Inflammatory rhetoric of rightwing pundits has a price!

[WIP]

I want to follow up with some thoughts I had while reading the propaganda thread about liberal media bias, with a look at how the inflammatory rhetoric and hatred of liberals, minorities, immigrants, homosexuals etc. may be pushing the lunatic fringe on the Right to lash out in a homicidal manner. We've already seen this happen in the 80's when despicable groups like Operation Rescue openly called for murder of all those who are taking "innocent life;" a call that was interpreted as venting my most of the idiots in the churches where they were speaking, but did inspire a few nutcases to take action by killing abortion doctors, nurses, security guards and bombing abortion clinics. The violence forced even the most idiotic fundamentalist churches to stop hosting Randall Terry or promoting Operation Rescue and other incendiary groups.

Now, surprise, surprise, we find that Jim Adkisson, the 58 year old loser who walked in to a Unitarian church in Knoxville, TN, and shot and killed people attending a children's performance of "Annie", had books by O'Reilly, Savage, and Hannity on his reading list.

"Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, 'because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets.'

"Adkisson told Still that 'he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office.'

"Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because 'he expected to be killed during the assault.'

"Inside the house, officers found 'Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder' by radio talk show host Michael Savage, 'Let Freedom Ring' by talk show host Sean Hannity, and 'The O'Reilly Factor,' by television talk show host Bill O'Reilley."Adkisson was a loner who hates 'blacks, gays and anyone different from him,' longtime acquaintance Carol Smallwood of Alice, Texas, told the Knoxville News Sentinel. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/OReilly_Sava...hurch_0728.html

And just like with the abortion-clinic bombers, most rational people will keep their hatreds subdued and refrain from acting out, but this guy provides at least one example of a nutcase who takes in the demonization of people who look different and have different ideas about government (especially Savage!), and decides that he's going to take action! What's amazing is how this idiot blamed all of his problems, divorce, unemployment etc. on the "liberals." Maybe while he's sitting in prison reading all of his favourite conservative books, he can ask himself who brought more misery into his life: liberals or conservatives.

[M.Dancer]

I want to follow up with some thoughts I had while reading the propaganda thread about liberal media bias, with a look at how the inflammatory rhetoric and hatred of liberals, minorities, immigrants, homosexuals etc. may be pushing the lunatic fringe on the Right to lash out in a homicidal manner.

Is this an attempt at comedic irony?

[WIP]

Is this an attempt at comedic irony?

NO! It's a question of whether rightwing pundits who demonize liberals, share some moral responsibility for inciting lunatic fans like James Adkinsson to commit violent acts against a targeted group, by telling the fans that these are vile people who are deliberately trying to destroy America. But since you're not willing to answer the question, get on your little bike and ride out of here!

[Wild Bill]

NO! It's a question of whether rightwing pundits who demonize liberals, share some moral responsibility for inciting lunatic fans like James Adkinsson to commit violent acts against a targeted group, by telling the fans that these are vile people who are deliberately trying to destroy America. But since you're not willing to answer the question, get on your little bike and ride out of here!

You know, this is a Canadian board. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be using some American cartoon image of the "Right" in your premise.

I've never owned a pickup truck. I've never owned a gun. American "conservatism" is hardly such, being something quite different and unique to the culture of that country.

To draw any comparisons with the right in other countries, particularly Canada, would be a fallacy to your argument.

[M.Dancer]

NO! It's a question of whether rightwing pundits who demonize liberals, share some moral responsibility for inciting lunatic fans like James Adkinsson to commit violent acts against a targeted group, by telling the fans that these are vile people who are deliberately trying to destroy America. But since you're not willing to answer the question, get on your little bike and ride out of here!

You want an answer?

No.

[Drea]

NO! It's a question of whether rightwing pundits who demonize liberals, share some moral responsibility for inciting lunatic fans like James Adkinsson to commit violent acts against a targeted group, by telling the fans that these are vile people who are deliberately trying to destroy America. But since you're not willing to answer the question, get on your little bike and ride out of here!

Yes they do share in this tragedy. Just like the Imams who encourage people to kill the infidel have a share in the responsibility when a Muslim suicide bomber kills.

