Does the left ever engage in violence or hateful rhetoric that could cause it?

[hfojvt]

Some here have vehemently denied that, and asked for some evidence.

This may get me in trouble, because generally the only source of evidence is rightwing sites. Google leads me there, not my normal reading patterns. For some reason, leftwing sites do not spend lots of time being critical about the left. I do remember Ted Rall conceding his challenge, but cannot find a link to where he posted that on his own blog. Rall asked for proof that leftist blogs contained as much vitriol against the right as the right seems to typically throw at the left, and then conceded that it was there.

Here's a rightwing blogger talking about it, with some comments calling for the death of conservatives

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1235

and even a British columnist, who claimed his writing was meant as a joke as he asked for a John Wilkes Booth to rid the world of Bush.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=301

the link to the Guardian column only includes the apology/retraction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/oct/24/tvandradio.theguide

As to actual violence. One might point out that President Reagan was shot, and in the logic of the day, if a Democratic politician is shot, then Republicans are to blame, the same must then hold true if a Republican politician is shot. After all, leftist protestors were calling Reagan the "fascist gun in the west" (a protest poster I remember seeing on the front page of the Minnesota Daily). Isn't that a clear call to violence? Isn't it a good thing to shoot a fascist dictator?

A more recent example was protests against Proposition 8 which turned violent. A quick google search leading me to this http://www.getreligion.org/2008/11/proposition-8-protests-heat-up/

I might also remember how many on DU laughed when the student protestors in Britain threatened Prince Charles and Camilla. If that's not considered calling out. (Hey, I am not naming names, or providing a link).

No shooting that I can remember, but plenty of violent and hateful rhetoric is evident as well as violence to property and threats to people.

[ret5hd]

1. Remember, reagan's shooter had close family ties to the bush's.

[hfojvt]

25. yeah, that was NOT meant as a sirius argument

but only the general equivalent of arguments I have seen on DU of the type that "Democrat get shot, it must be the fault of the rightwing."

If you accept that logic, then the reverse must also be true "Republican gets shot ..."

Sometimes we can see how weak an argument is when it is applied to ourselves.

However, that does not mean that everybody on the left takes the first argument seriously either.

[ret5hd]

27. The left (as an entity) doesn't advocate violence and assasination...

the right does...and then it does.

[MH1]

51. Elected officials and serious political campaigns of the 'left' do not.

I have no doubt that someone can find mad ravings of extreme left bloggers or others that can be seen as similar to the hateful rhetoric of the right.

1. But what Democratic campaign or politician has used it?

2. If MSNBC is the approximate 'left' equivalent of Fox, can a reasonably objective count be made of the occurrences of violent rhetoric on each network, and compared? (on second thought, there are shows on MSNBC that can't be counted as 'left', for example Morning Joe, so a head to head comparison of specific shows might be more in order).


On both points I am sure the result would show a massive difference with the weight being on the right.

We need to get away from the 'never' term because there are kooks on the left as well - they just tend to be marginalized, unlike the right.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. oh for fucks sake

now we are getting the 'they both do it a pox on both their houses' equivalence bullshit.

ugh

[hfojvt]

28. no, it is only a pox on the haters of each house

see the signature line.

After Martin Luther King's house was blown up, with his wife and young daughter inside, he encouraged the gathering crowd not to hate. Not to return hate for hate and violence for violence, which only increases the violence.

To condemn Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle for encouraging hate is one thing, to express hatred of them and to encourage others to hate them kinda defeats the whole purpose.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. I sincerely question your motives and honesty

there is no equivalence. There is no left wing media machine with a coordinated barrage of violent rhetoric saturating the airwaves for years on end. You sir, are full of shit.

[KG]

34. word.

[Tsiyu]

35. Sirius Word

You knew it would appear.

No big surprise by whom

BIG unrec for false equivalency

siriusly

[hfojvt]

36. maybe I just hang out on DU too much

and the hateful bullshit like what you just posted seems like its bigger than it really is in the real world.

[MH1]

53. his post was strongly worded and not very friendly, but it WASN'T violent rhetoric

like what the right purveys.

There is a HUGE difference, and if posts like his are what make you think there's some equivalence, I'd suggest you take a closer look at the cases you're comparing.

[hfojvt]

57. What does my sigline say?

I don't think there is that huge of a difference.

