An Excellent Example of Leftist Irrationality

I believe that most on the left pushing their current meme about the Arizona shooting -- that it was somehow inspired by violent right wing rhetoric and the political climate -- are intellectually dishonest and deliberate engaging in a big lie tactic. But it appears that some are actually dumb enough to believe their own propaganda -- either that or the echo chamber they inhabit makes them oblivious to to their own biased assumptions. I came across this post at the White Coat Underground, which is written by a doctor. From the links it appears that the blogger is a skeptic and possibly an atheist. So I wasn't expecting such a high level of irrationality. Let's consider it point by point.

Sarah Palin jumped the bigotry shark today, and bloggers are trying to explain just how offensive her comments really are.

Others have already explained why Palin's use of "blood libel" was legitimate. It isn't exclusively tied to anti-semitism. But of course this blogger is too clueless and lazy to check his preconceived notions. Smearing political opponents as bigots without evidence is common leftist tactic.

the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords and 19 others happened in a particular time and place, and history will look back at this context in trying to understand the event. What Sarah Palin and others in the New Right are arguing is that context is meaningless

I'm not sure what the "New Right" is supposed to be, but no one is arguing that context is meaningless. What people are arguing is that the leftist spin on events is a smear, given that there isn't the slightest shred of evidence connecting anyone on the right to that shooting.

that their inflammatory, violent rhetoric is irrelevant

The things that have been cited as violent and inflammatory are neither violent nor inflammatory, but simple, commonly-used metaphors and symbols. And they are irrelevant because they have no connection whatsoever to this particular case.

and that the left is just as bad, which is patently absurd—we hate guns, remember?

The left isn't just as bad, it is worse. As many have already pointed out, there is at least as much violent rhetoric and use of symbols on the left.

Right wing reactionaries use gun rhetoric and Christian imagery and language to speak to their base, including such statements as “don’t retreat, reload”, and posting pictures of “targeted” districts like Rep. Giffords’ with gun sights on them.

Everyone uses those types of metaphors and symbols in political campaigns. This clown has apparently never heard of "targeting" someone for defeat. The idea that saying "reload" is somehow violent when you understand the context is laughable.

Giffords is gunned down by a presumed nut-job who easily purchased a firearm and ammunition, a “right” favored by the New Right.

Owning a firearm is a right favored by the constitution, something not exactly held in much regard on the left. It's also supported by a strong majority of America, something you might not know if you live only on the left-wing fringe.

He drew and fired on her point blank range, rendering idiotic any claims that being personally armed could have helped her.

This guy is on a roll for clueless assertions. There have been numerous times when someone faced an attacker already pointing a gun at them who successfully drew and used his own weapon in self-defense.

He then continues with his false assertions about the term blood libel, which is not just used with regard to the Jews.

Palin, who favors eliminationist rhetoric directed at, in this case, a liberal Jewish Congresswoma

No, actually she doesn't. This is a flat-out lie. She called for her defeat, not her "elimination." It sounds like this guy has been reading too much of Paul Krugman's crazed ranting.

absolves herself of any responsibility for the violence

Maybe because she has absolutely no responsibility for the actions of some lunatic who had nothing to do with her.

for the violence just happens to bear close resemblance to her rhetoric.

Maybe in left wing world where Sarah Palin-hatred dominates over rational thought. In the real world, the violence bears no relationship to anything Palin said. And even if it did, there's no evidence Loughner ever read a single thing by Sarah Palin. But let's just ignore that and smear her anyway.

Part of her reasoning is that it’s just rhetoric, and the guy was a nut.

Because the guy was a nut.

She then claims harm from the rhetoric leveled against her.

Really? I wonder why? Why would someone claim harm from being smeared in connection with violence she had nothing to do with? That's just too difficult for this logically-challenged blogger to understand.

I’m not one to see an anti-Semite behind every door, but this is blatantly anti-Semetic rhetoric, giving a whole new appearance to the attack.

He's not one to see an anti-Semite under ever door but he'll accuse someone of being an anti-Semite based on a supposed misuse of the term blood libel.

The majority of atheists are on the political left, and for many of them, their normal reliance on logic and evidence disappears when it comes to political issues, where they swallow leftist propaganda as if it were revealed truth. One of the main reasons I started this blog was to make it clear that not all atheists willing to speak out on political issues are on the left. When you see the kind of garbage that passes for political analysis at the White Coat Underground, you can understand that while I identify as an atheist and a skeptic, why I don't want to be associated with the left.