Remember the prof who said republicans should be executed? there ya go.

[calfoxwc]

well? the "resistance" is aggravated victimized sour grapes radical marxist sombeitches.

 

http://www.toddstarnes.com/column/remember-the-professor-who-said-republicans-should-be-executed

[jbluhm86]

• DON'T FEED THE SNOWFLAKES: After Congressional Shooting, Conservatives Must NOT Fall Into The Trap Of Blaming Political Talk

 

• Let’s Be Exact About The Kinds Of Speech That Promote Violence:

"...So, how do we distinguish speech that is valuable but harsh from speech that is just plain toxic? Borderline speech seems to break down into three separate categories. Two of the three should clearly be fought; the third is a grey area. We shouldn’t conflate them:

1) Speech That Advocates Violence. It’s actually illegal to tell others to commit violence. But there are a certain number of people who run right up to the borderline on this. When Jesse Benn of Huffington Post writes that a violent response to Trump would be “as logical as any,” we’re in this category. When a large swath of the Left said it was worthwhile to physically assault Richard Spencer, we’re in this category. When Antifa pushes actual violence at Berkeley, we’re in this category. And yes, when President Trump said during the campaign that he’d pay the legal bills for people who punched protesters, he was in this category. If you’re advocating violence in politics in the United States, you’re part of the problem.

2) Speech That Defends Violence. Then there are those who turn the other way when violence occurs. This is a larger and more effective group in destroying the social fabric. The Berkeley government that insisted police turn a blind eye to Antifa is part of the problem; so is the Middlebury administration when students assaulted a professor at a Charles Murray event; so was the California State University of Los Angeles administration when they allegedly told police to stand by while protesters assaulted people who wanted to hear me speak; so are the people who thought it was fine for Montana Congressional candidate Greg Gianforte to body-slam a reporter. Kathy Griffin probably falls into this category. It’s not clear that Shakespeare In The Park does, since Julius Caesar isn’t exactly designed as a ringing endorsement of assassination.

3) Speech That Demonizes The Other Side. I don’t generally see an innate problem of violent incitement with people calling a president (Bush, Obama, or Trump) a “tyrant” – and I don’t think that people calling themselves members of a “resistance” or of a “Tea Party” (remember, those were anti-government rebels) means an uptick in assassination attempts. I think a lot of this language is overblown and stupid, but I don’t think that pro-life people talking about killing babies means automatically that more abortionists will die, or that more leftists suggesting that Republicans want to kill granny thanks to Trumpcare means that more Republicans will die. Figurative language is common in politics, it’s not going anywhere, and virtually everyone in the United States knows that it isn’t permission to murder someone. If we want to continue to play this idiotic game where a politically-driven nut kills someone and then we all browse his/her manifesto in order to blame Rachel Maddow/Sean Hannity/whomever, we can, but it’s not going to be productive — and in fact, it will lead to a climate of toxicity toward free speech ("if we can save just one life, isn't it worth telling X to shut up?").

With that said, if you’re demonizing the other side while failing to condemn speech that falls into categories 1 and 2, we can’t grant you a lot of leeway in demonizing. If you say your opponents are Nazis (category 3) and that it’s okay to punch Nazis (2), your demonization is inappropriate and dangerous

Overall, it’s important we make these distinctions, because if we don’t, we’re likely to tread on speech that we all find valuable. Beyond that, any attempt to rid the public discourse of passionate terminology will fail miserably — just take a look at the elections of 2012 and 2016, when the candidate who used the most purple language won. Language is a motivator; language is a tool. How we wield it matters, but we should be careful not to take the head off the hammer just because it occasionally hits a defective nail.

