Generalization

[lumberjack_jeff]

One trait of progressives is to treat individuals and situations on an instance-by-instance basis. This is why liberals get criticized for "moral relativity" or "muddy thinking about the terrorist threat". Liberals resist creating stereotypes. Even those based on a large collection of individual observations.

On the other side, conservatives are more likely to generalize. This is why Ann Coulter thinks we should nuke North Korea, because they must all, civilians included, be like Kim Jong Il, complete with platform shoes and bad hair. The default setting is generalization - conservatives must carve out exceptions to their stereotypes; "But not that Condi Rice - she's okay."

What are some of the implications of this? When the more rational conservatives hear Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and G Gordon Liddy say that liberals should be killed, they dismiss it as a joke or hyperbole. When liberals hear it, they express concern about the specific instance, and each subsequent event but they don't really take the next logical step to the generalization. They don't recognize that the problem isn't what Ann specifically said about executing people as a means to intimidate liberals, or what she said about bombing the NYT building. They fail to recognize that problem is Ann, generally. The problem isn't anything that Rush, Savage, Malkin or Liddy specifically said. The problem is the multi-billion-dollar industry they represent. The problem is hate radio, hate punditry and hate governance and the effect that they have on their constituency, generally.

Between liberals inability to generalize, and the permanent exemption that conservatives have given to their own terrorists*, the hate radio industry has carte blanche to do and say whatever they wish without ramification.

*Terrorist: (n) one who advocates violence to promote political goals. Ann Coulter definitely qualifies.

Do I advocate creating broad stereotypes based on the flimsiest of data? No. I advocate something much less drastic - take what people say seriously. If even 5% of what a radio host says is hate speech, then the host is advocating and inciting hate in his or her audience.

They should be collectively accountable for the deeds their words inspire. At a minimum, they should find other work. Start with Michael "liberalism is a mental disorder" Savage.

At first it seems ironic that a book with that title would be owned by a church shooter, but it's really not. It's completely unsurprising. Bug-fuck crazy conservatives are drawn like flies to shit toward anything that indicates that the objects of their hatred are the actual crazies.

[Hydra]

1. This is a no brainer

We know Coulter meant every word. It was only a matter of time before someone followed through with her request in a spectacular fashion(I bet it's happened quite a few times where it was hush-hushed).

Regardless, our problem is not the inability to generalize- we do it all the time. Our problem is not seeing the true scope of the problem:

A rabid minority is threatening our lives because we don't believe what they do

Ignore that at your peril.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. shameless kick. n/t