It was shortly after the Tucson shootings that the talk around the proverbial water cooler began to center around the tone of our political discourse. Some felt that the aggressiveness of the conversation led people, admittedly unbalanced people, to veer over the fine line they were walking and snap.
I tried to shape that conversation in such a manner to ensure what we were talking about was political tone on BOTH sides of the great divide. I wanted to make the point that unless the conversation of “tamping it down” was done in a bi-partisan manner, the effect would be that of a lecture.
I failed in my attempt.
I was told at every turn that it was and is the Right that is fomenting the hate speech, the aggressive rhetoric and the dangerous imagery. Further, it wasn’t just the talking heads that was doing this, it was the “people”.
In a debate with a new found author Writechic, I tried to make the point that it’s speech on both sides that generates the conflict. And because the speech exists on both sides, the opportunity to address the issue exists on both sides. I think she thinks I’m wrong.
To whit:
If you mean to say the homicidal repartee that has become casual is a problem equally shouldered by liberals and conservatives…that has no basis in reality. So I don’t know how to help. I’m not going to pretend like liberals are going around talking about offing people the way conservatives do. I’m not going to pretend like liberals have been ginning up the nutters and bigots. I don’t work for a news agency; so, I don’t have to pretend there’s equal bullshit on both sides for this particular issue. There’s not.
With due respect to Writechic, I think she’s the one that’s wrong. There isn’t a need to pretend that liberals have been ginning up the nutters and bigots. There isn’t a need to to pretend that liberals are going around talking about offing others.
It’s all here. At minutes:
00:56 – What should we do with Clarence Thomas? “Put him back in the fields.”
01:48 – What should we do with Roger Ayiles? “Roger Ailes should be strung up and…I donno know…KILL the bastard.”
01:57 – Justice for Anita Hill? “We cut off h is toes one by one. And feed ’em to him.”
02:29 – I’m Momma Donna…….I pack Glock.
03:01 – What should we do about Clarence Thomas? “I don’t know, cause I’m all about peace, but I would say torture.”
03:07 – After we impeach Clarence Thomas, what’a we do about him? “What do we do with him? String him up. And his wife too.
03:37 – After we impeach Clarance Thomas, what’a we do with him? “Hang him.”
The gentle Left to be sure.
Pingback: Aahh Yes, A Lesson on the Tender Mercies of Tolerance From the Left | Tarheel Red
Both sides have extremists who use over the top rhetoric, and each side tends to think their side does it less. I’ve seen that in numerous debates. It is a very frustrating situation because it’s less political debate and more like my sons arguing about who started a fight. I don’t care who started it! I don’t care who uses “more” negative discourse! Each side can cherry pick from the other. So I agree — and when one side says the other side’s the problem, that only works against civil discourse and discussion. Neither the “right” nor “left” should be guilty by association with things extremists on either side have uttered.
So I agree — and when one side says the other side’s the problem, that only works against civil discourse and discussion. Neither the “right” nor “left” should be guilty by association with things extremists on either side have uttered.
Yup.
That’s my take too. Calling out only one side seems to add to the flames, not dampen ’em.