Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why is it important to focus on the Dem/Left/liberal(ish) hypocrisy right now?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why is it important to focus on the Dem/Left/liberal(ish) hypocrisy right now?

    Lets jump back in time 10 years, to 2011. A man opened fire in an Arizona parking lot and killed 6 people, and shot Gabriel (Gabby) Giffords. By all rights, she should have died that day as well, but by some miracle, survived being shot in the head. When the Sherriff said that it was possible overheated political rhetoric contributed to the violence, the Democrats picked up that soundbite and ran with it. "Civility was their new talking point"...well really it was their new cudgel. They attacked republicans about not being civil, they slandered Sarah Palin and claimed that a campaign map was responsible. In the end, it was false, and it was a man with paranoid schizophrania that went on a rampage unrelated to politics that did this. The media and democrats kept the story in the paper for a long time.

    Jump forward to 2017. During a baseball practice where 24 republican congressmen had gathered to practice for an annual charity baseball game, a man approached two congressmen and asked whether the Republicans or Democrats were practicing on the field. Those two congressmen believe it was the perpetrator of what happened next. 30 minutes after the practice started, a gunman opened fire with a rifle. Steve Scalisce, on second base, was shot in the hip. The shot shattered his hip, ricocheted into his body and damaged several internal organs. Miraculously he also survived. two others were shot as well. Thankfully, nobody was killed. The perpetrator was identified as a man from illinois who was by all accounts a mainstream democrat, acting for political purposes. The shooter even had a list of names in his pocket.

    The reaction between the two was...different. While in both cases, Colleagues, rallied around the shooter, the democrats talk about rhetoric was muted, if it existed at all. Even though the rhetoric surrounding Trump's election was higher than it had ever been, the democrats barely mentioned it, if they did at all. The media covereed the initial news story, but then it quickly faded away.

    But that's not just subjective opinion, when you look at the news coverage you'll see stark differences.

    At first, stuff seems on par within the first three days, the coverage seems similar.

    first3giffordsvscalise.jpg

    But, take a look at how quickly the story died out. When you look at the entire week after each shooting:


    firstweekversus.jpg
    Suddenly, the coverage dropped by half or more, depending on the paper.

    It wasn't just the coverage amount, but also the placement of the stories. A week later and the NYT had five front page stories related to the attack on Giffords. Scalisce....nothing


    When one of their own was shot, the democrats were concerned about rhetoric. They were concerned about how all of the anger could lead someone to be violent. In the case of Gabby Giffords it turns out that they were tilting at windmills. However, the general point they had was right. Lots of heated emotional rhetoric can lead to deaths.

    When heated political rhetoric suddenly became a contributing factor to political violence, it was against the other side. This would have been a good time for soul searching, for recognizing that perhaps their ugly rhetoric was getting out of hand. That perhaps the party of Civility had gone to far on being uncivil. But they didn't.

    Now, We are in a similar type of situation. We had 4 years of political violence. It's been downplayed, it's been minimized, it's been rationalized, it's been justified, it's been excused, it's been ignored. This summer was the worst. AOC even posted a guide to hide your identity while protesting. When I copied those words to this site, I was given an infraction and the thread was pulled down because it was seen as encouraging people to commit crimes. AOC Now says that if we don't crack down hard on the capitol hill rioters, and crack down hard fast, all we'll do is encourage people to riot more.

    oxmixmudd, who considers my concerns about the general silence of democrats over violence (including my concern about the multiple attempted murders of police officers) to be "Petty Annoyances" feels we should focus on republican mis-deeds and ignore what the democrats did until this blows over. The answer to that is no!

    Why? Because if we ignore the democrats complicity in the normalization of violence, history shows us they won't soul search, they won't be introspective on their own behavior. Instead They'll use this as a cudgel against republicans, and then memory hole their own behavior. We have to keep reminding them about how they contributed to violence, or they will simply move on from it, and repeat the same behavior.


  • #2
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner

    has a different opinion.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
      Try actually explaining what your talking about. All you did was post a link with no comment.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
        Moderated By: Bill the Cat

        Please do not argue by weblink.

        ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
        Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

          Try actually explaining what your talking about. All you did was post a link with no comment.
          His medical diagnosis had to do with competence to stand trial. His motivations and political positions are a different thing.
          According to a former friend, Bryce Tierney, Loughner had expressed a longstanding dislike for Gabrielle Giffords. Tierney recalled that Loughner had often said that women should not hold positions of power.[42][43] He repeatedly derided Giffords as a "fake". This belief intensified after he attended her August 25, 2007 event when she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer his question: "What is government if words have no meaning?"[20]Loughner kept Giffords' form letter, which thanked him for attending the 2007 event, in the same box as an envelope which was scrawled with phrases like "die bitch" and "assassination plans have been made".[44]

          his politics were in the Tea Party area.
          “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
          “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
          “not all there” - you know who you are

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by firstfloor View Post

            His medical diagnosis had to do with competence to stand trial. His motivations and political positions are a different thing.
            [/URL]
            his politics were in the Tea Party area.[/SUP]
            I was unaware that "words have no meaning" was a tea party idea.

            Though, from your same article you seem to be cherry picking, there was this part as well:

            In the aftermath of the shooting, the Anti-Defamation League reviewed messages by Loughner, and concluded that there was a "disjointed theme that runs through Loughner's writings", which was a "distrust for and dislike of the government." It "manifested itself in various ways" – for instance, in the belief that the government used the control of language and grammar to brainwash people, the notion that the government was creating "infinite currency" without the backing of gold and silver, or the assertion that NASA was faking spaceflights.[40] Kathryn Olmsted of UC Davis wrote that Loughner possessed a "toxic jumble of left- and right-wing conspiracy theories, his sources ranging from Marx to Hitler to heavy metal."[50]

            Comment


            • #7
              If the democrats get away with what they are doing now, you just encourage them to do it again

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                Lets jump back in time 10 years, to 2011. A man opened fire in an Arizona parking lot and killed 6 people, and shot Gabriel (Gabby) Giffords. By all rights, she should have died that day as well, but by some miracle, survived being shot in the head. When the Sherriff said that it was possible overheated political rhetoric contributed to the violence, the Democrats picked up that soundbite and ran with it. "Civility was their new talking point"...well really it was their new cudgel. They attacked republicans about not being civil, they slandered Sarah Palin and claimed that a campaign map was responsible. In the end, it was false, and it was a man with paranoid schizophrania that went on a rampage unrelated to politics that did this. The media and democrats kept the story in the paper for a long time.

                Jump forward to 2017. During a baseball practice where 24 republican congressmen had gathered to practice for an annual charity baseball game, a man approached two congressmen and asked whether the Republicans or Democrats were practicing on the field. Those two congressmen believe it was the perpetrator of what happened next. 30 minutes after the practice started, a gunman opened fire with a rifle. Steve Scalisce, on second base, was shot in the hip. The shot shattered his hip, ricocheted into his body and damaged several internal organs. Miraculously he also survived. two others were shot as well. Thankfully, nobody was killed. The perpetrator was identified as a man from illinois who was by all accounts a mainstream democrat, acting for political purposes. The shooter even had a list of names in his pocket.

                The reaction between the two was...different. While in both cases, Colleagues, rallied around the shooter, the democrats talk about rhetoric was muted, if it existed at all. Even though the rhetoric surrounding Trump's election was higher than it had ever been, the democrats barely mentioned it, if they did at all. The media covereed the initial news story, but then it quickly faded away.

                But that's not just subjective opinion, when you look at the news coverage you'll see stark differences.

                At first, stuff seems on par within the first three days, the coverage seems similar.

                first3giffordsvscalise.jpg

                But, take a look at how quickly the story died out. When you look at the entire week after each shooting:


                firstweekversus.jpg
                Suddenly, the coverage dropped by half or more, depending on the paper.