[Canton Dawg]

 

• DON'T FEED THE SNOWFLAKES: After Congressional Shooting, Conservatives Must NOT Fall Into The Trap Of Blaming Political Talk

• Let’s Be Exact About The Kinds Of Speech That Promote Violence:

"...So, how do we distinguish speech that is valuable but harsh from speech that is just plain toxic? Borderline speech seems to break down into three separate categories. Two of the three should clearly be fought; the third is a grey area. We shouldn’t conflate them:

1) Speech That Advocates Violence. It’s actually illegal to tell others to commit violence. But there are a certain number of people who run right up to the borderline on this. When Jesse Benn of Huffington Post writes that a violent response to Trump would be “as logical as any,” we’re in this category. When a large swath of the Left said it was worthwhile to physically assault Richard Spencer, we’re in this category. When Antifa pushes actual violence at Berkeley, we’re in this category. And yes, when President Trump said during the campaign that

, he was in this category. If you’re advocating violence in politics in the United States, you’re part of the problem.

2) Speech That Defends Violence. Then there are those who turn the other way when violence occurs. This is a larger and more effective group in destroying the social fabric. The Berkeley government that insisted police turn a blind eye to Antifa is part of the problem; so is the Middlebury administration when students assaulted a professor at a Charles Murray event; so was the California State University of Los Angeles administration when they allegedly told police to stand by while protesters assaulted people who wanted to hear me speak; so are the people who thought it was fine for Montana Congressional candidate Greg Gianforte to body-slam a reporter. Kathy Griffin probably falls into this category. It’s not clear that Shakespeare In The Park does, since Julius Caesar isn’t exactly designed as a ringing endorsement of assassination.

3) Speech That Demonizes The Other Side. I don’t generally see an innate problem of violent incitement with people calling a president (Bush, Obama, or Trump) a “tyrant” – and I don’t think that people calling themselves members of a “resistance” or of a “Tea Party” (remember, those were anti-government rebels) means an uptick in assassination attempts. I think a lot of this language is overblown and stupid, but I don’t think that pro-life people talking about killing babies means automatically that more abortionists will die, or that more leftists suggesting that Republicans want to kill granny thanks to Trumpcare means that more Republicans will die. Figurative language is common in politics, it’s not going anywhere, and virtually everyone in the United States knows that it isn’t permission to murder someone. If we want to continue to play this idiotic game where a politically-driven nut kills someone and then we all browse his/her manifesto in order to blame Rachel Maddow/Sean Hannity/whomever, we can, but it’s not going to be productive — and in fact, it will lead to a climate of toxicity toward free speech ("if we can save just one life, isn't it worth telling X to shut up?").

With that said, if you’re demonizing the other side while failing to condemn speech that falls into categories 1 and 2, we can’t grant you a lot of leeway in demonizing. If you say your opponents are Nazis (category 3) and that it’s okay to punch Nazis (2), your demonization is inappropriate and dangerous

Overall, it’s important we make these distinctions, because if we don’t, we’re likely to tread on speech that we all find valuable. Beyond that, any attempt to rid the public discourse of passionate terminology will fail miserably — just take a look at the elections of 2012 and 2016, when the candidate who used the most purple language won. Language is a motivator; language is a tool. How we wield it matters, but we should be careful not to take the head off the hammer just because it occasionally hits a defective nail.

Let's not forget the left's hypocritical stance on free speech. Which is, if they agree with it it's okay, if they don't agree with it...it must be silenced.

[jbluhm86]

 

The constant anti Trump rhetoric is taking its toll on people and they are reacting with violence against conservatives.

 

That's true, but that is sort of the point. Rhetoric, unless it clearly and unequivocally calls for violence, is just that: rhetoric. Angry rhetoric is not license to go ahead and commit violence against those who don't share your political stance. I agree that, for the most part, this is coming from the Radical Left, but you also cannot discount those voices coming from the alt-Right / Trump fanatics as well.

 

Regardless, we can't begin to blame angry political rhetoric as the source of violence, because, in the end, words do not kill people; people kill people. It was stupid when the Regressive left used it, such as in the case of trying to blame the attempted assassination of Sen. Giffords on Sarah Palin, and it's just as stupid now that some people on the right are trying to do the same thing.

