Wednesday, January 12, 2011

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.

13 comments:

  1. This whole post needs a giant [citation needed] sign. You should really get into the habit of citing your claims. I keep seeing a lot of "everyone has pointed out..." and "everyone knows..." and "there are many examples of..." and not a single link or source to back any of this up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also IIRC, Pal is Jewish (if you were smart you could gather that from context), although he could be an atheist secular Jew. I don't claim to know.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You make a fair point, and I am sometimes pretty lazy about citing things, especially when I am quickly responding to another post.

    But then again, when I am writing a long post about a hot topic, I assume that people have read the latest major news articles and blog posts. For example, do I really need to link to Allen Dershowitz's article regarding the use of blood libel? Do I need to point out the many articles noting that the Daily Kos used a political targeting chart similar in nature to Sarah Palin's? Do I really need to go through and post links to examples of armed self-defense (some are already on this blog)? Is it necessary for me to link to other people (such as Michelle Malkin) who have posted extensive examples of violent leftist rhetoric? I could go on.

    The post is already long. If I start excerpting other works that support my own arguments it will be longer still. I prefer to use the time-saving short-cut of assuming some knowledge on the part of readers. Anyone is free to ask me to substantiate a particular point. If I can't do so, I'll revise or retract that part of my argument.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Also IIRC, Pal is Jewish (if you were smart you could gather that from context), although he could be an atheist secular Jew. I don't claim to know. "

    Is that somehow relevant? There are plenty of non-religious Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "For example, do I really need to link to Allen Dershowitz's article regarding the use of blood libel?"

    ...Yes. It is idiotic to assume that your readers have read everything you have and will automatically know what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "..Yes. It is idiotic to assume that your readers have read everything you have and will automatically know what you are talking about. "

    I don't assume that they've read everything, but the whole blog libel issue has been a hot blogosphere topic today. I expect that people have read articles covering both sides, not just ones that conform with their own political outlook.

    In my experience people who follow current political arguments tend to read or at least be aware of the major posts/articles that day. The Dershowitz article is currently the lead topic at Memeorandum. It's not like it's just some obscure blogger like me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "blood libel" not "blog" libel. Blog libel is much more common :).

    ReplyDelete
  8. I do usually read and enjoy him, but when he goes off on politics it's always this bad. He is not really capable of critical thinking or self-reflection outside of the medical field. He can recognize confirmation bias when defending vaccines against the anti-vaccine crowd, but can't see his own bias. But that article today was especially bad, one of his worst I think. I mean, was he even thinking or just vomiting on the keyboard whatever angry thoughtless remarks he could come up with?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've read his blog a few times before and have it subscribed in RSS. I believe I linked one of his medical articles in the past that I found interesting. I was skimming blog posts and was caught by surprise to see an extreme left-wing post at a site -- which I admittedly don't know that much about -- that I thought was mainly a medical/skeptic blog.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I suspect there's another reason why you don't point out specific examples of the things you refer to. Because you fear that they're threadbare and wouldn't sustain even a moment's criticism.

    We have Sarah Palin distributing a graphic with gunsight crosshairs over the names of democratic candidates. We have her using the phrase "don't retreat, reload" in response to initial criticism regarding that graphic.

    So now you can give us a democratic politician of similar national prominence using similar violent rhetoric?

    Or are you of the opinion that Palin is just a blowhard media figure and was never in a position of political power and was never a part of the right's attempts for the highest office, or a whispered about potential as a candidate to run directly for that office in 2012? You equate her with the DailyKos, you appear to give this impression.

    This isn't rocket science. The right used over the top fear mongering and deception to whip their followers into a frenzy to oppose health care reform. Supporters of health care reform were the victims of vandalism and death threats.

    Where was Sarah Palin suggesting that maybe painting swastikas on the windows of health care reform supporters wasn't the right way to voice opposition? "don't retreat, reload" she urged her followers. This ugliness wasn't regretted, it was needed, it was nurtured. Fear and hatred has become the republican base. Whether it's the gays, the mexicans, or the atheists, Republican campaigning has become focused on uniting followers through opposition to a scapegoat "other", using fear to secure power. Which has some bearing on the historical connotations of blood libel which have been brought into the light here.