But you will never get the rightwing to acknowledge their role -- they will fully believe that this person was an "anomoly", that what the hate-jocks preach is "innocuous" and doesn't affect anyone. They are so wrong in so many ways.

[WIP]

You know, this is a Canadian board. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be using some American cartoon image of the "Right" in your premise.

I've never owned a pickup truck. I've never owned a gun. American "conservatism" is hardly such, being something quite different and unique to the culture of that country.

To draw any comparisons with the right in other countries, particularly Canada, would be a fallacy to your argument.

That's true, and if Canadian conservatism wasn't being polluted by the influence of the American Right, I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place! But since Harper is bringing Republican advisers, like pollster Frank Luntz, and taking advice from a group called the "Institute of Marriage and Family Canada," a Canadian branch of James Dobson's Focus On the Family Ministries -- then we acknowledge that the conservatism of the traditional Tories is a thing of the past, and being replaced by a new brand of conservatism that uses religion, aggressive nationalism, fear of crime, fear of non-whites, to secure a political base.

It may shock you to know that not only did I vote P.C., Reform, Alliance etc. over the last 20 years, I was a member of the Ontarion P.C. Party and worked on both of Mike Harris's campaigns here in Ontario. But Harris would be considered a libertarian by the new conservatives who want to push a social agenda. Back in 97 or 98, Harris got a lot of static for refusing to make 'prolife' a issue, and for refusing to consider invoking the Not-Withstanding clause to nullify a Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing same-sex benefits in the workplace. The weakness of a conservative government sticking to economic issues is that it did not provide a large, loyal base that could be counted on to donate money and work for the Party.

Even after turning the Ontario economy around and balancing the budget, Harris's re-election was much more difficult than it should have been. In 2002, he decided not to go for a third term, partly because many of the sweeping reforms of the "Common Sense Revolution" to education, health, welfare reform and municipal amalgamation did not work out as well as planned (the solutions always look simple in theory); but if we compare with someone like George Bush, who is leading his country to economic disaster, I have to ask how Dubya can still have favourability ratings between 25 and 30%, while Brian Mulroney was in single digits for doing far less damage! The only thing I can come up with is that Harris, Mulroney and traditional Tories did not utilize the emotional appeal of race, religion and nationalism that fuels the Republican Party in the U.S. Those 28% of Americans that are still loyal Bush supporters would be willing to follow him over the cliff because they can't distinguish 'Republican' from 'God and Country.'

So, it may not have been accurate to compare the U.S. rigthwing with Canadian conservatives in the past, but today, our conservatives are just immitating their American big brothers!

[WIP]

Yes they do share in this tragedy. Just like the Imams who encourage people to kill the infidel have a share in the responsibility when a Muslim suicide bomber kills.

But you will never get the rightwing to acknowledge their role -- they will fully believe that this person was an "anomoly", that what the hate-jocks preach is "innocuous" and doesn't affect anyone. They are so wrong in so many ways.

It appears that the rightwing response is ignoring the fact that emotional appeals to denigrate people by race, country of origin, religion, sexual orientation, can lead to harmful consequences, and go back to blame-shifting by immediately starting a thread that blames liberals for all the problems in the world.

When I was wasting my time on a U.S. conservative forum, every time I questioned the ethics of using vitriolic, insulting language to typify everyone in the out-group known collectively as 'liberals' I would immediately get the response 'what criminal acts have we committed, compared to these Muslims, blacks, Mexicans etc.'; when questioned about abortion clinic bombers, the response was usually something like 'they've only killed a few people, compared to what our enemies are doing.' I doubt that the hardcore Right is any more likely to take any blame for whipping up hostilities now than they were before!

[eyeball]

QUOTE(M.Dancer @ Jul 30 2008, 04:54 PM)

Is this an attempt at comedic irony?

NO! It's a question of whether rightwing pundits who demonize liberals, share some moral responsibility for inciting lunatic fans like James Adkinsson to commit violent acts against a targeted group, by telling the fans that these are vile people who are deliberately trying to destroy America. But since you're not willing to answer the question, get on your little bike and ride out of here!

Who needs Imams or political pundits to whip up the fervour when we have the RCMP. Cops in the small town where I live have been coaching a local squad of very right-wing conservatives on how to profile the houses of people who use and sell drugs and how to spy on and intimidate them. I am not making this up, and I'm not keeping quiet about it either.

