane between 1936 and 1945.

    I am not “pretending” anything, Rich. Pretending is dishonest.

    You need not be insane to reject reason.

    Besides, where did Reynolds say he wanted to ban anyone’s speech?

    Where did I claim he did?

    Patterico (f49e3d)

  148. Think you stampeded down the wrong path here.

    Please describe my path before criticizing it. A quote from the post would be nice. Thanks!

    Patterico (f49e3d)

  149. http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html

    Dmac – This link has a good listing of but a portion of the responsible rhetoric emanating from crissyhooten’s friends during the reign of Chimpy McHitler$urton.

    JD (8ded14)

  150. papertiger, Right, the entire theory of global warming hinges on that one thing. Right. Who told you that? Have you talked to any environmental scientists about that theory? It sounds like utter crap. And that is your authoritative informative source? Try again.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  151. The sun was especially hot in the 90’s, it’s not so hot now.

    It doesn’t get anymore complicated then that.

    All the rest of it – hogwash.

    papertiger (56e157)

  152. JD, you’ve got to be kidding me. I don’t think anyone deserves to be compared to Hitler, but that is a weak argument. I am talking about speech and propaganda that suggests that those who are truly patriotic, or religious, or whatever would commit crimes of violence, or that the government or individuals or organisations are worthy of being attacked, and it would be the “correct” thing to do. Drawing a moustache on a picture of a President isn’t really what I am talking about. Or making direct comparisons, unless it involves suggesting that the person deserves to die or be injured.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  153. The Earth warms up when the sun warms up –

    You’re right that’s not nearly as compelling a headline as,

    “Man made climate change is destroying the Earth – but we can’t point to any particular place right this minute. Trust us.”

    papertiger (56e157)

  154. I’m not really a lefty

    It is not nice to note crissyhooten is a leftist. He just reflexively argues the leftist point on view every time he comments, savages those that do not share his leftist views, and is as predictably leftist at the golfer-in-chief.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    JD (8ded14)

  155. Well if you are into simple things, I guess that is how it works. It ain’t that simple, though.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  156. Chris Hooten, please give me an example of the hate speech of a Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, etc., and, please, quotes only, please.

    reff (176333)

  157. No where does Reynolds say that such speech by lefties must be stopped by government action. What he is saying is that speech that says, for instance, Jews must be sterilized and killed, while legal, is not accepted by decent society, whether on the left or right. (Whew! What a sentence.) Those advocationg the sterilization of Jews are shunned. We do not ever invite Neonazis to dinner. Those who speak such evil thoughts lead lives on the margins.

    So, why do people get away with such talk about humanity in general? No, the government need not stop them, no one need stop them. Instead, shun them as we do the last few KKK members.

    That is Reynolds’ point. Pat, you’ve been in government too long, perhaps. All actions must not be from government. The government did not kill the KKK. The government caught and punished some KKK members that were actively breaking laws, the public in general did the rest. Police officers stopped James Lee, the wacko doing something violent. The general public should shun those calling for, say, the assassination of George W. Bush. Instead, in many circles, those people were celebrated. Yet a quiet mention that Obama spends too much time golfing and not enough on unemployment or oil rigs blowing up or… are met with RAAAAACIST HATER!!!!111!!!!

    Do I want anyone’s right to speak squelched? No. Do I want people to uphold the same standards to KKKers and lefties? Yes.

    Peter (5cde28)

  158. Pearls before swine Professor. Funny but sad.

    The rest of you illiterates; “Just shut-up or someones going to get hurt!!!”.

    (See what I did there?)

    Pawn (287544)

  159. Not everyone with a modicum of common sense is a lefty. A few are centrists, and some are even conservatives 🙂

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  160. I’d especially love a quote from Michelle Malkin, not one with a sarc tag attached, of course.

    reff (176333)

  161. That was a joke, BTW

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  162. It is all nuancey, you knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing anti-science Reichwingnutz. I love the crissyhooten position that inflammatory rhetoric is bad, and nobody should do it, BUT YOUR SIDE IS WAY WORSE AND I AM NOT A LEFTIST.

    JD (8ded14)

  163. That is Reynolds’ point. Pat, you’ve been in government too long, perhaps.

    Yes. It’s so obvious. Except to all the people in this thread who are certain he is being ironic.

    I bet they’re all in government too!

    Patterico (f49e3d)

  164. Oh, you are certainly a joke, of that there is no doubt. You can call yourself a martian, a centrist, a flying unicorn, whatever you wish, but that will not make it so.