[calfoxwc]

but the Palin thing was just one person, one symbol that doesn't mean actually target somebody.

 

on the flip side, you have movie stars, comedy that is offensive, you have politicians...

hell you have an entire leftwing national movement of serious "resistance" to anything Trump...

or anything republican.

[Westside Steve]

Words should not create violence. People on the left are by-and-large a lot crazier than people on the right. Yes yes yes Ted Nugent blah blah blah.

 

WSS

[OldBrownsFan]

No doubt words influence people. That is why politicians have speeches and there are commercials on television. I don't want to see us lose free speech rights because some either evil or mentally ill person acts on words they hear from others. Self censorship as in what happened to Kathy Griffin is probably the best way.

[MLD Woody]

Words should not create violence. People on the left are by-and-large a lot crazier than people on the right. Yes yes yes Ted Nugent blah blah blah.

 

WSS

Crazy goes both ways

[Westside Steve]

Crazy goes both ways

Of course it does, but like in the case of religious violent extremism it seems it's a little bit lopsided. Not particularly single crackpot Shooters but look around you riots Etc are almost always populated by the left.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Basically, you can have a mental nutjob on the right, granted, that may act out in violence. Real Americans

have emotion, too, but also they can think critically, for the majority of them.

 

But, the left -solely- operates on emotion, and words stir emotions, and the left goes off their nut.

Look at em. They lost the election and across the board, they've gone to hell, in anger, "resistance",

false narratives, fake attacks....

 

we never did that at all when obaMAO got elected twice. it was a fake presidency both times. much damage was done.

and they good and well demand it stay like they damaged it.

 

Nope. Not going to happen.

[Bob806]

Basically, you can have a mental nutjob on the right, granted, that may act out in violence. Real Americans

have emotion, too, but also they can think critically, for the majority of them.

 

But, the left -solely- operates on emotion, and words stir emotions, and the left goes off their nut.

Look at em. They lost the election and across the board, they've gone to hell, in anger, "resistance",

false narratives, fake attacks....

 

 

I would agree with that.

 

Conservatives are seemingly smarter as in how they handle their emotions, etc. They tend to "attack" silently, through huge PACs like ALEC and try to write/pass legislation to get their wishes.

 

I think the far left and the far right get way too much attention. Most of the people I know tend to be more in the "middle," and blow left or right on certain issues.

[MLD Woody]

Of course it does, but like in the case of religious violent extremism it seems it's a little bit lopsided. Not particularly single crackpot Shooters but look around you riots Etc are almost always populated by the left.

 

WSS

Conservatives are also generally older. An older person, even a crazy one, would be less likely to riot or get violent.

 

Though the crazy could still be equal

 

 

 

(Also, if you're on the right, your definition of "crazy liberal" occurs a lot sooner on the spectrum than someone that is more towards the middle (

[Westside Steve]

Conservatives are also generally older. An older person, even a crazy one, would be less likely to riot or get violent.

 

Though the crazy could still be equal

 

 

 

(Also, if you're on the right, your definition of "crazy liberal" occurs a lot sooner on the spectrum than someone that is more towards the middle (

I think there are too many issues to actually put together a workable bell curve.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

They seem to clump together on average.

[jbluhm86]

 

The constant anti Trump rhetoric is taking its toll on people and they are reacting with violence against conservatives.

 

 

Words create violence. Look at Hitler. He convinced a whole country to conquer the world because he was a charismatic figure. Charles Manson convinced his followers to kill. The liberal media has convinced the impressionable that Trump is the devil and he must be stopped. The whole Russia fiasco is nothing but a farce.

 

The constant barrage of Trump hate is fueling liberals and socialists to act out. Harvard did a study on the negative coverage on Trump and the findings were unprecedented in overwhelming anti Trump bias.

 

If words do not create violence then how do you explain the Koran and ISIS? The left has created this whole toxic Trump culture and I fear something bad may happen.