It seems that publicly speaking up for freedom and liberty comes at a cost now in Canadian society. There is a palpable chill settling around my life. At least one local business won't respond to my requests for service and some people who I've known all my life won't so much as give me the time of day now. My kids and wife have felt this chill too.

What's really funny is the way this group have likened their war on drugs (and alcohol, it says so in their mission statement) to the battle of Stalingrad and themselves to Stalin's generals. The irony of their desire to form a network of neighbourhood snitches to achieve their aims was apparently completely lost on them. These folks are certainly fearful but I don't think they feel bullied the least little bit.

I can find out pretty much everything I need to know about why right-wing conservative governments are the biggest threat to our liberty just by looking at the type of people who are likeliest to vote for them. Perhaps you have to live in a small town where everyone knows everyone else to see just how deeply entrenched ideology is getting in Canada these days.

Edited August 6, 2008 by eyeball

[WIP]

Who needs Imams or political pundits to whip up the fervour when we have the RCMP. Cops in the small town where I live have been coaching a local squad of very right-wing conservatives on how to profile the houses of people who use and sell drugs and how to spy on and intimidate them. I am not making this up, and I'm not keeping quiet about it either.

It seems that publicly speaking up for freedom and liberty comes at a cost now in Canadian society. There is a palpable chill settling around my life. At least one local business won't respond to my requests for service and some people who I've known all my life won't so much as give me the time of day now. My kids and wife have felt this chill too.

What's really funny is the way this group have likened their war on drugs (and alcohol, it says so in their mission statement) to the battle of Stalingrad and themselves to Stalin's generals. The irony of their desire to form a network of neighbourhood snitches to achieve their aims was apparently completely lost on them. These folks are certainly fearful but I don't think they feel bullied the least little bit.

I can find out pretty much everything I need to know about why right-wing conservative governments are the biggest threat to our liberty just by looking at the type of people who are likeliest to vote for them. Perhaps you have to live in a small town where everyone knows everyone else to see just how deeply entrenched ideology is getting in Canada these days.

After about 15 years living in a small village and then moving back into a medium sized city about 7 years ago, I noticed that the quaint, small town atmosphere comes with a price -- everyone knows your business! There's a kind of enforced conformity that people feel in small towns that doesn't tolerate unconventional beliefs and attitudes. My son was ostracized when he was 11, and told friends that he didn't believe in God. Nothing was said to us, but it became obvious real fast that other parents decided to try to keep their children away from our kids. They're older now, but a similar boycott wouldn't be possible where we're living now. City life has its downside: we don't dare step outside without locking the doors, three cars have been stolen on my street in the past year, and you have to keep alert when you're out on the streets at night.

But, on the other hand, that impersonal, unfriendly atmosphere that people complain about, gives back a degree of personal freedom. I like having this anonymity back, and not having to deal with people that I don't need to know anyway!

[eyeball]

After about 15 years living in a small village and then moving back into a medium sized city about 7 years ago, I noticed that the quaint, small town atmosphere comes with a price -- everyone knows your business! There's a kind of enforced conformity that people feel in small towns that doesn't tolerate unconventional beliefs and attitudes. My son was ostracized when he was 11, and told friends that he didn't believe in God. Nothing was said to us, but it became obvious real fast that other parents decided to try to keep their children away from our kids. They're older now, but a similar boycott wouldn't be possible where we're living now. City life has its downside: we don't dare step outside without locking the doors, three cars have been stolen on my street in the past year, and you have to keep alert when you're out on the streets at night.

But, on the other hand, that impersonal, unfriendly atmosphere that people complain about, gives back a degree of personal freedom. I like having this anonymity back, and not having to deal with people that I don't need to know anyway!

I recall reading that some city planners tried to capture the ideal of a conformed populace through architecture and the layout of residential lots ond streets. The uniform sameness to things like the height of porches and distance of setbacks allowed for clear lines of sight up, down and across streets and lot lines. Everyone would be able to see and know "we're the same - a community".