    JD (8ded14)

  165. “isn’t really what I am talking about.”

    Hooten – Well, what are you talking about? You are fond of referencing imflammatory talk by Beck/Limbaugh et. al. but don’t give us examples. Please feel free to tell us what exactly you are talking about.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  166. No where does Reynolds say that such speech by lefties must be stopped by government action

    No where does Patterico say ^^^^

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  167. You actually don’t hear it, do you, reff? You actually think I couldn’t come up with any. Astonishing. They constantly dehumanize those they disagree with, organizations they don’t like, and representatives that don’t match their politics. They suggest benign organizations are some insidious “plant” trying to take over our government or whatever, and they are constantly feeding into the misinformation that is already out there (much of it coming from them). For instance, they constantly and insidiously paint Obama as some kind of islamic anti-American foreigner who wants to ruin our country, saying he must be stopped at all costs, etc. And while acknowledging that much of the propaganda is false publicly, they continue to feed into it with comments like Rush saying America isn’t islamophobic, they voted for Obama, didn’t they? That evil, awful blog site you hate called mediamatter.org has tons upon tons upon tons of examples for you. I’m sure they are all lies made up by them, though, even the ones with video and audio. I am not going to make a gigantic list for you. There are already several of them available. That is why people say that they are inflammatory, not because it is some imaginary talking point.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  168. #

    papertiger, Right, the entire theory of global warming hinges on that one thing.[that one thing being the sun. Correct.] Right. Who told you that? [Every sense in my being.] Have you talked to any environmental scientists about that theory? [Made a personal vow to never intentionally talk to an environmentalist – for the sake of their health.] It sounds like utter crap. And that is your authoritative informative source? [That’s information taken directly from the IPCC’s AR4. The chapter on climate effects of the sun. Didn’t you read the link?] Try again.

    Comment by Chris Hooten — 9/5/2010 @ 8:24 pm

    Live in ignorance if you must.

    papertiger (56e157)

  169. Violence is not funny, so sarcasm does not protect one from being guilty of hate speech.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  170. I think there are too many (what I consider) straight-forward valid points for it to be “sarcasm” in the way I understand it; but I repeated his typing “Humanity is a” into Google and did not replicate his result (unless he knows how to calculate Google results in a superior way to my naiveté).

    I agree with his characterization of the extreme environmentalists. They view humans on the same level as a species of grasshopper, there is a place for a “correct” number of them, but “too many” is a condition that should be corrected by the experts who know how to determine such things. (It is inherently assumed that such experts exist, and I overtly assume they don’t mean me.)

    I agree that the individual is responsible for his/her actions and is “the one to blame”, but as suggested previously, there is usually plenty of blame to go around. Patterico states, “…making such an argument is a concession that speakers can be responsible for the actions of lone crazies. And in the end, accepting that argument is a loser for free and unfettered speech.” I do not agree that, “Speakers can be responsible for the actions of lone crazies”, but speakers are responsible for their own words and the contribution they make to society. Anyone and any organization that promotes an excessive response, especially to a fictional concern, has not helped the situation and in some (perhaps extremely) small way has leant credibility and momentum leading up to the overt act. Every small racist comment or action contributed to the KKK’s existence and ability to harm. Every small bit of anti-Semitism contributed to the situation leading to the holocaust. There is a legal concept and a moral concept of “free and unfettered speech”. To legally limit speech necessitates the impossible task of making wise and fair limits, hence the inherent problem of making certain speech illegal. But moral limits to speech exist whether they are recognized or not or enforced or not. I may have a legal right to humiliate someone in public, but it would be unusual where that would be a moral good. From a “theological ethics” perspective in the Judeo-Christian tradition, a fundamental principle was “You shall not bear false witness”. At a minimum, one has no right to say anything that isn’t true about a person, or to suggest something untrue by refraining from telling truth. In the New Testament the standard is to speak motivated by loving concern for the hearer.

    I like the sentiment referred to by Borepatch at #20. There are many ideas that are evil enough that they should not be “dignified” with polite discussion. It will not work to pretend they don’t exist, and to respond in a barbaric fashion is likewise inappropriate and unhelpful; but we should not dignify Holocaust deniers with a symposium on “Evidence on Falsification of Jewish Deaths in Europe, 1935-1945”. We really should not give any dignity to other positions that have evil consequences. That does not mean we forcibly repress them but rather we treat certain ideas with the contempt which they deserve.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  171. I agree with MD. There definitely needs to be more contempt displayed for this sort of thing by everybody. When someone of elevated status starts spouting hate speech we should take notice. When they start spouting misinformation to support their insanity, we need to do something about it, and give them the contempt and ridicule they deserve.