What is the Buddhist 8 fold path? It starts with
1. Right view
2. right intention
3. right speech
4. right action

so, in this case, I would call this steps in the wrong direction on the wrong path
1. wrong view - some people are sub-human
2. wrong intention - I want to hurt those people, if nothing else, to hurt their feelings
3. wrong speech - I will say something hateful

once you get on the path, then you only need an opportunity to put it into wrong action, or to have somebody take it to its logical conclusion.

However, I am not gonna say that I did not over-react. Seeing as how the post I responded to was about the 6th or 15th with the theme "I have no respect or affection for hfojvt" from a group of people that I have been hanging out with for six years and would sort of like to think of as including allies, and perhaps friends. Yeah, it gets to be a little bit too much to take.

[socialist_n_TN]

61. Shao Lin monks were as Buddhist as they come.........

but they DID believe in self defense. If they're shooting us, it might be time for self defense.

[hfojvt]

66. am I arguing against self defense?

Because I didn't think I was. But I do not believe the rhetoric of hate can really be used in self defense. Nor that hate and violence are the best response to hate and violence. To go back to the MLK example. If you remember, his house was blown up. It is one thing to shoot somebody who is coming to your house to blow it up, and it is another thing to demand a trial for somebody who is caught after the fact and even a severe punishment. However, it is another thing entirely to respond after the house has blown up by going and blowing up some white people's houses, or to proclaim hatred for all white people.

After his house was blown up, Dr. King addressed a crowd of angry black people at his house "If you have weapons, take them home; if you do not have them, please do not seek to get them. We cannot solve this problem through retaliatory violence. We must meet violence with nonviolence. Remember the words of Jesus 'he who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.' p. 137 Stride toward Freedom

[rbrnmw]

41. give em hell Harry........

[tabasco]

46. I second that.

He is full of feces.

[NuclearDem]

3. John Hinckley didn't shoot Reagan for political purposes

He shot him because he was mentally disturbed and trying to impress Jodie Foster by acting out a scene from Taxi Driver.

Most times a Democrat gets shot at or threatened these days, it's politically-motivated.

[qnr]

4. Of course they do. However, they're not generally on air broadcasting their

vitriol to a large percentage of the public on most days of the week.

[Drale]

5. There maybe the ability for both sides to do violent acts

but I don't recalled any politician on the left ever referring to second amendment remedies.

[Mz Pip]

6. There's a big difference

between some random blogger, or a British columnist and people who are running for high public office in this country.

I don't doubt that there are people on the left who babble about revolution but they aren't running for congress or talking about Second Amendment remedies as part of their campaign rhetoric.

[hfojvt]

31. what would happen though

if some of the bloggers won a primary election?

[Caretha]

32. What if?

What is your point? We can fuckin' what if all day long, how many violent murderous actions have to take place against democrats or liberals for you to wake up and smell the stinkin' roses? I'm guessin' never.

Unrec

[H2O Man]

7. gross

[bluerum]

8. Give me a shout when a RW poltician suffers a politically motivated attack

that was cheered on by LW entertainment or political personalities.

[readmoreoften]

9. Fucking please. Enough of this bipartisan shit. Name one Bush admin member harmed.

Everyone left of Obama hated the piss out of the whole crew. Not one act of violence. Just stop.

[mix]

10. one can only wonder what motivates posts like yours nt

[hfojvt]

29. I suppose one can also quickly rule out

a concern for the truth and a passion for peace.

[Change has come]

37. Yes. Almost immediatly.

A passion for peace?

[scarletwoman]

58. You lost your benefit-of-the-doubt with me years ago.

I'm way beyond bothering to look for good intentions behind the kinds of crap you habitually post.

sw

[hfojvt]

68. you mean like these?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/138

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/129

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/128

[Caretha]

33. I don't wonder

I've read plenty of his posts. I know.

[theoldman]

11. I have been around for a long time.

I do not recall a Democrat killing someone due to a political motive.

[liberalmuse]

12. The body count says, 'NO'.

I don't recall an instance where a liberal has gunned down a right winger because of their ideology, but if you take a peak at the other scenario, you will find countless instances of those of the liberal persuasion being gunned down by those of the far right radical persuasion. The Weather Underground did not kill a single right winger. Granted, lefties within the org died when the bomb they were readying went off prematurely, but again, I can't think of a single instance where a lefty (in this country, anyway) has assassinated a right winger.

[rfranklin]

16. I seem to remember that they were into blowing up property not people...

Of course, I don't support either. But it is the right wingers who consider property more valuable than peopleso they would find that more threatening.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. Do ideologically motivated or semi-ideologically-motivated cop-killings count?

Plenty of those.