I notice a lot of new-comers to the area that develop new lots usually do so with a keener eye towards retaining as much greenery around the edges of their lots as they can, especially on the road front. I'm quite certain this concerns some of the older school conformists that have lived here for years and just as certain that these are also the type most likely to conform to right-wing punditry.

Then we have the gated-community types. Who knows what where and why they're all about? All we know for sure is that they have gobs and gobs of money. It should be no surprise who spends the most time defending their right to exclude others. Right-wing pundits of course! There's a terrific comedy just waiting to be written around all the internal inconsitencies that exist in our small village. There's nothing quite like trying to hide things in plain sight to raise a few laughs.

I haven't locked a door at my place in nearly 35 years. I don't think I even have the keys for it anymore, I haven't seen them in years. Boats are a different matter though. You have to guard against someone 'borrowing' one, usually so they could get to the bar. I suspect life in quaint little drinking villages with a fishing problem is the same everywhere you go.

[Pliny]

I want to follow up with some thoughts I had while reading the propaganda thread about liberal media bias, with a look at how the inflammatory rhetoric and hatred of liberals, minorities, immigrants, homosexuals etc. may be pushing the lunatic fringe on the Right to lash out in a homicidal manner.

Adkisson was seeking help for his problems. Poor fellow was a victim of society.

Isn't that the proper left wing response to those that need help? Where is your sense of compassion?

Normally, the political leanings of such individuals are not mentioned but since he was found with a copy of some of Bill O'Reilly's books that should be mentioned. It is important in an unbiased media. Obviously the fellow thought the left ruined his life but you don't wish to try and understand that do you? It is inconmprehensible. It has to be the Conservatives that pushed him over the edge. He found some solace in the right wing I suppose but it was the treatment by the left wing he resented.

Inflammatory rhetoric and hatred of Liberals? Sorry, I just have to laugh. If perhaps someone on the left found out what a Nazi or fascist was they may not use the words so freely to describe the conservative.

I dislike socialism as a political ideology. The structure of all organization is socialist in nature, and out of essence, but given power to engineer society and use coercion for, even societal purposes, "the collective good", it becomes a tyrant. It should not attempt to engineer society or the economy and remain concerned only with its prime directive of justice.

[Oleg Bach]

Liberal media consists of a decadent moral neutrality that enforces and stupfies the mass by telling them we are all equal - don't tell me that gay marriage and the over done eccentric feminism is equal to the norm or superiour - eccentric liberal feminism and gay are a disablity - and as with all the disabled in the nation we must be kind. If you can not breed for mental reasons of phyiscal ones or because you have been endoctrinated into man hate - and woman hate - as we see the sexes devided - all are unhappy and all are disabled...I suggest that we give all gays and lesbians - and single aging females a disablity check...after all they are useless in their present state.

[jefferiah]

Yes they do share in this tragedy. Just like the Imams who encourage people to kill the infidel have a share in the responsibility when a Muslim suicide bomber kills.

That would be a great parallel if the pundits actually encouraged people to kill. Since they do not, it is a ridiculous comparison. What they do is make arguments and poke fun at left wingers, the same way people like Jon Stewart do to right wingers.

In effect, what you are saying here, is because someone did some shooting at liberals, liberals should now be insulated from all dissent and argument. Or you are also saying, that if someone shot a republican out of republican hatred, that Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo, and the makers of that movie Smart People (where the hero refers to Young Republicans as "a Hitler Youth Rally") are responsible. And thus George Bush should from then be protected from insult and dissent.

Edited August 25, 2008 by jefferiah

[charter.rights]

Liberal media consists of a decadent moral neutrality that enforces and stupfies the mass by telling them we are all equal - don't tell me that gay marriage and the over done eccentric feminism is equal to the norm or superiour - eccentric liberal feminism and gay are a disablity - and as with all the disabled in the nation we must be kind. If you can not breed for mental reasons of phyiscal ones or because you have been endoctrinated into man hate - and woman hate - as we see the sexes devided - all are unhappy and all are disabled...I suggest that we give all gays and lesbians - and single aging females a disablity check...after all they are useless in their present state.

NO one says that a gay and disabled are equal. What THE LAW says is that gays and disable MUST be treated equally under the law. Their sexual orientation, or their disability cannot be used to deny them equal access to services, jobs or justice.