Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,572
    vCash
    1500

    Both Sides Do It

    This type of rhetoric goes on at protests all the time. As I have said over and over again.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=71gsnLfsbbM

    My favorite sign is "Why do Republicans Hate People"

    "Both sides do it" is a lame defense for the rhetoric, but I constantly have to argue with people who insist that the left does not engage in the sort of thing Tea Partiers do.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,098
    vCash
    1500
    I dont know if you are (or ever do for that matter) watching the Ed Show, but i saw he was going to do an entire segment from Wisconsin so i am watching it but those around him are very civil. Now whether they screened them to make it so or not, i cant say, but unfortunately there are always the tails of the bell curve.

    Right now the right has their birthers and the left has their "compare Walker to Hitler" people. Although, really Paul Ryan was the one who compared the protesters in his state to the Egyptian protestors, which in his reference that would make Walker the equivalent of Hosni Mubarak.

    As far as why this stuff stirs up at protests so often it is the same reason why TMZ and National Enquirer is so popular, because **** floats. Meaning that the ridiculous crap that everyone puts forward sells better than substantive info. Nine out of ten people if they see National Enquirer and Foreign Policy at the check out counter will by NE even if it is 10 bucks and FP is 2 bucks.
    Member of the Owlluminati!


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,027
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    This type of rhetoric goes on at protests all the time. As I have said over and over again.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=71gsnLfsbbM

    My favorite sign is "Why do Republicans Hate People"

    "Both sides do it" is a lame defense for the rhetoric, but I constantly have to argue with people who insist that the left does not engage in the sort of thing Tea Partiers do.
    Both sides do in fact engage in unacceptable rhetoric, and, I for one have never denied that, but, the volume and frequency of that type of rhetoric, at this time, has been more frequent and higher pitched from the right. Now, if your point is that in the past it has been the left, I will agree.

    On a side note, the sign that struck me out of Wisconsin, in a rhetorical way, was calling the governor, Scott "Mubarek" (I added the quotes) which is a far cry from Hitler references. It is still wrong, but not near as wrong.
    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?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,671
    vCash
    1500
    I think both sides try to create the illusion that both sides do it equally, which is never the case. One side is always looking for a gotcha moment for the opposing side, which is part of what our politics has become. It's become a cycle where one party's defense for its actions is based upon the other side once doing the same thing. It shifts responsibility, and never addresses the the issue.

    For example, can't we say that all Hitler signs are wrong, and both sides should never accept them? Sure, and it's happened, but normally it's "well THIS person did it too!", and we ignore the fact that comparing anyone to Hitler is ridiculous. It's the dueling of Republican vs. Democrat. What followed the Giffords shooting is a prime example of what I'm talking about(from both sides).
    Last edited by The Schmooze; 02-18-2011 at 11:20 AM. Reason: spelling

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    39,984
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    Both sides do in fact engage in unacceptable rhetoric, and, I for one have never denied that, but, the volume and frequency of that type of rhetoric, at this time, has been more frequent and higher pitched from the right. Now, if your point is that in the past it has been the left, I will agree.

    On a side note, the sign that struck me out of Wisconsin, in a rhetorical way, was calling the governor, Scott "Mubarek" (I added the quotes) which is a far cry from Hitler references. It is still wrong, but not near as wrong.
    So what you are saying is the party that's not in control yells the loudest. I'd agree with that, and have often said it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Anecdotes ...


    but this time in video form. Now I'm convinced.

    This video and this thread do every bit of good that the Hitler comments do. Who cares if both sides do it? Who cares which side is worse? The point is that it shouldn't be happening. And the comments from Pelosi and Tate have no business in that video -- they don't even make comparisons.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    30,275
    vCash
    1500
    Vote 3rd party.....any of them

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,572
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab
    Who cares if both sides do it? Who cares which side is worse?
    Many on the left have been arguing that both sides do not do it.

    And some on the left who do acknowledge it somewhat, have a revisionist viw of history. They'll say things like "Sure, Bush was attacked...but not in the personal way that Obama is being attacked" and stuff like that.

    And the other point would be in relation to the media. The hysterics over Tea Party rhetoric vs. a passing mention if anything about the rhetoric at this union protest. I mean, a guy was carrying around a "don't retreat, reload" sign with Walker's face in cross-hairs. Shouldn't the people who think targets on a map = a call to violence be horrified by targets on someone's face? No. Of course not. Because they never thought targets on a map were a call to violence in the first place. It was an argument motivated by pure convenience.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    30,275
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    Many on the left have been arguing that both sides do not do it.

    And some on the left who do acknowledge it somewhat, have a revisionist viw of history. They'll say things like "Sure, Bush was attacked...but not in the personal way that Obama is being attacked" and stuff like that.

    And the other point would be in relation to the media. The hysterics over Tea Party rhetoric vs. a passing mention if anything about the rhetoric at this union protest. I mean, a guy was carrying around a "don't retreat, reload" sign with Walker's face in cross-hairs. Shouldn't the people who think targets on a map = a call to violence be horrified by targets on someone's face? No. Of course not. Because they never thought targets on a map were a call to violence in the first place. It was an argument motivated by pure convenience.
    I completely agree with your overall point. I think the problem though, is that we say "hey here's a group of conservatives being aggressive a-holes" and follow with a "we" don't do that (really meaning "me" not we), then conservatives say the same thing......it's really just a mixed bag of moderate do-nothings and aggressive psychotics on both sides.