    How are the Raccoons, MD? Talk radio would drive me out of the attic, too!

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  172. You couldn’t quote one, could you?

    But, I’ll play anyway….dehumanizing someone is not hate speech, as much as you might like it to be. It is making them out to be less than human, but that isn’t “hate” speech, it’s discussion. Of course, you couldn’t give us a quote on that one, either, could you??? Media matters has been shown to take nearly everything out of contest.

    Finally, since Obama is always telling us how bad America is, would that be anti-American??

    You just couldn’t do it, could you???

    reff (176333)

  173. Note how crissyhooten’s definition of what he would put in as inciteful rhetoric is rather expansive when it comes to the evil conservative rhetoric, but will play word games and use its instinctive sophistry when trying to limit the bad rhetoric from the left as that which specifically calls for violence. Even then, he breezily brushes that aside with an of course that is wrong, and then launches right back into the you are worse spiel.

    JD (8ded14)

  174. When someone of elevated status starts spouting hate speech we should take notice. When they start spouting misinformation to support their insanity, we need to do something about it, and give them the contempt and ridicule they deserve.

    We await your fevered disavowal of MSNBC, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddown, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Air America, Al Franken, Al Gore, Paul Krugman, Media Matterz, Think Regress, and the rest of their ilk, just for starters …

    JD (8ded14)

  175. What are you talking about, JD? I have been very consistent. You came to me with Hitler. Give me a break. And I do have a different standard for those that have a media outlet to spew their crud, than the average idiot commenting on a blog (no self-reflective irony there 8)) The misinformation and propaganda often used to support the inflammatory speech is really troubling. Good people who are misinformed will act in good faith on bad information, thinking they are doing a good thing. Hence the need to be vigilant and contemptuous against all hate speech, but especially that which is laced with propaganda and lies.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  176. Again, I await your fevered refudiation of Think Regress, Media Matterz, Olbergasm, Maddow, Schultz, Franken, Reid, etal … is their platform not big enough for you? You seem to save your vitriol for those on the right, and casually wave off that from the left. Oh, your comment #168 is what I was referring to, in how you give this rhetoric as expansive a definition as possible when referring to the right, including things that absolutely are not a call for violence, or even inciteful.

    JD (8ded14)

  177. I haven’t seen any of those people advocating hurting or intimidating representatives of either party, whilst spouting propaganda supporting such an act. Maybe I missed it? Randi Rhodes is about as close as I can think, and I hated her, so…

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  178. “Advocating” is not really what I meant there. “implying”, or “lightly suggesting” taking up arms against the government or it’s officials is more what I meant.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  179. Then you have never watched Olberman? Maddow? Schultz? Never read Think Regress? Media Matters? Apply the exact same standard from your #168 to your ideological allies. I know, it might give you a headache, the cognitive dissonance will probably be a bit uncomfortable, but it might give you an idea of why many think you are a laughable joke of a troll.

    JD (8ded14)

  180. CH,

    “..and I hated her…”

    Funny stuff there.

    Pawn (287544)

  181. I won’t even bother pointing out the times that the leftists have heard things that were not said, “lightly implying” as crissyhooten notes, states they heard things that were not there, took comedy or parody or sarcasm as a call to arms, or any of the variety of ways that the leftists choose to distort the actual in context words of people that they disagree with. As crissyhooten has shown us here, the standards that they apply are not even remotely similar. In #168 he lays out the variety of bad bad bad speech that conservatives engage in, but when asked about Team Lib, he limits it to actual calls to arms and violence against the government and individuals.

    JD (8ded14)

  182. JD, according to crissyhooten, those people are mainstream, and the conservatives are radicals….

    chris, I went to media matters, and read what, for example they said about Limbaugh on their last entry…about how Limbaugh says that Democrats are the ones stopping blacks from advancing to politically powerful positions…….

    I thought back to Obama’s campaign in Illinios where he forcedd a black candidate out fo the race….

    Seems to me he got the facts right….like with black Democrats in NY trying to get David Patterson to drop from the governor’s race….

    Seems to me he got it right….but media matters thinks that’s bad….

    Alvin Greene in North Carolina won the Democratic primary, and blacks in NC and in the DNC are running from him like scared rabbits….

