escadrille wrote:Don't blame your inability to understand what is being written on other people. My English is precise,
Great, another lawyer that thinks they can write. I'll hand it to you, though: you sure know the fastest way to kill off a conversation
In fact I've written a few points here and there that were in agreement with what you appear to be saying but you apparently ignored it; not that I need a pat on the back for every truism but it strikes me as typical of somebody too enamored of their own voice. Same goes for the back-and-forth laying out quotes like railroad spikes; going after every sentence in isolation from the others divorces it from the proper context (which I think you yourself argued, but I don't care to look it up).
On the point of whether I said the left, as a whole, is more violent than the conservative sphere, let's look at that again.
Let me explain what I meant, though, since I don't blame you overly for jumping to the conclusion you did, although in this case it's due to your sloppy critical thinking skills, rather than your sloppy writing.
No, the reasons are exactly the same. Leftists have killed people too.
The word
obnoxious is not appropriate for labeling murderers; I use it there to refer to those who stir up hate under the guise of freedom or scientific truth or whatever. It's also a simple fact that leftists have killed people. There is absolutely nothing in either sentence about the relative severity of each scene, an omission I regret (pithiness is a virtue I aspire to, obviously not always with success).
I imagine I said somewhere before that you're right in that there are more killings recently by self-styled "conservatives" or radical reactionaries in North America than by leftists (widening it a bit from what I said earlier, "America"); in the rest of the world the picture is far less one-dimensional (take ETA or Greek anarchists, for instance). In fact I'm sure of it.
I think BulletMagnet is correct about the receptive audience, and the bigger point is that the nutscape is dotted more with people
labeled as or self-proclaimed as conservatives; there is dangerous leftist commentary out there (i.e. cop killer remarks), and if I put one quote down next to another you couldn't say one was worse than the other without this background. The content of hate speech varies mainly by direction, not by some other quality. This is all blindingly obvious stuff, but whatever.
Perhaps there are some good statistics out there about the quantity of hate speech from one group or another, but some stuff which I consider highly irresponsible - i.e. as a person of some aboriginal American heritage I find the comments I linked earlier, that genocide (actually many smaller genocides, coupled with a lot of disease, rather than a single master plan) of Native people set America down the path towards 9/11, to be incredibly naive, irresponsible, and historically ludicrous (even discounting the fact that my semi-distant relatives worked the high steel of the towers) - simply isn't inflammatory enough, or directed at a group, to get many people worried about it.
But it is not responsible speech and it's clearly warping the perception of those receptive to it, in the same way that Rush Limbaugh warps his dittoheads - just in a different direction and with less intensity, or even without causing a clear and immediate danger to the security of civil society, but that doesn't mean it won't have equally disastrous results down the line. The whole trend of 9/11 conspiracy theorizing has been to make many Americans nihilistic (and others misdirected efforts that could have been put towards the case for impeaching the President, i.e. something based at least tangentially on reality) and less likely to take well-established routes of political activism seriously. That might be all the leeway that the evil, evil conservatives we've been talking about need to enact their plans.
Implying that there is no popular audience for the limited examples of leftist extremism, while right wing extremism dominates bestseller lists.
The words you were looking for are "...making explicit," not "implying." In any case I agree. Isn't that what I said?
escadrille wrote:The conservative rhetoric contains much more violence and religious and ethnic hatred that the liberal rhetoric.
That works, as many have made clear throughout this thread, if you only mean "conservative rhetoric" or "liberal rhetoric" to mean spoutings of the tenured political dabblers like Limbaugh and Robertson. Yes, there isn't anything on the left to come close to that; the musical comedy team of Begala and Carville aren't much of a team and they certainly aren't leftists in the original sense.
That doesn't mean that there isn't dangerous leftist propaganda out there; there's a ton of it, and although it doesn't get any playtime on mass media, the 'net lets people circumvent that media control to a large degree these days. I'm not advocating another Palmer Raid-style witchhunt for the creeping leftist menace, but you should be aware that the current "conservative threat," which may live on indefinitely, may well be cyclical, and so a leftist threat may also swing back into existence as it has in the past. The Palmer Raids may have been wasted effort, but there certainly was leftist violence on a scale approaching today's right-wing violence, i.e. the Haymarket Riots or the bombing of Wall Street; of course, there was also a lot of reactionary and racist right-wing violence in the form of lynchings, vigilantism, and KKK activity.
Now, there's plenty of planks laid for you to try to drive spikes into, I expect no less than twenty sets of quote tags when I get back. Get to work!
No animal will sleep in its own poop; it has better sense than to put things together that don't belong together (lol unintentional miscegenation reference).