    Media deals with extremes only because that's what hits people's emotions and keeps them interested, fired up and buying more of their crap. But the extremes aren't always an adequate representation.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    Many on the left have been arguing that both sides do not do it.

    And some on the left who do acknowledge it somewhat, have a revisionist viw of history. They'll say things like "Sure, Bush was attacked...but not in the personal way that Obama is being attacked" and stuff like that.
    Fair enough ... I guess.

    The focus should be on the improper rhetoric and not whose side it comes from. Instead of "the left/right does it too," how about: "This is improper rhetoric and let me explain why." I understand that you/the makers of this video are trying to point out the flaws in "many on the left's" arguments, but you approach it from the wrong angle.

    In other words, when you pick out the flaws of only one side while saying "both sides do it," it operates as little more than an authorization of such conduct. Or, at the very least, it muddies the waters. No one should care which side is doing it or whose sins are worse -- the issue is that the rhetoric is improper.

    And the other point would be in relation to the media. The hysterics over Tea Party rhetoric vs. a passing mention if anything about the rhetoric at this union protest. I mean, a guy was carrying around a "don't retreat, reload" sign with Walker's face in cross-hairs. Shouldn't the people who think targets on a map = a call to violence be horrified by targets on someone's face? No. Of course not. Because they never thought targets on a map were a call to violence in the first place. It was an argument motivated by pure convenience.
    Ha, well I don't mean to defend to "Don't retreat, reload" sign in this context, but it's clearly satirizing Palin's rhetoric. And the guy is also not a former nominee for Vice President and a potential nominee for President. And he didn't yell it to a crowd of "admirers" (i.e., people there to see/hear him). I mean, the two contexts are vastly different.

    Again, I don't mean to defend the sign. It's not very clever, and it's borderline insensitive given the whole Giffords thing. And on top of that, he should be erring on the side of the high road. But like I said, this is nothing like Palin's use of it.

    I realize you'll think I'm coming "from the left" on this (I'm not) or that I'm biased (if I am, only in hating Palin). But that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid at all costs -- partisan smears and the "all go down together" mentality.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Vote 3rd party.....any of them
    Vote no one. Or vote independent if you must.

    A viable 3rd party would help in a practical sense, but party-politics are the root of the problem, not the two-party system.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,572
    vCash
    1500
    But, I don't have a problem with the rhetoric.

    As far as the different contexts. Yes, they are different in a few ways. You would point to Palin's visibility, which is a valid point.

    But, the context is also post-Giffords. And with the Giffords shooting a lot of people blamed Palin's targets and "don't retreat, reload" rhetoric. So, what exactly is his sign a reference to? What is his point? I have no idea, but it could be a reference to the Giffords shooting since those two things got conflated. I am confused by that sign.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    But, I don't have a problem with the rhetoric.

    As far as the different contexts. Yes, they are different in a few ways. You would point to Palin's visibility, which is a valid point.

    But, the context is also post-Giffords. And with the Giffords shooting a lot of people blamed Palin's targets and "don't retreat, reload" rhetoric. So, what exactly is his sign a reference to? What is his point? I have no idea, but it could be a reference to the Giffords shooting since those two things got conflated. I am confused by that sign.
    I blame Palin's rhetoric because it's unbecoming of a [vice-]presidential candidate, and, more specifically to the "Don't retreat, reload" comment, it's just not all that shy of express advocacy (in First Amendment lingo). She spoke those words to a live audience of "admirers."

    Here, we have a non-public figure, with a sign, in the midst of a bunch of similarly-situated people (i.e., there's nothing otherwise drawing attention to him). The two messages are delivered and received in two entirely different contexts.

    And that's not even getting to the satire part. The "Don't retreat, reload" wasn't picked at random by this guy. He was clearly making some sort of attempt at satirizing Palin's statement (no matter how awfully he failed). Again, I find it insensitive. I find it an act of "lowering to that level." It's not clever. And he definitely should not have put a politician's face on there.

    So, I'm not defending this guy, but the Palin speech is much more deserving of criticism, all things considered.


    And I'd still like to know why the Pelosi and Tate comments were in that video. Those were perfectly legitimate comments. I mean, you can question their motivations, but they refrained from making it a partisan thing. Especially Tate -- that comment looks exactly like what SHOULD be said. And yet he's still dragged into this.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,027
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    But, I don't have a problem with the rhetoric.

    As far as the different contexts. Yes, they are different in a few ways. You would point to Palin's visibility, which is a valid point.

    But, the context is also post-Giffords. And with the Giffords shooting a lot of people blamed Palin's targets and "don't retreat, reload" rhetoric. So, what exactly is his sign a reference to? What is his point? I have no idea, but it could be a reference to the Giffords shooting since those two things got conflated. I am confused by that sign.
    I am not sure if I fully understand your opinion about the non causal link between rhetoric and action to this end. Do you think there is no causul link, substantially no causul link, a very small causul link.....etc? This is not an argument, it is just a request for clarification. It has to do with your first sentence.
    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?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,572
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    I am not sure if I fully understand your opinion about the non causal link between rhetoric and action to this end. Do you think there is no causul link, substantially no causul link, a very small causul link.....etc? This is not an argument, it is just a request for clarification. It has to do with your first sentence.
    I think there can be a causal link. But I don't really care. And most of the time they claim a causal link, there ****ing isn't one. They tried to pin Columbine on Marilyn Manson.

    A crazy person can be inspired to commit some act for all sorts of reasons.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •