is this also false equivalence????
 

just wondering, because some people on here were all about restricting violent rhetoric, but would they claim this is violent rhetoric?

Which one was the progressive equivalent of Sarah Palin? Glenn Beck?

Or are you just comparing angry protesters with other angry protesters?

That crazy old guy in the middle was pretty funny though.

[sike]Clearly, this video invalidates any and all calls for the toning down of rhetoric.[/sike]



I'm not even going to watch the video. I don't care. Those people don't speak for me. However, unlike many folks who seem to frequent these parts, I have no problem unequivocally saying that if these people were calling for violence or using overly violent imagery in their speech to make political points, then they should calm down and choose their words more carefully.

so you're saying that unless someone is in the media spotlight, their speech cannot possibly rise to the same level of rhetoric as those who are simple civilians?

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ----------

this is what we call a copout. a stance typically taken by people who like to paint an entire group of people ideologically opposed to their beliefs as wholeheartedly dedicated to a specific purpose, but their own ideological beliefs cannot possibly be constrained to just one specific group of people, especially when that group of people makes them look hypocritical.

No, but it cannot rise to the same level of influence.

If you divide the world into 2 neatly distinct "sides," you are bound to find any number of people on either side who say any number of stupid and ridiculous things.

It is still not equivalent to people in national leadership positions saying similar things.

???

Not sure what the hell you're talking about here. Which group of people have I painted? Who is making me look hypocritical. You're not making a lot of sense here to me.

I'm asking you to draw where the equivalence lies. You are asking if this is false equivalence. To what?

It's a a handful of people picked out of a crowd at a protest.

What are you trying to say here? There are angry things said at protests on either side of the spectrum. I get that.

I think you will find, with one notable exception, the people on this board who are calling for a toning down of the violent rhetoric are not beyond pointing out individuals in a so-called progressive crowd that cross the line.

People are people.

The main difference that people are pointing out is that this slipping of violence into the rhetoric on the conservative side of the scale is not just happening with folks on the street. It is being used by official representatives on the podiums. It is being used, increasingly, by the conservative media. There is no equivalency between people on the streets and a talking head on the television.

I am very happy to address *all* people engaged in the debate to tone down the rhetoric. But the fact remains that the biggest voice in the room, reaching and influencing the greatest number of people still sits on the conservative side of this particular equation. To state otherwise suggests you aren't paying attention.

I expected better from you, DK.

this source of this clip is just funny:

http://pushbacknow.net/2011/02/03/pr...ing-and-riots/

it's hard to think too much about what the op could possibly mean given the lunacy of this commentary and the absurd conclusions drawn from the clip.

for the record, i don't care about violent rhetoric per se. i don't find it to necessarily be a problem any more than any other rhetoric is necessarily a problem. situation, however, can make of many different rhetorics something deeply problematic....for example as much as i find nationalism to be a collective mental disorder, espoused by random people at some conservative rally no-one really cares. it's just what they say. but repeated on radio--say---over and over and over and tipped toward directing collective violence, justifying it and concealing it at the same time...that's a problem.

i think i'm saying the same thing that charlatan said above but with less elegance. i blame the lunatic conservo-blog post that i stumbled across by working my way backward from the youtube clip. still laughing. what a putz.

This sums it up for me as well.

Yes, it is a false equivalence to compare a handful of no-name angry or just hateful people at small, local events with talk radio/tv personalities and their millions of weekly viewers/listeners..

aw will, when have you ever known me to let off of one group more than the other? i'm an equal opportunity criticizer.

This video was already posted and addressed in a thread about this topic. If you have something to say about it, I'm more than willing to respond to it, but instead you created a second thread and didn't respond to the points either I or DC_Dux or roachboy made in response to the video, instead just sort of presenting it as a prima facie case that there's equivalence.

We may disagree on a lot of things, but I know on most things you can self-reflect and are willing to engage in debate. It's part of why I respect you.

this i did not know. I stopped paying attention to the other thread about halfway through it, easily seeing that it was not going to accomplish anything. I would not have posted it had I known it had been previously.

Yes, it would be false equivalence to equate angry protesters to government figures speaking during campaigns or while seated in public office. But I don't think that's the false equivalence you're looking for.

As many have said before me, We all know that depravity and ignorance sits at the bottom, and those people attend all sorts of rallies for all sorts of causes, sometimes conserative, sometimes liberal.. sometimes pro-gun, sometimes anti-gun. The fact is we expect those we elect to represent us to rise above the ignorance of the common people, and it is a fact enshrined by the founding fathers, all of whom were educated lawyers. They knew the dreks of society deserved representation rather than full-share democracy. If we allowed every jackal with a loud voice equal share of the power we'd be in a far worse situation than we are now.

Your question is brilliantly simple, and I noticed no one gave a direct answer.

My answer is, no. I would not take the words of those protesters seriously. The words had no significance and were not thoughtful. On the other-hand when a person like Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe Israel off of the face of the map or to destroy the US, I think that is violent rhetoric. The difference being in the use of exaggeration but with a real threat of violence.

On a side note, I doubt many here are even aware of the double-standards they hold.