    Why??? Is it because Rush got it right??? I noticed that they only put the audio from one line in the show, no context, no discussion of what he was saying, then opened the comments, so no one in the comments knows the context, because you know they all listen to the show, don’t they???

    I’m having trouble posting, so my responses are slow….sorry….

    reff (176333)

  183. He forced all the candidates out of the race, by challenging the signatures, for the Senate race, the unsealing of the Ryan and Hull divorce records, thanks to Axelrod, left with some token opposition, tAlan Keyes and Nancy Skinner, that annoying radio talkshow,

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  184. reff – If mediamatterz could not rip words from context, there would be no reason for the site, other than a way for George Soros to keep Oliver Willis fully stocked with Ding Dongs and Ho Hos.

    JD (8ded14)

  185. Yes, Ian, and that’s not hate speech either….it’s politics….but, Democrats think that if Republicans bring it up, THAT’S HATE SPEECH!!

    JD, crissyhooten thinks that’s discussion….to take out of context….

    crissy, find some context at media matters next time….

    reff (176333)

  186. I think Rush often talks of “beating the Democrats” politically and speaking derisively of many of their views, but more often than not will say that they “are not evil, just wrong”. Look at the great, “I hope he fails” controversy. He didn’t want evil to happen to Obama, he simply wanted Obama to fail at implimenting his policies because Rush believed that those policies would be bad for the country.

    A few thoughts on the “extreme” environmentalists:

    They want to argue things according to their liking even when logically inconsistent.
    They want to treat humans as nothing different than other living things on Earth; humans are simply one species of ape. Just as too many deer grazing in a limited area damage the plant life, so too an overabundance of humans cause destruction of the environment. In this way humans are treated as a “part of nature”. But no other creature in nature makes conscious determinations of surrounding conditions with an intent to control them like humans. Humans are outside of “the rest of nature” when they decide that a deer population must be culled for the good of the herd and surrounding environment. To bring about population manipulation as some wish means that some will treat their fellow humans just as they would view a population of deer. “They” are in the dilemma of wanting to claim that humans are “just a part of nature” while at the same time laying claim to the ability to evaluate nature from the “outside” and to manipulate it for its own good. This is simply a form of abstraction justifying why some people should have power over the lives of others. (In other words, another scenario for the logic of C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man).

    The predictions of Ehrlich and the like 40 or so years ago proved to be totally inaccurate. To think they are correct in principle but just need to refine their calculations is a matter of faith and not scientific evidence-based reasoning, but because they somehow were granted the status of scientific soothsayer of the environment their opinions are still revered. Starvation and illness exist in the world today not because of the planet’s inability to provide adequately, but because of human ingenuity being used for selfish personal gain, largely in the sense of governmental corruption and civil war. This is not an issue of the richer nations abusing the poorer as much as it is the “Pogo principle” of Mugabe in Zimbabwe and repeated elsewhere.

    I would think that most people would have a very healthy skepticism at those who think they can take an amazingly minute data set of climate measures on earth and predict the next 100 years, even if given technology available 100 years from now. I would liken it to predicting the outcome of a baseball game after one pitch was made or a football game after the opening kick-off; it simply isn’t rational. Or evaluating a case based on the first interview with a neighbor to a crime scene who isn’t sure what she heard or saw. In the mid 1970’s these same folks were predicting the coming of a new ice age. With 10-15 more years of data (out of millions of years of earth history) these people think they can completely change their conclusions and that, just like Ehrlich, they somehow should be respected because of an undeserved reputation for previous “scientific” work (work where in fact their hypotheses were shown to be false- the actual findings were not what was predicted by their theories).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  187. Nothing definitive on the raccoons. saw a hilarious thing about squirrels on Funniest home videos, but too late tonight. Will tell the story with a raccoon update in a day or two.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  188. Squirrels are evil. We, meaning I, thought it would be funny to lure a squirrel into our college apartment. It took almost a day to get that damn thing out of there, only after it dropped deuces all over the place, ran on the walls, and generally terrorized anyone that tried to get it out.

    JD (8ded14)

  189. Glenn, for at least 40 years now I have been expecting the human race to die at its own hands with a whimper rather than a bang. I remember seeing all those “Gilbert Geology Set”, “Gilbert Chemistry Set”, and other Gilbert This-And-That sets. I concluded we’re all going to die because some kid mixes the wrong two genes in his “Gilbert Gene Splicing Kit”. That fit the “Gilbert” meme of my childhood nicely. I figure these days it would be called something else. But I expect it going to be the same concept. It may even be done with malice. But there is a lot more “clumsy mistake” in this world than there is “malice.”

