The problem with this argument is that it disconnects its apparent concern for genuine responsibility from genuine accountability. No one is ever to blame, for contributing to the discourse that leads to the climate of hate. It's not our fault. It never is. That's all too often the excuse given.
But ask any of the people affected by the gay teen suicides last fall about a climate of hate. Ask those who have been bullied for being different about a climate of hate: they've experienced such a climate directly. Ask them if they think there isn't a social environment that promotes rhetorical hate in public discourse. Ask them if they think there isn't a direct connection between the homophobic fulminations of the far right and gay-bashing and gay teen suicide.
Of course there's a direct connection.
And that's why, in a direct parallel, trying to disconnect the political rhetoric from accountability for the actions of those who listen and absorb the rhetoric is so disingenuous.
It's contradictory pretzel logic when pundits have to bend over backwards to find ways to deny that what they say has any impact on culture, when bad things happen—yet when things go well claim full credit is given to what they say as being causative. You can't have it both ways: you can't say your words don't matter here, then say that they matter there.
Where is the decency in denial that a climate of hate does in fact exist? or that many political pundits have contributed to it?
And cheap shots across the bow aren't the way to return civility to public discourse, either. You can do better than that. LOL
I asked some real questions about the discourse and the social climate it creates. Civility certainly needs to be returned to our public discourse. Respecting the right to disagree without fear of reprisal needs to be reinforced. Who was it who first painted political targets with hunter's crosshairs? Whose rhetoric is it that is relentlessly homophobic, while contradicting its own "live and let live" rhetoric a sentence later? Pretzel logic goes better with mustard. Orwell said it best: "Some animals are more equal than others."
Oh, my heavens. I have just come back vfom hobbling to and from The Inquirer, and this is what greets me when I return. The facts are: The shooter in this case has been plotting against the Congresswoman for years. There is no connection between what he did and Palin. Unless you were deeply offended by the Nicholson Baker's novel fantasizing about the assassination of George Bush, or the faux-documentary about same, or the photo op of Palin and her family being shot, you cannot take umbtrage in this case. The hate on the left is reality. It must be faced up to by those on the left. Let's quit the phoniness.
I also should add that a few years ago, when I was still a book editor, I spent an entire day responding, I am happy to report rather coolly, to some amazingly vituperative comments from the left over a rather trivial matter. So the idea that there is no hate coming from the left is, at best, extremely naive. I have been criticized rather forcibly from the right, but never with the hate I have experienced from the left. I put it down, of course, to wusses who would never have the balls to say any of that sort of thing to my face (a wise idea).
Excusing a rhetoric of hate on the right by saying it exists just as much/more on the left - or centre, or anywhere above below and inbetween - is unconscionable. Language matters, no matter what its source.
And perhaps I read the wrong sources, but my very strong impression is that the rhetoric on the right is permeated far more by gun metaphors.
Seriously?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this argument is that it disconnects its apparent concern for genuine responsibility from genuine accountability. No one is ever to blame, for contributing to the discourse that leads to the climate of hate. It's not our fault. It never is. That's all too often the excuse given.
But ask any of the people affected by the gay teen suicides last fall about a climate of hate. Ask those who have been bullied for being different about a climate of hate: they've experienced such a climate directly. Ask them if they think there isn't a social environment that promotes rhetorical hate in public discourse. Ask them if they think there isn't a direct connection between the homophobic fulminations of the far right and gay-bashing and gay teen suicide.
Of course there's a direct connection.
And that's why, in a direct parallel, trying to disconnect the political rhetoric from accountability for the actions of those who listen and absorb the rhetoric is so disingenuous.
It's contradictory pretzel logic when pundits have to bend over backwards to find ways to deny that what they say has any impact on culture, when bad things happen—yet when things go well claim full credit is given to what they say as being causative. You can't have it both ways: you can't say your words don't matter here, then say that they matter there.
Where is the decency in denial that a climate of hate does in fact exist? or that many political pundits have contributed to it?
I noticed that you didn't mention the left's extreme hatred of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party people, and George Bush.
ReplyDeleteAnd cheap shots across the bow aren't the way to return civility to public discourse, either. You can do better than that. LOL
ReplyDeleteI asked some real questions about the discourse and the social climate it creates. Civility certainly needs to be returned to our public discourse. Respecting the right to disagree without fear of reprisal needs to be reinforced. Who was it who first painted political targets with hunter's crosshairs? Whose rhetoric is it that is relentlessly homophobic, while contradicting its own "live and let live" rhetoric a sentence later? Pretzel logic goes better with mustard. Orwell said it best: "Some animals are more equal than others."
Cheap shot?
ReplyDeleteBy pointing out that your argument is one-sided?
The left's knee-jerk reaction to the congresswoman's shooting reminds me of the first day after the shooting of President Kennedy.
On TV, NBC's Huntley-Brinkly blamed William Buckley's magazine, National Review.
Of course, we later discovered that Oswald, a defector who lived in the Soviet Union and loved Fidel Castro, was hardly a conservative.
Speaking of cheap shots, I recall you mocking my comment that NSA was part of the U.S. military.
I responded with a Defense Department link that placed NSA with DoD, and I even e-mailed you with the link.
I'm still waiting for you to admit that you were wrong.
LOL, yourself
Oh, my heavens. I have just come back vfom hobbling to and from The Inquirer, and this is what greets me when I return.
ReplyDeleteThe facts are: The shooter in this case has been plotting against the Congresswoman for years. There is no connection between what he did and Palin. Unless you were deeply offended by the Nicholson Baker's novel fantasizing about the assassination of George Bush, or the faux-documentary about same, or the photo op of Palin and her family being shot, you cannot take umbtrage in this case. The hate on the left is reality. It must be faced up to by those on the left. Let's quit the phoniness.
I also should add that a few years ago, when I was still a book editor, I spent an entire day responding, I am happy to report rather coolly, to some amazingly vituperative comments from the left over a rather trivial matter. So the idea that there is no hate coming from the left is, at best, extremely naive. I have been criticized rather forcibly from the right, but never with the hate I have experienced from the left. I put it down, of course, to wusses who would never have the balls to say any of that sort of thing to my face (a wise idea).
ReplyDeleteExcusing a rhetoric of hate on the right by saying it exists just as much/more on the left - or centre, or anywhere above below and inbetween - is unconscionable. Language matters, no matter what its source.
ReplyDeleteAnd perhaps I read the wrong sources, but my very strong impression is that the rhetoric on the right is permeated far more by gun metaphors.