Nuggets of Wisdom

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Demotivational Poster: Violent Rhetoric



No sooner had Jared Lee Loughner shot congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords did the left take aim at the right for inciting the incident with “violent rhetoric.”

Never mind, of course, that Loughner was inconsistent in his political views (he was a fan of both Mein Kampf AND the Communist Manifesto). Never mind that he was a registered Independent who didn’t vote in the 2010 election. Never mind that a friend of his claimed he never watched the news or listened to talk radio (so how could he be exposed to “violent rhetoric”?). Never mind that Arizona authorities admit violent rhetoric had nothing to do with the shooting. And never mind that few Americans blame violent rhetoric for the shooting.

So ignoring the facts (as liberals often do), the left blamed “violent rhetoric” for the Tucson shooting—more specifically, they blamed Sarah Palin and her political map marked with targets over Democratic districts (one of which was Giffords’). Yes, it didn’t matter if Loughner supported Palin or not (and considering the facts, he probably didn’t), Palin was clearly responsible for inciting violence against her political opponents, and thus responsible for the Tucson shooting.

What the left forgets to mention is that Democrats had a similar map back in 2004—only with bull’s-eyes over Republican districts. Of course, try explaining that to a liberal, and they will come up with some excuse as to why the Democrats’ map is not the same as Palin’s (they’ll probably point out the bull’s-eyes!).

And they will probably accuse you of using “False Equivalency”—that you’re claiming that both sides are equally bad with “violent rhetoric.” Because as we all know, when the left uses “violent rhetoric” (like when Mike Malloy wants Glenn Beck to commit suicide, or Ed Shultz wants to use Dick Cheney’s heart as a football), it’s always justified because liberals are enlightened gods and conservatives are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.

False Equivalency: meet Strawman argument!

Because when people point out the Democrats’ map, they’re not saying that both sides use “violent rhetoric” equally, or that both sides are equally insane or violent (liberals are clearly more so). They are saying that both sides tend to use “violent rhetoric”, and that if you’re calling out the rhetoric on the other side, you might as well criticize your side when they use it.

Otherwise, pot, meet kettle!