    YMMV

    No, I don’t think he is kidding. I know I am not.
    {o.o}

    JD (98e9d7)

  190. Well Pat, I’m still confused…if you don’t think Reynolds was trying to squelch speech, AND you believe there can be a link between extreme ideas and extreme activities (including terror and murder) that are not merely the product of irrationalism of the part of specific individuals, then what do you have against Reynolds pointing out the same thing?

    After all, resorting to violence is not something that is inferred by individuals…they are part and parcel of a lot of these belief systems. For example, one of the most widely used Political Ideology readers (Ball & Dagger) contains material by David Foreman who very clearly calls for a new “warrior culture” to arise to destroy those who do not subscribe to their environmental views. Needless to say, the reader contains no criticism of that view.

    Rich Horton (c49a7d)

  191. Notice how shooter, and Weigel, and crissyhooten simply disappear when they get called out on their mendoucheity? We simply ask crissyhooten to apply the same standards he applies to the conservatives to his ideological brethren and fellow travelers, and he goes bye-bye.

    JD (8ded14)

  192. Rush probably is not the best example, as the number of examples is rather thin when compared to the amount of time he spends on air, however it does happen occasionally. Actually, it seems that many have taken it down a notch, lately, which is comforting. Thankfully not many (none?) have been injured or killed due to such inflammatory junk, and there seems to be more of an awareness of it. It is not acceptable from anyone. Beck is the most worrisome for me with his apocalyptic scenarios and conspiratorial bull mixed with revolutionary rhetoric and misinformation about what the government or some organization is doing to you. I see the outrage and over the top histrionics of some of the more flamboyant leftists, but I don’t see a similar revolutionary and apocalyptic rhetoric.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  193. Nice try, JD

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  194. “I would think that most people would have a very healthy skepticism at those who think they can take an amazingly minute data set of climate measures on earth and predict the next 100 years, even if given technology available 100 years from now.”

    MD in Philly – Be fair now, they claim to have models.

    It’s the models that don’t share the AGW conventional wisdom that apparently can’t be believe if you believe conventional wisdom.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  195. “Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I may not touch a hair of the wily agitator who induces him to desert?” – Abraham Lincoln.

    One might also recall the case of Leo Frank, the Jewish businessman in Atlanta, who was railroaded for the murder of Mary Phagan, a 13 year old girl employed in his factory. After the governor commuted his death sentence, Frank was lynched. Both the trial and the lynching were dominated by the rhetoric of Tom Watson, ex-Populist leader and publisher, whose journals howled for the blood of the “lustful Jew”. Watson openly called for the lynching of Frank, and praised the lynchers.

    Watson rejoined the Democrats and was elected to the U.S. Senate. His funeral included a giant cross of roses from the Klan. Jimmy Carter later cited him as one of his heroes.

    Aaron Worthing: The mere fear that the tea party will turn to violence has them pissing their pants.

    Oh no. It has them coming in their pants. Nothing would gratify them more.

    Rich Rostrom (722a42)

  196. Would amazingly minute data set of climate measures include the ice core samples which are crucial to our understanding of earth’s historical climate data? Because that data is not so minute.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  197. Ok, crissyhooten….since you failed on Rush, try another one…

    As for Beck….well, many liberals are afraid of God….oh, and could you give us some of the misinformation that Beck is using???

    …Before you try to let us know how bad global waarming can be….which probably isn’t bad at all…since the sun causes it, and the climagegate scientists don’t use the sun as a measure of warming….

    reff (176333)

  198. “Would amazingly minute data set of climate measures include the ice core samples”

    Hooten – Oh boy, what do the ice core samples tell us about the earth’s climate history? Certainly not what Mr. Gore claimed.

    What about the technique of extrapolating temperatures over large areas where there are no stations reading temperatures and not disclosing it? Is that called fudging or ass pulling?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  199. I think Reynolds intentionally took the tone and tactics of the left and used it against them. I don’t think he believes it himself, but I don’t think he was doing it with a smile on his face either. More like with a knife in his hand. I guess that would put me with the “serious” choice on the poll.

    This is probably the wrong time to point out that I consider myself an environmentalist, and that I share the concerns of those who say that humanity seems like a cancer on the planet.

    I used to freely call myself an environmentalist. I am much more careful to qualify the description these days. If you are talking about stopping heavy industry from things like dumping toxins indiscriminately into our water supply, call me an environmentalist. But, if you are talking about things like the global warming hokum, no, I’m not down with the hucksters and wackjobs.

