3 ms·

@krapp I don't believe anything deserves to be targeted for canceling. It's basically the main thing that polarizes me against progressivism, the obsession with

@krapp I don't believe anything deserves to be targeted for canceling. It's basically the main thing that polarizes me against progressivism, the obsession with speech control.

krapp 7y ago
The "obsession with speech control" polarizes you against progressivism, but violent rhetoric doesn't polarize you against conservatism? I would politely suggest that you should reassess your priorities.
- rhegart 7y ago
  There is far more violent rhetoric from the left than the right for the first time in my life. Regardless, your comment is extremely naive because violent rhetoric will always be present in any political party. If only 1 in 10,000 are nut jobs then we have thousands of crazies in both political parties and in any other group or ideology that represents a large population.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    If there is far more violent rhetoric coming from the left, then you would expect to see the rise of said nutjobs committing murder and what not. Yet curiously, we've seen the rise of mass murders and hate come from the far right. How does that work with the idea that the left is somehow more violent than the right? Why is it okay for the right to normalize violence?
    - drak0n1c 7y ago
      The Colorado STEM school shooters were far-left. So was the "nutjob" who shot Republican lawmakers. The Dallas sniper was far-left as well. See where this type of argument leads? It's irresponsible and wrong to claim that people you disagree with are responsible for the actions of violent killers. The responsibility for killings lies with the killers themselves, and the failures of law enforcement.
      - cannonedhamster 7y ago
        The Dallas shooter wanted to kill white people and cops. That's not a left or right position. Especially when you consider the Dallas Police have been some of the most proactive and one of the most well regarded police forces by the BLM movement. The Colorado STEM shooters never had a motive released. Not sure where you got that from. One of the shooters was literally registered Democrat for less than a year. The other wasn't even old enough to vote. There's some suspected bullying that went on but that's about all anyone knows so again not a "left wing" shooting. The only one on your list that's actually verifiably a left wing violent act is the guy who shot at Republicans. That's absolutely verified. Contrast that with the church and synagogue shootings where people literally admitted that they were on the right. Contrast that with the pizza shop incident where Hillary and left wing people were supposed to be hiding slaves in the basement of a building with no basement, which was circulated by the right. Literally bombs sent to Democrats by people on the right. Finally the President himself calling for his supporters to beat people up at rallies. The only way one denies the violence is more common on the right is if one is predisposed to believe it. Are there some cases where it's unclear why violence happened that have been misattributed to the right? Sure how could there not be, but there's also overwhelming evidence of violence on the right.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > There is far more violent rhetoric from the left than the right for the first time in my life. No, there's not. Moreover there is, as has been true for many decades, far more violent political action in the US by the right (even excluding state action, though some of the longtime violent rhetoric of the right from outside of government, particularly against actual and suspect unauthorized migrants, is now manifesting as state action.)
mooseburger 7y ago
@krapp I just don't fear violent rhetoric. It's not something that merits a reaction, in my view. Basically, if an author can say it in a book, then random citizens ought to be able to say it on the internet.
- krapp 7y ago
  >I just don't fear violent rhetoric. It's not something that merits a reaction, in my view. So you're not concerned about it if it doesn't target you personally. Fair enough, not everyone has empathy for their fellow human beings. >Basically, if an author can say it in a book, then random citizens ought to be able to say it on the internet. As far as I know, authors can't attempt to incite real violence in books, either. But imminence is a relevant factor you're ignoring. A book may take weeks, months or years to publish, whereas a death threat on the internet can be acted upon almost immediately.

@krapp I don't believe anything deserves to be targeted for canceling. It's basically the main thing that polarizes me against progressivism, the obsession with speech control.

krapp 7y ago

The "obsession with speech control" polarizes you against progressivism, but violent rhetoric doesn't polarize you against conservatism? I would politely suggest that you should reassess your priorities.

rhegart 7y ago
There is far more violent rhetoric from the left than the right for the first time in my life. Regardless, your comment is extremely naive because violent rhetoric will always be present in any political party. If only 1 in 10,000 are nut jobs then we have thousands of crazies in both political parties and in any other group or ideology that represents a large population.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  If there is far more violent rhetoric coming from the left, then you would expect to see the rise of said nutjobs committing murder and what not. Yet curiously, we've seen the rise of mass murders and hate come from the far right. How does that work with the idea that the left is somehow more violent than the right? Why is it okay for the right to normalize violence?
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    The Colorado STEM school shooters were far-left. So was the "nutjob" who shot Republican lawmakers. The Dallas sniper was far-left as well. See where this type of argument leads? It's irresponsible and wrong to claim that people you disagree with are responsible for the actions of violent killers. The responsibility for killings lies with the killers themselves, and the failures of law enforcement.
    - cannonedhamster 7y ago
      The Dallas shooter wanted to kill white people and cops. That's not a left or right position. Especially when you consider the Dallas Police have been some of the most proactive and one of the most well regarded police forces by the BLM movement. The Colorado STEM shooters never had a motive released. Not sure where you got that from. One of the shooters was literally registered Democrat for less than a year. The other wasn't even old enough to vote. There's some suspected bullying that went on but that's about all anyone knows so again not a "left wing" shooting. The only one on your list that's actually verifiably a left wing violent act is the guy who shot at Republicans. That's absolutely verified. Contrast that with the church and synagogue shootings where people literally admitted that they were on the right. Contrast that with the pizza shop incident where Hillary and left wing people were supposed to be hiding slaves in the basement of a building with no basement, which was circulated by the right. Literally bombs sent to Democrats by people on the right. Finally the President himself calling for his supporters to beat people up at rallies. The only way one denies the violence is more common on the right is if one is predisposed to believe it. Are there some cases where it's unclear why violence happened that have been misattributed to the right? Sure how could there not be, but there's also overwhelming evidence of violence on the right.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > There is far more violent rhetoric from the left than the right for the first time in my life. No, there's not. Moreover there is, as has been true for many decades, far more violent political action in the US by the right (even excluding state action, though some of the longtime violent rhetoric of the right from outside of government, particularly against actual and suspect unauthorized migrants, is now manifesting as state action.)

mooseburger 7y ago

@krapp I just don't fear violent rhetoric. It's not something that merits a reaction, in my view. Basically, if an author can say it in a book, then random citizens ought to be able to say it on the internet.

krapp 7y ago
>I just don't fear violent rhetoric. It's not something that merits a reaction, in my view. So you're not concerned about it if it doesn't target you personally. Fair enough, not everyone has empathy for their fellow human beings. >Basically, if an author can say it in a book, then random citizens ought to be able to say it on the internet. As far as I know, authors can't attempt to incite real violence in books, either. But imminence is a relevant factor you're ignoring. A book may take weeks, months or years to publish, whereas a death threat on the internet can be acted upon almost immediately.