[CJCRANE]

13. Weak nt

[mrcheerful]

14. I don't know if the left does it to crap fits as when I have a disagreement with a liberal

he either uses logic to get me to see his point or he drops it if he see's he won't sway my opinion. Now every argument I have had with a conservative has ended up in either name calling, personal attacks or threats of violence. Which is what lead me to DU.

[EFerrari]

15. No, the left has not used the language of assassination.

It has not told anyone to reload or put targets on political opponents or invited voters to shooting matches to "take out" incumbents.

:puke:

[Raine]

17. NO

and mentioning Charles and Camilla is totally ridiculous. If anyone called for their deaths maybe you should provide a link.

[NuclearDem]

21. Right here...at 1:11

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-13-2010/london-riot-souvenirs

"Off with their heads! Off with their heads!"

[eridani]

40. Quoting the Red Queen as channelled by Lewis Carroll is a death threat?

Pulleeze Louise!

[prolesunited]

18. False equivalency

and I'm not going to waste my time debating you on it. If you were being an honest broker, you wouldn't have posted this.

[kestrel91316]

19. PUBLIC figures on the right incite violence. PRIVATE persons on the left

might do the same, but you cannot compare the two.

Name prominent media persons on the left or elected officials on the left who have called for "second amendment solutions" aka gun violence. Name any who call for killing all conservatives.

I'll be waiting.

[hfojvt]

23. is it really private when you put it on the worldwide web?

The British writer was certainly public. Unfortunately, there is not much of a leftwing media in the US.

Actually, wasn't it Ted Rall who was arguing for revolution in a book?

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/msnbc-s-ratigan-cartoonist-ted-rall-hints-at-violent-revolution

[zazen]

20. the contemporary American Left or the historical Left?

Historically, "Leftists," if that refers to revolutions for social justice like in 1789 France or anarchism (the guy who assasinated that archduke which set off WWI) or communism--have most certainly perpetrated violence on varying scales. At a certain point I think all movements function like organizations with all of their crazy interpersonal politics, and you get zealots who dehumanize everyone else, using ideology as a cover.

But I think these days we have more internal checks on this behavior because we tend to be more inherently self-reflective (since that's what motivated coming to these positions in the first place), at least from my life experience with leftists vs. conservatives in this country.

[rucky]

22. You have to dig pretty deep to find it.

There is no equivalency

[hfojvt]

55. not really, it is generally all over DU

However, I could not use examples from DU without breaking the rules of DU.

[killbotfactory]

24. Most leftwing violence today is against property and results in vandalism during protests

By very far left groups which are condemned by all politicians.

There is currently no leftwing equivalent of the tea party movement or their gun brandishing faux-macho racist violence inciting bullshit, and their sympathizers in the media.

[timo]

26. 2 of recent memory

what about the guy who slashed up the cabbie? and the discovery channel hostage guy?? I dont think they were rabid wingers...could be wrong tho

[Change has come]

38. ignored.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. OMG. Do some Americans not have any sense of humour? Charlie Brooker was joking...

He's cynical and bitter, and only a complete idiot or someone who's never ever read anything by him before would take everything he says literally. The 'offending' article and a small selection of the many complaints and death-threats emailed to Brooker from irate conservatives are in his book 'Dawn Of The Dumb' which is an awesome book for those who like their humour with a dollop of bitter snark. Anyway, that RW blogger you linked to is creating something out of nothing. Brooker's article was not a call to violence from the Left...

[melm00se]

42. methinks ya'll protest too much.

everyone loves it when a mirror is held up and all their virtues are displayed.

OTOH, when that same mirror displays other side of the coin, it is, of course, the mirror's fault.

Look folks, both sides have their wackos and some of them are bound to be violent.

additionally, this whole event and how the info was developed shows some interesting patterns and clearly showed that people latch on to the crumbs and shadows of information that immediately begin to appear. The 'fog' of war applies not only to military conflicts but also from events that are loaded with hot button implications.

Odds are that once the dust settles, things calm down and the investigation completes, we will find out that the shooter is a loony toon, possessed a weapon either illegally or under false pretenses ("of course I'm not nuts, the voices in my head are telling me to answer "no" to that question on the firearm form") and for some reason (known only to the shooter) he just lost it, identified with someone/something at the event and went and shot the joint up. (and for the increased gun control crowd: he could have just as easily driven a car into the crowd...plus, if he obtained the weapon illegally, do you really think another law would have scared him off?)

[Joey Liberal]

43. I don't see Liberals carrying guns at rallies

Nuff said.