    Humanity as a cancer? No way. Cancer is ugly. It destroys its host. Humanity is beautiful, and we are in no way destroying the Earth. I doubt we could, even if we set our minds to it. The Earth has a lot of capacity to repair itself, in ways that we largely don’t understand.

    Certainly my solution is not eliminationism — in fact, I have no solution. But I have long said that if aliens came to our planet and saw what was going on, they would conclude that one species had gotten out of control and was reproducing at an alarming rate and destroying the planet in the process.

    Are you so sure that these hypothetical aliens have not completely dominated their home planet? It is only natural that the strongest species is going to be the one that is most able to master its environment. And, we are the species that is most able to do that on the Earth. That doesn’t make us a cancer, it makes us the species that hopefully will be able to last very long into the future on this planet and beyond.

    Anon Y. Mous (5b05da)

  200. I think humans can be both beneficial, and detrimental to the earth. It is the detrimental part with which we worry. I am much more concerned with pollution than global warming. Although I think it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming could become a real threat. The problem is we don’t understand all of the implications of even a small change in temperature of all the oceans of the world, and human activity has certainly added significantly to greenhouse gasses, which can, and will raise the global temperature.

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  201. Well Pat, I’m still confused…if you don’t think Reynolds was trying to squelch speech,

    I don’t? Wrong. I do.

    Not “ban” but squelch? Yes.

    AND you believe there can be a link between extreme ideas and extreme activities

    A link? That’s pretty vague.

    then what do you have against Reynolds pointing out the same thing?

    What I disagree with is declaring a wide category of rhetoric to be out of bounds for polite society.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  202. What kind of rhetoric are you trying to protect, Patterico? The kind that leads to violence? I don’t understand your objection. Is it the kind of rhetoric that “almost” but “not quite” causes violence that you are protecting, or what? We all nervously glance over at the Nazis and see what the elephant in the room is, so what are you objecting to?

    Chris Hooten (7fcd81)

  203. When a speaker at a public rally shouts, “Kill white babies”, he is breaking the law. It’s called incitement to violence, or something like that.

    How about when a public speaker argues for not allowing anyone to have babies? How far is the distance between the two speakers above?

    Now what if some one goes out and kills white babies? Did he listen to the speaker in the first paragraph or the second paragraph? Are either of the speakers responsible?

    I don’t know. But this I do know.

    When Americans call for closing the border they are not responsible for violence against illegals.
    But this is the argument that the left and the MSM make.

    Jack (e383ed)

  204. What I disagree with is declaring a wide category of rhetoric to be out of bounds for polite society.

    Why on earth?

    The idea that humans are a cancer upon the planet suggests that there is some other purpose to morality other than improving human life. There isn’t.

    I’m sorry that you share the killer’s despicable views and I understand that there is a difference between his action and your ineffectual intellectual agreement of his world view, but absolutely you are incorrect to hold it and should be ashamed of yourself.

    We, all of us, are in this together – the little squirrels be damned.

    lly (8d9651)

  205. Incidentally, btw, I agree that Mr. Reynolds’s support of any expansion of excessive-penalty, ideologically-driven hate crime legislation would be somewhere between sarcastic and assertive of the logical conclusion of such slippery slope tactics.

    However, as far as I saw in his piece, there was more of an emphasis on personally and socially holding these people accountable for their idiotic and antihuman beliefs. And why shouldn’t we? It’s a Mephistophelean evil parading itself in the guise of humble self-sacrifice.

    lly (8d9651)

  206. “According to this argument, we should treat environmentalists making the “humanity is a cancer” argument just as we treat people who advocate Nazi policies.”

    Yes, he is. What about that do you find impossible to take seriously?

    The fact is that some environmentalists (and not just lone whackos) DO advocate policies that resemble Nazi policies (forced sterilization, population reduction by any means necessary, etc). Some DO advocate doing so against particular groups. One British nimrod advocated “culling the herd” in regards to Americans and Brits because we have such large carbon footprints.

    The definition of Cull is:

    “to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control”

    Reynolds point is that rhetoric about treating large groups of people as a disease to be eliminated or pestilence to be controlled (like Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats) should be held to the same level of contempt and condemnation no matter the “justification”.

    So, again, what do you find unserious about the point?

    Weary G (d067d9)

  207. Huh? No, you are kidding.

    gary gulrud (790d43)

  208. “What I disagree with is declaring a wide category of rhetoric to be out of bounds for polite society.”