                It wasn't just the coverage amount, but also the placement of the stories. A week later and the NYT had five front page stories related to the attack on Giffords. Scalisce....nothing


                When one of their own was shot, the democrats were concerned about rhetoric. They were concerned about how all of the anger could lead someone to be violent. In the case of Gabby Giffords it turns out that they were tilting at windmills. However, the general point they had was right. Lots of heated emotional rhetoric can lead to deaths.

                When heated political rhetoric suddenly became a contributing factor to political violence, it was against the other side. This would have been a good time for soul searching, for recognizing that perhaps their ugly rhetoric was getting out of hand. That perhaps the party of Civility had gone to far on being uncivil. But they didn't.

                Now, We are in a similar type of situation. We had 4 years of political violence. It's been downplayed, it's been minimized, it's been rationalized, it's been justified, it's been excused, it's been ignored. This summer was the worst. AOC even posted a guide to hide your identity while protesting. When I copied those words to this site, I was given an infraction and the thread was pulled down because it was seen as encouraging people to commit crimes. AOC Now says that if we don't crack down hard on the capitol hill rioters, and crack down hard fast, all we'll do is encourage people to riot more.

                oxmixmudd, who considers my concerns about the general silence of democrats over violence (including my concern about the multiple attempted murders of police officers) to be "Petty Annoyances" feels we should focus on republican mis-deeds and ignore what the democrats did until this blows over. The answer to that is no!

                Why? Because if we ignore the democrats complicity in the normalization of violence, history shows us they won't soul search, they won't be introspective on their own behavior. Instead They'll use this as a cudgel against republicans, and then memory hole their own behavior. We have to keep reminding them about how they contributed to violence, or they will simply move on from it, and repeat the same behavior.
                Another relevant fact about the differential extended coverage is that Scalise recovered quickly and is back in his old position. Giffords remains impaired and is unlike to recover fully.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kccd View Post
                  Another relevant fact about the differential extended coverage is that Scalise recovered quickly and is back in his old position. Giffords remains impaired and is unlike to recover fully.
                  Reasons like this are why single-example comparisons like the OP makes prove nothing. All sorts of variations, not just in the details of the story itself, but in how they were conveyed to the media, through to what other stories were being covered that week, will have contributed to variations in coverage. And, also, there can absolutely be simple random variation in the amount of coverage something happens to get.

                  A good rule of thumb in general when doing these kinds of comparisons of two kinds of things and wanting to see if there's statistically significant differences, is that the number of instances being compared should be about 30 or more. A single example like the OP tells us nothing at all.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kccd View Post

                    Another relevant fact about the differential extended coverage is that Scalise recovered quickly and is back in his old position. Giffords remains impaired and is unlike to recover fully.
                    I would point out that those comparisons are within a week of the shooting. He was still in the hospital during that time. He was not quickly recovered and back in his old position by the time that the story coverage dropped

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                      If the democrats get away with what they are doing now, you just encourage them to do it again
                      What are they doing now?
                      America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Reasons like this are why single-example comparisons like the OP makes prove nothing. All sorts of variations, not just in the details of the story itself, but in how they were conveyed to the media, through to what other stories were being covered that week, will have contributed to variations in coverage. And, also, there can absolutely be simple random variation in the amount of coverage something happens to get.

                        A good rule of thumb in general when doing these kinds of comparisons of two kinds of things and wanting to see if there's statistically significant differences, is that the number of instances being compared should be about 30 or more. A single example like the OP tells us nothing at all.
                        You mean like BLM DC vs Capitol Riot DC that Biden and Harris compared?

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by Ronson, Today, 09:17 AM
                        18 responses
                        77 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Ronson
                        by Ronson
                         
                        Started by Mountain Man, Yesterday, 10:00 AM
                        20 responses
                        135 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Mountain Man  
                        Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:45 AM
                        75 responses
                        439 views
                        2 likes
                        Last Post EvoUK
                        by EvoUK
                         
                        Started by Cow Poke, 01-21-2021, 03:35 PM
                        45 responses
                        298 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Cow Poke  
                        Started by Ronson, 01-21-2021, 09:45 AM
                        34 responses
                        185 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Ronson
                        by Ronson
                         
                        Working...
                        X