
Originally Posted by
gcoll
But it seems hyperbolic to get too bent out of shape about the current political discourse. The KKK was once a legitimate political force in this country.
The idea that rhetoric can incite, but especially if it is about guns, doesn't make much sense to me.
If vitriolic language can incite violence, then vitriolic language can incite violence. People on the left are trying to rig the argument to somehow say "Yeah, our side says some crazy things...but they are not in the same position as those on the right, and they don't use the same language" which I don't see as a good point.
Your characterization of the KKK is partially wrong, and partially open to question. The use of the word legitimate is the part that is open to question. That has more to do with the specific meaning being attached to the word itself. The part about being a political force in the country is wrong, unless it is modified with limitations. It was a political force in very small parts of the country. Its membership was never a significant part of the total population. It had far more power as a terrorist organization than a political one. Unless you are using the term political to include terror, I disagree.
The topic of the second quote is the one that I have given considerable thought to, given our hashing and rehashing of it. I thought about the specific words and thoughts you have used and mine, and I think I might know where our disagreement is based.
I believe your position is based on a pure causal connection while mine is based in the more broad view of influence. The causal connection is rare and difficult to prove when it does exist. Influence is much easier to show. The amount that the influence in each case is subject to a sliding scale.
An example of influence v causal would be how some ordinary law abiding people change when they get caught up in the "mob mentality" of a riot. You can make the argument that the riot did not cause the behavior, and I would agree, but it would be equally correct to say absent the riot, the very same people would not have broken shop windows, looted etc. on their own
Krystallnacht is the epitome of a population gone mad. (IN CAPS FOR EMPHASIS I AM NOT COMPARING THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA TO NAZIS, I AM ONLY USING THIS EXAMPLE AS THE STRONGEST EXAMPLE OF INFLUENCE I COULD THINK OF) The influence of the NAZI leadership over ordinary people, who at one time considered people their neighbors, and then considered these people enemies is historical fact. It is my position that overlooking the power of influence until it becomes a provable causul connection is a very low bar to hold leaders (both elected and not) to.
Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?