    Indeed. Calling for a category of rhetoric to be out of bounds for polite society is quite simply out of bounds for polite society.

    Alice (2ccc38)

  209. According to this argument, we should treat environmentalists making the “humanity is a cancer” argument just as we treat people who advocate Nazi policies.

    Remember, “progresive” eugenics advocates, both European and American, led directly to the Holocaust.

    Lazarus Long (5720c3)

  210. Hansen has been a hack, but he has acquired this patina of ‘speaking truth to power’ Manbearpig, was
    a very prescient way of describing our seemingly eternal vicepresident, and his billion dollar carny
    act, poisoning the minds of children with nihlistic hokum, among many of his offenses. They are all catspaws of swindlers like Soros and Strong, his
    Canadian counterpart behind the Rio Summit

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  211. We asked Hooten to provide examples of incendiary hate speech for a veritable who’s who of conservative commentators, to which he replied:

    You actually think I couldn’t come up with any.

    To which Chris Hooten was once again challenged to come up with some actual examples – which gave us this time – honored gem of his:

    Rush probably is not the best example, as the number of examples is rather thin

    Goodness, what a waste of time it is to engage in any kind of thoughtful debate with this person. Makes ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims, then runs away when challenged, only to come back and admit that no examples could be found, then goes on and launch more unsubstantiated smears – wash, rinse, repeat.

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  212. Ian, funniest thing was where Hansen had to completely revise his infamous Hockey Stick chart that made his earlier nonsense de facto defunct. Which means he was pantsed by a retired engineer from Canada. See, anyone can do this AGW stuff!

    Dmac (d61c0d)

  213. Erlich, Holdren, Al Gore, half the programming on the SyFy (short for environmental nightmare) Channel, all form a clear package of environmental alarmism designed to dupe the uncritical and drain them of money while enlisting them to serve as foot soldiers in a political movement.

    It is unsurprising that some of those movement foot soldiers should engage in actions movement leaders might deplore. The real problem is that the media is on a witch hunt for violent rhetoric on the right, while ignoring – or excusing away – violent rhetoric, or even actual physical violence.

    I assume that you are engaging in a grand piece of performance art, but I can’t be sure. Maybe you’re just a jealous hack.

    Josef K. (04a5b3)

  214. Yes it really has gotten bad at SyFy, although the History Channel is probably the worst of it, most recently replaying the National Geographic’s ‘dialed
    to eleven, Earth 2025, which locust swarms in Europe, scirocos in the American West and California, et al

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  215. btw, i think the post that says this gives it away.

    > BRUCE WALKER: Don’t let leftists limit language. Or, at least, hold them to the standards they propound.

    The second line has a link to the same article.

    I’d link, but i think i have infuriated the gods of anti-spamming with my links.

    Aaron Worthing (f97997)

  216. Hooten has done a valuable service by illustrating the flaw in Reynolds argument. There is zero agreement (in the public at large) about what constitutes “hateful” or “eliminationist” rhetoric.

    In practice the Ruling class has a pretty lengthy list of “Things Which Must Not Be Said”. That list includes a great many things which the public really do want to talk about. So the Reynolds argument is that we do need a gate-keeper media, just one with a different gate. I’m unconvinced about that.

    Subotai (a485bc)

  217. I’m sorry that you share the killer’s despicable views and I understand that there is a difference between his action and your ineffectual intellectual agreement of his world view

    You think that Patterico has “despicable views”, so you must also believe that he is one of those people who Reynolds deems “socially unacceptable”, one of those whose opinions must be “policed”. Right?

    The problem here is the casual inference that because some people who believe that “humans are a cancer” also believe in AGW, it follows that believers in AGW believe that “humans are a cancer”.

    This is identical in its malicious stupidity to many (most?) lefty arguments, the conclusion to almost all of which boil down ” .. and so you’re just like the Nazis!”

    Subotai (a485bc)

  218. No, Glenn is not about state sanctions, just what we tolerate and/or accept. Rush and many others
    have savaged the literally crazy remarks in say
    “Earth in the Balance” and ‘an Inconvenient Truth”
    yet the media still gives these views credibility,
    not taking into account the consequences of taking
    them to their logical extent. Conversely one cannot effectively criticize the short comings in Salafi and Wahhabi Islam, because that is considered Islamophobic, this sometimes leads to extreme and counterproductive stunts, like that preacher in Orlando burning Korans, and the antics of Mr. Keller. Which in a roundabout way,
    provoke a reaction that validates the point

    ian cormac (6709ab)

  219. “According to this argument, we should treat environmentalists making the “humanity is a cancer” argument just as we treat people who advocate Nazi policies.”