[mmonk]

44. The lies and hate speech of the right are sanctioned.

Therefore, no comparison can genuinely be made.

[upi402]

49. It's past practice and we're supposed to be desensitized

and just blame the crazy guy... so the inciters to violence can continue unfettered.

[CanonRay]

45. Not since the 60's that I can recall.

[slackmaster]

47. There were some prominent left-wing violent groups in Europe in the '70s and '80s

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_red_brigades.html

http://www.baader-meinhof.com/

[CanonRay]

50. True. I was thinking domestically.

[slackmaster]

52. People who claim that violence is endemic only to the far right usually do restrict scope to the USA

And they also conveniently limit their time horizon to the last couple of decades.

The whole idea behind what I call group vanity or group narcissism posts is to advance the idea that one's political ideology is in one respect or another inherently, objectively superior to an opposing one. When you choose the topic of terrorism, you've limited the critique to the most extreme and worst examples of whatever philosophical school it came from.

[tabasco]

48. During this type of incident,

it's really easy to spot the turfers.

Too bad management hasn't caught on.

[TheKentuckian]

56. I think I get it now. "Sensible Centrists" love the false equivalency meme because they hate

and wish to silence liberals more than the right.

The right murders and the left is browbeaten to ratchet down their debate and sit silent.

Big ol unrec

[ceile]

59. Agree.

Has Keith ever hinted at violence as a solution? Rachel? Cenk? Hightower? ANYBODY?
No. But if we (as liberals) even bring this up, we're being "inappropriate" at this time.

[scarletwoman]

64. Bingo. (nt)

[hfojvt]

67. isn't that a false choice?

Telling people to dial back the hate, is the same thing as telling them to shut up? Is there nothing to say besides hateful things? Is that the entire message of the left?

Why are you so quick to declare that my main message is one of hate? Why are you so sure that I hate the left?


And don't you wonder if I can write a sentence that does not end in a question mark?


Thanks for the unrec though? I was clearly in danger of making the greatest page?

[TheKentuckian]

69. Nope because it is a pattern and I've been sick of it for about 15 years.

The Reich goes way the fuck off the reservation and "sensible centrists" and namby pambys come hollering about being more respectful.

The TeaPubliKlans are a racist, classist terrorist organization hell bent on spreading poverty, stifling natural rights, funneling resources to the wealthy, environmental destruction, and the murder of "other" be it because of skin color, sexual orientation, religious alignment, place of birth, corporate rule, and income bracket.

[Rex]

60. Nice finds, how do they compare to a political assassination attempt?

You know, one done with a real gun and bullets? Your arguments are very weak compared to the 24/7 billion dollar RWing hate machine. The Reagan analogy was convincing in that you are just trying to play devils advocate (because there is no comparison to yesterdays mass murders).

[Heidi]

62. You can't find examples at DU, Kos, etc.?

Maybe that's because real hate speech and incitement to violence isn't tolerated or left to stand here. Or perhaps what you see posted by so-called liberals on rightwing sites is by rightwingers posing as liberals in order to make liberals look bad. These are, in DU parlance, called mocking trolls when it happens here.

[hfojvt]

65. I can easily find examples at DU

but it would be against the rules to post them. There is some danger with comments that you really do not know the persuasion of the person doing the posting. Somebody can post hateful stuff here, but really only be doing it to make us look bad or to get some kind of reaction. However, to some degree, if there are comments on Eschaton and Dr. Atrios lets them stand, then he is saying that he did not find them unacceptable enough to delete. Then those comments reflect upon him as well.

On DU, it would be more a matter of the moderators not being able to keep up with everything posted. The post where I was called a "good little nazi" for using the word weltanshauung was never deleted even though it was clearly against the rules. I never alerted on it, and probably most of DU never saw it. I just replied with "Keiner ist ohne fehler".

But hate speech here does not necessarily mean that the admins or moderators agree with it, but even if it gets locked or deleted, it was still coming from the left - in many cases, trolls excepted. But so many here will outright deny that a statement like "fu$% that waste of oxygen" is really an expression of hate. Then I feel like I am really down the rabbit hole.

[Cleita]

63. So that should tell you something.

If only the RW bloggers have any information and we all know how they only speak the truth :sarcasm: perhaps that's why there is no other information out there. However, I will give you one here and I'm sure you will be able to find the history. In the sixties there was a lot of vitriol from the anti-war movement. But remember that the anti-war movement was against a Democratic administration, that of Lyndon B. Johnson, and it comprised activists from both political parties, not to mention a few fringe, cultish political groups.