 

If that is the case, why didn't all German's become Nazi's? There are plenty of examples of citizens in Hitler's Germany who risked life and limb to rescue and protect Jews from death. They heard the same speeches their violent countrymen heard, did they not?

 

The Koran is indeed a very violent book, and calls for all Muslims to kill people for various transgressions, but the majority of the 1.6m Muslims in the world today aren't blowing themselves up for Allah like their more zealous brethren. Are they not reading the same book?

 

Look at all the rules and regulations in the Old Testament. Why aren't Jews en mass today stoning adulterers, people who work on Saturday, homosexuals, or people who wear clothing made from more than one type of cloth? Doesn't their Torah explicitly say they should do so?

 

 

My point is, words in themselves, are not the ultimate arbiter of violence. At the end of the day, people are responsible for their own actions.

[jbluhm86]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17678/watch-more-protesters-storm-stage-anti-trump-ben-shapiro

 

WATCH: More Protesters Storm Stage At Anti-Trump ‘Julius Caesar’ Production

[calfoxwc]

sedition is the left. No problem with going on stage to complain - no hurt, no violence, no foul....... Enough is enough. I don't remember any play that showed the murder of obaMao.

 

can you imagine a "comedienne" holding a fake severed head of obaMao?

 

Nope. All indignant hell would be waged by the liberal media.

 

but that is how the liberal media rolls...

[jbluhm86]

sedition is the left. No problem with going on stage to complain - no hurt, no violence, no foul....... Enough is enough. I don't remember any play that showed the murder of obaMao.

 

can you imagine a "comedienne" holding a fake severed head of obaMao?

 

Nope. All indignant hell would be waged by the liberal media.

 

but that is how the liberal media rolls...

Except that, by rushing the stage and trying to disrupt the play enough to shut it down, some members of the alt right are becoming just like the radical left. They are now starting to use the same snowflake tactics against things they don't like, just like the left.

 

I think Samuel Alito put it best today in his opinion on Matal v. Tam:

 

["The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate".

[calfoxwc]

fair point, except the protestors are exercising THEIR right to free speech too,

 

as in, you object to all leftwing marches and protests? sit ins?

 

Years ago, we went with family to see a beautiful outdoor theater production "Tecumseh"

 

it was absolutely beautiful and very, very excellently done.

 

Later, we went and saw another one - "Blue Jacket"...

and some parts of it was good...some parts were very poor.

The worst of it, was sick overacting, and some lumberjack sized guy

allegedly killed a baby...by smashing their head with a big sledge hammer...

using a watermelon that splashed stuff all over.

 

A lot of people walked out, some said they should be ashamed of themselves,

a LOT of people walked out, the show stalled, and they moved on quickly...

but older folks, folks with kids... so many walked out. We walked out of the lower section,

and paused at the top to see if it was worth staying on. The show was ruined, the cast seemed

in disarray...

 

There ways of saying things to get the message across without going glaring asswipe about it....

it seemed that they had a political message... "here is how bad ALL those nogood pioneers were"...

or something.

 

The line was pretty long at the ticket booth, which was closed... I suppose that was the first time they went

overboard.

 

Now, if that had been the assassination of Trump? any president? I would understand going up on stage to get

the objection duly noted. No violence, which the left condones by the left, just freedom of speech in protest.

Not quite the same as walking out, but what we saw wasn't the murder of our president, either.

 

Like some comedians/comediennes - shock gets nervous laughter response - but it's a nasty cheap way to try

to get someone to laugh. Anyone can be repulsive and shocking. Making someone really laugh is an art - not shared

by everyone.

 

If some theater group wants to express a message, don't repel/sicken your audience when you try it.

That is how the phony anti-war movement in America didn't do anything except prolong the war - they alienated

middle America - the people they pretended to try to reach with their message.

 

Now, that is far different from feigning indignance/victimhood over some non-issues and being "outraged" over nonsense

that actually doesn't offend anybody at all.