    Someone who seriously believes humanity is a cancer (and not just exaggerating for effect) has a malignant and potentially violent psychosis. I would stay as far away from such people as possible.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  220. OF course what counts as being “in bounds” for polite society is not a static thing. I must admit I’m with Reynolds in thinking the deeply anti-humanistic tendencies in many of today’s “thinkers” are reprehensible. That someone like Peter Singer, who holds “ethical” beliefs about human being little different from how a 1820’s slave owner viewed blacks (i.e. human being are not ends in themselves but instead instruments to be controlled by the powers that be), can be viewed as being a part of “polite society” is more of a condemnation of our society than anything else I can think of.

    Reynolds makes an argument by analogy that much of the environmental rhetoric used by people like Lee is akin (in a comparative and moral sense) to Nazi rhetoric. You didn’t like that argument and said so, but that isn;t the same thing as showing Reynolds was wrong to do so. To do that you would have needed to do one of two things:

    1) Show that the rhetoric of Lee was not representative of the literature Reynolds was referring to. This would be a fool’s errand because you could only accomplish this by ignoring huge currents in the environmental movement.

    2) Show that such rhetoric is justified, which would have required a far different argument than the one you actually presented. (I.e. an argument that made the case for the elimination of the “human cancers” poisoning the world.) AND show how such activities could be morally justified, NAD show how established modes of morality are inferior to the one you prefer.

    Now that would be an argument I’d like to hear.

    Rich Horton (c49a7d)

  221. I must admit I’m with Reynolds in thinking the deeply anti-humanistic tendencies in many of today’s “thinkers” are reprehensible.

    Uh huh. I guess you were not aware that Reynolds is a trans-humanist?

    Subotai (a485bc)

  222. Reynolds makes an argument by analogy that much of the environmental rhetoric used by people like Lee is akin (in a comparative and moral sense) to Nazi rhetoric. You didn’t like that argument and said so, but that isn;t the same thing as showing Reynolds was wrong to do so.

    It needs to be stated as an internet law that 99.9999% of all Nazi analogies are wrong, and basically attempts at a rhetorical deus ex machina.

    If you want to argue that something is wrong, argue that something is wrong. Saying “the Nazis did X, and those people want to do X, so they are Nazis” is logical nonsense. (Even if it is the most widely used argumentative technique in the world)

    Subotai (a485bc)

  223. Subotai: Go read Dave Foreman’s “Confessions of an Eco-Warrior” and then come back and tell me the comparison to the fascists is wrong.

    Rich Horton (e35ee7)

  224. Rich, it’s pretty obvious that some green efforts are fascist. Are they quite the same as fascist nazis?

    It’s not clear to me that every single case of fascism is wrong. Politically, it’s the exact opposite of my classic liberal views, but the real problem with it is not precisely the same as what was wrong with Hitler.

    Let’s just focus on why these nuts and power mad creepy politicians are evil (and even fascist) rather than imagining they are the fourth Reich.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  225. “It’s not clear to me that every single case of fascism is wrong.”

    It’s not?

    All fascism predicates violence, that of the powerful over the weaker, as being the be all and end all of human societies. To me that will always be wrong (in every sense of the word.)

    Rich Horton (e35ee7)

  226. All fascism predicates violence, that of the powerful over the weaker, as being the be all and end all of human societies.

    The actual Fascists seem to have been unaware of your axiom.

    Subotai (d53cfc)

  227. No. If you aid and abet a crime, by instigating it or encouraging it, you are responsible for that crime, and others that are the natural and probable consequence of that crime.

    But you should be able to engage in passionate rhetoric without being held responsible for a nut job committing violence in response.

    Passionate rhetoric can cross the line into incitement. And I think that the “Eliminationist Rhetoric” Reynolds points to does indeed qualify as incitement. If you have trouble seeing it, look at the rhetoric again, substituting “black” or “jew” for “humanity”.

    Exposed to this kind of rhetoric, especially with no challenges or condemnation of it, is just aiming and inciting the nutcases. I suspect that Lee was far from the first nut to go off, just the first to go after a target such that the incident couldn’t be ignored or put back on page five, combined with having his rants on a web site, so their publication couldn’t be spiked.

    I.e., I suspect that Lee and the Unibomber have a lot of company we haven’t heard about.

    LarryD (f22286)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2300 secs.