Since you are so eager to smear Sarah Palin with a share of responsibility for the Arizona shootings, is it too much to ask that you produce one single scrap of evidence that there is even the most tenuous connection between Jared Loughner and Palin? Does he have a Sarah Palin poster in his room, a copy of her book, or maybe an autographed picture? Is there a print-out of her oh-so-scary crosshairs political chart on his wall? Did he attend any of her rallies? Anything? Any connection at all? And no, I don't mean a connection that exists only in your imagination.
Wouldn't it be reasonable to at least have even one minor connection before even speculating, let alone accusing, someone of any sort of responsibility for murder? Liberals are always whining about "fairness." Where's the fairness in accusing someone of complicity in murder without evidence?
Even if such a connection could be established -- which it hasn't been -- have you ever heard that correlation does not imply causation? Roosters crow when the sun rises in the morning. Do you believe that roosters have some responsibility for the sunrise?
For those upset with Sarah Palin's response -- as if she should just sit still while being smeared, or apologize for something she had nothing to do with -- how would you feel if some political opponents claimed, without offering any evidence, that the murderous actions of some unrelated lunatic were somehow influenced by your words and political literature? What if they then attacked you for defending yourself, claimed you were a bigot because of your choice of words, and redoubled their baseless accusations?
Would you think that the people leveling such attacks were worthy of any respect? Or would you consider them some combination of ignorant, intellectually-dishonest, and blinded by hatred?
As self admitted Palin hater, atheist, skeptic and liberal, let me try this one again. Sarah Palin is not directly responsible for Loughner actions. Most liberals I know aren’t signaling her out. They are commenting on the entire tone of the political discourse and saying everyone needs to think about the words they use. People do react to words. I don’t understand why conservatives are denying that.
ReplyDeleteThe discussions that I’ve been having with other liberals is that could the hostile political environment that Palin and others have created against their political opponents been a contributing factor in Loughner’s actions? Would he have attacked Gifford if people weren’t accusing the other side of being evil and out to destroy the nation?
So insisting that liberals are only attacking Sarah Palin is a straw man because the ones I know are asking everyone to tone it down, not just her.
The issue I have with Palin’s response is that she opened her mouth (just kidding). More serious it’s a great example of why I don’t like her and how I fail to understand how anyone can take her seriously. Like always she turned herself into a victim of the attack. Then instead of saying something she understands why people would be upset at some of the language she uses, she instead implies that people are trying to shut her up.
This paragraph sticks out to me.
No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.
What does that have to do with the shooting? Who is tying to stop people from celebrating the greatness of America? Who is mocking America’s greatness? Who is seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults?
That paragraph only makes sense if you live in state of perpetual victimhood, like she does.
I hope this helps you understand us liberals, or at least my conception of it, even if you don’t agree with it.
"Most liberals I know aren’t signaling her out."
ReplyDeleteThe ones not singling her out are not the ones I'm addressing.
"They are commenting on the entire tone of the political discourse and saying everyone needs to think about the words they use."
If that's all they were saying, there wouldn't be any problem.
"People do react to words. I don’t understand why conservatives are denying that. "
They aren't. But it's irrelevant to this case. There is no evidence that Loughner reacted to anything in particular. Nuts do crazy things.
"So insisting that liberals are only attacking Sarah Palin is a straw man because the ones I know are asking everyone to tone it down, not just her. "
Again, we are talking about a different set of liberals then. It is definitely not a strawman. I responded specifically to one blog post earlier. There are many more that take a similar position.
"Like always she turned herself into a victim of the attack. "
Being smeared does in fact make her a victim, not of that attack, but of the spin put on the attack.
"Then instead of saying something she understands why people would be upset at some of the language she uses, she instead implies that people are trying to shut her up. "
I've already addressed this multiple times. She (and I) obviously do not agree that it is reasonable to be upset about her use of typical political metaphors. And yes, people are trying to shut her up.
I'm not defending every single part of Sarah Palin's speech. I don't even particularly like Palin.
"I hope this helps you understand us liberals, or at least my conception of it, even if you don’t agree with it. "
Thanks for responding in a reasonable way, but it does not appear that you fall into the group on the left that I'm am taking issue with.
You are right there are liberals that believe Palin bares a lot more responsibilities then I or the people I talk to. I think they are the minority which is why I posted. Your post made it seem that all liberals believe that Palin is directly to blame. Like Christians, Muslims, and even conservatives, liberals are individuals and we all don't agree 100% of the time on ever issue. Your posting painted all liberals with the same board brush. I wanted to show that there are difference between us.
ReplyDeleteIn any case it was wrong of me to claim you were building a straw man on that.
As for as Palin's speech what I don't like isn't that she made it. She did have to say something. The issue I had with the speech she read from a teleprompter was the tone and the rhetoric she used. I didn't make that clear enough.
I came across your blog from a link on a Greta Christina's article. I do enjoy reading your postings even though I strongly disagree with some of your politics.
"You are right there are liberals that believe Palin bares a lot more responsibilities then I or the people I talk to. I think they are the minority which is why I posted. Your post made it seem that all liberals believe that Palin is directly to blame."
ReplyDeleteIt's true that there are a variety of views among liberals as there are among conservatives. The people I'm responding to are prominent, loud voices on the left, but you may be right that they are in the minority among liberals.
"I came across your blog from a link on a Greta Christina's article. I do enjoy reading your postings even though I strongly disagree with some of your politics."
Thanks. I like Greta Christina's blog also, even though i'm on the other side politically. I think she's one of the best writers on atheist/religion topics in the blogosphere.