    Now one of the people she "targeted" is in the hospital after being shot in the head, and her response is to complain about a manufactured controversy?

    I'm not saying that she caused the shooting, it seems clear that this is another unbalanced individual who didn't get the help he needed. It may be nothing more than a coincidence. But if Sarah Palin's response were anything more than to be mortified at seeing the sort of imagery she was using and the sort of actions it suggests, to do anything other than to apologize for what she had perhaps inadvertently suggested and to the extremism into which she had fallen, then she's far out of line.

    Instead she complains about being a victim of a blood libel. And you defend her.

    ReplyDelete
  11. part 1 response, since your comment is so long.

    "you fear that they're threadbare and wouldn't sustain even a moment's criticism."

    It's just too easy. The president himself has made "violent" references. The most obvious one was where he said if they bring a knife, we bring a gun. Did that mean he was advocating violence? Seriously, get a clue.

    "We have Sarah Palin distributing a graphic with gunsight crosshairs..."

    Are you really so ignorant that you don't know what "targeting" means in a political context? It has nothing to do with advocating violence.

    "So now you can give us a democratic politician of similar national prominence using similar violent rhetoric?"

    How about the president? And it's not violent rhetoric at all, as I've already pointed out. Military style language is often applied to politics. The word "campaign" itself is also a military term. Maybe we should stop referring to campaigns because people might get the idea that it means going to war against an enemy. That's the level of nonsense you are pushing.

    "You equate her with the DailyKos, you appear to give this impression"

    Daily Kos is the single most prominent Democratic blog. It directly supports and opposes Democratic candidates. In fact, it does similar things to Sarah Palin and SarahPAC.

    "The right used over the top fear mongering..."

    Oh please. There was deception and fear used on both sides, as there always is in politics. Opponents of healthcare reforme were victims of violence and death threats. Palin herself gets numerous death threats. Get out of your echo chamber.

    "Where was Sarah Palin suggesting that maybe painting swastikas on the windows of health care reform supporters wasn't the right way to voice opposition? "don't retreat, reload" she urged her followers,

    Complete non sequitur. You are attempting to smear Palin by linking her AGAIN with something she had nothing to do with. Sarah Palin is not required to respond to things that she isn't in any way responsible for.

    " This ugliness wasn't regretted, it was needed, it was nurtured. Fear and hatred has become the republican base."

    Are you even serious? Anyone who reads left-wing blogs can see the level of "fear and hatred" that infests the left-wing base. Do you think we've forgotten the 8 years of insane Bush-hatred? Or the current level of hate directed at Palin?

    "Republican campaigning has become focused on uniting followers through opposition to a scapegoat "other", using fear to secure power"

    Again, you apparently don't know much about politics if you think demonization, scapegoating and using fear is restricted to one side.

    "her response is to complain about a manufactured controversy?"

    As well she should, since she had nothing to do with it. That's kind of the point which you appear to still be missing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. part 2 of response

    "I'm not saying that she caused the shooting, it seems clear that this is another unbalanced individual who didn't get the help he needed. It may be nothing more than a coincidence."

    Then why are you trying to smear her with responsibility?

    "But if Sarah Palin's response were anything more than to be mortified at seeing the sort of imagery she was usin"

    Because she doesn't accept your ridiculous unfounded assumptions about her imagery and rhetoric.

    "the sort of actions it suggests"

    It doesn't suggest any sort of violence except in the minds of logically-challenged, politically-ignorant, or biased individuals who don't understand common use of metaphor within politics.

    " to do anything other than to apologize for what she had perhaps inadvertently suggested and to the extremism into which she had fallen, then she's far out of line."

    That's just idiotic. There's no reason whatsoever she should pretend that smears by people like you have any merit and apologize.

    "Instead she complains about being a victim of a blood libel. And you defend her."

    Of course I defend her, even though I'm not a fan of hers and don't want to see her as the GOP candidate in 2012, because I'm not a leftist tool. And I'll defend Andrew Sullivan and other Palin-hating agitators if Sarah Palin is shot by some lunatic with no connection to them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The author of this blogpost is a cretin.

    ReplyDelete