So Sarah Palin is the right's analog to the president of Iran? Nice.

It wasn't just simple, it was leading.

What value does the question have? The question itself is rhetoric.

However, I disagree about it being brilliant. It's actually rather tactless.

I thought my answer was as straightforward an answer as the loaded question deserved.

and sometimes the most brilliant statement has no tact at all. it's perfectly designed to make those it's directed at.....think. sadly, most don't reach that moment.

Who was it directed at? People who don't know what violent rhetoric is?

I think your intended audience is small here.

No.

When Palin talks about reloading she is talking about regrouping or a pause before continuing. When the President of Iran talks about destroying a country he is talking about actually destroying a country.

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------

His question was leading, but I did not agree with where it lead and I answered the question and explained why. What is the big deal? Leading questions are not difficult to handle.

For me it was thought provoking. It made me think about the underlying issue in a way I had not done before. It helped me to better understand what is real violent rhetoric and what is not.

This is a political forum, everyone here comes with preconceived notions of political ideas, the whole point is an exercise in the use of rhetoric for point and counter point exchange. I for one love it. I also love British Parliamentary style debate simply for its entertainment value, many don't - and it appears you don't either.

Is the above not rhetoric?

Then it's odd that you'd even bring him up in this context.

ace, my point is that he didn't really set up this thread as an invitation to a debate or discussion. It was set up as an apparatus meant to tumble in such a way that was preplanned, like a trap. He was looking for an aha! moment and didn't get it because the setup was tactless and most members here are too sophisticated to be drawn into that kind of setup.

It's a question that wasn't meant to be answered logically. It's a leading question. It answers itself.

The problem remains: what's the point being made? It's not yet clear.

The question wasn't thought-provoking to me. It actually made me roll my eyes.

What are we supposed to do here? Answer the question truthfully, say "duh," and move on to the next thread?

You are correct, it is odd.:orly: Very, very, odd.:orly::orly:

---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

As Sherlock Holmes would say, "the game is afoot."

Gee, relax and have a little fun from time to time.

And that is the beauty in the question, it appears that it answers itself...but it doesn't.

It was a question. Perhaps if you answered the question you would see the point, you would see where it all leads.

Yet, you have actually spent time thinking about it...mmmmm....:orly:

Yes.

Is there some rule in February that if a thread gets Palin'd, it has to get locked?

i thought you weren't going to use that name, cimmaron. sheesh. it lasted what...10 days?

this shouldn't be like quitting smoking.

Have I told you lately how much I like Sarah Palin?

http://www.sarahpalin4president.org/sarahpalin07.jpg

ace, I didn't answer the question because it's unanswerable without further context. And for the record, I haven't thought a lot about it in itself; more about the set up and what's wrong with it.

Okay so let's go all Sherlocky or maybe Socratic with this.

Ah, shit. Let's just answer the questions:

"Is this also false equivalence?"

I don't know. Equivalent to what?

"Some people on here were all about restricting violent rhetoric, but would they claim this is violent rhetoric?"

Yes they would, but I'm not certain they will.



Satisfied? Didn't think so. Neither am I, which is why I have responded the way I did.

Seriously, am I missing something? Please help me out.

I can see why you can not answer the question, however, I was able and willing to answer it. I can not help you.

What are you talking about? I answered it.

What's this thread about? :oogle:

This is in Finnish and people are protesting against the H1N1 vaccinations. They are bringing up cases, when people died for taking the vaccinations, which used adjuvants and weren't thoroughly tested in their opinion. They list miscarriages and children dying in wombs because of these vaccinations.

Sounds kind of lame compared to the video in the first post, doesn't it? I know you don't understand the language, but it's more like pathetic whining than an angry rant.

No, no, no - not me! :) I didn't care one way or the other. My point in the other thread was just that, "If talking about Palin means having this sort of silly banter, I'm fine with y'all not talking about her."

As for this thread, I just noticed her name start flying around and thought it seems fitting to change Godwin'd to Palin'd, no?

I should have been specific, this is the question in the original post I was referring to:

And it appears you answered it.

Ace, would you mind editing in a smaller image above? I'd appreciate it.

ace, both questions are problematic. The OP wasn't set up with enough clarity, and therefore there is missing context.

The question you are referring to isn't easily answered with clarity because it makes assumptions.

It's also a question asking about probability. It's also a question regarding nonspecific parties regarding a type of rhetoric that may or may not be similar to the OP video coming from people who may or may not be similar to the people in the OP video.

I don't particularly like answering yes or no questions when its based on assumptions. This is why I responded as I have thus far.

I prefer clarity. I like to know what we're talking about before we talk about it. I know this isn't too much to ask. And if we can't get to the point where we know what we're talking about, then I can only assume we are playing games.

interesting how some people are really quick to jump on the broadest of statements from a few individuals in order to press some perceived advantage, yet expect and demand such exacting details and information about an incident in order to avoid looking in a mirror for their actions.

dk, why are you being so cryptic?

i figure I can be cryptic, just like others can be obtuse.

Yeah, yeah. You're in love with her. Admit it.